Loading...
PC 02-21-07 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virgin:" February 21, 2007 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) Adoption of Agenda: Pursuant to established procedures, the Planning Commission should adopt the Agenda for themeeting.............................................................................................................. (no tab) 2) December 20, 2006 Minutes and January 3, 2007........................................................... (A) 3) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab) 4) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 5) Rezoning 401-07 of Jordan Springs, submitted by Bowman Consulting, to rezone 185.43 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, 28.30 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District, 3.42 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District with Historic Area (HA) Overlay Zone, and 3.42 acres from B2 (General Business) District with Historic Area (HA) Overlay Zone to RP (Residential Performance) District (with 6.91 acres to remain B2 (General Business) District with Historic Area (HA) Overlay Zone), with proffers, for commercial land uses and up to 604 residential units. The property is located at 1160 Jordan Springs Road and fronts the east and west side of Jordan Springs Road (Route 664) and fronts the west side of Wood's Mill Road (Route 660), in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Numbers 44-A-294 and 44 -A -294A. Mrs. Eddy........................................................................................................................ (B) PUBLIC MEETING 6) Rezoning #18-06 of Woodside Commercial Center, submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., to rezone 8.835 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B3 (Industrial Transition) District with proffers, for commercial and industrial uses. The property is located on the east side of Route 11, approximately 3,000 feet north of Hopewell Road (Route 672), in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number 33 -A -124A. Mrs. Perkins........................................................... .............. (C) FILE COPY 7) Master Development Plan #10-06 for Governors Hill, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, for Residential (550 units) and Commercial Uses on 281 acres zoned R4 (Residential Planned Community) District. The properties are located approximately one mile east of Interstate 81 on the south side of Millwood Pike (Route 50 E) across from Sulphur Springs Road (Route 655) and The Ravens Subdivision, and are identified with Property Identification Numbers 64 -A -82,64-A-83, 64 -A -83A, 64 -A -86,64-A-87 and 64 -A - 87A, in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (D) 8) Other • • C� 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 December 20, 2006. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Gary R Oates, Stonewall District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large; Philip E. Lemieux, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Lawrence R Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; and City of Winchester Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; John A. Bishop, Transportation Planner, Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, Planner II; Kevin T. Henry, Planning Technician; Bernard Suchicital, Planner I; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chainnan Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission adopted the agenda for this evening's meeting. COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) —12/11/06 Mtg. Commissioner Light reported that the CPPS discussed the National Lutheran Home in the Round Hill Corridor Area and methods for developing under a campus -style Comprehensive Plan. He said the south side of Route 50 was included in the discussions, as well as architectural standards. Commissioner Light commented that this is a new concept and the applicants are seeking further information. This was sent forward to the Commission as a discussion item. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December 20, 2006 0n M F Page 1928 -2— Transportation Committee —12/18/06 Mtg. Commissioner Kriz reported that five items were discussed by the Transportation Committee. 1) The meeting schedule for 2007 was adopted with changes from the fourth Monday for the months of January, May, November, and December. 2) A motion was unanimously passed to recommend that the Board of Supervisors discontinue the transit service in Frederick County. 3) An MPO activity update included no additional meetings for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility Plan; the subcommittee in charge of the local assistance projects is recommending that scoping work be undertaken by VDOT on the Rt. 37 interchange study and the Route 11 access management study. 4) Articles of interest to the committee were distributed. 5) A petition signed by 51 residents of 42 households was presented for the black -topping of the last 0.4 miles of MacDonald Road (Rt. 1616). The entire road had been approved for blacktopping several years ago, but the necessary easement could not be obtained for the last 0.4 miles. This is the situation with several prescriptive roads in the county; the road may not meet current criteria to be high on the recommended list for paving even though it had been previously approved. This situation is being addressed. Sanitation Authority — 12/19/06 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported that rainfall for the month of November was about 4.5 inches; all plants were operating sufficiently, despite water from excess rainfall; water demand forNovember was about 5.8 mgd. Commissioner Unger stated that the Parkins Mill Wastewater Plant was discussed and the importance of starting this project; he said many counties in Virginia are updating their plants because of the Cheasepeake Bay Act. The bid received was about 20% higher than what was anticipated. Winchester Planning Commission (WPC) —12/18/06 Mtg. Commissioner Ours reported the WPC granted authorization for the following plans to move forward: the Shenandoah Valley Discovery Museum to construct a $10 million dollar, 26,000 square -foot facility in Jim Barnett Park; a planned office and retail space on Cedar Creek Grade; a TGI Fridays restaurant on Tevis Street; an office building on Pleasant Valley Road; and a commercial center on Papermill Road. Commissioner Ours said the WPC also discussed definitions for boarding houses, rooming houses, and tourist houses; and they are reviewing the introduction of zoning standards for the central part of Valley Avenue from Cedar Creek Grade through a point slightly north of Bellview Avenue. CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any item that was not on this evening's agenda. No one came forward to speak. Frederick County Planning Commission jamM Minutes of December 20, 2006 M IU„dS !1 -3 - PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning #18-06 of Woodside Commercial Center, submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., to rezone 8.835 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B3 (Industrial Transition) District with proffers for commercial and industrial uses. The property is located on the east side of Route 11, approximately 3,000 feet north of Hopewell Road (Route 672), and is identified with P.I.N. 33 -A -124A in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action — Tabled for 90 Days Commissioner Oates abstained from all discussion and voting due to a possible conflict of interest. Planner Candice E. Perkins reported that the site is located within the County's Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and is within the limits of the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP)_ She said the NELUP designates this site for industrial land uses; however, the applicant is requesting that the site be rezoned to B3, which is a heavy business district. She said the ordinance states the intent of the B3 District is to provide heavy commercial activities, involving larger -scale marketing and wholesaling in locations which are separate from, but in the vicinity of, business and industrial areas. Ms. Perkins noted that the B3 District could be generally consistent with the industrial land use planned by the NELUP, provided that many ofthe commercial uses allowed in the B3 District are prohibited from this site. She said that while the B3 District allows certain lighter industrial uses permitted in the M1 District, such as warehousing and wholesaling, the B3 District also allows for a variety of B2 uses that would not be consistent with the industrial designation called for in the Comprehensive Policy Plan, for example, general offices, amusement and recreational services operated indoors, garden supply/retail sales, and gasoline stations. Ms. Perkins next reviewed the applicant's proffer statement and noted there were still some issues that needed to be resolved. In particular, Ms. Perkins said a number of transportation improvements were called for by the applicant's TIA (Traffic Impact Analysis), and the applicant has provided a monetary contribution rather than actually committing to constructing the suggested improvements. Referring to the $100 per vehicle trip monetary proffer dedicated for transportation improvements and right-of-way acquisition, she said it is unclear if the right-of-way is available to expand the intersection and if the amount of funds provided would be sufficient. She said the proposed funds do not solve any of the problems indicated in the TIA and do nothing to increase the LOS (Level of Service) necessary for the project. Furthermore, she noted that the transportation funds offered in the proffers must be utilized within a limited time period; otherwise the funds are to be returned to the applicant. Ms Perkins said this presents a challenge because the County would need to fund the remainder of the necessary improvements and to guarantee that improvements are completed and proffered funds are spent within the limited State Code -delineated time period. She said that under the proposed scenario, the site could develop without the required improvements to the transportation network and the network would be failing while the site continues to be developed. Ms. Perkins stated that some of the additional commercial -type uses that could be proffered out with this rezoning would include general offices, amusement and recreational services, and gas stations to insure that the intent of the Comprehensive Policy Plan is implemented. She said the applicant has proffered out retail truck stops and has limited gasoline pumps to 12 or less, but has not prohibited the sales of diesel fuel to over - the -road trucks. She commented that the staff believes gasoline stations do not fit in with the industrial intent of the area and if this use is left in, consideration should be made for diesel fuel sales to trucks. Commissioner Kriz had questions on whether the monetary contribution was sufficient for transportation improvements and how much time the County had to spend the proffered money. Ms. Perkins replied that the County would receive the money when the site plan is submitted and then, the County would have Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December 20, 2006 Page 1930 -4 - seven years after that date to utilize the funds. Commissioner Unger suggested that if a use was identified for a particular site and the trips calculated on the proposed use, then the developer could contribute that calculated amount of money and satisfy the County's needs. He noted that if the use generates 10,000 trips and the developer is willing to proffer $100 per vehicle, the County should be able to determine if that amount is sufficient to take care of the roads. The County's Transportation Planner, Mr. John A. Bishop, stated that even if a large traffic volume is assumed for a particular use, $100 per trip will not create enough funds to satisfy all of the problems by itself. Mr. Bishop said it was his understanding that the applicant developed the proffer this way recognizing that as a smaller site, it would be very hard to create a proffer that will fully implement all that is needed in this area. On the other hand, a light use, generating very few trips, would have a much lower impact; unfortunately, with the Brucetown Road location, the County already has a situation that's nearly over capacity. He said that virtually anything added would create an impact. Commissioners had questions on how much money was needed to pay for the improvements the County determined should be made. They asked if there was any type of established guideline a developer would have to meet_ Mr. Bishop replied that nothing has yet been developed in terms of a guideline or base amount that the County would accept. He said traditionally, with rezoning in the County, it has been expected that the developers will implement the improvements shown as needed by their TIA; as a protection to the citizens of the County, the County demands that the TIA is modeled to the highest traffic generation allowed by the rezoning classification, because it can vary widely between allowed uses. Mr. Bishop stated that with this particular rezoning, the TIA shows that Woodside would have to be paved the length of the property, there would need to be a right -turn lane heading north and a left -turn access lane, improvements were needed to the signalization on Woodside, as well as signalization and turn -lane improvements at the Brucetown-Hopewell Road intersection. It was Mr. Bishop's opinion that this was an innovative approach that the applicant developed to attempt to address the fact that his one rezoning is rather small to address all of these improvements; it was developed to offer a solution to begin building a pot of funds. Mr. Bishop pointed out that if this is considered to be the way to handle this type of situation, the issue becomes one where the emphasis is placed back onto the County as the next rezoning along that corridor is considered. He said the key trigger is whether or not that continued pattern wi11 work as other rezonings come in. Otherwise, this will do very little on its own to address the needed impacts. It was recognized that there are no large tracts in this corridor. Mr. Bishop said it really does hinge upon what is done with succeeding rezonings. He noted that the scheduled improvements for that area are described within the MPO's (Metropolitan Planning Organization) Plan and the Eastern Road Plan; therefore, a guideline for the needed improvements in that corridor are based on what is modeled to occur in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Recognizing that the County did not currently have a formulated policy on how smaller rezonings could contribute to an overall improvement plan, Commissioner Light said the County should be able to provide any applicant with a minimum standard for a monetary contribution. Mr. Bishop believed such a policy would need to be developed very carefully. He said this particular rezoning came through fairly quickly after the beginning discussions, particularly with the Brucetown-Hopewell Road intersection. He commented that it was a bit ahead of ongoing work being done by the Transportation Committee and the MPO. Mr. Bishop said that based on the calculations he received, he didn't have a particular problem with $100 per trip; however, he would question any lower amount. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1931 Minutes of December 20, 2006 n -5- A Commission member asked which governmental body would undertake the task of studying the issues and make the decisions. Mr. Bishop said that if the Transportation Committee is tasked by the Board of Supervisors to develop a financing plan for the corridor, they would be more than happy to take on that task; he noted that there were a number of different strategies that could be used. Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, stated that although the $100 per trip is probably appropriate, the staff has not yet studied the values. Mr. Lawrence said the trigger is recognizing that a single contribution will not solve the problem and other funds will be needed. He also noted that in the past, the applicant has constructed the improvements and the staff had simply checked with VDOT to make sure the improvements were accomplished. Under this new scenario, the County staff would have to be the project managers and provide construction services to get the projects constructed. Mr. Lawrence pointed out that the staff has not yet studied the ramifications, nor have they studied whether this is an appropriate value. Mr. Lawrence stated that just last week, the Board of Supervisors authorized the staff to enter into a contract to conduct design work for the relocation and improvements at the Brucetown/ Hopewell/ Route 11 intersection. He said that in the near future, the county staff will be engaged in engineering services at this location to determine what road improvements are necessary and what the true cost will be. Chairman Wilmot next called for the applicant to come forward. Ms. Trudy Dixon, representing GreyWolfe, Inc. on behalf of the property owners, said a spreadsheet was included with the application detailing how they calculated the $100 per vehicle trip and how they estimated the cost of widening Route 11 and the realignment of Hopewell and Brucetown Roads. She said the cost was estimated at $5.1 million dollars and the ITE manual indicates 51.8 trips per acre per day. Ms. Dixon next addressed the concerns raised by the staff. She believed the intent of the B3 (Industrial Transition) Zoning was to allow for a less intensive industrial use to take place between commercial and industrial properties. She explained that this property borders Route 11 and is in the proximity of several homes; she noted that the property is too small to be an industrial park, and is unable to utilize the railroad to the east. Therefore, they believed a less -intense use, available in B3, would be appropriate for this area. She said this would create a transition from the EM -zoned property to the east, towards the fixture commercial uses to the west, as shown in the NELUP. She said the staff has suggested that uses such as general office should be proffered out; however, this is the type of use that creates a transitional area. She said if the commercial uses of B3 were proffered out, then they are simply left with a less -attractive MI Zoning. Addressing the issue of transportation, Ms. Dixon said the trip generation rate applied to the site was based on a maximum use of retail, which is specified in the rezoning package as the worst-case scenario, and the average daily trips (ADT) for a shopping center were used for the TIA. However, the highest form of retail allowed in the B3 is a home improvement super store, such as Lowes or Home Depot, and that use only generates about 40% of the traffic associated with a shopping center. She noted that retail uses, such as grocery and department stores, are not permitted in the B3 Zoning; therefore, the traffic report provided to the County is over- inflated by approximately 60%. Furthermore, she said the office uses more likely to occur at this location would only generate 825 tpd, compared to the 5,633 tpd shown in the TIA. In regards to mitigating the traffic impact, Ms. Dixon said they strived to provide a workable solution. She said they initially proffered a signalization agreement; however, VDOT requested a cash proffer instead. She said they have tried to find the appropriate solution through discussions with the Planning Staff, the Transportation Committee, and with other property owners in the area who were interested in rezoning their propel -ties in the near fu Ore; unfortunately, they had not been provided :vith any helpfizl direction in that area. Ms. Dixon stated that since the value of the project would only pay for a fraction of the needed funds to re -align Hopewell and Brucetown Roads, they decided to attempt to offer their fair share. She said they decided to contribute a fixed dollar amount of $100 per daily trip that this property would generate; their payment would increase as traffic counts increase; it would be paid at the site plan stage before construction could begin and it Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December 20, 2006 0 N &V Page 1932 Q. would be tied to every site plan submitted that increases traffic in the future. Ms. Dixon said the other property owners in the area have, unfortunately, decided not to join together to fix the intersection and they are now waiting to see if this rezoning is denied. She said the adjoining property owners were also unhappy with the dollar amount they had offered and are concerned about the precedent this application is setting. Ms. Dixon urged the County to require every rezoning coming in after this one to match the same offer. In conclusion, Ms. Dixon asked for the County's input on the square footage limitation placed in their proffers; she said the floor area limits proffered at 75,000 square feet overall and 10,000 square feet for indoor recreation were initially done to reduce the traffic counts. Ms. Dixon said they would appreciate a positive recommendation from the Commission to remove these caps from their proffers; they preferred to maximize the use of the property, since the traffic impact proffers were based on the traffic generated. She next provided the Commission with a revised proffer statement which contained additional uses they were interested in proffering out, which included: transportation by air, mobile home dealers, drive-in motion picture theaters, railroad cars and truck stops; a list of restrictions to the floor area for several high -traffic generating uses; an architectural proffer requiring all building exteriors facing Martinsburg Pike to be constructed of masonry, stone, glass, stucco, and/or wood; additional landscaping; and a lump sum cash proffer of $27,000 which is the approximate cost of four inches of asphalt and eight inches of stone for their 600 -foot section of Woodside Road. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: Mr. Frederick A. Stronko, an adjoining property owner at 3656 Martinsburg Pike, was opposed to the rezoning. Mr. Stronko said it sometimes takes him ten minutes just to get out of his driveway because of all the traffic in this area. He was opposed to placing the burden of transportation improvements on the County and was concerned it may affect the public's taxes. He was also unhappy with all of the trash that ends up in his yard, apparently generated from the commercial and industrial development in the area. Mr. Stronko believed the rural residents were not being cared for and if the County allows these types of uses in rural areas, they need to consider the residents who live there. No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Members of the Commission pointed out that since revised proffers were submitted just this evening, the Commission should table the proposal until the staff and the attorney can review the revised proffers. Secondly, they believed the rezoning should be tabled until the Planning Staff has had an opportunity to evaluate the proposal and establish a baseline for minimum contributions for small -area rezonings towards transportation improvements. In addition, Commissioner Morris asked for further examination of how this would be viewed in light of proffering. He questioned if this could be viewed as imposing an impact fee or will it be an outpouring of an impact model for proffering purposes. Commissioner Mohn believed it would be beneficial for all parties involved to discuss a strategy for this type of situation in order to guide the decision -makers. He said the County currently accepts per-unit monetary proffers for transportation and the money is designated; he suggested that the funds contributed through rezoning could be handled similarly for residential, comu„ercial, or industrial projects. He also raised the issue of how this all fits into the new process of including transportation improvements in the CIP. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December 20, 2006 Page 1933 -7- Conunissioner Kriz anticipated the County would be facing many more of these same situations in the future and it was time to establish some appropriate ground rules. He thought the proposal by the applicant was good. Commissioner Kriz commented that it may take more time than the applicant prefers to solve the issues; however, he thought once it was established, the County would have a standard guideline to follow. Other Commission members agreed. Upon motion made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Ours, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to table Rezoning #19 -06 of Woodside Commercial Center, submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., for 90 days to allow time for review of revised proffers and for the staff to have the opportunity to evaluate the applicant's proposal and to establish a baseline for minimum contributions towards transportation improvements which could be used when evaluating small -area rezoning applications. (Note: Commissioners Thomas and Watt were absent from the meeting.) Rezoning #20-06 for the Civil War Preservation Trust, submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., to rezone 222.03 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to RA (Rural Areas) District for agricultural preservation. The properties are located on Redbud Road (Route 661), 0.7 miles to the commercial entrance of the Civil War Preservation Trust Park, next to Hackwood Farm. The properties are further identified with P.LN.s 54-A-88 and 54-A-90 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Conmiissioner Oates said that he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this rezoning, due to a potential conflict of interest. Planner Kevin T. Henry reported that the rezoning is a proposal to provide further preservation of agricultural and battlefield property located on two parcels near Red Bud Road. Mr. Henry said the property lies within the Third Battle of Winchester Core Battlefield Area and is currently maintained by the Association for the Preservation of Civil War Sites. He said this site was also placed into a conservation easement in the Year 2000 and was also placed into the Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District earlier this year, helping to prohibit development of the 222 acres within this application. Mr. Henry also noted that the site is located outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA); he said that modifications to the UDA and SWSA took place in the Year 2003 to further preserve the property. He stated that the site is within the limits of the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan, which shows the majority of the rezoning within a Historic/ Developmentally -Sensitive Area (DSA). Mr. Henry stated that the rezoning of this property will further ensure its protection as a battlefield preservation site and is consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Through on-going recreational and trail system efforts, the property is seemingly more appropriate for rural land use. Mr. Henry said there were no proffers associated with the rezoning, since no impacts were anticipated. Ms. Trudy Dixon, on behalf of GreyWolfe, Inc., representing the property owner, Civil War Preservation Trust, stated that GreyWolfe, Inc. has taken on this project because they believe it is a great direction for the community in preserving the agricultural nature of tlle arca. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December 20, 2006 Page 1934 Commissioners were pleased with the rezoning application. No issues or concerns were raised- Upon aised Upon motion made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning #20-06 for the Civil War Preservation Trust, submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., to rezone 222.03 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to RA (Rural Areas) District for agricultural preservation. (Note: Commissioners Watt and Thomas were absent from the meeting. Commissioner Oates abstained from the vote.) Agricultural and Forestal District Update — Revisions to the South Frederick District, the Double Church District, and the Red Bud District. The revisions to these districts will establish a total of 7,680.76 acres within the Agricultural and Forestal District Program for the ensuing three-year period. Properties incorporated into an agricultural and forestal district are guaranteed certain protections as specified in Section 15.2-4300 of the Code of Virginia. Action — Recommended Approval of All Three Districts Planner Bernard Suchicital reported that during the 2005 Agricultural and Forestal District renewal process, some property owners hesitated to renew their applications due to concerns raised by the RA Study; however, since then, the staff has received applications to enroll 21 new parcels and to remove four parcels from the County's three Agricultural and Forestal Districts. Mr_ Suchicital proceeded to review each of the districts with the Planning Commission, as follows: South Frederick A1ricultural & Forestal District The proposal will remove four parcels that were mistakenly left in during the 2005 renewal process, totaling 450.33 acres, and will add three parcels, totaling 123.05 acres, which will bring the total acreage within this agricultural district to 5,878.64 acres, lying within the Back Creek Magisterial District. The predominantly agricultural operations within the proposed additions are livestock, and hay and crop harvesting; the parcels are rural in nature. The proposed additions lay outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA); the parcels have no land use designation, which indicates the area should remain rural. The Agricultural District Advisory Committee considered this proposal at their meeting of November 30, 2006 and voted unanimously for the recommendation of the additions and deletions of parcels to the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak. Upon motion made by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED. That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District, with the changes proposed, for a total of 5,878.64 acres. (Note: Commissioners Thomas and Watt were absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December 20, 2006 Page 1935 Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District This proposal will add nine parcels, totaling 274.16 acres, which will bring the total acreage within this agricultural district to 1,034.32 acres, lying within the Opequon Magisterial District. The additions are agriculturally significant; however, two of the parcels lie within the proposed path of Warrior Drive's extension from Fairfax Pike to Double Church Road, and towards the relocated Exit 307. The agricultural operations within the proposed additions are livestock and hay cultivation. The proposed additions are outside the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA); the parcels have no land use designation, which indicates the area should remain rural. The Agricultural District Advisory Committee considered this proposal at their meeting of November 30, 2006 and voted unanimously for the recommendation of the additions of these parcels to the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District, citing the importance of preserving Warrior Drive's extension from future development. Commission members did not know of any plans for development activity in this area and believed that the Warrior Drive extension would more than likely not occur within the next five years; therefore, they did not foresee an issue with including those two parcels within the district for a three-year period. Chainnan Wilmot called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Ms. Linda Borror, a resident of the Opequon District, came forward to speak about the two parcels on Double Church Road that will be within the future path of Warrior Drive extension. Ms. Borror said these tracts of land have been used for many years for the purpose of agriculture production, such as pasturing and raising livestock and growing crops. She said the two tracts have been in her family for several years and the sole purpose of including the tracts within the district is to preserve the land for farming and to continue the family tradition of the original owners, her father and brother. Ms. Borror said she was not interested in selling to a developer or to disrupt the agricultural production. She said her son and family have their home on the 20 acres; the property is well-maintained, and is used for farming; they wished to preserve this land for farming and pass it down to their grandchildren. She said the parcels are in compliance with the conditions of the district and meet the requirements of the Agricultural and Forestal District Act. Mr. Kenneth E. Waymer said he has been in this agricultural district since it was established. Regarding an earlier question raised about the eligibility of small -acreage parcels, he said in 1983 he purchased a house with ten acres; he said three acres contain the house with a seven -acre hayfield alongside. Mr. Waymer said from the day he moved in, he has been producing hay on the remaining seven acres. He said a few years later he purchased another property, which he is also farming. Mr. Waymer commented that Mr. Shiley's property adjoins his and they both produce hay and help each other with feeding livestock and baling hay. Mr. Waymer said that Warrior Drive comes directly through his field; he said he has no intentions of selling the property to a developer. Mr. Herbert Painter, owner of six acres across from Mr. Shiley's property on the other side of Route 641, said he placed his property within the agricultural district when it was first established. Mr. Painter said he continues to produce hay on this property. He was in favor of adding the additional parcels to the agricultural district. Mr. Robert L. Shiley, the owner of one of the properties to be added to the district, said he inherited this property from his grandfather and uncle. if1r. Shiley said'ne has continued to farm the proper Ly arid, assists the surrounding farmers with their farm operations. Mr. Shiley said he would like to preserve the farmland and pass it on to his children; he was not interested in developing the property. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December 20, 2006 Page 1936 -10 - Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Manuel, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District, with the inclusion of all nine parcels requested to be added to the district, for a total of 1,034.32 acres. (Note: Commissioners Thomas and Watt were absent from the meeting.) Red Bud AL-ricultural and Forestal District This proposal will add nine parcels, totaling 68.59 acres, which will bring the total acreage within this agricultural district to 903.57 acres, lying within the Stonewall Magisterial District. Two of the parcels meet the qualifications to be enrolled in the district; however, the remaining seven along Valley Mill Road lie within the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) and are identified by the County's long-range land use plan for higher density residential. Therefore, the addition of the seven parcels will not conform to the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. The predominantly agricultural operations within the proposed additions are livestock and hay cultivation. The Agricultural District Advisory Committee considered this proposal at their meeting of November 30, 2006 and voted unanimously for the recommendation of the addition of these parcels to the Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District, including the seven parcels within the UDA, citing the need to maintain open space within residentially -designated areas. Commission members asked the staff what the disadvantages were to having the seven parcels within the agricultural district, other than being in the UDA. Staff replied that the Comprehensive Policy Plan calls for this area to be residentially -zoned in the future and having an agricultural district within the UDA conflicts with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Commission members did not foresee this setting a precedent and believed it was advantageous to the County by staving off development for several years. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: Mr. Ed Lambert said he owned 20 wooded acres in the Red Bud District. He inquired if his land was eligible to be placed in an agricultural district and if there was an advantage to being placed within the district. Mr. Lambert said for the passed 16 years he could not place a building on some parts of his property because of the County's intentions of constructing Route 37 through his property. He wanted to know if Route 37 could be constructed through his property, if it was within an agricultural district. meeting. No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Manuel, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District, with the inclusion of all nine parcels requested to be added to the district, for a total of 903.57 acres. (Note: Commissioners Thomas and Watt were absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December 20, 2006 Page 1937 -11 - PUBLIC MEETING Rezoning 911-06 of Abram's Chase, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 3.25 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) District, with proffers, for 13 single-family homes on small lots. The property fronts on the north side of Senseny Road (Rt. 657), adjacent to the Parkwood Manor Subdivision. The property is further identified with P.LN.s 65 -A -27A and 65 -A -28A in the Red Bud Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Proffer Revisions Planner Candice E. Perkins stated that the public hearing for the Abrams Chase rezoning application was held at the Planning Commission's September 20, 2006 meeting. She said the application was postponed for 90 days to allow the applicant to address specific issues discussed at the Commission's meeting. Ms. Perkins said the revised application is intended to accommodate a 13 -unit, single-family, small -lot development with a density of four units per acre. Ms. Perkins said the previous application contained 14 units. She said the previous application also contained a new access road, which would cul-de-sac on the property; this road has been revised to continue to the western property line for connectivity into the adjacent properties, should they develop in the future. Ms. Perkins said the applicant's proffer statement also includes a commitment for making the required frontage improvements to Senseny Road, including the necessary right-of-way dedication to provide for 45 feet from the existing centerline of Senseny Road, as well as lane widening, to achieve the full section across the frontage of the property, and the ten foot asphalt bicycle/ pedestrian trail. Other revisions included access to the adjacent parcel on Senseny Road and a public connection into the new public road in Abram's Chase. Ms. Perkins said that in addition to the inter -parcel connection and transportation proffers, a monetary contribution has been proffered in the amount of $23,290 per lot. Ms. Perkins concluded by stating that the applicant has addressed the issues that were discussed at the September 20, 2006 meeting. She said consideration should be made for the location of the revised road shown on the Generalized Development Plan (GDP), as this rezoning will establish the location of the road for future developments. She said the revised GPD also needs to provide a location for the required recreational facility. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering was representing Harvest Communities, Inc. in this rezoning application. Mr. Wyatt explained to the Commission why he set the alignment to the adjoining properties in the design shown. He also briefly described the revisions from the previous plan, including the 24 feet of additional pavement, the ten -foot asphalt bicycle facility, and a curb cut and access easement for the adjacent small parcel to have access to the internal public streets in their project. In addition, Mr. Wyatt said they would be willing to allow a utility easement for this adjoining property to connect to water and sewer. Commissioner Unger inquired if the inter -parcel connector would be structurally able to accommodate the additional traffic. Mr. Wyatt replied yes; he said the road system design will be constructed to the standard of a 400 to 2,000 vehicle trips street. He said this road will not have more than 2,000 vehicle trips. Commissioner Ours asked the applicant why they had removed the original offer of $1,000 per unit for transportation impacts in the revised proffers. Mr. Wyatt said that a VDOT-produced modeling table showed that full frontage improvements were not required for this project, based on the impacts generated. Therefore, they had offered $1,000 per unit and VDOT's comment was positive at the Commission's September meeting. However, the Commission and Staff had requested full frontage improvements. Mr. 'Alyatt said that since there is a much more significant cost involved, they offered to do the frontage improvements in lieu of the cash contribution. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December 20, 2006 Page 1938 -12 - Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: Mr. Edward Lambert, Red Bud District, an adjoining property owner, had concerns that the construction for the access turn might damage a sewer line for the existing mobile home. In response to Mr. Lambert's concern, Mr. Wyatt stated that the access turn on Senseny Road will be completely within the existing right-of-way, plus there is additional right-of-way dedication on the applicant's property. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kerr and seconded by Commissioner Mohn, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Rezoning #11-06 of Abram's Chase, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 3.25 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) District for 13 single-family homes, with the revised proffers to include a utility easement for the adjoining property owner to the west. YES (to approve): Unger, Manuel, Morris, Oates, Ours, Kriz, Triplett, Kerr, Mohn, Wilmot NO: Light (Note: Commissioners Thomas and Watt were absent from the meeting.) Rezoning #14-06 of Glaize Property, submitted by Painter -Lewis, PLC, to rezone 1.38 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District, with proffers, for commercial use. The property is located on the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Northwestern Pike (Route 50)/ Round Hill Road (Route 803)/ Retail Boulevard. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 52-A-252 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Denial Senior Planner Susan K. Eddy reported that the public hearing for this application was held by the Planning Commission on November 1, 2006. Ms. Eddy said the Planning Commission raised a number of issues and postponed a decision on the application. She said that since that time, the staff has met with the applicant's representative, Mr. John Lewis of Painter -Lewis, PLC, to review the Commission's concerns and to review the contents of the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan. Ms. Eddy said the applicant has made a number of changes since the public hearing took place; she proceeded to review the revisions of the plan with the Commission. Ms. Eddy stated that the night- *in entrance on Route 50 was moved further west and meets all the spacing criteria; the proffers state there will be a right -in only entrance designed at the site plan stage; the applicant is providing a 20 -foot landscaped strip containing street trees, plantings, and a sidewalk; the applicant is limiting the free-standing signage to one monument sign with a maximum area of 50 square feet and a maximum height of 12 feet; a sidewalk is included on Round Hill Road; and $10,000 has been proffered for future road improvements in the Route 50 corridor. Ms. Eddy said the only unresolved issue is the location of the building site. She explained that the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan has a number of standards in place to deter Route 50 West from becoming a typical commercial -strip development and one of the requirements is for buildings to be placed close to the front of the site along Route 50 with parking behind the buildings. She said the Frederick County Planning Commission D rp Page 1939 Minutes of December 20, 2006 Il LI -13 - applicant has proffered there would be two rows of parking in front of the building and an access isle. Ms. Eddy said that given the configuration of the lot and the entrances, the staff believes it is quite conceivable to place the building up at the front of the property. She said the staff was not seeking in any way to prohibit a drive-thru lane in front of the building; it is solely the prohibiting of actual parking spaces, in order to comply with the Round Hill Land Use Plan. Commissioner Kriz asked Ms. Eddy to describe what is required on the south side of Route 50 as compared to north side of Route 50 regarding the Round Hill Plan and the Comprehensive Policy Plan. In addition, he said the plan calls for monument -style signs and questions have been raised about the free-standing sign belonging to Applebees restaurant. Ms. Eddy replied that for the north side of Route 50, a 50 -foot landscaped strip with a ten -foot asphalt bicycle trail, ornamental shrubs, and street trees are required; the south side of Route 50 requires a 50 -foot landscaped strip, 20 feet for smaller tracts, which she considered this application to be a small tract, with a landscaped strip and a five-foot concrete sidewalk, ornamental shrubs, and street trees. She said the south side actually has less of a requirement than. the north side. Ms. Eddy said the Applebees site was covered by a rezoning approved in 2003 for the WWW property; she said the sign restrictions only prohibited the placement of signs in the 50 -foot landscaped strip. She said the property owners' design review board approved the sign. Mr. John Lewis, of Painter -Lewis, PLC, was representing the owner, Glaize Real Estate. Mr. Lewis stated that all of the concerns of the Commission had been addressed except one, which is the placement of parking at the rear of the building. He said that due to design issues, it was a difficult task to develop a 1.38 -acre site without any parking in the front. Mr. Lewis stated this property has 241 feet of frontage. He said if they can not use the 50 feet in front, required for the building setback, it will result in about 18% of the property being unavailable for development. Mr. Lewis pointed out that the building square footage decreases proportionally_ He commented that if the building restriction line was reduced to 15 or 20 feet, it could result in a workable situation. He said the property owner is not willing to proffer the parking in the rear without some relief from the building restriction line. Mr. Lewis further added that if all of the parking is placed at the rear of this parcel, he believed conflicts were inevitable with combining employee and client parking, along with services, trash pick-up, and deliveries. He said it would result in even more area used up to assure there would not be conflicts. Mr. Lewis said that Applebees across the street has parking in the front and that is how they see this particular site developed. Mr. Lewis asked for a favorable recommendation to the Board, but they were not willing to succumb on the parking restriction. Conunissioner Oates expressed to the applicant that the Commission is trying to improve on the appearance of the Route 50 corridor and does not want to see a continuation of the situation at Applebees. He said that although the ordinance requires green space in the B2 Districts, the area still can be used for storm water management or utility placement. He said that nothing precludes a drive lane from coming across in front of the building, only the actual standing parking spaces. Commissioner Oates said he did not see the problem with removing the parking between the building and the road and he believed the applicant still had a useable site. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Mr. Lewis returned to the podium and stated that the storm water on this site naturally drains from Route 50 towards the back of the property; therefore, the storm water management will be at the rear of the property. He commented that typically, the rule of thumb is 25% floor area for a commercial site similar to this one, allowing a 15,000 square -foot building; he said if they were restricted by a 50 -foot setback, he estimated the building will end up being about 12,000 square feet. He said he did not have a problem placing the building up close to Route 50, if the building restriction line was reduced to 20 feet. Mr. Lewis believed this restrictionwas a Frederick County Planning Commission� n Page 1940 Minutes of December 20, 2006 I I I l U� W r V =ME burden on this site and would not work for this site. Commissioner Morris believed the ordinance requirements could certainly work for a parcel of this size. He referred to the McDonald's site just right up the road on Amherst Street; he said the McDonald's has side and rear parking, a drive-through, and an aesthetically -pleasing front. Members of the Commission recognized that although the rezoning application was generally consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan in terms of its use, the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan, which was adopted as a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan in 2006, specifically calls for commercial buildings to be sited close to Route 50 with parking behind the building. Commissioners noted that this was the first application to come forward since the adoption of that plan and they were clear that they wanted the design standards within the plan followed. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend denial of Rezoning # 14-06 of Glaize Property, submitted by Painter -Lewis, PLC, to rezone 1.38 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District, with proffers, for commercial use. OTHER UPDATE ON THE RURAL AREAS STUDY Commissioner Light commented that recent newspaper articles indicated the Board of Supervisors had made a decision about how they would proceed with the Rural Areas Study. Commissioner Light asked if the staff could provide additional input on what is being done. Ms. Eddy stated that the Board of Supervisors recently held a work session to talk about the Rural Areas Studies and they had asked staff to prepare a short presentation on the transfer of development rights (TDR), which are now allowed in the State of Virginia. She said that Mr. Bishop also gave a short presentation on transportation impact fees. She said she was asked to investigate TDRs further for information. She said there was a general discussion of the Rural Areas Study; most people were aware that the development table Chairman Schickle had presented was tabled. She said there wasa draft plan that went along with the development table_ Ms. Eddy said that one feature of the plan, included in the third column of the table, allowed a rezoning option whereby rural land owners could possibly get a density bonus if they chose to rezone their property and go through a rezoning process. She said this feature didn't seem to be supported at this work session. She said the Staff was directed to study the table again and to remove the rezoning option in the table and associated text. She said the staff was instructed to get back to the Board within a two-month time frame and they would review it again. Commissioner Light expressed his desire for the information to be presented to the citizens for their understanding and input. He suggested at least one public informational forum be held to explain the Board of Supervisors' recommendation. Commissioner Light wanted to extend to the Board his concern that the public be allowed to be educated before any public hearing is held. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December 20, 2006 Page 1941 ADJOURNMENT vote. -15— There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. by a unanimous Respectfully submitted, June M. Wilmot, Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning CommissionD N � v v Page 1942 Minutes of December 20, 2006 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 January 3, 2007. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Philip E. Lemieux, Board of Supervisors Liaison; Barbara Van Osten, Board of Supervisors Liaison; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large; City of Winchester Liaison STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Mark R_ Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner; 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 Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission adopted the agenda for this evening's meeting. ELECTION OF OFFICERS, MEETING SCHEDULE, COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS AND ADOPTION OF BYLAWS FOR 2007 The Secretary to the Planning Commission, Mr. Eric R. Lawrence, presided over the election of the Chair and Vice Chair for 2007. Election of June S. Wilmot, Chairman for 2007 Secretary Lawrence declared nominations open for Chairman for the 2007 calendar year. The nomination of Ms. June M. Wilmot for Chairman was made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Kriz. A motion was made by Commissioner Thomas, seconded by Commissioner Kriz, and unanimously passed to close nominations for Chairman. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1943 Minutes of January 3, 2007 0 0 M V T -2 - BE IT RESOLVED, That by a unanimous vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby elect Ms. June M. Wilmot as Chairman of the Planning Commission for the Year of 2007. Election of Roger L Thomas, Vice Chairman for 2007 Secretary Lawrence declared nominations open for Vice Chairman for the 2007 calendar year. The nomination of Mr. Roger L. Thomas was made by Cormnissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Kriz. Motion was made by Commissioner Light, seconded by Commissioner Oates, and unanimously passed to close the nominations for Vice Chairman. BE IT RESOLVED, That by a unanimous vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby elect Mr. Roger L. Thomas as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission for the Year of 2007. Election of Eric R Lawrence, Secretary for 2007 Chairman Wilmot declared nominations open for Secretary of the Planning Commission. The nomination of Mr. Eric R. Lawrence was made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Triplett. Motion was made by Commissioner Kriz, seconded by Commissioner Light, and unanimously passed to close the nominations for Secretary. BE IT RESOLVED, That by a unanimous vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby elect Mr. Eric R. Lawrence as Secretary of the Planning Commission for the Year of 2007. MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 2007 Planninp- Commission Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Light, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission voted unanimously to have their regular monthly meetings on the first and third Wednesdays of each month at 7:00 p.m. to be held in the Board of Supervisors' meeting room in the Frederick County Administration Building. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 3, 2007 \\�\\ Page 1944 -3 - Chairman Wilmot pointed out that two of the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meetings fall on County holidays, July 4, 2007, and November 21, 2007. Upon motion made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to cancel those two regularly scheduled meetings of the Planning Commission. Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) Upon motion made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission voted unanimously to have regularly scheduled meetings of the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) on the second Monday of each month at 7:30 p.m. in the fust floor conference room of the Frederick County Administration Building. Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission voted unanimously to have the regularly scheduled meetings of the Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee on the fourth Thursday of each month at 7:30 p.m. in the first floor conference room of the Frederick County Administration Building. COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS FOR 2007 Chairman Wilmot requested that Commissioners who are now serving on either the CPPS (Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee) or the DRRS (Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee) continue in their current positions. In addition, Chairman Wilmot renewed appointments to the following committees: Commissioner Kriz and Commissioner Oates to the Transportation Committee; Commissioner Kerr to the EDC (Economic Development Commission); Commissioner Unger to the Sanitation Authority; Commissioner Oates to the HRAB (Historic Resources Advisory Board); Commissioner Light to the Conservation Easement Authority (CEA); and Commissioner Manuel and Commissioner Thomas to the Development Impact Model Oversight Committee (DIMOC). PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS & RULES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR 2007 Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted their By -Laws and the Rules and Responsibilities for the Year 2007. 5t Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 3, 2007 Page 1945 -4 - MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the minutes of the November 15, 2006 Planning Commission meeting were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS There were no committee reports due to the previous month's holidays. CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any item that was not on this evening's agenda. No one came forward to speak. COMMISSION DISCUSSION To consider a request to revise the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan, including expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) for commercial development on the north side of Northwestern Pike (Route 50). The Round Hill area includes land generally located north and south of Northwestern Pike (Route 50), west of Route 37, and east of Crinoline Lane in the Gainesboro and Back Creek Magisterial Districts. No Action Required Commissioner Mohn stated that he would abstain from all discussion due to a potential conflict of interest. Senior PIanner, Susan K. Eddy, reported that this proposal is for discussion of the potential expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) by approximately 481 acres and to modify the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan for commercial development. Ms. Eddy said the properties are located north and adjacent to Northwestern Pike (Route 50) and east and adjacent to Poorhouse Road (Route 654). Ms. Eddy pointed out that the expansion of the SWSA will allow the future extension of water and sewer lines for non-residential uses and for existing residences; however, it does not allow access to water and sewer for new residences; new residences would require extension of the Urban Development Area (UDA). Ms. Eddy stated that the original request, submitted on June 1, 2006, was for UDA expansion for a National Lutheran Home and for residences; it covered 370 acres and included five parcels owned by Silverlake, LLC. She stated that when the application was studied in detail by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS), they recommended including some of the adjoining parcels. The submittal was then revised by the applicant to seek only the SWSA expansion. The applicant is still ultimately seeking to Frederick County Planning Conunission Minutes of January 3, 2007 Page 1946 -5 - develop part of the site for a National Lutheran Home; however, this Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment alone does not ensure that the National Lutheran Home could be built in this location. Ms. Eddy said that one of the unique features of this SWSA request is that the applicant is seeking commercial land use for a medical -related campus. This is due to its proximity east of Route 37 and the MS -zoned property; it would result in a continuation of the medical theme going west. She said it was the staff's opinion that the link to the medical center is the foundation for this proposal because clearly, there are plenty of other areas within the County's UDA and SWSA that would suffice for general office or general retail uses. Ms. Eddy next described the future transportation plan called for with this study, which establishes a road system capable of future expansion. She described the design standards, which were a continuation of those adopted in May with the Round Hill Plan, including heightened design standards for the actual campus. She said the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) does not currently serve this area. The wastewater will be treated at the Parkins Mill Plant and the FCSA has stated that adequate wastewater capacity should be available by 2010. Ms. Eddy continued, stating that when the CPPS considered this application at their meetings in October and December of 2006, considerable discussion took place on transportation, land use, sewer and water, and concern was raised regarding future residential west of Route 37. She said the staff had prepared a draft plan for the December CPPS meeting and the CPPS had quite a number of changes to that plan, which included a clearer vision for the medical campus, less strip development on Route 50, and the addition of a new minor collector road between Round Hill Road and Ward Avenue. She commented that it would be quite challenging to redevelop the area south of Route 50 because of the large number of small residential lots. She said there would be a need for lot consolidations, etc., but this could make it much easier for people to redevelop their properties. Ms. Eddy said the CPPS endorsed the draft plan with the changes they had requested; she said those changes are reflected in the plan submitted to the Planning Commission this evening. She said the staffwas seeking comments from the Planning Commission on two basic points: 1) should the SWSA be expanded in this area and should the additional_ parcels also be included; and 2) if this is a good location to expand the SWSA, is this draft plan a good guide for future development in this area. Commissioner Kriz asked if the SWSA expansion could affect membership in the Conservation Easement Program. Ms. Eddy replied that inclusion in the SWSA would not preclude properties from using a Conservation Easement Program. Commissioner Light raised a question concerning a statement on Page 2 of the December 2006 Draft Plan, which referred to a "...commercial corridor and a campus area, both planned to accommodate business uses." He suggested that the language specifically reflect the intention to develop the entire area, including the commercial, in a campus -style setting. Ms. Eddy replied that the development north would be part of the campus area; however, it would be difficult to foresee the area south, with its existing small lots, redeveloping into a campus -style environment. She stated that all of the adopted design standards for Route 50 would be applied to the entire land use area; however, additional heightened standards would also be applied to the north campus area to cover building materials, plazas, signs, lighting, street furniture, extra landscaping, etc. Under the "Design Principles" in Figure 13A, Commissioner Oates suggested that the word "require" instead of "encourage" be used for the placement of buildings close to Route 50. Ms. Eddy recormneDded simply stating, "Placement of buildings close to Route 50 with landscaped parking lots in the rear... " A concern was raised about acres of visually unappealing parking area at the rear of properties, if all the buildings are placed close to Route 50. Staff commented it was not the intent to have all the structures in the campus area along Route 50; local roads throughout the area should accommodate some of the buildings and parking areas. Another suggestion was to increase the commercial entrance spacing, since the intent was to limit Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 3, 2007 Page 1947 I= the number of entrances on Route 50 and encourage the use of traffic signals. Commissioner Morris suggested stronger emphasis in the language for serving the needs of the existing residents in the area, along with the commercial development, so that as water and sewer service moves out along Route 50, the County does not forget the residents, nor the Round Hill Community Center and the original intent of the land use plan. Ms. Eddy suggested the inclusion of language indicating pipe sizing, so that it will be obvious to a developer that they are expected to provide the additional capacity. Commission members suggested the inclusion of specific language stating this SWSA expansion was not an opportunity for traditional single-family housing or townhouse development to occur in this area. Ms. Eddy noted that existing language in the draft text indicates the commercial areas are not meant for residential; this was clearly a SWSA expansion, not a UDA expansion. It was pointed out that the proposed language only mentions commercial and the intent is the possibility of having some institutional on the north side; a decision was made to include the wording, "campus -style area with commercial and institutional uses." Commissioners also recommended the addition of language encouraging inter -parcel connectors and utility easements. Chairman Wilmot next called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Gary Triggs, a resident on Poorhouse Road, expressed his concern about the possibilityof a high-density housing development occurring in this area. Mr. Triggs also wanted to be assured that the utility lines installed would be available for the adjoining properties. Chairman Wilmot responded that these extensions will be public service lines owned and operated by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority and if any adjoining property is within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), they would be allowed to hook into the line. Mr. Richard Shade, representing the Emmanuel Baptist Church, said the Emmanuel Baptist Church has a major concern with water and sewer and would like to take advantage of the utility lines. Mr. Shade wanted to know which direction the utility lines would run. Commissioners pointed out that the mechanics of where the line will actually run is unknown today. Commissioners pointed out that the Emmanuel Baptist Church was within the proposed SWSA and would be eligible to tie into those future utility lines. Mr. Jeff Doll, owner of property on Route 50 West, asked if tying into the future utility line would be a requirement. Mr. Doll was in favor of the land use plan as presented; he was also in favor of allowing continuing care retirement facilities as a permitted use in this area. In addition, Mr. Doll asked for clarification on the process for approval of the proposed land use plan and the process for approval of allowing a continuing care retirement facility. Mr. Phil Haines, a resident on Poorhouse Road, was interested in the small lots along the Route 50 corridor. Mr. Haines said that he has rental properties along Route 50 in partnership with Mr. Doll. Mr. Haines asked how the driveways to the homes along the south side of Route 50 would be affected with this plan. Commissioner Oates explained that the existing homes and driveways would not be affected. Commissioner Oates said that if those properties seek a rezoning at some future time for a commercial use, for example, the Commission would be looking for the driveways to be consolidated in order to eliminate the number of access points. Mr. John Grove, owner of Cathers Market in Round Hill, asked if the easement would be expanded on one side of the road or the other. Mr. Grove also inquired if it was possible for the public to get copies of the proposed plan. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 3, 2007 Page 1948 -7 - There being no other citizen wishing to speak, Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting. The Planning Commission generally supported the proposed revision to the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan which promoted utilizing a campus -style setting for medical -related commercial development north of Route 50 and expansion of the SWSA in that area, with the comments and suggestions made by Commission members during their discussion. Ms. Eddy said she would forward the Commission and citizen comments to the Board of Supervisors for discussion at their meeting of January 24, 2007. OTHER Work Prolzram Priorities Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, provided the Planning Commission with a list ofthe long- range project and current planning projects adopted out of the Commission's 2006 Retreat. Chairman Wilmot asked the Commission members to review the list for completion. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m, by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, June M. Wilmot, Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary 1 Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 3, 2007 Page 1949 REZONING APPLICATION #01-07 JORDAN SPRINGS Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: February 5, 2007 Staff Contact: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner 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: 02/21/07 Pending Board of Supervisors: 03/14/07 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 185.43 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the RP (Residential Performance) District, 28.30 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B2 (General Business) District, 3.42 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B2 (General Business) District with HA (Historic Area Overlay Zone), and 3.42 acres from the B2 (General _Business)_District—with- HA___ (Historic Area Overlay Zone) to the RP (Residential Performance) District (with 6.91 acres remaining as B2 (General Business) District with HA (Historic Area Overlay Zone)) with proffers for commercial land uses and up to 604 residential units. LOCATION: The property is located at 1160 Jordan Springs Road, and fronts the east and west side of Jordan Springs Road (Route 664) and fronts the west side of Wood's Mill Road (Route 660). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 44-A-294 and 44 -A -294A PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District and B2 (General Business) District with HA (Historic Area Overlay Zone) PRESENT USE: Commercial and undeveloped ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: R4 (Residential Planned Community) RA (Rural Areas) South: RA (Rural Areas) RP (Residential Performance) Use: Undeveloped (Snowden Bridge) Residential Use: Residential & Agricultural Residential Rezoning #01-07 Jordan Springs February 5, 2007 Page 2 East: RA (Rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential Use: Residential & Agricultural PROPOSED USE: Residential (up to 604 units) and commercial (up to 90,000 square feet) REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 664 and 660. 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 Preserve at Jordan Springs rezoning application dated July 17, 2006, addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. The Residency cannot support this rezoning application as there has not been any mitigation of the impacts on the transportation system offered by the applicant. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right- of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshal: Plans approved as submitted. Clearbrook Volunteer Fire & Rescue: After review of the proposed plans, and due to the number of units proposed, and knowing that this will pose a major impact on the Fire & Rescue Services, and financial assistance in funding for new or replacement equipment would be appreciated. Any comments by the Frederick County Fire & Rescue Office would also apply. Public Works Department: The Comprehensive Plan Policy Amendment (CPPA) application indicates that the subject parcel contains 227.18 acres. The application further indicates a desire to rezone the parcel from RA/B2 to RP/B2. However, the application does not indicate how the acreage will be subdivided between RP and B2. The justification of the proposed CPPA needs to be revised to reflect the latest changes in the Comprehensive Plan Policy which indicates that the subject property is completely outside the UDA/SWSA lines. Under the rezoning application, page 13, indicate the square footage associated with the B2 property. This item will be needed to determine the total impact of the project on water and sewer demand and solid waste generation. The impact analysis, paragraph 2 Wetlands, indicates the inclusion of a wetland study in Appendix III. However, our copy of the rezoning submission did not include a copy of Appendix III and the wetlands study. This office will require a copy of this report before we can complete our review. Refer to paragraph D. Sewage Conveyance and Treatment: Revise these calculations to include the impact of the commercial development. Refer to paragraph F. Drainage: Indicate what methods of stormwater management will be employed for the proposed RP/B2 development. The proffer statement indicates Best Management Practices (BMP) facilities. If these methods will be utilized, indicate who will be responsible for Rezoning #01-07 — Jordan Springs February 5, 2007 Page 3 maintaining the BMP facilities. Refer to G. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: The narrative indicates that solid waste will be deposited in the Frederick County Landfill following collection at citizens' convenience areas/dumpster facilities or via private carriers contracted by neighborhood residents. We are requiring all new subdivisions to adopt curbside trash pickup using a private hauler. The new Stephenson Village (Snowden Bridge) subdivision has proffered curbside trash pickup contracted by the homeowners' association. Therefore, we request that the reference to convenience facilities be eliminated. Also, the calculations of the solid waste generation shall be revised to include the impact of the commercial development. For comparison purposes, the landfill currently receives approximately 210,000 tones of trash per year. Based on this number, you can determine the impact of the project on the landfill. Refer to proffer statement, paragraph 9.2 (iii): Delete the statement, "...if they decide to use a commercial collection company." The use of a private hauler to provide curbside trash disposal will be a requirement, not an option. Refer to proffer statement, paragraph 11.1: Indicate who will be responsible for maintaining the BMP facilities. We will require satisfactory resolutions to the above comments before we can grant our final approval for the proposed rezoning. Sanitation Authority: The Authority is constructing a wastewater pump station that will provide service to the property. Water facilities in the vicinity of this property have capacity to meet the projected demand. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: The applicant states that the Opequon facility has capacity to serve this development. How has this conclusion been determined? If all rezoned properties yet developed within the Opequon Service Area were connected prior to this development, no capacity would be available. Timing will determine capacity. Department of Parks & Recreation: Monetary proffer for parks and recreation capital needs appears to be appropriate; however, the cost of the proposed trail system should not impact the monetary proffer. The proposed trail system easement needs to be 20' to accommodate a recommended 10' wide hard surface trail. The developer appears to be asking for monetary credit for land that has been dedicated as open space and is to be occupied by a trail easement. If this area counts toward the developers open space requirement, no additional credit should be given. Staff recommends the trail system be constructed by the developer and maintained by the Home Owners Association. The trail should also be designed so as to offer connectivity to trail systems from future adjacent developments. More specific information is needed relative to the required recreational units. Staff needs to know what recreational units, other than the trail, will be included with this development. Historic Resources Advisory Board: The Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) reviewed information associated with the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey Report and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, as well as information provided by the application. The HRAB requested that the applicant provide a Phase I archeological Survey on the parcels proposed for rezoning, since archeological history of this property is relatively unknown. A Phase II and III Archeological Survey will be required if the Phase I survey determines that it is warranted. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 315 single family homes, 175 townhomes and 120 multi -family homes will yield 73 high school students, 63 middle school students and 119 elementary school students for a total of 255 new Rezoning #01-07 — Jordan Springs February 5, 2007 Page 4 students upon build -out. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Frederick County Attorney: Please see attached letter dated October 23, 2006 from Robert T. Mitchell, Jr., County Attorney. Planning Department: Please see attached letter dated September20, 2006 from Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner and response letter from R. David Zollman (Bowman Consulting) dated January 10, 2007. Planning & Zonina: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Stephenson Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently 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 District. On December 12, 2001, 10.33 acres of this site was rezoned from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B2 (Business General) District with proffers, with the HA (Historic Area) overlay zone. Staff Note: When 10.33 acres of this property was rezoned from RA to B2 with HA in 2001, a surveying error was made. This proposal depicts the area rezoned and the area the county believed they were rezoning in 2001. The proposed changes are to the zoning districts as they were officially adopted. Three Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment (CPPA) requests to bring this site into the UDA have previously been submitted. CPPA #03-04 and CPPA #01-05 were not selected by the Board of Supervisors for detailed study. A CPPA application was also submitted on August 8, 2006, after the June 1, 2006 deadline. It was returned to the applicant. 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 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. 1-1] Rezoning #01-07 — Jordan Springs February 5, 2007 Page 5 Land Use The site is within the limits of the North East Land Use Plan (NELUP), a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The land use plan identifies the site as a rural area. The plan specifically calls for the preservation of rural areas. The plan does not identify the site for residential or commercial uses. The proposed rezoning for residential and commercial uses is therefore contrary to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The site is outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and only a small portion of the site (around the B2 zoned area) is within the Sewer and Water Services Area (SWSA). The Comprehensive Policy Plan confines urban development, such as this proposal, to the UDA, while also allowing commercial and industrial uses in the S WSA. The proposed development is therefore not in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The NELUP states that business and commercial land uses which adjoin existing residential uses and significant historic resources should be adequately screened to mitigate impact. The more general policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan recommend a number of design features for business properties. These include landscaping, screening and controlling the size and number of signs. Given the historic Jordan Spring setting, it would be appropriate to also consider building design, layout and materials. These design elements should be incorporated into this application. Transportation The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan designates Woods Mill Road as an improved minor collector. The applicant has not committed to providing sufficient right-of-way or constructing this road to a minor collector standard. The NELUP calls for Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better on roads impacted by new development. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) indicates some surrounding roads will have levels of service less than C which is contrary to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. See detailed comments on the TIA below. 3) Site Suitability/Environment The site contains significant environmental features. Several streams flow through the property including Hiatt Run, Lick Run, and several small unnamed streams. There is floodplain throughout the site along Hiatt Run and Lick Run. Approximately 233 acres of the site lie within the floodplain and this is shown on the Generalized Development Plan (GDP). There are wetlands on the site and these will need to be shown on the Master Development Plan (MDP). The steep slopes along Hiatt Run and Lick Run have created the area known locally as Devil's Backbone. Approximately 40 acres of the site have slopes of 25-50%. Some will be graded for housing. Approximately 7 acres of the site have slopes over 50%. These will remain largely untouched except for roadways. Some prime agricultural soils (32B — Oaklet silt loam and 44B — Zoar silt loam) exist on the site, primarily in the floodplain areas. Rezoning #01-07 — Jordan Springs February 5, 2007 Page 6 The site abounds with mature woodlands. A detailed inventory of existing vegetation was provided by the applicant. The North East Land Use Plan calls for identifying environmental resources and developing methods to protect these resources. Staff Note: The applicant has identified environmental resources, but has not committed to protecting these resources, other than providing a super silt fence. 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared for this application by Patton Harris Rust and Associates (PHR&A) dated August 2, 2006 and revised January 9, 2007. The TIA analyzed traffic in two phases. Phase 1 (2008) assumed 140 single family detached units, 48 single family attached units and 48 apartment units. For Phase 1, all roads adjacent to the immediate site function at Level of Service "C" or better given the proffered improvements (see Figure 9 of the TIA). Looking beyond the site, for Phase 1, Level of Service less than "C' will occur at Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Old Charlestown Road (Route 76 1) and Berryville Pike (Route 7) and Woods Mill Road (Route 660). Improvements have been proffered by the developer of Snowden Bridge for the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Old Charlestown Road (Route 761). Phase 2 (2010) assumed 365 single family detached units, 120 single family attached units, 120 apartment units and 90,000 square feet of office space. (The TIA modeled office space but retail is allowed on the site. Thus the worst case scenario has not been modeled.) For Phase 2, all roads adjacent to the immediate site function at Level of Service "C" or better given the proffered improvements (see Figure 14 of the TIA). Looking beyond the site, for Phase 2, Level of Service less than "C' will occur at Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Old Charlestown Road (Route 761), Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Stephenson Road (Route 664), and Berryville Pike (Route 7) and Woods Mill Road (Route 660). This applicant has proffered a traffic signal at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Stephenson Road (Route 664) before the commencement of Phase II. Improvements have been proffered by the developer of Snowden Bridge for the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Old Charlestown Road (Route 761), but an additional left turn lane beyond what has been proffered is required to achieve Level of Service C. No improvements are proffered for the intersection of Berryville Pike (Route 7) and Woods Mill Road (Route 660). The applicant has proffered a monetary contribution towards road improvements (see proffer statement below). B. Sewer and Water The site is wholly outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and only a small portion of the site is within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The applicant has estimated that the development will generate 423,600 gallons per day of wastewater. No precise estimate for water usage was provided. The estimate for sewage generated included only residential units, not the commercial component. Sewage will be treated at the Opequon Treatment Plant. Rezoning #01-07 — Jordan Springs February 5, 2007 Page 7 The FCSA commented that it is constructing a wastewater pump station that will provide service to the property and that water facilities in the vicinity of this property have capacity to meet the projected demand. The Frederick -Winchester Service Authority noted that if all rezoned properties yet developed within the Opequon Service Area were connected prior to this development, no capacity would be available. The applicant will dedicate the on-site land area required by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) for the Stephenson Regional Pump Station and grant the necessary on-site easements to FCSA for the Stephenson Regional Force Main. C. Historic Resources This site contains historic resources. The Jordan White Sulfur Spring Spa was constructed in 1893 on the site of an earlier springs resort, and the main structure embodies late -19' century vernacular buildings traditions of the era. The 3 %2 -story brick building is the only surviving example of a 19''-centry springs resort hotel in Frederick County. It has beer, determined to be eligible for the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places. Other historic structures on the site include a frame cabin, a frame shed and an open octagonal spring house. An HA (Historic Area) Overlay Zone was established on 10.33 acres of this property when it was rezoned to the B2 District in 2001. Within an HA overlay, the HRAB must approve all new construction, reconstruction and significant exterior alterations. This includes buildings, structures and signs. (As stated earlier, the NELUP states that business and commercial land uses which adjoin significant historic resources should be adequately screened to mitigate impact. The more general policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan recommend a number of design features for business properties. These include landscaping, screening and controlling the size and number of signs. Given the historic Jordan Spring setting, it would be appropriate to also consider building design, layout and materials.) StaffNote: This application contains no extra buffering or screening and no sign package. The applicant intends to establish architectural and design covenants (see proffer statement below), but these are unknown to staff at present. D. Community Facilities 604 new housing units, plus a commercial component, will have a significant impact on community facilities. The applicant has proffered a monetary contribution to offset these impacts based on the county's current Development Impact Model. The applicant has proffered to construct a 10 foot wide trail within a 20 foot wide corridor to be dedicated to Frederick County along the stream valley. The applicant will also construct a or the residents' use. community center and pool f Rezoning #01-07 — Jordan Springs February 5, 2007 Page 8 5) Proffer Statement — Dated January 10, 2007 Staff Note: This proffer statement would replace the proffer statement associated with REZ #10-01. The Proffer Statement needs to accurately reflect the rezonings and acreage sought. A) Generalized Development Plan A Generalized Development Plan (GDP) and Proposed Zoning Boundary Exhibit have been proffered. The GDP shows the general locations of the two main roads for the residential portion of the site, the two phases, the location of the open space and the location of the trail. B) Land Use The residential density is up to 3.2 units per acre (604 units for 188.85 acres). The combined percentage of townhouse and condominium units shall not exceed 50% of the total number of residential units. Commercial development on the property is limited to 90,000 square feet. StaffNote: County records indicate that there is already 21,134 square feet offloorspace on the property. This would count towards the 90, 000 square foot ofallowed commercial floorspace. A number of B2 uses will be prohibited in the B2 portion of the site that is within the Historic Overlay District. These include general merchandise stores, apparel stores, amusement services and self-service storage facilities. Staff Note: This is not the same list of uses that was proffered with the 2001 rezoning. That proffer statement allowed only a small number of uses: health services, legal services, engineering, accounting, research, management and related services, general business office, public buildings, and residential uses which are accessory to allowed business uses. One B2 use, automotive dealers, will be prohibited in the B2 portion of the site that is not within the Historic Overlay District. All other B2 uses will be allowed. The rest of the prohibited uses listed in the proffer statement are not even allowed in the B2 District. Staff Note: Given the historic setting, the applicant should consider re-evaluating the uses allowed in the B2 portion that is not included in the HA. It may not be appropriate to place uses such as gasoline service stations, car washes and self-service storage, adjacent to a historic overlay district. C) Transportation A monetary proffer of $5,000 per single family detached unit, $4,000 per townhouse and $4,000 per multi -family unit has been proffered for regional transportation improvements. The improvements are to be used within the area identified as the "Northeast Geographic Region", identified on an attached plat. Staff Note: No plat identifying a "Northeast Geographic Region " has been included with this application; therefore, the area in which the proffered money can be spent is unclear. Rezoning #01-07 — Jordan Springs February 5, 2007 Page 9 A traffic signal is proffered at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Stephenson Road. Site entrance improvements with right and left turn lanes are to be provided in three locations. Staff Note: These three locations should be labeled on the GDP. The existing access to the Historic Jordan Springs Property will be eliminated. Access will be provided from the internal street serving the residential area. Staff Note: These locations need to be labeled on the GDP. StaffNote: The previous proffer statement limited the number of entrances and provided right- of-way along Jordan Springs Road (Route 664). This application, with new residential and commercial uses, does not limit entrances and does not provide additional right-of-way. D) Architectural Guidelines The applicant will establish architectural and design covenants for the overall community including an architectural review board. Staff Note: The previous proffer statement limited the number, type and size of signs. E) Housing Types The applicant has included in the proffer statement standards that reduce the required front setbacks for single family detached traditional lots, single family detached urban lots, single family cluster lots and townhouses. Reduced standards for the size of the single family detached cluster lots are also included. Staff Note: Reduced standards are not allowed by County Ordinance. Proffers impose additional, not alternative, zoning regulations. The applicant has included a new housing type, Neo -traditional, in the proffer statement. Staff Note: New housing types are not allowed in the RP District. Only the uses specifically established in the RP District are allowed in the RP District. Proffers impose additional, not alternative, zoning regulations. The Zoning Ordinance only allows the introduction of new housing types in the R4 (Residential Planned Community) District. F) Phasing Phase I of this project will consist of 236 residential units. Phase II will be the ultimate build- out of 604 residential units and 90,000 square feet of commercial floorspace. If the traffic impact of Phase I exceeds the TIA projections, then the improvements to be constructed with Phase II will be completed before Phase II begins. Rezoning #01-07 — Jordan Springs February 5, 2007 Page 10 Staff Note: This proffer is very unclear. It should clearly state the traffic projections, how and when they will be verified, and the precise improvements that are proffered and at what time. G) Monetary Contribution A monetary contribution of $22,098 for each single family unit, $15,530 for each townhouse and $8,739 for each multi -family unit has been proffered for fire and rescue, general government, public safety, library, parks and recreation, and schools. This is consistent with the Development Impact Model projected impacts as updated by the Board of Supervisors on September 13, 2006. The proffered amount for Parks and Recreation may be reduced to the extent that the cost of the trail (see below) exceeds the value of the required recreation units. Staff note: The reduction in the monetary proffer for Parks and Recreation is inappropriate. The impacts to Parks and Recreation reflected in the Development Impact Model are based on the impacts to the capital facilities in County Parks caused by the increase in population in this development. H) Parks and Open Space The applicant will dedicate a 20 foot wide trail easement to Frederick County and construct a 10 foot wide asphalt trail within the easement. The trail shall be constructed within the Hiatt Run and Lick Run stream corridors for approximately 2,500 linear feet. The trail will be maintained by the Property Owners' Association until it is dedicated to Frederick County. The proffer statement also states that "in consideration of the cost and maintenance of said trail and trail easement prior to dedication, the applicant shall receive all Recreational Unit credits, which may be dictated by Frederick County ordinances at the time of the construction of this development". Staff Note: It is unclear to staff what "all " recreational unit credits means, or how the value of the easement will be calculated. The County's established practice with trails is to have them constructed by the developer and owned and maintained by a property owners' association, with a public access easement for public use. The GDP shows the general location of the trail along Hiatt Run on the west side of Jordan Springs Road. Staff would encourage a continuation of the trail on the east side of Jordan Springs Road. I) Community Recreation The applicant will construct a community center and pool in a location identified on the GDP. The construction will commence before the issuance of the 200th residential building permit and be completed before the issuance of the 300th residential building permit. The improvements will count towards the applicant's required recreation units. Staff Note: The location of the community center is not shown on the GDP. Rezoning #01-07 — Jordan Springs February 5, 2007 Page 11 J) Water and Sewer The applicant will dedicate the on-site land area required by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) for the Stephenson Regional Pump Station and grant the necessary on-site easements to FCSA for the Stephenson Regional Force Main. Staff Note: The location and size of these areas are unclear. K) History The applicant will conduct a Phase I archaeological survey for the disturbed areas on the property and perform additional work if necessitated by the results of Phase I, including curation of any artifacts deemed to be of historical value. The Phase I survey will be submitted at the time of submission of the Master Development Plan. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 02/21/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: This site is outside of the Urban Development Area (ODA). It is planned to remain rural in the Northeast Land Use Plan. The proposed commercial and residential uses are therefore contrary to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. A portion of the site is historically significant and this will be retained within the Historic Overlay District; however, the historic setting should be buffered from the proposed new uses. The site is ecologically important, but there is little commitment to the protection of natural resources. Woods Mill Road is not being improved to a minor collector standard as called for in the Eastern Road Plan, and not all surrounding roads will function at a level of service C with this development. The applicant is seeking to introduce a new housing type and new housing standards, and these are not allowed in the RP (Residential Performance) District. 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 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL HAND -DELIVERED Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 0("l- 2 3' Clc� PLEASE REPLY TO: P. O. Box 846 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-0848 Re: The Preserve at Jordan Springs Proffer Statement Dear Susan: I have reviewed the above -referenced Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. I assume that the language "which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto" at the end of the first sentence of the first paragraph is referring to any prior drafts of this Proffer Statement. If, however, there have been previous conditional rezonings approved on this Property or any portion thereof, it needs to be made clear that this clause is not referring to any approved proffers now existing on the Property. 2. The last sentence of the first paragraph must be deleted. If the Board were to deny this conditional rezoning application, and the Applicant appealed that denial to the Circuit Court, and if the Circuit Court overruled the Board and remanded A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORA71ONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILBUR C. HALL (1892-1972) THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924-1999) 7 S 307 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET SAMUEL D. ENGLE LEESBURG, VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA O. LELAND MAHAN TELEPHONE 703-777-1050 TELEPHONE 540-662-3200 ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. FAX 540-662-4304 JAMES A. KLENKAR E-MAIL lawyers@hallmonahan-com STEVEN F. JACKSON October 23, 2006 DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR. HAND -DELIVERED Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 0("l- 2 3' Clc� PLEASE REPLY TO: P. O. Box 846 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-0848 Re: The Preserve at Jordan Springs Proffer Statement Dear Susan: I have reviewed the above -referenced Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. I assume that the language "which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto" at the end of the first sentence of the first paragraph is referring to any prior drafts of this Proffer Statement. If, however, there have been previous conditional rezonings approved on this Property or any portion thereof, it needs to be made clear that this clause is not referring to any approved proffers now existing on the Property. 2. The last sentence of the first paragraph must be deleted. If the Board were to deny this conditional rezoning application, and the Applicant appealed that denial to the Circuit Court, and if the Circuit Court overruled the Board and remanded HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy October 23, 2006 Page 2 the matter to the Board for reconsideration, the application which would be back before the Board by virtue of the remand from the Circuit Court would be this conditional rezoning with these proffers. If the Applicant did not wish the Board to go forward with the reconsideration with these proffers, the Applicant would have to withdraw the application at that time. 3. Proffer 1.1 does not constitute a proffer, as the Property must be developed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Further, in any event, the last clause (or as may be approved by Frederick County") would have to be deleted, as there is no alternative for Frederick County to approve development which is not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The last clause, (" 125,000 square feet of general business area") should be separated into a separate sentence. Further, it is assumed that the 125,000 square feet is referring commercial floor area. Accordingly, it is recommended that this portion of the proffer provide: "Commercial development on the B 2 portion of the Property shall not exceed 125,000 square feet of commercial floor area. 5. As written, it would appear that the proffer in Proffer 2.1 is meaningless. There does not appear to be any delineation, or identification on the Generalized Development Plan, of what the three phases are, and the Property, in any event, must be developed in accordance with applicable ordinances, regulations, and design standards, and this Proffer Statement as approved by the Board. 6. Staff needs to review the last sentence of Proffer 5.1 to determine whether it is feasible to be applied and enforced by the County. 7. With respect to Proffer 5.2, I offer the following comments: (1) The actual dedication of an easement would be to Frederick County, as Frederick County Parks and Recreation is a County department and, as such, is not a separate entity which holds title to interests in land; HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy October 23, 2006 Page 3 (2) It would appear that the location of this easement is not to be known at the time of the approval of the rezoning and these proffers, and that the location is to be selected by the Applicant, with a "trail system plan" to be submitted to FCPR for "evaluation"; (3) The proffer suggests that there will be a trail within the easement, but there is no express obligation set forth that the Applicant will construct the trail, (4) It is provided that the Applicant will convey the easement after development of the adjoining parcels or reasonable access is provided (whatever that means) -- Why does the conveyance of the easement have to wait for development of adjoining parcels?; (5) The proffer provides that the area dedicated shall entitle the Applicant to recreational credit units for the "value" of the construction of the trail and dedicated land -- How is the "value" to be determined, and why should the Applicant receive credit unless the proffer includes a commitment to construct the trail?; (6) Staff needs to review this proffer as to whether the reservation of the Applicant for rights within the trail easement area are appropriate; (7) The last paragraph of Proffer 5.2 suggests that perhaps the Applicant is going to construct the trial, but then says that is contingent upon "limitations due to terrain and constructibility considerations." -- It would seem that these matters could be determined at this time and the Applicant should be able to know whether the proposed trail can be constructed; and (8) What County ordinances or State code provisions could prohibit the construction of the trail? 8. In Proffer 9.2, Item (iii), who is "they"? HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy October 23, 2006 Page 4 9. In Proffer 11. 1, after the words "Table 2-3" should be inserted the words "as may be hereinafter amended". 10. Proffer 12 is incomplete. 11. In Proffer 13.1,1 am not sure that the provision that the cap of 4% per year be non -compounded is appropriate as a CPI is normally applied to show the increase in the index over the prior year's index. . 12. It is not clear from this Proffer Statement whether or not the roads to be constructed within the development are to be public roads or private roads. It would be preferable for that to be set forth. 13. There was attached to the Proffer Statement provided to me a Generalized Development Plan. However, there is no reference in the proposed Proffer Statement to the Generalized Development Plan. To the extent that the proj ect is being considered with reference to the Generalized Development Plan, there should be a proffer added to the Proffer Statement that the development of the Property shall be in substantial conformity with the Generalized Development Plan attached to the proffers. As previously noted I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the rezoning of this specific property, or whether other proffers would be appropriate, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy October 23, 2006 Page If there are any questions concerning the foregoing comments, please contact me. Very truly yours, °s Robert T. Mitchell, Jr. t RTM/ks COUNTY of FRFDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 September 20, 2006 Mr. David Zollman Bowman Consulting 124 Cork Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Proposed Rezoning of Jordan Springs Property Dear David: Bowman Consulting recently submitted to the Planning Department a combined preliminary rezoning application and comprehensive policy plan amendment (CPPA) application for the Jordan Springs Property. The County has not accepted the comprehensive policy plan amendment request. In 2004 the Frederick County Board of Supervisors established an annual review process for comprehensive plan amendment requests. Applications for amendments must be received in the Planning Department no later that June 1St for consideration during that calendar year. As this application was received on August 8, 2006, it must wait until the 2007 review cycle. Fees have not yet been set for the 2007 applications. I will. inform you in the Spring of 2007 what the application fee will be for a CPPA application. The fee must be paid before the CPPA application can be considered complete. I am returning the CPPA application with this letter, as the application is not complete and does not accurately reflect the current Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) boundaries. 1 have reviewed the draft rezoning application for the Jordan Springs Property based on the current Comprehensive Policy Plan. This application seeks to rezone 227.1881 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District and B2 (Business General) District to RP (Residential Performance) District and B2 (Business General) District. Staff's review comments are listed below. 1. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The site is within the limits of the North East Land Use Plan (NELUP), a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The land use plan identifies the site as a rural area. The plan specifically calls for the preservation of rural areas. The plan does not identify the site for residential or t 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Page 2 Mr. David Zollman RE: Proposed Rezoning of Jordan Springs September 20, 2006 commercial uses. The proposed rezoning for residential and commercial uses is therefore contrary to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. 2. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The site is outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Services Area (SWSA) as adopted by the Board of Supervisors on September 13, 2006. The Comprehensive Policy Plan confines urban development, such as this proposal, to the UDA, while also allowing commercial and industrial uses in the SWSA. The proposed development is outside of the UDA and is therefore not in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. 3. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The NELUP states that business and commercial land uses which adjoin existing residential uses and significant historic resources should be adequately screened to mitigate impact. The more general policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan recommend a number of design features for business properties. These include landscaping, screening and controlling the size and number of signs. Given the historic Jordan Spring setting, it would be appropriate to also consider building design, layout and materials. These design elements should all be incorporated into the commercial portion of this application. The County typically sees these items addressed in the proffer statement. 4. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan designates Woods Mill Road and Jordan Springs Road as improved minor collectors. The applicant will need to ensure that Woods Mill Road and Jordan Springs Road in the vicinity of this project have sufficient right-of-way and are built to a minor collector road standard. The County typically sees these items addressed in the proffer statement. Also include a timing element, such as improvements will be in place before the first building permit. 5. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The NELUP calls for Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better on roads impacted by new development. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) indicates some surrounding roads will have levels of service less than C, which is contrary to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. See detailed comments on the TIA below. 6. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The NELUP shows the future Route 37 located on the western end of the Jordan Springs property. This is no longer the County's preferred location for Route 37. The route endorsed by the Board of Supervisor's on April 12, 2006 does not include any portion of the Jordan Springs property. 2 Page 3 Mr. David Zollman RE: Proposed Rezoning of Jordan Springs September 20, 2006 7. Impact Analysis — Vegetation. Considerable effort has gone into the analysis of existing vegetation. The Generalized Development Plan (GDP) shows areas of open space. However, there is no clear link between these two. There is no commitment to tree preservation. There is no indication that a forest management plan will be in place for the future homeowners association. Similarly, there is no commitment to protecting the steep slopes and floodplains during the construction phase. The County typically sees these issues addressed in the proffer statement. 8. Impact Assessment Statement — Wetlands. Wetlands must be shown on the Master Development Plan (MDP). 9. Impact Assessment Statement. Significant wildlife habitats were identified on the adjacent Snowden Bridge property. Please investigate whether they exist on this site as well by contacting the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 10. Traffic Impact Analysis. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was based on 100,000 square feet of office development. The proffer statement calls for up to 125,000 square feet of general business floorspace, which could be all retail floorspace. The TIA was based on 230 single family detached units, 117 townhouse units and 60 apartment units. The proffer statement calls for up to 315 single family detached units, 175 townhouses and 120 apartments. The rezoning application requires that the full development be modeled. Correct the TIA to model the maximum development that is proffered. 11. Traffic Impact Analysis - Table 3: 2010 Other Developments. Background traffic in the TIA does not include two large developments in close proximity to this site - the Adams Development and the North Stephenson Development. Include these as background traffic. 12. Traffic Impact Analysis - Figure 6: Trip Distribution Percentages. Only 30% of the traffic generated by this development is projected to travel south on Woods Mill Road to Route 7. This is unreasonable given the development will appeal to commuters and also given that most retail and school sites will be accessed from Route 7. Reexamine the trip distribution split. I would suggest that as much as 70% of the trips generated by this development will travel south on Woods Mill Road to Route 7. 13. Traffic Impact Analysis. The Northeast Land Use Plan calls for Level of Service C or better. Even with the suggested improvements in the TIA, Level of Service C is not provided. At the intersection of Route 7 and Woods Mill Road 3 Page 4 Mr. David Zollman RE: Proposed Rezoning of Jordan Springs September 20, 2006 levels of service are C, D and F. Furthermore, the TIA suggested improvements include signalization and turn lanes at the intersection of Route 11 and Old Charlestown Road and at the intersection of Route 11 and Stephenson Road. Please state clearly who is providing these improvements and when these improvements will be in place. Without these improvements, the level of service at these intersections falls to level of service F. 14. Proffer Statement — Introduction. The proffer statement should state the acreage of B2 District and the acreage of RP District land. 15. Proffer Statement — Land Use 1.3. Many of the uses listed as not permitted on the B2 with HA (Historic Area) overlay zone portion of the site are not allowed in the B2 District. Please carefully review the Zoning Ordinance and delete these from the proffer statement. Please provide an explanation as to why certain uses, such as food stores and restaurants, that were excluded by proffer when the property was rezoned to B2 with HA overlay zone in 2001, should now be allowed. 16. Proffer Statement — Land Use 1.4. Virtually all of the uses listed as not permitted on the B2 portion of the site (not in the HA overlay) are not allowed in the B2 District. Please carefully review the Zoning Ordinance and delete these from the proffer statement. 17. Proffer Statement — Land Use 2. The proffer statement mentions three phases, yet there is no explanation of these phases in either the proffer statement or the GDP. Please clarify. 18. Proffer Statement — Parks & Open Space 5.1. There is no evidence that the trails will exceed the required recreation units. It is not clear how or when a credit for trails would be calculated. Please note that the Code of Virginia allows voluntary proffers in addition to the regulations provided for the zoning district by the ordinance. 19. Proffer Statement — Parks & Open Space 5.2. It is unreasonable to take a credit for the value of the land dedicated for a trail system, since that land is part of the required open space. The County's standards trail is a ten (10) foot wide asphalt surface. Determine before the rezoning is processed whether the trail can be public. Otherwise the County cannot know precisely what type of trail it is accepting. 4 Page 5 Mr. David Zollman RE: Proposed Rezoning of Jordan Springs September 20, 2006 20. Proffer Statement — Home Owners Association 9.2. It is unclear if the HOA will be responsible for the public trail. Please clarify. 21. Proffer Statement — Design Proffers 12.1. Given the historic and environmental quality of this site, design proffers are strongly recommended. See earlier comment #3. 22. Generalized Development Plan (GDP). The GDP shows a level of detail better suited to a master development plan (MDP). Only items above and beyond the ordinance requirements should be shown. Therefore, only include buffers if they exceed county requirements. Similarly, indicating the breakdown of single family unit types on the GDP effectively proffers this precise breakdown of units. 23. Generalized Development Plan (GDP). Please note that only 50% of the required open space may be within environmental areas. 24. Generalized Development Plan (GDP). The County's on-going UDA study has been directing development in the UDA towards a more neo -traditional form of development. Please consider some of the neo -traditional concepts such as an integrated mix of uses, an integrated mix of housing types and a grid pattern. 25. Development Impact Model. Staff evaluated the capital impacts of this proposal based on 315 single family detached units, 175 single family attached units, and 120 multi -family units, as per the proffer statement. Staff did not take into account the prospective 125,000 square feet of business floor space as the timing of this commercial use was not proffered. All of the residential units could be built without any commercial floorspace being built. Please be advised that the projected impacts to capital facilities changed on September 13, 2006 as a result of the Board of Supervisors adopting 2006 inputs. See the new output sheet for appropriate amounts. 26. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency comments from the following agencies: Historic Resources Advisory Board, Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marshall, Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation, Frederick County School Department, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, Frederick - Winchester Health Department, Winchester Regional Airport, Greenwood and Clearbrook Fire and Rescue Companies and the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority. The proposed proffer statement has been forwarded by staff to the Frederick County Attorney. Once attorney comments are received by the s Page 6 Mr. David Zollman RE: Proposed Rezoning of Jordan Springs September 20, 2006 Planning Department, they will be forwarded to your office. Attorney comments are required for acceptance of the rezoning application. 27. Adjoining Property Owners. The list of adjoiners is missing ten properties. Nine of these are along Woods Mill Road and one (PIN 45 9 3 1) is on Jordan Springs Road. While the nine Woods Mill Road properties are on the GDP, they are not included in the list of adjoiners. Please add details of these ten properties. 28. Other. This application is missing a number of items — the precise acreage of the zoning requested, a survey showing the proposed zoning boundary lines, a copy of the deed verifying current ownership and a statement that taxes have been paid. All of these must be included for the application to be accepted by the Planning Department. 29. Fees. The fee for this application includes a $3,000.00 base fee plus $100.00 per acre, and a $50.00 public hearing sign fee. Thus, a total of $25,750.00 is due upon submission of the official rezoning application. This is based on fees as of January 27, 2005. Fees may change. All of the above comments and reviewing agency comments should be appropriately addressed before staff can accept this rezoning application. Please feel free to contact me with questions regarding this application. Sincerely, a.OUvv Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner SKE/bad Attachment cc: Greig Aitken & Tonie Wallace -Aitken, 1160 Jordan Springs Road, Stephenson, VA, 22656 Drees Homes, 5510 Cherokee Ave., Suite 300, Alexandria, VA 22312 owes(11- 1 iM M S U L T n January 10, 2007 Ms. Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner County of Frederick Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, VA 22601-5000 RE: Jordan Springs Property BCG Project #5016-01-001 Dear Susan Eddy, J A N i 3 2007 As you mention in your introduction, we acknowledge the County not accepting the Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment request and we have revised our Rezoning Application so that the CPPA application is no longer included. When we submitted the application for review on August 8, the UDA and SWSA boundaries were accurately shown on our plan, but during the review process the UDA boundary was removed from the subject property. We have received your comments dated September 20, 2006, and offer the following in response. Comprehensive Policy Plan "The site is within the limits of the North East Land Use Plan (NELUP), a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The land use plan identifies the site as a rural area. The plan specifically calls for the preservation of rural areas. The plan does not identify the site for residential or commercial uses. The proposed rezoning for residential and commercial uses is therefore contrary to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. " Response: We acknowledge that the site located within the NELUP. However, the NELUP identifies the site as Planned Unit Development, undesignated and rural area. The NELUP does not have specific goals for rural areas within its study area. While residential and commercial uses are generally discouraged in Rural Area zoning by the Comprehensive Policy Plan, such plans are general in nature in accordance with the Code of Virginia. When this plan was submitted for agency review on August 8, 2006, the property was partially within the UDA/SWSA boundaries. County plans show that public sewer is proposed to bisect the property. We strongly feel that our request to rezone would be appropriate and beneficial to the adjacent local community, and can act as a transitional buffer between the PUD, Commercial, rural community center and large lot residential development which dominate the adjacent development. Bowman Consulting Group, Ltd. 124 East Cork Street a Winchester,VA 22601 Phone: 540.722.2343 - Fax: 540.722.5080 ® www.bowmanconsulting.com Ms. Susan Eddy January 10, 2007 Page 2 of 7 2. "The site is outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Services Area (SWSA) as adopted by the Board of Supervisors on September 13, 2006 The Comprehensive Policy Plan confines urban development, such as this proposal, to the UDA, while also allowing commercial and industrial uses in the SWSA. The proposed development is outside of the UDA and is therefore not in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. " Response: The Board of Supervisors ("Board") adopted the new locations for both the UDA Boundary and SWSA on September 13, 2006, approximately one month after our application was submitted for agency reviews. The development goals of a Comprehensive Plan are general in nature, showing the general or approximate location, character, and extent of features shown on the plan. The UDA's depiction on the plan is general in nature and should not be used as a bar to applying for a rezoning of the subject property. 3. "The NEL UP states that business and commercial land which adjoin existing residential uses and significant historic resources should be adequately screened to mitigate impact. The more general policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan recommend a number of design features for business properties. These include landscaping, screening, and controlling the size and number of signs. Given the historic Jordan Spring setting, it would be appropriate to also consider building design, layout and materials. These design elements should all be incorporated into the commercial portion of this application. The County typically sees these items addressed in the proffer statement. " Response: A Category `B" buffer shall be provided along the perimeter of the B-2 areas, in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. Proffer 3.1 commits to architectural guidelines being developed for the overall community, including the commercial development. These covenants are intended to assure a continuity of overall architecture appearance, quality material selection, and a cohesive color palate for all structures within the entire development. 4. "The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan designates Woods Mill Road and Jordan Springs Road as improved minor collectors. The applicant will need to ensure that Woods Mill Road and Jordan Springs Road in the vicinity of this project have sufficient right-of- way and are built to a minor collector road standard. The County typically sees these items addressed in the proffer statement. Also include a timing element, such as improvements will be in place before the first building permit. " Response: Sufficient right-of-way shall be dedicated along Woods Mill Road and Jordan Springs Road according to minor collector standards. The Applicant is proffering full site entrance improvements with left and right turn lanes at each site entrance. In addition, the Applicant has committed to a monetary contribution that the County can use for Regional transportation improvements to use at the County's discretion. 5. "The NELUP calls for Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better on roads impacted by new development. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TM) indicates some surrounding roads will have levels of service less than C, which is contrary to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. See detailed comments on the TIA below. " Ms. Susan Eddy January 10, 2007 Page 3 of 7 Response: The Applicant has proffered the signalization of Route 11 and Stephenson Road in order to bring the LOS to "C" or better. The signalization of Route 11 and Old Charlestown Road has been proffered through the adjacent Stephenson Village rezoning. The intersection of Route 7 and Woods Mill Road has recently been upgraded, but in order to bring the LOS to "C" or better, Regional transportation improvements would be necessary. Therefore, the Applicant has proffered a monetary contribution to be used for Regional transportation improvements. 6. "The NEL UP shows the future Route 37 located on the western end of the Jordan Springs property. This is no longer the County's preferred location for Route 37. The route endorsed by the Board of Supervisor's on April 12, 2006, does not include any portion of the Jordan Springs property. " Response: We are aware of the future location of Route 37 endorsed on April 12, 2006, and the GDP we submitted with our application does not show Route 37 on our property. Lnpact Analysis T "Vegetation. Considerable effort has gone into the analysis of existing vegetation. The Generalized Development Plan (GDP) shows areas of open space. However, there is no clear link between these two. There is no commitment to tree preservation. There is no indication that a forest management plan will be in place for the future homeowners association. Similarly, there is no commitment to protecting the steep slopes and floodplain during the construction phase. The County typically sees these issues addressed in the proffer statement. " Response: The GDP has been updated to more clearly define the existing tree line. Proffer 13.2 has been added to include commitment from the developer to protect steep slopes and floodplain areas on the site. 8. "Wetlands. Wetlands must be shown on the Master Development Plan (MDP). " Response: Wetlands shall be shown on the MDP as requested. 9. "Significant wildlife habitats were identified on the adjacent Snowden Bridge property. Please investigate whether they exist on this site as well by contacting the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). " Response: The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries shall be contacted to determine if significant wildlife habitats exist on our site. Traffic Impact Analysis 10. "The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was based on 100, 000 square feet of office development. The proffer statement calls for up to 125, 000 square feet of general business floor space, which could be all retail floor space. The TIA was based on 230 single-family detached units, 117 townhouse units and 60 apartment units. The proffer statement calls for up to 315 single-family detached units, 175 townhouses and 120 apartments. The rezoning application requires that the full development be modeled. Correct the TL4 to model the maximum development that is proffered. " Ms. Susan Eddy January 10, 2007 Page 4 of 7 Response: Typos at the beginning of the TIA have been corrected. The TIA does model maximum full development as proffered. An updated TIA is hereby provided. The proffer statement and GDP will reflect accordingly. 90,000 sf. General Business 365 Single -Family Detached Units 120 Townhouse Units 120 Apartments 11. "Table 3: 2010 Other Developments. Background traffic in the TIA does not include two large developments in close proximity to this site — the Adams Development and the North Stephenson Development. Include these as background traffic. " Response: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has included all the background developments as per the scoping session with Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). 12. "Figure 6: Trip Distribution Percentages. Only 30% of the traffic generated by this development is projected to travel south on Woods Mill Road to Route 7. This is unreasonable given the development will appeal to commuters and also given that most retail and school sites will be accessed from Route 7. Re-examine the trip distribution split. I would suggest that as much as 70% of the trips generated by this development will travel south on Woods Mill Road to Route 7. " Response: The distribution of the development generated trips (Figure 6 in TIA) is in agreement with the scoping session with VDOT. 13. "The Northeast Land Use Plan calls for Level of Service C or better. Even with the suggested improvements in the TIA, Level of Service C is not provided. At the intersection of Route 7 and Woods Mill Road levels of service are C, D and F. Furthermore, the TIA suggested improvements include signalization and turn lanes at the intersection of Route 11 and Old Charlestown Road and at the intersection of Route 11 and Stephenson Road. Please state clearly who is providing these improvements and when these improvements will be in place. Without these improvements, the level of service at these intersections falls to level of service F. " Response: The Applicant has proffered the signalization of Route 11 and Stephenson Road in order to bring the LOS to "C" or better. The signalization of Route 11 and Old Charlestown Road has been proffered through the adjacent Stephenson Village rezoning. The intersection of Route 7 and Woods Mill Road has recently been upgraded, but in order to bring the LOS to "C" or better, Regional transportation improvements would be necessary. Therefore, the Applicant has proffered a monetary contribution to be used for Regional transportation improvements. Proffer Statement 14. "Introduction. The proffer statement should state the acreage of B2 District and the acreage of RP District land. " Response: The exact acreages of each zoning district are shown on the GDP. Ms. Susan Eddy January 10, 2007 Page 5 of 7 15. `Land Use 1.3. Many of the uses listed as not permitted on the B2 with HA (Historic Area) overlay zone portion of the site are not allowed in the B2 District. Please carefully review the Zoning Ordinance and delete these from the proffer statement. Please provide an explanation as to why certain uses, such as food stores and restaurants, that were excluded by proj7er when the property was rezoned to B2 with HA overlay zone in 2001, should now be allowed " Response: The proffer statement has been revised so that uses already excluded from the B- 2 District by the Zoning Ordinance are not restated in the proffers. We are also requesting to re-establish permitted uses in the B-2 with HA. We believe that such accessory neighborhood supportive uses, such as a restaurant/pub within walking distance of two large communities, are appropriate for the area, as well as permit accessory food service in relation to the Jordan Springs facility. 16. "Land Use 1.4. Virtually all of the uses listed as not permitted on the B2 portion of the site (not in the HA overlay) are not allowed in the B2 District. Please carefully review the Zoning Ordinance and delete these from the proffer statement. " Response: The proffer statement has been revised. 17. "Land Use 2. The proffer statement mentions three phases, yet there is not explanation of these phases in either the proffer statement of the GDP. Please clarify. " Response: The project will be developed in two phases. Proffer 4.1 has been added to clarifying the phasing of the project. The GDP has been updated with labels clearing identifying the two phases. 18. "Parks & Open Space 5.1. There is no evidence that the trails will exceed the required recreation units. It is not clear how or when a credit for trails would be calculated. Please note that the Code of Virginia allows voluntary proffers in addition to the regulations provided for the zoning district by the ordinance. " Response: The proffers for the trail are a commitment by the Applicant to provide a trail for the public benefit. The cost to construct the trail will be a credit against the monetary contributions outlined in proffer 7.1. In the event that the cost of the trail is less than the monetary proffer amount, the Applicant shallcontribute the balance of the monetary proffer to the Board. 19. "Parks & Open Space 5.2. It is unreasonable to take a credit for the value of the land dedicated for a trail system, since that land is part of the required open space. The County's standards trail is a ten (10) foot wide asphalt surface. Determine before the rezoning is processed whether the trail can be public. Otherwise the County cannot know precisely what type of trail it is accepting. " Response: The trail shall meet the County Standards and shall be public. No credit will be requested for the value of the land; the only credit requested will be for actual construction costs of the trail. Ms. Susan Eddy January 10, 2007 Page 6 of 7 20. "Home Owners Association 9.2. It is unclear if the HOA will be responsible for the public trail. Please clam. " Response: The Property Owners Association shall be responsible for the public trail until such time as the County accepts the trail and trail easement dedication. See Proffers 7.2 and 11.2. 21. `Design Proffers 12.1. Given the historic and environmental quality of this site, design proffers are strongly recommended. See earlier Comment #3. " Response: Proffer 3.1 commits to architectural guidelines being developed for the overall community, including the commercial development. These covenants are intended to assure a continuity of overall architecture appearance, quality material selection, and a cohesive color palate for all structures within the entire development. Generalized Development Plan (GDP) 22. "The GDP shows a level of detail better suited to a Master Development Plan (MDP). Only items above and beyond the ordinance requirements should be shown. Therefore, only include buffers if they exceed County requirements. Similarly indicating the breakdown of single-family unit types on the GDP effectively proffers this precise breakdown of units. " Response: The GDP has been revised to meet its more conceptual intent. 23. "Please note that only 50% of the required open space may be within environmental areas. " Response: We have noted that only 50% of the required open space may be within environmental areas. 24. "The County's on-going UDA study has been directing development in the UDA towards a more neo -traditional form of development. Please consider some of the neo -traditional concepts such as an integrated mix of uses, an integrated mix of housing types and a grid pattern. " Response: These items are being considered and will be adequately addressed on the MDP. The modifications and additional neo -traditional housing type are the basis for being able to implement some of the neo -traditional concepts. 25. "Impact Model. Staff evaluated the capital impacts of this proposal based on 315 single-family detached units, 175 single-family attached units, and 120 multi family units, as per the proffer statement. Staff did not take into account the prospective 125,000 square feet of business floor space as the timing of this commercial use was not proffered. All of the residential units could be built without any commercial floor space being built. Please be advised that the projected impacts to capital facilities changed on September 13, 2006, as a result of the Board of Supervisors adopting 2006 inputs. See the new output sheet for appropriate amounts. " Response: Monetary proffer amounts have been updated. Ms. Susan Eddy January 10, 2007 Page 7 of 7 General 26. `Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency comments from the following agencies: Historic Resources Advisory Board, Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marshall, Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation, Frederick County School Department, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, Frederick -Winchester Health Department, Winchester Regional Airport, Greenwood and Clearbrook Fire and Rescue Companies and the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority. The proposed proffer statement has been forwarded by staff to the Frederick County Attorney. Once attorney comments are received by the Planning Department, they will be forwarded to your office. Attorney comments are required for acceptance of the rezoning application. " Response: Copies of agency comments, including Frederick County Attorney, have been included with this application. Please note that at the scoping meeting, it was determined that agency comments would not be needed from Winchester Regional Airport or Greenwood Fire and Rescue Company. 27. Adjoining Property Owners. The list of adjoiners is missing ten properties. Nine of these are along Woods Mill Road and one (PIN 45 9 3 1) is on Jordan Springs Road. While the nine Woods Mill Road properties are on the GDP, they are not included in the list of adjoiners. Please add details of these ten properties. " Response: The adjoining property owner list has been revised to include any additional owners not previously located. 28. "Other. This application is missing a number of items — the precise acreage of the zoning requested, a survey showing the proposed zoning boundary lines, a copy of the deed verging current ownership and a statement that taxes have been paid. All of these must be included for the application to be accepted by the Planning Department. " Response: Acreage of zoning requested is shown on the GDP. The Survey showing the proposed zoning boundary lines has been added to the Application package. A Copy of the Deed to verify current ownership, and a Statement that taxes have been paid are all included with this application submission. 29. "Fees. The fee for this application includes a $3, 000.00 base fee plus $100.00 per acre, and a $50.00 public hearing sign fee. Thus, a total of $25,750.00 is due upon submission of the official rezoning application. This is based on fees as ofdanuary 27, 2005. Fees may change." Response: The total amount of $25,750.00 is included with the submission of this rezone application. Should you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me at the office. Sincerely, 1.5 AN CONSULTING GROUP ol an, LA Senior Proi t Mana e Maps .X ♦6.,, ® �.,' ER fovac s o o ' S s - ♦ A 169 ac 'O dc�Se' FySO \ LONGE . q gs'S'O 45 A R25p M S4�ac 92 �iq>FS / . 20 ac. w ym 45 SAIT25E ISo9�/FS 20 ac. ZB>ac y'7. _ NOFF 3 2= yo�p� STEPHENSON S CIATES A5T61ac,.. 44 A 3" 4 O a 32 0 413.02 ill- R4. zoning zoning -- RP oning :E s GH KEN 5 7 15 A 294A 1 12.87 ac. 76.25 ac. a� ss �F/F 1 _ d r � E :: 9 • y�� rijs �scFj. 0 ; `, 44-' 3'5 ac. 4 h a Of tpr > p - k` Ips 4F HALLAM °q y o 0 s �o "ARI J / d3 '� yS 50 A 4 Ildc g >aG BRE 128C ,4 32.42 ac. " � e • • ql�Wc■ Ia.n vVunzyl V14 Rezoning REZ # 01 - 07 Application Jordan Springs Parcel ID: 44 - A - 294, 294A Location in the County Map Features L Lakes/Ponds Zoning ^-� Streams -1 B1 (Business, Neighborhood District) c: Buildings ;q&? B2 (Business, General District) Streets 4W B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) Primary # EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) Secondary o HE (Higher Education District) 'V Terciary 4W M1 (Industrial, Light District) C2 Application M2 (Industrial, General District) i MH7 (Mobile Home Community District) i MS (Medical Support District) Ow R4 (Residential, Planned Community District) ! R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) RAZ (Rural Area Zone) RP (Residential Performance District) lGx COG 012250 50P0 p4$9�a ®eet w REZ # A 07 Landfte Map PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ4 RA/B2 to RP/B2 PROPER T Y: 221 1 88 8141 Acres LL / oI QQ1 1r Tax Map Parcels 44-A-294 and 44 -A -294A. RECORD OWNER: Greig D. W. Aitken Tonie M. Wallace -Aitken APPLICANT: The Drees Company PROJECT NAME: The Preserve at Jordan Springs PROFFER DATE: January 10, 2007 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as identified above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions. In the event that the above referenced rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of 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. Any improvements proffered herein below 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 exact acreages of the zoning category requested are as indicated on the GDP. When used in these proffers, the General Development Plan and "GDP" shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, The Preserve at Jordan Springs" comprised of two (2) sheets, prepared by Bowman Consulting Group, Ltd., and shall include the following: 2007 Sheet 1. "Generalized Development Plan" dated June 27, 2006, last revised January 10, Sheet 2. "Proposed Zoning Boundaries Exhibit" dated January 10, 2007. 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 term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. The Applicant hereby proffers as follows: 1. LAND USE 1.1 The development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the GDP, subject to minor revisions to the land use layout and other development features occurring upon final engineering, final subdivision, and final location and configuration of the on-site public and private roads. Areas of development on the Property shall be developed in conformance with the regulations of the Residential Performance ("RP") and General Business ("132") zoning district, as set forth in the ]Frederick County Code. 1.2 Residential development on the Property will provide for a mix of differing types of residential units. The total unit density of the Property to be zoned RP shall not exceed 3.2 units per acre. The combined percentage total of townhouse and condominium units shall not exceed 50% of the total number of residential units. Commercial development on the Property shall not exceed 90,000 square feet of commercial floor area. 1.3 The applicant proffers that the following B2 uses will not be permitted on the B2 zoned portion of the property which is also within the Historic Overlay District: 1.3.1 Veterinary services livestock 1.3.2 Animal specialty (sic) services, except veterinary, with all activities and animals kept within the fully enclosed primary structure. 1.3.3 Paint, glass and wallpaper stores 1.3.4 Hardware stores 1.3.5 General merchandise stores 1.3.6 Automotive dealers and gasoline service stations 1.3.7 Apparel and accessory stores 1.3.8 Home furniture, furnishings and equipment stores 1.3.9 Drive -In theaters 1.3.10 Amusement and recreation services operated outdoors 1.3.11 Child day-care facilities 1.3.12 Self-service storage facilities 1.3.13 Public buildings 1.3.14 Public utility distribution facilities 1.3.15 Directional signs 1.3.16 Building entrance signs 1.3.17 Electrical supplies 1.3.18 Hardware and plumbing and heating equipment 1.3.19 Commercial batting cages operated outdoors 1.3.20 Fire stations, companies and rescue squads 1.3.21 Commercial sport and recreation clubs 1.4 The Applicant proffers that the following B2 uses will not be permitted on the B2 zoned property which is not located within the Historic Overlay District: 1.4.1 Automotive dealers 1.4.2 Gas systems contract conversion from manufactured to natural gas 1.4.3 Salvaging of damaged merchandise not engaged in sales 1.4.4 Scrap steel cutting 1.4.5 Welding repair 1.4.6 Boiler cleaning and repair 1.4.7 Cesspool cleaning 1.4.8 Septic tank cleaning service 1.4.9 Sewer cleaning service 1.4. 10 Tank and boiler cleaning service 1.4.11 Tank truck cleaning service 2. TRANSPORTATION 2.1 The Applicant shall make a monetary contribution to the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors in the amount of $5,000.00 per new single-family detached unit, $4,000.00 per new townhouse unit, and $4,000 per new multi -family unit constructed on the Property to be used for Regional transportation improvements. Said contribution shall be paid upon issuance of a unit's building permit. Said contributions shall be paid to a fund to be used for transportation improvements in the geographic region identified as the "Northeast Geographic Region", which is more specifically described on the attached and incorporated plat. It is the intent of the Applicant that these funds will be used to address road improvements and to ease the flow of traffic in this region. This fund will be kept in an interest bearing account by Frederick County. It is the intent that this fund will be combined with other contributions that may be made for road improvements benefiting this region and/or used as a match with any governmental funds or grants that may become available to allow for the installation of road improvements in this region. 2.2 Signalization of Route 1 I and Stephenson Road. The Applicant agrees to install a traffic signal at the intersection of U.S. Route Il at Stephenson Road upon or before commencement of Phase Il construction. Said improvement is warranted by traffic study performed by Patton Harris Rust & Associates. 2.3 The Applicant agrees to construct full site entrance improvements with right and left turn lanes at Jordan Springs Road and Site Entrance #1, Moods Mill Road and Site Entrance #2, and Jordan Springs Road and Site Entrance 43 (commercial entrance) 2.4 Access for the existing Historic Jordan, Springs property shall be provided from the main internal subdivision street serving The Preserve at Jordan Springs. The existing driveway access from Jordan Springs Road to the Historic Jordan Springs property shall be terminated. 3. COMMUNITY DESIGN; 3.1 Architectural Guidelines. The Applicant shall develop architectural and design covenants for the overall community. Said covenants will establish an architectural review board for the purpose of review and approval of all architectural elevations, exterior architectural features (fences, railings, walls and decks) for all uses within The Preserve at Jordan Springs. These covenants are intended to assure a continuity of overall architecture appearance, quality material selection, and a cohesive color palate for all structures within the entire development. 3.2 )=lousing Types. The following Housing Unit Types with the modifications listed below are proffered herein. Unless expressly stated otherwise, by accepting these proffers, Frederick County agrees to accept these modifications to allow for the build -out contemplated by the Applicant. Unless otherwise stated, all other requirements of the Housing Unit Type remain unchanged from that stated in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Each may be altered at the time of final engineering and equivalent Housing Unit Types may be substituted with the approval of the Director of Planning or his/her designee. Any existing or future Housing Unit Type, which is permitted. under the RP Residential Performance District, may also be utilized. 3.2.1 Single-family detached traditional. Setback from the road right-of-way shall be a minimum of 25 feet. 3.2.2 Single-family detached urban. Setback from the road right-of-way shall be a minimum of 25 feet. 3.2.3 Single-family detached cluster. Minimum total area per dwelling unit shall be 7,000 square feet. No individual lot shall be smaller than 6,000 square feet. For each lot that is less than 7,000 square feet by a given square footage, an equivalent square footage of land shall be added to the required common open space. Setback from the road right-of-way shall be a minimum of 20 feet. Side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 5 feet. 3.2.4 Neo -traditional. Single family detached residence on an individual lot. The intent of this housing type is to provide an alternative style to promote the ideals of Smart Growth and encourage a walkable neighborhood. 3.2.4.1 Minimum lot size: 5,000 sq ft. 3.2.4.2 Off-street parking spaces: 2 3.2.4.3 Setback from state road / front yard setback: 15 feet 3.2.4.4 Setback from private road / rear yard setback: 20 feet 3.2.4.5 Side yard setback. 5 feet 3.2.4.6 Decks may extend ten feet into the rear yard setback 3.2.4.7 Front porches, stoops and steps may extend eight feet into front yard setbacks 3.2.4.8 Maximum building heights shall not exceed 35 feet in height. 3.2.5 Townhouse. Front setback shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the right- of-way or private road for front -loaded products. Front setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet from the right-of-way or private road for rear -loaded products. 4. PHASING: 4.1 elle Propel y shall be developed in tvY o (2) phases as rhos. n on the GDP and in accordance with applicable ordinances, regulations, and design standards, and this Proffer Statement as approved by the Board. Phase I shall consists of a maximum of 236 residential units. The Applicant agrees that if the traffic impacts of the actual installed residential units in Phase I exceed the Phase I impacts that are reflected in the traffic study, which has been filed contemporaneously with this rezoning, then the transportation improvements to be constructed in Phase II will be completed before the commencement of additional residential construction. 5. FIRE & RESCUE: 5.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $790.00 per Single Family dwelling unit, $583.00 per Townhome dwelling unit, or $593.00 per Multi -Family unit, as applicable, for fire and rescue purposes, upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. 5.2 For each single-family detached dwelling unit with a side setback of less than 10 feet, the Applicant will either provide i) exterior sidewall construction that is non- combustible, ii) exterior sidewall construction that has a minimum fire resisting rating equivalent to two -hours between dwelling units, and/or iii) a fire sprinkler system. 6. SCHOOLS: 6.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $17,706.00 per Single Family dwelling unit, $12,192.00 per Townhome dwelling unit, or $5,391.00 per Multi -Family unit, as applicable, for school purposes, upon issuance of a unit's building permit. 7. PARKS & ®PEN SPACE: 7.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $2,239.00 per Single Family dwelling unit, or $1,712.00 per Townhome or Multi -Family dwelling unit, as applicable, for recreational purposes, upon issuance of a unit's building permit. Notwithstanding what is stated above, these payments may be reduced by the costs of the trail system that exceed the recreational credit unit costs for the development. 7.2 The Applicant shall dedicate a twenty (20) foot wide trail casement to Frederick County and construct a ten (10) foot wide asphalt trail within said easement. The location is to be determined by the Applicant and a trail system plan shall be submitted by the Applicant for evaluation to Frederick County Parks and Recreation (FCPR). The Applicant shall construct the trail within the Hiatt Run and hick Run stream corridors and run the length of said corridors on the subject property for approximately ±2,500 linear feet. The Applicant shall convey said easement and trail at no cost to Frederick County not later than six months after it is requested by Frederick County in writing, but not prior to the commencement of Phase II construction. Any area so dedicated shall be included in the calculation of required open space, and shall entitle the Applicant to recreational credit units for the value of the construction of the trail. The Applicant reserves the right to retain temporary and permanent grading, utility, sewer force main, slope, storm water management, construction and drainage easements within said dedicated area. The asphalt trail, at the discretion of the Applicant and FCPR, may be changed to other surface materials in an effort to promote low impact development techniques. Until such time as the trail and trail easement are dedicated to Frederick County, the Applicant or the Property Owners' Association ("POA") shall maintain the trail and trail easement. After such dedication, Frederick County shall maintain the trail and trail easement. In consideration of the cost and maintenance of said trail and trail easement prior to dedication, the Applicant shall receive all Recreational Unit credits, which may be dictated by Frederick County ordinances at the time of the construction of this development. 8. LIBRARIES: 8.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $372.00 per Single Family dwelling unit, or $285.00 per Townhome or Multi -Family dwelling unit, as applicable, for library purposes, upon issuance of a unit's building permit. 9. PUBLIC SAFETY: 9.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $671.00 per Single Family dwelling unit, or $513.00 per Townhome or Multi -Family dwelling unit, as applicable, for the Sheriff's Office, upon issuance of a unit's building permit. 10. COMMUNITY CENTER AND POOL 10.1 The Applicant agrees to construct a community center and pool on the Property in the general location identified on the Generalized Development Plan. The construction of the community center and pool shall commence on or before the issuance of the 200th residential building permit and the completion of construction for the community center and pool shall occur on or before the issuance of the 300th residential building permit. The Applicant shall be entitled to all recreational credit units for the value of the construction of the community center and pool. 11. GENERAL GOVERNMENT: 11.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $320.00 per Single Family dwelling unit, or $245.00 per Townhome or Multi -Family dwelling unit, as applicable, to be used for general government administration, upon the issuance of a unit's building permit. 12. CREATION OF HOMEOWNERS' ANIS PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION: 12.1 The residential development shall be made subject to a Property Owners' Association (hereinafter "POA") that shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of all common areas not dedicated to the County or others, and shall be provided such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such associations or as may be required for such POA herein. 12.2 In addition to such other dues and responsibilities as may be assigned, the POA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all common open space areas not otherwise dedicated to public use, (ii) common buffer areas located outside of residential lots; (iii) common solid waste disposal programs, if the POA decides to use a commercial collection company, and (iv) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any street, perimeter, or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be located within easements to be granted to the POA if platted within residential or other lots, or otherwise granted to the POA by appropriate instrument. 13. WATER & SEWER: 1.3.1 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. 13.2 Applicant shall dedicate on-site land area required by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) for the Stephenson Regional Pump Station. Applicant shall grant the necessary on-site easements to FCSA for the Stephenson Regional Force Main. 14. ENVIRONMENT: 14.1 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, as may be hereinafter amended, which results in the highest order of Stormwater control in existing Virginia law at the time of construction of any such facility. 14.2 At the time of development, the Applicant shall install a super silt fence along the interior perimeter of the limits of clearing and grading where adjacent to the steep slopes, floodplains, and in areas where appropriate to prevent unauthorized encroachment, and to protect those areas during construction activities. The fence shall be removed by the Applicant after the occupancy permits are issued for the lots platted along the super silt fence. The fence shall be shown on the final subdivision plan and on the individual lot grading plans. 15. HISTORY: 15.1 The Applicant shall conduct a Phase I archeological survey ("Phase P') for disturbed areas on the Property and perform additional work if necessitated by the results of the Phase I, including curation of any artifacts deemed to be of historical value found on the Property during such additional work. The Phase I Survey shall be submitted at the time of submission of the Master Development Plan. 16. ESCALATOR CLAUSE: 16.1 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, 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 Respectfully submitted, Greig D: W. Aitken Tonie M. Wallace -Aitken COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this d 7—'7Pday of 2007, by P, p ; ct tam •� , N W NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: 0 0 3 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged b fore me this _jLL/ day 2007, by �1i nj I is.['_2 S �-A Cz (L NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: U • 2 a R2 Ws a� Sz� TY 4+ -A --31A STEPHEN ON A080CW7 S, LC NR0. .030006768 TAS 44-A-2113 lr4OW L STEPHDlOK VILLAGE. LLL PM- 90400021263 Btl RIGHT 70 CTT DANGERW5 TREES D B 38A PG 094 STONE WOODEN FENCE POST TY 282 IRF OIFPN Al 01E„ L.C.W�TH CAP I m .0300oI766 y \ / TRY L MY r, T.tL 46-6-4-2 sm c IPF CI W4Lhw G. a WP"Wia. a s. - -- - I 5 9096'44' E ' (TOTAL) S 471316' T/ S 47'1730 19 I5.1aP-3' TAL 06-7-141 STON (TIE) TY ESD -7-14 WEIYM 0. LIflm 19 \ W�3W 0.L 9 Eutaw100803 \l [TRIM DAL 744, PQ 437 90.47 p 41&24' N. S 109S'4r E O66&07 B-2 0 ACES 28.30107 ACRES / 7 67.06' 11174' S 527850' W O11,479.10' 51&73 a ma / 4p VICINITY VUAP ® TY eB-7-9 O11.439.17 / IELNWO. L SWEET OU'1C46' 13&67 CMO. T. WzEr D.B. 0.57. P0. 412 STONE WOODEN FENCE POST TY 282 IRF OIFPN Al 01E„ L.C.W�TH CAP I m .0300oI766 y \ / TRY L MY r, T.tL 46-6-4-2 sm c IPF CI W4Lhw G. a WP"Wia. a s. LI t - I 5 9096'44' E ' (TOTAL) 1 � STONE E phryLs: S Sp 70,662 SF. s� POTOMAC EDISON EWT. 1.62740 AORES D.B. 316. M 609 . 7 f _\ IRS .BWDPIO N 60.00,E ri STOAY BMCI( f11 asnxw p a STORY 7p„EPNNrg .� BUILDING co INTENDED ZONING LINE PER BU DINGe GAZEHD.� E - D7 E-�2 ffi =♦C O9ARMrriY APPROX �S 0% 100 YEAR F ��'' ^ /CA ..:� 4WFLUDD PLAN 4r STONE IRF j' T.M. 44 -A -294A 175.9072 ACRES I ZONED: RES. (ROOSTING) I DUTY Orta CS TRY L MY r, NAIL FWND sm c IPF IRF IPF IPF S 471316' T/ S 47'1730 19 I5.1aP-3' 150.91' (TIE) (TIE NAIL -IFS BOX/ ��. FOOT BR10f2' CULVERT a BAR B/O BUILDING •-4 AaL VCJ�6Yml 460.120 SJ'. L13 a 0 FASTING B-2 WSTORCC OVERLAY ZONING LIE PER IEIER AND BOUNDS REZON24G DECEMBER 2001 IRS PROM M _ Q22I,1�91 S.F. r1yVy 18&84738 ACE'S +): AFPROAIMA7E LOCATION EX S 6573'47' W EX Btl POTOMAC ON" EASEMEN 104.77 D 8 361 PG 684 IRS S 2028145' ER S 21.00' umomm ` S 2714'14' E 364.07 E s,IRFS TY 40-F3-9 TY 46-05--4 TOM F. RMDOLPH I ER141 W. e ANGELA L NIIOOIPN Bsl01m K BBIWB DRI& .0600014891 NBTR..010007100 flys•... _ --yu FI464_,5-.s IRF Lam OF 100 r CULVERT ... �PPRwr X73 FLOOD PLAN, 1, / Do ' , i \ C(WMCNWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ft" D.B. 921. PG. 1188 '5 141 W (0.2937 ACRE) 60LDo T.M. 44-A-294 / 51.2809 ACRES / ... ZONED: RA (EIGST01G) S 4136'30' W IR ,711,3 pawmilO B-2 ORF 1.161.103 S.F. =AT. AWES IRS 1 N 77'4776" W 10.71' TY 1 4_ IRF D.B.D.1 098. P& 45 Qty IRS _ ty,yN 0� IDw 45-5-2-186 JOAN a & 6 & SUM IRF D.L 017. P0.234 5 112326' E \ 137.33 �o- t11_',OIE-w Qo- CURVE Na LEGEND STEPHENSON DENOTES RON ROD SET IRF DENOTES IRON ROD FOUND IPF DENOTES IRON PPE FOUND `-- DENOTES FOYER POLE uRES -T- DENOIE4 OVIIOEAD cuonoC ODNMIES Om"KEAD TFIFPHOE TURES CURVE TABLE S 012760' E \l ROOaO7 90.47 p 41&24' N. S 109S'4r E O66&07 B-2 0 ACES 28.30107 ACRES SITE 097074' 67.06' 11174' S 527850' W O11,479.10' 51&73 a ma 277-10' 4p VICINITY VUAP ® SCALE : 1'-2000' O11.439.17 CURVE Na LEGEND RS DENOTES RON ROD SET IRF DENOTES IRON ROD FOUND IPF DENOTES IRON PPE FOUND `-- DENOTES FOYER POLE uRES -T- DENOIE4 OVIIOEAD cuonoC ODNMIES Om"KEAD TFIFPHOE TURES CURVE TABLE CURVE Na RADIUS I ARC DELTA TANGENT CHORD CIRORD WAFMW O660.00' TY 44-A-294 GREG D.W. AITKEN AM TOPS M. 002OD015453 NSII6WFNT DOMW 167.91' 172737 BA61' 167.26' S 012760' E \l ROOaO7 90.47 02'35-30' 41&24' 90.47 S 109S'4r E O66&07 B-2 0 ACES 28.30107 ACRES 1136BW 097074' 67.06' 11174' S 527850' W O11,479.10' 51&73 a ma 277-10' 017ro6' 13&67 277.15 S 477716' W O11.439.17 S� 6236' OU'1C46' 13&67 62.36' S 483736' W O3.030.00' 21526' 0494'15' 107.66' 21&23 S 07'3824' E ZONE B-2 -28.67382 AGREES ph O 0494'26' 70&06'211.10' N 0778'22' W F86) ZOE B-2 HISTORIC -1104876 ACRE IRS 0693W 13234' 264.42 S 07.3711' E 2,000.07 134.I1r 0330'27 67.04' 13CW S O07r4r W TY 44-4YA6 �7 / TA LIAR M. 0 E•NARCN M. FLOE OB 770. P0. GOB 16a04736 ACE NOTES O.oD000 ACRES ZOG RA 1. TRE PROPWTES SHC'3X IEREOM ARE LOCATED ON FRFDEPoCR COUNTY TAX ASSESSMENT MAP WALLACE INSTRUMENT AND +1.02746 ARE TY 44-A-294 GREG D.W. AITKEN AM TOPS M. 002OD015453 NSII6WFNT DOMW / / RS T.M 44 -A -294A GREG D -W. AITK N AND TOM M. WALLACE L. 2 TITLE BEFORE FURN19ED BY FIDELITY RATIONAL TIRE INSURANCE COMPANY IRF -5.42125 AWES COUNTMiNT MRBER WWT. DATED SEPTEMBER 5. 2093 / �+ LINE TABLE 1 THE APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAN t<ERE TAKEN FROM Fli@EIWX TY 44-4YA6 �7 / TA LIAR M. 0 E•NARCN M. FLOE OB 770. P0. GOB ADJUSTED ZONE AP 16a04736 ACE Z0'NE B-2 O.oD000 ACRES ZOG RA +2&07362 ACE AND +1.02746 ARE ADJUSTED ZGM= 01-2 28.30107 AGES RS ZONING TABULATION ZONE RIP -5.42125 AWES O� i IRS ADJUSTED ZWC Fr2 KG7MC 10.35333 ACRES z E1051I1G PROPOSED 'aq�e r �i B-2 0 ACES 28.30107 ACRES Bwiman LansulliAg GrwG. Ria 20. Easi Cans5 Pnane' I`-do)722-3 Fax. S<%7225080 WncM1esie. Vig nea122601 B-ZABSTOIC OVERLAY 1033333 ACE 10-33333 ACRES 90, C & P 7017HOME +?� 51&73 a ma RP O ACRES 181-84730 ACRES GIA 217.15118 AWES 0 ACRES EASEMENT D.& 648, Pa 720 S� TOTAL 227.48170 ACE 227.46176 ACRES IR �6 BEpY ZOE RA 217.16118 AWES (� ZONE B-2 -28.67382 AGREES ph O -1.62745 ACES ZONE RP -185.42611 ACRS ZOE B-2 HISTORIC -1104876 ACRE IRS g.g0' -537728 ACES Aa6lSiFD mP& RA 0.00000 ACRES gam. ZONE RP0.00000 AWES ZONE RA +13.42811 ACE - ZONE B-2 HSMC +&42125 ACRES ADJUSTED ZONE AP 16a04736 ACE Z0'NE B-2 O.oD000 ACRES ZOG RA +2&07362 ACE AND +1.02746 ARE ADJUSTED ZGM= 01-2 28.30107 AGES Z= 0-2 (14ST RD) 10.37068 ACE ZONE RIP -5.42125 AWES ZO EZ RA +0.04673 ACRES +33/725 ACE ADJUSTED ZWC Fr2 KG7MC 10.35333 ACRES TH QA Dr �- Eric r Eec1®on No. 002868 4� aaDe�G 0 200 400 000 Y e - w Sr•Ic IN FEET Cmkm GLS. 4, TEE FlM1'OSE OF TICS EATST. LEGALLY RFZO XC; FROM THE ORIGINAL 2001 5-2 W70M OVEREAT METES ARO BCUFJS DESCRUP71(n NOT THE INTENDED B-2 HISTORIC OVERLAY PER 2001 APPLICATMOi SCALE 1`-200' am PRINECT K'R 6016-0I PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT EXHIBI'i OF THE PROPERTIES OF G G D. V.ArrM AND dpi ppp An yR-�gfl MM 'A. IV CYYf1I�LCE INSTRUMENT 0020008453 STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA JANUARY 10, 2007 RIC LLLIITS Ric uMns I 'aq�e mp q BCII IS U L p T '.S N W8./ Bwiman LansulliAg GrwG. Ria 20. Easi Cans5 Pnane' I`-do)722-3 Fax. S<%7225080 WncM1esie. Vig nea122601 mvw.bowmammsulay mm 5910 -D -LR -0D1 -dog BY: DEC 06e DE603 COUNTY REF NTE II 51&73 a ma REZONING FORPVI RESPONSES A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE: I. 100 year flood plain: There is a flood plain throughout the site associated with both Lick and Hiatt Runs per FEMA Panel Number 5 1 OOG3 01 10 B and further studies by Bowman Consulting Group. The floodplain area is limited south of the creeks by steep slopes and along the western part of the site to the north of Lick Creek as well. The width of the floodplain varies by as much as 1 10'-380'. The approximate flood plain area is 33 acres. 2. Wetlands: Wetlands shall be delineated on the subdivision plan prior to approval. 3. Steep slopes: (See Appendix IV: Slope * Runoff Analysis) The Preserve at Jordan Springs (PJS) s to is bisected by Lick and Hiatt Runs. Geologically, these creeks have created what 15 locally called "The Devil's Backbone". This is a formation of somewhat steep slopes that separate the site into two distinct areas north and south. Although the site is topographically challenging, most of the slopes actually fall into the category of 15-25% slopes (-±-4G acres) (see Slope � Runoff Analysis exhibit). While still challenging, these slopes are not forbidding to work with. Most of the slopes of 25-50% (±40 acres total area) remain untouched. There are a few areas where the slopes are proposed to be graded out to allow for housing. Likewise, the slopes of 50%+ remain largely untouched (±7 acres total area). The primary area affected is when a road is riding the slopes down a hill. 4. Existing Vegetation Report: (See Appendix V: Existing Vegetation Analysis) There are six distinct areas of woodland on this site. They depend largely on how the site has been used, proximity to the floodplain, and the slopes on the site. (1) Developed land -AREA (all areas are approximate): 12.5 acres -OVERALL FOREST CONDITION (GOOD, AVERAGE, POOR (IF POOR, WHY?): Average to good -CANOPY TREE SPECIES: Norway * silver maples, southern magnolia, black walnut, Northern red oak, black locust, sycamore, shellbark hickory, goldenraintree, eastern redcedar, t Norway spruce -CANOPY TREE HEIGHT (IE: 40'+): cluite variable 30 -GO' -CANOPY TREE CALIPER RANGE (IE: 24-30"): 14-24" -UNDERSTORY TREE SPECIES: Saucer magnolia, flowering pear, flowering dogwood, redbud, purple -leaf plum, autumn -olive, mazzard cherry, crabapple, tree -of -Heaven, * Colorado blue spruce -UNDERSTORY TREE HEIGHT (20-30'): 15-20' -UNDER5TORY TREE CALIPER AVERAGE (5-10"): 3-8" -MAJOR SHRUBS SPECIES: American boxwood, China Girl/ Boy Holly, common lilac, Hollywood Jumper, honeysuckle, and viburnum sp. (2) Environmentally Sensitive Area: Floodplain -AREA. 23.G acres -OVERALL FOREST CONDITION (GOOD, AVERAGE, POOR (IF POOR, WHY?): Poor to average... north of Jordan Springs road the condition is good, but the remainder (although some pockets of average condition exist), is poor with the weedy trees * shrubs taking over -CANOPY TREE SPECIES: Red 4- silver maple, sycamore, eastern cottonwood, tree -of -Heaven, slippery elm, black locust, shellbark hickory, green ash, swamp white oak, � Virginia pine -CANOPY TREE HEIGHT (IE: 40'+): 55 -GO' -CANOPY TREE CALIPER RANGE (IE: 24-30"): 1 G-24' -UNDERSTORY TREE SPECIES: black cherry, chestnut 4� northern red oak (saplings), witchhazel, hophornbeam, red maple, redbud, * slippery elm (saplings) -UNDERSTORY TREE HEIGHT (20-30'): 15-20' -UNDERSTORY TREE CALIPER AVERAGE (5-10"): G-8" -MAJOR SHRUBS SPECIES: mapleleaf viburnum, American bladdernut, rose brambles, * honeysuckle (3a) Young Successional Growth -AREA: 59.0 acres -OVERALL FOREST CONDITION (GOOD, AVERAGE, POOR (IF POOR, WHY?): Poor... young successional area is full of young, weedy trees, shrubs, * brambles -CANOPY TREE SPECIES: N/A to area -CANOPY TREE HEIGHT (IE: 40'+): N/A -CANOPY TREE CALIPER RANGE (IE: 24-30"): N/A -UNDERSTORY TREE 5PECIE5: northern red, white, * post oak (saplings), black cherry, black locust, redbud, and Virginia pine -UNDERSTORY TREE HEIGHT (20-30'): 15-20' -UNDERSTORY TREE CALIPER AVERAGE (5-10"): 3-G" -MAJOR SHRUBS SPECIES: honeysuckle shrubs/ ones, various field grasses, * wild rose brambles (3b) Mid -Aged Successional Growth -AREA: 5.05 acres -OVERALL FOREST CONDITION (GOOD, AVERAGE, POOR (IF POOR, WHY?): Poor... mid -aged successional growth is populated by weedy tree species and an understory of primarily honeysuckle $- brambles -CANOPY TREE SPECIES: Black locust, tree -of -Heaven, black walnut, 511PFCry elm, southern red oak, American linden, hackberry, pignut hickory, 4- Virginia pine -CANOPY TREE HEIGHT (IE: 40'+): 35-40' -CANOPY TREE CALIPER RANGE (IE: 24-30"): 10-1 G" -UNDERSTORY TREE SPECIES: 51ack cherry, post oak, persimmon, flowering dogwood, Virginia pine, hackberry, t eastern redcedar. -UNDER5TORY TREE HEIGHT (25-30'): 1 0-1 5' -UNDERSTORY TREE CALIPER AVERAGE (5-10"): 2-5" -MAJOR SHRUBS SPECIES: Brambles * honeysuckle (4a) Evergreen Forest: -AREA: 20.G acres -OVERALL FOREST CONDITION (GOOD, AVERAGE, POOR (IF POOR, WHY?): Poor to Average... Mature pine forest is attractive, but a number of the more mature trees are ether both dead and still standing or have fallen and litter the forest floor. -CANOPY TREE SPECIES: Virginia, white, (and shortleaf, red, or loblolly?), black locust, tree -of -Heaven, and northern red oak -CANOPY TREE HEIGHT (IE: 40'+): 55 -GO' (evergreens)/ 35-40' (deciduous) -CANOPY TREE CALIPER RANGE (IE: 24-30"): 12-20" -UNDER5TORY TREE SPECIES: flowering dogwood, northern red oak, black cherry, slippery elm, black walnut, * red maple -UNDERSTORY TREE HEIGHT (25-30'): 15-20' -UNDEwTORY 1 -REE CALIPER AVERAGE (J-1 O"): 3-G" -MAJOR SHRUBS SPECIES: honeysuckle t brambles (few) (41b) Evergreen Forest w/ Hardwoods -AREA: 17.0 acres -OVERALL FORST CONDITION (GOOD, AVERAGE, POOR (IF POOR, WHY?): Average -CANOPY TREE SPECIES: Northern red, white, * chestnut oaks, pignut hickory, * Virginia pine -CANOPY TREE HEIGHT (IE: 40'+): 55 -GO' -CANOPY TRE CALIPER RANGE (IE: 24-30"): 12-24" -UNDER5TORY TREE 5PECIE5: oak saplings, flowering dogwood, black cherry, red maple, 4� Virginia pine -UNDER5TORY TREE HEIGHT (25-30'): 15-20' -UNDER5TORY TRE CALIPER AVERAGE (5-10"): 3-G" -MAJOR SHRUBS SPECIES: honeysuckle (5a) Young Hardwood Forest -AREA: 1 1.0 acres -OVERALL FOREST CONDITION (GOOD, AVERAGE, POOR (IF POOR, WHY?): Poor to average... transitional forest between successional and mature hardwoods has many fallen evergreens that died with age and brambles and honeysuckle that have filled space until the younger oaks fill lr, and smother the light. -CANOPY TREE SPECIES: Northern red, white, post oaks, red maple, pignut hickory, 4 Virginia pine -CANOPY TREE HEIGHT (IE: 40'+): 50' (pines) 35-40' (deciduous) -CANOPY TREE CALIPER RANGE OE: 24-30"): 12-18" -UNDER5TORY TREE SPECIES: black cherry, American hornbeam, slippery elm, dogwood, tree -of Heaven, f persimmon -UNDER5TORY TREE HEIGHT (25-30'): 15-20' -UNDERSTORY TREE CALIPER AVERAGE (5-10"): 3-G" -MAJOR SHRUBS SPECIES: brambles and honeysuckle (5b) Environmentally Sensitive Area: Hardwood Forest on slopes >20% -AREA: 3 G . G acres -OVERALL FOREST CONDITION (GOOD, AVERAGE, POOR (IF POOR, WHY?): Average -CANOPY TREE SPECIES: Chestnut 4- white oak, sycamore, green ash, shellbark hickory, pignut hickory -CANOPY TREE HEIGHT (IE: 40'+): GO -G5' -CANOPY TREE CALIPER RANGE (IE: 24-30"): 10-25" -UNDERSTORY TREE SPECIES: Post, chestnut, * southern red oaks, black * mazzard cherry, flowering dogwood, American hornbeam, slippery elm, and hackberry -UNDERSTORY TREE HEIGHT (25-30'): 20-25' -UNDERSTORY TREE CALIPER AVERAGE (5-1 O"): 4-8" -MAJOR SHRUBS SPECIES: N/A (5c) Mature Hardwood Forest -AREA: 41.8381 acres -OVERALL FOREST CONDITION (GOOD, AVERAGE, POOR Of POOR, WHY?): Average -CANOPY TREE SPECIES: Chestnut, northern red, white, and post oaks, green ash, shellbark, pignut, t mockernut hickories, and Virginia pine -CANOPY TREE HEIGHT (IE: 40'+): G5-70' -CANOPY TREE CALIPER RANGE ([E: 24-30"): 1 G-28" -UNDER5TORY TREE SPECIES: black cherry, flowering dogwood, American hornbeam, persimmon, and eastern redcedar -UNDER5TORY TREE HEIGHT (25-30'): 15-20' -UNDER5TORY TREE CALIPER AVERAGE (5-10"): 3-G" -MAJOR 5HRUBS SPECIE5: N/A 5. 5o115 * Bedrock: (see Appendix VI: 50115 Exhibit * Information Spreadsheet) Prime Agricultural Soils: Three of five types of soils on this site are deficient in some way when relating their usefulness to agriculture. The entire site 15 comprised of different types of silt loams. In order: - I -Berks channery: The depth to bedrock 1s 30" or less. Although somewhat limiting, it's not prohibitive for agriculture. This soil type 15 mostly found 1n the upland parts of the site. The Berks soil comprises approximately 75.71 acres of the site. -9-Clearbrook channery: The depth to bedrock 1s 27" or less, but this soil also typically has a high water table. Given the location along the higher parts of the site, this wouldn't be as much of an issue. Although the bedrock depth 1s somewhat limiting, it's also not prohibitive. The Clearbrook 5011 comprises approximately 14.44 acres of the site. -32-Oaklet: Although the depth to bedrock is much better at GO% the big issue with this soil is the slow permeability and likelihood of flooding as a result. This 1s one of two soils that follow the stream. The Oaklet 5011 comprises approximately 7.82 acres of the site. -41-Weikert-5erk5 channery: This soil has the shallowest depth to bedrock of the site at 15-30". This 1s due largely to it engulfing the steepest slopes of the site. 4 15 has acceptable slopes, but the areas of 4 1 D t E have slopes of 15% and greater. The Weikert-Berks channery soil comprises approximately I OG.G acres of the site. -44-Zoar: This is the second soil type (along with Oaklet) that follows the streams (more so than the former). This one also has a deep depth to bedrock of GO" and suffers from flooding frequently not dust from the streams, but also due to a perched water table that Oaklet typically doesn't have. The Welkert-Berks channery 5011 comprises approximately 22.62 acres of the site. Relation to development: Three of five types of 50115 are acceptable to development. - I -Berks channery: This 1s the largest group as a whole that could work for development. The bedrock 15 fairly shallow, but 1f basements can be avoided (and depending on cut/ fill), development can work on Berks. -9-Clearbrook channery: Similar to Berks. This area 15 shallow to bedrock, but workable. Given the location on the slope, the water table shouldn't be an issue. -32-Oaklet: This clearly 15 not developable within the floodplain. -41-Welkert-Berk5 channery: 4 1 E 1s largely not developable, not dust because of the steep slopes throughout the delineation, but 1t 15 likeWse over a floodplain. There 15 an area north of the creeks in which the slopes don't seem to indicate the designation of 41 E that 1s developable, pending bedrock. 4 1 D has some steep slopes, but there are areas that, pending depth to bedrock, could be developed. 41 B 15 mostly within a zone that won't be developed as part of th15 5ubm1551on. -44-Zoar: This clearly 1s not developable within the floodplain. B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Proposed Stephenson Village, which is proposed as a R4 development northeast of our site, is proposed as a mixed-use development also. Within that proposed site, there will be a mix of single-family attached and detached (different unit types of detached). They will vary in size from 6,000- 5,000 sf lots. There are also approvals for condominiums and other multi -family units. Existing High Banks and Opecluon Ridge are both nearby developments that are zoned RP (albeit with well/ septic). Their lot sizes vary from 3-G acre lots on average. There are a number of other developments/ properties within 1-2 miles that are also zoned RP in the area. In addition to those existing R4 k RP developments, there are many adjacent and/ or nearby lots that have relatively small lot sizes. With the village of Stephenson to the north, there are many lots of one -acre or less (as low as V2 an acre); south on Jordan Springs Road there are lots as low as 0.43 -acre; and finally, on Woods Mill Road as low as 0.34 -acre. C. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: (See Appendix VII: Traffic Impact Analysis Illustrations) TIA has been prepared and distributed to appropriate agencies for their review and comment. D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT: (see Appendix VIII: Sewer * Water Exhibit) The Jordan Springs Property is split by both the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) of Frederick County. Approximately 30% of the site lies within the UDA and SWSA. Sanitary sewer service for the site will require the installation of a pump station and force main to extend service to the closest and most feasible treatment plant, gravity sewer, or pump station. The sewage will be treated at the Opecluon Treatment Plant, which does have the capacity to include the development. Under the assumption that the water inflow is approximately the same as the sanitary sewer outflow, please reference the calculations below for both the water and sewer flow demands. Number of Residents = G05 homes * 3.5 people / home = 2 1 18 people Average Daily Demand= 21 18 people * 100 GPD = 2 1 1,800 GPD Maximum Daly Demand= 2 1 1,800 GPD * 2 = 423,000 GPD Peak flour Demand = 423,000 GPD * 2 = 847,200 GPD E. WATER SUPPLY: (See Appendix VIII: Sewer * Water Exhibit) As mentioned in Section D, Sewage Conveyance and Treatment, the Jordan Springs Property is split by both the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) of Frederick County. Water service for the site will need to be extended from an existing 10" waterline that ends at the intersection of Jordan Springs Road and Morrison Road. The existing waterline will need to be extended about 3/10 of a mile along Jordan Springs Road. The water for the site would be provided by the Clear Brook facility. This facility does have the capacity to provide service to the site. Please reference Section D, 5ewage Conveyance and Treatment for the demand flows for the water. F. DRAINAGE: (see Appendix IV: Slope * Runoff Analysis) Currently, most of the site drains into Lick and Hiatt Runs. In the area north of those streams, all of the drainage runs to them. South of those streams, all but approximately one eighth of the area drains into them. Lick and Hiatt Runs then 5ub5ecluently drain into the Opecluon Creek. The drainage flows into deep Swale fmger5. These fingers, on the south end of the creeks, have the steepest slopes of the site at 50%+ slopes. G. 50LID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES: The G05 un1t5 comprising the Jordan Springs Property will generate approximately 981 0 Ib5. of 5011d waste per day (4.9 Tons/day). Solid waste from the project will be deposited in the Frederick County landfill following collection at citizen convenience/dump5ter faalities or via private carner5 contracted by neighborhood residents. TOTAL WASTE (LBS./DAY) 9810 TOTAL WASTE (TONS/DAY) 4.9 H. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES: (See Appendix IX: H15toric Site Study) I. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES: (See Appendix X: Generalized Development Plan) The Preserve at Jordan Springs 15 an environmentally Sensitive design that will enhance the area by providing a pleasant place to live, with many amenities (man-made and natural), and many benefits to the local (and extended) communities. It is our desire to provide an extension of the natural corridor that follows the steep slopes of "The Devil's Backbone" and the 100 year flood plain that follows both Lick and Hiatt Runs. This could be an amenity for both The Preserve at Jordan Springs (PJ5) and the outlying neighborhoods. This park would tie into a trail system that would wind around the existing slopes that make up the Backbone. This trail system would also extend into various areas of the site to expand into a comprehensive open space system throughout the PJ5. These open spaces would include little neighborhood parks/ tot Iot5 up to the preserved corridor and a recreation center for the community. Development also helps the community a5 far a5 economic development 15 concerned. The proposed design has a con5aentiou5 mix of detached, attached, and multi -family units to allow for a wide economic base. There 15 little diversity in terms of attached and multi -family units in Frederick County and this would allow for that choice of unit for an income that may not be able to afford a detached house. Finally, the site will be providing a sewage pump station off of Jordan Springs Road to service our development and neighboring community. SOLID WASTE NO. OF TOTAL WASTE UNIT TYPE GENERATION UNITS (LBS.) (LB. / DAY) SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 3G5 18 6570 TOWNHOMES 120 13.5 1 G20 MULTIFAMILY 1 120 13.5 1 G20 TOTAL WASTE (LBS./DAY) 9810 TOTAL WASTE (TONS/DAY) 4.9 H. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES: (See Appendix IX: H15toric Site Study) I. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES: (See Appendix X: Generalized Development Plan) The Preserve at Jordan Springs 15 an environmentally Sensitive design that will enhance the area by providing a pleasant place to live, with many amenities (man-made and natural), and many benefits to the local (and extended) communities. It is our desire to provide an extension of the natural corridor that follows the steep slopes of "The Devil's Backbone" and the 100 year flood plain that follows both Lick and Hiatt Runs. This could be an amenity for both The Preserve at Jordan Springs (PJ5) and the outlying neighborhoods. This park would tie into a trail system that would wind around the existing slopes that make up the Backbone. This trail system would also extend into various areas of the site to expand into a comprehensive open space system throughout the PJ5. These open spaces would include little neighborhood parks/ tot Iot5 up to the preserved corridor and a recreation center for the community. Development also helps the community a5 far a5 economic development 15 concerned. The proposed design has a con5aentiou5 mix of detached, attached, and multi -family units to allow for a wide economic base. There 15 little diversity in terms of attached and multi -family units in Frederick County and this would allow for that choice of unit for an income that may not be able to afford a detached house. Finally, the site will be providing a sewage pump station off of Jordan Springs Road to service our development and neighboring community. '1 Tffi 44-A-= BROOKFIELD arum mm W1AeE LLC 1 DOM .0400=1203 STONE STONE p eoo Sz I g2 a. 7R \ WOODEN FENCE POST T.M. 44 -A -31A BRM900N ABBOC4VPS, EcBU.0,310,008mal� APPRox U CPL -nku ,Oo YCWT FLOOD MAN / AI'PR01R , T.M. 44—Am294A 175.9072 ACRES ZOHED- RA STONE ® �1 lo- _ I \ \ I TTAL44.46ON A h'E', LO W.TtiIRFC S Wi1MN C1 OH 686, 14.0.. $TORY BRICK EIRD9+D CISTERN 7 T" P"C E / FEITES7AL ,,,,,, 2 s1ORr a FRAME � � BW1101D INCINERATOR APPRO GMATE LOCATION El EX 60 POTOMAC EDISCA EASEMENT w RIGHT 7D CUT D B 353, PG 804 DAN93tOU9 TREES 6 D B 363• PO 694 1, 47' C TI I \ _ 1.1�IS IOtlO�` E /'' TUL 45-6-3-9 1 T-1141&-G TERRY' MERL .06130014181 I WMM KODD107 0C EDISON E PIRF I IRF O. 668 N -� TOTAL IRF N 5'3. E 4pw7p N FENCE N 602X23' 6� n q'f _ ® LEE- O7' 100 LMRYOON FRAME 48' CULVERT LD9N_..._.� 0 .. FLOOD APPRm GAZEBO o/ CULVERT ,DOT IRD(f� � BAR SO 3 STORY IRS Z i 5 1T62Y47' 104.77' 5 2029'46' — — — _ s 29.14'14' E maw. PFd__�V S 4713.18" V S 47'17'39' of 150.93' 15a11' (TIE) (TIE NAIi-IY7 10'C A P MD EASEMENT DJL 646. PO. 720 HA-, Zi RS qr n l� W' el IRS IRS T7.3 44-,,2811 WLLNL M. A SHARON M. REMODE D.6 776. P0. 671 0:QMONWEALTH OF MRGIFDA D.B. 921, PG. 1188 (0.2937 ACRE) / T.M. 44-A-294 / S 4176.39' w IR 51.2809 ACRES 179.15 ZONED: RAB2 RF IRS N 7r47'18' W ' s� 1 10.71' TJL I POE- 17 R. C RUKA , IRF D.B. 894 P0. 45 1 IRS Trow- aS. i 16 IRF 6A1' /l D.B. 817, PQ Z94 ' S 112528' E T / IRF \ /' I. ERIC, ti EPoC6W. A DULY UCENSED LAND SURVEYOR N THE CommogwEMLLTH OF V INGWA. DO HEREBY' CERTIFY THAT THIS BOUNDARY SURVEY S BASED CA A CURRENT FETD RUN SURVEY AND IS N OOSIPUANCE WITH ALL THE CURRENT STANDARDS AS OF THE DATE OF TFDS SURVEY . THAT ALL ODIALSlS ARE REFETTETum TO VUWlA STATE GRID Nam NO 63 AND THAT THE LANDS SHOW HERE94 ARE NOW N ntZ NAIC OF AS FOLLOW : TJL 46•-284 9EN' D. W. A17 EN AND TONE LL WALLACE TY48-294A 9E1C D. 6L NTIEN AND 701E M. WALLACE ALL AMONG THE LAKID RECORDS OF FREDERICK COUNTY. VLTCI6A op P! y STIO A. 1®oa 11 00 BIB t4� Boae�o 0 200 400 000 SCALE IN FEET RADIUS STEPHQdSON DELTA TAN.ENT CHORD g � 187.81' 172830' 84.E 187.28' S 023'68' E O2000.00• 90.47' oa� TIL STON SITE TAIL 68-7-14 WI LIAY 0. bom IDT O85567' C111W LL Lim 6 LW-" E Lim / BERM .030000M- / 0970.14• 57.OB' VICRWY MAP / SCALE : 1'-2000• 277.18' OZY00' 131LW 277.15' 5 4719.16' W O11,439.16' 8236• 0016'46' 136.39' 8238' S 487835' q O3.010.06' 2115'6' 04WY5'' 107.66' 21132Y 5 077024' E O2.970.00• 211.20 04WW 106.86' 211.16' N 075'3'21• W I Tffi 687-9 tsaSWEET CAROL L 7.5'7, RMW4 11 Pa DDA.6 6 415 47' C TI I \ _ 1.1�IS IOtlO�` E /'' TUL 45-6-3-9 1 T-1141&-G TERRY' MERL .06130014181 I WMM KODD107 0C EDISON E PIRF I IRF O. 668 N -� TOTAL IRF N 5'3. E 4pw7p N FENCE N 602X23' 6� n q'f _ ® LEE- O7' 100 LMRYOON FRAME 48' CULVERT LD9N_..._.� 0 .. FLOOD APPRm GAZEBO o/ CULVERT ,DOT IRD(f� � BAR SO 3 STORY IRS Z i 5 1T62Y47' 104.77' 5 2029'46' — — — _ s 29.14'14' E maw. PFd__�V S 4713.18" V S 47'17'39' of 150.93' 15a11' (TIE) (TIE NAIi-IY7 10'C A P MD EASEMENT DJL 646. PO. 720 HA-, Zi RS qr n l� W' el IRS IRS T7.3 44-,,2811 WLLNL M. A SHARON M. REMODE D.6 776. P0. 671 0:QMONWEALTH OF MRGIFDA D.B. 921, PG. 1188 (0.2937 ACRE) / T.M. 44-A-294 / S 4176.39' w IR 51.2809 ACRES 179.15 ZONED: RAB2 RF IRS N 7r47'18' W ' s� 1 10.71' TJL I POE- 17 R. C RUKA , IRF D.B. 894 P0. 45 1 IRS Trow- aS. i 16 IRF 6A1' /l D.B. 817, PQ Z94 ' S 112528' E T / IRF \ /' I. ERIC, ti EPoC6W. A DULY UCENSED LAND SURVEYOR N THE CommogwEMLLTH OF V INGWA. DO HEREBY' CERTIFY THAT THIS BOUNDARY SURVEY S BASED CA A CURRENT FETD RUN SURVEY AND IS N OOSIPUANCE WITH ALL THE CURRENT STANDARDS AS OF THE DATE OF TFDS SURVEY . THAT ALL ODIALSlS ARE REFETTETum TO VUWlA STATE GRID Nam NO 63 AND THAT THE LANDS SHOW HERE94 ARE NOW N ntZ NAIC OF AS FOLLOW : TJL 46•-284 9EN' D. W. A17 EN AND TONE LL WALLACE TY48-294A 9E1C D. 6L NTIEN AND 701E M. WALLACE ALL AMONG THE LAKID RECORDS OF FREDERICK COUNTY. VLTCI6A op P! y STIO A. 1®oa 11 00 BIB t4� Boae�o 0 200 400 000 SCALE IN FEET LEGEND IRS DENOTES ROY ROD SET RF DEMOTES WON ROD FOUND B/F DENOTES RON PIPE FONND DENOTES POWER POLE DENOTES O,ERHEAD ELE"I c rarEs —T— DENOTES OVERHEAD TELEPHONE 1WRE5 CURVE TABLE CURVE NO, RADIUS STEPHQdSON DELTA TAN.ENT CHORD g � 187.81' 172830' 84.E 187.28' S 023'68' E O2000.00• 90.47' oa� 46-24' SITE 5 1095'43' E O85567' tta116• 0970.14• 57.OB' VICRWY MAP Now .n SCALE : 1'-2000• LEGEND IRS DENOTES ROY ROD SET RF DEMOTES WON ROD FOUND B/F DENOTES RON PIPE FONND DENOTES POWER POLE DENOTES O,ERHEAD ELE"I c rarEs —T— DENOTES OVERHEAD TELEPHONE 1WRE5 CURVE TABLE CURVE NO, RADIUS ARC DELTA TAN.ENT CHORD OVOID ffA16NC O660.00 187.81' 172830' 84.E 187.28' S 023'68' E O2000.00• 90.47' 02135W 46-24' 80.40 5 1095'43' E O85567' tta116• 0970.14• 57.OB' 11&74• S 3236'36' W O11.470.16• 277.18' OZY00' 131LW 277.15' 5 4719.16' W O11,439.16' 8236• 0016'46' 136.39' 8238' S 487835' q O3.010.06' 2115'6' 04WY5'' 107.66' 21132Y 5 077024' E O2.970.00• 211.20 04WW 106.86' 211.16' N 075'3'21• W NOTES 1. 711E PROPERT6S S/104;E1 HEREON ARE LOCATED ON FREDERICK COUNTY TAX ASSESSMENT MAP T.U. 44-A-294 GROO D.IN AmmR AND 71688E M. WALLACE WSTRUM Nr p2mre4W TJL 44 -A -294A 9630 D.W. AMMINN AND TOME M. WALLACE INSTRUMENT 92D00&63 2 nut REPORT FURNSHED BY FOEIRY NATIONAL TIRE MURANCF CI COMMITMENT NIAM ER 361, DATED SEPTEMBER 5. 20M a THE APFROMMATE WRTS OF 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAN WERE TALON FROM FREDERICK COUNTY OLS BOUNDARY SURVEY OF THE PROPERTIES OF GRMG 1Do 1. AffM AND TONZ ?Y A INSTRUMENT fD20DO8453 STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1'=200' MARCH 3, 2006 REVISION 1 0/07 OWNERS NATE r pp ., 1 . c ® 7'I Berenm Co..0.,, G—p, die ne: I5ap1 ]2z z3ai 1Ii Easl CarA Seeel Fai.114 222.. 1 e WvcAes r, Vnsmia 22601 viwv�.powmamm�suling co P\sO1s�n5JORCIA S x5675 Dt-DD2\surerWomWD sew sst e s Ere DW CHIL EWe/CmN ECO FRUE , Na 5016-01-062 11DISK 003 1 CUMIN REF N0. omw 1 Oil ZONING LEGEND EXI5TING CONTEXT: -s® 5W5A BOUNDARY ---- UDA BOUNDARY B ZONING RP ZONING R4 ZONING COMPREI1EN51VE PLAN MINOR COLLECTOR ROAD PROP05ED CONTEXT: RP B-2 PROP05ED ROUTE 37 BYPASS CORRIDOR C -XL ALIGNMENT ZONING EXI-11151T TI i FRESERVE AT JORDAN STI NGS FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: NT5 JULY 2000 REVISED JANUARY 2007 Bowman C O N S U L T I N G SLOPE * KUNOff ANALY515 THE PRE5ERVE AT JORDAN 5PRI NGS FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: NT5 JULY 2000 i FrFNin 0-1 5% SLOPES 15-25% 5LOPE5 ® 25-50% 5LOPE5 ® 50%+ SLOPES — MAJOR RIDGELINE.5 + e MINOR RIDGELINES 5WALE5 �— •-- INTERMITTENT/ PEF,ENNIAL STREAMS E— DIRECTION OF RUIDff Bowman C® N S U L T I N G 1B \ 4+ 1C IN �� �r 9C 41+E 4 s .fir B 3 t i'W z- if 1C 1 C a, N �lj js TME FR 5E JORDAN RffDffRI% COUNTY, VIRG1' A RINGS 41 B`�-`� ; SOIL LEGEND I BERr.S CrANNEKYSfLT LOAM 9 CLEARBROOK C�IANNIERY SILT LOAM F-2 32 O:AKLET SILT LOAM 4 ! t;!EIKERT-BEAKS CANNERY SL T LOAM 44 ZOAF'' SILT LOAM 'COTE: cc= ✓� r��-sr�r F ANALYSTS 0 _S ' FOK.`✓A`.CN 5�KfA.✓5 FOR ✓ _NLPD A.P�E,L: Bowman_ C® N S U L T I N G Y 4-4W= 7k JF Vol who 01 - ft og vj A *edl -oi t 41 m 4� f �vj A�- cl, Al aw OAI 41 41 - ol IN; Ilk 4f— Vp IWO, W 3to '4p� 4WA *to"* t % if g, Alla 117 41 -Y 20OG :fOVITA-i -on Bowman Consulting Group, Ltd. Winchester Office PLAT SHOWING Winchester, East Cork Street JORDAN wT SPRINGS PROP RT"I Winchester, Virginia 22601 d p� �+til`I ,►�N 11\ATE �w�p Phone: (540) 722-2343 Bowman SEWER 1"ll�D WATER �11111DIT Fax: (540)722-5080 www.twwmanconsulti ng. co m C ® PJ 5 U L T N G STONEWALL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA nconsu © Bowman Consulting Group, Ltd. SCALE: 1" = 2000' JULY 24, 2006 BCG PROJECT NO: 5016-01-001 BY: JBF DWG: P:\5016 — JORDANS SPRINGS RD\5016-01-001\Engineering\Exhibits\RZ Exhibits—CAD files\UTlUTY EXHIBIT\EMIBIT.dwg SHEET 1 OF 1 Nw A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of The Preserve at Jordan Springs Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: Drees Homes 5510 Cherokee Avenue Alexandria, VA 22312 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc End neers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 10212 Governor Lane Boulevard Suite 1007 PLjR+AWfl1larnsport, Maryland 21795 T 301.223,4010 • F 301.223.6831 August 02, 2006 (Revised January 9, 2007) OVERVIEW nepuri Juuuuaiy Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Preserve at Jordan Springs development located along Jordan Springs Road, south of Old Charles Town Road, in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed project is to include 365 single-family detached units, 120 apartment units, 120 townhouse units to the west of Jordan Springs Road and an additional 90,000 square foot office to the east of Jordan Springs Road. Access to the proposed development is provided via one (1) site -driveway to the west of Jordan Springs Road, one (1) site -driveway to the north of Woods Mill Road and one (1) site -driveway to the east of Jordan Springs Road. The proposed development will be built -out over two (2) transportation phases by the year 2010. Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the location of the Jordan Springs with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Phase 1 (2008) assumes partial build -out of the total proposed development with access provided via one (1) site -driveway along the west side of Jordan Springs Road and one (1) site -driveway to the north of Woods Mill Road. Phase 2 (2010) assumes the full build -out with access provided via one (1) site - driveway to the west of Jordan Springs Road, one (1) site -driveway to the north of Woods Mill Road and one (1) site -driveway to the east of Jordan Springs Road. Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying the Preserve at Jordan Springs 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 Preserve at Jordan Springs, • Distribution and assignment of the Preserve at Jordan Springs generated trips onto the study area road network, • Analysis of capacity and level of service using the newest version of the highway capacity software, HCS+, for existing and future conditions. PH A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Preserve at Jordan Springs 2007 RA January 9,87-1-0 -1-0 Project Number-146 Page I I No Scale �T T Figure 1 Vicinity Map - The Preserve Jordan Springs in Frederick County, VA A Phased Traffic Impact Anatisis of the Preserve at Jordan Springs F—) January 9, 2007 Project Number -14687-1-0 hR+A Page 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS PHR+A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersections of US Route 11/ Old Charles Town Road, US Route 11/ Stephenson Road, Old Charles Town Road/ Stephenson Road, Jordan Springs Road/ Old Charles Town Road, Jordan Springs Road/ Morrison Road, Jordan Springs Road/ Monastery Ridge Road, Jordan Springs Road/ Woods Mill Road and Route 7/ Woods Mill Road. 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 10% based on the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) traffic count data. Figure 2 shows the existing ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 3 shows the respective existing lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All traffic count data and HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Preserve at Jordan Springs H007 R+A January 9, -1-0 Project Number -14687-1-0 Page 3 v tD M`t� 11 Site ` Driveway #I i woods Morison Road (26) r 2 71;1 7v% ry�ti� X01 a` oad e v tD r'`` 3(5) P4— 4(7) Morison Road 1 r6 r a %..15(8) i 03% . 6(20) r'`` 3(5) P4— 4(7) Morison Road n� T S AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 2 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes A Phased Traffic hnpact Anahsis of the Preserve at Jordan Springs RA January 9. 7007 H Project Number -14687-1-0 PPage 4 1 Unsignalized Intersection WIV No Scale 11 4X� �* Unsignalized Intersection 2 Q�e 3 Old Chasles Town Road "D" 4 J�lV �= 0 a * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Levels of Service PH A Phased Tra rc Impact Ancrlrsis of the Preserve at Jor-a 207Januaryry 99, , ?007 R+A Project Number -1 4687-1-0 Page 5 Monastery Ride 3 Unsignalized Intersection 0 6 Road SIC N(A)* Unsignalized S_te SITE Drivelii Intersection Site D67,;73 SITE °r 0 6^ •F'VJ. � a Unsignalized q4 '7• r Intersection Unsignalized � Intersection �. w ;° Route 7� 30 �6 m a T�w a Unsignalized ?� ��odgr Cu-ntly this is a Woods Mill Intersection Signalized Intersectio Road *(A)< S Unsignalized Intersection J y v i (A)* 7 Morrison �Road Berryville Pike �O 0 a * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Levels of Service PH A Phased Tra rc Impact Ancrlrsis of the Preserve at Jor-a 207Januaryry 99, , ?007 R+A Project Number -1 4687-1-0 Page 5 PHASE I TRAFFIC ANALYSES (2008) Phase 1 (2008) assumes partial build -out of the total proposed development with access provided via one (1) site -driveway along the west side of Jordan Springs Road and one (1) site -driveway to the north of Woods Mill Road. 2008 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS PHR+A increased the existing traffic volumes (Figure 2) along Route 11, Route 7, Jordan Springs Road, Old Charles Town Road and Woods Mill Road using a conservative growth rate of five percent (5%) per year through Year 2008. Additionally, all trips relating to specific future "other developments" located within the vicinity of the proposed development were included. Based upon the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, PHR+A has provided Table I to summarize the calculated trips associated with each of the 2008 "other developments". Figure 4 show the 2008 background ADT and AMIPM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area for roadway. Figure 5 shows the corresponding 2008 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. HCS+ levels of service worksheets are provided in the Appendix section of this report. A Phased TrafWc Impact Analysis of the Preserve at Jordan Sprin.2s January 9, 2007R+A -1-0 Project Number-14687-1-0PH0 Page 6 Table 1 2008 "Other Developments" Trip Generation Summary * Includes Giles Farm. Toll Brothers, Coventry Court and miscellaneous residential at an absorbtion rate of 80 units/year PHRn A Phased Tra c Impact Analysis of the Preserve at Jordan Sprin pgs January 9, 2007 Project Nu mber- 14687-1 -0 Page 7 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT Red -Bud Run 210 Single -Family Detached 300 units 55 165 219 182 107 288 3,000 Total 55 165 219 182 107 288 3,000 Toll Borthers- Eddy's Lane 210 Single -Family Detached 80 units 16 49 65 55 32 88 800 Total 16 49 65 55 32 88 800 Butcher Property 210 Single -Family Detached 65 units 14 41 55 46 27 73 650 Total 14 41 55 46 27 73 650 Fieldstone 210 Single -Family Detached 63 units 13 40 54 45 25 71 630 230 Townhouse 207 units 15 76 91 75 37 112 1,801 Total 29 116 145 120 62 183 2,431 Lambert -Ward Property 210 Single -Family Detached 73 units 15 45 61 51 30 81 730 230 Townhouse/Condo 70 units 7 32 39 30 15 45 609 Total 22 78 99 81 45 126 1,339 Abrams Pointe 210 Single -Family Detached 225 units 42 125 167 140 82 222 2250 Total 42 125 167 140 82 222 2250 Brairwood III 210 Single -Family Detached 69 units 14 43 58 48 28 77 690 Total 14 43 58 48 28 77 690 Channing Drive Misc. Dev. 210 Single -Family Detached 160 units 30 91 121 103 61 164 1,600 230 Townhouse/Condo 65 units 6 30 37 28 14 42 566 Total 37 121 158 131 74 206 2,166 Fieldstone Development 210 Single -Family Detached 63 units 13 40 54 45 26 71 630 230 Townhouse/Condo 207 units 16 77 92 73 36 109 1,801 Total 29 117 146 118 62 180 2,431 Haggerty Property 210 Single -Family Detached 128 units 25 74 99 84 50 134 1,280 230 Townhouse/Condo 176 units 14 67 81 64 32 96 1,531 Total 39 142 180 148 81 229 2,811 Orrick Paramount 251 Elderly Housing - Detach 75 units 8 14 22 24 16 40 424 252 Elderly Housing - Attach 100 units 4 4 8 7 4 11 348 565 Day Care 6,000 SF 41 36 77 32 36 68 476 710 Office 25,000 SF 54 7 62 18 89 107 459 820 Retail 80,200 SF 84 53 137 260 281 541 5,884 881 Pharmacy w/ DT 15,000 SF 23 17 40 63 66 129 1,322 912 Drive-in Bank 6,000 SF 41 33 74 137 137 274 1,351 932 H -T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 932 H -T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 Total 327 231 558 622 680 1,302 11,789 * Includes Giles Farm. Toll Brothers, Coventry Court and miscellaneous residential at an absorbtion rate of 80 units/year PHRn A Phased Tra c Impact Analysis of the Preserve at Jordan Sprin pgs January 9, 2007 Project Nu mber- 14687-1 -0 Page 7 Table 1 (Continued) 2008 "Other Developments" Trio Generation Summary * Access to be provided via the proposea tcumerioru �_,ross❑lg suc- ,- y ** Assumed Phase I build -out for Year 2010 *** Assumed 75% build -out for Year 2010 PHRn A Phased Traffic Impact Analysts of the ['reserve at ✓organ Springs January 9, 2007 Project Number -14687-1-0 Page 8 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total Clearbrook Property 120 GA Heavy Industrial 120,000 SF 54 7 61 3 20 23 180 932 H -T Restaurant 8,000 SF 48 44 92 53 34 87 1,017 Total 102 52 153 56 54 110 1,197 Other Developments * 730 FEMA 350 employees 190 24 214 86 191 277 2,713 812 Building/Lumber Store 15,000 units 26 13 39 33 37 70 639 Total 216 37 253 119 228 347 3,352 Stephenson Village ** 210 Single -Family Detached 429 units 77 232 310 255 144 399 4,290 220 Apartment 240 units 20 103 123 100 49 149 1,573 230 Townhouse/Condo 390 units 26 125 150 127 62 189 3,393 251 Elderly Housing - Detach 266 units 29 51 80 78 44 123 1,064 253 Elderly Housing - Attach 72 units 3 2 5 4 3 7 251 Total "New Trip 155 513 667 564 302 866 10,570 Sempeles Property *** 130 Industrial Park 898,425 SF 459 101 559 154 580 734 5,204 820 Retail 73,500 SF 79 51 130 245 266 511 5,559 Total 538 152 689 399 846 1,245 10,763 Rutherford's Farm Ind. Park 815 Discount Store 127,000 SF 73 34 107 321 321 643 7,115 Total 73 34 107 321 321 643 7,115 * Access to be provided via the proposea tcumerioru �_,ross❑lg suc- ,- y ** Assumed Phase I build -out for Year 2010 *** Assumed 75% build -out for Year 2010 PHRn A Phased Traffic Impact Analysts of the ['reserve at ✓organ Springs January 9, 2007 Project Number -14687-1-0 Page 8 2 �ti1 1~ oad PA 'E N ✓15(8) ✓ T '� 6(20) * M' site a Driveway HI r� 3(5) 4(7) Morrison Woods l l31)3�`?Road w ro w G t✓ G AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 4 2008 Background Peak Hour Traffic Volumes PH R+A A Phased Trn�Jzc Gnpnct ArTnlrsisofthe Preserve at Jordan 9,2007January 9, 3007 Project Number -14687-1-0 Pa -e 9 L I1 N-1 Figure 5 2008 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Phased I rathe impact Anamis or me rreael ve ul DV� January 9, 2007 Project Number44687-1-0 Page 10 j Unsignalized / Intersection 1 A1 No Scale ti r 3�y Old Charles T°v ° Road 4° e 4 ° 11°D J Z Unsignalized 5 ° Signalized ^Suggested Intersection Intersection Improvement" Monastery Ridge Road LOS--B(IB) 6 161 Site Drive#1 SITE SITE S=1e Ils. Drive#30� 6 `e S 40 ''Q��i L �1P V ` ) N 3 Unsignalized Intersection o� C� a `poa�e/. � v Signalized "Suggested a Intersection Improvement" ,_; 4 Unsignalized Intersection LOS=C(C) EB - I Left WB - 1 Thru U 3 Q *4E�c�> 4 ell- y eYr��7e lrRoute �' t � Route7 peke �9J (D)C.J 7 = � = T0, w, ham/ �oydr 9 c Sinalized g - Unsi Unsignalized //'0 8 y 7 6 Unsignalized Intersection $ Unsignalized Intersection Intersection LOS--C(F) Intersection .a y �' v,ti y 41 �► Woods Mill >A(A) A(B)* �3 �— C(�') Road oa *B)A� 1� * -O �} Morrison Road �� 1 sit �Dw-w-y # I � .� n Route7� (E)C �► v a � a * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) ID—_P+ A L I1 N-1 Figure 5 2008 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Phased I rathe impact Anamis or me rreael ve ul DV� January 9, 2007 Project Number44687-1-0 Page 10 PHASE 1 TRIP GENERATION The total trips produced by and attracted to the Preserve at Jordan Springs site were established using the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report. Table 2 summarizes the trip generation results for the proposed Jordan Springs development. Table 2 Proposed Developemnt: The Preserve at Jordan Springs - (Phase I) Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 210 Single -Family Detached 140 units 27 81 107 91 54 145 1,400 220 Apartment 48 units 4 23 27 30 15 45 422 230 Townhouse/Condo 48 units 5 24 29 22 11 33 480 Total 1 36 127 163 1 1.43 79 223 1 2,302 PHASE 1 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT PHR+A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 6 to assign the Jordan Springs trips (Table 2) throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 7 shows the corresponding development -generated AMIPM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2008 PHASE 1 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Jordan Springs assigned trips (Figure 7) were added to the 2008 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2008 build -out conditions. Figure 8 provide the 2008 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 9 shows the corresponding 2008 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Phased Traffichnpact Analysis of the Preserve at Jordan Springs 007 R+AJanuary9, -1-0 Project Number -14687 -t -0H0 Page 1 No Scale 1 W N --L IL - Figure Figure 6 Trip Distribution Percentages A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Preserve at Jordan Springs January 9, 2007 P R+A Project Number -14687-1-0 P Page l2 No Scale t Charles To`"'° Road Monastery Ridge Road � G a ,Vd—( 7� Morrison X Road -O GT p G AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 7 Phase 1: 2008 Traffic Assignments PHJanuaryJanary 007 RA A Phased Trac Gnnpact Analysis of the Preserve at Jordafz Sprigs Project Nu9, -1-0 Number- Pa -e 1 ✓ N N P Site a Driveway #3 Site Driveway#1 ? (48)761 (10)17 w � A � G ✓ � G a ,Vd—( 7� Morrison X Road -O GT p G AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 7 Phase 1: 2008 Traffic Assignments PHJanuaryJanary 007 RA A Phased Trac Gnnpact Analysis of the Preserve at Jordafz Sprigs Project Nu9, -1-0 Number- Pa -e 1 'No Scale „r,t Charles Town K"ad Monastery Ridge Road SITE ✓� a � �4(S4) 1 4(2) Charles a � e a %..15(8) ✓ T %..6(20) 3(5) ' r!•' 6( 14) Site 4 woods Driveway#I Morrison goadRoad g6)42j c N (48)76—.p v G a o �l y5� wa (10)17 i- � � �r ✓ ✓ G J J AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) I Figure 8 Phase 1: 2008 Buildout Peak Hour Traffic Volumes A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Preserve at Jordan Springs January 9, 2007 RI Project 1-0PH Page 14 *4WA ✓� a � �4(S4) 1 4(2) Charles a � e a %..15(8) ✓ T %..6(20) 3(5) ' r!•' 6( 14) Site 4 woods Driveway#I Morrison goadRoad g6)42j c N (48)76—.p v G a o �l y5� wa (10)17 i- � � �r ✓ ✓ G J J AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) I Figure 8 Phase 1: 2008 Buildout Peak Hour Traffic Volumes A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Preserve at Jordan Springs January 9, 2007 RI Project 1-0PH Page 14 i"� Figure 9 Phase 1: 2008 Build -Out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service PH A Phased Trak /mpnct Annh'sis of the Preserve at Jordaii ary 9, 20 7January 9, 2007 Project Number -14687-1-0 Page 15 1 Unsignalized / Intersection No Scale 3& Town Road � �* old Charles 4o s f 4 ° "o r o7 11 aJ 5 o Signalized"Suggested i Unsignalized Intersection Intersection Improvement" Monastery Ride Road LOS=C(B) 6 i j SITESile Drive#1 7 SITE Site J `�- Drive#3 S D o og� k ^tea %W1� rP��i i 3 Unsignalized s .0 * Intersection � � v a r� � vo a Signalized"Suggested a Intersection Improvement" _— Unsignalized LOS=C(C) EB - 1 Left WB - I Thru Intersection o 0 Route 7 1,/Npu'e 9 = o d y 8 Unsignalized �0 Intersection 7 d j ° 7 Unsignalized Intersection 6 Unsignalized Intersection $ Unsignalized Intersection V FInIer WWoods MillI�jORoad1A(B)B)A�.A(B)* Morrison JL Y Site Uri veway#1 ° G *(B)B :nom Road �a Route 7 (E)ll 4 1 m --► a * a a a * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement T+ / \ AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) i"� Figure 9 Phase 1: 2008 Build -Out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service PH A Phased Trak /mpnct Annh'sis of the Preserve at Jordaii ary 9, 20 7January 9, 2007 Project Number -14687-1-0 Page 15 PHASE 2 TRAFFIC ANALYSES (2010) 'Phage 2 (2010) assumes the fill build-o»t with access provided via one (1) site -driveway to the west of Jordan Springs Road, one (1) site -driveway to the north of Woods Mill Road and one (1) site -driveway to the east of Jordan Springs Road. 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS PHR+A increased the existing traffic volumes (Figure 2) along Route 11, Route 7, Jordan Springs Road, Old Charles Town Road and Woods Mill Road using a conservative growth rate of five percent (5%) per year through Year 2010. Additionally, all trips relating to specific future "other developments" located within the vicinity of the proposed development were included. Based upon the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, PHR+A has provided Table 3 to summarize the calculated trips associated with each of the 2010 "other developments". Figure 10 show the 2010 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area for roadway. Figure 11 shows the corresponding 2010 background lane geometry and AMIPM peak hour levels of service. HCS+ levels of service worksheets are provided in the Appendix section of this report. A Phased Traffic hnpact Analysis of the Preserve at Jordan Shrines January 9, 2007 H0R+A Project Number -14687-1-0-1-0 Page 16 Table 3 2010 "Other Developments" Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT In Out Total In Out Total Red -Bud Run 210 Single -Family Detached 300 units 55 165 219 182 107 288 3,000 Total 55 165 219 182 107 288 3,000 Toll Borthers- Eddy's Lane 210 Single -Family Detached 80 units 16 49 65 55 32 88 800 Total 16 49 65 55 32 88 800 Butcher Property 210 Single -Family Detached 65 units 14 41 55 46 27 73 650 Total 14 41 55 46 27 73 650 Fieldstone 210 Single -Family Detached 63 units 13 40 54 45 25 71 630 230 Townhouse 207 units 15 76 91 75 37 112 1,801 Total 29 116 145 120 62 183 2,431 Lambert -Ward Property 210 Single -Family Detached 145 units 28 83 111 94 55 150 1,450 230 Townhouse/Condo 140 units 11 56 68 53 26 79 1,218 Total 39 139 179 147 82 229 2,668 Abrams Pointe 210 Single -Family Detached 225 units 42 125 167 140 82 222 2250 Total 42 125 167 140 82 222 2250 Brairwood III 210 Single -Family Detached 69 units 14 43 58 48 28 77 690 Total 14 43 58 48 28 77 690 Channing Drive Misc. Dev.* 210 Single -Family Detached 320 units 58 175 233 192 113 305 3,200 230 Townhouse/Condo 130 units 11 53 64 50 25 75 1,131 820 Retail 120,000 SF 107 68 175 339 367 706 7,645 Total 176 296 472 581 505 1,086 11,976 Fieldstone Development 210 Single -Family Detached 63 units 13 40 54 45 26 71 630 230 Townhouse/Condo 207 units 16 77 92 73 36 109 1,801 Total 29 117 146 118 62 180 2,431 Haggerty Property 210 Single -Family Detached 128 units 25 74 99 84 50 134 1,280 230 Townhouse/Condo 176 units 14 67 81 64 32 96 1,531 Total 39 142 180 148 81 229 2,811 Orrick Paramount 251 Elderly Housing - Detach 75 units 8 14 22 24 16 40 424 252 Elderly Housing - Attach 100 units 4 4 8 7 4 11 348 565 Day Care 6,000 SF 41 36 77 32 36 68 476 710 Office 25,000 SF 54 7 62 18 89 107 459 820 Retail 80,200 SF 84 53 137 260 281 541 5,884 881 Pharmacy w/ DT 15,000 SF 23 17 40 63 66 129 1,322 912 Drive-in Bank 6,000 SF 41 33 74 137 137 274 1,351 932 H -T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 932 H -T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 Total 327 231 558 622 680 1,302 11,789 * Includes Giles Farm, Toll Brothers, Coventry Court and miscellaneous residential at an absorbtion rate of 80 units/year A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Preserve at Jordan Springs January 9, 2007 Project Number- 14687- 1 -0 Page 17 Table 3 (Continued) 2010 "Other Developments" Trip Generation Summary * Access to be provided via the proposed Rumerroru u russuig auc-... uw"y ** Assumed Phase 1 build -out for Year 2010 *** Assumed 75% build -out for Year 2010 A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of ine vreserve at ✓organ oUrtrz,es January 9, 2007 Project Number -14687-1-0 Page 18 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total Clearbrook Property 120 GA Heavy Industrial 120,000 SF 54 7 61 3 20 23 180 932 H -T Restaurant 8,000 SF 48 44 92 53 34 87 1,017 Total 102 52 153 56 54 110 1,197 Other 730 Developments FEMA 350 employees 190 24 214 86 191 277 13 2,79 812 Building/Lumber Store 15,000 units 26 13 39 33 37 70 639 Total 216 37 253 119 228 347 3,352 Stephenson Village ** 210 Single -Family Detached 429 units 77 232 310 255 144 399 4,290 220 Apartment 240 units 20 103 123 100 49 149 1,573 230 Townhouse/Condo 390 units 26 125 150 127 62 189 3,393 251 Elderly Housing - Detach 266 units 29 51 80 78 44 123 1,064 253 Elderly Housing - Attach 72 units 3 2 5 4 3 7 251 Total "New Trip 155 513 667 564 302 866 10,570 Sempeles Property *** 130 Industrial Park 898,425 SF 459 101 559 154 580 734 5,204 820 Retail 73,500 SF 79 51 t30 245 266 511 5,559 Total 538 152 689 399 846 1,245 10,763 Rutherford's Farm Ind. Park 130 Industrial Park 325,000 SF 210 46 256 61 231 292 2,360 710 Office 245,842 SF 339 46 385 60 294 354 2,667 815 Discount Store 127,000 SF 73 34 107 321 321 643 7,115 862 Home Impr. Superstore 117,000 SF 76 65 140 135 152 287 3,581 934 Fast Food w/ DT 4,800 SF 130 125 255 86 80 166 2,381 934 Fast Food w/ DT 4,500 SF 122 117 239 81 75 156 2,233 932 H -T Restaurant 5,500 SF 33 30 63 37 23 60 699 932 H -T Restaurant 5,500 SF 33 30 63 37 23 60 699 932 H -T Restaurant 5,500 SF 33 30 63 37 23 60 699 932 H -T Restaurant 5,500 SF 33 30 63 37 23 60 699 932 H -T Restaurant 7,200 SF 43 40 83 48 31 79 915 912 Drive-in Bank 4,100 SF 28 22 51 94 94 188 1,004 853 Conven. Mart w\pumps 4,500 SF 103 103 205 136 136 273 3,805 Total 1,255 719 1,974 1,170 1,507 2,677 28,859 * Access to be provided via the proposed Rumerroru u russuig auc-... uw"y ** Assumed Phase 1 build -out for Year 2010 *** Assumed 75% build -out for Year 2010 A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of ine vreserve at ✓organ oUrtrz,es January 9, 2007 Project Number -14687-1-0 Page 18 No Scale —,A Charter Toon Road Monastery Ridge Road SITESite Drive# `, to n.� y 5 a �6S� A Site `, a i 20 1 %- o�ia Alr� J 6(20) y Mortison 1 } Driveway #I a 81(6p) S rJ ATP 5 a a Driveway #3 A Site `, a i 151 1 6(20) y Mortison 1 } Driveway #I } } Road r` A asp AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 10 2010 Background Peak Hour Traffic Volumes A Pleased Traffic In7Pact Arralvsis of the Preserve at ./orlon Spritz 7 January 9, ?007 R+A H Project Number -14687-1-0 Page 19 L fl N-1 Figure 11 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service PHRA A Phased It -attic impact Anatn'sis of ute rtc3cf rc or i,,.««„ w.. . January 9, 2007 Project Number -14687-1-0 Page 20 1 Unsignalized Signalized ^Suggested Intersection F i Intersection Improvement" 1Z / LOS=B(B) 1 /dt Q� Q&, P4 No Scale �. 4 Z 3Road 1~ � � Old Charles Town o s L d f I a Jas 2 Unsignalized 5 Signalized "Suggested Intersection Intersection Improvement" Y>B(B)* LOS=B(C) Monastery Ridge Road 1 SITESITESite Drive#Site 91(6 X4,4 Drive#3 *� 7 � 8 ods 3Unsignalized n 'O � k Intersection � c 6 e 9� TOa� Ps � a Signalized "Suggested a Intersection Improvement" LOS--C(D) EB - I Left ZZ 4 Unsigualized Intersection WB - 1 Thru ? U L C(D) 3 9 Be Q �y�,lo f� Route 7 pike 9r� J� Oc .♦ 7 odor 9 '� Signalized Intersection 8 7 Unsignalized No Intersection—LOS=C(F)WWoods 6 gnalized rsectiona Mil])* oad. A �*B B) Sit�Dw�w�y #1 orrison�3C(r') ad�f [tB Route 7(E)D � Road * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) L fl N-1 Figure 11 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service PHRA A Phased It -attic impact Anatn'sis of ute rtc3cf rc or i,,.««„ w.. . January 9, 2007 Project Number -14687-1-0 Page 20 PHASE 2 TRIP GENERATION The total trips produced by and attracted to die Preset ve at Jordan Springs site were established using the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report. Table 4 summarizes the trip generation results for the proposed Jordan Springs development. Table 4 Proposed Developemnt: The Preserve at Jordan Springs - (Phase II) Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount AM Peak In Out Hour Total In PM Peak Out Hour Total ADT 210 Single -Family Detached 365 units 66 199 265 217 127 344 3,650 220 Apartment 120 units 10 53 63 56 28 84 853 230 Townhouse/Condo 120 units 10 50 60 47 23 70 1,200 710 Office 90,000 SF 152 21 172 31 149 180 1,230 Total 238 322 560 350 327 677 6,933 PHASE 2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT PHR+A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 6 to assign the Jordan Springs trips (Table 4) throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 12 shows the corresponding development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2010 PHASE 2 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Jordan Springs assigned trips (Figure 13) were added to the 2010 background traffic volumes (Figure 10) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figure 13 provide the 2010 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 14 shows the corresponding 2010 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Phased Traffic Impact Annlvsis of the Preserve at Jordan 9, 20 Qs January 9, 20077 R H Project Number -14687-1-0 Page 21 E b vo "In 1F 8rF9 olio. Sr J �°caw jFJ a 8 7 �`g %.13(97) a 7(52) Site w o , Site tl 1`y Driveway #3 Driveway #1 i �r YPeak (107)181 J' (23)39 AM Peak Hour( Figure 12 Phase 2: 2010 Traffic Assignments A Phased Traffic Impact Anahsis of the Preserve at Jordan Springs January 9, 2007Rl ProjecNmbr4687-1-0PH Page 22 n J jr �v ±J v ao 436J 7- ��► j %.15(8) �` air �sr jj�J Tpia ��, o Site o - 'P4, a 1� Chad S(��wn t Figure 13 Phase 2: 2010 Buildout Peak Hour Traffic Volumes A Phased Trac bnpact Anahsis of the Preserve at Jordan Springs R+AJanuary 9, 2007 Project Number -14687-1-0 PH Page 23 ±J v 5 v %.13(97) av %.15(8) v� ✓ L. 6(20) Site ��� 7(52) Driveway #3 ��, o Site o - )) e—(30 �,�� ��� �' 16(24) Driveway # I Morrisoo Road �° (23)39' ✓ m' vi a i p V� ✓ p A � U p UJ AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 13 Phase 2: 2010 Buildout Peak Hour Traffic Volumes A Phased Trac bnpact Anahsis of the Preserve at Jordan Springs R+AJanuary 9, 2007 Project Number -14687-1-0 PH Page 23 WAV Figure 14 Phase 2: 2010 Build -Out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Phased Phased Tra��c Impact Anaysi s of Presence at Jordan Sprin�sIm act AnaNsi s ofthe Presence at Jordan Sprin�s 2007 January 9, R1 Project Number-14687-1-0PH Pa -e 24 j Unsignalized Signalized "Suggested Intersection Intersection Improvement" LOS--C(C) 4� 3� �Jt No Scale 3 ♦ J �� J Old ChatleSTownRoad SO G 6 Z o Signalized"Suggested Unsignalized Intersection �. Intersection Improvement" >B(B)* Monastery Ridge Road LOS=B(C) ♦/«1``�r 6 s' SITEStte Drive#1 SITE , �{� Site Drive#3 oa O 7 oJ`�C',�� 8 � � a 3 Unsignalized U' * Intersection 1 UU 9JP� 'y o B(C)* o�oa fir. Signalized "Suggested � o a a a Intersection Improvement" LOS--C(D)EB - I Left WB - 1 Thru p ° ° oa 4 Unsignalized Intersection A o � ~ C(D) � y 8 err Route 7 �J (D)C m—j� 7 �► ` TOiaC ok, hal, hod Nr a "o Signalized g Intersection Unsignalized 8 -Intersection Interse i UnsignkB<*4 6 Unsignalized Intersection 5 * Unsignalized �Intersection r_'- LOS=D(F)Woods Mil $ �� C(F) L wi�odsNli\\ Roado * Site Drvewa #1 y *(C)C tRoad 1 Route F)D< * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement T T+ A AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) WAV Figure 14 Phase 2: 2010 Build -Out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Phased Phased Tra��c Impact Anaysi s of Presence at Jordan Sprin�sIm act AnaNsi s ofthe Presence at Jordan Sprin�s 2007 January 9, R1 Project Number-14687-1-0PH Pa -e 24 CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the proposed Preserve at Jordan Springs development are acceptable and manageable. Assuming the improvements shown in Figure 9 and Figure 14, all intersections, except the intersection of Route 7/ Woods Mill Road, will maintain levels of service to "C" or better during 2008 (Phase 1) and 2010 (Phase 2) background and build -out conditions. The intersection of Route 7/ Woods Mill Road, will maintain levels of service to "D" or better during 2008 (Phase 1) and 2010 (Phase 2) background and build -out conditions. The following reiterates the off-site roadway improvements recommended for each of the study area intersections: • Route 7 @ Woods Mill Road: In order to achieve acceptable levels of service, this intersection will require an additional east bound left turn lane and an additional westbound thru lane during 2008 (Phase 1) and 2010 (Phase 2) background and build -out conditions. • US Route 11 @ Stephenson Road: In order to achieve acceptable levels of service, this intersection will require traffic signalization during 2010 (Phase 2) background and build -out conditions. + US Route 11 @ Old Charles Town Road: In order to achieve acceptable levels of service, this intersection will require traffic signalization, two (2) westbound left -turn lanes as well as a northbound right -turn lane for 2008 (Phase 1) and 2010 (Phase 2). An additional westbound left -turn lane is required during 2010 (Phase 2) background and build -out conditions. This improvement is proffered by other developers. PH"�]N APhased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Preserve at Jordan Springy007 January 9, -1-0 Project Number -14687-1-0 Page 25 JORDAN SPRINGS PNOPERTY OWN ER5 Greig D. W. Aitken * Tonic M. Wallace -Aitken I I GO Jordan Springs Road Stephenson, Virginia 22G5G Ph: 877-537-8313 APPLICANT Drees 1lome5 5510 Cherokee Avenue — Suite 300 Alexandria, Virginia 223 12 Ph: 703 -941 -OG 17 AGENT Bowman Consulting Group 124 East Cork Street Winchester, Virginia 22GO I Ph: 540-722-2343 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 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, Ileal Estate Division, 107 Forth Dent Street, Winchester. L Applicant: Name: Drees Homes Address: 5510 Cherokee Avenue, Suite 300 Alexandria, VA 22312 Zo Property Owner (if different than above) Telephone: ( 703) 941-0617 Name: Greig D. w. Aitken, Tonie My wallaceTelephone (877) 837-8313 Address: 1160 Jordan Springs Road Stephenson, VA 22656 TM: 44-A-294 and 44 -A -294A 3. Contact person if other than above Narne: Bowman Consulting Telephone: ( 540) 722-2343 4, Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map Agency Comments Plat Fees Deed to property Impact Analysis Statement Verification of taxes paid Proffer Statement 11 5. The Code of Virg2nia 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: C'rei7 no [n10 AJ+ -I=n aiid rr..4� bio Wallace Drees Homes 6. A) Current Use of the Property: RA/B2 B) Proposed Use of the Property: RP/B2 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING See List) 8. 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 fronts onto both Jordan Springs (Route 664) and Wood's Mill Road (Route 660); (There is an adjoining _property at the intersedtion). 12 9. The ffallowing information should he provided according to the type of rezoning proposedl Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: Per Proffers Townhome:Per Proffers Multi -Family: Per Proffers Non -Residential Lots: - - Mobile Home: - - Hotel Rooms: - - S uare Foota e of Proposed Uses Office: TDD Service Station: - - Retail: TDD Manufacturing: - - Restaurant: TBD Warehouse: Other: TBD 10. Signature: 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) knowledge. Applicant(s): Owner(s): of�� ,3 Date: 1 zo 7 Date: Date: i cI 7 Date: /d 7 01/16/2007 12°31 5407225080 BOWMAN CONSULTING PAGEi(+�2 2 6 2007 Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.c9.ftder_1r-k vsLu9 impart twit ofPbumAng & Development, County of Frederick, 'Pf IW2, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540.565-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Mtn 13y Those Pr&=t That I (We) d t (Name)GRE/6 D. W, H I i K 87 7- 83-7- 6 313 `I (Address) 11GD 32EDA 3 ap, S7 PMCo�soN, SIA 2Z(QS(C. the owners) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Propei ty") conveyed to site (us), by dead recorded in the Clerk°s Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frtderick, Virginia, by Instrument No. 02 000045_3 on Pag® and is descril)ed as r Parcel: Lot 131000 - Section: _ Subdivision; :1W 44 _A -774 44 - 94x4 do hemby fie, coa3stitute and appoint - (R=e) _fes sari N� 3j1_ FK r R t., C o (Ph4nc}. ��D-�O(S ooso (Address) 1'-'740 A 2 C> To act as W tme and lawful attorney-in-fact for and In my (;tar) name, place, and stead with full power and r authority I (we) would have ifacting per meanly to file plarming applications for my (our) above descrt-bcd Property, including-; X Rezo" Coclading proffers) 0 Conditional Use Pernvits Cl Master Development Plan (JPrelxminary and rias 1) 0 Subdivision 0 Site Plan My attornoy-in-fact shall have the. authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously appro ed proffered conditions except as follows: 1 MIA This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is sign4 or mtil it is othcrwist rescutdod oz modified. -114 In witness lhcrcof, I e) have brreto set flu (our} b,an2d d seal this S .day of -> 'Amy , 200Z,, star,° of Virginia, City/County of E P_ G -A e R7. t J� To -wit: e 1, ,q �42- Qn, a ' a Natary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who Biped to the foregoing i0strtuneni personally appeared before ane and bas acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this -'15 -day My Commission Expires: fy Notary Public i i Lest of Adjoining Property ®wner5 T.M. 44-A-295 William t- Sharon M. Rexrode 109e Woods Mill Road Stephenson, VA 22656 D.B. 775, PG. 87G Zoning: RA T.M. 55-A-1 33 Dorothy L. dart 897 Woods Mill Road Stephenson, VA 2265E D.B. 322, PG. 395 Zoning: RA T.M. 55-7-1 Michael L. f- Carol T. Sweet 3G2 Woods Mill Drive Stephenson, VA 22G5G D.B. G37, PG. 41 2 Zoning: RA T.M. 55-7-14A William G. Meier III * Barbara E. Meier INSTR. #030000603 Zoning: RA T.M. 55-7-14 William G. Meier III * Barbara E. Meier 270 Lick Run Crossing Stephenson, VA 22G5G D.B. 744, PG. 437 Zoning: RA T.M. 44-A-3 I A Stephenson Associates, LC INSTR. #030005765 Zoning: R4 T.M. 44-A-292 Stephenson Associates, LC INSTR. #0300057GG Zoning: R4 Mailing Address: 207 Plaza Street, NE Leesburg, VA 201 7G Mailincg Address: 207 Plaza Street, NE Leesburg, VA 201 7G Mailing Address: PO Box 2530 Winchester, VA 22604 Mailing Address: PO Box 2530 Winchester, VA 22604 T.M. 45-5-2-17 Rene R. Carlson 154 Hummingbird Lane Stephenson, VA 22656 D.B. G98, PG. 45 Zoning: RP T.M. 45-4-1-1 Clark D. * Barbara K. Fortmey 1 281 Jordan Springs Road Stephenson, VA 22G5G D.B. 542, PG. 35 Zoning: RP T.M. 45-4-1-2 Clark D. * Barbara K. Fortiney 1 281 Jordan Springs Road Stephenson, VA 22G5G D.B. 542, PG. 35 Zoning: RP T.M. 45-5-2-1 G Michael S. * Joan B. Sigler 14 1 Hummingbird Lane Stephenson, VA 22G5G D.B. G 17, PG. 234 Zoning: RP T.M. 45-4-1-3 John M. *- K. June Conley 1327 Jordan Springs Road Stephenson, VA 22G5G D.B. 484, PG. 22 Zoning: RP T.M. 44-A-293 Brookfield Stephenson Village, LLC INSTR. #040002 1 293 300 Zoning: R4 T.M. 45-9-3-2 William D. * Patsy L. Hoffman I G3 Monastery Ridge Road Stephenson, VA 22G5G D.B. 585, PG. 442 Zoning: RA Mailing Address: PO Box 2 18 Stephenson, VA 22G5G Mailing Address: 8500 Executive Park Avenue, Suite Fairfax, VA 2203 1 Mailing Address: PO Box 22 Stephenson, VA 22G5G T.M. 45-9-3-3 Terry F. �- Angela Rudolph 170 Monastery Ridge Road Stephenson, VA 22G5G IN5TR. #0500014891 Zoning: RA T.M. 45-9-3-4 Ervin W. f- Barbara K. Simons 220 Monastery Ridge Road Stephenson, VA 22G5G INSTR. #0 10007198 Zoning: RA T.M. 45-4-1-4 Christian F. Keene 1 373 Jordan Springs Road Stephenson, VA 22G5G D.B. 509, PG. 214 Zoning: RA T.M. 44 -A -29G Herman D. Claar 102 Woods Mill Road Stephenson, VA 22G5G Zoning: RA T.M. 44-A-297 t 297A Harold R. * Caroline D. Conner 10 10 Woods Mill Road Stephenson, VA 22G5G D. D. 804, PG. 207 Zoning: RA T.M. 55-A-134 Harold R. t Caroline D. Conner 101 0 Woods Mill Road Stephenson, VA 22G5G D.B. 804, PG. 207 Zoning: RA T.M. 55-A-135 Ronald A. * Mary C. Lee 1947 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 D.B. 8G7, PG. 1 843 Zoning: RA T.M. 55A- I -22A Herman M. Clark, III 9GG Woods Mill Road 5tephen5on, VA 22G5G D.B. 840, PG. 824 Zoning: RA T.M. 55A-1-2 1 Robert L. W1II1am5 94G Woods Mill Road Stephenson, VA 22G5G Zoning: RA T.M. 55A-1 -20 JRW Properties * Rentals, Inc. 13 South Loudoun Street Winchester, VA 22GOI D.B. 59G, PG. 5 15 Zoning: RA T.M. 55A- I -1 9 JRW Properties f- Rentals, Inc. 13 South Loudoun Street Winchester, VA 22GOI D.B. 59G, PG. 5 15 Zoning: RA T.M. 55A- I -18 JRW Properties * Rentals, Inc. 13 South Loudoun 5treet Winchester, VA 22601 D.B. 59G, PG. 5 15 Zoning: RA T.M. 55A- I -1 7 Tina Newlin 9OG Woods Mill Road Stephenson, VA 22G5G D.B. 9GO, PG. 103 Zoning: RA COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 II MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Planner II RE: Woodside Commercial Center Rezoning (RZ#18-06) DATE: February 6, 2007 At your December 20, 2006 meeting, the public hearing for the Woodside Commercial Center rezoning was held and the application was tabled for up to 90 days. At this meeting, questions were raised regarding the applicant's proffer that pertained to the monetary contribution for road improvements. The proffer stated the following: The applicant has proffered $100 per "Average Vehicle Trip Ends on a Weekday", as defined by the current edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook at the time of development, generated by the Woodside Commercial Center for road improvements and right of way acquisition in the Clearbrook area. The trip generation data will be submitted to the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Frederick County Planning Department for review with each site plan submission. The proffer shall be paid to the Treasurer of Frederick County prior to final site plan approval. This site may have multiple site plans and each shall pay accordingly prior to their site plan approval by Frederick County. The Planning Commission requested that the Planning Staff evaluate the proposal and establish a baseline for minimum monetary contributions that could be used as a guideline until a formal policy was established. Commissioners believed it would be beneficial for all parties involved to discuss a strategy for this type of situation in order to guide decision makers in the future. The Woodside Commercial Center Rezoning application will be discussed at your February 21, 2007 meeting and staff will be prepared to discuss the applications proposed monetary contribution, including the pros and cons of the concept. Please contact me if you have any questions on the content or procedures described in this memo. CEP/bad 1 107 North Fend Street, Suite 202 o Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 REZONING APPLICATION #18-06 WOODSIDE COMMERCIAL CENTER Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: February 5, 2007 Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins, Planner II 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: 12/20/06 Tabled for up to 90 days (Public Hearing Held) 02/21/07 Pending Board of Supervisors: 03/14/07 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 8.835 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the 133 (Industrial Transition) District with proffers, for commercial and industrial uses. LOCATION: The property is located on the east side of Route 11, approximately 3,000 feet north of Hopewell Road (Route 672). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 33 -A -124A PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District. PRESENT USE: Agricultural ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Agricultural South: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential East: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential EM (Extractive Manufacturing) Use: Industrial and Vacant Rezoning #18-06 — Woodside Commercial Center February 5, 2007 Page 2 PROPOSED USES: Commercial and industrial REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: Under the Transportation Proffers offered, VDOT is agreeable with Proffers A, B, C, D and F. Under Item E, which calls for a prorata signalization agreement, the Residency would prefer a significant lump sum contribution to Frederick County towards the Route 672/11 intersection improvements. As part of our report to the County, we will have to note "The Conclusion" as stated in your TIA: The intersection of Route 11, Hopewell Road and Brucetown Road will maintain unacceptable level of service during the 2010 background and buildout conditions. While the report suggests signalization and separate east bound right turn lanes would improve the level of service to "C" or better, due to current right-of-way restraints, these improvements are not possible. Therefore, it will be the County's decision whether they wish to approve this rezoning and thereby adding additional traffic to this already failing intersection. Staff Note: A revised VDOT comment has not been received. Fire Marshal: Plan approval recommended. Clearbrook Fire & Rescue: 1. Proffers if possible. 2. No comments unless noted by Fire Marshall. Public Works Department: We have completed our review of the rezoning application for the Woodside Commercial Center and offer the following comments: 1. Refer to the Impact Statement, Page 1, Introduction: The introduction indicates that the applicant is seeking a change in zoning from RA to M1. However, the rezoning application form, paragraph 10 indicates the rezoning requested is B3. This conflict should be resolved. 2. Under Solid Waste Disposal, Page 2, Impact Analysis: Indicate the estimated amount of solid waste generated by 75,000 square feet of commercial development. 3. Provide a category titled geology or include a discussion about the karst environment under Soils category, page 3. Several years ago, we observed the development of a sinkhole on the Robinson property, lot 33 -A -124B. The sinkhole was located just off the gravel driveway in the southwest corner of the property. Sinkhole development is typical of karst geology and may be more prevalent when located near an existing quarry with the potential for a dramatic rise and fall of the water table. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments. Sanitation Authority: Water and sewer capacity is available to this site. Frederick -Winchester Health Department: No objection — public water and sewer required. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided that states no residential units will be part of the rezoning, there will be no impact to the school population upon buildout. Winchester Regional Airport: The proposed rezoning request has been reviewed and it appears that it Rezoning #18-06 — Woodside Commercial Center February 5, 2007 Page 3 will not impact operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. Parks and Recreation: No comment. Frederick County Attorney: It is my opinion that the Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. With respect to Proffers 1(b) and (c), these proffers, as written would not necessarily result in the subject road improvements being constructed prior to any final occupancy permit. Accordingly, I would recommend that the words "or bonded" be deleted from both of the proffers. 2. In Proffer 1(e), the words "to dedicate" should be inserted after the word "proffers" in the first and second sentence. 3. With respect to Proffer 1(f), the Staff needs to determine whether this is a satisfactory monetary proffer as worded. I assume that the concept here is that when a site plan is submitted for a given use on the Property, that given use, with the square footage of the structure, would enable the "Average Vehicle Trip Ends on a Weekday" to be determined from the Handbook, and the amount of the proffer thereby calculated. Further, the purpose of the proffer should be modified. The word "maintenance" should be deleted, as it is not the proper subject for a cash proffer. It would also be preferable if the proffer provided more flexibility to the County by providing that the proffer would be "for road improvements and right-of-way acquisition in the Route 11 and Route 672 corridors in the Clearbrook area". 4. Proffer 3 should be modified to read "The Applicant hereby proffers that the combined floor area for buildings on the site shall not exceed 75,000 square feet". 5. The first line of Proffer 4 should be modified to read "The Applicant hereby proffers that the following uses shall be prohibited on the property". Further, Staff needs to determine whether item a is clear and whether it is in conflict with Proffer 5. 6. In Proffer 7, Staff needs to determine whether the clause "with a residential use at the time of site plan approval" at the end of the proffer is advisable. 7. In Proffer 8(b), the last sentence should be deleted. Entrances and fire lanes would not constitute parking lots, unless parking is intended to be permitted in the entrances and fire lanes, which would appear to be inconsistent with the intent of the proffer. As previously noted, I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether other proffers would be appropriate, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. Historic Resources Advisory Board: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered this rezoning proposal during their meeting of July 18, 2006. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey Report, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, as well as information provided by the applicant. The HRAB felt that the proffers associated with historic preservation and recognition were adequate and did not request any changes to the proposed rezoning. Planning Department: Please see attached letter dated October 18, 2006from Candice E. Perkins, Planner II. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Inwood Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcel as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). The County's agricultural zoning districts Rezoning #18-06 — Woodside Commercial Center February 5, 2007 Page 4 were subsequently 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 District. 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 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. 1-11 Land Use The parcel comprising this rezoning application is located within the County's Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and the site is within the limits of the Northeast Land Use Plan. The plan designates this site for industrial uses. The plan further states that "Industrial land uses are proposed adjacent to the railroads in the southern and northern portions of the study area. Proposed industrial land uses should be developed within master planned areas which discourage individual lot access on the Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 North) corridor. Industrial land uses should be adequately screened from adjoining land uses to mitigate visual and noise impacts. Furthermore, industrial land uses should be planned to provide greater setbacks and buffer and screening along Martinsburg Pike to enhance the appearance of the corridor" (Comprehensive Policy Plan 6-38.2). The B3 (Industrial Transition) Zoning district is a heavy business district. As stated in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, "the intent of this district is to provide for heavy commercial activities, involving larger scale marketing or wholesaling, in locations that are separate from but in the vicinity of business and industrial areas". The B3 Zoning District could be generally consistent with the industrial land use planned for this site in the Northeast Land Use Plan, so long as many of the commercial uses allowed in the B3 District are prohibited from this site. While the B3 district allows certain lighter industrial uses also allowed in the M1 (warehousing, wholesaling, ) the B3 district also allows for a variety of B2 uses that would not be consistent with the industrial designation called for in the Comprehensive Plan (general offices, amusement and recreational services operated indoors, garden supply/retail nurseries). Transportation The Comprehensive Policy Plan calls for Level of Service Category C or better for proposed industrial and commercial development. This proposed rezoning application does not provide for this minimum Level of Service. The Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP) and the Eastern Road Plan call for Martinsburg Pike to be improved to a four -lane facility. The NELUP also states that proposed industrial and Rezoning #18-06 — Woodside Commercial Center February 5, 2007 Page 5 commercial development should only occur if impacted roads function at Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better. The Frederick County Bicycle Plan designates Route 11 as a short- term designated route. Site Access The Northeast Land Use Plan states that individual access to industrial sites should be discouraged along Martinsburg Pike. This development has proffered that only one entrance shall be permitted on Martinsburg Pike and only two entrances will be permitted on Woodside Road. 3) Site Suitabilitv/Environment The site does not contain any environmental features that would either constrain or preclude site development. There are no identified areas of steep slopes, floodplains or woodlands. The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that the only soil type present on this site is Oaklet silt loam (#32B). This soil type is considered prime farm land. The characteristics of this soil type are manageable for development following the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Practices. This area is also known for karst topography. Immediately to the east of this project is a limestone quarry. Soil borings and review by a geotechnical engineer is advised. 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation The Comprehensive Policy Plan calls for Level of Service Category C or better for proposed industrial and commercial development. This proposed rezoning does not provide that minimum Level of Service. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared for this application using composite data collected from other studies in the area as well as actual traffic counts. The County's rezoning application requires applicants to model the worst possible scenario based on the use of the site. The TIA for the Woodside Commercial Center was based on 75,000 square feet of retail; the worst case scenario was modeled with this application. The Conclusions from the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) state that the following improvements are required to maintain the appropriate Level of Service C: • Route 11 / Hopewell Road/Brucetown Road: Traffic signalization along with dedicated left and right -turn lanes in the eastbound direction, dedicated left and right -turn lanes in the northbound direction, dedicated left and right -turn lanes in the southbound direction, and a dedicated right -turn lane in the westbound direction will be required to maintain acceptable levels of service during background and build -out conditions Staff Note: These improvements have not been proffered by the applicant. This application is not proposing to make any improvements, but provides $100 per Rezoning #18-06 — Woodside Commercial Center February 5, 2007 Page 6 "average vehicle trip ends on a weekday" which will be for road improvements and right-of-way acquisition in the Clearbrook area; which will be paid to the Treasurer of Frederick County prior to final site plan approval. This proposed "pot of funds" does not solve any of the problems associated with this intersection. In fact, as proposed, the site could be developed without road improvements, severely impacting the road network. Also, at this time, it is unclear if the right-of-way is available to expand this intersection and the amount of funds necessary for the improvements is questionable. • Route 11 / Woodside Road: Traffic signalization will be required to maintain acceptable levels of service during build -out conditions. Staff Note: This improvement has not been proffered by the applicant. • Site Driveway#1 / Route 11: This intersection will require a shared westbound thru/right lane, dedicated northbound thru and right lanes, and dedicated southbound thru and left lanes to maintain acceptable levels of service during build out conditions. Staff Note: The applicant is constructing an additional 12 foot lane along Martinsburg Pike. • Site Driveway #2 / Woodside Road: This intersection will require a shared eastbound thru/right lane, a shared westbound thru/left lane, and a shared northbound left/right lane to maintain acceptable levels of service during build -out conditions. Staff Note: These improvements have not been proffered by the applicant. • Site Driveway #3 / Woodside Road: This intersection will require a shared eastbound thru/right lane, a shared westbound thru/left lane, and a shared northbound left/right lane to maintain acceptable levels of service during build -out conditions. Staff Note: These improvements have not been proffered by the applicant. B. Sewer and Water The FCSA has a six inch sewer force main along Route 11. This development is expected to generate 500 gallons/day/acre for a total of 4,418gpd. The applicant will build a sewer pump station to be dedicated to the FCSA if the Authority deems it necessary; otherwise individual grinder pumps will be installed and maintained privately. The FCSA has a 12 inch water main along Route 11. This development is expected to generate 1000 gallons /day/acre for a total of 8,835gpd. C. Community Facilities In recognition of the impacts that may be realized by the community to the Fire and Rescue Services, the applicant has proffered a contribution in the amount of $0.10 per building square foot to the Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department, to be paid prior to each final site plan approval. 5) Proffer Statement — Dated June 13, 2006 (Revised January 26, 2007) Rezoning 418-06 — Woodside Commercial Center February 5, 2007 Page 7 1. Transportation Access to the property from Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) shall be limited to one commercial entrance. Access to the property from Woodside Road (Route 671) shall be limited to two commercial entrances. The applicant will construct a 12 foot lane onto Route 11 along the site road frontage (+/- 650'). This lane will be constructed prior to receiving final occupancy permits on site. The applicant proffers to dedicate an additional 10 foot strip of land to the Commonwealth of Virginia and to pave a 12 foot lane along the entire frontage of Woodside Road when traffic count from this project reaches or exceeds 2,815 trips per day or upon request by Frederick County. The appheatprolfers to pave Woodside Road (Rou4e 67 1) ffom Route 11 along the road frontage of this par -eel of appi!oximately 65 0'. The final tjTieal section including width and pavement section will be subjeet to VDOT- feview an approva4 onee site plans afe submitted. This will be built pfief to receiving any final oeeupaney Peffflits Upon construction of a state approved entrance onto Martinsburg Pike, the applicant hereby proffers to designate one inter -parcel connection along the southern boundary. The applieapA proffers to pfovide one li-Aerpareel eomeetion along the southem boundary. This eomeetion will be shown on the Mastef Development Plan. A ten foot strip of land will be dedicated along the entire frontage of property along Martinsburg Pike. A strip of land 25 feet in width will be dedicated from the centerline of Woodside Road along the entire frontage of the property. The applicant proffers a 20 foot drainage, pedestrian and utility easement along the frontage of Martinsburg Pike to Frederick County. The applicant will retain the right to place the proffered split rail fence and monument sign within this easement. The applicant has proffered $100 per "Average Vehicle Trip Ends on a Weekday", as defined by the current edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook at the time of development, generated by the Woodside Commercial Center for road improvements and right of way acquisition in the Rou4e „ and Route 672 (14op Road) cefriders in the Clear Br-oo _ ar- w in the Clearbrook area. The trip generation data will be submitted to the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Frederick County Planning Department for review with each site plan submission. The proffer shall be paid to the Treasurer of Frederick County prior to final site plan approval. This site may have multiple site plans and each shall pay accordingly prior to their site plan approval by Frederick County. Staff Note: The applicant is proposing to provide money towards future improvements based on vehicle trips that the site produces. At this time, it is unclear if the right-of-way is available to expand this intersection and the amount of funds necessary for the improvements is questionable. The proposed funds do not solve any of the problems indicated in the TLA and the proffered funds are not appropriate and do nothing to increase the level of service Rezoning # 18-06 — Woodside Commercial Center February 5, 2007 Page 8 necessaryfor this project. Furthermore, it should be noted that transportationfunds offered in proffers must be utilized within a limited time period; otherwise, the funds are returned to the applicant. This offers a challenge to the County as the County would need to f and the rest of the necessary improvements, guaranteeing that the necessary improvements are completed and proffered funds spent within a limited state code delineated timeframe. Under this scenario, if the rezoning is approved, the site may develop without the required improvements and transportation network. The road network could be failing while the site continues to develop. 2. Monetary Contributions — Fire & Rescue The applicant has proffered a financial contribution of $0.10 per building square foot shall be paid to Frederick County Fire and Rescue. 3, The applieaYA has pr-off-er-ed that the eombined building floor area on the site shall not exeeed 75,000 square feet. The applicant proffers that the combined building floor area for the following high -traffic uses of retail, restaurant, and indoor entertainment shall not exceed a combined total of 75,000sf. All other uses allowed in the B-3 such as general office and storage will not be limited. 4. The applicant has proffered that the following uses will be prohibited on the site: Truck Stops — Retail (SIC 5541) Transportation by Air (SIC 45) Rental of Railroad Cars (SIC 4741) Mobile Home Dealers (SIC 5271) Drive In -Motion Pictures (SIC 7833) Staff Note: Recognizing that the Comprehensive Policy Plan calls for industrial uses on this property, additional commercial type uses should be proffered out with this rezoning. Commercial uses like general offices, amusement and recreational services operated indoors should be eliminated from this development to ensure the intent of the Comprehensive Plan is implemented. The applicant has only limited the squarefootage of retail, restaurant and indoor entertainment to 75,OOOsf; the previous proffer statement limited the entire site to 75,OOOsf and limited recreational services operated indoors to only 10,000sf. 5. The applicant hereby proffers the following conditions to "Automobile Service Stations — Retail" as defined in SIC 5541. -Only one business will be permitted to have retail fuel pumps. -The total number of pumps will be limited to twelve or fewer. -Diesel fuel will be restricted to two pumps or fewer and must be located with other pumps. Diesel fuel sales to "over -the -road trucks" will be prohibited. Rezoning #18-06 - Woodside Commercial Center February 5, 2007 Page 9 •MRS,- - - The applicantproffers to install an additional row of evergreen trees for a total offour rows in all areas required to have a full screen zoning buffer per the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance at the time of site plan approvals. 7. Corridor Enhancements to be completed prior to the first occupancy permit. The applicant has proffered to construct a split rail fence along the road frontage. The applicant will not allow any parking lots, outdoor storage, or driving lanes to be constructed between the buildings and Route 11. This applies only to the building nearest to Route 11 and not inside the park. Any required fire lanes within this area will be grass paved. One monument style sign will be permitted along Route 11 that displays the parks name and tenants; this sign will not exceed 12 feet in height and 100sf in area. Freestanding signage between the buildings and Route 11 (other than the monument sign) will be prohibited. The applicant will restrict each business facing Route 11 to a sign mounted on the building not to exceed eight square feet. The applicant will require each building favade along Route 11 to be constructed of wood, vinyl, glass, masonry, or stucco. However, metal siding will be allowed within the business park and on all sides notfacing Route 11. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 12/20/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The land use proposed in this rezoning could be consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan if a number of inappropriate uses are prohibited on the site. Staff would recommend that the applicant consider prohibiting by proffer certain B3 uses which have a more commercial use to ensure that the goals of the NELUP are implemented. More importantly, this application fails to address and mitigate the transportation impacts associated with the proposal. Elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure that they fully address the goals of the County. Specifically, the applicant should be mitigating the impacts identified in their TIA. The applicant should be prepared to address theses issues prior to a recommendation by the Planning Commission. Rezoning #18-06 — Woodside Commercial Center February 5, 2007 Page 10 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 12/20/06 MEETING: The Planning Staff pointed out a number of transportation improvements called for by the applicant's TIA; however, the applicant had offered to provide a monetary contribution rather than actually committing to constructing the suggested improvements. Referring to the $100 per vehicle trip monetary proffer dedicated for transportation improvements and right-of-way acquisition, staff commented that is unclear if the right-of-way is available to expand the intersection and if the amount of funds provided would be sufficient. Staff noted that the proposed funds alone would not solve all of the problems indicated in the TIA and would not increase the LOS necessary for the project; furthermore, funds offered in the proffer must be utilized within a limited time period. In addition, the staff pointed out that the B3 District allows for a variety of B2 uses that would not be consistent with the industrial designation called for in the Comprehensive Policy Plan and it was suggested that uses such as, general offices, amusement and recreational services, and gas stations be proffered out of the rezoning request. The Planning Director commented that although the $100 per vehicle trip offered is probably appropriate, the staff has not yet studied the values. Under the scenario presented by the applicant, the County Staff would have to be the designated project managers and provide construction services to get the projects constructed; the ramifications of doing so have not been studied. The County's Transportation Engineer believed the applicant's approach was innovative in that it attempted to address the fact that this one rezoning alone is rather small to address all of the improvements that were needed and this was an offer of a solution to begin building a pot of funds. If this was considered to be the way to handle this type of situation, the issue becomes one where the emphasis is placed back on the County as the next rezoning along that corridor is considered. The key trigger is whether or not that continued pattern will work as other rezoning petitions come in; otherwise, this particular one will do very little on its own to address the needed impacts. The applicant explained their calculations for the $100 per vehicle trip and how they estimated the cost of widening Route 11 and the realignment of Hopewell and Brucetown Roads. The applicant pointed out that since the value of their project would only pay for a fraction of the needed funds to re -align Hopewell and Brucetown Roads, they offered their fair share of the cost. The applicant also gave reasons why they believed the less -intensive industrial designation of B3 was more appropriate in this area and functioned as a true transitional area between the EM -zoned property to the east and future commercial uses to the west. The removal of square -footage limitations was requested by the applicant so they could maximize the use of the property, since the traffic impact proffers were based on the traffic generated. A revised proffer statement was provided. It included some additional uses to be proffered out; it provided a list of restrictions to the floor area for several high -traffic generating uses; it provided an architectural proffer for building exteriors facing Martinsburg Pike; and it offered a lump sum cash proffer for the cost of asphalt and stone for a 600 -foot section of Woodside Road. One adjoining property owner, at 3656 Martinsburg Pike, voiced his opposition during the public comment portion of the hearing. His reasons for opposition were the increasing amounts of traffic that made it difficult for him to exit his driveway and litter blowing into his yard from adjacent commercial and industrial uses. He did not think the residents in the rural areas were being considered and he was Rezoning #18-06 — Woodside Commercial Center February 5, 2007 Page 11 opposed to placing the burden of constructing transportation improvements on the County because it may result in increased taxes. Recognizing that the County did not currently have a formulated policy on how rezoning petitions for smaller parcels could contribute to an overall transportation improvement plan, the Planning Commission requested that the Planning Staff evaluate the proposal and establish a baseline for minimum monetary contributions that could be used as a guideline until a formal policy was established. Commissioners believed it would be beneficial for all parties involved to discuss a strategy for this type of situation in order to guide decision makers in the future. In addition, the revised proffer submitted had not been reviewed by the Commission, the Staff, or the County Attorney. The Commission voted unanimously to table the rezoning application to allow time for review of the revised proffers and for the staff to have the opportunity to evaluate the applicant's proposal and to establish a baseline for minimum contributions towards transportation improvements which could be used when evaluating small -area rezoning applications in the future. (Note: Commissioner Oates abstained; Commissioners Thomas and Watt were absent from the meeting.) STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 02/21/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The land use proposed in this rezoning could be consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan if a number of inappropriate uses are prohibited on the site. Staff would recommend that the applicant consider prohibiting by proffer certain B3 uses which have a more commercial use to ensue that the goals of the NELUP are implemented. More importantly, this application fails to address and mitigate the transportation impacts associated with the proposal. Elements ofthe rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure that they fully address the goals of the County. Specifically, the applicant should be mitigating the impacts identified in their TIA. The applicant should be prepared to address theses issues prior to a recommendation by the Planning Commission. The required public hearing for this application was held on December 20t 2006. A recommendation b_V the Planning Commission to the Board o Su ervisors concerning this rezoning application would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately -address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. ERICK Y6,Department i an` i g�and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 October 18, 2006 Mr. Gary Oates GreyWolfe, Inc. 1073 Redbud Road Winchester, VA 22603-4757 RE: Second Preliminary Rezoning Comments for Woodside Commercial Center Dear Gary: I have had the opportunity to review the revised draft rezoning application for the Woodside Commercial Center. This application seeks to rezone 8.835 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to the B3 (Industrial Transition) District. Staff's review comments are listed below for your consideration. 1. Northeast Land Use Plan. The site is within the limits of the Northeast Land Use Plan, and designates the site for industrial use. The plan further states that "Industrial land uses are proposed adjacent to the railroads in the southern and northern portions of the study area". The B3 Zoning District is an industrial transition district and is generally consistent with the industrial land use planned for in the Northeast Land Use Plan as it relates to this site on Martinsburg Pike, so long as many of the commercial uses allowed in the B3 district are prohibited from this site. 2. Northeast Land Use Plan. The plan calls for Level of Service Category C or better for proposed industrial and commercial development. This application does not provide that Level of Service. 3. Northeast Land Use Plan. The plan calls for improving Martinsburg Pike (Route I l North) to a four -lane facility. The applicant has proffered to construct a 12 foot lane along the road frontage for . this site, as well as dedications for Route I 1 and Woodside Road. A 10 foot dedication is proposed for Martinsburg Pike and the construction of a 12 foot lane; indicate if any turn lanes on Martinsburg Pike will be necessary in addition to the 12 foot lane. 4. Impact Assessment Statement — Proposed Uses. The application states the rezoning is for B3 (Industrial Transition) uses and. the TIA is based on 75,000 square feet of heavy industry. Heavy Industry is not allwed in the B3 District. It is only allowed in the M2 (Industrial General) District. Furthermore, unless a specific use is proffered, the County will assume the maximum possible development (retail) as per the County's rezoning application, combined with the proffered floor space. The applicant will need to base the TIA and all analysis on what is actually proffered with 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Page 2 Mr. Gary Oates RE: Proposed Rezoning of Woodside Commercial Center October 18, 2006 the development, which includes 75,000 square feet of floor area with various uses (restaurant, etc.). Basing the TIA on heavy industry is not acceptable. Addendums for this issue have not been provided. 5. Traffic Impact Analysis (Background). The background information provided in the TIA for Woodside Commercial Center does not include the recently approved Clearbrook Business Center rezoning, as well as the North Stephenson Rezoning (Omps). Also, the numbers provided for the Rutherford's Farm Rezoning (background — 500,000sf) do not appear to match what is associated with the rezoning. The original Rutherford M1 rezoning was proffered at over 1.4 million square feet of floor area (9,744 average daily trips [ADT]) and the subsequent rezoning of a portion of this site to B2/B3 added another 2,368 ADT. Correct errors. Addendums for this issue have not been provided. 6. Traffic Impact Analysis (Levels of Service). Figure 9 of the submitted TIA shows that the Route 11/Hopewell Road/Brucetown Road will be able to achieve acceptable levels of service with the suggested improvements. 7. Proffer Statement (#lf). The TIA as indicated above suggests that the referenced intersection will be able to achieve an acceptable level of service with the suggested improvements. This application is not proposing to make any improvements, only to provide $100 per "average vehicle trip ends on a weekday" which will be for maintenance, road improvements, right of way acquisition on Route 11 and Route 672; which will be paid to the Treasurer of Frederick County prior to final site plan approval. This proposed "pot of funds" does not solve any of the problems associated with this intersection. At this time, it is unclear if the right-of-way is available to expand this intersection and the amount of funds necessary for the improvements is questionable. These proffered funds are not appropriate and do nothing to increase the level of service necessary for this project. 8. Proffer Statement (#Ib -c). Proffer lb -c states that the additional lane along Route 11, as well as the improvements to Woodside Road, will be built or bonded prior to occupancy of any building. All improvements need to be built, not bonded, prior to the occupancy of any structure on the site. 9. Proffer Statement (#4-6). The applicant has proffered to prohibit gasoline service stations and truck stops and proffers a limited floor space of amusement and recreational services operated indoors. The original proffer also restricted the size of uses like restaurants, warehousing, hardware stores and recreational services. Since the Comprehensive Plan calls for this site to be used for industrial uses recreational services general business offices (among other uses not in keeping with an industrial intent) are not appropriate on this site. Uses that do not fit in with the industrial intent of this area should be addressed and eliminated. Page 3 Mr. Gary Oates RE: Proposed Rezoning of Woodside Commercial Center October 18, 2006 10. Proffer Statement (4). The proffer statement that pertains to aesthetics along Martinsburg Pike should be enhanced. The zoning ordinance requires landscaping between commercial zoning and rural residential uses (located across Martinsburg Pike); proffered landscaping in addition to the rail fence would be appropriate. 11. Proffer Statement (#8). The proffer statement that pertains to parking areas between Martinsburg Pike and the buildings should be clarified to address outdoor storage, outdoor display, and driving lanes, as well as utilize only grass pave for fire lanes to ensure that the intent of the Comprehensive Plan is implemented. 12. Proffer Statement (4). The proffer that pertains to signage states that the applicant will not install any signs along Martinsburg Pike other than one monument sign. Size limitations on the monument sign should be considered; a maximum of 10 feet in height would be appropriate. 13. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency comments from the following agencies: Historic Resources Advisory Board, Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marshall, Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, Frederick -Winchester Health Department, Clearbrook Fire and Rescue Company and the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority. The proposed proffers have been forwarded by staff to the Frederick County Attorney. Once attorney comments are received by the Planning Department, they will be forwarded to your office. Attorney comments are required for acceptance of the rezoning application. 14. Fees. The fee for this application includes a $3,000.00 base fee plus $100.00 per acre, and a $50.00 public hearing sign fee. Thus, a total of $3,883.50 is due upon submission of the official rezoning application. This is based on fees as of January 27, 2005. Fees may change. All of the above comments and reviewing agency comments should be appropriately addressed before this application may be scheduled for public hearings. Please feel free to contact me with questions regarding this application. Sincerely, Candice E. Perkins Planner II CEP/bad IKEZ-V 18. 06 � Frederick County, VA Location in the county Map Features Rezoning REZ # 18 - 06 Application Woodside Commercial Center Parcel ID: 33 -A -124A Application Long Range Land Use Lakes/Ponds Rural Community Center "^ Streams Residential Topography (5' interval)`' Business '6r" Buildings ® Industrial Streets ® Institutional '-N\-7 Primary s Recreation Secondary 4� Historic 'i. Terciary ® Mixed -Use AGF Districts ® Planned Unit Development South Frederick District Double Church District Red Bud District Location in Surrounding krea 0*` 0 125 250 5o �eet Rezoning: Property: Record Owner: Applicant: Project Name: Original Date of Proffers: Revised Date Proffers: Magisterial District: RZ # 18-06 Area: 8.835 acres Tax Parcel 33 -(A) -124A SilverWolfe, LLC GreyWolfe, Inc. — Gary R. Oates, LS -B, PE Woodside Commercial Center June 13, 2006 November 9, 2006 January 3, 2007 January 12, 2007 January 26, 2007 Stonewall Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby offer the following proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application #18-06 for rezoning of 8.835 -acres from the RA District to Industrial Transitional (B-3) District, development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such are approved by the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The subject properties are more particularly described as the lands conveyed to SilverWolfe, LLC, from Douglas L. Brill & Bonnie R. Brill as recorded in the Frederick County Circuit Court Clerk's Office as instrument #060018520 dated September 29, 2006. Proffers: 1. Transportation a. Access i. Access to this property from Martinsburg Pike (US Route 11) shall be limited to one commercial entrance. The final location will be subject to VDOT review and approval once a site plan is submitted. ii. Access to this property from Woodside Road (Route 671) shall be limited to a maximum of two commercial entrances. The final locations will be subject to VDOT review and approval once site plans are submitted. Turn lanes and tapers for these entrances will be built as required by VDOT. b. Additional Lanes The applicant hereby proffers to construct a 12' lane onto Martinsburg Pike, Route 11, along the site road frontage. This +-/-650' long lane will be built to VDOT requirements. This will be built prior to receiving any final occupancy permits on site. ii. The applicant hereby proffers to dedicate an additional 10' strip of land to the Commonwealth of Virginia and to pave a 12' lane along the entire frontage of Woodside Road, Route 671, when the traffic count from this project reaches or exceeds 2,815 trips per day or upon request by Frederick County. c. Interparcel connections i. Upon construction of a state approved entrance onto Martinsburg Pike, Route 11, the applicant hereby proffers to designate one inter -parcel connection along the southern boundary. d. Right of Way and Easement Dedication i. The applicant hereby proffers to dedicate to the Commonwealth of Virginia a strip of land ten feet (10') in width along the entire frontage of the property on Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) Right of Way. The applicant also proffers to the Commonwealth of Virginia a strip of land twenty-five (25') in width from the centerline of Woodside Road (Route 671) along the entire frontage of the property. These dedications will take place prior to site plan approval. 2 ii. The applicant hereby proffers a 20' drainage, pedestrian, and utility easement along the frontage of Martinsburg Pike, Route 11, to Frederick County. The applicant will retain the right to place the proffered split rail fence (see item 7-A) and monument sign (see item 7-D) within this easement. e. Monetary Contributions for Road Improvements in recognition of off-site transportation impacts i. The applicant hereby proffers $100 per "Average Vehicle Trip Ends on a Weekday", as defined by the current edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook at the time of development, generated by the Woodside Commercial Center for road improvements and right of way acquisition in the Clear Brook area. The trip generation data will be submitted to the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Frederick County Planning Department for review with each site plan submission. The proffer shall be paid to the Treasurer of Frederick prior to final site plan approval. This site may have multiple site plans and each shall pay accordingly prior to their site plan approval by Frederick County. 2. Fire & Rescue — Monetary Contributions a. The applicant hereby voluntarily proffers a cash contribution to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia, of $0.10 per building square foot to be disbursed to the Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department, to be paid prior to each final site plan approval. The term "building square foot" shall be the combined floor area for each story. 3. The applicant hereby proffers that the combined building floor area for the following high -traffic uses of retail, restaurant, and indoor entertainment shall not exceed a combined total of 75,000 square feet. All other uses allowed in B-3 such as general office and storage will not be limited. 4. The applicant hereby proffers that the following uses shall be prohibited on the property: a. "Truck Stops -Retail" as defined in SIC 5541. Excluding Truck Stops, all other uses within SIC Code 5541 are included and acceptable. b. SIC 45 — "Transportation by Air" c. SIC 4741 — "Rental of Railroad Cars" d. SIC 5271 — "Mobile Home Dealers" e. SIC 7833 — "Drive -In Motion Pictures" 3 5. The applicant hereby proffers the following conditions to "Automobile Service Stations-, Retail" as defined in SIC 5541 -"Gasoline Service Stations". a. Only one business will be allowed to have retail fuel pumps. b. The total number of pumps will be limited to twelve or fewer. c. Diesel fuel will be restricted to two pumps or fewer and must be located with other pumps. Diesel fuel sales to "over -the -road trucks" will be prohibited. 6. The applicant hereby proffers to install an additional row of evergreen trees for a total of four rows in all areas required to have a "full screen zoning buffer" per the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance at the time of site plan approvals. 7. Corridor Enhancements to be completed by prior to the first occupancy permit. a. The applicant will construct a split rail fence along the road frontage. b. The applicant will not allow any parking spaces or outdoor storage to be constructed within 50' of Route 11. Any required fire lanes within this area will be grass paved. c. The applicant will erect a single monument style sign, not to exceed twelve (12) in height, with the park's name and list of tenants. This monument sign will not exceed twelve (12') in height or one hundred (100 sf) square in area. The applicant will not install any freestanding signs between the buildings and Route 11 other than this one monument sign. d. The applicant will restrict each business facing Route 11 to a sign not to exceed eight square feet mounted on the building. This applies to individual businesses and not the entire building. e. The applicant will require each building facade along Route 11 to be constructed of wood, vinyl, glass, masonry, or stucco. However, metal siding will be allowed within the business park and on all sides not facing Route 11. 11 The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code and Ordinance. Respectfully Submitted: By:� a Gary 1 Oates Gary W.—Oates 2 -- Zoo Date Date Commonwealth of Virginia, Cit County . f R dwck) To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this -5day of�, 2007 By NY M l,r ff,)' MUItil LW-&& p Notaryilic k-wuk- My Commission Expires �,l�nl., � l� L Cl 5 Impact Statement For consideration of Rezoning the lands for the Woodside Commercial Center Stonewall Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia April 10, 2006 Rev. November 11, 2006 Tax Map Numbers 33 -(A) -124A Total Area: 8.835 acres Owner of Record: SilverWolfe, LLC 1073 Redbud Road Winchester, VA 22603 (540) 667-2001 ofc (540) 545-4001 fax Contact: Gary R. Oates, LS -B, PE GreyWolfe, Inc. 1073 Redbud Road Winchester, VA 22603 (540) 667-2001 ofc (540) 545-4001 fax Woodside Commercial Center Rezoning Introduction The site is located at the southeastern corner of the intersection of Woodside Road (Route 67 1) and Martinsburg Pike (US Route 11) and about 3,000' north of exit 321 in Clearbrook, VA. The site has been used for agricultural purposes in the past. The applicant is seeking a change in zoning from RA to B-3 to create an industrial transition business park that is consistent with the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. Existing Conditions The majority of the property is a hayfield. There are two box culverts under Route 11 that drains stormwater west of Route 11 towards twin 15" RCP's under Woodside Road. Comprehensive Planning The site is intended to be zoned industrial per the comprehensive plan. There is public water and sewer is available at the site. The benefit to Frederick County by approving this rezoning will be a positive economic impact and employment opportunities for its citizens. Proposed Development The site will be graded, landscaped, and commercial entrances installed that will meet current VDOT specifications. There are not any prospective tenants for the property; therefore, the traffic and fiscal impacts will assume 75,000 sf of retail use with associated parking. Physical Impacts The site is not located within or near any 100 year flood plains per FEMA Flood Map #510063 0110 B. Furthermore, there are not any woodlands or noteworthy landscaping on site to preserve. Surrounding Properties The site is bounded by Route 11 to the west and Route 671 to the north. The surrounding properties are zoned RA with residential uses to the south and northeast. The Winchester and Western railroad borders the eastern boundary. All parcels are intended to become commercial/industrial as indicated by the Comprehensive Plan. Traffic Impact and Analysis See attached report by PHR&A. Sewer Conveyance and Treatment The FCSA has a 6" sewer force main along Route 11. This commercial development is expected to generate 500 gallons/day/acre for a total of 4,418 gpd. The applicant will build a sewer pump station to be dedicated to the FCSA if the Authority deems it necessary. Otherwise if there are a limited number of users, they will install individual grinder pumps to be maintained privately. Water Supply The FCSA has a 12" water main along Route 11. This development is expected to generate 1000 gallons/day/acre for a total of 8,835 gpd. Drainage In the past, the stormwater runoff would breach a portion of Woodside Road; however, an additional 15" culvert placed under Woodside a few years ago by VDOT has corrected this safety issue. Furthermore, the agricultural field to the north (downstream) receives this runoff from Woodside and lacks a defined channel to convey the stormwater towards Turkey Run. This lack of a channel in the crop field has caused ponding in the fields during large storm events. While this project can not cure the ponding, we will make sure the ponding is not increased by following the Frederick County Ordinance and to the guidelines set forth by the Department of Public Works for stormwater management and quality. Solid Waste Disposal The Civil Engineering Reference Manual, 4th edition, uses a rate of 5.4 cubic yards per 1,000 square feet of floor area. A 75,000 sf development will yield 405 cubic yards (283 tons) per year. The solid waste will be transferred to the Frederick County Landfill Facility by private licensed commercial carriers. Historical Impact There are no historically significant structures or features present. Educational Impact This development will not create additional students for the schools. 2 Police, Fire, and Rescue Impact The development will increase the burden on fire and rescue. The applicant is rr r_g .. ___rr-_ .rmn i n pe_ t.._t L L� r , o11G1ll1� Q �JLU11Gl Ui 'PV0A.1 A pGl 0 "ding square to he County for fire and rescue services. Parks & Recreation Impact The only impact to the Parks might be some of the businesses signing up for shelters for company picnics. This development is not expected to increase population; therefore, no measurable impacts are predicted. Soils The only soil type identified on the General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick CounterVirginia is an Oaklet silt loam (#32B) as shown on sheet #19. This soil type is considered prime farmland. The characteristics of this soil are manageable for development following the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control practices. Geology This area is also known for karst topography. Immediately to the east of this project is a limestone quarry. Soil borings and review by a geotechnical engineer is advised. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Woodside Commercial Center Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: GreyWolfe, Inc. 1073 Redbud Road Winchester, VA 22603 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Enjjneers. Surveyors. Planners, LcndsccpeArchitects. 300 Foxcroft Avenue, Suite 200 iS is Martinsburg, West Virginia 25401 T 304.264.2711 F-- ° X-•+ :- F 304.264.3671 I k June 12, 2006 November 8, 2006 OVERVIEW Report Summary Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Woodside Commercial Center located at the southeastern corner of the intersection of Woodside Road (Route 671) and Martinsburg Pike (US Route 11), in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed development is to be comprised of 75,000 square feet of retail. Access to the site is to be provided via two (2) site -driveways along the south side of Woodside Road and a site - driveway along the east side of US Route 11. The proposed development will be built -out over a single transportation phase by the year 2010. Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the location of the proposed Woodside Commercial Center with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying the Woodside Commercial Center were obtained through the following sequence of activities: • Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the study area; • Calculation of trip generation for the proposed Woodside Commercial Center; • Distribution and assignment of the Woodside Commercial Center development - generated trips onto the completed roadway network; and • Analysis of capacity and level of service using the latest version of the highway capacity software, HCS+, for existing and future conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS PHR+A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersections of Route 11/ Hopewell Road/Brucetown Road, Hopewell Road/ I-81 northbound ramps, Hopewell Road/ I-81 southbound ramps and Route 11/ Woodside Road. ADT (Average Daily Traffic) was established 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 9.2 % based on the published Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) traffic count data. Figure 2 shows the existing ADT (Average Daily Trips) and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 3 illustrates the respective existing lane geometry and levels of service. All traffic count data and HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Woodside Commercial Center Project Number: 14556-1-0 November 8, 2006 PHR+A Page 1 No Scale 0 :o grercetawst i+d ti �� Ceti' M1 Ii`, hT Clearbrook Park a} r+ . Y � t Fi ure 1 Vicinity Map - Woodside Commercial Center g A Trak Impact Analysis of the Woodside Commercial Center P Project Number: , 21 Novemberer 8 8, 20066 H Page 2 b r1J+ ��eWZBltU - .d Si t tt S �tf t f r -F :o grercetawst i+d ti �� Ceti' M1 Ii`, hT Clearbrook Park a} r+ . Y � t Fi ure 1 Vicinity Map - Woodside Commercial Center g A Trak Impact Analysis of the Woodside Commercial Center P Project Number: , 21 Novemberer 8 8, 20066 H Page 2 No Scale �I jf� N`ro o�d i S h � /, Odd � Sid drl ♦ � "C 6) (24102 r� I( 1) Lei ♦ �4/ )29 Nopeu'elI Rd '� SITE 41 4 G opeuell Road p N ti z Y o a~ *4..62(47) ti #e39(46) IN , dow 54(52) o gl6g`� g Brucetown Road(76)54 oa (sd (53)sz a a yN L O M (z7)l9 z 69(851 (8I)705� 132(I,, 4.t`b tia �� otic 1 AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) A Tri+n p M Figure 2 Existing Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Woodside Commercial Center R+A Project Number: 14556-1-0 HNovember 8, 2006 Page 3 No Sea] M AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movemei Denotes two-way left turn lane is i u 3 Existing Lane veometry and Levels of Service g A Tra cc Impact Analysis of the Woodside Commercial Center Project Number: 14556-1-0 PHP November 8, 2006 Page 4 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Based upon the VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) historical average daily traffic data (between years 2002 and 2004) for Route I 1 within the vicinity of the site, a growth rate of 3.5 % was calculated and applied to the existing traffic volumes (shown in Figure 2) to obtain the 2010 base conditions. Additionally, PHR+A included specific future developments located within the vicinity of the proposed site. Using the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, PHR+A has provided Table 1 to summarize the 2010 "other developments" trip generation. Figure 4 shows the 2010 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area network. Figure 5 shows the respective 2010 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Table 1 2010 Background Developments Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total Alli Sempeles Property (Partial Build -Out) 130 Industrial Park 598,950 SF 336 74 409 106 398 503 3,719 820 Retail 49,000 SF 62 40 102 188 203 391 4,271 Total 398 113 511 293 601 894 7,990 Clearbrook Properties (Full Build -Out) 120 GA Heavy Industrial 120,000 SF 54 7 61 3 20 23 180 932 H -T Restaurant 8,000 SF 48 44 92 53 34 87 1,017 Total 102 52 153 56 54 110 1,197 Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park (Full Build -Out) 130 Industrial Park 1,400,000 SF 1,022 224 1,246 270 1,018 1,288 9,744 820 Retail 20,000 SF 36 23 60 104 113 216 2,386 Total 1,058 247 1,306 374 1,131 1,504 12,130 North Stephenson Tract OMPS Property (Full Build -Out) 110 Light Industrial 800,000 SF 752 103 855 118 863 981 5,874 Total 752 103 855 118 863 981 5,874 Stephenson Village (Partial Build -Out) 210 Single -Family Detached 429 units 77 232 310 255 144 399 4,290 220 Apartment 240 units 20 103 123 100 49 149 1,573 230 Townhouse/Condo 390 units 26 125 150 127 62 189 3,393 251 Elderly Housing - Detach 266 units 29 51 80 78 44 123 1,064 253 Elderly Housing - Attach 72 units 3 2 5 4 3 7 251 Total 1 155 513 667 1 564 302 866 1 10,570 A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Woodside Commercial Center P R+A Project Number: 14556-1-0 HNovember 8, 2006 Page 5 T No Sc AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour Figure 4 2010 Background Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Woodside Commercial Center Project Number. 14556-1-0 PH"A+ November 8, 2006 Page 6 No Scale Unsignahzed Intersection 9, >r Road Unsignatized Intersection `y tr IF(F)* BrucetoWn Road 'lp "Suggested Signalized Improvements" Intersection Intersection Alignmer * LOS--B(B) Signalization EB - 1 Left/ IRight " WB - I Right NB - 1 Left / I Right SB - 1 Left/ 1 Right pp 1~ UnsignaGzed Intersection � % 1��u C(C) *(4)� AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement +A Denotes two-way left turn lane Figure 5 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Bevels of Service PH A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Woodside Commercial Center R+A Project Number: 14556-1-0 November 8, 2006 Page 7 TRIP GENERATION Using the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, PHR+A has prepared Table 2 to summarize the trip generation for the proposed Woodside Commercial Center. Table 2 Proposed Development: Woodside Commercial Center Trip Generation Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT Code Land Use Amou9SF In Out Total In Out Total 820 Retail 75,00080 51 132 249 269 518 5,633 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips, shown in Figure 6, was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the proposed Woodside Commercial Center site. Figure 7 shows the respective development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Woodside Commercial Center 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 AMIPM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area. Figure 9 shows the respective 2010 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Woodside Commercial Center P Project Number: , 21 Novemberer 8 8, 20066 H Page 8 No Scale Figure 6 PH1Zl� Trip Distribution Percentages A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Woodside Commercial Center Project Number: 14556-1-0 November 8, 2006 Page 9 I Average Daily Trips Figure e 7 Development -Generated Trip Assignments A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Woodside Commercial Center PHPA+ ProjectNumber: er 8, 21 6November 8, 2006 Page 10 F1 AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 8 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Woodside Commercial Center iv:,�N ProjectNumber: er 8, 2 06 November 8, 2006 Page I1 TIP No Scale UnsignalizedQ Intersection S� * O 4(A)* V", wel/ Road /te_ � UnsignalizedInterseciont 9. z Signalized "Suggested Intetscon Improvements" LOS! Cl SignaiizaGon Unsignalized Intersection POao `9% rV Unsignalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection Q �Q �[ F(W * grucetown Rc YY SIT: signalized Improvements" Intersection Intersection Alignment Lpg=g(B) Signalization EB -1 Left/ Might WB - I Right NB -1 Left / 1 Right SB -1 Left/ 1 Right q« AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movemen Denotes two-way left turn lane Figure 9 20110 Build -out bane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Woodside Commercial Center Project Number: 14556-1-0 PH" November S, 2006 Page 12 31 CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the proposed Woodside Commercial Center are acceptable and manageable. All of the study area intersections, except the intersections of Route 11/ Hopewell Road/Brucetown Road, Route 11/ Woodside Road and Hopewell Road/ I-81 southbound ramps, will maintain overall levels of service "C" or better during 2010 build -out conditions. Although the intersection of Hopewell Road / I-81 southbound ramps will operate at level of service "D" during the PM peak hour, it is unlikely that a signal warrant would be met. Therefore, traffic signalization is not recommended. The following describes the suggested roadway improvements for each of the study area intersections as shown in Figure 9 during 2010 build -out conditions. • Route 11 / Hopewell RoadBrucetown Road: Traffic signalization along with dedicated left and right -turn lanes in the eastbound direction, dedicated left and right -turn lanes in the northbound direction, dedicated left and right -turn lanes in the southbound direction, and a dedicated right -turn lane in the westbound direction will be required to maintain acceptable levels of service during background and build -out conditions. • Route 11 / Woodside Road: Traffic signalization will be required to maintain acceptable levels of service during build -out conditions. • Site Drivewa #1 / Route 11: This intersection will require a shared westbound thru/right lane, dedicated northbound thru and right lanes, and dedicated southbound thru and left lanes to maintain acceptable levels of service during build- out conditions. • Site Driveway #2 / Woodside Road: This intersection will require a shared eastbound thru/right lane, a shared westbound thru/left lane, and a shared northbound left/right lane to maintain acceptable levels of service during build -out conditions. • Site Driveway #3 / Woodside Road: This intersection will require a shared eastbound thru/right lane, a shared westbound thru/left lane, and a shared northbound left/right lane to maintain acceptable levels of service during build -out conditions. • Per the VDOT Road Design Manual, PHR+A also determined that additional turn lanes along Route 11 within the study area intersections will not be required. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Woodside Commercial Center PH R+A Project Number: er 9, 21 6 Novcmbcr 8, 2006 Page 13 APPENDIX Woodside Commercial Center Stonewall Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia Tax Map Number 33 -(A) -124A Total Area: 8.835 acres Owner ofRecord: SilverWolfe, LLC 1073 Redbud Road Winchester, VA 22603 (540) 667-2001 contact., Gary R. Oates, LS -B, PE Grey Wolfe, Inc. 1073 Redbud Road Winchester, VA 22603 (540) 667-2001 ofc (540) 545-4001 fax 4.1 A Woodside Commercial Center Stonewall Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia Tax Map Number 33 -(A) -124A Total Area: 8.835 acres Owner ofRecord: SilverWolfe, LLC 1073 Redbud Road Winchester, VA 22603 (540) 667-2001 contact., Gary R. Oates, LS -B, PE Grey Wolfe, Inc. 1073 Redbud Road Winchester, VA 22603 (540) 667-2001 ofc (540) 545-4001 fax REZONING APPLICATION FORM FRFDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA be completed by Planning Staff ling Amendment Number Hearing Date J u% Fee Amount Paid $ Date Received SOS Hearing Date 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 Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: GreyWolfe, Inc. Telephone: 540-667-2001 Address: 1OZ3 Redb d R ad - Winchester Virginia 22603 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: SilverWolfe, LLC Telephone: 540-667-2001 Address: 1073 Redbud Road - Winchester, Virginia 22603 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Gary R. Oates, LS -B, PE Telephone: 540-667-2001 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map Agency Comments Plat Fees Deed to property Impact Analysis Statement Verification of taxes paid Proffer Statement 11 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: Gary Rodney Oates and Gary Kenzel Oates 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Agricultural B) Proposed Use of the Property: Industrial Transition 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER 33-(A)-1258 & 33-(A)-126 33-(A)-129 33-(A)-131 33 -(A) -124D 33 -(A) -124B & 33 -(A) -124C 33-(A)-125 & 33 -(A) -125A USE Residential Agriculture Agriculture Residential Residential Residential zoning uses) RA RA RA RA RA RA ZONING 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): Located on the east side of Route 11 and +/ 3000' north of Rte 672 (Hopewell Road) also known as exit 321 of Interstate 81. 12 Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model 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 or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 33 -(A) -124A Magisterial: Stonewall Fire Service: Clearbrook Rescue Service: Clearbrook Districts High School: James Wood Middle School: James Wood Elementary School: Stonewall 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 8.835 RA B-3 8.835 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 homes: 0 Townhome: 0 Multi -Family: 0 Non -Residential Lots: 0 Mobile Home: 0 Hotel Rooms: 0 Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office: Service Station: Retail: Manufacturing: Restaurant: Warehouse: Other: 75,000 13 12. Signature: 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) knowledge. Applicant(s): !o Q . /xt' J Owners): s 14 Date: Z Date: Date: f/ - % - 6,6 - Date: // ?-dr Adjoining Property Owners Rezoning 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 and Property Identification Number Address Name Elaine F. MaGee 3703 Martinsburg Pike Clearbrook, VA 22624 Property # 33 -(A) -125A Name Deborah D. Swimley P.O. Box 10 Clearbrook, VA 22624 Property # 33-(A)-1258 Name Everett L. Caton 2060 Cedar Hill Road Clearbrook, VA 22624 Property # 33-(A)-126 3446 Old Charlestown Road Name James & Carolyn Stimmel Berryville, VA 22611 Property # 33-(A)-129 & 33-(A)-131 Name Jack F. Robinson 2140 Woodside Road Clearvbrook VA 22624 Property # 33-(A)-1248 Name O -N Minerals (Chemstone) P.O. Box 71 Strasburg, VA 22657 Property # 34 -(A) -11A Name Frederick A. & Un H. Stronko 3656 Martinsburg Pike Clearbrook, VA 22624 Property # 33 -(A) -124D Name MOHEBATULLAH VAHIDI 794 Center Street Herndon, VA 20170 Property # 33-(A)-125 Name Property # 15 PINE KNOLL CONSTRUCTION CO.,INC. 210 EBERT RD. WINCHESTER, VA 22603 PHONE 540-667-3092 FAX 540-667-3263 1-800-6643092 GreyWolfe, Inc. 1073 Redbud Road Winchester, VA 22603 Phone (540) 667-2001 Re: Route 11 North Improvements Dear Sir: November 14, 2006 I have reviewed the attached spreadsheet and agree the dollar amounts associated with each construction task appears realistic. I would caution that a final set of construction drawings, showing all improvements, would be necessary before an exact bid could be given. However, the numbers you have shown are a very close approximation of the cost. Pine Knoll Construction would be pleased to offer a proposal for this project when engineered road plans are available. Thank you, G' R� JefferyG. Jenki s Pine Knoll Construction, Inc. Route 11 Widening Length Width Area (sf) Value per sf Total Land (Right of Way) 13,500 10 135,000 162,000 $3.00 $1.25 $405,000.00 $202,500.00 Demolition of Center Lane 13,500 13,500 12 12 162,000 $1.00 $162,000.00 Landscaping Curb & Gutter (4 runs) 13,500 4 $12.50 $1.00 $675,000.00 $405,00000 Grading 13,500 30 30 405,000 405,000 $1.75 $708,750.00 15" Stone Base 13,500 13,500 24 324,000 $2.50 $ 6" Pavement $25,000-00 Traffic Control Allowance T $60,000.00 Storm Sewer Allowance $15,000.00 Admin Allowance $15,000.00 Mobilization Allowance $50,000.00 E&S Allowance Total $3,533,250.00 Interchange 78,500 $6.00 $471,000.00 Land $925,000.00 Road Improvements j_75 000-00 Traffic Light Total $1,571,000.00 Road Improvemts Total per Eastern Road Plan Potential Land for Rezoning Acres Use Trips per Acre Total Commercial 230 Business Park 149.79 34,452 26.832 Industrial 518 General Light 51.8 Industrial Park Total 61,284 Eastern Road Plan Improvements $5,104,250.00 - Total VPD's 61,284 Cost per Vehicle $83.29 +20% Contingency 16.66 $99.95 Total Cost per Vehicle Dear Board of Supervisors, My name is Doug Brill and I own the Clearbrook Shopping Center. I am aware of the commercial rezoning request by Mr. Oates and I encourage you to vote for it. Frederick County needs more commercial development to offset the expenses from the many subdivisions that have been built over the last few years. Without more businesses, the taxes would have to increase to support all of these families. Doug Brill Clearbrook Shopping Center HMC, LP, LLP 920 Hopewell Road Clear Brook, VA 22624 Frederick Board of Supervisors: My family farms considerable acreage in the Clear Brook area and we have seen many changes over the years. I have discussed this rezoning with Rodney Oates and understand the impacts, both positive and negative, of this rezoning. We are in favor of this request. I think this County needs more rezonings to bring in businesses and fewer that bring in more houses and create the need for schools. Please approve the rezoning for our area. �hn David Cline HMC, LP, LLP To Whom It May Concern: I own the 16 acre parcel zoned B-3 across from the SilverWolfe property in Clearbrook. I want to say that I am in support of his rezoning request. I think Clearbrook will be a thriving commercial and industrial corridor someday and we need to start getting this area ready for the businesses and industries by having the land rezoned and ready for the development. &fer-yJenkins To the Frederick County Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission: I own a farm across the road of this rezoning. I support this rezoning and understand the impacts to the area. I feel this commercial development will benefit Clear Brook and Frederick County. J � Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. r� , I) I jl k r i L 69650PG320 i t 8.835 ACRES 1� 0'j 5 5r 2j1' Ur E • 742 AT a� toy AM); ML .4 o 000 ACRES ff i� i 4 11 11„y S50`sr!?•W te�e�sLi + X9.2' w SET WOOR E i • SCALE —�� --I roa sm 7W COPD DEWITT D. ROBINSON, ZT AL STONEWALL DISTRICT. FREDERICK COUNTY _ VIRGINIA SCAM, ASMIM, a Ot*t e : m """�' GncEl4Y ENGINEERING AND SURVEYINGCO.. If;3G. %I t an* we IQ w+VCPMTCO YIR(i�A11A ; 4 fFtf�..`L � d•ti4 Ir • • :-7 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #10-06 GOVENORS HILL Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: February 5, 2007 Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins, Planner II I PON -IN 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 he useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 02/21/07 Pending Board of Supervisors: 03/14/07 Pending LOCATION: The properties are located approximately one mile east of Interstate 81 on the south side of Millwood Pike (Route 50 E) across from Sulphur Springs Road (Route 655) and The Ravens Subdivision. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 64-A-82, 64-A-83, 64 -A -83A, 64 -A -86,64-A-87 and 64 -A -87A PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: R4 ((Residential Planned Community) District Use: Vacant ZONING & PRESENT USE OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES: North: Zoned. RP (Residential Performance) Use: Single Family Residential South: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) Use: Regional Airport East: Zoned M1 (Light Industrial) and Use: Industrial and Residential MH1 (Mobile Home Community) West: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) and Use: Regional Airport and Office B2 (Business General) PROPOSED USE: Commercial and 550 Residential Units MDP #10-06, Governors Hill February 5, 2007 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: The master development plan for this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 50, Millwood Pike and Route 781, Prince Frederick Drive, the VDOT facilities which would provide access to the property. Before making any final comments, this office will require a complete set of site plans, drainage calculations and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip General Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Prior to construction on the State's right-of-way the developer will need to apply to this office for issuance of appropriate permits to cover said work. Frederick County Fire Marshal: Plan approval recommended. Frederick County Public Works: The revised MDP for Governors Hill delivered to our office on June 20, 2006 has adequately addressed our review comments. Therefore, we can grant our approval of the subject document. Frederick County Sanitation Authority: 2°d review - Approved Frederick County Inspections Department: No comment required at this time, shall comment on site plans when submitted. Note: Demolition permit is required to remove any existing structures. Frederick -Winchester Service Authoritv: No comments. Frederick County — Winchester Health Department: Health Dept. has no objection as long as public water and sewer are provided. GIS Department: The following road names are usable in the Frederick County Road Naming and Structure Numbering System: Pendleton, Cabell, Montague, Swanson, Darden, McKinney, Tazewell, Pollard. The following road names are NOT usable in the Frederick County Road Naming and Structure Numbering System: Gilmer, Nicholas Winchester Reizional Airport: Please see attached letter dated July 11, 2006 and signed by S. R. Manuel, Executive Director. Department of Parks and Recreation: Detailed information regarding the proposed recreational units will be needed for review during the subdivision review phase of this project. Plan appears to meet open space requirements. The monetary proffer for Parks and Recreation does not appear to be adequate to compensate for the impact the residents of this development will have on the capital needs of the Parks and Recreation Department. The pedestrian/bicycle trail appears to meet county standards; however, it would be beneficial to the residents of this development if a trail loop could be added to the rear of the residential properties, with connections to the proposed trail. MDP #10-06, Governors Hill February 5, 2007 Page 3 Planning & Zoninj4: A) Master Development Plan Requirement A master development plan is required prior to development of this property. Before a master development plan can be approved, it must be reviewed by the Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors and all relevant review agencies. Approval may only be granted if the master development plan conforms to all requirements of the Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The purpose of the master development plan is to promote orderly and planned development of property within Frederick County that suits the characteristics of the land, is harmonious with adjoining property and is in the best interest of the general public. B) Location The properties are located approximately one mile east of Interstate 81 on the south side of Millwood Pike (Route 50 E) across from Sulphur Springs Road (Route 655) and The Ravens Subdivision. C) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned R-1 (Residential Limited). The parcels were re - mapped from R-1 to A-2 (Agricultural General) pursuant to the County's comprehensive downzoning initiative (Zoning Amendment Petition #011-80), which was adopted on October 8, 1980. The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently 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 District. On October 12, 2005 the Board of Supervisors approved Rezoning #11-05 which rezoned the properties to the R4 (Residential Planned Community) Zoning District with proffers. D) Intended Use The applicant proposes the development of a mixed use project; a residential and employment center. The project would be anchored by roughly 143 acres of commercial uses. These commercial uses would be complemented by moderate to high density residential uses (550 residential units max). E) Site Suitability & Project Scope 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 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. 1-1] MDP # 10-06, Governors Hill February 5, 2007 Page 4 Land Use Compatibility: The six properties included within the Master Development Plan are all located within the boundaries of the Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan. The properties are located wholly within the Urban Development Area (UDA). The Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan envisions the area comprised by the subject parcels as developing with business/office land use. The Plan indicates that this planned land use designation is appropriate given the proximity of the area to the Winchester Regional Airport and the Interstate 81 interchange and the conduciveness of such locations to non-residential development (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-19, 6-21). The subject parcels are also located within the boundaries of the Airport Support Area that surrounds the Winchester Regional Airport. With the rezoning for the site the applicant proffered a Generalized Development Plan, a copy has been included with this agenda. Proffer 15.1 from the rezoning states that the major roadways shall be constructed in locations depicted on the GDP, with reasonable adjustments permitted for final engineering. The roadways internal to the townhouse area do reflect a modification to the location as well as the number of entrances onto Coverstone Drive. The GDP from the rezoning showed two road connections onto Coverstone Drive and the MPD now depicts one central connection to Coverstone Drive. Staff Note: It is noted that the revised road layout for the townhouses internal streets does present a modification to the proffered GDP. However, as shown on the GDP, one of the street intersections would have been located on a curve and the elimination of this conflict point should be beneficial. Another modification from the proffered GDP is that a portion of the area shown on the GDP that was designated for condominiums is now shown as single family attached (SFA) which will be developed with townhouses. The proffers from the rezoning stated that the development could contain a maximum of 550 residential units and that multi- family could not exceed 50% of the total number of units. While a multi -family is still shown on the MDP, it only consists of the area east of Coverstone Drive. Staff Note: It is noted that townhouses are a less intensive housing type than condominiums and, therefore, could be a permissible modification and does not create a planning inconsistency. The modification of the residential land bay from condominiums to townhouses would not create a conflict with adjacent uses and, therefore, could be consistent with the intent of the R4 district and the proffers from the rezoning. Environment: The subject parcels contain a variety of environmental features to include areas of flood plain, wetlands, steep slopes, and woodlands. Floodplain (Zone A) exists coincident with Sulfur Spring Run, which transverses the frontage of the site. Disturbance of the floodplain will be limited to entrance improvements. Steep slopes (areas of 25% slope or greater) exist along the frontage of the site and adjacent to two ravines that drain the site MDP #10-06, Governors Hill February 5, 2007 Page 5 to Sulfur Spring Run. The ravine areas present on the site also contain the majority of identified woodland resources. As the location of the woodland areas generally corresponds with steep slope areas, it is reasonable to expect the preservation of substantial portions of identified woodlands to maintain natural stabilization of the protected slopes. The site also includes four identified wetland features, all of which are man-made ponds associated with the site's previous use as a golf course. Transportation: Access to the subject parcels would be a single entrance on Route 50 at Sulfur Springs Road; and an entrance onto Prince Frederick Drive (the existing crossover used to access the golf club will be closed and the entrance retained as a right/in right/out for emergency access). These two entrance points would be linked by a major collector road ("Coverstone Drive"), with a hiker/biker trail running parallel. Coverstone Drive is being designed and built as a four lane highway from Sulphur Springs Road to the edge of Phase 1 (residential); this section will be divided by a raised median. From the edge of Phase 1 to Prince Frederick Drive, Coverstone Drive will be a two lane section. This two lane section will become a four lane section upon the relocation of Route 522 or when deemed necessary to service Land Bay 2. Coverstone Drive is intended to eventually intersect with Route 522 relocated. This road extension may happen when VDOT has determined the final location for Route 522 and when the applicant obtains right-of-way from the Airport. The applicants have proffered to provide the county with $1,000 per dwelling for the extension of Coverstone Drive. Proffers: The following list is a summary of the proffered conditions associated with Rezoning #11-05 (Dated June 24, 2005 and Revised September 7, 2005, September 28, 2005, October 4, 2005 and October 12, 2005). Below is a summary of the significant proffers: (A copy of the full proffer statement has been included with the agenda) Land Use • Project shall be designed to establish interconnected mixed-use residential and commercial/employment land bays in conformance with the GDP. • Residential uses are prohibited in Land Bay 2 and all uses within Land Bay 2 shall be restricted to the uses permitted under the B2 (Business General) District. • Residential development shall not exceed 550 dwelling units and multi family units shall not exceed more than 50% of the total units. • No residential unit shall be closer than 2000 feet from the centerline of the Airport Runway. • Land Bay 2 shall be reserved for a period of two years for potential acquisition, lease, or use by the United States General Services Administration or for the location of any federal agency or department. • Upon written request, the applicant shall dedicate ten acres to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on behalf of the Virginia National Guard for the use as a National Guard Armory. — already completed MDP #10-06, Governors Hill February 5, 2007 Page 6 • Upon written request the applicant shall dedicate nine acres to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors for the location of a Public Safety Building. — already completed • A 3,000 square foot community center, 3,500 square feet of neighborhood swimming pools and a dog park shall be constructed with the residential development. Improvements must be completed prior to the issuance of the 281s' residential building permit. Monetary Contribution • $442 per dwelling for Fire and Rescue purposes • $100 per residential unit and $100 per 1,000 square foot of constructed commercial to Fire and Rescue Company. • $1,714 per dwelling unit for Frederick County Schools • $343 per dwelling for Parks and Recreation • $79 per dwelling unit for Library purposes • $79 per dwelling unit for the construction of a general government administration building Environment • Stormwater management and Best Management Practices (BMP) shall be provided for the site. • Applicant shall provide notice in all sales literature, in covenants, conditions and restrictions for any homeowners' or property owners' association, of the adjacency of the Winchester Regional Airport. • Noise attenuation treatment shall be provided for all residential units and the applicant will consult with the Airport with respect to the granting of aviation easements. Transportation • Applicant shall design and construct Coverstone Drive as a full section with raised medians and an 80 foot right-of-way. Coverstone will be constructed in phases as dictated in the proffers. • Future interconnection with Inverlee Way shall be provided. • Signal at Sulphur Springs Road will be upgraded to a four way signal. • Applicants will pay $75,000 to the County for the signalization of the intersection of Millwood Pike and Victory Road. • Applicants shall pay $150,000 to the County for the signalization of the intersection of Costello Drive and Prince Frederick Drive. • The existing crossover at the Carper's Valley Golf Club entrance onto Millwood Pike shall be closed and the entrance shall be retained as a right-in/right-out connection for emergency site access. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 02/21/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The preliminary master development plan for Governors Hill depicts appropriate land uses and appears to be consistent with the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance. The preliminary master development plan is also in accordance with the proffers of the rezoning and has addressed all of staffs concerns. It is noted that approval of this MPD will enable the area shown on the GDP as condominiums to be developed with townhouses MDP 410-06, Governors Hill February 5, 2007 Page 7 as well as the modification of the road network. All of the issues brought forth by the Planning Commission should be appropriately addressed prior to a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Following the Planning Commission discussion, it would be appropriate to forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding this MDP conformance with County codes and review agency comments. All issues and concerns raised by the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. .L &.-A SEINING THE .Tor OF VIpFIMA f July 11, 2006 WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT 491 AIRPORT ROAD WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 (540) 662.2422 Patrick SoWors JUL 1 1 2006 Patton Harris Rust & Associates 117east Piccadilly Street WinclIester, Virginia 22601 Re. Master Development Plan Comment -Governor's Hill Shawnee Magisterial District Dear Mr. Sowers: - After review of the mast plan fpr the above referenced proiect, the following comments are provided on behalf of the Winchester Rcgignal Airport Authority: 1. The proposed plan does not indicate that future buildings would appear to penetrate the airport's FAR Part 77 close in surfaces based -on the information provided' Due to the location of the proposed buildings within the flight pattern, we arc requesting that any and all outdoor lighting at this site be of a shietded type anti amber -in t olorlo mix;mTze -possible light pollution on aircraft entering the pattern for Runways 14/32, 2. Due to the proximity -of this site to the runway; the applicant should be informed that they will be required to file form 7460-1 (2.99) with the Federal Aviation Administration for review and comment prior to construcirontoT each Tesidential area/comma-rcaitgavernment site plan. The residential component of this plan can be filed under a single form. -Thc.form can be filed on line at the FAA's website Htp.//fimns.faa_qov/. Completedeof of-!;Udmitted forms must be forwarded to thr:s office for record. Upon developer's receipt of the -Aeronautical Study Determination from the FAAfor each -plan filed -,,a -copy rn ttse•farvo�rded to this office for review and record, 3. During the construction phase -of the buildrTgs, alf crartcs-wifl t�c required to have an aviation obstruction flag and/or obstruction light visible during operations and must be lowered at night unless lit. Intended hours and dates of operation shouid`be-coordinated with David Foley, Operations Supervisor Winchester Regional Airport Authority no less than twenty-four hours prior to start. 4. Per the applicants proffers presented at tic Frederick County Board of Supervisors meeting on October 21, 2005, the applicant shall provide noise attenuation treatment for all residential development. 5. Per the applicant's pr6ffcrs as referenced 2tbvve in iteM tour t4j, applicant shall provide notice in all sales literature, -in coven ants,"conditions and restrictions for any homeowners' or property owners' associations; ofIto adjacency of the property to the-Winc#rest�r Regional Airport. -7- -Z-- _ WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT Q 9 ant shall prove e aviga ion easern�nt <wer e propose site o protect Airport operations. 441 Alri or R()AT) WON(, THI for OF VIRGINIA !N F4Egn RGI A 2 02 7- munity center shown wiiliin'het'ere setback from the airport runway, should 9_. terra sir ve noise attenuation, shielded amu doorlighting, slow/low growing landscape that is not an attractant to birds. If you need additional information or have questions regarding any of these comments, please contact my office_ Thank you for your continued support and assistance ensuring the safe and continued operations of the Winchester Regional Airport. Sincerely, S. R. Manuel Executive Director .-fiction: AMENDMENT P1:%INNING C()MNIISSiON: .1t1ly 20. 2p0> - Recommended :approval BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: October 12, 2005 1 APPROWD DE -\1111) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP REZONING 411-05 OF OARPERS VALLEY W."EREAS, Rezoning 411-05 of Carpers Valley, was submitted to rezone 281.5 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District for residential and commercial uses. The properties are located approximately one mile east of Interstate 81 on the south side of Millwood Pike (Route 50 E), across from Sulphur Springs Road (Route 655) and The Ravens Subdivision, in the Shamiee Magisterial District. and are identified by Property Identification Numbers (PINS) 64 -A -82.64-A-83. 64- A-831A. 4-A-83.64- A-8iA. 64-A-86. 64-A-87 and 64 -A -87A WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning on Jule ?U, 200: and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearin�-g on this rezoningg on October 12.2005: and *AIHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the approval of this rezoning to he in the best interest of the public health, Safety. vvellare, and in conl'Ormance v ith the Comprehensive Police flan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165 of the Frederick Count)- Codc. Zonirn�p. is amended to revise the Zoning? District Map to change 281,5 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District for residential and commercial uses. as described by the application and plat submitted, subject to the attached conditions voluntarilyproffered in xvritim-, by the applicant and the property om-ner. 1 -his ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption. Passed this l ?th day of October, 2005 by the following recorded Vote: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Gina A. Forrester Nam Gary Dove Aye Lunda .l. Tyler Nay 13111 M. 1:%4inc Aye Gene fisher N_ay A COPY ATTEST John R./RG.I'ey, Jr. / Frederick County Administrator 11 R L!" -16-p> PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ. # 11 -05 : RA to R4 PROPERTY: 281.5 Acres Tax Map & Parcels 64-A-82, 83, 83A, 86, 87, and 87A (the "Property") RECORD OWNER: JGR Three, LLC; Richard G. and Donna C. Dick; Constance L. Tjoumas; Gregory L. Coverstone; Cynthia Ann Pappas; Ellen, LLC; LCR, LLC; MDC Three, LLC; Susan Sanders, LLC; Liberty Hill, LLC; Thomas A. Dick; Timothy J. Dick; Michael E. Dick APPLICANT: Miller and Smith Land, Inc.; Miller and Smith at Coverstone, LLC PROJECT NAME: Carpers Valley ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: June 24, 2005 REVISION DATE: July 6, 2005 September 7, 2005 September 28, 2005 October 4, 2005 October 12, 2005 The undersigned owners hereby proffer that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced rezoning is not granted as applied for by the Applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "Final Rezoning" defined as that rezoning that is in effect on the day upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the `Board") grants the rezoning. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners, assigns, and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan" shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, Carpers Valley" prepared by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, (the "GDP") dated October 11, 2005 , sheets 1-4 of 4. t00014467.DOCi 4 PTOffcls As Revised 000145 OW020) 1. LAND USE 1.1 The project shall be designed to establish interconnected mixed-use residential and commercial/employment Land Bays in conformance with the GDP, and as is specifically set forth in these proffers. 1.2 All development, including street landscaping, shall be accomplished in substantial conformance with the "Design and Development Standards for Carpers Valley," prepared by PHR&A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Design and Development Standards"). 1.3 For reference purposes, the residential area identified as "Townhomes" on the GDP may contain any housing type identified as "Single Family Attached" in the "Design and Development Standards" excluding the "Stacked Flat Garage Units." The residential area identified as "Condominiums" on the GDP may contain the housing type identified in the "Design and Development Standards" as "Multi -Family." 1.4 Except as modified herein, and except to the extent any portion of the Property is owned or leased by the United States or any department or agency thereof, or by the Virginia National Guard, and is exempt by law from compliance with state and local land use ordinances and regulations, areas for commercial use on the Property shall be developed in conformance with the regulations of the Residential Planned Community ("R4") zoning district, as set forth in the Frederick County Code Article VII, §165-67 through §165-72, as cross-referenced to Article X, § 165-82, Sections A through D inclusive, and § 165-83. All commercial development on the Property shall comply with the aforesaid regulations, as approved by Frederick County, and these Proffers. 1.5 Residential uses shall be prohibited in the area identified as Land Bay 2 on the GDP. Furthermore, with the exception of any uses related to any federal agency or department, Land Bay 2 shall be restricted to those uses permitted in the General Business (B-2) zoning district as specified in the Frederick County Code Article X, §165-82B(1). 1.6 Except as modified herein, areas of residential development on the Property shall be developed in conformance with the regulations of the Residential Planned Community ("R4") zoning district, including permissible housing types set forth in the Frederick County Code Article VII, §165-67 through §165-72, as cross-referenced to Article VI, §165- 58, through §165-66. Unit types and lot layouts within residential Land Bays may comprise any of the permitted unit types as set forth in the Design and Development Standards, and authorized for the R4 district, and these Proffers. 1.6.1 Residential development on the Property shall not exceed 550 dwelling units, with a rnix of housing types permitted 100014467T)OC /4 PTOfTeTq As RCVi5C1 000145 000020} 7 in the R4 district. Multi -family units, as defined by the Design and Development Standards, shall not exceed 50% of the total number of dwelling units developed in the project. No residential structures shall be closer than 2000 feet from the centerline of the Airport runway. 2. CONSTRUCTION OF A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT 2.1 The Property shall be developed as one single and unified development in accordance with applicable ordinances and regulations for the R4 zoning district, the GDP as approved by the Board, and this Proffer Statement_ 3. RESERVATION OF PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USES AND DEDICATION OF PROPERTY FOR ARMORY USE 3.1 For a period of two years following Final Rezoning, the Applicant shall reserve Land Bay 2 for potential acquisition, lease, or use by the United States General Services Administration, for the location of any federal agency or department. 3.2 Unless an agreement is reached with the Winchester Regional Airport for an exchange of property mutually acceptable to the Airport and the Applicant, then for a period of eight years following Final Rezoning, the Applicant shall reserve for potential acquisition by the Airport that portion of any Land Bay designated as reserved for the Winchester Regional Airport. 3.3 In addition to the foregoing, upon written request therefor the Applicant shall dedicate approximately ten acres to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on behalf of the Virginia National Guard for use as a National Guard Armory, in the location generally depicted on the GDP. In addition, the applicant shall build or design and bond for completion of construction not later than the completion of an Armory structure, a minimum two lane section of Coverstone Drive from Millwood Pike (US Route 50) to the entrance to the Armory Site. In the event that the site is not used for the construction of an Armory structure, the aforesaid acreage shall remain the property of Frederick County to be used at the Board's discretion. 3.4 Upon written request therefor from the County, the Applicant shall dedicate approximately nine acres to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in the location identified on the GDP as "Frederick County Reserve Area" for the location of a Public Safety Building. If the County elects at any time to locate such Building on other property, then the aforesaid nine acres shall remain the property of Frederick County to ;00014:.167.1)0(-'' 4 Proffers As Revised 000145 000020! 3 be used at the Board's discretion. Access to the site shall be constructed to required paving by the Applicant not later than twelve months following receipt of the aforesaid request. 4. PHASING OF THE DEVELOPMENT 4.1 The residential portions of the Property shall be developed as follows: 4.1.1. The Applicant may obtain building permits for not more than 140 residential units in Land Bay 1 beginning in the twenty- fourth month following Final Rezoning. 4.1.2. The Applicant may obtain building permits for not more than 140 residential units in Land Bay 1 beginning in the thirty-sixth month following Final Rezoning. 4.1.3. The Applicant may obtain building permits for not more than 140 residential units in Land Bay 1 beginning in the forty-eighth month following Final Rezoning. 4.1.4. The Applicant may obtain building permits for not more than 130 residential units in Land Bay 1 beginning in the sixtieth month following Final Rezoning. 4.2 In anticipation of acquisition or use of properties designated for commercial/employment use by the United States, commercial and employment uses may be constructed at any time. 4.3 Improvements including a 3,000 square foot community center, 3,500 square feet of neighborhood swimming pools, and a dog park shall be constructed in conjunction with residential development in Land Bay 1 and the land therefor shall be dedicated upon completion of the improvements to the homeowners association. The location thereof shall be depicted on final subdivision plans for such residential development. These recreational amenities shall serve to meet the requirement of 1 recreation unit per 30 dwellings and shall be, at minimum, equivalent to $25,000 per recreation unit. These improvements shall be designed and bonded for completion as soon as practicable following approval of this rezoning, and shall be completed prior to the issuance of the 281st residential building permit. 5. ARCHITECTURE, SIGNAGE, AND LANDSCAPING: 5.1 All buildings on the Property shall be constructed using compatible architectural styles. The Applicant shall establish one or more Architectural Review Boards through the required Homeowner and Property Owner Associations to be created to enforce and administer a ,00014467.DOC 1'4 YmlfersAsRe iscd 000145 0000201 4 unified development plan in general conformity with the Design and Development Standards. 5.2 All signage within the Property shall be in substantial confornlity with a comprehensive sign plan that meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for signage, which shall be submitted in conjunction with the first final site or subdivision plan for the Property. 6. PEDESTRIAN TRAIL SYSTEM AND RECREATION AREAS 6.1 The Applicant shall design and build a public pedestrian -bicycle trail system to Department of Parks and Recreation standards that links residential and commercial areas within the development. Said trails shall be in the locations generally depicted on the GDP. To the extent that such trails are not depicted on the GDP at the time of Final Rezoning, such trails shall be connected with or linked to the internal street and sidewalk network. Sidewalks shall be constructed on public streets to VDOT standards, and a minimum of four -foot sidewalks shall be constructed on private streets. All combined pedestrian/bicycling trails shall be 10 feet wide, and shall have an asphalt surface. 7. FIRE & RESCUE: 7.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $422 per dwelling unit for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the issuance of the first residential building permit for each dwelling unit. 7.2 Following Final Rezoning, the master HOA to be created in accordance herewith shall contribute annually, on or before July 1" of each year, the sum of $100 per constructed residential unit, and $100 per 1000 square feet of constructed commercial (not including any land in public use), to the fire and rescue company providing first due service to the Property. Commencing January 1, 2010, the contribution provided for herein shall increase at the rate of five dollars per residential unit or per 1,000 square feet of commercial development each calendar year. Such contribution shall be monitored and enforced by the master HOA, and the Board may require an accounting of such payments at such times and upon such conditions as it may determine necessary. S. SCHOOLS: 8.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $1,714 per dwelling unit for educational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each dwelling unit. 9. PARKS & OPEN SPACE: �00014467.DOC 4 Proffers As Revised 000145 000020) 5 9.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $343 per dwelling unit for recreational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each dwelling unit. 10. LIBRARIES.- 10.1 IBRARIES: 10.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $79 per dwelling unit for library purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each dwelling unit. 11. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING: 11.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $79 per dwelling unit to be used for construction of a general governmental administration building upon issuance of a building permit for each dwelling unit. 12. CREATION OF HOMEOWNERS' AND PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION: 12.1 The homeowners association to be created in accordance herewith shall be created contemporaneously with the first final site or subdivision plan submitted for the Property. 12.2 The residential portion of the development shall be made subject to one or more homeowners' association(s) (hereinafter "HOA") that shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of the community center, walking trails, swimming pools, all common areas, including any conservation areas that may be established in accordance herewith not dedicated to the County or others, and stormwater management facilities not dedicated to public use, for each area subject to their jurisdiction, and shall be provided such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such associations or as may be required for such HOA herein. If there is more than one such association, the Applicant shall create a master HOA with respect to the residential development that shall, among other things, have responsibility for assuring compliance with design guidelines and standards, signage requirements, and similar matters. If only one such HOA is created, it shall be the master HOA for purposes of these proffers. 12.3 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, an HOA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all common open space areas not otherwise dedicated to public use, (ii) common buffer areas located outside of residential lots; (iii) private streets serving the residents {U001440TDOC f 4 Proffers As Rcvised 000145 0(10(120 6 who are members of such association; (iv) common solid waste disposal and recycling programs, including curbside pick-up of refuse by a private refuse collection company, and (v) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any street, perimeter, or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be located within easements to be granted to the BOA if platted within residential or other lots, or otherwise granted to the HOA by appropriate instrument. 12.4 The HOA shall be so established that it possesses all necessary powers to set and revise fees and dues in sufficient sums to perform the responsibilities assigned to it hereunder and under the Declaration to be recorded creating such Association. In addition, upon any conveyance of a residential unit from the builder thereof to a home purchaser, or thereafter between home purchasers, there shall be a fee paid to the HOA in an amount equal to two times the then -current monthly residential dues applicable to the unit so conveyed. 12.5 Any commercial elements of the development (with the exception of any property owned or leased by the United States, the Board of Supervisors, or the Winchester Regional Airport) shall be made subject to one or more property owners' association(s) (hereinafter "POA"). Such POA(s) shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of all common areas, including any conservation areas that may be established in accordance herewith not dedicated to the County or others, and stormwater management facilities not dedicated to public use for each area subject to their jurisdiction, and shall be provided such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such associations or as may be required for such POA herein. If there is more than one such association, the Applicant shall create an umbrella POA with respect to the entire development that shall, among other things, have responsibility for assuring compliance with design guidelines and standards, signage requirements, and similar matters. 12.6 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, a POA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all common open space areas not otherwise dedicated to public use, (ii) common buffer areas located outside of commercial lots; (iii) private streets serving the businesses and/or residents who are members of such association; (iv) common solid waste disposal and recycling programs to include dumpster and contract carrier services provided by a private refuse collection company, and (v) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any street, perimeter, or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be located within easements to be granted to the POA if platted within commercial or other lots, or parcels, or otherwise granted to the POA by appropriate instrument. 13. WATER & SEWER: ;0001440 .DOC i 4 Proffers As Revised 000145 000020; 7 13.1 The Applicant shall be responsible for connecting the Property to public water and sewer. It shall further be responsible for constructing all facilities required for such connection at the Property boundary. All water and sewer infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. 14. ENVIRONMENT: 14.1 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 for the purpose of providing the highest order of storinwater control in existing Virginia law at the time of construction of any such facility. 14.2 The Applicant shall provide notice in all sales literature, in covenants, conditions and restrictions for any homeowners' or property owners' associations, of the adjacency of the Winchester Regional Airport. 14.3 The Applicant shall consult with the Executive Director of the Airport with respect to the granting of a reasonable avigation easement to provide further protection for Airport operations, and shall dedicate such easement, as the Airport and the Applicant shall mutually agree. The Applicant shall provide noise attenuation treatment for all residential units. 15. TRANSPORTATION: 15.1 The major roadways to be constructed on the Property shall be constructed in the locations depicted on the GDP, with reasonable adjustments permitted for final engineering. 15.1.1. The Applicant shall design and construct Coverstone Drive as a full section with raised medians on an 80' right-of-way, consistently with the TIA provided for hereinbelow. The Applicant shall submit a street tree pian for approval by the Director of Planning as part of the design of Coverstone Drive in lieu of the road efficiency buffer otherwise required by ordinance. 15.1.1.1. Coverstone Drive shall be constructed by the Applicant in phases as set forth herein: 15.1.1.1.1. Phase 1 shall consist of a four -lane section including a ten -foot trail from Millwood Pike to the Phase 1 line in Land Bay 1 as depicted on the GDP. Such road shall be constructed in (00014467 -POC 14 Proffcrs As Rmsed 000145 0000201 0 sub -phases as delineated on the final master development plan and/or subdivision plan, to provide access to development within the Land Bay, and in any event shall be completed or bonded for completion prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each sub -phase. The Applicant shall not petition for inclusion of this Phase of Coverstone into the State System of Secondary Roads until it is completed to required asphalt and open to the public as a full four -lane section to the Phase I line. Notwithstanding the foregoing, building permits may be issued for model homes and the community center prior to base paving. 15.1.1.1.2. Phase 2 shall consist of construction of a two lane section of Coverstone Drive from the Phase 1 line to Prince Frederick Drive as depicted on the GDP. This two lane segment shall be completed or bonded for completion prior to the occupancy of the first commercial building in Land Bay 2. The Phase 2 segment shall be completed or bonded for completion to a full four lane section when construction of relocated Route 522 commences or when construction thereof is necessary to service commercial development in Land Bay 2. 15.1.1.1.3. Notwithstanding any other provision of these proffers, for Phase 3, the Applicant shall design Coverstone Drive Extended as a four - lane section from Prince Frederick to Relocated Route 522 when the alignment of Relocated 522 has been detem-iined by VDOT. In the event that the Applicant obtains right- of-way therefor from the Winchester Regional Airport prior to the initiation of design of such extension, then it shall realign' Coverstone Drive Extended as may be approved by the County and VDOT. The Applicants shall further pay to the County 51,000 per dwelling unit for the permitted residential units for future construction of Coverstone Drive Extended, or other projects in the vicinity of the Property that are not included in this rezoning.. Such funds shall be paid at the time ,0001446ZDOCl4 Pruffcn.AsRcciscd 000)45 000020) Z of building permit issuance for each of the permitted residential units - 15.1.2. The Applicants shall provide a fifty -foot right-of-way for a future interparcel connection from Coverstone Drive to the easternmost property boundary line of the Property, as shown on the GDP. Said righi-of-way shall be dedicated upon written request therefor. 15.2 Notwithstanding any other provision of these proffers, if the General Services Administration locates a federal facility on the Property, the Applicant shall construct Coverstone Drive as a full four -lane section from Millwood Pike to Prince Frederick Drive prior to occupancy of that facility. 15.3 Notwithstanding any other provisions of these proffers, the Applicant shall construct Coversone Drive as a full four -lane section from Millwood Pike to Prince Frederick Drive prior to June 1, 2012. 15.4 The Applicant shall provide for future interconnection with lnverlee Way when that road is extended south of Millwood Pike to Coverstone Drive, upon the development of adjoining property presently owned by others. The Applicant shall provide a stub -out for a connection to the internal street network. and will grant such right-of-way as may be necessary on the Property to permit such interconnection, subject to VDOT approval, at a point compatible with such extension of Inverlee Way. 15.5 The Applicants shall upgrade the existing signal at Sulphur Springs Road from a three- to a four-way signal. All improvements within the existing southernmost right-of-way of US Route 50 at this intersection including the signal upgrade shall be completed prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project pursuant to the approved traffic impact analysis and future construction drawings required for land use permit issuance by VDOT. 15.6 The Applicants shall pay to the County the amount of $75,000 for signalization of the intersection of Millwood Pike (US Route 50) and Victory Road (Route 728). Such funds shall be paid within six (6) months of the issuance of the first residential building permit in Land Bay 1. 15.7 The Applicants shall pay to the County the amount of $150,000 for signalization of the intersection of Costello Drive and Prince Frederick Drive. Such funds shall be paid within six (6) months of the issuance of the first commercial building permit in Land Bay 2. 15.8 The Applicants shall close the existing crossover at the Carper's Valley Golf Club entrance onto Millwood Pike, when the existing golf club use ceases operation, but shall retain that entrance as a gated right -in right out connection for emergency site access to be used only by the United States {00014467 -DOC i 4 Proffers As Keviscd 000135 OW0201 10 General Services Administration, for any federal agency or department. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that the Applicant obtains or otherwise controls right-of-way across Millwood Pike from the current Inverlee intersection, the Applicant shall provide right -in right -out access to the Property to align with Inverlee at that location, and shall close the existing golf club entrance. 15.9 The Applicants shall use its best efforts to obtain any necessary off-site right-of-way required for the completion of any traffic improvements otherwise provided for herein at a commercially reasonable cost, but shall not be required to construct any improvements, including traffic signalization, if such right-of-way cannot be obtained by it. 15.10 All public right-of-ways shall be dedicated to Frederick County as part of the subdivision approval process, consistently with applicable Virginia law. 15.11 All public streets and roads shall be designed in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation specifications, subject to review and approval by Frederick County and VDOT, and shall be constructed by the Applicant in accordance with the recommendations of the approved TIA for the Property. 15.12 All private streets and roads shall be constructed in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation standards therefor and as may be modified by the County, and shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners or property owners association served by such streets or roads. 15.13 In the event that the General Services Administration does not locate a federal facility in Land Bay 2, and other commercial users are proposed for that Land Bay that would result in cumulative project -generated trips in excess of 13,000 vehicles per day, the Applicant shall submit a revised Traffic Impact Analysis in order to determine what improvements, if any, shall then be required to accommodate the additional traffic and shall construct those improvements. 15.14 If the Airport Reserve Parcel shown on the GDP is developed a revised Traffic Impact Analysis shall be prepared and improvements proposed, if necessary to accommodate the additional traffic. 16, CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATION AND PRESERVATION 16.1 The Applicant shall conduct or cause to be conducted a Phase I Archaeological Investigation of the Property, prior to the approval of the first final site or subdivision plan for the Property, and shall cause Phase 1I and III investigations thereof as may be demonstrated to be necessary by the Phase I study. ,00014467.1)0C 4 Proffers As Rc%ised 000145 woom; 17. ESCALATOR CLAUSE 17.1 In the event any monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement are paid to the Frederick County Board County Supervisors ("Board") within 30 months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to the Board after 30 months following the approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index ("CPI -U") published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time contributions are paid, they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI -U from that date 30 months after the approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI -U to the date the contributions are paid, subject to a cap of 5% per year, non -compounded. SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES {OOU144G7.DOC / 4 Proffers As Revised 000)45 000020; 12 J GR Three, LLC s anaging Member STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUN'T'Y, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknczwledged before me this day of ,._4 , 2005, by Mycom-russion expires Notary Public it Ellen, LLC By i; Itsanaging Member STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: _ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this " l 1- day of 2005, by') (:-.'N I ! Ert• V\t is 'I � - ]TV., My commission expires 5��•", '_. �C'-) Notary Public 1, -'l > >; ) t 4- LCR, LLC ..Y lts-Man4ng Member STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing dged before instrument was ac "A � me tf;s day of J1, jik.� 2005, by L ! i , � _i_� Mycomn-iiission expires Notary Public MDC Three, LLC By 8-/-1=7- Its 1 Its lWanagling Member STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this � P'day 2005, by My commission expires. Notary Public X81 py1J 120: 54 A 141 ��w 1292 T s u z f/] • 1217. f of m + x 1201 153 1264 r 1563 1534 1269 j�� 1263 m .64 A .Qq 64 8 1367. to SHENANDOAH UNIVERSITY �. 5 64 A A Dr 01b WORCp o� Q 64 A 120 0 1 +•4 $�/ iQ 249 T+ ah�Y� r 64 A 2 i p TITANS CORPORATION LP ! fi AM9ROSE, SANDRA ANNE CARPER J 64 A 12965 A 13A fl 64 A 86! 4 ulphus Sgrvng�P�d h { 14. _ i 7� \82 ! Jf. 64 A 622 r,4\ P tof c N V7pWINCHESTER REGIONAL pF\E4p• 1000 's8 '9 cPM m \ ' g 522 ca y� �` iY-- ' o. 2yF10 n 65 A 116 1092 i`- ? �,• � a � 99 i LO�gGrO{t' a v aA !'O d.5i-� In -r '1 w O s p*' 1 lti ooh. i - a s 4 64 A 23 vineaLh OUeRUELER, STEVEA�' 64 A 36 p 64 3 A r rO�...�_ 64 5 B l aUti clw4ad Pr - ti . Application MOP ft 10 - k66 Govenor's Hill ( 64 - A 82, 83, 83A, 86, 87, 87A a Urban Development Area ) 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 swsA f� Miles m$ 4 5 { N �' :� m�� ensenY Rd. 1. � Staif°rd�Dr •o f � Q� w q. �f .�0 } rn e •F 54 A 141 �s t !� �r �. Ss A U 0 — —— - City of Winchester + GreenwopA.Pwe £ Ori 64 A 120 a ti`i— ✓ —1 J } 6g q 6q q RP !� 14 qq ( r Ir 'erg7 64 A 2� A, � m ti 64 B �"' v ` - .„."�. [C!,` C TITANS CORPORATION 00 10 ti o a a �W ndy HIIE �.n i n AMBROSE, SANDRA ANNE CARPER M2 64 A 129 i+ 165 A 13A ccb 611 07 5 4r'tm�e /� �r 64 A 86 a SulPhur'�riR m '. + ¢ X64 A 82 522 n 64 A /79' 9 N WINCHESTER REGIONAL y 1 522 - Q + .-• - • B2 ff \ 65 A 116 LU LLLL_LLLi'”" z; j �h j a l a Bentfey_Ave --Cr 64 A 23 Vine:L•n, . DDBRDELER, STEVE A �•'y'P �6 N+i� Ikf Q•� U s 64 A 36 P 7 ° 0 6� 64 3 A } D 64 5 B L,aurelwood Dr--- 'f . m Appiicaiion --p 4 Urbap Oevelapment Area _ . Ill (Industrial, Light Cistdet) — 10 Y° 06 5WSA M2 (W-1-1, General District) /''� Govenor's Hill Zoning 1AH1 (Mo -le Home community District) Bi (Business. Nzi9neornood District) 4ft: ons (Memcal supPart Diaam:) (64 - A - 82 83, 83A, B2 (Business, General District) R4 (Residential, Planned Community District) 86, 87, 87A B3 (Business, Industrial : ransition District 41M RS (Residential Recreallonal :.olnm4nity District) ) EM (Extractive .....cludng Distrlht) RA(Rural Areas District) D 0.05 0.1 0.2 (Higher Education District) RP (ResiCen W Pr3,iormance Dlsl'iq) Elm[ Miles 1228 1227 . i r 1, f. M✓� 1203 1213 1226 rF `54 A 141 ¢ 1202 _ lzss �7 tinYRc( re a �1zzs T {{ 6 Pyy 1218' fr. City of Winchester lsazi 1 1- ,i Q JY`-y`-"r.� J1264 1534 1268 ;~ 1263 �l.i[—,,- -"'' 64 A 120 1' 1241 j ' 1262 -q I 1246 .'. X1246 N1,.. 97 1524 �,+-..b- ! w f � tii 1258 .: ... �P J VZ i tir 1256 i r 1526 1 �} F 1 C f_ 4 q / 9 1249 r rhf;�j.� YY,; rn t r a 44 64 A 2 64 8 '\ � G } ' .,0 >^Fy 4 \1Cr ^sI TITANS CORPORA TIGN 40 ��P /\ J f� 1378 Y - ias7 foo- �^,.�.,, J'b `t LL SHENANDOAH UNIVERSITYrpsVe}/a LL Wt 64 A A}yam !j+ f��• AMBROSE,fiANDRA ANNE CARPER �rst-D" WGkc•� o ,.r` �/ ��-`%` 64 A 129 4� / �• ��c .. W q7 gn Nr 1372 P� I j f� 64 A 86 J "y y 64 A 82 i �da 14� o � C! M X65§1—�•--,�.� 65 A�-13A r C6 J 64 A 79 Wr, 44C WINCHESTER REGIONAL 1'1 NO ;,'/``?y"' 65 A 116 i- EQ' ,� m oi.- �� •,x�.�{.. Mfr ,� •�,�. �7�.r�',�t Y-��^ � 4 �i'4 t 4 NaY 64 A 23 Vena Ln• n srt'.'� i ���� n'. ' DUSRUELER, STEVE At 64 A 36 P POS ti 64 3 A La uf elwooc! Dr CDApp4lfation 0 ✓t Urban Development Area � Industrial SWSA Institutional Long Range Land Use _ `Recreation Rural Community Center Q0 Historic Residential ® Mixed -Use Business Planned Unit Development Govenor's Hill ( 64 - A - 82, 83, 83A, 86, 87, 87A ) 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 Miles i i , City 0Winchester ' P t 'fir a` f! k'� L 7 1^llnd•r Hdl Ln - BMEAIANQ6hFl U.MYERB A Suf)rhur "1'I'rnq .=r! k.,. Application y Urban Development A- 40 -1— MQP' # 10 - 06 Govenor's Hill 64 - A - 82, 83, 83A, 86, 87, 87A ) 0 am CLI 02 JJC311�i Miles Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Packt e 06 APPLICATION MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. Project Title: 2. Owner's Name: 3. Q Governors Hill Governors Hill, LLC 8401 Greensboro Drive Suite 300 McLean, VA 22102 (Please list the names of all owners or parties in interest) Miller and Smith and Richard G. Dick and Donna C. Dick Applicant: Patton Harris Rust & Associates Address: c/o Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly St., Winchester VA 22601 Phone: (540) 667-2139 Design Company: Patton Harris Rust_ & Associates Address: 117 E. Piccadilly Street Winchester VA 22601 Phone Number: (540) 667-2139 Contact Name: Patrick Sowers 1 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package APPLICATION cont'd MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 5. Location of Property: The properties are located approximately one mile east of Interstate 81 on the south side Of Millwood Pike (Route 50 East), across from Sulphur Springs Road (rt.655) and The Ravens Subdivision. 6. Total Acreage: 281.5 Acres 7. Property Information: a) Property Identification Number (PIN): b) Current Zoning: c) Present Use: d) Proposed Use: 64-A-82, 83, 83A, 86, 87, 87A R4 Vacant Residential, Commercial e) Adjoining Property Information: See Attached Property Identification Property Uses North South East West f) Magisterial District: Shawnee 8. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan? Original x Amended I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. I also understand that the master development plan shall include all contiguous land under single or common ownership. All required material will be compl to nor to the ubmission of my master develop .�_ . a app ? :. Signature: &zi Signature: Date: �'- �- D Date: 2 Governors Hill - Adjoining Properties Name Address Property Identification Number (PIN) Name: Winchester Regional Airport 491 Airport Rd Property #: 64-A-79 _ Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Winchester Regional Airport 491 Airport Rd Property #: 64-A-88 Winchester, VA 22602 Name- Glaize & Bro, LC P.O. Box 2598 Property #: 64 -A -80J Winchester, VA 22604 Name: Blue Ridge Industries P.O. Box 1847 Property #: 64 -A -80Q _ Winchester, VA 22604 Name: Main of Winchester, LLC 1936 Millwood Pike Property #: 64 -A -80K Winchester, VA 22602 Name: R & G Warehouse, LLC 119 Arbor Ct Property #: 64 -A -80L Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Winchester Industrial Park, LLC 1936 Millwood Pike Property #: 64 -A -81A Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Winchester Industrial Park, LLC 1936 Millwood Pike Property #: 64-A-81 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Raymond & Tanya Long 718 Chelsea Dr Property #: 64-A-134 Winchester, VA 22601 Name: Raymond & Tanya Long 718 Chelsea Dr Property #: 64-A-133 Winchester, VA 22601 Name: Terry W. & Lois J. Ruffner 112 Sulphur Spring Rd Property #: 64-A-132 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Perry Engineering Co., Inc. 1945 Millwood Pike Property #: 64-A-124 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Perry Engineering Co., Inc. 1945 Millwood Pike Property #: 64 -A -123A Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Perry Engineering Co., Inc. 1945 Millwood Pike Property #: 64-A-123 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: _ Potomac Edison Company 10435 Downsville Pike Property #: 64 -A -124A Hagerstown, MD 21740 Name: Trustees of the James Peyton Darlington Trust 1543 Millwood Pike Property #: 64-A-122 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Lloyd Fisher c/o Mary E. Washington 813 N 18th St Property #: 64-A-116 Harrisburg, PA 17103 Name: Raven Wing Homeowners Association P.O. Box 888 Property #: 64G -2-1-52A Winchester, VA 22604 Name: David W. Loy 1441 Millwood Pike Property #: 64A-7-1-15 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Robert A. Frazier 1427 Millwood Pike Property #: 64A-7-1-14 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Robert A. Frazier 1427 Millwood Pike Property #: 64A-7-1-13 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: George G. & Kelsa R. Lambert 1411 Millwood Pike Property #: 64A -7-1-12A Winchester, VA 22602 rName: George G. & Kelsa R. Lambert 1411 Millwood Pike Property #: 64A-7-1-11 A Winchester, VA 22602 Name: George G. & Kelsa R. Lambert 1411 Millwood Pike Property #: 64A -7-1-10A Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Raven Wing Homeowners Association P.O. Box 888 Property #: 64G -2-1-63A Winchester, VA 22604 Name: Judy Rolla Cook Oo Judy B. Rodgers 178 Grand View Ln Property #: 64A-7-1-8 Clearbrook, VA 22624 Name: Judy Belle Cook c/o Judy B. Rodgers 178 Grand View Ln Property #: 64A-7-1-7 Clearbrook, VA 22624 Name: Judy Belle Cook c/o Judy B. Rodgers 178 Grand View Ln Property #: 64A-7-1-6 Clearbrook, VA 22624 Name: Judy Belle Cook c/o Judy B. Rodgers 178 Grand View Ln Property #: 64A-7-1-5 Clearbrook, VA 22624 Name: Douglas A. Hartley 100 Stanley Dr Property #: 64A-7-1-4 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Douglas A. Hartley 100 Stanley Dr Property #: 64A-7-1-3 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: John H_ Kaknis & Christopher Brooks c/o John G. Kaknis 730 N Hayfield Rd Property #: 64A-7-1-2 Winchester, VA 22603 Name: John H. Kaknis & Christopher Brooks c/o John G. Kaknis 730 N Hayfield Rd Property #: 64A-7-1-1 Winchester, VA 22603 Name: Helen J. Sempeles Trustee 107 Roszel Rd Property #: 64A -A-12 Winchester, VA 22601 Name: Winchester Outdoor 355 S Potomac St Property #: 64A -A-13 Hagerstown, MD 21740 Name: Mary K. Hockman 104 Oak Side Ln Property #: 64-A-84 Winchester, VA 22603 Name: Mary K. Hockman 104 Oak Side Ln Property #: 64-A-85 Winchester, VA 22603 Name: Marlow Investments, LC 707 N Commerce Ave Property #: 64 -A -89A Front Royal, VA 22630 Name: Fredericktowne Group, LC c/o Richard Dick 1400 Millwood Pike Property #: 64-10-2 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Karen B. Barrett -Perry, et als P.O. Box 807 Property #: 64-10-3 Stephens City, VA 22655 Name: Prince Frederick Group, LC c/o James L. Mcilvaine, Jr. 6231 Leesburg Pike, Ste 600 Property #: 64 -A -89B _ Falls Church, VA 22044 May 19 05 01:0Ip - RR WINCHESTER 5, 665-0493 p.7 Special Limited Peer of Attorney COun€Y Of Jh edcr- id- -Virginia Frederica F1=niD9 Web Site: rvwv.c3-frederic%,v$,us >)partment ofPlanli,g.g4 Development, 10County of18re3ericlt, Virgir,is, North Kent Sheet, Winchester, VlrOW, 22601 Phhoneone540465--m., Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By those Present: That I (We) (Nanie) Liber 11i1L. LC c/o Richard G. I}ick (Phone) 540-662_1287 (Address) 1600 Millwood Pike R'inchester Vir int X2642 the avcner(s) ofal] those tracts 0r Parcels of land ('Trope, _ Clerk's OITIC.- of the Circuit Court of Virginia, by y i conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Instrument i\Itamber 040011820 the County ofFrederick and is dcscribed as Parcels: 83A, 86, 87. 87A Lot:,1310c1,-: A TaxMap/ 64 Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: e " (Name) Patton Harris Rust & Associates. c (Phone) 540667-2134 (Address) 117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200 i 7inchester VirD-Mia 21601 And (Address) To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name authority I (we) wo ild havc if ag Personal1ctin , ,place, and stead with rrll poker and Property, including y to file pia_nni�g aPPlicahons for my (our) above described Rezoning (including proffers) Conditional Use Perrnits X Mast& Development PIan (Freluninary and final) Subdivision Site Plan hsy attomeY-in-fact shall have the authority to conditions except as follows: offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previousia r Y pprvved pm�fe,ed This ailthfierii ation shall expire one year from the day , codified.t is signed, or until it is otherwise. rescinded or In witness Signature(, 'State of Vi �n aforesaid c _-•-� , u r ���u�s� woo signed to the fore oin U-jeJunsoictien and has acknowledged the same, before rite in the jurisdiction afaresa d a,, nistrUlneut p�s�pear A:- `e n day of20Ci5 Nntary PeA,%, Commissian E)Lpires: F1 1 Z, Maw 13 05 1E.58P `4RR WINCHESTER F -CSS-0493 SPeciai Unn6ted Power of Aftorney County of Frederick, Virgj erick P numing Web Sig:° www,cn.f1 edema M&.D Depwrtment of Ply 1mitag Dim]-*pataexai, County of Frederid4 Vieg ia, 107Nortb Kent Street, Wiachestea•, Virginia 22601. Phoae 340 -5651 FaeSiaw1le 540-66-4-6395 KnO ' ; :11hIrn By Those preser;t: That I (j1;e) ()`lama) Fdtard -G and iZanra %,; } �Pllorie) 540&52-I2 ? �_ {Ad.Sessl 7600-kifiiwood Pike Mrche cr, Virsinia. 22�s,72. the zlw ter.(s} of 0 hose tract, r pure Is of la ,d ("ProYertt:"" conveyed to nye (us), by deed reeerded in the C lerl;'s 'GTIce of the Cirt uit Cour[ of thfe County of Frederick, Virginia, by - Deid Boole ms on Page 769 _ and is described as i'arcel: 33 Lot :r3lock: 4 SeckieII: 64 Sub vision: do hereby make, mrzd+ute and appoint: — {Name) P:itionHarris Rust �ssuciates c (Pkone'j 540-6-67-21 :39 A-Mmss; 117 E. Piec a + fi: , S - d �ee Suite Zoo, d ulz-l+estcs. V.ireinxa 22601 And -- (Name) % ah;h. ColuGri.-LuhK}ct, Enx F r c is r & circ P (Phone)_ :0 {-tiBCt y fA�3cirws� t C?�en PrJk 1. rla } 0 Priac.: i%4`il}iai;i Part..•ay. Suite �•�J. Pr:c xr — ----. e � t}lia-r �°irer�a 22 }2 To act as m}' true and lawft<i atter-fey=ir •fact for and in my ( � Pull. 4 � - (our,, Y�*Tt , plas and s.cad with _ul_ -Ocwer and a:rrhoritj, r (we,) wool: - wool: h��ve if acti PmFe_-s_y, inclun g personally 'to n� o file plmnarplicat;oru fos• trty (mxr) sl)ove des b5d Rezoning (including prof'eis) _ Coaditiional Ilse Permits X Master D evelopmejt tp}an (Preliminary and Rinal) Subdi i'a5ion ` _ Site Plan Pvfv attoracP-in-fay. Snail ha"fe .41: a' thOri Y to Offer proffered Conditions and tO n,,,t' IX amendmee s Imo. t7�t kle":iii' ij]Ir=OkG� �7Y� feLCG On3itions except as ftz£1zr.js,- ` i his a ithclr��.ston ski? e -Vire One year frown the day it is signed, or an6i it is a#n m:3cifkd zmise rr:scinzied or In AA4taess thereon I ,weJ have hetefa set MY (Gur) hand and seat this State of Viof f `Tb -wit: Lf - � .a _votary Pubic in and for the jurisdiction;t �_- a?oresai, certify ttit the gerson(s} ;� ao signeii to the ftNegaing iris rurri�nt perstclal�y appeared fort me wane. nas a,:l�le ledged CI±e sine before ate in tile' {� jj ,� k;-isdicfi= n aforesaid chis —day cif 2005 _ {� ) r ► CornrslissiollEfres: t 1 [ �i R`olal- PLct11i � _- MaH 18 115 01:15p '.A WINCHESTER 54 965-0493 Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederiek Plunnimg Web Site: MM a!-frederick-va-as �p aeaat of.'1st ntft� & 1)evelognMe�t, CmuFaty of Frederick, V 107 North Kent Street, Wmebes� `rte Maas{' Pbone 540-655-561 Facsitnile 540-"S-.6395 Know All Men By Those Present: 'f hat 1 (We) (Narae) Tinathv J. Dick (c/o Richard G Diel,) (Phoce)540-662-1287 Address) 1600 S4il,,ivood pikz. Winchester. Vir aia.'2G02 rhe o inerts} of all those h acts or parcels of land ("Property"} conveyed to ma (LsJ, by deed recorded in the C1elKks Orf j -ca of the Circuit Court of fhe Coanty� c)f Fjtderzcl, a by —' It]stri'MeDt Number 040911820 and is described as Parcels: 83A 86 R7 87A Lot:�Blociti: A Tax hlap(SPctian: 64 St Ibdiv Sian: do hereby make, CDnstltute and appoint. 1 (Address) And !�'am~-i Walsh, r'alucci Luheiey Ern (Adrlress) Glen Park 1 4.310 PrincL Vr. To act as my true and 1a cvful attamey-in-fact for and in rr y (oL r} .name place, sad stead with fi H Pouf and nu s Eity I (we) wou?d have i# acting personally to file planning appLcauans for my (our) shave des�ibed roperty, t-icluding REZO"ing (including prof[ersj Conditional Use Perndts X Master Levefopanen4 Plan Subdivision (Prslitrtinarf and l8ic!al) Site PIan Nsy atlo—y-is-face shall Lave the authority to ofer proff red conditions and to rn,i<e amcrdnzents to preciously approved proffered conditions except as folloi�,s: This aurharzation shall expire one year from the day it is signed, modified. or uiatt7 it i; cthervise rescinded or ?n c�i ess' Paf. I {we} have here#a set any (our) hand and sea[ h+s`7� day- F- 2 iaie of ITVa, t•rr1"� ounrj- of - T �} �_.._\I__ �r ��M• �1 ' �`� - .Tn-wit: �I �:��aii' •k..: .a Notary -Public in and for h_ aforesaid, certify that the persons) who signed tc, he fare o b ' J urssdict on acid has aclmo�v edged `fie same bsfore me in the ' = g � inst umentperson� appeared b s re •e ` risdiction aforesaid #his `day of ! 20u� iti6ta_1-1PUl I i C. _--Ml'C�`rnrr.:ssic�nExpires: _ �t ` l2 � Mai 18 05 01:15p 'R WINCHESTER 54 So -0493 p-3 Special Y: ted Power of Attorney County of Frederick Virginia Frederick Plgnujag weds -Site: .ah'ireder ck.,v Depart2nantofPignning&I}evelola xent, ceenr g of>nresleif l€,tfh ---- 107 North Kellt xtre;.t; 'f+z'iaclaWer, Virglr2gs ti260, i�Pnorie # f .""i� 65I Famimile 540-"5-63" Kno?' All Men By Those Present, Thai 1 CWc) (? aETe j Michael E. Dick (clo .ptichard C. Dicke (Phtkrte)5_�0.66L-1_'3i (Address) 1600A4iii+arood °ike Winche^tie, Viri.nia, 22602 the o �re:4.$) rif ail those tea; rs OT parcels of land : "Pro " cvaveved tc us b demon re- a: Clerk's +O ce of the Citcuit Court . f the County of Fred c 4Ti.,- - t ): l .. -ded ;;L the Y "� K, r �irta, t7y Inctrurren. NuMber 040-311820 _— and is described as Parcels: 93A- 86 87 87.A Lot., 31ack: A T t4apiSeceiesrL 64 Steladirisian_ ----- — clo htreby Make, constitutf; and zprpoint. -. (I4arne) Patton Efarrs Rose uc ,gssocia`e Yc --(Pb-)a--L .54Q-66 .., -2139 (Ad 3 ess) 117 Ii. Piccadilly Siree Sane LOO, 1'4 inchestc'r Vi;einta ^,bG And — 01amt) �r aJA. CoJucci. LubeJev. rtr+cl; & Trak. Pt. (I'F,oite) 703-tiE0-4iibA (Address) Glee, Park 1.431 O.Princ-e William Pa-iwa�• Sul+c 300 P,- nce Willies= s V1r_iri;e Z? i �2 �— T`o aet as mv true and is-.*•:ul aitoi:gev i' -act for and in my (ate) nar!aF pk.e. Lezd stead with Pali power and ' atthorla- i {vve) WGuld 3-i:.xve Lf acl'L19 personally to file plaaam., aFP1icatious ft3r RT (our) abo re described -Prope-ti, including X Rezoning (including pruffer.) Condirioaai I.:se purrdts X. Master Developnient plan fPxeiFnL€n q'4 and F:nn i1 Subdivision Site Plan tx1Y attorney--in-fact sh;6,il have the auth0 `y to offer proffered condi7ons and is make aemer&--trent& t6 =vi sly a ppm %; C, pri f� r_ condisons except ss fo1 follows_ s. autherizatiorr shall expire one year from the day it is S modified. '-di or irritil it is utlterA7se rescinded or In w•imess thereof, I (We) have hereto set my (our) haa3 and seal this Y da)' i 200 Simas - _._ .._ :. t -' 4tate of Virgin-: City/County of L13 l OMTY ?-,r,z' lis in and for the jurisdiction 2" resalk , cex ,that tie persons) . L signed to the forego nsnirure tt irersa�2lr a err . cre and has ackmow.ledged The saim bafoze rre in the jir<isdicTian aforesai this ` ppV��' n ��_d2v �.� `005 3 t d 1 My Ca:ri�:issioa 0i Ttotary Pablrc - May 18 05 01:16F I2A WINCHESTER Se 665-0463 p.4 Sped-ql Limited Power of Attorney CGUntY Of Fre en -d o -- - - Fredexr irk F����b Web ,ices Ww-w.CG.freder Ck.Va.... �eprartufeffit ofPlrenniug & 3Dewelmpment, �au;viy ofP'red�rick, VIrgl�,a 2a7Nnc 5 1a-66-5651,'%"Atbes'e�y VIrginix 22fX1 Phoge 544 -b65 -56s1 Fnesimile 540-"5-6395 Know All -Men Ey Those Present: That I (We) (Narfle) Thomas A. Dick (cio Richard G. Dick) (Picone) 554` 1237 (Address) I60D Millwood Ptke, W'inchester,-Vir 'nia. 2?602 the oursier(s) of all those tracts or parcel; of land (°'Properly',) conve ed to Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the Coda_f_ Y rum (us), by deed r✓co. de " }' ofFr�derick, 'Virginia, by d m the Instrtu;7ent Number. 040011820 and is described as Parcels: 83A 86, 87 97A Lat BIoek: A Tax _1v£ap/Section: 6q Sucrdirision: ` do hereby make, constitute and appoint., (Name) Patton Harris Rust & Associates, c (Phone) 540-667-2139 (Address) 1.17 E. Picc.,im,•'qn•Fpr c,,:a.. 1— And (Address) To act as nzy rue and 1am11 attorney -it -fact for and is my(our)_ "Ithari� i (wc) cvoold have if acting personally to file planning name, plac_, and stead with hill pow er and Property, including pplications lar uny'(our} above described 11-ezoning (incluaiing proffers) Conditional Gise Perinits It12§ter Developmentplan (,preliE Subdivision -runary and Final) Site Plan My attorney -in -flet shall have the authority to ofter proffered conditi uu� a d to rnatie am�durt nta to previous) < c.mdidons excerpt as foilo� s: y aPProvtd prt:ii'ered This anthorization shall expire one year from the da modified Y it is signed, or until it orye�*3vise rescinded or in Uqt;iess ti�,of_ f (uePi,�� .. - • Signature( and seal this day of��U 2005 State of Virginia, city/county of - (� Tel l 1�iC y— k� l r a ?`ion' P�=biic in and for the jurisdiction icy— aforesaid, certfy treat the person(s) mho sib ed to die foregoing inctrrrine + and has ac}}k lo-,adedged Ube same before ine in the jurisdiction aforesaid ties G ons appea-rad b ire F C (, _day of 2005 NOtacy Pab?uc ,�tl r Co iseion E uzs: f� Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us 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) Gregory L. Coverstone (Phone) 540-662-3149 (Address) 334 Highbanks Road, Winchester, Virginia, 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 Deed Book 962 on Page 0390 and is described as - Parcel: 82 Lot: Block:. A Tax Map/Section: 64 Subdivisi do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (Phone) 540-667-2139 3dress) 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200, Winchester, Virginia 22601 And ` (Name) Walsh Colucci Lubeley Emrich, & Terpak P.C. (Phone) 703-680-4664 (Address) Glen Park I 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300, Prince William, Virginia 22192 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 attomey-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 fuze) have hereto set my (ournd and seal tlis 00 day of 2005 Signature(s) ��. of Virginia, Lei 1 n Olj oskrTo-wit: (-v-,M OP J l ouers tEry. I U t I a n- f -f , a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before mein the jurisdiction aforesaid this ?n day of = G4 2005 �y My Commission Expires: Notary Public Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-6654395 Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We) (Name) Constance L. Tioumas (c/o Gregory Coverstone) (Phone) 540-662-3149 (Address) 334 Highbanks Road, Winchester, Virginia, 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 Deed Book 962 on Page 0390 and is described as Parcel: 82 Lot: Block A Tax Map/Section: 64 Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Patton Harris Rust &Associates, pc (Phone) 540-667-2139 ldress) 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200, Winchester Virginia 22601 And (Name) Walsh. Colucci, Lubeley. Emrich, & Terpak- PC (Phone) 703-680 4664 (Address) Glen Park I, 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300 Prince William Virginia 22192 To act as my true and lawful attomey-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 attomey-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, J e) have hereto set my (ou� d and sea�this day of S� 2005 Signature(s r of Virginia, City/ ty of t>C�j-} �{ wit= To .c rte4� I, i &GA 1 VriC'(-Y i S�X� a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing.instrument personally appeared before me andhasacknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this day of MaC 2005 jAiGCn%%� My Commission Expires: , e,L/t 2CDD Notary Public c� Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.fredericILya.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) Cynthia Ann Pappas (c/o Gregory L. Coverstone) (Phone) 540-662-3149 (Address) 334 Highbanks Road Winchester, Virginia, 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 Deed Book 962 on Page 0390 and is described as Parcel: 82 Lot: Block: A Tax Map/Section: 64� Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Patton Harris Rust &Associates pc (Phone) 540-667-2139 177 ddress) 117E Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester Virginia 22601 And (Naive) Walsh Colucci Lubeley Emrich, & T eruak, P.C. (Phone) 703-680-4664 (Address) Glen Park I 4310 Prince William Park -way, Suite 300 Prince Williarm Virginia 22192 To act as my true and Iawful 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. In witness thereof, Imo) have hereto set mvj-o . i) hand an#eal this day of CL 2005 Signature(s)— ;e of Virginia, City/ unty of a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify 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 ZC`r day of �, 2005 My Commission Expires: Wotan! Public, Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: w*w.co.frederick.va.us 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) Ellen LLC (c/o John G. Russell IM (Phone) 540-6674638 (Address) 407 S. Washington St., Winchester, Virginia, 22601 the owners) 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 040011820 and is described as Parcels: 83A, 86, 87, 87A Lot: Block: A Tax Map/Section: 64 Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: \Tame) Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (Phone) 540-667-2139 r (Address) 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200, Winchester, Virginia 22601_ And (Name) Walsh Colucci Lubelev, Emrich, & Terpak. PC (Phone) 703-680-4664 (Address) Glen Park 1 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300, Prince William, Virginia 22192 To act as my true and lawful attomey-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 -i -n -£act 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 set my (our) hand and seal this �� day ofrVCLq . 2005 �agnature(s)�W .�'n,n /.-�• 11 rr •• `` � //11�� ofate of Virginia, City/County Of lel f,1�Aakc To-wit:,Inh o C7 ✓� I,- Or- W (A-* Ort a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personally appeared before me and has acknowledgedthegame before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this 2ND day of 2005, My Commission Expires:r� 1 t 7V Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us 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) MDC Three, LLC (clo John G Russell 111) (Phone) 540-667-4638 (Address) 407 S. Washington St. Winchester Virginia, 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 040011820 and is described as Parcels: 83A 86 87 87A Lot: Block: A Tax Map/Section: 64 Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: Name)_ Patton Harris Rust & Associates pc (Phone) 540-667-2139 3 aY (Address) 117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200Winchester Virginia 22601 And (Name) Walsh. Colucci, Lubeley, Emrich & Tmak PC (Phone) 703-680-4664 (Address) Glen Park I 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300 Prince William Virginia 22192 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. 1n witness thereon I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this y o -� 1005 , ,R ignature(s u5ate of Vu City/County of_t 1`1� L05'�Z?f✓ ,Ta-t�it:����i frl !� 1lGt�'1Q: S C)f'� a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrumentperso ally appeared b ore e and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this `li day of 2005 L ('ln i 1_)L l n-y?LnPrr, res, ��,,,m,�r; �, .;r,��. tri 1 ird, 2 1 Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us 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) Susan Sanders LLC c/o John G. Russell III(Phone) 540-667-4638 (Address) 407 S Washington St. Winchester Virginia, 22601 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ('Property") conveyed tome (us), by deed recorded in the - Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument Number 040011820 and is described as Parcels: 83A, 86, 87,87A Lot: Block: A Tax Map/Section: 64 Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: `a=) Patton Harris Rust & Associates c (Phone) _ 540-667-2139 (Address) 117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester Vir�a 22601 And (Name) Walsh Calucci Lubeley, Emrich, & Teroak. PC (Phone) 703-680-4664 (Address) Glen Park I 4310 Prince William Parkway Suite 300 Prince William, Virginia 22192 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 PIan 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 set my (our) hand and seal this �`"1 day of�, 2005 - 'y�-natuie(; 5s 2te of Vi City/County of 1Q,To-wit:�$chr.) G. AL65W L 06anNCk W 00150 a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instr anent personally appeared b f re nae and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this til day of MV , 20'05 t_A Y 1 hA . w.. 1 7 f 1 /"�l7 I/1M's�. '' r__ n---=--=-- T'--=---- 7. 1 i`.• 1 '2\i 0t . ? /( I f Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site:.www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22602 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We) (Name) LCF, LLC c/o Linda C. Russell (Phone) 540-667-4638 (Address) 407 S. Washington St., Winchester, Virginia, 2260I 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 Instronent Number 040011820 and is described as Parcels: 83A, 86, 87, 87A Lot: Block: A Tax Map/Section: 64 Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: -N, arae) Patton Harris Rust & Associates c (Phone) 540-667-2139 I. (Address) 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200, Winchester Virginia 22601 And (Name) Walsh, Colucci Lubeley Emrich & Temak PC (Phone) 703-680-4664 (Address) Glen Park I, 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300 Prince William, Virginia 22192 To act as my true and lawful attomey-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. {f In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand seal this day 041CLLI , 2005 -3-to of Virginia, City/County of CJS T To-wit:-t/ith �• !`;fl_ Ir S'%a An C)r-r kzcn - a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument me personally appeared b f re and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this ��day of day , 2005 I f AJ J0' 'tel. 1 1 Mtn (�nmmicci �n F�rr�irac• h i -k Jl !! It f l �1 L J J Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick,. Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.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) JGR Three, LLC (c/o John G. Russell III) (Phone) 540-662-1287 (Address) 1600 Millwood Pike, Winchester, Virginia, 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 Number 040011820 and is described as Parcels: 83A, 86, 87, 87A Lot: Block: A Tax Map/Section: 64 Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: ame) Patton Harris Rust & Associates, ne (Phone) 540-667-2139 (Address) 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200, Winchester, Virginia 22601 And (Name) Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley, Emrich, & Temak, PC (Phone) 703-680-4664 (Address) Glen Park I, 4310 Prince William Parkway. Suite 300 Prince William, Virginia 22192 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 -A---, In witness thereof, Inn(we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this G� day of LYU0 2005 =Mature(s) ,state ofV4 City/County of I J t �(� tQ S�, To -wit: a h n 6 ,Qsw fl � I T I,� QrASC i 10 A-" �X� a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the persons) who signed to the foregoing instrument personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this Zy day of 2005 (� (1 /i)()t�1 r Irrn 1 VI !-� r -ti I