The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 10-21-09 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia October 21, 2009 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) Adoption of Agenda: Pursuant to established procedures, the Planning Commission should adopt the Agenda for the meeting................................................................ (no tab) 2) September 16, 2009 Minutes........................................................................................... (A) 3) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab) 4) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 5) Rezoning #12-07 of Opequon Crossing, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 70.15 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, with proffers, for up to 325 single family attached and detached residential units. The property is located south of the existing terminus of Eddy's Lane (Route 820), approximately 2,400 feet south of Route 7 and 1,650 feet west of Opequon Creek, in the Red Bud Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number 55-A-210. Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (B) 6) Rezoning #05-09 of Haggerty Commercial, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 4.0 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to BI (Neighborhood Business) District, with proffers, for Commercial Uses. The property is located along the east side of proposed Haggerty Boulevard, approximately 2,000 feet south of the intersection of proposed Haggerty Boulevard and Route 7, in the Red Bud Magisterial District, and is identified by Properly Identification Number 55-A-212. Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (C) PUBLIC MEETING 7) Subdivision Request #04-09 of Bonnie Triplett, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to create two lots of 2.0 acres and 4.157 acres for family division. The property is located at 1065 Airport Road, on the north side of Airport Road (Route 645), in the Shawnee Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number 64-A-174. Mr. Cheran....................................................................................................................... (D) FluCOPS' COMMISSION DISCUSSION 8) Comprehensive Policy Play► Amendment. Sewer and Water Service Authority (SWSA) Expansion for Rock Harbor Golf Course. Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (�) 9) Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Ordinance Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (F) 10) Other 1 • MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on September 16, 2009. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; Brian Madagan, Opequon District; Richard Ruckman, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Roderick Williams, Legal Counsel; and Gary Lofton, Board of Supervisors Liaison_ ABSENT: Kevin O. Crosen, Back Creek District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; and Gary R Oates, Stonewall District STAFF PRESENT: Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director, Mark R Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner, John A. Bishop, Deputy Director -Transportation; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the September 16, 2009, agenda for this evening's meeting. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the August 5, 2009 meeting. COMMITTEE REPORTS Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) — 9/15/09 Mtg. Commissioner Manuel reported that the HRAB discussed two items: 1) Revisions to the Historic Overlay District to clarify and modify design components, such as building additions, parking lot designs Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2529 Minutes of September 16, 2009 and surfacing, and signage; 2) Revisions to the proffers to Jordan Springs; the applicant requested a tabling in order to meet with staff. ------------- Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPQ — 9/14/09 Mtg. Commissioner Mohn reported that CPPC discussed CPPA #03-09 for Rock Harbor Golf Course; the committee reached the decision to recommend that the CPPA move forward to the Planning Commission for discussion with a recommendation for the expansion of the SWSA (Sewer and Water Service Area), and the proposed text for the Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment, as well as a recommendation to create a new zoning district to implement the plan. He said these recommendations were based on input from the Commissioner of the Revenue, the applicant, and several committee members. APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONER MADAGAN AS LIAISON TO EDC Chairman Wilmot appointed Commissioner Madagan as the Planning Commission's liaison to the EDC (Economic Development Commission). CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for public comments on any subject not on the Commission's agenda for this evening. No one came forward to speak. PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning Application #05-09 of DMJ Holdings, LLC, submitted by Painter -Lewis, PLC, to rezone 2.85 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (Business General) District, with proffers, for commercial use. The properties are located at the northwest corner of Route 50 East and Custer Avenue (Rt. 781). These properties are further identified by P.I.N.s 64A -4-16A, 64A -4 -16,64A -4-17,64A-4-18, 64A-4-19, and 64A-4-20 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Proffers Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that in general, the B2 land use proposed conforms to the Eastern Frederick County Long -Range Land Use Pian and the Route 50 Business Corridor Plan, Mr. Ruddy pointed out, however, elements of the rezoning application that did not fully address specific components of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, particularly the transportation impacts as the pertain to Route 50 and its intersection with Custer Avenue (Rt. 781), the need for additional corridor enhancement elements, such as landscaping, and flexibility in the proffer statement with regards to the final entrance locations and bicycle and Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 16, 2009 Page 2530 pedestrian accommodations. Mr. Ruddy said that although the applicant's proffer proposes to limit any future uses to those that will not generate in excess of 200 vehicle trips per hour, the applicant has not proffered any limitation on the scope or square footage of the development of the site. He next read a list of the land uses proffered out by the applicant; those uses included car washes, fast food restaurants with drive-through service windows, automotive dealers with outdoor display areas, gasoline service stations, model home sales offices, amusement and recreational services operated outdoors, self-service storage facilities, and adult wtaiL Mr. Ruddy said the building height has been limited to 35 feet and will ensure that building height does not extend above the height limitations of the district, including any exceptions to the limitations. He noted that a parcel lighting proffer was also included. In addition, he said the applicant has proffered to identify and preserve existing vegetation within the 25 foot inactive buffer which can be preserved and incorporated into the screening requirements currently in place. Mr. John Lewis, with Painter -Lewis, PLC, was representing this application. Mr. Lewis said they have spent a considerable amount of time with VDOT, the Ravenwing and Pembridge Heights homeowners associations, and the Planning Department in identifying the impacts and he believed they bad done a good job addressing those impacts through the proffers. Mr. Lewis addressed the staff's comment about the applicant's transportation proffer being perhaps less in value than some of the other recent rezoning applications. He said this property does not have good frontage or access and it will be difficult and costly to develop. Mr. Lewis said this site would probably not have a high-intensity use because of problems associated with access. He believed the $5,000 commitment was adequate. In addition, be said there will be about $200,000 worth of road improvements needed to get access to this site. Mr. Lewis believed the GDP (Generalized Development Plan), which identifies the general configuration of the proposed parcel alter consolidation, the location and form of the site access, the approximate location of inter -parcel access easements, and the construction improvements to Custer Avenue (Rt. 78 1) and Millwood Pike (Rt. 50), works conceptually. Mr. Lewis noted the design will have to be engineered and needs to go through the site plan stage so it can be evaluated by both VDOT and the County to make sure everything is done correctly. Commissioner Thomas asked for clarification regarding the proffers on Page 3, A through C; specifically, the improvements to Route 50 and Route 781, the impact to the intersection at Custer Avenue (Rt. 781), access in and out of the site, and access to the existing cormmercial site. He asked how those improvements will flow together with the proffer. Mr. Lewis replied that the proposed improvements are conceptual and will need to be designed and engineered during the site plan stage of development. Mr. Lewis stated that on the Custer Avenue side, the homeowners associations' primary issue was southbound traffic on Custer moving into the intersection at Route 50. He said there is a single lane going southbound, so all of the turning movements have to be made from one lane and often times, cars stack up beyond Pembridge Avenue and into Ravenwing. Mr. Lewis said they are proposing a dedicated right -turn lane, in addition to the through and left -turn lane. He said they are also proposing a right -in only to access the site to capture traffic that would be coming from the residential areas going southbound; he said access will be available to the commercial area. Mr. Lewis said that in order to make this work, the applicant will be constructing a raised median. He said that while these improvements are being made, they will provide the pedestrian amenity along the full frontage of the applicant's property, in addition to along the frontage of the adjacent property which is not under the applicant's control. He said although the staffwould like to see the sidewalk extended beyond this point, the applicant is not proffering to do so. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2531 Minutes of September 16, 2009 OR, &VT -4 - Chairman Wilmot called for public comments at this time and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Thomas (Tommy) Bryant, resident at 126 Etnam Street, said that he and his neighbors wanted to see a height restriction placed on the property because they were concerned about having a hotel overlooking their properties. He said he would prefer a much lower height restriction than the 35 -foot mentioned, so they could continue to enjoy their back yards_ Secondly, they did not want a 24-hour business or convenience store that would disrupt their neighborhood. Finally, he raised the issue of the "U -tum" to go back west on Route 50 at Purdue Drive and the blind spot created by vehicles turning into the Blue Fox. Mr. Bryant questioned how the traffic would be managed and if there would be a traffic signal; he said if traffic flow is increased, it will be difficult to make a "U" turn. Ms. Jan Carter, a resident on Lot 15, along Route 50, said her property adjouned the parcel being considered for rezoning. Ms. Carter talked about the high volume of traffic that has always been on Route 50 and the lack of any traffic management over the years. She said vehicles frequently stack -up at the traffic signal across from the Nissan Dealership and sometimes vehicles sit through three cycles of lights. She commented that the increased traffic volume coming out at Pembrooke was "cut -through" traffic from Senseny Road. She questioned the practicality of placing bicycle and pedestrian trails because of the steep slopes. No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. The Deputy Director -Transportation, John A. Bishop, was asked by Commission members to comment on the transportation aspect of the project. Mr. Bishop said he has worked out the majority of the issues with the applicant. Mr. Bishop wanted to make sure, however, the County had an adequate amount of influence at the site planning stage so the entrances are constructed properly. Commissioner Ruckman asked if there were any future plans to vacate the right-of-way where Custer Avenue used to extend up diagonally; he commented that nothing could probably be done with that piece of land. Mr. Jerry Copp, VDOT's resident engineer, replied That VDOT has had previous requests, but has decided they do not want to sell that property. He said if Route 50 becomes a six -lane road sometime in the future, VDOT believed it may be wise to just keep it at this time. Commissioner Unger asked Mr. Bishop how he felt about extending Pembridge Avenue . eastbound to merge out onto Route 50. Mr. Bishop said the staff also raised this issue with Mr. Lewis; he said there is probably a way to make it work, but the staff felt that as they were attempting to talk through it with the rezoning and making the traffic work, staff was getting to the point where they were having to fully redesign the entrance without being at the site plan stage itself. Commissioner Unger said he thought this property should be rezoned; however, his biggest concern was that the monetary proffer was not nearly comparable to anything the County has done in the past and secondly, he did not like the entrance design. Commissioner Manuel said he supported the approval of the rezoning; he said it conformed to the Comprehensive Policy Plan and the Eastern Frederick County Land Use Plan. Commissioner Manuel believed the applicant had done as good a job as possible on a very challenging site. He said in working with the neighborhood, the applicant has proffered out intense commercial uses, such as fast food with drive-throughs, automotive dealers, and gasoline service stations, and convenience stores; they have also limited the height of structures to 35 feet instead of 60 feet. Commissioner Manuel believed the improvements proposed by the applicant will add much to the safety of the entrance. Commissioner Manuel commented there is a huge stacking problem currently on Custer Avenue going all the way back to Pembridge Avenue. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 16, 2009 Page 2532 -5— Commissioner Thomas commented that the monetary contribution to fire and rescue emergency services was woefully inadequate. Commissioner Manuel made a motion to recommend approval of the Rezoning #05-09 of DM -1 Holdings, LLC, as submitted_ This motion was seconded by Commissioner Ambrogi and was passed by a majority vote. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Rezoning Application #05-09 of DMJ Holdings, LLC, submitted by Painter -Lewis, PLC, to rezone 2.95 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (Business General) District, with proffers, for commercial use. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE): Mohn, Triplett, Madagan, Thomas, Wilmot, Ruckman, Manuel, Ambrogi NO: Unger (Note: Commissioner Crosen, Oates, and Kriz were absent from the meeting.) PUBLIC MEETING Rezoning Application 904-09 of the Wampler Property, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc., to rezone 2.16 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District, with proffers, for commercial use. This property is located west and adjacent to Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11), approximately 1,000 feet south of the intersection of Route 11 and Stephenson Road and approximately 1,900 feet north of the intersection of Route 11 and Old Charlestown Road. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 44B -1-12D in the Stonewall Magisterial District. (This item was tabled from the Planning Commission's August 5, 2009 meeting.) Action — Recommended Approval with Proffers Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that this rezoning application was extensively discussed by the Planning Commission at the August 5, 2009, meeting and the issues particularly discussed were the potential impacts on surrounding residential properties and how this site fit in with the improvements to the Route 11 corridor, with signalization specifically discussed. Comparisons were made of the commitments made with this request against the needs of the area. Since the Planning Commission's original review of this request, the applicant revised their proffer statement and provided for several additional items to address the concerns expressed by the Commission. He said the applicant addressed restricting the hours of operation and restricting several uses on the property, recognizing the adjacent residentially -zoned property. They also provided a more intensive screening plan to potentially mitigate the adjacent property impacts. In particular, the GDP was modified to show the location of the opaque element, a fence, which was previously six -feet high, but now is increased to eight -feet, and they have identified a location for additional evergreen plantings. He said the concern about continued intensification at this site needs to be carefully considered. Heraised a concern about additional landscape plantings within the 25 -foot area which is already designated for three landscape plantings for every ten linear feet; in addition to the height of the fence. He recognized the benefit of an additional buffer, but questioned bow much more intense can this site become with regards to the landscaping and screening. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 16, 2009 Page 2533 Mr. Ruddy next focused on the transportation concerns that were expressed previously. He pointed out that the GDP has been updated and several commitments have been made; however, the staff still has some concerns with regards to transportation impacts and the impacts on the adjacent residential properties. Commissioner Ruckman recalled the previous discussion on additional screening; he said a comment was made that possibly too many plantings were being placed in a small area, resulting in a poor survival rate for the plantings. Mr. Ruddy replied that if additional buffering is required, typically applicants designate an additional area to the minimum requirements. So, instead of utilizing only the minimum 25 feet, applicants would add an additional ten feet and put in an extra row of evergreen plantings. He said the County has recently modified the screening requirements to eliminate the three evergreen and deciduous trees in the buffer area, and allows a variety of plantings to make sure they all will survive. He said that some thought should be given to how much landscaping can be placed into an area. Commissioner Buckman also pointed out that the applicant proffered outtruck stops; he said he didn't think truck stops were an allowed use in a B2 District. Mr. Ruddy replied that was correct. Commissioner Ruckman also inquired about car washes and Mr. Ruddy explained that car washes were proffered out as a possible use on this property. Commissioner Ruckman asked the Deputy Director -Transportation, John Bishop, about the necessity of a traffic signal at this site_ Mr. Bishop stated that the County would prefer u t to have a traffic signal at this location, but if an intensive use was established on this site, the TIA would call for a traffic signal. Mr. traffic Bishop said there were other ways to make a safe access, besides a signal, that could be utilized such as corridor improvements. Commissioner Ruckman inquired if a right-in/right-out entrance would take care of the problem; he said in the long term, there would be a four -lane road with a median. Mr. Bishop said left turns would be eliminated and he believed that would help from a safety and traffic flow perspective. Mr. Patrick Sowers of Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc. was representing this application. Mr. Sowers reviewed with the Commission the property uses they had proffered out with this application. He said as long as the adjoining property continued to be used for residential, car washes would be proffered out as a potential use. Regarding the landscaping along the north, the west, and the southern property boundary, he said they are required to have a 25 -foot inactive buffer between the property line and the site; he said they are proposing an eight -foot fence with required plantings by ordinance, which is three plants per ten linear feet, typically done within a ten -foot easement. Mr. Sowers said within their 25 feet, they will have a fence and a ten - foot landscaped easement, and they still have yet another 15 feet to work with for their additional single row of evergreens. Mr. Sowers believed this was more than enough space for those plants to thrive. He added that it would be considered a site plan violation if the plants did not survive_ Mr. Sowers wanted to make an additional point regarding the proffer value. He said for any use up to 2,000 trips per day, there would be a $75,000 cash proffer; for any use that generates more than 2,000 trips per day, the cash proffer would increase to $100,000. He said that for an initial site plan submitted for a self- service storage facility, there would be a $75,000 proffer and, if in the future, a more intensive use comes in, the applicant would pay the $25,000 difference to the county. Mr. Sowers stated that regarding the value of the transportation proffer, while the TIA shows at full build -out, with the most intensive use modeled, i.e. a gasoline service station and convenience mart, a traffic signal at the project entrance, it is only necessary once an additional 20,000 trips are factored in on Route 11 due to background traffic_ He said the existing traffic on Route 11 is approximately 6,600 tpd across the property frontage; however, once background traffic is factored in, it increases to approx. 27,000 tpd. Frederick County Planning Commission ` u6 Minutes of September 16, 2009 -7 - Mr. Sowers next referred to the previous meeting in which an adjoining properly owner, Mr. Simkovitch, had concerns about possible uses. Mr. Sowers said they have proffered to retain the existing trees along the northern and the western property boundaries and they will also provide additional plantings. Commissioner Unger asked if vehicular traffic traveling south on Route 11 would have a problem turning into the project. Mr. Sowers said the entrance would be required to meet VDOT standards and any turn lanes, depending on the use, would either have a taper or a full turn lane. Commissioner Mohn was in favor of the proffer to protect the existing trees along the property boundaries. He said he has had some experience with projects that intended to preserve mature trees; but within a few years, the trees died due to the impacts of the development. He recommended that the applicant take a close lWk-at what kind of area around those trees needed to be protected to ensure the trees will be preserved beyond the first few years of development of the site, especially since this is an important proffer for the adjoining property owners. He asked the applicant to give some thought about how this could be incorporated into the proffer statement. Commissioner Ruckman asked about the stonnwater management for the site, in light of Mr. Simkovitch's statements that water runoff was directed towards his property when the trailer park was located on the site. Mr_ Sowers explained the direction of the water runoff, he said State Law prohibits them from increasing the amount of runoff with the development. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: Mr. Nickolas Pinshow, a resident of the Stonewall District, said he owned the property to the south, consisting of 12 acres. Mr. Pinshow mentioned there were no existing trees on the southern border and he asked if landscaping could be placed along there. In addition, he asked about the applicant's intentions for the existing house on the property and possible uses. Mr. Sowers responded that the structure referred to by Mir. Pinshow is located approximately 12- 15 feet off the property line. He said when developing a B2 property which is adjacent to an RA property in residential use, such as Mr. Pinshow's property, a category `B" buffer must be provided. Mr. Sowers said this requires a 25 -foot inactive buffer and a 25 -foot active buffer, however, the structure is within the required 25 -foot inactive buffer. He said there is a mechanism within the ordinance such that, if Mr_ Pinshow agrees, the buffer can be decreased, thereby allowing the house to stay, but he imagined if there was an intensive use on the property, the house would be removed. Mr. Sowers said that in either case, the proffer provides for the same eight -foot fence along Mr. Pinshow's full property boundary, as well as the required zoning district buffer, consisting of three trees per ten linear feet across the frontage with Mr. Pinshow's property. He said that in addition to those required plantings, they were also proffering to provide another row of evergreen trees along with the fence. Mr. Sowers believed the applicant had offered a dense buffer, in terms of landscaping and the eight -foot fence to ensure that his viewshed will not be impacted. No other citizen wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Chairman Wilmot had questions for Mr. Bishop regarding the traffic signal scenario and utilization of a night -mil right -out entrance. tdlr. Bishop explained the desire to not over proliferate traffic lights on key roadways; Mr. Bishop said the utilization of the traffic signal was used mostly as a means to point out the impact. Mr. Bishop said the applicant referred to the background projects; however, all of those are by -right projects due to previous rezonings and have their own transportation proffers. He said regardless of that fact, a traffic signal is not warranted here without this development. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 16, 2009 Page 2535 Commissioner Ruckman referred to the applicant's comments regarding a "pass -by" traffic allowance and that possibly, the traffic signal would not be required according to the TIA. Mr. Bishop said the applicant was referring to the time of build out; he said the applicant expects to be built out before the other background trips come to fruition. Mr. Bishop believed the applicant was stating that should this be the case at the time of their build out, regardless of whether they were to build a gas station, since those other background trips would not have come to fruition, a signal at that time would still not be warranted Mr. Bishop said that VDOT allows 40% pass -by traffic with this type of use, which is saying those aren't destination trips, they happen to be passing by. Commissioner Buckman said the right -in, right -out entrance would be in lieu of the traffic signal and Mr. Bishop replied yes Commissioner Ruckman asked if the right -in, right -out entrance would simply delay an eventual traffic signal. Mr. Bishop replied if a right -in, right -out entrance is installed, there would be no need for a traffic signal at this location_ Commissioner Ruckman agreed B2 zoning was probably appropriate forthis location; however, be expressed concern about the traffic pattern here and whether or not the County should require a right -in, night- out ghtout movement for this site, so that a point is not reached sometime in the future when a traffic signal would be needed. Commissioner Ruckman next made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning based on the requirement that a right -in, right -out entrance is constructed for this site. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas. The motion failed, however, by the following in vote: YES (TO REC. APPROVAL W/ RT -;1N, RT -OUT): Ruckman, Thomas NO: Unger, Ambrogi, Manuel, Wilmot, Madagan, Triplett, Mohn Commissioner Unger next made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning as presented- This resentedThis motion was seconded by Commissioner Mohn and passed by a majority vote. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Rezoning Application #04-09 of the Wampler Property, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Lnc., to rezone 2.16 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District, with proffers, for commercial use. The majority vote recommending approval of the rezoning was as follows: YES (TO REC. APPROVAL): Unger, Ambrogi, Manuel, Wilmot, Madagan, Triplett, Mohn NO: Ruckman, Thomas (Note: Commissioners Crosen, Oates, and Kriz were absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 16, 2009 Page 2536 mom Master Development Plan 02-09 of Fieldstone Apartments, submitted by Grecnway Engineering, to construct two garden apartment buildings with a total of 25 units. The property is located on the south side of Valley Mill Road (Rt. 659), approximately 1,200 feet east of Channing Drive and 0.5 miles west of Greenwood Road. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 55-A-181 C in the Red Bud Magisterial District. - -- Action — Recommended Administrative Approval Authority be Granted Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that this MDP (master development plan) is for two garden apartments on 5.58 acres, zoned RP (Residential Performance). She said the site will be accessed off an entrance on Valley Mill Road with a right -turn taper lane and an acceleration lane_ Ms. Perkins said the development will include the construction of a ten -foot paved path along a portion of Valley Mill Road, which will transitiou to a path along Abrams Creek. She noted that the ivfDP also depicts the buffers that will be provided along the site. Ms. Perkins pointed out a reduced 50 -foot road efficiency buffer through a portion of the site; she said this buffer will consist of a six-foot berm and a single row of evergreen trees. She noted that through the remainder of the site, there is a full -distance road efficiency buffer of 80 feet in width and consisting of a double row of evergreen trees. She also noted that adjacent to the residential property, there is a 100 -foot full -screen buffer provided along the property boundary consisting of a six-foot opaque fence and three plants per ten linear feet. She added that the MDP is consistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance, staff concerns have been addressed, and the plan is in a form that is administratively approvable. Mr_ Evan A. Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, was representing this MDP and was available to answer questions from the Commission_ Chairman Wilmot called for anyone wishing to speak regarding this application. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting. No issues of concern were raised by the Commission. There were no comments made to be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend that the staff be granted administrative approval authority for the disposition of Master Development Plan #02-09 of Fieldstone Apartments, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to construct two garden apartment buildings with a total of 25 units. (Note: Commissioners Crosen, Oates, and Kriz were absent from the meeting.) COMMISSION DISCUSSION Discussion of Proposed Revisions to Frederick County Code, Chapter 165 (Zoning Ordinance) and Chapter 144 (Subdivision Ordinance), in accordance with the Lural Areas Study. Senior Planning, Candice E. Perkins, reported that on April 22, 2009, the Board of Supervisors approved the Rural Areas Report and Recommendation as a policy of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Ms. Perkins stated that the report contained recommendations from the Rural Areas Subcommittee, a subcommittee Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 16, 2009 Page 2537 -10 - created by the Board and charged with identifying growth and development trends and related issues in the rural areas of the County_ She said one of the recommendations contained in the Rural Areas Subcommittee's report was to "implement enhancements to the existing Rural Preservation Lot Subdivision Requirements_ ®Maintain a minimum lot size of two acres; 'Increase the preservation lot (cluster set-aside lot) from 40 percent of the parent tract to a minimum 60 percent of the parent tract; and, 'Removal of the density exception for the rural preservation lot." Ms. Perkins stated that this agenda item is the first to implement some of the recommendations contained within the Rural Areas Report. She said this ordinance amendment specifically addresses the changes to the rural preservation subdivision requirements contained within Article N of the Zoning Ordinance and Articles H and V of the Subdivision Ordinance. Ms. Perkins proceeded to review each of the draft amendment proposals with the Planning Commission: -Rural preservation tract to be counted towards the permitted residential density of the par--.—! tract; -Increase the rural preservation tract requirement from 40 percent to 60 percent; -Reduced lot width for rural preservation lots and exemption for rural preservation lots from the maximum depth requirements; -Elimination of agricultural lots from the RA District; -Permitted RA uses - addition of animal husbandry and farm wineries, removal of cottage occupation signs; -Conditional RA uses - addition of off -premise farm markets; commercial stables, equestrian facilities, and commercial riding facilities; petting farms; bed and breakfasts; country clubs (with or without banquet facilities); welding businesses, and cottage occupation signs; -Additional standards for farm wineries, and welding businesses; -Revisions to the cul- de -car. length requirements in the Subdivision Ordinance; -New definitions that correspond to thenew permitted/ conditional uses_ Ms. Perkins noted that this item was presented to the DRRC (Development Review and Regulations Committee) at their meeting on August 27, 2009. She said the DRRC requested some minor changes and recommended that the draft ordinance be sent to the Planning Commission for discussion_ Commissioner Mohn commented that if the Rural Preservation Lot option is to be encouraged in the rural areas for residential development, as opposed to the five -acre lot option, the climination of the rural preservation lot as a bonus lot needed to be reconsidered, or at least its use in meeting the yield for the project. Commissioner Mohn believed the County should do as much as possible to encourage and incentivize that choice. Commissioner Thomas believed the increase in the minimum size of the preservation tract was too large. He commented that 40 percent may have been too small, but 60 percent is going to make it almost impossible to get the allowed yield on the properties with our current regulations. Commissioner Thomas suggested a minimum size of at least 50 percent; he said 60 percent almost makes the ordinance non -useable. No action was needed by the Planning Commission at this time. The staff noted that comments from the Planning Commission would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Discussion of Proposed Revisions to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 161, Health Systems and Sewage Disposal Ordinance, in accordance with the Rural Areas Study. Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that this item is virtually a complete revision to Chapter 161 of the Frederick County Code for sewage disposal and health systems. Ms. Perkins stated that the changes are in accordance with the recommendations from the Rural Areas Report of the Rural Areas Subcommittee. One of the recommendations contained within the Rural Areas Subcommittee's report was to revise the health system requirements. Ms. Perkins said the report recommended the following enhancements to Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 16, 2009 Page 2538 ME the existing health system requirements applicable to on-site private residential health systems: -Increase the reserve drainfield area to 100 percent. The current regulations require a 50 percent reserve area, which does not enable a homeowner to fully replace a failed health system. Continue to allow health systems that meet the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) General Approval requirements. Prohibit health systems that are permitted through the Provisional and. Experimental Approval Process_ Prohibit the use of Discharge Health Systems and require Board of Supervisors' approval for pump -and -haul permits. -Support Operation and Maintenance Requirements for alternative health systems. Ms. Perkins said the draft changes were reviewed by the Health Department on various occasions and the Health Department is satisfied with the revisions. Ms. Perkins proceeded to review each of the revisions with the Planning Commission_ Ms. Perkins noted that this item was presented to the DRRC (Development Review and Regulations Committee) at their meeting on August 27, 2009. She said the DRRC requested some minor changes and recommended that the draft ordinance be suet to the Planning Commission for discussion. Commissioner Unger had questions for the staff regarding the revision dealing with replacement or repair of on-site systems. This revision requires the property owners within 300 feet of a public or private sewer system to connect to that system when their system ceases to operate in a sanitary manner or requires major alterations. Ms. Perkins said a provision was added after the DRRC meeting stipulating that if the property owner could not gain access to the public or private sewer system, they could seek a waiver from the Board to repair the existing sysTi-- Commissioner Mohn referred to the reserved draini eld set aside requirement increase from 50 percent to 100 percent; he asked how some of the existing, legally -nonconforming lots in the county, which rely on private health systems in places like Shawneeland, would address the issue if they could not provide a viable reserve area that's equal to 100 percent. Ms_ Perkins said if there was not an existing sewage system defined on the property, sites would have to be consolidated in order to achieve approval. She added if a property already has an approval letter from the Health Department, that property would be honored; however, anything new that comes in would have to meet the new ordinance_ Commissioner Ruckman asked about the section on enforcement where various dollar amounts are designated for violations. He asked if this was enforced by the Planning Department or the Health Department. Ms. Perkins replied it would be enforced by the Health Department and they would issue civil tickets_ No action was needed by the Planning Commission at this time. The staff noted that comments from the Planning Commission would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Discussion of Proposed Revisions to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, to include Commercial Recreation (Indoor) as a Permitted Use in the Ml (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that Frederick County has received a request to include Commercial Recreation Operated Indoor to the permitted uses in the Ml (Light Industrial) Zoning District. She said this use is currently permitted in the B2 (Business General) and the B3 (Industrial Transition) Districts. Ms. Perkins said that while the requested recreation is for a dog training program, this ordinance amendment would be applicable to all types of commercial recreation. She reported that design standards have been included for this use when established in the M1 District. The standards address patron parking and safety, along with regulations when this use is developed in a master planned industrial park_ Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 16, 2009 Page 2539 -12 - Ms. Perkins stated that this item was presented to the DRRC (Development Review & Regulations Committee) at their meeting on August 27, 2009. She said the DRRC discussed the appropriateness of this use in the M 1 District; the DRRC believed certain elements of -indoor recreation may be appropriate, but other uses may not be, such as swimming or bowling. The DRRC recommended that the hours of operation be limited to 5:00 p -m. to 12:00 a -m, Monday through Friday, within a master planned industrial park_ She said with that change, the DRRC sent the proposed amendment forward to the Planning Commission for further discussion. Commissioner Thomas questioned whether this was an appropriate permanent solution for this issue. He commented that when an operation is restricted through hours of operation, the property would be more valuable for other M1 uses; therefore, he considered this as a very interim solution for a single applicant at this time while the economy is slow. Commissioner Thomas preferred *.ti entertain a more long-term solution. He noted that equestrian training is allowed in the rural areas and he questioned why indoor dog training would not be permitted there as well. He considered indoor animal training areas to be more appropriate in a rural areas setting rather than an industrial area. Commissioner Manuel pointed out that the definition does not limit this to training facilities, but it includes swimming pools, archery, and bowling, etc. Ms. Perkins said the amendment would include anything classified as commercial indoor recreation and is not solely limited to dog training. She said if one of the uses wanted to go inside a master planned industri al park, they would have to meet the designated hours of operation; but, if a parcel was found outside of a master planned industrial park, the hours of operation would not apply. Chairman Wilmot cautioned against letting budget costs, etc_, dictate what the Commission does with the zoning districts_ Commissioner Unger preferred to see this particular amendment restricted to dog training only at this time, until some of the issues could be more thoroughly considered. Commissioner Thomas and other members of the Commission agreed with Commissioner Unger's suggestion. Commissioners concluded that in the meantime, a long-term solution could be studied. No action was needed by the Planning Commission at this time. The staff noted that comments from the Planning Commission would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the meeting was adjourned at 8:36 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, June M. -Wilmot, Chairman Eric R_ Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of September 16, 2009 Page 2540 REZONING APPLICATION #12-07 OPEQUON CROSSING Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: October 5, 2009 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director PROPOSAL: To rezone 70.15 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, with proffers. LOCATION: The property is located south of the existing terminus of Eddy's Lane (Route 820), approximately 2,400 feet south of Route 7 and 1,650 feet west of Opequon Creek. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSION FOR THE 10/21/09 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Opequon Crossing rezoning application, while generally consistent with future land use designations of the Comprehensive Plan, does not fully address the goals of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, as described in the staff report. The Planning Commission should pay particular attention to the transportation impacts, the environmental impacts, and the capacities and capabilities of community facilities needed to serve the proposed land uses. At this time, the road improvements identified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan are not fully addressed in the application. Confirmation of the issues identified in the staff report, and any issues raised by the Planning Commission, should be addressed prior to the decision of the Planning Commission. Following the requirement for a public hearing, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning this rezoning application would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. Rezoning #12-09 — Opequon Crossing October 5, 2009 Page 2 This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also he useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Planning Commission: 10/21/09 Board of Supervisors: 11/18/09 Action Pending Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 70.15 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, with proffers. LOCATION: The property is located south of the existing terminus of Eddy's Lane (Route 820), approximately 2,400 feet south of Route 7 and 1,650 feet west of Opequon Creek. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Red Bud PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 55-A-210 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) PRESENT USE: Agricultural/Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) South: RP (Residential Performance) East: RP (Residential Performance) West: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Agricultural Use: Residential (Twin Lakes) Use: Residential (Haggerty) Use: Residential (Fieldstone Heights) PROPOSED USES: Up to 325 single family attached and single family detached dwelling units (no more than 170 single family attached dwelling units). (4.6 units per acre). Rezoning #12-07 — Opequon Crossing October 5, 2009 Page 3 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Frederick County Transportation: Please see additional remaining Frederick County Transportation Comments provided by Mr. John Bishop on page 10 of this report: Virginia Department of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 7, 659 and 820. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property. VDOT is not satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the revised Opequon Crossing rezoning application dated November, 2008 address transportation concerns associated with this request. Specifically, VDOT has the following concerns: 1. The analyst coded the Synchro files assuming a 45 mph speed limit for Route 7, but our database shows the speed limit as 55 mph. At 55 mph, the Department would not likely allow a permissive left turn movement. Coding the movement as Protected and raising the travel to 55 mph, degrades the LOS, therefore requiring additional mitigation. We suggest the following turn lane configurations at the Route 7/Haggerty: WB (1 left, 2 thru), EB (2 thru, 1 right), NB (1 left, 1 right). 2. A turn lanes analysis should be conducted at Haggerty Dr./Site Drive 2. 3. An alternate roadway connection (either through a new Valley Mill Road or Fieldstone, Section 2/Channing Drive connection) is needed for this development to access areas west and south. Without this alternate roadway connection, all trips will be forced to use Primary Route 7 back to Winchester to access schools, shopping, etc. The existing single lane bridge on Valley Mill Road will not accommodate increased traffic flow. This single lane bridge will be difficult to upgrade/replace due to right-of-way, historical and environmental concerns. 4. Due to the close proximity to Northern Virginia, there is a public need for a park and ride facility in this area. This development will certainly increase the need for park and ride commuters. Dedicated right-of-way and/or monetary contributions should be considered for a park and ride facility. 5. Inter -parcel roadway connections should be provided to adjacent properties. 6. Future Valley Mill Road connection from Point B to Point C is not mentioned in the proffers. Generalized Development Plan should be revised to show B to C right-of-way as a dedication to Frederick County rather than a reservation. 7. Additional right-of-way is needed on the East-West Collector Roadway at any intersection requiring right turn lanes. A UD -4 with right turn lanes, without sidewalk, requires a minimum of 100' of right-of-way. Fire Marshall: Plan approval recommended. Department of Inspections: No comments at this time. Comments shall be made at site plan submittal. Department of Public Works: The revised rezoning application dated February 23, 2009 has adequately addressed our previous comments. We anticipate that any future master development plans will include a wetlands analysis and a detailed discussion of a proposed stormwater management plan. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comment. Sanitation Authority Department: There should be adequate sewer and water capacity to serve this project. Rezoning #12-07 — Opequon Crossing October 5, 2009 Page 4 Department of Parks &z Recreation: 1.Opequon Crossing is proposing a total of 325 units and would require 11 recreation units. 2. Item 3.1: The Parks and Recreation Department would need to review the design of the recreation building for appropriateness as a "recreation amenity". 3. Item 3.2 & 3.3: The proffer contribution would appear to meet the Development Impact Model. 4. Item 3.6: The trail system should provide connectivity to adjoining subdivision, facilities and be consistent with the 2007 Winchester Frederick County MPO Bicycle/Pedestrian Network. Health Department: Health Dept. has no objection if public water and sewer are provided. Winchester Regional Airport: Neither the location or the elevation of this site requires a 7460-1 to be filed with the Federal Aviation Administration; however, it does lie within the air space of the Winchester Airport. Due to its proximity to the airport, property owners may experience aircraft fly- over noise from aircraft entering into or departing the flight pattern from the North. Special considerations will not be requested by the Winchester Regional Airport. Frederick County Public Schools: The cumulative impact of this project and other projects in various stages of development in eastern Frederick County will necessitate future construction of new schools and support facilities to accommodate increased student enrollment. We estimate that the 155 single family detached units and 170 single family attached units in this development will house 43 high school students, 37 middle school students and 70 elementary school students. In order to properly serve these 144 students, Frederick County Public Schools will outlay $5,546,000 in capital expenditures and $1,567,000 annually in operating costs. We note the proffered amounts of $20,265 per single family detached unit and $14,268 per single family attached unit, which match the current development impact mode. Thank you. In this area of the County, we use the larger transit buses with a student capacity of 78. We are strongly concerned about the connection of Haggerty Boulevard to Route 7. For safety, the connection needs to be either signalized or have a crossover capable of providing refuge for a transit bus. Our concern stems from the heavy volume of high-speed traffic currently on Route 7, particularly during the morning rush hour, which poses a significant safety issue for buses running from existing housing to existing schools. The location of the Haggerty Boulevard intersection in Berryville Canyon across from the Route 37 ramps could compound the problem with sight distance issues and a complex environment for drivers to interpret. Frederick County Public Schools is concerned about all land development applications. Both capital expenditures and annual operating costs are increased by each approved residential development. Historic Resources Advisory Board: The HRAB considered the rezoning proposal during their meeting of May 15, 2007. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey Report. The subject parcel is the site of the Adams Farm House (DHR #34- 397) and is in close proximity to several other structures, including Valley Mill Farm (DHR #34-108) which is on the National and Virginia Registers of Historic Places. Other properties in close proximity to the proposed rezoning project are the Route 659 House (DHR #34-396), the Haggerty House (DHR #34-398) and the Carter-Lee-Damron House (DHR #34-1150). Although only the Valley Mill Farm property is listed as potentially significant, the HRAB did have several suggestions to mitigate the impact of the proposed development on the cluster of historic structures in this area. Both the Haggerty House and the Carter-Lee-Damron House are located on adjoining properties which were recently rezoned for residential uses similar to this proposal. The Carter-Lee-Damron House, on the Toll Rezoning #12-07 — Opequon Crossing October 5, 2009 Page 5 Brothers "Twin Lakes" property, will be utilized as a recreational element for that development. The application states that the applicant proposes to construct a residential development of 155 single family homes and 170 townhomes. The HRAB feels that this proposed development can address the following issues in an effort to mitigate impacts on historic resources: Architectural Documentation: The HRAB felt that there is a need to document and research the historic significance of this property. The HRAB suggested documenting the house and any out -buildings for their historical significance, including (but not limited to) researching and identifying past owners/occupants, significant application of building materials, and architectural features associated with the time period of construction, etc. The HRAB felt that photographs of the interior and exterior of the buildings should also be taken to visually document the Adams Farm House. Buffers and Screening: The HRAB suggested an increased buffer along the shared property line with the Valley Mill Farm property (PIN 55-A-165). The HRAB acknowledged the existing woodlands on the Valley Mill Farm Property as well as the topography of the area as natural screening, but felt that the applicant could provide additional pine trees in this area to help mitigate the impact of this new development on the view shed of the Valley Mill Farm since it is on both State and National Registers. Development Name: Due to the fact that the Back Creek Magisterial District of Frederick County already recognizes an areas as the "Historic Opequon Village" and that the Historic Opequon Village area is indicated in the Comprehensive Policy Plan as a possible historic district, the HRAB felt that the applicant could consider renaming this development project to maintain the integrity of the potential historic district and eliminate confusion that the new development is a historic area. Attorney Comments: Please see attached letter dated March 26, 2009 from Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney. Planning Department: Please see attached correspondence from Michael Ruddy, AICP dated July 2, 2007 and March 12, 2009. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Stephenson Quadrangle) identifies the property with the A-2 Agricultural classification. The County's A-1 and A-2 agricultural zoning districts were combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA (Rural Areas) District. This rezoning application was originally submitted to the County on two occasions during 2007. At that time, the Applicant determined that the Application was not in the appropriate form to proceed and wanted additional time to work on the Application. Rezoning #12-07 — Opequon Crossing October 5, 2009 Page 6 2) Comprehensive Policy Pian The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. I-]] Land Use The parcels comprising this rezoning application are located within the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Urban Development Area defines the general area in which more intensive forms of residential development will occur. In addition, the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use map designates the general area in which the Opequon Crossing property is located for residential land uses. The average overall residential density of the Urban Development Area should not exceed three units per acre. More specifically, the Zoning Ordinance stipulates that properties which contain less than one hundred acres, but more than ten acres, should not exceed 5.5 units per acre. With the more urban densities envisioned for development in the UDA, the Comprehensive Plan seeks to ensure that special effort is made to provide the infrastructure necessary to accommodate the desired land uses and densities. This application would enable a residential density of 4.6 units per acre. As land is developed in the eastern portion of the Urban Development Area, the Comprehensive Plan identifies the preservation of the stream valleys as environmental open space as an important goal that contributes to the protection of flood plains and water quality and provides a continuous system of green open space. The goals of the Comprehensive Plan also include protecting the natural environment from damage due to development activity, avoiding development in environmentally sensitive areas, and the identification and protection of important natural resources. A balanced approach to providing necessary transportation infrastructure in the area of the project and promoting the protection of sensitive environmental areas and features is warranted and should be achieved with this application. TraMportation The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan provides the guidance regarding future arterial and collector road connections in the eastern portion of the County by identifying needed connections and locations. Plans for new development should provide for the right-of-ways necessary to implement planned road improvements and new roads shown on the road plan should be constructed by the developer when warranted by the scale, intensity, or impacts of the development. Existing roads should be improved as necessary by adjacent development to implement the intentions of the plan (Comprehensive Plan 7-206). Rezoning 412-07 — Opequon Crossing October 5, 2009 Page 7 Valley Mill Road is identified as an improved major collector road in the County's Eastern Road Plan. In addition, Valley Mill Road is shown as being relocated to a new location and alignment. Relocated Valley Mill Road runs through this property. In 2005, modifications to the County's Eastern Road Plan occurred in the vicinity of this project. The modifications were completed in recognition of the changing traffic patterns in the area, the recently approved Haggerty project which provided for a new Spine Road parallel to future Route 37, and the need to avoid the historically and environmentally sensitive areas in the vicinity of the one lane bridge over Abrams Creek. The adjacent Haggerty property recognizes the comprehensively planned alignment of Valley Mill Road and furthers its construction. Valley Mill Road is designated as a major collector road that traverses south of its existing location, providing a new crossing of Abram's Creek, and connecting with the Haggerty project and the Spine Road in the vicinity of future Route 37. Ultimately, a connection will be made to Route 7 at the location previously determined as part of the Haggerty project, directly opposite the future on and off ramps of future Route 37. This location is immediately west of the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Facility. This approach furthers access management goals along Route 7. New development in the Urban Development Area should only be approved when roads and other infrastructure with sufficient capacity have been provided. The Comprehensive Plan identifies that a level of service "C" should be maintained on roads adjacent to and within new developments and that traffic analysis should be provided by the applicants to ensure that needed road improvements are identified in order to maintain or improve upon the level of service. In some cases, new development may need to contribute to the provision, construction, or improvement of roads that are not adjacent to the development. In such cases, developments should contribute their fair share costs of road improvements needed to accommodate the traffic generated by a particular development. Site Access and design. Access to this project is designed to be from the adjacent Haggerty project and ultimately Route 7. Additional access to the site will be from Eddy's Lane. No recognition has been provided in the TIA for the relocation of Valley Mill Road and the vehicle trips that may be projected to traverse this property with the completion of this significant element of the County's Eastern - Road Plan. The potential dedication of right-of-way for the future location of Valley Mill Road relocated is included as a commitment in the Proffer Statement. Future construction of a two lane portion of a small section of this road is included. However, nothing beyond this commitment has been made to further this important element of site access has been provided. Inter parcel access has been identified in one location to the south providing access to the Twin Lakes project. A potential inter parcel connection to the Fieldstone property to the west has been offered. No additional design of the internal road network has been provided with this application and no additional inter parcel connections have been pursued. The potential use of Eddy's Lane as an access point to this parcel without the completion of the relocation of Valley Rezoning #12-07 — Opequon Crossing October 5, 2009 Page 8 Mill Road should be carefully considered. Any additional vehicle trips utilizing the existing one lane bridge over Abrams Creek should be avoided. 3) Site SuitabilityAnvironment The Opequon Crossing site has been identified as a site typical of the Martinsburg Shale Region with steeply eroded side slopes and reasonably level plain areas. This is an accurate identification that presents challenges when planning the development program for this property. Abram's Creek is located immediately north of the northern property line and generally parallels this property line. A pond is located central to the eastern portion of the property. These features and their associated slopes, natural drainage ways, and floodplains warrant particular attention and provide an opportunity for enhanced protection of the riparian corridor. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the preservation of the stream valleys as environmental open space as an important goal that contributes to the protection of flood plains and water quality and provides a continuous system of green open space. By current County definition, this project contains relatively small areas of steep slopes. However, protection of the integrity of the pond, environmental open spaces, and the riparian areas south of Abram's Creek, especially during the construction phases, remain a concern and should be a greater consideration of this application and as part of the proffer statement. The site contains areas that are heavily wooded. The application proposes development of a greater intensity in the reasonably level wooded areas and offers areas that will be set aside for environmental and open space purposes. A greater amount of consideration should be provided to incorporating the protection of areas of mature woodlands into the design of the project to assist in their preservation and create desirable areas of open space. It would be appropriate for the application to more thoroughly address the preservation of the existing tree lines and wooded areas as a desirable buffer to the surrounding properties. The preservation of these existing trees within a buffer area should be guaranteed in the proffer statement. Disturbance should be avoided. The HRAB reviewed this request and provided several comments. The subject parcel is the site of the Adams Farm House (DHR #34-397) and is in close proximity to several other structures. The Applicant has modified the name of the project. However, the more substantial comments have not been addressed by the application. 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for this project, dated September 8, 2006, projected that the development of 155 single family detached residential units and170 single family attached residential units would generate 3,029 vehicle trips per day. The report was developed with access to the site provided via a single site driveway along the proposed Haggerty Connector Road that will serve as a connection between the site and Route 7. Rezoning #12-07 — Opequon Crossing October 5, 2009 Page 9 The report concludes that the traffic impacts associated with the Opequon Crossing project are acceptable and manageable. Staff has concerns regarding the scope and validity of the TLA prepared for this application. Please refer to the comments provided by Mr. Bishop and by VDOT. No consideration has been given to the property's location and relationship to the County's Eastern Road Plan. In particular, the relocation of Valley Mill Road, the Spine Road, and the additional volumes that would beprojected to utilize this comprehensivelyplanned road network. In addition, no consideration has been provided for the impacts on existing Eddy's Lane, the one lane bridge over Abrams Creek, and the existing intersection of Valley Mill Road and Route 7. Transportation Program. - The Generalized Development Plan for Opequon Crossing delineatesthegeneral- public road----- system oad-system that will serve the residential development. Primary access to the site is from a proposed connection to the adjacent Haggerty property and indirectly to Route 7, and via Eddy's Lane. One connection with the Twin Lakes property has been identified. Minimal additional detail has been provided regarding the internal street system serving this project and providing connectivity to the adjacent property, in particular to the south. An additional potential connection location has been identified to the Fieldstone property to the west. The location of the relocated Valley Mill Road has been correctly identified on the GDP. However, the application fails to adequately address this most significant element of the County's Eastern Road Plan. It should be expected that construction of the road should occur consistent with the typical section clearly demonstrated in the County's Eastern Road Plan. In addition, the required standard road efficiency buffer should be provided per the County's Zoning Ordinance rather than per the applicant's defined landscape buffer. It is expected that any application for rezoning addresses the design and construction of a road located on their property that is an element of the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. Simply providing a reserve area for the future construction by others would not typically meet expectations and the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. In summary, the Applicant's transportation program provides for the following: • Construction of two lanes of this major collector road for a distance of approximately 400 feet and prior to the 100th building permit • The reservation for future dedication of an 80 foot wide reserve area within the property. • $1,000 per single family attached dwelling and $2,000 per single family detached dwelling that are to be utilized for road improvements to alleviate transportation problems in the general vicinity of the property. Please note that this monetary contribution is even less than it was when this request was originally submitted in 2007. At that time the contribution was $3,000 and $5,000 respectively. Rezoning #12-07 — Opequon Crossing October 5, 2009 Page 10 The Application does address the cOnstructian of the access to Route 7 by the adjacent Haggerty prior to the issuance of any building permits on this property. However, no recognition is provided to the very important Spine Road connection previously proffered to the south of the Haggerty project. A commitment was made to ensure this connection would be in place in a timely manner and commensurate with a number of building permits for the Haggerty project. The addition of more permits from the Opequon Crossing project would place additional impact on the proposed roads without the implementation of this improvement. Omitted from the transportation program are any additional accommodations for pedestrian circulation and potential multiuse trails that would provide access internal to the project and ultimately to the adjacent residential developments. The comments offered by the Department of Parks and Recreation relating to this effort have not been addressed. Greater effort should be made in designing and providing a trail system with linkages to open space to the satisfaction of Parks and Recreation. This should be done at the time of rezoning rather at the time of MDP. This would then ensure its planning is coordinated with the overall transportation improvements and its completion secured through the proffer statement. The following additional transportation TIA -related comments are provided by Mr. Bish Frederick County Transportation Planner. Aside from a right-of-way dedication, this proposal does not address the Eastern Road Plan connection to Valley Mill Drive. It is important to recognize that the Eastern Road Plan needs to be implemented in this area in order to create a sustainable transportation network. Accessing Route 7 as the only means for residents of this development to reach goods and services degrades the function of Route 7 as an Arterial highway. The proffer of $1,000 per multi family unit and $2,000 per single family unit is well below the standards which have previously been followed for offsetting transportation impacts in Frederick County. While I recognize and empathize with the challenges of today's market, those challenges do not lessen the impact of new residential development on Frederick County roadways. The results of the TIA's study of the intersection with Route 7 do not alleviate my concerns about the impacts to Route 7 as it approaches I-81. Due to the distances involved, it was deemed excessive to have this development scope their traffic impacts that far. However, it is clear from what is being proposed that that congested area is where the residents of this development will need to go for goods and services, thus adding to a traffic situation that is already unacceptable. Please consider this issue when reviewing the points above. The Applicant's transportation program is insufficient in addressing the transportation impacts of the project and furthering the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Rezoning #12-07 — Opequon Crossing October 5, 2009 Page I1 B. Sewer and Water The Opequon Crossing rezoning proposal is estimated to require approximately 65,000 gallons per day of water usage and approximately 65,000 gallons per day of wastewater. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority will serve the property and the wastewater flow from the site will go to the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant. Recent planning efforts have identified that evolving nutrient reduction regulations promulgated by Virginia's Bay Program will have a significant impact on the permitted waste water capabilities of Frederick County. Requests for land use modifications should he evaluated very carefully in light of the evolving nutrient loading regulations. C. Community Facilities The comment provided by the Frederick County Public Schools should be carefully considered when evaluating the application. The schools evaluation anticipated that the proposed 155 single family homes will yield 26 high school students, 20 middle school students, 36 elementary school students; and 170 townhouses will yield 16 high school students, 16 middle school students, and 32 elementary school students, which totals 146 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 future school needs should be considered during the approval process. The Frederick County Development Impact Model is a tool that is used to identify the capital costs associated with various types of development proposals presented to the County. The projected costs to Fire and Rescue, Public Schools, Parks and Recreation, Library, Sheriffs Office and for the Administration Building have been calculated and provided to the applicant for their consideration. The DIM projects that, on average, residential development has a negative fiscal impact on the County's capital expenditures, as such, all rezoning petitions with a residential component submitted after July 1, 2009 will be expected to demonstrate how the proposal will mitigate the following projected capital facility impacts: Single family dwelling unit $21,664 Town home dwelling unit $15,441 Apartment dwelling unit $13,005 The Applicant has proffered the appropriate amount per single family detached dwelling unit and per single family attached townhouse dwelling unit. No rezoning should be approved unless the net impacts on community facilities are positive, or if the negative impacts can be adequately addressed through proffers or some other means. A request for a rezoning may be turned down even though all fiscal impacts appear to be addressed (Comprehensive Plan 8-262). Rezoning #12-07 — Opequon Crossing October 5, 2009 Page 12 5) Proffer Statement — Dated April 10, 2007; Last revised September 24, 2009 A) Generalized Development Plan The applicant has provided a Generalized Development Plan for the purpose of identifying the general configuration of the street providing access to the project, residential land use areas, and open space and reservation areas within the Opequon Crossing development. The GDP may be utilized to a greater extent to more clearly address the sensitive environmental features on the property and the buffering of the adjacent residential uses. B) Land Use The applicants have proffered to limit to the total number and type of residential units to allow up to 325 single family attached and single family detached dwelling units. Up to 170 single family attached townhouse units would be permitted. Multi family dwelling units are prohibited. The applicant has proffered a phased introduction of the residential units over a minimum three year period from the date of final rezoning with the potential for up to 109 units per year. Staff note: This phased approach does very little to realistically address the intent of phasing the issuance of building permits. The intent of phasing is to ensure a timed integration of new development in a manner that would enable the timely provision of the public facilities necessary to serve the new development. It may be more desirable to have the annual allocation occur on consecutive years following the approval of the master development plan for this project and enable the construction of a smaller number of units. Regardless of the phasing approach, the comments relating to the impacts to the Frederick County Public Schools in this area of the Urban Development Area should be recognized. Recognition of recently approved projects in the vicinity of this proposal should also be considered when evaluating the phased inclusion of new residential units into this area of the community. C) Transportation The Applicant has proffered the reservation of an 80 foot wide reserve area for the future dedication of an 80 foot right of way within the property to accommodate the future construction, by others, of the Valley Mill Road relocated major collector road. The Applicant has proffered the construction of two lanes of the major collector road from point A to point B on the GDP for a distance of approximately 400 feet, prior to the 100I' building permit. The Applicant has proffered $1,000 per single family attached dwelling and $2,000 per single family detached dwelling that are to be utilized for road improvements to alleviate transportation problems in the general vicinity of the property. Please note that this monetary contribution is even less than it was when this request was originally submitted in 2007. At that time the contribution was $3,000 and $5,000 respectively. The Applicant has proffered that no building permits will be issued for the property until such time that the property has access to Route 7 via the future Haggerty transportation network. Rezoning # 12-07 — Opequon Crossing October 5, 2009 Page 13 D) Recreational Facility The Applicant has proffered to design and build a recreation building in this project. Please recognize that no definition of what the building is, or design depicting the recreational building, has been provided Past experiences would indicate the importance of being more specific in this regard: Recreational units may be required by ordinance based upon the ultimate housing types utilized in this project. E) Monetary Contribution The Applicant has proffered a total of $21,664 per single family detached dwelling unit and $15,441 per single family attached townhouse dwelling unit to offset the capital costs associated with this request. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 10/21/09 PLANNING COMMISSION :MEETING: The Opequon Crossing rezoning application, while generally consistent with future land use designations of the Comprehensive Plan, does not fully address the goals of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report. The Planning Commission should pay particular attention to the transportation impacts, the environmental impacts, and the capacities and capabilities of community facilities needed to serve the proposed land uses. At this time, the road improvements identified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan are not fully addressed in the application. Confirmation of the issues identified in the staff report, and any issues raised by the Planning Commission, should be addressed prior to the decision of the Planning Commission. Following the requirement for a public hearinz, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning this rezonin'Z application would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. COUNTY of EREDERUCK Roderick R. Williams County Attorney 540/722-8383 Fax 540/667-0370 March 26, 2009 E-mail: rwillia@cofrederick_va.us VIA FACSMILE (540-665-04.93_ ) AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust & Associates 1 17 I �..'Pfly 1J1.10L1, 1.Alll LV�i Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Opequon Crossing — Proposed Rezoning — Proffer Statement dated February 23, 2009 Dear Patrick: You have submitted to Frederick County for review a proposed proffer statement dated February 23, 2009 (the "Proffer Statement") for the proposed rezoning of 70.15± acres constituting the Opequon Crossing property (the "Property"), Parcel Identification Number 55-A-210, in the Red Bud Magisterial District, from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the RP (Residential Performance) District. I have now reviewed the Proffer Statement and it is my opinion that the Proffer Statement would be in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, and would be legally sufficient as a proffer statement, subject to the following comments: 1. The application, item 10, erroneously states that the rezoning is from RA to B2. It would appear that you will want to correct this before submission of any final revised form of the application. Also, of course, any revised form of the application and the power of attorney will need to be signed. 2. Proffers 2.1 & 2.2 — Staff will want to be aware that the proposed phasing limits are cumulative and therefore will only limit the maximum rate of development of the Property for the first three years after the rezoning. Thereafter, in theory, nothing would prevent development of the entire Property within a much shorter timeframe to the extent that development is not completed within the first three years. 3. Proffer 3.1 — In order to avoid any potential ambiguity, the Proffer might identify the number of relevant dwelling units for which the recreation building is intended to meet the recreation unit requirement. Also, the Proffer should state that the recreation building shall be constructed prior to the issuance of the indicated cumulative number of building permits or before the time required by 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 Mr. Patrick Sowers March 26, 2009 Page 2 County Code § 165-64, if sooner. Finally, the Proffer might provide more clarity by describing the size and scale of the recreation building. 4. Proffer 3.6 — The Proffer does not provide any real specificity as to the particulars of the trail system and therefore, among other things, makes it difficult to ascertain exactly how extensive the trail system will be. Also, while the language in the second introductory paragraph of the Proffers explains that improvements will be provided at the time of development of the adjacent portion of the Property, the lack of specificity as to the trail system likewise makes it difficult to ascertain what portions of the trail system will be in place at what times. 5. Proffer 7.2 — In lines 1 and 2, "an HOA" might better read as "the HOA". 6. Proffer 7.3 — The Proffers, read as a whole, do not provide indication as to when the Applicant will make the initial lump sum payment. Also, the Proffer might clarify whether the $100.00 per lot payment is due only in connection with the initial purchase of each lot or is also due upon each subsequent resale of a lot. 7. Proffers 9.1-9.4 — These Proffers involve land use activities on other properties. Staff will want to review these Proffers with respect to other developments in the area. Also, it would appear that Proffer 9.4 cannot be satisfied without at least some of the improvements in Proffers 9.2 & 9.3 being completed. Staff may wish to look closely at the interplay among Proffers 9.2- 9.4, including whether any modifications to Proffers 9.2 & 9.3 would be appropriate. 8. Proffer 9.3 — If the Applicant intends to dedicate the right-of-way for the portions of Eddys Lane traversing the Property, the Proffer should so provide. 9. Proffer 9.4 — It appears from the GDP that a small segment of the "Haggerty Connection" will exist to the east of the extended Eddys Lane. If the Aypl.ccuit intends Lo CiE"1C ai� iiiii-Of-:vaj� f�li iIIIS 5eriiClii, iTi: Frviicr SIio:Ai(t 50 provide. 10. Proffer 10.1 — Staff will want to be aware that the Proffer calls only for the ultimate identification of historic resources and does not address any means for the actual protection of any historic resources once they are identified. 11. Proffer 10.2 — Staff will want to determine whether the phrase "within the vicinity of the northern property boundary" requires any greater specificity. 12. Proffer 11.1 — In the second line, after the closed parenthesis and before "shall", it appears that "and such portion so dedicated" should be inserted. Mr. Patrick Sowers March 26, 2009 Page 3 I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for this specific development, as my understanding is that that re xi.exu xxnll he 4lnne by Stnff nnJ the Plnnnung CCM.M;.SS1Cn. Sincerely, Roderick B. Williams County Attorney cc: Michael Ruddy, AICA, Deputy '• Director of flaming and D--velo--ner: TO: Patrick Sowers, AICP COUNT' of REDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director RE: Initial Comments — Opequon Crossing Rezoning DATE: March 12, 2009 The following points are offered regarding the Opequon Crossing Rezoning Application. This is a request to rezone 70.15 acres from RA to RP with Proffers, allowing a maximum of 325 dwelling units including up to 170 single family attached dwelling units. Please consider the comments as you continue your work preparing the application for submission to Frederick County. Please ensure that these comments and all review agency comments, including the HRAB, are adequately addressed. General. The application should be corrected to reflect the proposed zoning on the property. Land Use. The property is located in the UDA and Q"WQ A and the Property is in an area that i.- planned .splanned for residential development. The request is in general conformance with the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan which identifies locations of future land uses. Transportation. Primary access should be consistent with and further the approved Frederick County Eastern Road Plan. This rezoning application should reflect the comprehensively planned road network and the adjacent projects' implementation of this road network. The County's Eastern Road Plan in the vicinity of this project identifies the relocation of Valley Mill Road as a major collector road (U4D). 107 North Kent St.eet, Suite 202 + Winchester, Virginia 22,113'01-5000 Opequon Crossing — Rezoning Comments March 12, 2009 Page 2 The project narrative discussing site access makes no mention of using or advancing the long range transportation improvement to Valley Mill Road which is planned to traverse this property, a very important connection. The emphasis should be on implementing the Valley Mill Road connection. Consideration of the completion of this comprehensively planned collector road system in the vicinity of the project should be a greater consideration. Without such a connection, all development related traffic, including school traffic, would be forced to use Route 7 to access locations east of this project. This application should avoid placing traffic on Eddy's Lane. Traffic may ultimately use the unimproved Eddy's Lane, existing Valley Mill_ Drive connection with Route 7, and the one lane bridge. Any right-of-way dedication should accommodate the right-of-way for its ultimate construction, and any necessary grading and other easements should be provided for. This project is located within the Urban Development Area and all roads should be built with an urban typical section. Construction of the four lane section is warranted. An alternative approach may be to provide a two lane connection of the ultimate section from point A to existing Valley Mill Road. Any section of Valley Mill Road on the property should be in place with the initial phase of construction. It is suggested that section A to B is constructed initially and section B to existing Valley Mill Road in place by the issuance of the 150th building permit. The timing of any development of this site should reflect the timing of the improvements provided for with the original Haggerty rezoning. This should be addressed in the proffer statement. All roads in the Haggerty project should be accepted into the State System before any building permits are issued for construction in this project. Other recent rezoning projects have contributed additional funding for transportation improvements in the general area of their requests. This has been done in recognition of the need to address the broader transportation improvements in the developing areas of the County in addition to the specific improve.nents they may be proposing. Such ail approach should be considered with this request relative with the scale of this request. Previously, the application had proposed a $3,000 per single family attached dwelling and $5,000 per single family detached dwelling monetary contribution that was to be utilized for road improvements to alleviate transportation problems in the general vicinity of the property. At that time, the Applicant's transportation program was considered insufficient in addressing the transportation impacts of the project and furthering the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Opequon Crossing — Rezoning Comments March 12, 2009 Page 3 The monetary transportation proffer has been significantly reduced from that proposed with the original submission of this request ($1,000 per single family attached dwelling and $2,000 per single family detached dwelling). At the same time, no additional transportation improvements have been proposed. Rather, the improvements appear to have been minimized. Staff would maintain that the Applicant's transportation program is insufficient in addressing the transportation impacts of the project and furthering the transportation goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Inter parcel connectivity should be provided with this application. Particular recognition must be provided for the adjacent properties with approved master planned roads that connect to this property. Please identify any opportunities for such connections to the south west and west of this site including additional connectivity to the Twin Lakes project. Bike and pedestrian accommodations should be a consideration with this request and key connections should be identified with the rezoning and GDP rather than later at the MDP stage. The following additional transportation TIA-related comments are provided by Mr. Bishop, Frederick County Transportation Planner. Aside from a right-of-way dedication, this proposal does not address the Eastern Road Plan connection to Valley Mill Drive. It is important to recognize that the Eastern Road Plan needs to be implemented in this area in order to create a sustainable transportation network. Accessing Route 7 as the only means for residents of this development to reach goods and services degrades the function of Route 7 as an Arterial highway. The proffer of $1,000 per multi family unit and $2,000 per single family unit is well below the standards which have previously been followed for offsetting transportation impacts in Frederick County. While I recognize and empathize with the challenges of today's market, those challenges do not lessen the impact of new residential development on Frederick County roadways. The results of the TIA's study of the intersection with Route 7 do not alleviate my concerns about the impacts to Route 7 as it approaches I-81. Due to the distances involved, it was deemed excessive to have this development scope their traffic impacts that far. However, it is clear from what is being proposed that that congested area is where the residents of this development will need to go for Opequon Crossing — Rezoning Comments March 12, 2009 Page 4 goods and services, thus adding to a traffic situation that is already unacceptable. Please consider this issue when reviewing the points above. Proffer Statement. The Generalized Development Plan could be utilized to a greater extent to better describe the project and to address the various considerations that may be forthcoming from the review agencies, including those identified in this memorandum. The recreational building identified in the proffer statement should be defined in terms of size, use, and resources associated with it and its construction should be further guaranteed with the first phase of development. Other. It would be appropriate for the application to more thoroughly address the preservation of the existing tree lines and wooded areas, the integrity of the pond, and the other environmental open spaces, as a greater consideration of this application and as part of the proffer statement. Such features could be promoted as features on the GDP. At a minimum, the area in wetlands, lakes, and ponds should be determined at this time. Incorporating the existing pond low impact site development techniques into the design of the project should also be addressed. The Adams House may also be a feature that could be incorporated into the design of the project; architecturally or as part of the open space and recreation facility. Once again, please ensure that all review agency comments are adequately addressed. MTR/bad Patton Harris Rust & Associates Erigineeis. Surveyors. Planners. landscape Architects. i SEP 2 5 2009 n 25 September 2009 Mr. Michael Ruddy Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 N Kent St, Suite 202 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Opequon Crossing Rezoning Application; Response to Comments R ilk Dear Mike, AH To accompany the application submission for the Gpequon Crossing rezoning, I have CORPORATE: provided below a response to all comments made by review agencies. Our responses Chantilly are as follows: VIRGINIA OFFICES: Chantilly PlrwiviveavdDe�l )Went(Mike Ruddy, A.ICP) Charlottesville Fredericksburg General Harrisonburg Leesburg 1. The application should be corrected to reflect theproposed Zoning on the property. Newport News Norfolk Application has been revised accordingly. Winchester Woodbridge Land Use LABORATORIES: 1. The pmpery is located in the UDA and SWSA and the proper* is in an area that is planned Chantilly for residential development. The request is in general conformance with the Eastern Frederick Fredericksburg County Long Range Land Use Plan which identes locations of future land uses. MARYLAND OFFICES: Bo lti more Acknowledged. Columbia Frederick TraWortation Germantown 1. Primary access should be consistent with and further the approved Frederick County Eastern Hollywood Road Plan. This rezoning application should reflect the comprehensive* planned road network Hunt valley Williamsport and the adjacent projects' implementation of this road network. The Coun*s Eastern Road Plan in the vicinity of this project identifies the location of Valley Mill Road as a major collector PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE: road ("/� � 4D)' Allentown T 540.667.21 39 The portion of Valley Mill Road relocated that is proposed for construction by the F 540.665.0493 Applicant is proffered to be designed as a U4D roadway. The alignment of the 1 17 East Piccadilly Street relocated Valley Mill Road and right of way reservation area is in accordance with 2 Suite 00 Suite 20 er, va the Frederick County Eastern Road Plan. �es22601 2. The project narrative discussing site access makes no mention of using or advancing the long range transportation improvement to Valley Mill Road which is planned collector road ystem in the vicinity of the pr ject should be a greater consideration. Without such a connection, all development related traffic, including school traffic, would be forced to use Route 7 to access locations east of this project. This application should avoid placing traffic on Eddy s Lane. Traffic may ultimately use the unimproved Eddy s Lane, existing Valley Mill Drive connection with Route 7, and the one lane bridge. The applicant has proffered to construct relocated Valley Mill Road within the Property limits to the extent possible without offsite grading easements. The remaining portion of relocated Valley Mill Road is accommodated on the Property with a right of way reservation. As such, the Applicant has incorporated the Eastern Road Plan to the extent possible within the Property boundaries. To reach existing Valley Mill Road would require going through an adjacent property that is not owned by the Applicant. The Eddys lane connection is seen as a secondary access point as the main traffic movement of the Haggerty Spine Road/Route 7. Assuming all traffic uses the Route 7 access point, the intersection will still function with an overall LOS B. 3. A;y right-of-way dedication should accommodate the right-of-way for its ultimate construction, and any necessary grading and other easements should be provided for. This project is located within the Urban Development Area and all roads should be built with an urban typical section. Construction of the four lane section is warranted. An alternative approach may be to provide a two lane connection of the ultimate section from point A toexisting Valley Mill Road. Any section of Valley Mill Road on the properly should be in place with the initial phase of construction. It is suggested that section A to B is constructed initially and section B to existing Valley Mill Road in place by the issuance of the 150`h building permit. The revised proffer provides for construction of two lanes of a U41) roadway from Point A to Point B .prior to issuance of the 100t' building permit (which is at just 30% buildout). It is important to note again that the Applicant only owns to Point C and thus is implementing the long range transportation plan to the extent possible within the Property boundary. 4. The timing of any development of this .rite should reflect the timing of the improvements provided or with the Haggerty rezoning. This should be addressed in the proffer statement. All roads in the Haggerty pr ject should be accepted into the State System before any building permits are issued for construction in this project. The Applicant has proffered that the project must have access via the Haggerty Transportation network and that the Haggerty "Spine" Road must be completed per the Haggerty Proffers before issuance of the first building permit. This allows for a logical progression of development and ensures the key components of the Haggerty Rezoning are in place before development begins on Opequon Crossing. 5. Other recent rezoning prjeds have contributed additional funding for transportation improvements in the general area of their requests This has been done in recognition of the need to address the broader transportation improvements in the developing areas of the County in addition to the specific improvements they may be proposing. Such an approach should be considered with this request relative with the scale of this request. The proposed proffer statement has provided for a monetary contribution in the amount of $2,000 per detached dwelling unit and $1,000 per attached dwelling unit. This would total $480,000 at project build out and would be provided to address transportation improvements for Frederick County. 6. Previously, the application had proposed $3,000 per single famiy attached dwelling and X5,000 per single family detached dwelling monetary contribution that zeas to be utili"'ed for road improvements to alleviate transportation problems in the general vicinity of the property. At that time, the Applicants transportation program was considered insufficient in addressing the transportation impacts of the project and furthering the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The monetary transportation proffer has been significantly reduced from that proposed with the original submission of this request ($1,000 per single family attached dwelling and x'2,000 per single family detached dwelling). At the same time, no additional transportation improvements have been proposed. Rather, the improvements appear to have been minimied. As the traffic study indicates that a Level of Service B is achieved at the intersection of Route 7 and the Haggerty "Spine" Road, it would appear that the Application is within the Level of Service threshold advised by the Comprehensive Plan. The monetary contribution proffered is the Applicant's attempt to aid the County in addressing other transportation concerns for broader transportation improvements. 7. Staff would maintain that the Applicants transportation is insufficient in addressing the transportation impacts of the project and furthering the transportation goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Again, the primary entrance to the site which is located at the intersection of a Major Collector and Arterial Roadway will operate within the Level of Service recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan. With an additional cash proffer provided in addition, we feel the Applicant has adequately addressed any transportation impacts resulting from the rezoning. R. Interparcel connectivity should be provided with this application. Particular recognition must be provided for the adiacent properties with approved master planned roads that connect to this property. Please identiany opportunities for such connections to the south west and west of this site including additional connectivity to the Twin Lakes pr ject. The proffer statement accommodates the planned interparcel connector at Eddys Lane shown as part of the approved Twin Lakes Master Plan. Additionally, the Applicant has provided for a reserve area to provide for an interparcel connection to the adjacent Fieldstone Property to the west of the site. The Fieldstone Development has approved design plans that include no interparcel connections so the use of this connection would be at the discretion of the Fieldstone Development owners, 9. Bike and pedestrian accommodations should be a consideration with this request and key connections should be identified with the re -Zoning and GDP rather than later at the MDP stage. The proffer statement ensures that the hiker/biker trail will be provided along, at minimum, relocated Valley Mill Road and Eddys Lane which ensures connectivity with the planned trail system included as part of the Haggerty and Twin Lakes projects. The following additional transportation TIA-related comments are provided by Mr. Bishop, Frederick County Transportation Planner. Aside from a right -of way dedication, tbis proposal does not address the Eastern Road Plan connection to Valley Mill Drive. It is important to recognise that the Eastern Koad Plan needs to be implemented in this area in order to create a sustainable transportation network. Accessing Route 7 as the only means for residents of this development to reach goods and services degrades the function of Route 7 as an Arterial highway. The Applicant is implementing the Eastern Road Plan. As the adjacent Property has yet to be rezoned to RP (as planned by the Comprehensive Plan) and is the lone remaining link for Valley Mill Road relocated, we feel that implementation of this portion of the portion of the roadway would be a responsibility of any application for the adjacent Property. 2. The proffer of $1,000 per multi family unit and x`2,000 per single famiy unit is well below the standards which have previously been followed for offsetting transportation impacts in Frederick County. While I recognize and empathize with the challenges of today's market, those challenges do not lessen the impact of new residential development on Frederick County roadways. The application maintains a Level of Service B at the primary access point. Rezonmgs should be evaluated on a case by case basis on what should be expected to mitigate the impacts of each particular rezoning. In the case of Opequon Crossing, we feel our high LOS combined with a nearly half million dollar monetarvnrnff,-r,-ffectivelvmitioatPc ani7imnactc associated with the rerniact 3. The results of the TIA's study of the intersection with Route 7 do not alleviate my concerns about the impacts to Route 7 as it approaches I-81. Due to the distances involved, it was deemed excessive to have this development scope their traff c impacts that far. However, it is clear from what is being proposed that that congested area is where the residents of this development will need to go forgoods and services, thus adding to a traffic situation that' s already unacceptable. Please consider this issue when reviewing the points above. We feel the monetary proffer could be used to address the off-site impacts of the �J + rezoning, whether the proffer monies are geared toward Route 7 improvements or H- implementation of the off-site portions of Valley Mill Road relocated. Proo%r Statement 1. The Generali -Zed Development Plan could be utili,,ed to a greater extent to better describe the pr iect and to address the various considerations that may be forthcoming from the review agencies, including those identified in this memorandum. The GDP shows all relevant proffered conditions and the relationship between Opequon Crossing and the adjacent Haggerty Property. 2. The recreational building identified in the proffer statement should be defined in terms of si.Ze, use, and resources associated with it and its construction should be further guaranteed with the first phase of development. The recreation building is proffered to be constructed prior to 50% development of the site. The size, use, and resources would be better defined at the MDP or SDP stage of development when a builder is online for construction of the project. The value of the recreation building is dictated by County Ordinance, thus ensuring that the end product will be appropriate for the development. Other 1. It would be appropriate for the application to more thoroughly address the preservation of the existing tree lines and wooded areas, the integrity of the pond, and the other environmental open spaces, as a greater consideration of this application and as part of the proffer statement. Such features could be promoted as features on the GDP. The existing farm pond is not of extremely high quality. Further, land disturbance of the site would be kept to a minimum as part of the design of the project to ensure development costs are not excessive. As a final design is not yet complete, it would be difficult to designate exact areas of non disturbance or preservation at this time. 2. At a minimum, the area in wetlands, lakes, and ponds should be determined at this time. Incorporating the existing pond low impact site development tecbniques into the design of the project should also be addressed. By ordinance, environmental features are defined at the time of the MDP. The Impact Statement does provide a narrative for environmental features which addresses all items listed in the comment with the exception of wetlands which will be depicted on any future MDP. 3. The Adams House may also be a feature that could be incorporated into the design of the pr ject; architecturally or as part of the open space and recreation facility. The Adams House will be documented in accordance with suggestion from the HRAB, but will not be kept as part of the final development. Virrini aD ltment o Traasport ttion (Greg Hoffman) The analyst coded the Syncbro files assuming a 45 mph speed limit for route 7, but our database shows the speed limit as 55 mph. At 55 mph, the Department would not likely allow a permissive left turn movement. Coding the movement as Protected and raising the travel speed to 55 mph, degrades the LOS, therefore requiring additional mitigation. Wle suggest eh following turn lane configurations at the Route 7/Haggerty intersection: IAB (1 left, 2 thru), EB (2 thru, 1 right), NB (1 left, 1 right). The advised turn lane improvements were included as part of the approved plans for the Haggerty "Spine" Road. To ensure these improvements are in place, the lane configuration has been proffered. Additionally, an updated exhibit provided at the end of the TIA indicates that with these lane improvements, the intersection operates at an overall LOS B at build -out. 2. A turn lane analysis should be conducted as Haggerty Dr./Site Drive 2. As no thru connection for the Spine Road will be in place south of Site Drive 2 as part of development of the project, no eastbound vehicles on site drive # 2 (relocated Valley Mill Road) would turn right onto the Spine Road. Instead, all vehicles will be left turn movements as indicated in the M. 3. An alternate roadway connection (either through a new Valley Mill Road or Fieldstone, Section 2/Channing Drive connection) is needed for this development to access areas west and south. Without this alternate roadway connection, all tri�is ;rill be forced to use Primary Route 7 back to Wlinchester to access schools, shopping, etc. The existing single lane bridge on Valley Mill Load will not accommodate increased traffic flow. This single -lane bridge structure will be dcult to upgrade) replace due to right-of-way, historical and environmental concerns The Applicant met with the Fieldstone Development owners but no agreement could be reached to provide for a connection through Fieldstone to Channing Drive. Additionally, a connection to existing Valley Mill Road would not be cost PTfeasible with the number of units proposed as part of this development. 4. Due to the close proximiy to Northern Virginia, there is a public need for a park and ride facility in this area. This development will certainly increase the need for park and ride commuters. Dedicated rzgbt-of-way andl or monetary contributions should be considered for a park and ride facility. The proposed monetary contribution could be used for a park and ride facility if so desired. 5. Interparcel roadway connections should be provided to adjacentproperties. Inter -parcel roadway connections are provided to properties in all directions of the site. 6. Future Valley Mill Road connection from intersections requiring right turn lanes. A requires a minimum of 700' of right-of-way. Point B to Point C is not mentioned in the UD4 with right tura lanes, without sidewalk, The revised proffer allows for the right of way for Future Valley Mill Road to be expanded to 100' where necessary for turn lanes as determined by VDOT. nclaesterRe-io(Serena X Manuel) Neither the location or the elevation of this site requires a 7460-1 to be filed with the Federal Aviation Administration, however it does lie within the air space of the VinchesterAirport Due to its proximity to the airport, propeqy owners may experience aircraft fly -over noise from aircraft entering into or departing the flight pattern from the Noatb. Special considerations will not be requested by the Wlincbester Regional Airpori Acknowledged. Frederick CountyAttorney (Roderick ililliams) 1. The application, item 10, erroneously states that the rezoning is from PA to B2. R would appear thatyou will want to correct this before submission of any final revised form of the application. Also, of course, any revised form of the application and the power of attorney will need to be signed. The Application form has been revised accordingly. All required signatures have been provided. 2. Proffers 2.1 dam' 2.2 — Staff will want to be aware that the proposed phasing limits are cumulative and therefore will only limit the maximum rate of development of the Properly for the first three t-Ayears after the re.Zoning. Thereafter, in theory, nothing would prevent development of the entire Property within a much shorter timeframe to the extent that development is not completed within the first threeyears Acknowledged, though it is unlikely that the Property would develop in less than three years as development will be dictated by market demands. 3. Proffer 3.1 — In order to avoid any potential ambiguity, the Proffer might identifil the number of relevant dwelling units for which the recreation building is intended to meet the recreation unit requirement. Also, the Proffer should state that the recreation building shall be constructed prior to the issuance of the indicated cumulative number of building permits or before the time required by County Code f 165-64, if sooner. Finally, the Proffer might provide more clarity by describing the side and scale of the recreation building. Section 165-64 dictates which units must use the recreation building requirement so this will be determined further in the design process. The proffer also includes a trigger of the 150` building permit for the latest the recreation building could be constructed. The size and scale of the recreation building would be better defined later in the process when we know the exact number of units that the recreation building is applicable. 4. Proffer 3.6 — The Proffer does not provide any real specificity as to the particulars of the trail system and therefore, among other things, makes it difficult to ascertain exactly how extensive the trail system will be. Also, while the language in the second introductory paragraph of the Proffers explains that improvements will be provided at the time of development of the adjacent portion of the Properly, the lack of specificity as to the trail system likewise makes it difficult to ascertain whatportions of the trail ystem will be in place at what time. The revised proffer specifies the areas where the trails will be constructed, at minimum and also ties construction of the trail to construction of the adjacent roadways which are triggered at different building permits. S. Proffer 7.2 — In lines 1 and 2, `an HOA "might better read as "the HOA ". Proffer revised accordingly. 6. Proffer 7.3 — The Proffers, read as a whole, do not provide indication as to when the Applicant will make the initial lump sum payment. Also, the Proffer er might clarify whether the $100.00 per lot payment is due only in connection with the initial purchase of each lot or is also due upon each subsequent resale of a lot. Proffer revised to clarify time of initial lump sum payment and that the $100.00 per lot payment is made upon initial sale of each lot. ` 7. Proffers 9.1-9.4 — These Proffers involve land use activities on other properties. Staff will want to review these Proffers with respect to other developments in the area. Also, it would appear that Proffer 91.4 cannot be sat4ed without at least some of the improvements in Proffers 9.2 & 9.3 being completed. Staff may wish to look closely at the interplay among Proffers 9.2-9.4, including whether any modifications to Proffers 9.2 & 9.3 would be appropriate. Acknowledged. S. Proffer 9.3 — If the Applicant intends to dedicate the right -of way for the portions of Eddys Lane traversing the property, the Proffer should so provide. Proffer revised accordingly. 9. Proffer 9.4 — It appears from the GDP that a small segment of the `Haggerl0 Connection" will exist to the east of the extended Eddys Lane. If the Applicant intends to dedicate right-of-way for this segment, the Proffer should so provide. Proffer revised accordingly. 10. Proffer 10.1 — Staff will want to be aware that the Proffer calls only for the ultimate identification of historic resources and does not address any means for the actual protection of any historic resources once they are identified. Acknowledged. 11. Proffer 10.2 — Staff will want to determine whether the phrase `Vithin the vicinity of the northern property boundary" requires any greater specificity. Acknowledged. 12. Proffer 11.1 — In the second line, after the closed parenthesis and before "..hall"it appears that "and such portion so dedicated" should he inserted. Proffer revised accordingly. Frederick CountyDel>artmentofPublic Works (Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P. E.) The revised rezoning application dated February 23, 2009 has adequately addressed our previous comments. Wl'e anticipate that any future master development plans will include a wetlands analysis and a detailed discussion of a proposed stormwater management plan. Acknowledged. Frederick Counth-e EaNe ffrey Neal) PfPA Plan approval recommended. Acknowledged. Frederick County Sanitation fluthority aohn Whitacre) There should be adequate sewer and water capacity to serve this pr ject. Acknowledged. Frederick - W,-achesterffealth Department (Doug Dailey) Health Department has no objection if public water and sewer are provided. Acknowledged. Frederick CountyDe Ifine>ztofParks andRecreation (Matthew Hott) >. Opequon Crossing is proposing a total of 325 dwelling units and would require eleven (11) recreation units. Acknowledged. Rec unit will be further defined at time of MDP. 2. Item 3.1: The Parks and Recreation Department would need to review the design of the recreation building for appropriateness as a "recreation amenity ". Acknowledged. Any plans for the recreation building would be provided to Parks and Recreation for review. 3. Item 3.2 dam' 3.3: Theproffer contribution would appear to meet the Development Impact Model. Acknowledged. 4. Item 3.6.• The trail ystem should provide connectivity to a joining subdivisions, facilities and be consistent with the 2007 1lincbester Frederick County MPO Bicycle/pedestrian network. The trail facility will connect to planned facilities within the Haggerty Property and Twin Lakes. Frederick Countylnspections John Trenary) No comments at this time. Comments sball be made at site plan submittal. Acknowledged. Historic Resources flarvisea-goarad Arcl>itecturalDocumentatiorn• The HRAB felt that there is a need to document and research the historic significance of this property. The HRAB suggested documenting the house and any out buildings for their historical significance, including (but not limited to) researching and identing past owners/occupants, significant application of building materials, and architectural features associated with the time period of construction, etc. The HRAB felt that photographs of the interior and exterior of the buildings should also be taken t visual) document the Adams Farm House. Proffer revised to include architectural documentation. 2. Buffers and Screening.' The HRAB suggested an increased buffer along the shared proper* line with the Valley Mill Farm proper_* (PIN 55-A-165). The HRAB acknowledged the existing woodlands on the Valley Mill Farm property as well as the topography of the area as natural screening but felt that the applicant could provide additional pine trees in this area to hep mitigate the impact of this new development on the view shed of the Valley Mill Farm since it is on both State and national Registers Proffer revised to include a double row of evergreen trees along the northern property boundary to aid in providing a year round screen as advised. 3. Dezelopment Name: Due to the fact that the Back Creek magisterial District of Frederick County already recognies an area as the `Historic Opequon Village" and that the Historic Opequon Village area is indicated in the Comprehensive Policy Plan as a possible historic district, the HRAB felt that the applicant could consider renaming this new development pr jest to maintain the integrity of the potential historic district and eliminate confusion that the new development is a historic area. Project name has been revised to "Opequon Crossing" to ensure there is no confusion with the Historic Opequon Village. Frederick CouwtyPuhlic Schools (K Kayne Lee) 1. The cumulative impact of Ibisproject and otherprjects in various stages of development in eastern Frederick County will necessitate future construction of new schools and support facilities to accommodate increased student enrollment. Wl'e estimate that the 155 single family detached units and 170 single-family attached units in this development will house 43 high school students, 37 middle school students, and 70 elementary school students In order to properly serve these 114 students, Frederick County Public Schools will outlay .$5,546000 in capital expenditures and $1,567,000 annually in operating cost You will find, enclosed with this letter, a more detailed assessment of the impact of this development on FCPS, including attendance Zone information. + Acknowledged. 2. Wle note the proffered amounts of $20,265 per single-family detached unit and ,$14,268 per single family attached unit, which match the M rent development impact mode/ bank-', These values have been revised to $18,494 and $13,033, respectively, in accordance with the revised impact model adopted by Frederick County on June 24, 2009. 3. In this area of the county, we use the larger transit buses with a student capacity of 78. Wle are strong concerned about the connection of Haggerty Boulevard to Route 7. For safety, that connection needs to be either signalised or have a crossover capable of providing refuge for a transit bus. Our concern stems from the heavy volume of high-speed traffic currently on Route 7, particularly during the morning rush hour, which poses a significant safety issue for buses running from existing housing to existing schools. The location of the Haggerty Boulevard intersection in Berryville Canyon across from the Route 37 ramps could compound the problem with sight distance issues and a complex environment for drivers to interpret. The intersection of Haggerty Boulevard will be signalized and include turn lanes which ensures all traffic using the intersection, including buses, can travel safely through the intersection. I hope that these responses aid in the review of the application by Frederick County Staff as well as the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. If you have any questions or would like to discuss further, please feel free to call me at (540) 667-2139. Sincerely, PATTON HARRIS RUST & ASSOCIATES Patrick R- Sowers, AICP PRS/ld Enclosure Patton Harris Rust & Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. P +� CORPORATE: Chantilly VIRGINIA OFFICES: Bridgewater Chantilly Charlottesville Fredericksburg Leesburg Newport News Virginia Beach Winchester Woodbridge LABORATORIES: Chantilly Fredericksburg MARYLAND OFFICES: Baltimore Columbia Frederick Germantown Hollywood Hunt Valley Williamsport PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE: Allentown WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE: Martinsburg T 540,667.2139 F 540.665.0493 1 17 East Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 November 2, 2007 �.i1r. Michael R-addy Planning and Development Frederick County, Virginia 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Opequon Crossing Rezoning Application Dear Mike: On behalf of my client, I would like to formally request postponement of the Opequon Crossing rezoning application (RZ# 12-07) scheduled for a public hearing at the November 7, 2007 Planning Commission to allow time to revise the application. I would request that a timeframe for this postponement not be specified to ensure that the revisions to the application are completed prior to returning to the Planning Commission. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concems. Sincerely, Patton Harris Rus & Associates - Patrick R Sowers COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 JP X; 540160`5-6395 TO: Patrick Sowers FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director RE: Additional Review Points — Villages @ Opequon Rezoning DATE: July 2, 2007 The following points are offered regarding the Villages at Opequon Rezoning application. Please consider them as you continue your work preparing the application for submission to Frederick County. Villages at Opequon, 71.45 acre RP Rezoning — Additional Rezoning Comments Transportation. Primary access should be consistent with and further the approved Frederick County Eastern Road Plan. This rezoning application should reflect the comprehensively planned road network and the adjacent projects implementation of this road network. The County's Eastern Road Plan in the vicinity of this project identifies the relocation of Valley Mill Road as a major collector road. The desired typical section for a major arterial road should be addressed and incorporated into this application. Any right-of-way dedication should accommodate the right-of-way for its ultimate construction. Consideration of the completion of this comprehensively planned collector road system in the vicinity of the project should be a significant consideration. Please refer to the additional transportation TIA-related comments previously provided by Mr. Bishop, Frederick County Transportation Planner. Inter parcel connectivity should be provided with this application. Particular recognition must be provided for the adjacent properties with approved master planned roads that connect to this property. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Villages at Opequon Rezoning — Additional Rezoning Comments July 2, 2007 Page 2 This project is located within the Urban Development Area and all roads should be built with an urban typical section. Proffer Statement. A Generalized Development Plan could be utilized to a greater extent and further incorporated into the proffer statement to better describe the project and to address the various considerations that may be forthcoming from the review agencies. If it is ultimately determined that the transportation approach proposed by the Applicant is acceptable, the applicant should guarantee the improvements to an acceptable level. The reservation areas, reservation parcels, and identified road work reimbursement areas do not provide an acceptable approach to addressing the transportation impacts of this project and the transportation needs of `iris area. The transportation components of the proffer statement must be revisited (Section 12). The proffer statement may be more specific about the housing types permitted. The proffer as written is inconsistent with the application. Proffer 3.1 is extremely problematic and should be eliminated or significantly revised. The expectation should be that any project addresses the recreational facility needs for their particular project as specified in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, and addresses the fiscal impacts identified on the County's parks and recreation system. The wording of the proffers and the administration of the proffered monetary contributions should be in a form acceptable to the County's Attorney. Please find attached to this review the comments provided by the County Attorney. Other. It would be appropriate for the application to more thoroughly address the preservation of the existing tree lines and wooded areas, the integrity of the pond, and the other environmental open spaces, as a greater consideration of this application and as part of the proffer statement. MTR/bad Attachments COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 June 20, 2007 Patton Harris Rust & Associates Attn: Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: County Transportation Planner Comment on the Preliminary Rezoning Application for the Village at Opequon Dear Mr. Sowers: As the Transportation Planner for Frederick County, VA in which the proposed rezoning is located, I have reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis and Rezoning Application for the Village at Opequon. While I understand that a number of land use actions are pending in that area that will likely impact this application, I must limit my comments to what has been submitted as of this time. I look forward to reviewing an updated application should one be submitted. In the meantime, I have the following comments and concerns to point out regarding this application package: Traffic Impact Analysis 1. The TIA does not include a signed copy of the VDOT scoping sheet. This document aids the County in review of the TIA by detailing what is agreed upon at that scoping session. 2. Staff experience with VDOT has been that Synchro has been required for TIAs in this region; is there a particular reason that HCS+ was used for this particular TIA? 3. Build out year for this development is stated as 2007. As of the date of this review, 2007 is nearly half over and this property does not have the zoning required for the proposed development. Lack of proper build out year in the analysis will impact the results of the study by rendering them less accurate. 4. Page three of the TIA shows Berryville Pike traffic to be 26,170 vehicles per day; however, 2005 VDOT projections indicate traffic for this roadway to be 32,000 vpd. This is a significant difference that should be addressed in some form. 5. No traffic is considered from Eddy's lane. Please address. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Patrick Sowers RE: County Transportation Planner Comment on the Preliminary Rezoning Application for the Village at Opequon. Jure 2.0, 2007 Page 2 6. An urban peak hour factor of 0.95 was used for this analysis. This rural area justifies no more than 0.88. This difference likely impacts the true levels of service. Please adjust. In summary, the traffic impact analysis, in its current state, is in need of updating and correction to enable a proper view of the impacts. Rezoning AIication/Proffers Regarding Proffer 12. 1, the proffer actually states that the applicant will proffer $3,000 per unit at the time of building permit issuance while the application states that $3,000 per attached and $5,000 per detached is being proffered. Though I understand that there is a desire to build out this property quickly, nothing guarantees that, and an escalator clause should be considered. In addition, though the single family attached units generate 87% of the traffic that a single family detached unit generates, just 60% of the detached amount is being proffered for attached units. 2. The remainder of the proffers appear to be concerned with limiting the use of roadways built by the applicant by Eddy's Lane properties that may be developed and trying to obtain funds from those Eddy's Lane properties should they be developed. These proffers are inappropriate, and any transportation contributions made by Eddy's Lane properties that may develop should be paid to the County andlor VDOT to offset their impacts and not to this applicant to offset their proffers. These proffers set up a spite strip. 3. The application does not accurately reflect the Valley Mill extension as it approaches Abrams Creek or the Haggerty Property. 4. The application and TIA rely on Route 7 for all local traffic. As Route 7 is an arterial roadway, this is not appropriate. Additional east west access is needed and provided via the Valley Mill extension. In summary, it appears that the transportation proffers shown here are significantly inferior to what was proffered with the Haggerty rezoning. The submitted proffers fail to mitigate impacts projected by the TIA and that is with"a TIA that fails to properly model background traffic, or the flow of traffic created by this proposed development. Patrick Sowers RE: County Transportation Planner Comment on the Preliminary Rezoning Application for the Village at Opequon. June 209 2007 Page 3 Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this review further, please contact the case planner, Mr. Mike Ruddy and we can arrange a meeting which I will be happy to attend. Sincerely, f� John A. Bishop, AICP Transportation Planner CC: Dave Holliday Lloyd Ingram, VDOT Jerry Copp, VDOT Rezoning Request REZ # 12 - 07 70 acres RA to RP (325 residences) PIN: 55 - A - 210 Current Zoning Map Case Planner: MRladdy .-Fut11eRl0713ypass Zoning 40B3(Business, IndurlrialTxnsilivn District) C_ N"(Industrial, Ught Disfiia) 4WAIS (Alcdical5uppvrt District) (D Q REZ120] Opeg4onCrossing 092809 BI (Business, NeigbM1orbovd Dutrict) EM1I (ExDacfive bfanufacfuring Dtslricl) bn (Indusfrivl, District) Rd (Residential Planned Community District) District) RP(Reridwtial • CGG2 U'b Drveln pmenfAxa BE (Buri."".,Grnenl Disfrisf) � }[E (Rigber Edurnfivn Dirtrict) � ADII(Alobile Flume Community Disfricf)tiS R5(Iteridenitvl Rvereafivnal Cvnrn�wlly District) Pn4armanee District) `Gly K ��N/ '. S SA W �• w E 0 250 500 1,000 Feet c4'� S F - Doc io,ni (I-. I. --:b.•. ISI" ,,. ,"'_ 1:1 ;707 O'VS 100nCf0,Nn1: PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ. # 4 `b Rural Areas (RA) to Residential Performance (RP) PROPERTY: 70.15+/ - Tax Map Parcel 55-A-210 (the "Property") RECORD OWNER: The Canyon, LC APPLICANT: The Canyon, LC PROJECT NAME: Opequon Crossing ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: April 10, 2007 REVISION DATE(S): 6/28/07; 8/27/07; 10/10/07; 6/16/08; 11/16/08; 12/5/08; 2/23/09; 9/24/09 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made or submitted, prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced RP conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as the rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan", shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, Opequon Crossing" dated April 10, 2007 revised September 15, 2009 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following: Page 1 of 8 1. LAND USE 1.1 No more than 325 dwelling units shall be constructed on the property. A maximum of 170 of the residential dwelling units constructed on the Property may be single family attached dwelling units. Multi -family dwelling units shall be prohibited. 1.2 The project shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the Generalized Development Plan provided that minor modifications are permitted during the Master Development Plan and final engineering process. 2. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND PLAN APPROVALS. 2.1 Construction of the 325 residential dwelling units shall be phased over a three-year period commencing with the date of final rezoning (DFR). The Applicant shall not make application for more than 109 building permits for residential dwelling units for each 12 month period following the DFR. 2.3 The above referenced phasing limitations shall be cumulative. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in these Proffers, should market conditions dictate a slower pace of construction of the residential dwelling units on the Property, the time schedule for total build out of the Property may exceed three years. 3. PARKS AND RECREATION: 3.1 The Applicant shall design and build a recreation building in the area designated on the GDP. Said recreation building shall be constructed prior to issuance of the 150th building permit and shall count towards and comply with the recreation unit requirement for the Property as specified by Section 165-64 of the Frederick County Code. Other recreation amenities shall be further defined at time of Master Development Plan. 3.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County the sum of $1,970 per single- family detached unit for parks and recreation purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit. 3.3 The Applicant shall contribute to the County the sum of $1,507 per single family attached unit for parks and recreation purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family attached unit. 3.4 The recreation building shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association ("HOA") for the Property. Page 2 of 8 3.5 Use of the recreation building shall be made available to the residents of the adjacent Haggerty Property Subdivision provided the residents contribute on a pro rata basis toward operation and maintenance of the facility. 3.6 A trail system utilizing a 10' wide asphalt surface constructed to VDOT standards shall be incorporated into the design of the Property and shall be depicted on the Master Development Plan. Said trail system shall be provided, at minimum, along the proposed East-West Collector Road provided per Proffer 9.2 as well as the extension of Eddys Lane to connect with the adjacent Twin Lakes development to the South and shall be installed concurrent with construction of those roadways. FIRE & RESCUE: 4.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the County the sum of $713 per single family detached dwelling unit for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit. 4.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County the sum of $529 per single family attached dwelling unit for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family attached unit. 5. SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION: 5.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the County the sum of $18,494 per single family detached dwelling unit for school purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit. 5.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County the sum of $13,033 per single family attached dwelling unit for school purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family attached unit. 6. LIBRARY: 6.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the County the sum of $487 per single family detached dwelling unit for library purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit. 6.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County the sum of $372 per single family attached dwelling unit for library purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family attached unit. Page 3 of 8 7. CREATION OF HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION: 7.1 The residential development shall be made subject to an HOA that shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of all common areas, including but not limited to the recreation building, excluding any conservation areas that may be established in accordance herewith which are specifically dedicated to Frederick County (the "County") or others. For each area subject to their jurisdiction, the HOA shall be granted such responsibilities, duties and powers as are customary for such associations or as may be required for such HOA herein. 7.2 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, the HOA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all common open areas not otherwise dedicated to public use including stormwater management facilities, (ii) common buffer areas located outside of residential lots; (iii) establishing and managing a common solid waste disposal program; (iv) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any perimeter or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be located within easements to be granted to the HOA if platted within residential or other lots, or otherwise granted to the HOA by appropriate instrument and (v) responsibility for payment for maintenance of streetlights. 7.3 The Applicants hereby proffer to establish a start-up fund for the Opequon Crossing Homeowner's Association (OCHOA) that will include an initial lump sum payment of $2,500.00 by the Applicant prior to the initial closing for any platted lot purchased and an additional payment of $100.00 by the homeowners at the initial closing for each platted lot purchased within the Opequon Crossing community. Language will be incorporated into the OCHOA Declaration of Restrictive Covenant Document and Deed of Dedication that ensures the availability of these funds to the OCHOA prior to the transfer of ownership and maintenance responsibility from the applicants to the OCHOA. The start-up funds for the OCHOA shall be made available for the purpose of maintenance of all improvements within the common open space areas, liability insurance, street light assessments, and property management and/or legal fees. 8. WATER & SEWER: 8.1 The Applicant shall be responsible for connecting the Property to public water and sewer, and for constructing all facilities required for such connection. All water and sewer infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority ("the FCSA"). Page 4of8 9. TRANSPORTATION: 9.1 The Applicant hereby proffers $1000.00 per single family attached dwelling unit and $2000.00 per single family detached dwelling unit in monetary contributions that are to be utilized for design and construction of road improvements to alleviate transportation problems in the general vicinity of the Property. It is expressly understood that the County may be applying to VDOT for revenue sharing funds and that any monies paid may be utilized by the County for that purpose. This monetary contribution shall be provided to Frederick County at the time of building permit issuance for each dwelling unit. 9.2 Within 90 days of receiving written request from Frederick County and VDOT, the Applicant shall dedicate 80 feet of right of way in conformance with the location depicted on the GDP from Point A to Point C for the future relocation of Valley Mill Road. The dedicated right of way width may increase to up to 100 feet where necessary to accommodate turn lanes as determined by VDOT. The alignment of the right of way dedication area shall be in accordance with the planned alignment of future Valley Mill Road per the Frederick County Eastern Road Plan. Prior to issuance of the 100th building permit, the Applicant shall construct the southern two lanes of a U4D roadway from Point A to Point B as depicted on the GDP. 9.3 The Applicant shall dedicate sufficient right of way and construct Eddys Lane to VDOT requirements from the north Property boundary to the south Property boundary as depicted on the GDP from Point A to Point D. Said connection shall be made prior to issuance of the 50th building permit. 9.4 No building permits shall be issued for the Property until such time that the Property has access to Route 7 via the future Haggerty Transportation Network as identified on the GDP. In order to connect with the Haggerty Transportation Network, the Applicant shall dedicate 80 feet of right of way and construct the Southern two lanes of a U41) roadway to connect from the extension of Eddys Lane to the Eastern Property Line as depicted on the GDP. The right of way width may increase to up to 100 feet to accommodate turn lanes as determined by VDOT. Additionally, no building permits shall be issued for the Property until such time that the Haggerty "Spine" Road has been completed to the Southern property line of the adjacent Haggerty Property per Proffer 13.2 for RZ #04-07, "Haggerty Property" as approved by Frederick County on July 25, 2007. Additionally, no building permits shall be issued for the Property until such time that the following improvements are constructed at the intersection of Route 7 and the Haggerty "Spine" Road: signalization, Westbound lanes — 1 left, 2 thru, Eastbound lanes 1 right, 2 thru, Northbound lanes — 1 left, 1 right. Page 5 of 8 9.5 The Applicant shall provide a reserve area that is a maximum of 54 feet in width for a potential future connection between the Property and the adjacent Fieldstone Development to the West. It is expressly understood by the Applicant that approved plans for the Fieldstone Development include no provisions for an interparcel connector and use of the potential interparcel connection area would be at the discretion of the owners of the Fieldstone Development. Within 90 days of receiving written request from Frederick County and VDOT, the Applicant shall dedicate said reservation area in conformance with the location depicted on the GDP. (See 1 on GDP) 10. HISTORIC RESOURCES: 10.1 The Applicant shall complete a survey documenting any historic structures on the Property in general accordance with the guidelines established by the Preliminary Information Form from the Department of Historic Resources. Any documentation created as part of said survey shall be provided to Frederick County Planning Staff and shall be completed prior to demolition of any buildings located on the Property. 10.2 The Applicant shall provide a landscape screen along the Northern Property boundary in the location identified as "Double Row of Evergreen Trees" on the GDP. Said landscape screen shall consist of a landscape easement at least 10 feet in width utilizing a double row of evergreen trees that are a minimum 4 feet in height at time of planting with a minimum 3 trees provided per 10 linear feet. Said improvements shall be bonded or installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any dwellings within the vicinity of the northern property boundary. 11. EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY FROM PROFFERS: 11.1 Any portion of the Property may hereafter be dedicated for public street purposes (or otherwise conveyed to a public entity) and such portion so dedicated shall, upon such dedication, be excluded from the terms and conditions of these Proffers and the remainder of the Property shall continue to be subject to the full force and effect of these proffers. Page 6 of 8 12. ESCALATOR CLAUSE: 12.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement are paid to the Board within 30 months of the approval of this rezoning, applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the a�ciclounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to the Board after 30 months following the approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI -U') published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time of contributions are paid, they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI -U from that date 24 months after the approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI -U to the date the contributions are paid, subject to a cap of 6% per year, non -compounded. SIGNATURES) APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE(S) Page 7 of 8 Respectfully submitted, The Canyon, LC By: Z! ;%f 6� Title:anger STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Ylay of 2 , 2009, by n A cl �d 1161 LJ jq,,l My commission expires: v�9 �Lv a 1• Notary Public i2eia : * / 5,7 q h Y Page 8 of 8 BLUE RIDGE MHP OU- FUTURE U EFUTURE VALLEY MILL CONNECTION VALLEYS ALL s tiK Q OPE ON G \ wwT? ABRAMS R/W RESERVE A FOR FUTLR 4 VALLEY MILLD CONNECTION DOUBL ROW OF CONST CT 2 LANES OF EVERGREEN TREES, C _ – A S ES,T COLLECTOR /0000o0000000'p2 0000000 oo0000- 000000n000000 000000000000000 o O —EDDYS LANE CONNECTION HAGGEkTY —TRANSPORTATION �- METWORK�, i -- HAGGERTY CONNECTION PROJECT ' SITE PROPOSED-Rr;,CREATION � � HAGGERTY CENTER LOCATIBN_ i \_ J f CONNECTION WITH t TWIN LAKES PROPERTY - t TWIN LAKES Patton H a r r i s Rust & Associates GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 O p e q u o n Crossing T 540.667.2139 I JL F 540.665.0493 DATE: 4/10/07 REV: 9/15/09 SCALE: 1 " = 700' OPEUQON CROSSING - IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT SEPTEMBER 2009 The Opequon Crossing Property (the "Property") is ideally situated for residential development. The project, identified by Frederick County records as 55-A-210, totals 70.15 acres of land zoned RA (Rural Areas) and is located at the existing terminus of Eddys Lane in the Red Bud Magisterial District (See Figure 1). The site is wholly within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) of Frederick County and is also identified for residential uses by the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. This rezoning petition seeks to rezone 70.15 acres of land to the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District. The rezoning would result in a high quality development with a mixture of single family attached and detached uses with a maximum of 325 dwelling units constructed over a minimum three year phasing plan. Primary access to the Property will be provided by connection with Route 7 via the Haggerty "Spine" Road approved as part of Rezoning 04-07 for the "Haggerty Property". Secondary access will be provided by a proffered connection with Eddys Lane, which connects with existing Valley Mill Road. The land use surrounding the site is predominantly single family residential, most of which is actively developing. The site is underlain by Martinsburg shale which is well suited for urban residential communities served by public sewer and water. As the Property is within an actively developing area of the UDA and SWSA, the conditional rezoning of the subject site would provide for a well planned community that promotes the goals established by the Comprehensive Policy Plan. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES As depicted by Figure 1, the majority of the surrounding properties are currently developing with single family residential developments. Properties located East, South, and West of the site are currently zoned RP (Residential Performance) with tracts 55-A-165 and 55-4-4A, both zoned RA (Rural Areas) bounding Opequon Crossing to the North (See .Figure 2). A clear division between the intended residential development and the agricultural uses North of the Property is formed by Abrams Creek and its associated floodplain. Additionally, the embankment found along the southern edge of Abrams Creek within the vicinity of the site provides for a significant grade separation that acts as a natural buffer between the existing agricultural use near the Property and the intended residential development of the site. ACCESS AND TRANSPORTATION A traffic impact analysis (TIA) entitled "A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Opequon Crossing," was prepared for this application using composite data collected from other studies in the area as well as actual traffic counts. Using traffic generation figures from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 7`' Edition, the TIA projects that the proposed development will produce 2,658 vehicle trips per day (VPD). The TIA further indicates that existing and planned study area roads and intersections have the capacity to accommodate the trips generated by this project at acceptable and manageable level of service (LOS) conditions with no improvements necessary at any subject area intersections. Impact Analysis Statement — Opequon Crossing q c fil t.rJ; f'=~lJlt•ol �"tl rP.. �'� .''' t't ' PROJECT -�� •., SATE i ' YN„ L. ' ES t4. �' is .�� II•� 1• _ !S �-. .-•JIB LR; Patton Harris Rust & Associates LOCATION MAP FIGURE 1 Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. L 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 O p e q u o n Crossing T 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 1 J�=7 SCALE: 1 " = 1000' DATE: 4/10/07 � � -•a �, rte: r. _ "�� f: - �. :orf}.?.r �■ ; w\e s 17 r +r � e� ■ 1 I T - 2L- k.�� _ ,,� 1, _ ��r�� •x•g. � •�. y �{ SUBJECT , F;Y PROPERTY , - 4f'C' r - �-Lan Patton H arris Rust & Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects- 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 T 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 Ar ',P "w 10`r ZONING CONTEXT I FIGURE 2 Opequon Crossing NOT TO SCALE DATE: 4/10/07 A revised graphic is provided at the end of the TIA showing the level of service for build- out conditions using the lane improvements at Route 7/Haggerty Blvd which will be used as the pimary means of access to Opequon Crossing. The lane improvements shown are included with the approved Haggerty Blvd (Spine Road) plans and would be constructed prior to issuance of any buildi permit -w tr�n Opequon r ossIng and "includes the following: Westbound Rt 7 - 2 thru & 1 left, Eastbound Rt 7 - 2 thru & 1 right, Northbound Haggerty Blvd - 1 left & 1 right. The traffic analysis shows that the intersection will function with an overall Level of Service B with these improvements in place during build -out conditions. Primary access to Opequon Crossing shall be provided by connection to the planned road network for the adjacent Haggerty Property. This transportation network consists of the extension of the East-West collector (Valley Mill Road Relocated) as shown by the Eastern Road Plan that will connect the residential development of the subject Property with the Haggerty "Spine" Road. This connection will afford Opequon Crossing access to Route 7 via the Spine Road (See Figure 3). Additionally, in accordance with the Frederick County Eastern Road Plan, the Applicant has proffered a right of way reserve area to provide for the future extension of the East-West Collector roadway to existing Valley Mill Road as shown on Figure 3. The Applicant has also proffered to construct two lanes of the ultimate urban four lane divided (U4D) cross section for approximately 500 ft within the Property boundary. The road alignment and reserve area shown for the East-West Collector road is in conformance with the alignment depicted by the Eastern Road Plan The Applicant has proffered to extend Eddys Lane through the site to connect the existing terminus at the northern boundary of the Property with the final Phase of the developing Twin Lakes project to the south. The proffered connection to Eddys Lane provides multiple access points for traffic entering and exiting both Opequon Crossing and the Haggerty Property. Additionally, the Applicant has proffered $2,000.00 per single family detached and $1,000 per single family attached dwelling unit for transportation improvements within the vicinity of the site which could facilitate the future Valley Mill Road connection should the off site right of way be acquired in the future. This per unit contribution would total approximately $480,000 which would offset any transportation impacts associated with the proposed development. E NVPRONMENT The Property does not contain conditions that would preclude or substantially hinder development activities. The following table provides an area summary of environmental features: Environmental Features Total Project Area 70.15 Acres Area in Flood Plain 0.00 Acres 0.0% Area in Steep Slopes 0.28 Acres 0.4% Area in Wetlands, Lakes, & Ponds TBD TBD Impact Analysis Statement - Opequon Crossing 2 BLUE RIDGE MHP \/ \ \ 4U1'E \ FUTURE VALLEY MILL <' \ ' i CONNECTION 00 o VALLEY MILL U \ FWSa OPEWON 44. , cc�ti� \ ` "'" W TP AIIPAn�S R/W RESERVE A FOR FUTUR, VALLEY MILL D CONNECTION' CONST CT 2 LANES OF C B AS EST COLLECTOR i` _ EDDYS LANE fes` .;- 4 CONNECTION r HAGGERTY -own --a--TRANSPORTATION NETWORK,, L f N HAGGERTY / CONNECTION PROJECT - \ SITE 1 HAGGERTY CONNECTION WITH,,; TWIN LAKES PROPERTY � 11 TWIN LAKES C7 Patton Harris Rust & Associates TRANSPORTATION PLAN FIGURE 3 Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 I�� S Winchester, Virginia 22601 0 p e q u o n Crossing o.� T 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 SCALE: 1" = 700' DATE: 11/16/08 Figure 4 depicts the environmental features located on the Opequon Crossing site. As depicted, the site drains both North into Abrams Creek and South into the lake within the Twin Lakes Subdivision before flowing into an un -named stream channel. Both Abrams Creek and the unidentified stream channel then direct the flow of water East into Opequon Creek. A small, man-made pond is situated on the Eastern portion of the site. This pond will not pose any issues for the intended residential development program The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Weikert-Berks-Blairton soil association. The predominant soil types on the site are Berks channery silt loams, 7 to 15 percent slopes (map symbol 1C), Weikert-Berks channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes (map symbol 41D) and Weikert-Berks channery silt loam, 25 to 65 percent slopes (map symbol 41E) as shown on map sheet number 37 of the survey. This soil type is not considered prime farmland as indicated by the Comprehensive Plan. The characteristics of this soil type and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. The site has a high elevation of 650 feet and a low elevation approaching 560 feet. Only a small portion of the site contains steep slopes as defined by the Zoning Ordiance (50%). Much of the area containing moderate slopes of 25%-50% would be incorporated into the required open space for the project to maintain the integrity of the natural drainage channels that exist on site. Flood plain data for the subject parcels is delineated on the Flood Insurance Study Map for Frederick County prepared by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Community Panel # 510063-0120B, effective date July 17, 1978. The entire site is located in Flood Zone C, which denotes areas of minimal flooding outside of the 100 -year flood plain. Portions of the 100 year flood plain associated with Abrams Creek are located in close proximity to the Property's northern boundary. Any wetlands that exist on the site would be identified during the Master Plan phase of development. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND WATER SUPPLY The proposed Haggerty site sewerage conveyance system is being designed to handle the flows generated by Opequon Crossing. As such, sewer flows would be conveyed to the Opequon Waste Water Treatment Plant by connection to this planned system Using a standard rate of 200 gallons per day/dwelling unit it is projected that the proposed development would produce approximately 65,000 gallons per day of sewer flow. Water supply will be provided by way of a 12" water main connecting through the Haggerty project. Water usage of the project would be roughly equivalent to its sewer flows of 65,000 gallons per day. The water system will be designed to provide adequate pressure for potable water service and fire fighting services. Impact Analysis Statement — Opequon Crossing l a 1 i I I ABRAMS i STEEP SLOPES j 50%+ EXISTING FARM / BUILDINGS } b EXISTING - / POND Patton Harris Rust & Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 T 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 L-1 ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES FIGURE 4 Opequon Crossing SCALE: 1 " = 400' 1 DATE: 4/10/07 SOLID WASTE n(- following table shows a proiection of solid waste generation as a part of this project. Unit T e Units Waste Generation Total Waste (lbs) Single Family Detached 155 12 lbs/day 1,860 Single Family Attached 170 9 lbs/day 1,530 Total 3,390 Proffered curbside pick-up will be an improvement to solid waste issues associated with increased dumpster use in the County. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES Figure 5 identifies historic structures located within the vicinity of the site. Each of the identified structures is identified as not potentially significant by the Frederick Coq= Rural Landmarks Survey with the exception of Valley Mill Farm which was included in the Virginia Landmarks Register in 2005 and the Natioinal Register of Historic Places in 2006. The existing, vacant farm house on the site, identified as structure 34-397, is the "Adams House" (See Figure 6). Pursuant to the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, the subject site is not included in any battlefield study area and does not contain any core battlefield resources. The Applicant met with the Hstoric Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) on January 13, 2009 to present the revised proffer package which addressed each comment previously provided by the HRAB in 2007. The proposed proffer package includes additional screening adjacent to Valley Mill Farm, conunitment to documentation of the existing structures on the Property. The name of the application was also changed from "Village at Opequon" to "Opequon Crossing" to ensure that the project name did not conflict with the existing historic Opequon Village located in the Back Creek District. impACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES The proposed development will have a scheduled and measured impact on community facilities. In addition to monetary proffers in accordance with the latest Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model, the Applicant has proffered additional funds ($2,000 per single family detached unit and $1,000 per single family attached unit) for transportation improvements. The applicant has offered the following monetary contributions to mitigate the impacts of this development: Single Family Detached Single Family Attached • Fire and Rescue: ■ Library. ■ Parks and Recreation: ■ School Construction: ■ Transportation: TOTAL: $713.00 per unit $487.00 per unit $1,970.00 per unit $18,494.00 per unit $2,000.00 per unit $23,664.00 per unit Impact Analysis Statement — Opequon Crossing 4 $529.00 per unit $372.00 per unit $1,507.00 per unit $13,033.00 per unit $1,000.00 per unit $16,441.00 per unit I� �~ "S4. S�,k I �7 Patton Harris Rust & Associates ADAMS HOUSE (34-397) FIGURE 6 Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 r -'l TR+A T 540.667.2139 Winchester, Virginia 22601 O p e q u o n Crossing F 540.665.0493 DATE: 5/2/07 A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Opequ®n Crossing Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: Wayne L. Hill The Ryland Group, Inc. Washington Division 4100 Monument Comer Drive Fairfax, VA 22030 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 10212 Governor Lane Boulevard Suite 1007 WHilliamsport, Maryland 21795 T 301.223.4010 • F 301.223.6831 4 November 18, 2008 OVERVIEW Report Summary Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR+A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Opequon Crossing development located along the south side of Route 7 (Berryville Pike), east of Valley Mill Road, in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed project will include 155 single-family detached units and 170 townhouse units. Access will be provided via a sole site -driveway to be located along the west side of the proposed Haggerty Connector Road. The proposed Haggerty Connector will serve as the connection between the site and Route 7. The development will be built -out in a single phase by the year 2010. PHR+A has provided Figure 1 to illustrate the location of Opequon Crossing with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Methodology All methodology utilized in this report was based upon the December 11, 2007 scoping meeting (in Edinburg, VA) with Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and Frederick County staff. The traffic impacts accompanying the Opequon Crossing development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: • Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of impact, • Calculation of trip generation for the proposed Opequon Crossing development, • Distribution and assignment of the Opequon Crossing development -generated trips onto the study area roadway network, • Analysis of capacity and levels of service for existing and future conditions using Synchro 7. EXISTING CONDITIONS In order to determine the existing traffic volumes along Route 7 at the proposed Haggerty Connection, PHR+A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersection of Route Walley Mill Road in Frederick County, Virginia. PHR+A established the ADT (Average Daily Traffic) along each of the study area roadway links using a "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 7.70 % based upon Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) 2006 traffic count data. Figure 2 shows the existing ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes along Route 7 at the proposed location of the Haggerty Connection. Figure 3 shows the existing lane geometry along Route 7. Traffic count data worksheet is included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Opeauon Crossing AProject Number: 12617-1-0 PH I November 18, 2008 Page I I ■ �I No Scale L dy, s, 1* Figure 1 Vicinity Map: Opequon Crossing, in Frederick County, Virginia A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Ogequon Crossing PhR-A Project Number: 12617-1-0 November 18, 2008 Page 2 9 ■ n No Scale �e �zII,eA�k (7 )1293 X646(1547) i SITE b� Y of o� Figure 2 PH RA AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Existing Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Opegnon Crossing Project Number: 12617-1-0 November 18, 2008 Page 3 r� No Scale B e�'ville pike 7 � O - , SITE f Of O 4f Qrf f , - • / Figure 3 Existing bane Geometry and bevel of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the umber: Opeguon Crossing0 RAPHProject Number: 12617-1-0 November 18, 2008 Page 4 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS PHR+A increased the existing traffic volumes along Route 7 using a growth rate (per the December 11, 2007 scoping meeting) of two percent (2%) per year through Year 2010. Additionally, PHR+A included all trips relating to specific future "other developments" located within the vicinity of the site. Based upon the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, Table 1 is provided to summarize the 2010 "other developments" trip generation. Table 1 "Other Developments" 2010 Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT Twin Lakes Phase 10 230 Townhouse/Condo 71 units 8 28 36 30 17 46 464 Total 8 28 36 30 17 46 464 Haggerty Property 210 Single -Family Detached 76 units 16 47 63 53 31 84 760 230 Townhouse/Condo 224 units 26 87 113 94 53 147 1,466 Total 42 134 176 147 84 231 2,226 Figure 4 shows the 2010 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of Route 7/11aggerty Connector Road. Figure 5 shows the corresponding 2010 background lane geometry and levels of service. All Synchro 7 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Table 2 is provided to show the 95th percentile back of queue and levels of service for each lane group during 2010 background conditions. A Traffic impact Analysis of the Opeguon Crossing Project Number: 12617-1-0 PH + November 18, 2008 Page 5 I No Scale 1 Be 'IfE, r2 �^s1�1 °co (697 sl kL1 7¢ job ��G (072S18(6S)615� a°b SITE gg O !1G 11 a ,l e T AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) T J -,- NVE1 Ni � Figure 4 2010 Background Traffic Conditions P HR -A A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Opeguon Crossing Project Number: 12617-1-0 November 18, 2008 Page 6 ' Signalized Intersection New LiileM50CtlOn' �TLOS--R(B) iN No Scale �•.f� (AIS �� Unsignalized Intersection 9J �► ��Goo Pjke 9 � PSP �L .tio G� fiv Gofi et SITE a d,IG g 0 a drlG � iP`P 'L `9J� ori Unsignalized Intersection * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement A AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) 1 ul \1 1 Figure 5 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Level of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Opeguon Crossing Project Number: 12617-1-0 RA November 18, 2 e 711 u Page 7 Table 2 Opequon Crossing 7pgelg of Prvire and Back of Queue (95%) Results 2010 Background Conditions Intersection Traffic Control Lane Group/ Approach AM Peak Hour LOS Back of Queue PM Peak Hour LOS ac i o ueue Route 7 & Haggerty Road Signalized EB/T EB/TR B 331.0 A 96.0 EB LOS B A WB/L. A 25.0 A 26.0 WB/T-Lapel A 97.0 WB/T-Lane2 B 391.0 WB LOS A B NB/LR B 72.0 B 1 46.0 NB LOS B B Overall LOS B B Haggerty Rd & Site- Driveway/Haggerty Dr #2 Unsignalized EB/L R A 25.0 A 25.0 NB/LT A 25.0 A 25.0 SBfFR - - - - Haggerty Road & Haggerty Dr #1 Unsignalized WB/LR A 25.0 A 25.0 NB/TR - I - - I - SB/LT A 1 25.0 A 1 25.0 * Assumed 25 feet Vehicle Length EB = Eastbound, WB =Westbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, L: Left, T:Thru, R: Right A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Opeguon Crossing Project Number: 12617-1 -0 HP'IANovember 18, 2008 Page 8 TRIP GENERATION PHR+A determined the number of trips entering and exiting the site using equations and rates provided in the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report as well as using the rates provided by VDOT Staunton District for ITE Code 230. Table 3 was prepared to summarize the total trip generation associated with the proposed Opequon Crossing development. Table 3 Proposed Development: Opequon Crossing Trin Generation Summar Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak IIour Out Total ADT 210 Single -Family Detached 155 units 29 88 118 100 59 159 1,550 230 Townhouse/Condo 170 units 20 66 86 71 40 111 1,108 Total 49 154 204 171 99 270 2,658 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the road network surrounding the proposed site. PHR+A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 6 to assign the Opequon Crossing trips (Table 3) throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 7 shows the respective development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Opequon Crossing assigned trips (Figure 7) were added to the 2010 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figure 8 shows the 2010 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations through out the study area roadway network. Figure 9 shows the respective 2010 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. PHR+A has provided Table 4 to show the 95th percentile back of queue and levels of service for each lane group during 2010 build -out conditions. All Synchro 7 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Opequon Crossing PH J� Project Number: 12617-1-0 J November 18, 2008 Page 9 No Scale 7 GG G° SITE QJQ 0 �- o t P gg� rye �rrL �j Figure 6 Trip Distribution Percentage A Traffic Impact Analysis of the umOpeguon1 Crossing Project Number: 12617-1-0 Pi4- November 18, 2008 Page 10 No Scale AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 7 Development -Generated Trip Assignments P� SRA A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Opeguon Crossing Project Number: 12617-1-0 November 18, 2008 Page 11 No Scale AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 8 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Opegnon Crossing PHR �j Project Nomber: r 18, 2 1 8 1 � November 18, 2008 Page 12 Signalized "New 1 Int Interseetiun ersection" 1! LOS B(B) No Scale 4wear �a ()C� 7 Unsignatized 00 s� Intersection y o Goo N pj�C A 7 fi GG G° eta SITE a� 0 d aer jiG did � of o� G )1 ryJ� �y 0 I dr Unsignalizedr Intersection * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) n J_-),_ n I Hl N-1 1 Figure 9 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Opequon Crossing Project Number: 12617-1-0 PH R+A November 18, 2008 Page 13 Table 4 Opequon Crossing Levels of Service and Back of Queue (95%) Results 2010 Build -out Conditions Intersection Traffic Control Lane Group/ Approach AM Peak Hour LOS Back o ueue PM Peak Hour LOS ac o Oueue Route 7 & Haggerty Road Signalized EB/T EB/TR C 462.0 A 146.0 EB LOS C A WB/L B 38.0 B 83.0 WB/T-Lanel B WB/T-Lane2 141.0 B 426.0 WB LOS B B NB/LR C 170.0 C 1 161.0 NB LOS C C Overall LOS B B Haggerty Rd & Site- Driveway/Haggerty Dr #2 Unsignalized EB/LR B 35.0 B 25.0 NB/LT A 25.0 A 25.0 SB/TR - - - - Haggerty Road & Haggerty Dr #1 Unsignalized WB/LR A 25.0 A 25.0 NB/TR - I - _ _ SB/LT A 1 25.0 A 25.0 * Assumed 25 feet Vehicle Length EB = Eastbound, WB =Westbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, L: Left, T:Thru, R: Right A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Opeguon Crossing PH 1� Project Number: 12617-1-0 J November 18, 2008 Page 14 CONCLUSION Based upon Synchro 7 analysis results, all study area intersections of the proposed Opequon Crossing will maintain level of service "C" or better during 2010 build -out conditions. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Opeguon Crossing Project Number: 12617-1-0 PHR November 18, 2008 Page 15 "SIX -YEARS AFTER" DEVELOPMENT 2016 TRAFFIC IMPACTS PHR+A applied an annual growth rate of 2% to the existing traffic volumes through Year 2016. Additionally, all trips relating to specific future "other developments" located within the vicinity of the site were included. The trip generation for the background development remains consistent with the Table 1 of "2010 background conditions" (Page 5). The Opequon Crossing development assigned trips (Table 3) were then added to the 2016 background conditions to obtain 2016 build -out conditions. Figure 10 shows the 2016 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area network. Figure 11 shows the respective 2016 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. Table 5 is provided to show the 95th percentile back of queue and levels of service for each lane group during 2016 build -out conditions. All Synchro levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the um ber: Crossing RAProject Number: 12617-1-0 H November 18, 2008 Page 16 No Scale �P �p �`�oa�., O7G dal Ik &d� � .�� o� ��ss�ls 4-- 7sS(1819) le- 38033) 2s8 1 `Y G0�fi� SITE limy, d�0 �1ry`1 o� Ply 6�t�9G o � ry �r ted. TT AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 10 2016 Build -out Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Opequon Crossing RA Project Number: 12617-1-0 November 18, 2008 PHPage 17 ' Signalized "New Intersection Intersection" No Scale *UNION, loaft" $tC) i Unsignaliizea 1,001 P Intersection G L God SITE �s o o of �t �3 d� Unsignalizedi Intersection Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 11 2016 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Opeguon Grossing RA Project Number: 12617-1-0 PH November 18, 2008 Page 18 Table 5 Opequon Crossing Levels of Service and Back of Queue (95%) Results 2016 Build -out Conditions Intersection Traffic Control Lane Group/ Approach AM Peak Hour LOS ac o ueue PM Peak Hour LOS ac o Queue Route 7 & Haggerty Road Signalized EB/T EB/TR C 567.0 A 168.0 EB LOS C A WB/1' C 41.0 C 122.0 WB/T-Lanel B 166.0 C WB/T-Lane2 570.0 WB LOS B C NB/LR C 1 182.0 C 103.0 NB LOS C C Overall LOS C C Haggerty Rd & Site- Driveway/Haggerty Dr #2 Unsignalized EB/LR B 35.0 B 25.0 NB/LT A 25.0 A 25.0 SB/TR - - - _ Haggerty Road & Haggerty Dr #1 Unsignalized WB/LR A 25.0 A 25.0 NB/TR _ - _ I _ SB/LT A 25.0 A 1 25.0 * Assumed 25 feet Vehicle Length EB = Eastbound, WB =Westbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, L: Left, T:Thru, R: Right A Traffic Impact Analysis of the um er: Crossing PA+Project Number: 12617-1-0 P November 18, 2008 Page 19 2016 CONCLUSION Based upon Synchro 7 analysis results, all study area intersections of the proposed Opequon Crossing will maintain level of service "C" or better during 2016 build -out conditions. A Trak Impact Analysis of the Ovequon Crossing Project Number: 12617-1-0 November 18, 2008 PH'��A Page 20 APPENDIX Scoping Document Administrative Guidelines DO1rEfi el -t J._ January 29, 2008 PRE -SCOPE OF WORK MEETING FORM Information on the Project Traffic Impact Analysis Base Assumptions The applicant is responsible for having this form completed and returned to VDOT and the locality no less than three (3) business days prior to the meeting. If a completed form is not received by this deadline, the scope of work meeting may be postponed. Contact Informlation Consultant Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates c/o Michael Glickman Tele: (301) 223-4010 E-mail: Michael.Glickman@phra.com Developer/Owner Name: Wayne L. Hill, The Ryland Group, Inc. Washington Division Tele: E-mail.: The Project includes 155 units of Single Family detached and 170 units of Project Information Project Name: Opequon Crossing Project Location: Project is located south of Route 7 along the proposed Haggerty (Attach regional and site specific location ma Connection Road in Frederick County Virginia , g� Project Description: Including type of application (rezoning, subdivision, site The Project includes 155 units of Single Family detached and 170 units of plan), acreage, business square ft, number of dwelling units, Townhouse/Con do. access location, etc. Attach additional sheet if necessary) Locality/County: Frederick County Proposed Use: (Check all that apply; attach Residential Q Commercial ❑ Mixed Use ❑ Other ❑ additional pages as necessary) Residential # of Units: Mixed Use: ITE LU Code(s): # Res. Units: ITE LU Code(s): 210 Single Family Detached (155 units) 230 Townhouse/Condo (170 units) Commercial Use Sq Ft: ITE LU Code(s): Commercial Use Sq Ft: Other: ITE LU Code(s): Page 1 of 6 Administrative Guidelines January 29, 2008 Traffic Im Ct.s Assuan tiOOS Study Period Existing Year: 2008 Bu�Year.:0 DesignYear: 2016 Study Area Boundaries North: Route 7 (Berryville Pike) South: East: Haggerty Connection West: (Attach map) External Factors That Could Affect Project (Planned road improvements, other nearby developments) Consistency With Comprehensive Plan Available Traffic Data (Historical, forecasts) Trip Distribution (Attach sketch) Road Name: Berryville Pike N _% S % E40% W60% Road Name: N % S % E _% W % Road Name: N % S _% E % W % Road Name: N —% S % E % W % Annual Vehicle Trip Growth Rate: ° Peak Period for 2% (Circle all Study aapply)(7-9) � PM (4-6) (40-2) 1. Route 7/Proposed Haggerty Connection Road. 5 2• Haggerty Connection Road/Haggerty Driveway #2/Site-Driveway 6 Study Intersections and/or Road Segments (Attach additional sheets as necessary) 3. Haggerty Connection Road/Haggerty Driveway #1 7 4. 8. Trip Adjustment Factors Internal allowance: ❑ Yes 0 No Pass -by allowance: ❑ Yes Q No Reduction: % tris Reduction: % trips Q Synchro ❑ HCS (v.2000/+) ❑ aaSIDRA ❑ CORSIM ❑ Other Software Methodology Traffic Signal Proposed or Affected (Analysis software to be used, progression speed, cycle length) Page 2 of 6 Administrative Guidelines January 29, 2008 Improvement(s) Assumed or to be Considered Background Traffic Haggerty Property, Twin Lakes development. Studies Considered Plan Submission ❑ Master Development Plan (MDP) ❑ Generalized Development Plan (GDP) ❑ Preliminary/Sketch Plan ❑ Other Plan type (Final Site, Subd. Plan) Additional Issues to be Q Queuing analysis ❑ Weaving analysis ❑ Merge analysis addressed ❑ Intersection(s) ❑ TDM Measures ❑ Other 1 NOTES on ASSUMPTIONS: SIGNED: — — Applicant or Consultant PRINT NAME: Michael Glickman PE Applicant or Consultant DATE: 01/29/2008 Page 3 of 6 Administrative Guidelines 8urDf- Factory ftrry"wp- bAmTMy' _.. _. t� .7 E —• ..' i moi'. jy_� .. . CD t ..'fig Bks. Afy�. meq- _ t J 4 }Ft 4 January 29, 2008 Figure 1 Vicinity Map: Village at ®pequou in Frederick County, Virginia Page 4 of 6 Administrative Guidelines r� No Scale lIle pIke 7 fi ► •tio �6 SITE a 0 Ell Q er �4> d �j D,- n 1N1 l Figure 2 Trip Distribution Percentage January 29, 2008 Page 5 of 6 Administrative Guidelines Table 1 Proposed Development: Village at ®pequon _January 29, 2008 117I ueneration Summary Code Land Use Amount AM Peak Hoar PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out 'Total ADT 210 Single -Family Detached 155 units 29 88 718 100 59 159 1,550 230 Townhouse/Condo 170 units 20 66 86 71 40 111 1,108 Total 49 154 204 171 99 270 2,65 Page 6 of 6 Page 6 of 6 No Scale SITE 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service SITE leak Hour) Signalized New Intersection Intersection" LOS=B(B) an ;q(g) CB)� s;4 7 G C� 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service SITE leak Hour) 2016 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service 'eak Hour) Figure 1 Revised Build -out Dane Geometry and Level of Service Signalized New Intersection Intersection" Las=13(B) B) � A CB1$ 7 eG 2016 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service 'eak Hour) Figure 1 Revised Build -out Dane Geometry and Level of Service Table 1 Opequon Crossing Levels of Service and Back of Queue (95 %) Results 2010 Build -out Conditions Intersection Traffic Control Lane Group! Approach AM Peak Hour LOS ac o ueue PM Peak Hour LOS ac o ueue Route 7 & Haggerty Road Signalized EB/T-Lane 1 EB/T-Lane 2 B EB/T-Lane 1 425.0 B 217.0 EB/R A 25.0 A 49.0 EB LOS B B WB/L D 56.0 C 134.0 WB/T-Lane 1 A 102.0 WB/T-Lane 2 B 388.0 WB LOS A B NB/L D 173.0 C 115.0 NB/R. A 48.0 A 26.0 NB LOS C C _j Overall LOS B B * Assumed 25 feet Vemele Length EB = Eastbound, WB =Westbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, L: Left, T:Thru, R: Right Table 2 Opequon Crossing Levels of Service and Back of Queue (95 %) Results 201611nilrl-out Conditions Intersection Traffic Control Lane Group/ Approach AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS ac o ueue LOS ac o ueue Route 7 & Haggerty Road Signalized EB/T-Lane 1 B 516.0 B 218.0 EB/T-Lane 2 EB/R A 25.0 A 43.0 EB LOS B B WB/L D 56.0 D 138.0 WB/T-Lane 1 A 112.0 B 424.0 WB/T-Lane 2 WB LOS A B NB/L D 1 187.0 D 122.0 NB/R A 50.0 A 29.0 NB LOS C C Overall LOS B _ B T P tt, A.7JlAl1 11 - EB = Eastbound, WB =Westbound, NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, L: Left, T:Thru, R: Right REZONING APPLICATION FORM _ S F ° 2 5 22009 The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North rent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicants: Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates Telephone: (540) 6672139 c/o Patrick Sowers Address: 117 East Piccadilly Street �JVinchester, Virginia 22601 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: The Canyon c/o Dave Holliday Telephone: (540) 667-2120 Address: 420 Jubal Early Dr, Suite 103 Winchester, VA 22601 3. Contact person(s) if other than above Name: Patrick Sowers Telephone: (540) 667.2139 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location Map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deed of property X Impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X 1 5. The _Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: The Canyon, LC David B. Holliday 6. A) Current Use of the Property: AgriculturaINacant B) Proposed Use of the Property: Residential 7. Adjoining Property: SEE ATTACHED. 8. Location: The property is located -at -(give -exact -location based -on -nearest roadanddistance-- - from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers). The Property is located South of the existing terminus of Edd s Lane t 820 approximately 2,400 feet South of Route 7 and 1,650 West of O e uon Creek. In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density of intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number: 55-A-210 Districts Magisterial: Fire Service: Rescue Service: Red Bud Greenwood Greenwood High School: Middle School: Elementary School: Millbrook James Wood Redbud Run 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zonin Zoning Requested 70.15 RA RP 70.15 Total acreage to be rezoned Pa 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family Home 155 Townhome 170 ��I,�lti Fa Wily _ Non -Residential Lots Mobile Home Hotel Rooms Office Retail Restaurant 12. Signature: Square Footage of Proposed Uses Service Station Manufacturing Flex - Warehouse Other I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its ace panying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) , dge. Applicant(s) G �f Date Q z;o �� 3 Adjoining Property Owners — Opequon Crossing Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2"d floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name Property Identification Number (PIN) Address Name: Toll VA IV LP 21630 Ridgetop Cir Ste 130 Property#: 55-A-209 Dulles, VP. 20166 Name: Toll VA IV LP 21630 Ridgetop Cir Ste 130 -Property#: 55-A-211 Dulles, VA 20166 Name: Alicia F. Grey 1201 Bonaventure Ave Prope rt #: 55-4-4A Green Cove Springs, FL 32043 Name: The Canyon, LC 420 W Jubal Early Dr Ste 103 Property #: 55-A-212 Winchester, VA 22601 Name: Valley Mill Farm LC 8705 C Street Property #: 55 -A -165D Chesapeake Beach, MD 20732 Name: Arcadia Development Co. P.O. Box 5368 Property#: 55-A-181 San Jose, CA 95150 Name: Property #: Name: Property#: Name. - ame:Propert Property #: Name: Property #: Name: Property #: Name: Property #: Name: Property #: Name: Property #: i X31 Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederickyams Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We) (Name) The Can on LC _ (Phone) 540.667.2139 (Address) 420 Juba] Early Drive Suite 130 Winchester VA 22601 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument Number: 06006113 and is described as Tax Map Parcel 55-A-210 Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Patton Harris Rust & Associates (Phone) 540.667.2139 address) 117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester Virginia 22601 To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including X Rezoning (including proffers) _ Conditional Use Permits X Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) _ Subdivision Site Plan My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. r� In witness thereof, I (we) ve hereto set my (ot ' and and seal this day of v, �o , 200 Signature(s State of Virginia, City/County of �c' & To -wit: Hu -Y -4 t I !uu -Y- 4 J0 (��r,�,.,r1 a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, c6rtify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this ` dayofnbe ; 200 4 My Commission Expires: lotary P bli ( �� Frederick County, Virginia REZONING APPLICATION MATERIALS FOR RE VIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE OPE QUON CROSSING Red Bud Magisterial District Revised September 2009 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates 117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone: 540-667-2139 Fax: 540-665-0493 PH RA OPEQUON CROSS/NG Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc ZONING BOUNDARY F 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 �? O Q VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 V FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRCINM REZONING APPLICATION #08-09 HAGGERTY COMMERCIAL Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: October 6, 2009 Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 10/21/09 Pending Board of Supervisors: 11/18/09 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 4.0 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B 1 (Neighborhood Business) District, with proffers, for commercial uses. LOCATION: The property is located along the east side of proposed Haggerty Boulevard approximately 2,000 feet south of the intersection of proposed Haggerty Boulevard and Route 7. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSION FOR THE 10/21/09 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The land uses proposed in this rezoning are not consistent with the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. The land use plan identifies the Haggerty Property and the surrounding areas with a residential land use designation. Furthermore the previously approved proffered Generalized Development Plan from Rezoning #04-07 for the Haggerty Property, as well as the approved Master Development Plan, showed the subject area as open space for the residential development. Rezoning #08-09 for Haggerty Commercial does not address corridor appearance, and should consider providing additional landscaping along Haggerty Boulevard and enhanced design standards that would implement the goal of developing an attractive addition to the commercial corridors of the County. Following the required public hearing, a recommendation regarding this rezoning application to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate 21e applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. Rezoning #08-09 — Haggerty Commercial October 6, 2009 Page 2 This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 10/21/09 Pending Board of Supervisors: 11/18/09 Pendir_g PROPOSAL: To rezone 4.0 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B1 (Neighborhood Business) District, with proffers, for commercial uses. LOCATION: The property is located along the east side of proposed Haggerty Boulevard approximately 2,000 feet south of the intersection of proposed Haggerty Boulevard and Route 7. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Red Bud PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 55-A-212 PROPERTY ZONING: RP (Residential Performance) PRESENT USE: Residential, Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) South: RA (Rural Area) East: Clarke County West: RA (Rural Area) RP (Residential Performance) REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Use: Vacant/Wastewater Treatment Plant Use: Vacant/ Agricultural Use: Agricultural Use: Vacant/Agricultural Vacant (Twin Lakes) Frederick County Transportation: Staff expects traffic generation for this development to be from the surrounding residential developments and pass by of through traffic on Haggerty Boulevard. Given the proposed use, staff Rezoning #08-09 — Haggerty Commercial October 6, 2009 Page 3 would not expect this development to attract trips from Route 7. This expectation leads to the primary impact being to through traffic along Haggerty Boulevard. Since Haggerty Boulevard is comprehensively planned as a Major Collector roadway, careful consideration will need to be given to the entrance design and location at site plan stage to ensure the following: a. That all applicable access management standards are met. b. That the property is served by no more than one entrance. C. That all necessary turn lanes and tapers are installed upon development of the property so as to impede through traffic as little as possible. Staff would note that while through traffic impacts would not be enough to require additional lanes at this time, verification should be provided that no additional right-of-way will be needed for the future four lane section of Haggerty Boulevard. In addition, while the immediate impact of this application will not be enough by itself to justify additional lane construction, some consideration should be given to the impacts. On recent rezonings, other projects have contributed additional funding for transportation improvements in the general area of their requests. This has been done in recognition of the need to address the broader transportation improvements in the developing areas of the County in addition to the specific improvements they maybe proposing. Such an approach should be considered with this request. Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable impact on Route 7. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Haggerty Commercial rezoning application dated November, 2008 address transportation concerns associated with this request. 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 Manuel, 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. Fire Marshal: Plan approval recommended. Public Works Department: We have completed our review of the proposed rezoning for four acres of the previously approved Haggerty development from RP to B 1. Based on this review, we recommend that Figure 2 be revised to reflect the previous Haggerty development boundaries. Also, the annotated Future Phase 1 Opequon Crossing is actually the previously referenced Haggerty development. It will not be necessary to resubmit this application. However, we would appreciate a revised copy of Figure 2. Department of Inspections: No comments at this time. Comments shall be made at site plan submittal. Sanitation Authority: The Authority has sufficient water and sewer capacity to serve this area. Water pressure for domestic service and fire protection might be an issue. Rezoning #08-09 — Haggerty Commercial October 6, 2009 Page 4 Service Authority: No comment. Health Department: The Health: Department has no objection if public water and sewer are provided. Permits are required for restaurants and hotels/motels. Contact this office for permit requirements. Department of Parks & Recreation: The Parks and Recreation Dept. commented on the MDP April 13, 2007 and recommended this parcel be retained for a public park. The Parks and Recreation Department would further recommend this parcel be retained for a public park as was recommended in 2007_......"Staff recommends the 12 acre area identified as Potential Future Non -Residential Development be offered as a public park, less the stormwater management pond and the entrance road and cul-de-sac. This area would provide residents with centrally located open space, and is large enough to allow for development of a neighborhood park. Some of the facilities that could be offered in a park on this site would include: tennis courts, ball diamond, horseshoe pits, volleyball court, playground equipment, basketball courts and picnic facilities." Frederick County Public Schools: We offer no comments on this application. Winchester Regional Airport: Neither the location or the elevation of this site requires a 7460-1 to be filed with the Federal Aviation Administration; however, it does lie within the air space of the Winchester Airport. Due to its proximity to the airport, property owners may experience aircraft fly- over noise from aircraft entering into or departing the flight pattern from the North. Special considerations will not be requested by the Winchester Regional Airport. Frederick County Attorney: Please see attached letter dated February 20, 2009 from Roderick B_ Williams, County Attorney. Planning Department: Please see attached Memo dated December 31, 2008 from Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director. Plannine & Zonin 1) Site History On February 9, 2005, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors approved Rezoning #14-04 for the Haggerty Property. Specifically, this request was to rezonel11.56 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) with proffers which enabled the development of up to 300 single family detached and single family attached housing units. The request also contained significant transportation proffers which supported a revised Eastern Road Plan and relocated Valley Mill Road. The Board of Supervisors then approved Rezoning #04-07 for the Haggerty Property which revised the proffers associated with Rezoning #14-04 to revise the previously accepted transportation proffers. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public Rezoning #08-09 Haggerty Commercial October 6, 2009 Page 5 facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the fi,t„re physical developmentofFrcderick, County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-11 Land Use. The parcels comprising this rezoning application are located within the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Urban Development Area defines the general area in which more intensive forms of residential development will occur. In addition, the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use map designates the general area in which the Haggerty property is located for residential land uses not for commercial development. Therefore, this request is not in conformance with the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. This residential land use designation was supported by the Board of Supervisors approval of the original Haggerty development, which was approved in 2005 and revised in 2007. The Haggerty rezoning application indicated this land would be part of the open space for the community and was shown as open space on the GDP and the MDP, which was approved in October of 2007. It should also be noted that in 2005 when the property was originally rezoned, the applicant stated that it was their intent to designate the open space to the Parks and Recreation Department for the purpose of public use. This area of open space was designated in recognition of the significant environmental character of the area and as an enhanced area of buffer from the adjacent Opequon Wastewater Treatment Facility. Furthermore, the Parks and Recreation Department has recommended that this area be retained for a public park. Site Design The application does include minimal architectural language to address the appearance of structures on the property. However this design element does not fully address the corridor appearance goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The development has not addressed the site layout or landscaping, and the lighting proffer is required by the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant should consider providing additional landscaping along Haggerty Boulevard as enhanced design standards that would implement the goal of developing an attractive addition to the commercial corridors of the County and promote a development that is well integrated into the surrounding community. Transportation The site is proposed to be accessed via one commercial entrance on Haggerty Boulevard. Traffic generated from the site is anticipated to be from the residential units within the development due to its location. Staff Note: The applicant should consider eliminating the proposed commercial entrance as shown on the GDP and providing a joint entrance to the area of theparklopen space that aligns with the relocated Valley Mill Road (future east/west collector). 3) Potential Impacts Transportation Rezoning 908-09 — Haggerty Commercial October 6, 2009 Page 6 It is anticipated that impacts from this development will primarilybe along Haggerty Boulevard. This roadway is a planned Major Collector roadway and careful consideration should be given to the entrance design, access management, the number of entrances, and necessary turn and taper lanes. The applicant should also ensure that there is no need for additional right-of-way for the future four lane section of Haggerty Boulevard. In addition, while the immediate impact of this application will not be enough by itself to justify additional lane construction, some consideration should be given to the impacts. On recent rezonings, other projects have contributed additional funding for transportation improvements in the general area of their requests. This has been done in recognition of the need to address the broader transportation improvements in the developing areas of the County in addition to the specific improvements they may be proposing. Such an approach should be considered with this request. Community Faeilities The proffer statement is limited to two monetary contributions in the amount of $1;000.00 respectively to Frederick County for Fire and Rescue and Sheriff's Office purposes. The applicant should ensure that the impacts to all County agencies are addressed with this application. 4) Proffer Statement — Dated November 6, 2008; revised September 24, 2009: A) Generalized Development Plan The Applicant has proffered a Generalized Development Plan for the purpose of identifying the location of the proposed commercial site and the proposed entrance. B) Site Development The Applicant has proffered to limit the Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) of the site to .25 (Staff Note: the BI only allows for a 0.3 FAR). • Access to the site shall be via one entrance off of the future Haggerty "Spine" Road (Boulevard). No building permits will be issued for the property until the site has access to the signalized intersection at Route 7 via the future Haggerty Boulevard. Staff Note. Haggerty Boulevard should be constructed from the signalized Route 7 intersection to the future east west collector before buildingpermits should be issued • Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building constructed on the property, the applicant will construct a ten foot hiker/biker trail across the property frontage. • Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building constructed on the property, the applicant shall provide street trees along the property frontage at a maximum of 50 foot on center. Staff Note: Rezoning #04-07 did not account for street trees along Haggerty Boulevard; the applicant should consider providing for street trees or enhanced landscaping along the entire Haggerty Boulevard ROW. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building constructed on the property, the applicant shall designate a minimum of ten parking spaces Rezoning #08-09 — Haggerty Commercial October 6, 2009 Page 7 reserved to access a potential future park on adjacent property owned by the applicant. Staff Note:.It is unclear whether these spaces are in addition to the required site parking and this proffer only commits a reservation (not specified where) for ten parking spaces fora potential future park This park does not exist and is not proffered with the original $azzerty rezoning application or any other application). C) Design Standards • Any building constructed on the property shall be constructed using one or a combination of the following: cast stone, stone, brick, architectural block, dry vit or stucco, other high quality masonry materials, wood, or glass. Additionally, dumpster pad screen wall shall be constructed of the same masonry materials used for the building. (Staff Note: Consideration should be given to the design and location of the parking area, such as parking to the rear of the. structure) • Site lighting shall not exceed 25 feet in height. (Staff Note: This is already required by the Zoning Ordinance). • All structures shall utilize the same facade materials. • The design of all buildings shall be in general conformance with the exhibit "Haggerty Commercial -Building Elevation" dated September 15, 2009. D) Monetary Contributions • The applicant shall contribute $1,000 to Fire and Rescue, made prior to the issuance of a building permit. • The applicant shall contribute $1,000 to the Sheriffls Office, made prior to the issuance of a building permit. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 10/21/09 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The land uses proposed in this rezoning are not consistent with the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. The land use plan identifies the Haggerty Property and the surrounding areas with a residential land use designation. Furthermore the previously approved proffered Generalized Development Plan from Rezoning #04-07 for the Haggerty Property as well as the approved Master Development Plan showed the subject area as open space for the residential development. Rezoning #08-09 for Haggerty Commercial does not address corridor appearance, and should consider providing additional landscaping along Haggerty Boulevard and enhanced design standards that would implement the goal of developing an attractive addition to the commercial corridors of the County. Followinz the required public hearing, a recommendation re ardin this rezoning application to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. COUNTY 0f FREDERICK Roderick B. Williams County Attorney 540/722-8383 February 20, 2009 Fax 540/667-0370 E-mail: rw1llia@co.freden'ck.va.us VIA FACSMILE (540-665-0493) AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust & Associates 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Haggerty Commercial Property — Proposed Rezoning — Proffer Statement dated November 6, 2008 Dear Patrick: You have submitted to Frederick County for review a proposed proffer statement dated November 6, 2008 (the "Proffer Statement") for the Haggerty Commercial property, Parcel Identification Number 55-A-212. Specifically, the proposed rezoning for which the Proffer Statement is submitted contemplates the rezoning of 4.0± acres (the "Property") of Parcel Identification Number 55-A-212, in the Stonewall Magisterial District, from the RP (Residential Performance) District to the B 1 (Neighborhood Business) District. I have now reviewed the Proffer Statement and it is my opinion that the Proffer Statement would be in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, and would be legally sufficient as a proffer statement, subject to the following comments: The application materials will need to include a survey showing the precise boundaries of the requested zoning classification, in particular seeing as how the Property is only a portion of an existing tax parcel. See Va. Code § 15.2- 2285(A). Figure 2 of the Impact Analysis Statement shows the dimensions and orientations of the boundaries of the Property on a topographic map, but does not include measurements from any other boundaries or from fixed features. • The Applicant will want to review and update the list of adjoining property owners, to include all parcels, including those in Clarke County, that abut Parcel Identification Number 55-A-212. Where an area to be rezoned has not been subdivided of record, the parcel involved in a rezoning action is the entire parcel which contains the area to be rezoned. See Va. Code § 15.2- 2204(B), Lawrence Transfer & Storage Corp. v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 107 North Kent Street a Winchester, Virginia 22601 Mr. Patrick Sowers February 20, 2009 Page 2 229 Va. 568, 331 S.E.2d 460 (1985). According to my review of the County's GIS records, the adjoining properties, clockwise from due north, are: Parcel Identification Numbers 55-A-174, 56-A-18, 55 -A -212A (wholly surrounded by 55-A-212), 65-A-195, 55M-2-9-147 55-A-209, 55-A-211, 55-A-210, 55-4- 4A, 55-4-3, 55-4-2, 55-4-1, and 56-A-19. I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for this specific development, as my understanding is that that review will be done by staff and the Planning Commission. Sincere, , Roderick B. Wil is County Attorney cc: Michael Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Director of Planning and Development !�', co ® ICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 TO: Patrick Sowers FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy- Director �--- RE: Initial Comments — Haggerty Commercial Rezoning Application DATE: December 31, 2008 The following points are offered regarding the Haggerty Commercial Rezoning Application. This is a request to rezone four acres from RP with Proffers to B 1 with Proffers. Please consider the comments as you. continue your work preparing the application for submission to Frederick County. Please ensure that these comments and all review agency comments are adequately addressed. Land Use. The property is located in the UDA and SWSA. However, the property is in an area that is not planned for commercial development. The request ,`s not in conformance with the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan which identifies loca ions of future land uses and specifically commercial land uses. In addition; the property was pari of the original Haggerty Develcipnrent, a residential project approved in 2005 and revised in 2007. The Haggerty . rezoning application proffered that this land would be part of the open space- for t"he community. This area of open space totals approximately 15 acres in size -and was designated in thus area in recognition of the significant environmental character of the area and as an enhanced area of buffer from the adjacent Opequon Wastewater Treatment Facility. Please demonstrate that no more than 50 percent of the required open space is within environmental areas. General. Future -commercial rezoning, in particular BI rezoning requests, should- provide for enhanced design standards which would implement the goal of developing an attractive addition 'to the commercial corridors of'the County and promote a.development that is well integrated into the surrounding community - 167 1e ommunity- 1671e orth Kent Street, Suite 202 a Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Initial Comments — Haggerty Commercial Rezoning Application December 31, 2008 Page 2 particular effort should be made to provide for enhanced design oft and project building layout be deemed to be appropriate for ed to etnsure thatthis p s achievedg� ing, I and form should be carefully p Transportation. Access management along the future Spine Road Esti should ossiblee a c Access to this site additional entrance onto this road should be avoided p should address entrance spacing and location issues for access ection between the SpineaRoad and the aast and shouldognize immediatehLicated conn I ely east of future Route 37 in this general area. West Connector Roadmme The timing of any development of this site should reflect the timing of the improvements provided for with the original Haggerty rezoning. This should be addressed in the proffer. statement. This application is encouraged to think about providing access to the preserved area of pp open space for the benefit of the residents of the area. Bike and pedestrian accommodations should be a consideration with this request. on On recent rezonings, other projects have contributedadditionallabeen done in re ognit on of improvements in the general area f their requests. areas of the need to address the broader transportation improvements an ep opo°pgg Such an the County in addition to the specific improvements y Y be sin with this request relative with the scale of this request. approach should be considered Proffer Statement. ent of The proffer statement is limited to providing in the amount of $1,000.00 respfor a FAR of 0.25 for the epctively to the property and two monetary contributions Frederick County for Fire and Rescue and Sheriff's Office purposes. I would suggest ed that the proffer statement be revisited to address some of Development Plan may also lbe in this and other review agency comments. A generate a useful element of the proffer statem=ent. Once again, please ensure that all review agency comments are adequately addressed. MTR/bad 55 A 174A RBST BANK y I i'K. t...S' ' I 7 .' ,��'' 'Ar 111'i •' v w •{. �� 7 ma orf . .� �,•�� a�ts �`' •i � " �� "'` - v It[ PW cr x Op - ',y, .. �v . t/�f' �FTM'a �ilr' ��. `fS r f ' "iti' _ • C' 820 ! locurlOn 55 A 210 approx., THE c'ANYoN " O .�y'y,r � 55 A 209 212 { r . it' �.�,► a t TOLL VA N LP TNL (C + YON LV r OyF M29 l;gd r AULEE Cr VNityq a� r sl N LJSAMWMU91MI'��-' Mom— • Haggerty Commercial REZ # 08 - 09 Rezoning Request 4 acres RP to B1 - Retai PIN: 55 - A - 212 Current Zoning Map t'asr Planner (Perkins —' H ^., Fumr. Resl avva.: �U�t•wU,.elnparunr laea` Stt Si Application w 'pyp.4ncre Locution pvy`a 5' r 112 7Aeing r¢ra r ,r,In Ii1gx 4 B1 �ern..cc Rer�baJmaniraorcr�'%'.aRi�Rwil;rn r�r FAi rF LG aalx2' D:rlAvnac S:artial Duhral `>�rHWa,a Fa�ranon lncirrr� �•. AF[ rlwResuaLL�u.Ia� \II'3IMt'a1.YiPlwrt Dnn •n I1W�•n I.0 rLWnsnal-3nanai Ua n1 rt`j RirRergrvrnl Ytaruaea �awrumn-Inurinr RPiRrMnunl Prfo�w.w<t Uvnnn ` +\ �. h9rt Gfd.de Resor brmuks'Fteirwa)�:Ra aResateunl3hraearioeai l'axr•wA lKaaxtS ,i � � � a N Y 1,500 3,000 Feet S csl. r / /1 r � t'asr Planner (Perkins —' H ^., Fumr. Resl avva.: �U�t•wU,.elnparunr laea` Stt Si Application w 'pyp.4ncre Locution pvy`a 5' r 112 7Aeing r¢ra r ,r,In Ii1gx 4 B1 �ern..cc Rer�baJmaniraorcr�'%'.aRi�Rwil;rn r�r FAi rF LG aalx2' D:rlAvnac S:artial Duhral `>�rHWa,a Fa�ranon lncirrr� �•. AF[ rlwResuaLL�u.Ia� \II'3IMt'a1.YiPlwrt Dnn •n I1W�•n I.0 rLWnsnal-3nanai Ua n1 rt`j RirRergrvrnl Ytaruaea �awrumn-Inurinr RPiRrMnunl Prfo�w.w<t Uvnnn ` +\ �. h9rt Gfd.de Resor brmuks'Fteirwa)�:Ra aResateunl3hraearioeai l'axr•wA lKaaxtS ,i � � � a 750 1,500 3,000 Feet S HAGGERTY COMMERCIAL PROPERTY - IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT September 2009 The Haggerty Commercial Property is a 4.0 acre portion of TALI 55-A-212 which was originally rezoned to the RP (Residential Performance) District for residential uses in 2004 with a proffer modification for road layouts approved ire 2007. The residential rezoning provided for up to 300 residential dwelling units. The subject 4.0 acres is located at the northern most portion of the Haggerty Property, east of future Haggerty Blvd. Currently, the subdivision plans for the 300 units at Haggerty would result in open space that is in excess of the 30 percent required by ordinance. As such, the Applicant has proposed to rezone a 4.0 acre portion of the excess open space area to the B 1 (Neighborhood Commercial) District to create a small retail node that would serve the needs of the Haggerty Property and other surrounding residential uses within close proximity to the site such as the final phase of Twin Lakes or the potential future development on the 70 acre residential area formerly known as Opequon Crossing which is currently in the rezoning process. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Figure 1 indicates the project location. North of the subject acreage is the existing Opequon Wastewater Treatment Facility. East of the subject area is Opequon Creek and the Frederick County/Clarke County boundary. West and South of the proposed rezoning is Phase 1 of the Haggerty residential development zoned RP, LAND USE The Haggerty Commercial Property is located wholly within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) of Frederick County and has an undefined use per the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. As the proposed rezoning is approximately 2,000 feet south of Route 7, it is envisioned that the rezoned area would provide for small node of neighborhood commercial uses that would act to support residential uses in close proximity to the site rather than a larger regional commercial destination such as Winchester Gateway. By providing an area where neighborhood uses can be established that serves a local population, the application represents sound planning practice in that locates mutually beneficial uses in close proximity to one another which will also minimizes vehicle trips that otherwise would have to travel to Route 7 to reach a commercial destination like Winchester Gateway. The Applicant has proffered a building elevation for the proposed development as well as a design materials palette to ensure that the project is build in an aesthetically pleasing manor that will add value to the surrounding area. Additionally, street trees along the frontage and limits on site lighting ensure that the development willbe harmonious with surrounding uses. Impact Analysis Statement — Haggerty Commercial Property g f FWSA OPEQUON WWTP w AL U T � PROJECT- I S ' SITE ON CR cTo HAGGERTY PROPERTY Patton Harris Rust & Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. LOCATION MAP FIGURE 1 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, -�- Winchester, Virginia 22601 T 540.667.2139 Haggerty Commercial F 540.665.0493 DATE 9/15/09 SCALE: 1 " = 400' ACCESS AND TRANSPORTATION The Property would be provided access by Haggerty Boulevard which will be constructed in conjunction with the residential development of the remaining Haggerty acreage. The future intersection of Route 7 and Haggerty Boulevard, located 2,000 feet north of the site, is proffered to be a fully signalized intersection. jne location of the site and proposed zoning classification (B1 as opposed to B2) limits the amount of trips that the site will generate off of Route 7. Instead, the success of the neighborhood commercial uses will depend on pass - by traffic for the residential uses adjacent to the site. The rezoning application was formally scoped with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). As the site will generate little if any traffic as a destination type commercial use, VDOT determined that a traffic impact analysis (TIA) would not be required as part of the application process. ENVIRONMENT The proposed rezoning will have minimal impacts on the environment. The proposed rezoning boundary does not extend all the way to Opequon Creek, providing for a buffer between Opequon Creek and the commercial uses. There is a small area of wetlands associated with a drainage swale near the northwestern boundary of the proposed rezoning area. Any area of wetlands impacted would be appropriately mitigated through DEQ. As depicted by Figure 2, the majority of the site is relatively flat, excluding a drainage Swale located on near the northern boundary. The drainage swale provides for a logical location for stormwater management facilities. The site drains from west to east to Opequon Creek Any stormwater management facilities constructed to serve the site would either meet or exceed the required State standards. Flood plain data for the subject parcels is delineated on the Flood Insurance Study Map for Frederick County prepared by the US. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Community Panel # 510063-0120B, effective date July 17, 1978. The entire site is located in Flood Zone C, which denotes areas of minimal flooding outside of the 100 -year flood plain. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND WATER SUPPLY Extension of the water and sewer lines planned to serve the residential portion of the Haggerty Property will serve the proposed commercial uses. With a proffered floor area ratio of 0.25, the site could yield up to 43,560 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses. Assuming a rate of 200 GPD/1,000 square feet, the site could generate 8,712 GPD of water consumption and produce approximately equivalent sewer flows. SOLID WASTE Solid waste will be transferred to the Frederick County Landfill for disposal. Assuming a rate of 25 lbs/ 1,000 square feet, the site could yield 1,089 pounds of solid waste per day. Impact Analysis Statement — Haggerty Commercial Property 2 ,r rle r i s 4 rstxa� A/ a fa / I r rFr f �rr' rr ` x\ rr `� � - �� rl rrrl�I`rrr�,, 1�` _•� \ \ f^ - �' !� it ♦r/I r�r / 1 \r ♦�` r�' `'r.. ��4 �.�� /r r r fI!-�;I�r� f s tl .. � .-.R •r. r� /`! ! '�° �, Ley ,�, r- t ,_ � r fi �Ys—_ _ — � ir• r 1 a '1� k HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES The subject site does not include any historic structures as identified by the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey. Pursuant to the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, the subject site is not located within any core battlefield areas. Per the study, the site is located just south of the study area boundary for the Third Battle of Winchester (Opequon). IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES The proposed rezoning of the Haggerty Commercial property would generate additional tax revenues for Frederick County. In recognition of services provided for Fire and Rescue and the Sheriff's Office, the Applicant has proffered a monetary contribution of $1,000 for Sheriff's Office purposes and $1,000 for Fire and Rescue services. Impact Analysis Statement —Haggerty Commercial Property 3 PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ # CY-0 � Residential Performance (RP) to Neighborhood Business (B 1) PROPERTY: 4.0 acre +/-; Portion of Tax Map Parcel 55-A-212 (the "Property') RECORD OWNER: The Canyon, LC APPLICANT": The Canyon, LC PROJECT NAME: Haggerty Commercial ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: November 6, 2008 REVISION DATE(S): September 24, 2009 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced B1 conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, Haggerty Commercial" dated September 15, 2009. 1. Site Development 1.1 Development of the Property shall not exceed a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.25. 1.2 Access to the site shall be limited to a single entrance on the future Haggerty "Spine" Road in the general location depicted on the GDP. All entrance improvements shall be subject to review and approval by VDOT at time of Site Plan. (See 1 on GDP) 1.3 No building permits shall be issued for the Property until such time that the Property has access to a signalized intersection at Route 7 via the future Haggerty "Spine" Road as provided by Proffers 13.2 and 133 for RZ #04-07, "Haggerty Property" as approved by Frederick County on July 25, 2007. 1.4 Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building constructed on the Property that Applicant shall construct a 10' hiker biker trail across the Property Frontage with the future Haggerty "Spine" Road as shown on the MDP. Proffer Statement Haggerty Commercial 1.5 Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building constructed on the Property, the Applicant shall provide street trees along the Property frontage with the Haggerty "Spine" Road. Said trees shall be planted a maximum of 50' on center. 1.6 Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building constructed on the Property, the Applicant shall designate a minimum of 10 parking spaces reserved to access to a potential future park on adjacent property owned by the Applicant. In the event the County does not accept the planned donation of the adjacent property for a public park, the Applicant will not be obligated to reserve parking spaces for park use. Any parking space reserved for access to the potential park will be owned and maintained by the Applicant. 2. Design Standards 2.1 Any building constructed on the Property shall be constructed using one or a combination of the following: cast stone, stone, brick, architectural block, dry vit or stucco, other high quality masonry materials, wood, or glass. Additionally, dumpster pad screen walls shall be constructed of the same masonry material(s) used for building construction. 2.2 Site lighting shall not exceed 25 feet in height. 2.3 All structures erected on the Property shall utilize the same facade materials in order to promote a cohesive development pattern. 2.4 The design of the any proposed buildings located on the Property shall be in general conformance with the attached exhibit entitled "Haggerty Commercial — Building Elevation" dated September 15, 2009. (See Exhibit A) 3. Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development 3.1 The Applicant shall contribute the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) to Frederick County for fire and rescue purposes. Said contribution shall be made prior to issuance of a building permit for the Property. 3.2 The Applicant shall contribute the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) to Frederick County for Sheriff's Office purposes. Said contribution shall be made prior to issuance of a building permit for the Property. 4. Escalator Clause 4.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement are paid to the Frederick County Board County Supervisors (`Board") within 30 months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to the Board after 30 months following the approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index (" CPI- U) published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time contributions are paid, they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI -U from that date 30 months after the approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI -U to the date the contributions are paid, subject to a cap of 6% per year, non -compounded. SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES Page 2 of 3 Proffer Statement Respectfully submitted, Th By Da STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: Haggerty Commercial The forego' instrurf ent was acknowledged before me this a��day of S�nV1imk6-L, 2009 by My cosi pires 8 Z ut Notary Public ill, �n 6 _1 19 - Mn, 612 Reg • it- 151 q,7 I, Page 3 of 3 ` 4 \: 31 t n ° ag W FWSA.. OPEQUON O. WWTP 1 SITE ENTRANCE �qsT ►•. PROJECT C R E K 6 , r ; SITE Q 0 N illC 4V 0P O� HAGGERTY PROPERTY , Patton Harris Rust $associates GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 �- Winchester, Virginia 22601 Haggerty Commercial T 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 DATE: 9/15/09 SCALE: 1 " = 400' M ,j J14' J, T -1rT t -- Patton Harris Rust & Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 4A+A T 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 DATE: 9/15/09 BUILDING ELEVATION Haggerty Commercial EXHIBIT A REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be complete cif .l'Ioi title ' w 'r ff: nnixtg A-menciinQnt Ntxmbc.r Date IZcc.eived .y f e 1. 1.1 3 I n..�:. .,. Da' to The following information shall he provided by the applicant: SEP�} nr�r.3 L :`UH All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicants: Name: The Canyon, LC Telephone: (540) 667.2120 c/o David Holliday Address: 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Same as above Address: 3. Contact person(s) if other than above Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates Telephone: f540) 667.2139 c/o Patrick Sowers Address: 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester VA 22601 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location Map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deed of property X Impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X S. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: LC The Canyon LC David Holliday 6. A) Current Use of the Property: RP — Vacant B) Proposed Use of the Property: B 1 — Neighborhood Commercial Uses 7. Adjoining Property: SEE ATTACHED, S. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers). The Property is located along the east side of future Hagggly Boulevard approximatelyqpproximately 2,000 feet south of intersection of future HamiBoulevard and Route 7. In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density of intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number: 55-A-212 Magisterial: Fire Service: Rescue Service: Red Bud Greenwood Greenwood Districts High School: Middle School: Elementary School: Millbrook James Wood Red Bud 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 4.0 RP B1 4.0 Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family Home Townhome Multi -Family Non -Residential Lots Mobile Home Hotel Rooms Office Retail Restaurant 12. Signature: Square Footage of Proposed Uses 43,560 (maximum) Service Station Manufacturing Flex - Warehouse Other I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) kn ge Applicant(s) Date 17 g z 4 3 Adjoining Property Owners Haggerty Commercial Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name Property Identification Number (PIN) Address Name: Frederick -Winchester Service Authority P.O. Box 433 Property #: 56-A-19 W'n h t i c es er, V Name: Frederick -Winchester Service Authority A 22604 P.O. Box 433 Property#: 55-4-1 Vuinchester, VA 22604 Name: Investors At, LLC P.O. Box 550 Property #: 55-4-2 Stephens City, VA 22645 Name: Michael McKee 283 Eddys Lane Property #: 55-4-3 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Alicia Grey 1201 Bonaventure Ave Property #: 55-4-4A Green Cove Springs, FL 32043 Name: The Canyon 420 Jubal Early Dr Ste 103 Property #: 55-A-210 Winchester, VA 22601 Name: Toll VA IV, LP 19775 Belmont Executive Piz, Ste 250 Property #: 55-A-211 Ashburn, VA 20147 Name: Toll VA IV, LP 19775 Belmont Executive Piz, Ste 250 Property #: 55-A-209 Ashburn, VA 20147 Name: Twin Lakes Overlook Community Assoc 19775 Belmont Executive Piz, Ste 250 Property#: 55M -2-9-149D Ashburn, VA 20147 Name: Lisa & Mildred Riggleman 7000 Ben Franklin Rd Property #: 65-A-195 S rin field, VA 22150 Name: The Canyon 420 JubaI Early Dr Ste 103 Property #: 55 -A -212A Winchester, VA 22601 Name: Frederick -Winchester Service Authority P_O. Box 433 Property #: 56-A-18 Winchester, VA 22604 Name: George Bradfield et als 8225 Cambourne Ct Property #: 55-A-174 Gaithersburg, MD 20877 Name: Edward Haggerty 405 Colonel Ledyard Hwy Pro ert #: 6-A-59 Clarke Count Ledyard, CT 06339 C Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.coJrederick.va.ns Department of planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We) (Name) The Canyon, LC (Phone) 540.6672120 (Address) 420 West Juba] Early Dr, Suite 103 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument Number: 040014715 and is described as Tax Map Parcel 55-A-212 Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Patton Harris Rust & Associates (Phone) 540.667.2139 address) 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200, Winchester, Virginia 22601 To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including X Rezoning (including proffers) _ Conditional Use Permits Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) Subdivision Site Plan My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I ,(we) have hereto,4 my (our) hand and seal this r' day of',&A;� 200T Signature(s State of Vireiniaerity/County of To -wit: 1, �J �.{.� '10 a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, c rtify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personally appeared before me and �has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this sa ' `' day of 2'c , h<tr; 200 . 011 My Commission Expires: (O -' lotary is ��C� 3 GRAPHIC SCALE 0 5I0 100 200 / S f/' (IN FEET ) 1 inch = 100 ft. / / `SSSS Ftij Opp/ 56-A-18 N/F FREDERICK -WINCHESTER / SERVICE AUTHORITY O = DB 564, PC 414 INST #070017262 �Q p ZO ED: RA USE: WWTP 02 oQQ�"�w Aj Ir s / / G 4.000J(0 AC s / / N60• S2S�. / �' SossW �o \ oe FUTURE \ PHASE 1 OPEQUON CROSSING \ l © PHR+A 2008 V EXHIBIT HAGGERTY COMMERCIAL FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SEPT. 11, 2008 12617\1-0 Haggerty\Survey\Work Area\1412121—Exhi.dwg PREVIGUS PROFFERS FOR REZONING #0'4-u7p The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and developmentof the subject property ("Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced RP conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the `Board') decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, Haggerty Property" dated December 20, 2004 revised July 2, 2007 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following- 1. ollowing 1. LAND USE: A1.1 Residential development on the Property shall not exceed a maximum of 300 dwelling units. Housing types shall be limited to single family detached and single family attached units. PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ. # iC) L -L - v-�-- Residential Performance (RP) to Residential Performance PROPERTY: 111,56 acres +,/-- /-;Tag Tax Map Parcels 55-A-212 & 212A (the "Property") RECORD OWNER: The Canyon, LC APPLICANT: The Canyon, LC PROJECT NAME: Haggerty Property ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: December 20, 2004 REVISION DATE(S): 1/12/05; 1/20/05; 2/09/05; 12/13/06; 3/22/07; 5/16/07; 7/2/07; 7/10/07;7/17/07 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and developmentof the subject property ("Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced RP conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the `Board') decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, Haggerty Property" dated December 20, 2004 revised July 2, 2007 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following- 1. ollowing 1. LAND USE: A1.1 Residential development on the Property shall not exceed a maximum of 300 dwelling units. Housing types shall be limited to single family detached and single family attached units. Proffer Statement Haggerty 1.2 Single family detached housing types shall comprise a minimum of 60 units, but shall not exceed a maximum of 150 units. 2. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND PLAN APPROVALS: 2.1 The Property shall be developed as one single and unified development in accordance with applicable ordinances, regulations, and design standards, and this Haggerty Proffer Statement as approved by the Board. The project is a mixed use residential type allowing a range of housing types within limits f A established by this proffer statement 2.2 The maximum dwelling units for which certificates of occupancy are requested shall be 75 in any 12 month period within the first 24 months of project development, beginning on the date of master development plan approval by the Board, and 50 in any 12 month period thereafter. Any such units not requested in a given 12 month period shall be allowed to carry over to the subsequent 12 month period in addition to those units otherwise permitted. 2;3 After 60 months from master development plan approval by the Board, any remaining certificates of occupancy up to 300 may be requested. 3. PEDESTRIAN TRAIL SYSTEM AND RECREATION AREAS 3.1 The Applicant shall design and build a public pedestrian -bicycle trail system to Department of Parks and Recreation standards that links residential and open space areas within the development The precise location of said trail system shall be determined during the master development plan (MDP) process, pursuant to the approval of the Director of Parks and Recreation mmission. The trails shall be 10 feet wide, have an and the Planning Co asphalt surface and shall be located to enable connections with adjoining developments. 4. FIRE & RESCUE: 4.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $889.00 per dwelling unit for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit 4.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum. of $707.00 per dwelling unit for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family attached unit 5. SCHOOLS: 4.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $7,571.00 per dwelling unit for school purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit Page 2 of 8 Proffer Statement Haggerty 4.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $5,881.00 per dwelling unit for school purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family attached unit. 6. PARKS & OPEN SPACE: 6.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $1,288.00 per dwelling unit for recreational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit 6.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $1,040.00 per dwelling unit for recreational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family attached unit. 7. LIBRARIES: 7.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $213.00 per dwelling unit for library purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such single family detached unit. 7.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $173.00 per dwelling unit for library purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such single family attached unit 8. SHERIFF'S OFFICE 8.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $50.00 per dwelling unit for the Sheriff's Office upon issuance of building permit for each such unit ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 9.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $200.00 per dwelling unit for construction of a general governmental administration building upon issuance of building permit for each such unit 10. CREATION OF HOMEOWNERS' AND PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION: 10.1 The residential development shall be made subject to a homeowners' association (hereinafter "HOA") that shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of all common areas, including any conservation areas that may be established in accordance herewith not dedicated to the County or others, for each area subject to their jurisdiction, and shall be provided such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such associations or as may be required for such HOA herein. 10.2 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, an HOA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all common open space areas not otherwise dedicated to public use, (ii) common buffer areas located Page 3 of 8 Proffer Statement Haggerty outside of residential lots; (iii) common solid waste disposal programs, (iv) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any perimeter or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be located within easements to be granted to the HOA if platted within residential or other lots, or otherwise granted to the HOA by appropriate instrument and (v) responsibility for payment for maintenance of streetlights. 10.3 The Applicant shall provide management and start up assistance to the HOA, to include a contribution of $100 per dwelling unit to an escrow account established for HOA operations. 10.4 Curb side trash collection service shall be provided to all dwelling units by commercial carrier. The HOA shall be responsible for arranging and managing the delivery of said service to all dwelling units within the residential development. 11. WATER & SEWER: 11.1 The Applicant shall be responsible for connecting the Property to public water and sewer, and for constructing all facilities required for such connection. All water and sewer infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority ("the FCSA"). 11.2 The Applicant shall provide needed lands and easements on this site at no cost to the FCSA in order to implement the Senseny Road Regional Sewage Pump Station project. (See 1 on GDP). 11.3 The Applicant shall establish a buffer to a distance of 600' from presently planned future treatment units on the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority ("the FWSA") site. No residential dwelling units (structure) shall be located within this buffer. (See 2 on GDP). 11.4 The Applicant shall install a water main to a point of connection with the FWSA Opequon Sewer Plant property line. The water main will be installed and serviceable before the 101" building permit is issued. (See 3 on GDP). 12. ENVIRONMENT: 12.1 Stormwater management and Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Property shall be provided in accordance with the Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations, First Ed. 1999, Chapter 2, Table 2-3 which results in the highest order of stormwater control in existing Virginia law at the time of construction of any such facility. 13. TRANSPORTATION: 13.1 Transportation improvements shall be initiated at the outset of the development process unless otherwise specified below. Page 4 of 8 Proffer Statement Haggerty 13.2 The Applicant shall construct a North-South collector road as the "spine" of the project's internal road network and to provide direct access from the project to VA Route 7 as generally shown on the GDP as the section of roadway between Point A and Point C. Said collector road shall be located within both a 60 foot right of way and an 80 foot right of way as generally shown between Point A and Point C on the GDP. The Nora -South collector road shall generally run along the planned right of way for VA Route 37, and partly within the planned right of way for VA Route 37, as shown on the GDP. Said North-South collector road shall be constructed as a rural undivided (R2) cross section with curb and gutter to be utilized in some locations based upon final engineering. The collector road will transition from an R2 cross section to the typical Route 37 cross section upon entering the proposed Route 37 corridor from Point B to Point C as shown on the GDP. The collector road shall be constructed from VA Route 7 to the project site prior to issuance of the first building permit for the project, and shall be completed to the south Property boundary prior to issuance of the 151" building permit. The Applicant reserves the right to request for partial funding for collector road construction through revenue sharing or other programs as may be available through VDOT and/or Frederick County. (See generally Point A to Point C on the GDP) 13.3 The Applicant shall install those improvements necessary to complete the cross-over at the intersection of the "spine" collector road and VA Route 7, including Route 7 improvements with turn lanes, pursuant to VDOT specifications and approval The Applicant shall further enter into a signahzation agreement with VDOT for said intersection. Said improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of any building permits. 13.4 The Applicant shall provide a 90' reservation area in substantial conformance with the location depicted on the GDP to (i) construct the southern two lanes of an East-West collector road, planned to ultimately be an urban four lane divided (U4D) cross section within an 80' right of way and (ii) provide a landscaped buffer or road efficiency buffer as defined in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The East-West collector road shall be designed to accommodate the future Route 37 fly -over bridges. (See 5 on GDP) 13.4.1 Within the 90' reservation area, provided that 40' of right of way is dedicated on the adjoining property to the north prior to submission of engineered plans for the East-West collector road to the County, the Applicant shall dedicate 40' of right of way, as measured from the Property boundary and construct the southern two lanes of a U4D roadway from Point D to Point E as generally shown on the GDP. Said roadway shall be constructed prior to issuance of the 225' building permit. Additionally, the Applicant shall construct a 50' reduced distance road efficiency buffer, as defined in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, between any residential lots and said collector road. Buffer plantings and/or screening shall not be required where they are in conflict with required sight distances for roadways as defined by VDOT. Page 5 of 8 Proffer Statement Haggerty 13.4.2 In the event that 40' of right of way is not dedicated on the adjoining property to the north prior to submission of engineered plans for the East-West collector road to the County, the Applicant shall dedicate 80' of right of way, as measured from the Property boundary and within the 90' reservation area, to construct the southern two lanes of a U4D roadway from Point D to Point E as generally shown on the GDP. Said roadway shall be constructed prior to issuance of the 225' building permit. Additionally, the Applicant shall also construct a densely planted landscape screen within the remaining 10' of the 90' reservation area. Said landscape screen shall be located between any residential lots and said collector road and shall consist of a double row of evergreen trees, minimum four feet tall at time of planting, spaced a maximum of eight feet apart. No additional screening or buffer distance shall be required between the residential units and said collector road. Buffer plantings and/or screening shall not be required where they are in conflict with required sight distances for roadways as defined by VDOT. 13.5 The Applicant shall construct an entrance onto the "spine" collector road for tui Opequon Regional Wastewater Facility. The final location and design of said entrance shall be determined pursuant to the specifications and approval of VDOT, the County, and the FWSA. 13.6 The right of way for VA Route 37 as identified by County studies and generally shown on the GDP will be surveyed and platted. The Applicant will cause the dedication of this right of way at no cost to the County within 90 days of request by the County. All plats depicting the VA Route 37 right of way shall note that the roadway is limited access. (See 6 on GDP). 13.7 The Applicant shall construct a complete densely planted landscape screen on a 20' landscape easement adjacent to both sides of the proposed VA Route 37 right of way and a portion of the proposed "spine" collector road as depicted on the GDP. At least 3 trees are to be planted for each 10 linear feet of easement and are to be 4 feet in height at time of planting. The mix of trees are to be determined through discussion with the Virginia Forestry service and VDOT and shall be shown on initial construction plans. (See 7 on GDP). 13.8 Direct lot access to the North-South collector road and East-West collector road shall be prohibited. 13.9 Any portion of the "spine" collector road constructed in the Route 37 alignment shall be constructed in general conformance with the typical Route 37 cross section as well as the vertical and horizontal alignment identified by the plan entitled "County of Frederick Route 37 Corridor Study, Functional Design" dated October 1992 as prepared by Maguire Associates, Inc. Page 6 of 8 Proffer Statement Haggerty 14. ESCALATOR CLAUSE: 14.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement are paid to the Frederick County Board County Supervisors C Board") within 30 months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to the Board after 30 months following the approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index ("CPI -U") published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time contributions are paid, they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI -U from that date 24 months after the approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI -U to the date the contributions are paid, subject to a cap of 6% per year, non -compounded. 15. INTER -PARCEL CONTNECTION: 15.1 The Applicant shall construct an inter -parcel connector to provide access to the adjoining properties to the south and east in the general location depicted at Point 8 on the GDP; said inter -parcel connection shall be provided in place of any previously planned inter -parcel connection located at the southwestern area of the Property as previously depicted on the approved Master Development Plan for the adjacent Twin Lakes development. The newly proposed inter -parcel connection as shown at Point 8 on the GDP shall also be depicted on the Master Development Plan to be submitted for the Property, and shall be depicted on future subdivision design plans for the adjacent Twin Lakes development. SIGNATI_)RES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES Page 7 of 8 Proffer Statement Haggerty Respectfully submitted, Tide: STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNT', To -wit The foxegoiug instrument ' as acknowledged pefQxe Xne this I qday of2007, by '--j F, lv . My commission oxpixes 31 ` f Notary Public Page 8 of 8 SUBDIVISION REQUEST #04-09 BONNIE TRIPLETT ` Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: October 7, 2009 n Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator Reviewed Action Planning Commission 10/21/09 Pending Board of Supervisors: 11/18/09 Pending LOCATION: The property is located at 1065 Airport Road, on the north side of Airport Road (Route 645). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR 10/21/09 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The applicant has requested a waiver from Section 144-24 B of the Frederick County Code (Subdivision) to allow a 4.157 acre parcel to be created with a road frontage less than 250 feet, and lot area less than five acres for both parcels. Staff is seeking three actions: Recommendation from the Planning Commission regarding reduction of 250 foot public road frontage of the 4.157acre lot. Recommendation from the Planning Commission regarding administrative approval authority for lots less than five acres in lot area, and density less than one dwelling unit per five acres. • Recommendation from the Planning Commission regarding administrative approval authority for a two lot subdivision. Subdivision Request #04-09, Bonnie Triplett October 7, 2009 Page 2 This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist in the review of this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. LOCATION: The property is located at 1065 Airport Road, on the north side of Airport Road (Route 645). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 64-A-174 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) South: RA (Rural Areas) East: RA (Rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Winchester Airport Use: Residential Use: Residential Use: Residential SUBDIVISION SPECIFICS: Subdivision of 6.157 acres into two parcels of 2.0 acres and 4.157 acres for family division. REVIEW COMMENTS VDOT: No Comments Fire and Rescue: N/A Sanitation Authority: No Comments Subdivision Request #04-09, Bonnie Triplett October 7, 2009 Page 3 Staff Review: This property was zoned A-2 (Agriculture, General) when Frederick County adopted zoning in 1967. The zoning changed from A-2 (Agriculture, General) to RA (Rural Areas), in 1989. This request is for subdivision of 6.157 acres into two (2) parcels of 2.0 acres, and 4.157 acres to settle a trust for the applicant. There are currently two (2) dwellings located on this property; this proposed subdivision will allow these dwellings to stand on separate tax parcels. These parcels are located within the Sewer Water Service Area (SWSA) and Airport Support Area as indicated by the 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan of Frederick County. The proposed future Route 37 by-pass is planned to cross this property. Requested Waivers: The applicant has requested a waiver from Section 144-24 B of the Frederick County Code (Subdivision) which addresses lot size, lot area, and density in the RA zoning district. This waiver will allow a 4.157 acre parcel to be created with a road frontage less than 250 feet. Two parcels will be created with a lot area less than five acres, and density less than one dwelling unit per five acres. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 10/21/09 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Staff is seeking three actions: Recommendation from the Planning Commission regarding the reduction of less than250 foot of public road frontage of the 4.157 acre parcel. Recommendation from the .Planning Commission regarding administrative approval authority for lots less than five acres in lot area, and density less than one dwelling unit per five acres. Recommendation from the Planning Commission regarding administrative approval authority for a two lot subdivision. All issues and concerns raised by the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. Bonnie Triplett SubWav # 04 - 09 Subdivision Wavier Request PIN, 64 - A - 174 Current Zoning Map laseYlatviar:hPlieran F.a,raxnrR,q,., z«Rvrc � Pro+r xa,x...,rarra nnn.r. �T+ qac snrvm axim aa:usrmraxrr .arc rrearmuv iewav sramena rcr.xr.+avarmm.wna nm.rr �IIrbnrne.Hy,�rw.rt.�+ea R'. �Bn.vess i:en.,IDM.vai Ri9xdat 3Yfvd.M tb,tmtpmir,AfWi , b� I. 4m,xatfratmsenaee e•®mw.:ernar....rr.xs�x«n it«...n�.,rruN�,..n�,..r� i1 E 0 Soo 11000 2,000 Feet 5 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street ! Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 WAIVER/EXCEPTIONS REQUEST APPLICATION 1. Applicant: Name: Greenway ineering Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester VA 22602 2. Property owner (if different than above): Name: Bonnie Triplett Telephone: (540) 662-6965 Address: 1103 Airport Road Winchester VA 22602 3. Contact person (if other than above): Name: Evan Wyatt Telephone: (540) 662-4185 4. Waiver request details (include specific ordinance requirements to be waived): Please refer to information in cover letter dated September 28 2009 5. Property Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): Tax map parcel 64-((A))-174 is located on the north side of Airport Road; approximately 2,000 feet east of Victory Road 6. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 64-((A))-174 Magisterial District: Shawnee 7. Property zoning and current use: Zoned: RA, Rural Areas District Current Use: Residential (2 residences) 8. Attachments: Adjoining Property Owners List X Existing/recorded and Proposed Plats X OFFICE USE ONLY: Fee: $500 eneltosed: Receipt 9-i 9. List of Adjoining Properties: The following names and addresses are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to the property for which the waiver or exception is being sought, including properties at the sides, rear, and in front of (across street from) the subject property. (Use additional pages if necessary.) These people will be notified by inaii of this application. ul Address 491 Airport Road Winchester Regional Airport Authority Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID # 64 -A -159C William Weare Address 545 Old Ferry Lane Bluemont, VA 20135 Property ID # 64-A-165 William Fauver Address 1086 Airport Road Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID # 64-A-166 Andrew White Address 1080 Airport Road Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID # 64-A-167 Angela Schultz Address 1072 Airport Road Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID # 64-A-169 Powell's Investments LLC Address 165 Upper Ridge Road Winchester, VA 22603 Property ID # 64-A-170 Sandra Sandridge Address 1050 Airport Road Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID # 64-A-171 & 172 Brenda Triplett Address 1101 Airport Road Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID # 64 -A -174A Seungbok Eom Address 1125 Airport Road Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID # 64 -A -177C Robert Largent Address 141 Westwood Drive Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID # 64-A-178 DCT&G LLC Address 2400 Valley Avenue - Suite 8 Winchester, VA 22601 Property ID # 64-11-17 r 'ti otcra Frederick Plann'11a Web- Site: yv; "I.e0•ftedericli vus — - Departjflent of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virgh-#ia,, 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Phone S40-665-5651 Know All Men By These Presents: That i (We) (Name) Bonnie "Triplett (Asbury C. Triplett Jr.,Trust UA LTD c/o Bonnie L Triplett Trustee) (Phone) (540) 662-6965 (Address) _1103 Airport Road Winchester VA 22602 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. 070019084 on Page , and is described as Parcel: 174 Lot: Block: A Section: 64 Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Greenway Engineering Inc. (Phone) (540) 662-4185 (Address) 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester VA 22602 To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning application for my (our) above described Property, including: ❑ Rezoning (InOuding proffers) ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ® Subdivision Ordinance Exception ❑ Site Plan ❑ Variance or Appeal ❑ Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: N/A This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this day oft Signatures) AxL�� State of Virginia, City Count of TCCA-,rl To -wit: t;`Yt✓1Q t -Il {�(ts� a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) w signed to the foregoing instrument and who I (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and''•,�all f� "•'' acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this 23`'a day ofST,200-7 •;'-Z •'• �� = My Commission Expires: t -e to 2�{ 7" '•'_ , r` - Notary Public Registration #: 2�1(, to Revised 3/17/08 0.0 D GRUNWAYFINGINEERING1 fc. 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 Founded in 1971 September 28, 2009 Frederick County Planning Department Attn: Mark Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 SEP 2 8 0,D9 RE: Asbury C. Triplett Jr. Trust Subdivision Ordinance Exception Dear Mark: The purpose of this letter is to provide you with information pertaining to tax map parcel 64-((A))-174 currently owned by the Asbury C. Triplett, Jr. Trust. Per our discussion, Mrs. Bonnie Triplett, Trust Manager, has been tasked with settling the trust, which involves among other things the creation of lots for family members associated with the trust. Tax map parcel 64-((A))-174 is located on the north side of Airport Road (Route 645) in the Shawnee Magisterial District. This parcel is approximately 6.15± acres and has two residences identified as 1065 Airport Road and 1085 Airport Road. Mrs. Triplett desires to establish a parcel of land for each residence that will be utilized to settle matters of the trust associated with this parcel. Greenway Engineering has prepared an exhibit that demonstrates the potential configuration of two parcels associated with the family division of tax map parcel 64- ((A))-174. These parcels provide for the opportunity to establish a new lot for each of the existing residences, which are currently legally non -conforming residences on this tax parcel. The exhibit provides for a 2.0 -acre parcel that conforms to the minimum area and width/depth requirements of the Frederick County Code; however, the proposed 4.15± acre parcel will not meet these requirements. Section 144-24(B) of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance states that the dimensions of all lots shall conform with the requirements of the Frederick County Code concerning lot area, minimum lot width, setbacks and other dimensional requirements. Additionally, Section 144-5 of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance states that the Board of Supervisors may grant variations in or exceptions to the provisions of Chapter 144. The existing residential lots located along this portion of Airport Road contain less area and lot width than the proposed 4.15± acre parcel; therefore, the proposed configuration would not be detrimental to this area. Furthermore, the Board of Supervisor's allowance of this subdivision ordinance exception would eliminate the existing condition of two residences on one tax parcel and would assist Mrs. Triplett in matters associated with the trust. Engineers Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists Telephone 540-662-4185 FAX 540-722-9528 File #5303 www.greeifwayeng.com Subdivision Ordinance Exception Greenway Engineering has provided the information required to process this Subdivision Ordinance Exception request, including this cover letter explaining the request, a Special Limited Power of Attorney form, a $500.00 processing fee, and 11 x 17 color exhibits that depict the proposed residential lots. Please process this information for inclusion on the next available Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors agenda in order to determine if the Asbury C. Triplett, Jr. Trust is authorized to proceed with final subdivision plat approval in general conformity with this information. Please advise me if you need any additional information at this time and we will provide it to you immediately. Sincerely, Evan Wyatt, AI Greenway Engineering Cc: Bonnie Triplett File #5303 2 Subdivision Ordinance Exception NOTES. 1, BOUNDARY SHOWN HEREON WAS DETERMINED BY A FIELD RUN SURVEY PERFORMED BY ARTZ k ASSOCIATES ON APRIL 11, 2002. IRS = REBAR SET 2. THIS PLAT IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. IRF REGAR FOUND ACCESS TO THE 2.000 ACRE TRACT IS TO BE OVER THE EXISTING 50' R/W ON TRIPLUT'S ADJOINING PROPERTIES. 64A -154X W 7 t�iN 5a RYA. N 64 A 7�5 N 64!42-43- E 3� POST Y 147.39'- 564AA7-7 ff 213 91 IRF a �5�gz 218/fw-10 N 6442'43' E 15.16' -\IRF POINT cK S 34'03"07' E" 244.94' 2 OF IRS —50' BRL r157 � S 31`53'36' E 57.51' IRS IRS 9 1 r�. AMS IRF5p EXISTING i -,1t N 3403"07' W_POINTT /2 57'DWELUN�, � 247.20 sk f N 56'08'32' E \ 143.30' 14. N 33.0718' W 463.47' \ REBAR FOUND O 25.04' AREA TARMA'jI TM (64-A-174 8.157 ACRES TM j64 -A-174 6.157 ACRES FAMILY LOT 2.000 ACRES Fiwu. FI.Ar. FnMLv rn+n51oN or 8.15 AGES nc.,OWs.x, WoMziv %A%W WAXf. MWM COWN, V!t'GRdIA %G U: I" - 200` flArr: A7& 11, 2002 M9IW owom- A C. tRKM A N #64-A-114 W "9, PO ,415 PROJECT 120141 T -.--50' BRL 1 3." y � Ex1sT1NG � 1 'CA\SWELLING \c� 0�\� 7.5' S 33'06'1 ' E 1 200.50' (74-A-1-16 / 2(71/4!50 I" �S 60'14'48' W 4' ' 338.00' e IRS �4 / EXISTING 50' R/W S 60'14'43' W 226.66' 64 -A -MC fffwf 966/ 810 1, v.T H 0 - a MICHAEL ARTZ No. 19 1 4 /11 2 41 SURA Arty and tax, F ♦ BuA[MW7 of Tann �[}n..rim 16 EAST PM"LY STREET W*CHM R M 22 1-4740 Ta 5/0-662-3w FOX617-9188 FOIL FREE 1-800-7 5-7]➢0 U 2 t C5 LLM $E a W " *No uj W IN rI r / 1 \ \ i \ \ \ 100, f /r � % �� ASNoa 20P lwE /PIOPOSO REMN T h# 64-41174 j/ 4.157 ACRO 1r 1 i e z 1 \ *� -• . . I \ j PF PROPOSED LOT IL 2.000 ACRES r ----------------- --- --- - _ -_-----�---� ------ _ - __- - - \\\AI T READ ;��.-- OVTE 846 f k. L x W 'p C Cc 20 CL m CL a � m< a. V to r— OD X1 ®3 ,ar- 0 to 0 V 0 DA_ _/_/_ 8017, NW DZMNM or PAZ F" NO. 6909 SE= 1 OF 2 • • J CCwUN T Y of FREDER:TCK Department of Planning and Deveiopment 54-01665-5651 FAX: 540/665-639S g'O: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director DATE: October 5, 2009 'tE: (Discussion: Rock Harbor Amendment to the Round Hill Land Use Plan On September 14, 2009, the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) Executive Committee endorsed the enclosed Draft Amendment to the Round Hill Land Use Plan known as the Rock Harbor Amendment to the Round Hill Land Use Plan Through the 2009 Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment process, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors endorsed the evaluation of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to include the property that is home to the Rock Harbor Golf Course. The following land use policy, along with the updated land use map, is the resulting amendment. The amendment to the plan has two primary goals - first, to establish a new area of land use that would specifically promote the recreational attributes of this area in conjunction with the open spaces associated with the existing Rock Harbor Golf Course, and second, to create a well-designed Conference Facility and Commercial Center with an orientation to the Golf Course and future Route 37 interchange. The goals of the amendment to the Plan seek to enable the development of land uses which will provide economic development, tourism, and entertainment benefits to the community and to Frederick County, and further promote the Rock Harbor Golf Course. The result of this proposed Amendment would be the addition of approximately 260 acres into the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and the addition of a new land use designation, a Recreation and Conference Commercial Corninunity, which promotes a balance of land uses with the recreational component as the primary land use, supported by conference facilities, lodging, commercial activities, and a limited amount of accessory membership residential opportunities. V)7 North Kent Street, Suite 202 � Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Planning Commission Discussion: Rock Harbor Amendment to the Round Hill Land Use Plan October 5, 2009 Page 2 This item is presented as a discussion item. Any comments and input offered by the Planning Commission will be incorporated into the package forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that Staff has received correspondence from an adjacent property owner, Mr. Kelly Robinson, in support of including his property into the Sewer and Water Service Area in conjunction with this amendment. Please contact the Planning Department should you have any questions regarding this information. Attachments MTRfbad Round Mill Community Land Use Pia i 2007 (Adopted by the Board of Supervisors on November 14, 2007) Rock Harbor Amendment Draft 09/.15/09 Through the 2009 Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment process, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors endorsed the evaluation of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to include the property that is home to the Rock Harbor Golf Course. The following land use policy, along with the updated land use map, is the resulting amendment and is known as the Rock Harbor Amendment to the Round Hill Land Use Plan. Guiding Principles The amendment to the plan has two primary goals - first, to establish a new area of land use that would specifically promote the recreational attributes of this area in conjunction with the open spaces associated with the existing Rock Harbor Golf Course, and second, to create a well- designed Conference Facility and Commercial Center with an orientation to the Golf Course and future Route 37 interchange. The goals of the Plan seek to enable the development of land uses which will provide economic development, tourism, and entertainment benefits to the Community and to Frederick County, and further promote the Rock Harbor Golf Course. The addition of Rock Harbor area to the Round Hill Land Use Plan creates a third distinct area of land use for the Round Hill Community which will join with the Community's other two distinct areas; the long established Round Hill Rural Community Center focused around Round Hill Road (Route 803) and the developing commercial area along Route 50 (Northwestern Pike). The Rock Harbor area of the Round Hill Land Use Plan is west of, and adjacent to, the West Jubal Early Land Use Plan. The addition of this area will promote a connectivity of land uses and access between the two important land use plans with a focus on the future West Jubal Early Interchange. This plan also encompasses the area of existing quarry operation, providing recognition to this very important area of Extractive Manufacturing and guidance with regards to future development adjacent to the quarry. Additional protections in the form of distance and buffering should be provided for any new land uses on the Rock Harbor property, particularly for any accessory membership residential land uses. Like the other two areas, this plan seeks to link to the community by providing access to efficient roads and multi-purpose trails and sidewalks for the benefit of both the residents of this Community and those adjacent citizens who may work or recreate in the area. As with previous versions of the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan, a key goal of this plan is to provide public sewer and water access for the existing residents of the Round Hill community. Land Use Round Hill Recreation and Conference Commercial Community (Commercial Recreation Land Use) The intent of the Recreation and Conference Commercial Community shall be to provide for carefully planned commercially driven recreational land uses which take advantage of existing recreational amenities (36 -hole golf course) and enhances the economic development opportunities of the area through conference facilities, lodging, commercial activities, and a limited amount of accessory membership residential opportunities. Growth and development of this area should be carefully planned to take advantage of the existing commercial recreation land uses, Rock Harbor Golf Course, the close proximity of the Winchester Medical Center, and the adjacent areas of planned land use. The community shall have a balance of land uses that provides that the recreational component shall be the primary land use. The recreational component shall be located in close proximity (within one mile) of an existing Route 37 Interchange. There shall be a major open space component. Compatible commercial ventures such as conference facilities, lodging opportunities, restaurants, and limited accessory retail shall be incorporated into a Master Development Plan which shall be submitted and approved as a component of a future rezoning. Balance of land uses Recreational - 36 hole golf course (minimum # of holes) Open Space — 60 percent of land area (minimum area including golf course) Commercial — 30 percent of land area (maximum area) This area of commercial shall include a Conference facility with a minimum 500 person capacity — Conference Facility in place prior to commencement of accessory membership residential land uses. Accessory membership residential — 10 percent of land area (maximum of 200 units which may be in individual buildings) The project shall be one project encompassing the entire area with no splitting up of property into individual commercial or residential lots. In addition, the accessory membership residential shall be of a limited scale and owned and operated by the recreational uses owner for use of the organization and membership. Community Facilities In order to promote high quality low impact design, this project should promote energy efficient design and development, including achieving LEED certification, or certification from a similar program, as a project. Areas of impervious surface in conjunction with the development shall be minimized. Alternative irrigation techniques should be promoted. Innovation with providing water and sewer to this project is necessary due to the limited resources available to the County. Alternative approaches with regards to water resources and reuse of water and wastewater should be provided with this project. This project should provide -2- additional resources to the community and facilitate the provision of water and sewer resources to the Round Hill Community, in particular to the existing residents, rather than detract from the FCSA's ability to provide these resources. It is essential to ensure that the infrastructure and the necessary community facilities are provided in a timely and coordinated manner in order to enable the successful implementation of the land use plan. Rezoning to the new district should not be allowed prior to the availability of public water and sewer or alternately rezoning should provide for water and sewer. Design High quality building designs and materials are expected. An objective of this plan is to create an attractive, functional commercial area and to prevent the creation of a typical commercial strip, from the perspective of a new interchange on Route 37. Unattractive development along Route 37 frontage should be avoided. From this perspective, the golf course and future conference and lodging facilities should be preserved and be the prominent features. Additional commercial and residential land uses should be avoided directly adjacent to Route 37. The recreational viewshed should be promoted with the golf course and future conference facilities highly visible. This may include a linear area of open space adjacent to Route 37 (500 feet distance). This area of open space should not be extended to the area surrounding the proposed interchange. Transportation The County's Eastern Road Plan and the Win -Fred Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 2030 Transportation Plan calls for Route 37 Jubal Early Interchange improvement. This project has been endorsed through recent rezoning approvals. This land use plan will ultimately provide direct access to the Route 37 interchange at this location. Access to the Round Hill Community to the North is also encouraged and may be established prior to the completion of the Jubal Early Interchange if supported by an approved TIA (Transportation Impact Analysis). Notwithstanding this, the development of this property should participate in the implementation of the Route 37 interchange to the extent that it is warranted as a primary transportation focus. A new multi-purpose trail connection is planned through the Rock Harbor project to serve the area and provide access and connectivity between the Round Hill community and the West Jubal Early community. The location shown on the plan is general, with the precise location of the trail connection remaining flexible. However, access should provide a connection generally from Point A to Point B as depicted on the map. It would be preferable to have the trail connectivity located on the proposed sewer infrastructure parallel to the north of the railroad tracks. Multipurpose access should be provided from west of the interchange to the east of the interchange. This should occur in conjunction with the construction of the interchange, under the existing Abrams Creek and rail bridge, or both. Trail connectivity to West Jubal Early Land Use Plan and the City of Winchester Green Circle is very important. -3- Implementation SWSA Boundary Alt. 1. The SWSA boundary shall be modified around the boundaries of the Rock Harbor property as identified in this map. Assumes an expectation is in place that community facilities will be provided to serve this site prior to rezoning. In addition, this ultimately assumes the ability of community to obtain future water and sewer resources. Alt 2. The SWSA boundary shall not be modified at the time of the approval of this land use plan. In the future, the SWSA boundary may be modified consistent with the land use designations of the Study, and ultimately up to the potential locations of the SWSA identified by the study, only with the approval of the Board of Supervisors, and only when it has been demonstrated that the necessary sewer and water infrastructure is available. Note: The FC'SA has expressed concerns over the timing of the project, the needs of the adjacent development projects, and the availability offuture water and wastewater resources. .Zoning Designation The existing commercial designations of the County could be used in the implementation of the proposed land use designation. Alternately, a new zoning district or overlay district could be created to accommodate such a balance of land uses and could address housing types and dimensional standards. Such a special district would be the preferred alternative Alt 1, Recreation and Conference Commercial District or Overlay District — Zoning Designation specifically designed to implement this balance of land uses and associated performance standards. Alt 2, B2 (Business General) — Zoning Designation (7041 Residence Clubs operated by organizations for members only could be used to accommodate accessory membership residential land uses). Golf Courses could be incorporated into the district. -4- r 0 Q '0 481 acres # # ,-(apprw +� # 260"acres' (apprx) IN 7 i I �s awc�•7 •►001 V1 xs �o ��ApODo D ! II Round Mill Community Land Use Plan Adopted November 14, 2007 N w* (Feet 0 750 1,500 *14"e' Proposed Collector Roads Proposed Traffic Signal Proposed Interchange Streets ,�^/ Primary Rds i^/ Secondary Rds Terciary Rds Winchester Rds Railroads lakes streams Urban Development Area a swsa Community Center Business Q commercial Recreation Extractive Mining Park B Trai[Connectivity A Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development 107 N Kent St Winchester, VA 22601 www.CO.FREDERICK.VA.US Amended November 2009 �!f Future Rt37 Bypass LongRangeLandUse Application Rural Community Center M♦ Urban Development Area Residential SWSA ��/ Mixed Use Age Restricted Mixed -Use Business Mixed Use Commercial \ Office N 0 300 600 1,200 Feet W E ii. f \_-1 _ . - �� . Ror.;H C o "_Cuw _^.00 1 ... ., , ,-.,� PIVD Highway Commercial , W Industrial f Mixed Use Industrial \ Offce Ql�p Urban Center ., Neighborhood Village Planned Unit Development Recreation �i Natural Resources & Recreation Open Space Institutional -Xy Historic \ DSA } v Zock Harbor Golf Course - SWSA E 4 CPPA # 03 - 09 CURRENT LAND USE PIN: 52-A- 313; 52-A- 88 �!f Future Rt37 Bypass LongRangeLandUse Application Rural Community Center M♦ Urban Development Area Residential SWSA ��/ Mixed Use Age Restricted Mixed -Use Business Mixed Use Commercial \ Office N 0 300 600 1,200 Feet W E ii. f \_-1 _ . - �� . Ror.;H C o "_Cuw _^.00 1 ... ., , ,-.,� PIVD Highway Commercial , W Industrial f Mixed Use Industrial \ Offce Ql�p Urban Center ., Neighborhood Village Planned Unit Development Recreation �i Natural Resources & Recreation Open Space Institutional -Xy Historic \ DSA ■ ��c — , it . ■pr d. lock Harbor Golf Course - SWS: ENxq CPPA # 03 - 09 1-URRENT :ZONING PIN: 52-A-313; 52-A-88 1 ttl t•: t 0 300 600 1,200 Feet I 1 t • f l ' T-*-IFii � ' tY ' Case Planner: MRuddy Future Rt37 Bypass Zoning M2 (Industrial, General District) + Application BI (Business, Neighborhood District) 4W MHI (Mobile Home Community District) �-. w / Urban Development Area B2 (Business, General District) 40) MS (Medical Support District) SWSA 4W B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) R4 (Residential Planned Community District) 440 EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) 4� RS (Residential Recreational Community District) HE (Higher Education District) t i RA (Rural Area District) 4M MI (Industrial, Light District) RP (Residential Performance District) - Y LEGEND D POTENTIAL LAND USE LocATIONS MA"ry�U 1 GONvLNTiQ J CENTER .t .�J o tr Ku t�EXTENDED STAT LODCsIN:slit t ! kF AGE -RESTRICTED Lu, GOLD cou • 4 HOU5ING t r r' `� ett ,. �.`yai.. 1• #.. ` F W ` f E. Q !��r � 1�., � 's �t.1�i► �� '"'TAF ".W. '`.� t 1�Mt � cyx LID U x 3 Rr .. t ��•-.-rte,.-.. � a A' ( e L � d4-. DATE: JUNE i. 20O0 , 30ALG: 1' 600' a s' DE=IiRDHY: EA6I7NT' - ,k °:r •,oi�;.,r '. �, ..: - � � 17OH K0. 4746 11JA H & LEGGE LAND SUAVE 1,rGR 3, FLm C. 560 North Loudoun Street, Winchester VA 22601 ® 540-667-0468 ■ Fax: 540-667-0469 a E-mail_ office@marshandlegge.com September 23, 2009 Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, AICPr Deputy Director Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Request for Including Property into the Water and Sewer Service Area (SWSA Expansion) Tax Parcels 52-18-5 and 53-3-B Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mike: I am writing this letter on behalf of R & T Packing Corporation as a request to include two of the R & T Packing Corporation's properties into the Frederick County Water and Sewer Service Area (SWSA) expansion. We present this request to your office in support of the Comprehensive Plan Committee Review Application CPPA No. 03-09, Rock Harbor Golf Course, SWSA Expansion 259.43 Acres. The subject R & T Packing Corporation properties are designated as Tax Parcel 52-18-5 containing 4.57 acres, and Tax Parcel 53-3-B containing one acre, being situated on the southeast side of Merriman's Lane and the west side of Route 37. This location is at the intersection of these two roadways, and currently the properties are remnant parcels of land having a composite area of approximately five and one-half acres. We have enclosed several vicinity maps that identify the subject properties and their geographic location to existing adjacent facilities such as the Route 37 highway, Rock Harbor Golf Course, Roscommon Residential Subdivision, and lands that are proposed for development on the east side of Route 37. We also have provided a copy of a proposed right of way dedication exhibit of the future West Jubal Early Drive project, which will provide for Route 37 access adjacent to the subject properties. The subject properties are currently zoned RA (Rural Area) and are generally non -conforming and not well suited for agricultural or residential use. It is the intent of R & T Packing Corporation to plan for future uses of this property in a manner that is compatible with the Rock Harbor Golf Course, a recreational commercial use. Mr. Michael T. Ruddy September 28, 2009 Page Two R & T Packing Corporation has worked in cooperation with Rock Harbor Golf Course and is the developer of the existing Roscommon Subdivision. A portion of the Roscommon Residential Subdivision Preservation Lot has provided lands for the expansion of the existing Rock Harbor Golf Course. R & T Packing Corporation is committed to providing for future commercial uses on this property that will enhance both the recreational and residential uses along the proposed West Jubal Early Drive -Route 37 interchange. We look forward to working with your office to obtain a favorable review of this request. Sincerely, cot W. Marsh, L.S. SWM/clh Enclosures Copy to: Mr. J. Kelly Robinson R & T Packing Corporation Y klt . a N r 4 I I .• 60 \30,� 0 i�ce.r.sayw 120 \\ �r �/ \�\ \ ��7 \ END L/A & .FENCE pra a; JI f SCALE: 1" = 60 \ \ / l N �4 � \\ L1 J _ Lag 1L OX. CCI I`;'TK-L_'MIC'll L UAT'� �\� r� �w l`T�\f.E LUAL L�JIES r �UT UT- rrY END L/A & L/A FENCE IAX ACr=.-FIGHT-OF-WAY ADDITIONAL '52- " - ; 0,145 ACRES _ fw ��- - - - PROP L/A FENCE '`� \ \ \ m > PE R0"W bED. PLAT\RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIRED .-108 ACRES\(TOTAL 1;327 ACRES (TOTAL} \\ \\ \ W _ D.�O-� EXCkSS CL Q w W _ _ U W 0 Y r`i. Q _ \ \ Q N La Iz- DAM DEC. B007 0"- DESIGNED. BY GM{ ma NO. SBOOVG i SHEET 1 OF Round Hill Community Land Use Plan Adopted November 14, 2007 Feet 0 750 7,500 pf 41" Proposed Collector Roads Proposed Traffic Signal Proposed Interchange Streets ^/ Primary Rds Secondary Rds Terciary Rds Winchester Rds Railroads lakes streams e * Urban Development Area sorsa Community Center Business Commercial Recreation Extractive Mining Park B A— .'r Trailconnectivity, A Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development 107 N Kent St Winchester, VA 22601 wwvv.CO.FREDERICK.VA.US Amended November 2009 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development -540/665-5651 MEMORANDUM FAX: 540/665-6395 To: Frederick County Planning Commission P From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner Al" Subject: Discussion— Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Ordinance Date: October 2, 2009 On April 22, 2009, the Board of Supervisors approved the Rural Areas Report and Recommendation as a policy component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. This report contained recommendations from the Rural Areas Subcommittee, which was a group created by the Board of Supervisors. The Subcommittee was charged with identifying growth and development trends and related issues in the rural areas of the County, gathering ideas to address those issues and forwarding a recommendation for resolution to the Board of Supervisors. One of the recommendations contained within the report was to establish a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program. The Study stated that the sending properties should be designated in an effort to discourage development and take into account environmental constraints. Receiving properties were to be located in areas where residential development was desired (UDA, Urban Centers, Rural Community Centers). The TDR Ordinance that has been developed consists of three parts that will regulate the program, including which properties qualify to transfer rights and which properties qualify to receive those transferred rights. The ordinance lays out the increased density allowed on receiving properties as well as the transfer process and the development process for the receiving property. Definitions that correspond to the TDR Ordinance have also been included. The TDR ordinance contains various criteria and processes as outlined below: Sending Properties Sending properties have been identified as parcels located in the Rural Areas Zoning District, outside of the UDA and the SWSA, twenty acres in size or greater, and subdividable in accordance with Chapter 144 - Subdivision of Land (state road access, etc). The ordinance contains a section on calculations to determine the number of rights a sending property may transfer. Receiving Properties Receiving properties have been identified as parcels located within the UDA (designated for residential land uses) or a designated and defined Rural Community Center, that the parcels be of the correct zoning district (RA, RP, R4), served by public water and public sewer, be served by state roads, not impact historical resources and be outside of the Airport Support Area. 107 North Dent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Frederick County Planning Commission Re: TDR Ordinance Page 2 October 2, 2009 Certification Process Sending properties would be certified as outlined in §165-302.05. The certification process would involve the applicant providing the County with outlined information (such as application, title report, plats). The County would then provide the applicant with a certification letter outlining how many density rights the property may transfer. Transfer Process Once a sending property has been certified (issued a LETTER OF INTENT and then a TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE), it may transfer its density rights to a receiving property or a receiving person. The receiving property must also be certified as outlined in the draft ordinance. Density rights can be severed from a sending property and transferred directly to a receiving property (thus extinguished), or they can be severed from a sending property and held by a receiving person. Receiving properties must complete the Master Development Plan and Subdivision Design Plan process and meet all development regulations set forth by the RP (Residential Performance) District. Development rights from a sending property shall be considered transferred to a receiving property or a receiving person when the extinguishment document for the sending property has been recorded. The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) at their meeting on September 24, 2009. The DRRC discussed the possibility of future development bonuses for areas containing natural or environmental resources such as karst topography, as well as the need to remove natural resources from the density right calculations. The DRRC felt that TDR's may not be used if environmental features are excluded because that could lead to the property owner not getting full yield from the property. The DRRC also wanted to ensure that people understood that family lot subdivisions would not be possible if the property owner sold their rights. The DRRC then recommended that the draft TDR ordinance be forwarded to the Planning Commission for fiirtlier discussion. This item is presented for discussion. Comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Attachments: 1. Draft TDR Ordinance. CEP/bad TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) DRAFT ORDINANCE - October 2, 2009 r ARTICLE III Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program Part 301— Establishment and Purpose. §165-301.01. Purpose. Pursuant to the authority granted by § 15.2-2316.2 of the Code of Virginia, there is established a transfer of development rights (TDR) program, the purpose of which is to transfer residential density from eligible sending areas to eligible receiving areas through a voluntary process for permanently conserving agricultural and forestry uses of lands and preserving rural open spaces, natural and scenic resources. The TDR program is intended to supplement land use regulations, resource protection efforts and open space acquisition programs and encourage increased residential density where it can best be accommodated with the least impacts on the natural environment and public services by: A. Providing an effective and predictable incentive process for property owners of rural and agricultural land to preserve lands with a public benefit; and B. Implementing the Comprehensive Policy Plan by directing residential land uses to the Urban Development Area (UDA); and C. Providing an efficient and streamlined administrative review system to ensure that transfers of development rights to receiving areas are evaluated in a timely way and balanced with other county goals and policies, and are adjusted to the specific conditions of each receiving area. §165-301.02. Applicability. The procedures and regulations in Article III of Chapter 165 shall apply to the transfer of development rights from land qualifying as sending properties to land qualifying as receiving properties. Land utilizing transferred development rights may be subdivided at an increased density above the base density specified by Table 1 in §165-302.03 in applicable receiving areas. All development utilizing transferred development rights shall conform to the guidelines contained in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. §165-301.03. Right to Transfer Development Rights; General Provisions. A. A development right shall be transferred only by means of documents, including a covenant to which Frederick County is party and any appropriate releases, in a recordable form approved by the Director of Planning and Development or his designee. The covenant shall limit the future construction of dwellings on a sending property to the total number of development rights established by the zoning of the property minus all development rights previously transferred in accordance with this chapter, any development rights previously extinguished or limited as a result of a recorded covenant against the property, the number of development rights to be transferred by the proposed transaction, and the number of existing single-family detached dwellings on the sending property. If a sending property contains no dwelling units, a development right equal to 1 TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) DRAFT ORDINANCE - October 2, 2009 that for one single-family dwelling per one hundred (100) acres must be maintained for the property. B. Each transferor shall have the right to sever all or a portion of the rights to develop from the parcel in a sending district and to sell, trade, or barter all or a portion of those rights to a transferee consistent with the purposes of §165-301.01. C. Any transfer of development rights pursuant to this Chapter authorizes only an increase in maximum density and shall not alter or waive the development standards of tiie receiving district, nor shall it allow a use otherwise prohibited in a receiving district. D. Transfer of development rights shall not be available for the following: 1) Portions of lots owned by or subject to easements (including, but not limited to, easements of roads, railroads, electrical transmission lines, gas or petroleum pipelines) in favor of governmental agencies, utilities and nonprofit corporations. 2) Land restricted from development by covenant, easement or deed restriction_ E. Any transfer of development rights shall be recorded among the land records of Frederick County, Virginia. F. Value of transferable development rights_ The monetary value of transferred development rights is completely determined between the seller and buyer_ Part 302 — Sending and Receiving Properties §165-302.01. Sending Properties. A. For the purposes of this chapter, a sending property must be an entire tax parcel or lot qualified under §165-302.01B of this section. Sending areas may only be located within the rural areas outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) zoned RA (Rural Areas), as described in the Comprehensive Policy Plan, and the RA Zoning District of this Chapter. A sending property shall be maintained in a condition that is consistent with the criteria in this section under which the sending was qualified. B. Qualification of a sending property shall demonstrate that the site contains a public benefit such that the preservation of that benefit by transferring residential development rights to another site is in the public interest, according to the following criteria: 1) Designated in the Comprehensive Policy Plan as Rural Area; 7 TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) DRAFT ORDINANCE — October 2, 2004 2) Designated on the Zoning Maps of Frederick County as being zoned RA (Rural Areas) and be located outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA); 3) Designated on the Sending Areas Map,- 4) ap; 4) Comprised of at least twenty (20) acres in size; and 5) Qualified for subdivision in accordance with Chapter 144 of the Frederick County Code including but not limited to meeting all state road and access requirements. C. If a sending property has any outstanding code violations and/or unpaid taxes, the owner shall resolve these violations, including any required abatement, restoration, or payment of penalties or taxes, before the property may be qualified as a sending property in the transfer of development rights program. §165-302.02. Receiving Properties. A. Except as provided in subsections B and C of this section, in order to be eligible as a receiving property, a property must be: 1) Located in one of the following zoning districts: a. RP (Residential Performance) District,- b. istrict;b. R4 (Residential Planned Community) District; or c. RA (Rural Areas) District; and 2) Designated on the Receiving Areas Map; 3) Served by public water and public sewer; 4) Served by state maintained roads; 5) Located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) or a designated and defined Rural Community Center as identified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan; and 6) Identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan for residential land uses_ B. A property is not eligible as a receiving property if the transfer of development rights to the property would adversely impact regionally or locally significant historical resources or naturally sensitive areas as specified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. C. A property is not eligible as a receiving property if the property is located within the airport support area as identified by the Comprehensive Policy Plan - 3 TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) DRAFT ORDINANCE -October 2, 2009 D. A receiving property may accept development rights from one or more sending properties, up to a maximum density specified in Table 1 in §165-302.03- §165-302.03. Calculation of development rights. A. The number of residential development rights that a sending property is eligible to send to a receiving property shall be determined by applying the sending property base density established in subsection C of this section to the area of the sending property after deducting all the following.- I- Development rights previously transferred in accordance with this chapter; 2. Development rights previously extinguished or limited as a result of a recorded conservation easement or similar covenant against the property,- 3. roperty;3. 1 he number of existing single-family dwellings on the sending property. 4. The amount of any submerged land (i.e. lakes, ponds, streams), floodplains, and steep slopes as determined by Frederick County GIS Data. B. If a sending property contains no dwelling units, a development right equal to that for one single- family dwelling must be maintained for the property_ Properties with over 100 acres shall retain two development rights_ C. For the purposes of calculating the amount of development rights a sending property can transfer, the square footage or acreage of land contained within a sending property shall be determined by a survey, less than 30 days old, submitted by the applicant property owner and that has been prepared and stamped by a land surveyor licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia. D. For the purposes of the transfer of development rights program only, sending sites zoned RA (Rural Areas) shall have a base density of one dwelling unit per five acres for transfer purposes. E. Any fractions of development rights that results from the calculations in subsection A of this section shall not be included in the final determination of total development rights available for transfer. F. Development rights from one sending property may be allocated to more than one receiving property and one receiving property may accept development rights from more than one sending property. G. The determination of the number of residential development rights a sending property has available for transfer to a receiving property shall be documented in a TDR LETTER OF INTENT to issue a TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE issued by the Director of Planning and Development or his designee, pursuant to the provisions of this Part 302.05 of Chapter 165, and shall be considered a final determination, not subject to revision. Such a determination shall be valid only for purposes of the transfer of development rights program and for no other purpose. Any changes to the proposed sending property shall void any issued letters of intent. 51 TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) DRAFT ORDINANCE - October 2, 2009 H. A sending property transferee may extinguish TDR density rights, sever and hold TDR density rights, sever and sell TDR density rights, or apply TDR rights to a receiving property in a receiving district in order to obtain approval for development at a density greater than would otherwise be allowed on the land in the receiving district, up to the maximum density or intensity outlined in the table below: Table 1 Maximum Density Allowed in Zoning Districts through Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program §165-302.04. TDR Sending Property Development Limitations. A. Following the transfer of residential development rights, a sending property that has retained part of their development rights may subsequently accommodate remaining residential dwelling units through a rural preservation subdivision that creates a permanent preservation tract, consistent with the requirements of the RA (Rural Areas) District and all requirements of the Frederick County Code_ A sending property that has retained part of their development rights may also transfer the remainder of the eligible rights through the transfer of development rights program. B. The limitations in this section shall be included in a deed covenant applicable to the sending property. §165-302.05. Sending Site Certification. A. The Director of Planning and Development or his designee shall be responsible for determining that a proposed sending property meets the qualifications of §165-302.01. The Director of Planning and Development or his designee shall render a determination or denial under this subsection within sixty (60) days of the date of submittal of a completed sending property determination application. If the determination is that a property meets the qualifications of §165-302.01 the Director of Planning and Development or his designee shall issue the determination in the form of a LETTER OF INTENT to issue a TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE. A LETTER OF INTENT issued 5 TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) DRAFT ORDINANCE - October 2, 2009 under this subsection shall be valid until the development rights are severed and extinguished through the transfer process or unless applicable zoning changes are approved that would affect the sending property. B. Determinations of sending property qualifications under subsection A of this section are appealable to the Board of Supervisors by filing a notice of appeal with the Director of Planning and Development or his designee within thirty (30) days of the date of the determination. C. The Director of Planning and Development shall be responsible for maintaining permanent records of action taken pursuant to the transfer of development rights program under this Article III of Chapter 165, including records of letters of intent issue, certificates issued, deed restrictions and covenants known to be recorded, and development rights retired, otherwise extinguished, or transferred to specific properties. D. Responsibility for preparing a completed application for a determination that a proposed sending property meets the qualifications of §165-302.01 rests exclusively with the applicant/property owner. An application for a transfer of development rights to issue a transfer of development rights LETTER OF INTENT shall contain: 1) A certificate of title for the sending property prepared by an attorney admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia,- 2) irginia;2) Five copies of a plat, less than 30 days old, of the proposed sending parcel and a legal description of the sending property prepared by a land surveyor licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia; 3) A plan showing the existing and proposed dwelling units and any areas already subject to a conservation easement or other similar encumbrance; 4) A completed density calculation worksheet for estimating the number of available development rights; 5) The application fee as set forth in the Development Review Fees adopted by the Board of Supervisors; and 6) Such additional information required by the Director of Planning and Development or his designee as necessary to determine the number of development rights that qualify for transfer. E. A transfer of development rights LETTER OF INTENT issued by the Director of Planning and Development or his designee shall state the following information: 1) The name of the transferor,- 2) ransferor;2) The name of the transferee; 3) A legal description of the sending property on which the calculation of development rights is based; L TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) DRAFT ORDINANCE - October 2, 2009 4) A statement of the size, in acres, of the sending property on which the calculation of development rights is based; 5) A statement of the number of development rights, stated in terms of number of dwelling units, eligible for transfer, 6) If only a portion of the total development rights are being transferred from the sending property, a statement of the number of remaining development rights, stated in terms of number of dwelling units, remaining on the sending property,- 7) roperty;7) The date of issuance; 8) The signature of the Director of Planning and Development or his designee; and 9) A serial number assigned by the Director of Planning and Development or his designee. F. No transfer of development rights under this ordinance shall be recognized by Frederick County as valid unless the instrument of transfer contains the transfer of development rights certificate issued under this section. §165-302.06. Instruments of Transfer. A. An instrument of transfer of development rights shall be reviewed and approved as to the form and legal sufficiency by the County Attorney and, upon such approval, the County Attorney shall notify the transferor or his or her agent, who shall record the instrument with the Clerk of the Circuit Court and shall provide a copy to the Commissioner of the Revenue. An instrument of transfer of development rights shall conform to the requirements of this section and shall contain the following: 1) The names of the transferor and the transferee; 2) A legal description and plat of the sending property prepared by a land surveyor licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia 3) The transfer of development rights certificate described in §165-302.03F; 4) A covenant indicating the number of development rights remaining on the sending property and stating that the sending property may not be subdivided to or developed to a greater density than permitted by the remaining development rights; 5) A covenant that the transferor grants and assigns to the transferee and the transferee's heirs, assigns, and successors a specific number of development rights from the sending property to a receiving property; 6) A covenant by which the transferor acknowledges that he has no further use or right of use with respect to the development rights being transferred; and 7) A covenant that all provisions of the instrument of transfer of development rights shall run with and bind the sending property and may be enforced by Frederick County. B. An instrument of transfer of development rights shall be recorded prior to release of development permits, including building permits, for the receiving property. 7 TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) DRAFT ORDINANCE - October 2, 2009 Part 303 —Transfer Process and Development Procedures. §165-303.01. Transfer Process. Development rights shall be transferred using the following process: A_ Following approval of the sending property determination application as described in §165-302.05, the Director of Planning and Development or his designee shall issue the TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE, agreeing to issue a transfer of development rights in exchange for the proposed sending property deed covenant to which Frederick County is a party. If a sending property with a TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE changes ownership, the letter of intent may be transferred to the new owner if requested in writing to the Department of Planning and Development by the person(s) that owned the property when the letter of intent was issued, provided that the documents evidencing the transfer of ownership are also provided to the Department of Planning and Development_ B. In applying for receiving property or receiving person approval, the applicant shall provide the Department of Planning and Development with one of the following: 1) A TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE issued in the name of the applicant and a copy of a signed option to purchase those TDR sending property development rights; 2) A TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE issued in the name of another person or persons and a signed option of purchase those TDR sending property development rights; or 3) A TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE issued in the name of the applicant or another person(s) and a copy of a signed option to purchase those TDR sending property development rights_ C. The receiving property applicant or receiving person shall deliver the TDR certificate issued in the applicant's name for the number of TDR development rights being severed or transferred and the TDR extinguishment document to the County. D_ Development rights from a sending property shall be considered transferred to a receiving property or a receiving person when the extinguishment document for the sending property has been recorded. E. A development right shall be extinguished when the final plat for the receiving property subdivision that that development right has been applied to has been recorded. §165-303.02. Development Approval Procedures. A. A request to utilize transferred development rights on an eligible receiving property must be in the form of a Master Development Plan and a Subdivision Design Plan submitted to the Department of L -N TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) DRAFT ORDINANCE -October 2, 2009 Planning and Development in accordance with the Zoning and Subdivision regulations contained in Chapters 165 and 144 of the County Code. B. All subdivisions for receiving properties zoned RA (Rural Areas) utilizing development rights shall be subject to the same requirements as property zoned RP (Residential Performance) and shall not qualify for the standards specified in 1§144-31 of the Frederick County Code. C. A final record plat for a subdivision using transferred development rights shall contain a statement setting forth the development proposed, the zoning classification of the property, the number of development rights used, and a notation of the recordation of the conveyance required by §1-65- 302-06- 9 TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) DRAFT ORDINANCE - October 2, 2009 ARTICLE I GENERAL PROVISIONS, AMENDMENTS, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Part 101— General Provisions 165-101.02 Definitions & word usage. As used in this ordinance, the following words and terms have the meanings specified herein: DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - the permitted density of development that are allowed on a sending property under any zoning ordinance of the County on a date of transfer of such rights. RECEIVING AREA — One or more areas identified in this Chapter and designated by the comprehensive plan as an area authorized to receive development rights transferred from a sending area. RECEIVING PROPERTY - A lot or parcel of land within a receiving area and within which development rights are increased pursuant to a transfer of development rights affixed to the property. SENDING AREA - One or more areas identified in this Chapter and designated by the comprehensive plan as an area from which development rights are authorized to be severed and transferred to a receiving area. SENDING PROPERTY - A lot or parcel of land in a sending area that is the subject of a transfer of development rights, where the owner of the parcel is conveying development rights of the parcel, and on which those rights so conveyed are extinguished and may not be used, by reason of the transfer of development rights. EXTINGUISHMENT OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - The process by which development rights from a sending property are severed from the sending property to a receiving property or person, pursuant to the transfer of development rights program under Chapter 165 of the County Code. TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - The procedure prescribed by this ordinance whereby the owner of a parcel in a sending area may convey development rights to the owner of a parcel in a receiving area or to another person or entity, whereby the development rights so conveyed are severed or extinguished on the sending property and may be exercised on the receiving parcel in addition to the development rights already existing regarding that parcel or may be held by the receiving person or entity. TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - all or that portion of development rights that are transferred or are transferable. TRANSFEREE — The person or legal entity, including a person or legal entity that owns property in a receiving area, who receives development rights. TRANSFEROR — The person or legal entity, including a person or legal entity that owns property in a sending area, who conveys development rights. 10 TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) DRAFT ORDINANCE -October 2, 2009 TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS LETTER OF INTENT — A letter issued by the Director of Planning and Development or his designee determining the number of residential development rights a sending property has available for transfer to a receiving property or person. TRANSFER. OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) CERTIFICATE- A letter issued by the Director of Planning and Development or his designee agreeing to sever a specified number of residential development rights from a sending property in exchange for a restrictive deed covenant to which Frederick County is a party to on the sending property that restricts further development. 11