The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 02-15-06 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia February 15, 2006 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) December 21, 2005 Minutes.................................................................................................. (A) 2) Committee Reports........................................................................................................ (no tab) 3) Citizen Comments.......................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 4) Rezoning 917-05 of Russell-Glendobbin, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, PC to rezone 67.73 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance District) for 130 single family homes, and to request a waiver of the preservation lot restrictions established with the Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision. The properties are located south and adjacent to Glendobbin Road (Route 673), approximately 3,250 feet west of the intersection of Glendobbin Road and Payne Road (Route 663), in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers (PINS) 43 -A -15B and 43-A-16. Mrs. Eddy............................................................................................................................... (B) 5) 2006 — 2007 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) — The CIP is a prioritized list of capital projects requested by various County Departments and Agencies, as reviewed for conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan, and is reviewed for potential allocation in the ensuing five-year period. The Plan is created as an informational document to assist in the development of the County's annual budget. The CIP is an advisory document; projects are not necessarily funded because of their inclusion in the CIP. Mr. Henry ......................... .... (C) .................................................................................................. PUBLIC MEETING 6) Waiver Request for Eastern Automotive Group, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, is to consider an entrance spacing waiver permitted in Article IV Section 165- 29B(1), of the Frederick County Zoning Code to allow a new commercial entrance to be placed less than 150' from an existing entrance. This property is identified by Property Identification Number (PIN) 75A -6-B-41 B and is located within the Back Creek Magisterial District. Ms. Perkins ............................... ...... (D) FILE COPY 7) Rezoning #12-05 for Villages at Artrip, submitted by Dewberry, to rezone 169.924 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District for the proposed mixed use development of 793 Residential Units and Retail, Restaurant and Office Uses. The property is located one mile west of Interstate 81, three quarters mile north of Tasker Road (Route 649),150 feet north of Fair Lawn Court (Route 1176), and west of Canter Estates Section V, in the Shawnee Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number (PIN) 75 -A -99A. The Public Hearing for this application was previously held on December 21, 2005; action was deferred for 60 days. Mr. Rudd ...................................................... (E) 8) Other • �7 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 21, 2005. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; June M. Wilmot, Shawnee District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; and H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large. ABSENT: David Shore, City of Winchester Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planning; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk- CALL lerk CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) —12/12/05 Mtg. Commissioner Light reported that the CPPS discussed the Southern Triangle, which consists of the Routes 522/277 Corridor. He said the CPPS requested further information and the expressed the need to give this topic further discussion. Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) —12/20/05 Mtg. Commissioner Gochenour reported that the HRAB received an application from the Chemstone- Middletown Property, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, PC and represented by Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., for a proposed rezoning of 691 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) for mining and related industries. Commissioner Gochenour said the National Park Survey shows the property within the boundaries of the Cedar Creek Battlefield and a portion of the property is located within the core battlefield Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December 21, 2005 Do fl, N F V Page 1652 area. She said that representatives were present at the meeting from Belle Grove, Cedar Creek Battlefield, the National Parks Service, and the Town of Middletown. She added that a formal recommendation from the HRAB will be sent to the applicant and others. Winchester Planning Commission (WPC) —12/20/05 Mtg. Commissioner Ours reported that the WPC is continuing their work on the Corridor Enhancement Areas. Commissioner Ours said the WPC recently finished work on the Corridor Enhancement Area at Amherst Street and Merrimans Lane and they are now turning their attention to the South Pleasant Valley Road area, which would extend west down Cork Street. He said the WPC recommended to City Council the approval of the rezoning of about 53 acres of land containing approximately 74 parcels. Commissioner Ours said that the Corridor Enhancement Area provides guidelines and regulations for building and aesthetics; it does not directly affect land use, but it regulates building materials and the site and architectural features. UPDATE ON THE CAPITAL FACILITIES IMPACT MODELING PROGRAM Commissioner Light asked the staff to provide an update on the status of the County's new capital facilities impact modeling program. Planning Director Eric R Lawrence stated that as of December 1, 2005, the Board of Supervisors adopted the new model and it went into effect for new applications submitted after November 30, 2005. Mr. Lawrence gave an example of the capital facilities impact of a single-family home at approximately $23,000; multi -family at approximately $15,000; and the townhouse falling within the middle. PUBLIC MEETING Subdivision Request 435-05 of Richard and Donna Dick, submitted by Marsh & Legge Land Surveyours, P.L.C., for one single-family detached traditional lot at 1600 Millwood Pike. This property is further identified by P.I.N. 64-A-83 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R Cheran, reported that this request is for the subdivision of a 64.6114 -acre parcel into two lots, one consisting of 3.161 acres with an existing single-family dwelling, and a 61.450 -acre vacant parcel. Mr. Cheran explained that the original 64.6114 parent tract was rezoned from RA (Rural Areas) to R4 (Residential Planned Community) on October 12, 2005 through Rezoning Application #11-05. He said that the proposed 3.161 -acre lot, containing an existing dwelling, complies with the dimensional requirements of the single-family detached urban housing type; in particular, with the minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. He added that access to this lot is via a 60 -foot ingress/egress easement onto Millwood Pike (Rt. 50). He further added that the balance of the parcel, the 61.450 acres, will be subject to the Master Development Plan review process. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1653 Minutes of December 21, 2005 M U U M F — 3 — Mr. Scott Marsh, with Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, was representing the property owners, Richard G. and Donna C. Dick. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak. No issues of concern were raised by the Planning Commission. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Subdivision Request #35-05 of Richard G. Dick and Donna C. Dick, submitted by Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C. for the subdivision of one 3.161 -acre lot with an existing single-family dwelling from a 64.6114 -acre parent tract. The Planning Commission also grants the staff administrative approval authority for this subdivision approval. (Note: Commissioners Triplett and Morris were absent for this item.) PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning Application #12-05 of the Villages at Artrip, submitted by Dewberry & Davis, LLC, to rezone 169.924 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District for a proposed mixed-use development of 793 residential units and retail, and restaurant and office uses. The property is located one mile west of Interstate 81, three quarters mile north of Tasker Road (Rt. 649),150 feet north of Fair Lawn Court (Rt. 1176), and west of Canter Estates, Section V. The property is also identified with P.I.N. #75 -A -99A in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Tabled for 60 Days Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that this rezoning application was tabled from the Commission's October 5, 2005 meeting. Mr. Ruddy said the applicant has provided a revised executive summary, proffer statement, and master development plan (MDP) which reflects a considerable number of changes and therefore, an additional public hearing is being held for this rezoning application. Mr. Ruddy stated the most significant modification deals with the relocation of a dedicated school site; he said the previous dedicated 11 acres was proposed in the southwest portion of the property and the applicant has modified their plan to dedicate 15 acres of land in the northeast portion of the property. Mr. Ruddy commented that the proposed school site is in a desirable location, integral to the proposed community; however, it is adjacent to the Opequon Creek and contains areas of topographical constraints. He added that the Schools' Building and Grounds Committee, with the assistance of the Schools' architect, Oliver Webb Pappas & Rhuddy, Inc., have reviewed the proposed site and have sited a 750 -seat elementary school on the property. He noted, however, that constraints on the site, associated with the steep slopes, would compromise the outdoor equipment areas and the playfield areas. Mr. Ruddy said the Schools had requested that an additional two -to -three acres be made available. Mr. Ruddy continued, stating that the revised application includes a reduction in the number of residential units and overall density for the Villages at Artrip; he said a maximum of 793 units is proffered, which is 112 less than the previous amount of 905. He noted that the reduction in residential units is related to the Frederick County Planning Commission (� Page 1654 Minutes of December 21, 2005 I I ! I ri it L, �_ -4 - relocation of the proffered school site. In addition to the residential reduction, he said the applicant has increased the commercial component by 10,000 square feet, ultimately enabling this project to house 128,550 square feet of commercial development in the core area. Mr. Ruddy said the applicant has simplified the phasing down to two basic phases: Phase I shall not exceed 350 residential units and Phase II shall not exceed an additional 443 dwelling units for a total of 793 dwelling units. He added that the simplified development phasing program provides the basis for the transportation program which has been modified to ensure the timely completion of Warrior Drive as a four -lane section and to provide access to the proffered school site. Commission members asked about the long-term regional transportation plan to connect the Phase I construction to Route 522 and also, if the connection would parallel or cross the Opequon Creek. Mr. Ruddy replied that the Eastern Road Plan shows Parkins Mill Drive extending out to Route 522 and then to Warrior Drive; he said the Opequon Creek would have to be crossed at some point. Commission members asked how the modifications of the rezoning application affected the results of the proffer model. Mr. Ruddy provided the projected impacts; he noted that the applicant has proffered a reduced amount of capital facilities to schools, based on their belief that the dedicated school site compensates for that amount. Another question from Commission members focused on the road leading to the west, headed towards Crosspointe, and if it was known when that road would be connected. A comment was made about having only one way in and out and questions were raised about the Level of Service (LOS) on Tasker Road. Mr. Ruddy replied that the viability of ultimate commercial development comes with the trip count associated with the complete connection of Warrior Drive. He said that once Warrior Drive is completed through the project, there will ultimately be three accesses for the project: Warrior Drive/Parkins Mill Extended will be the primary access, the connection through Crosspointe provides the second access, and the alignment with Falabella Drive in Canter Estates will provide the third access. (Commissioners Morris and Triplett arrived at this point in the meeting.) Mr. Al Omdorff, Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent of Frederick County Public Schools, said the Buildings & Grounds Committee had concluded that the site met minimum standards for the school building structure; however, it did not meet minimum standards for providing outside play areas. Mr. Orndorff explained that three play areas are typically planned: a primary, an intermediate, and a fitness area; he said this site will accommodate only two of these areas. In addition, he said two asphalt areas are normally provided, along with a softball field and a soccer field; he said it was unlikely they would be able to get both a softball and soccer field on this site. Mr. Orndorff concluded by stating that a school is needed in this general location for School 413; however, it will be a challenging site because of the topography at the rear of the site. Commissioner Straub asked about the possibility of building a two-story structure and Mr. Orndorff replied about one acre would be saved by going with a two-story building on this site. Given the topography constraints of this site, Commissioner Ours asked Mr. Orndorff if the School System would rather have the land or the additional money that could be gained from the updated proffer model. Mr. Omdorff said the Buildings & Grounds Committee would like to have this designated site, but with two -to -three additional acres of useable land. Mr. John Foote, representing the Artrip Limited Partnership, came forward and introduced himself and Mr. Jeffrey Abramson, the managing member of Artrip Limited Partnership with the Tower Companies. Mr. Foote and Mr. Abramson were available to take questions from the Commission. Frederick County Planning Commission. Page 1655 Minutes of December 21, 2005 D i ul -5 - Commissioner Ours commented that if development begins from the South, it seems that provisions are in place to take care of the transportation issues; however, if the development starts from Crosspointe, it doesn't appear that all of the language is in place to insure that Warrior Drive is fully connected down into Wakeland Manor. Mr. Foote responded that they have made the changes that were recommended by the staff to a revised set of proffers that would be presented to the Board; he said the latest comment from the staff was that the proffered changes were fine. Mr. Foote said that it is obviously the intent to make Warrior Drive work from North to South or South to North and he believed the staff would confirm that this has been accomplished with the modifications proposed. Commissioner Ours asked Mr. Foote if any thought had been given to better accommodations for the school site. Mr. Foote said that when they first applied for the rezoning, there was no school site at all. He said that in discussions with school representatives and with the County Administrator, John R Riley, Jr., it was concluded that a school site was necessary in this area. Mr. Foote said that after working out land accommodations with the Sanitation Authority, the former proposed site was brought forward to the Commission; he said the Commission was concerned that the area was not an adequate solution to the school problem. Mr. Foote said they went back to the drawing board with Dewberry to create a 15 -acre site; he emphasized that they have taken some of the most valuable property on the entire site and offered it to the community free of charge for a school site; he said they were also prepared to extend utilities to this site at the developers' expense, as well. Using the overhead map display, Mr. Jim Brown, with Dewberry & Davis, Inc., pointed out the proposed school site and the areas that would accommodate the parking and two paved playgrounds. He said this could be accomplished with the same amount of grading they would have done for their previously -proposed residential units. Mr. Brown explained that there is useable athletic field space until you reach the tree line, where there is a deep ravine going back to the Opequon. Mr. Foote said that given the fact this proposed school site is a 15 -acre piece, and if additional acreage was dedicated, it would further cut into the potential development yield of this property. He emphasized that the originally -proposed dedication of property to the south will still be dedicated to the County as a part of this project. He cautioned, however, about the misconception that the number of units they've proposed could absorb essentially any costs. He commented that construction costs for Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill were going to be very high, especially because water needs to be crossed in two places. Commission members were concerned the school system may be getting something that is not optimal for their use. Commissioner Kriz asked how many useable acres were presently available for the school and Mr. Brown replied there were 12 acres of flat area and possibly, one-and-a-halfrecoverable acres which could be graded and used for a soccer field or softball field. Commissioner Thomas asked the applicant if it was possible from an architectural and engineering standpoint, to squeeze the housing units adjacent to the proposed school site to the east, thereby affording another acre or so of land to the schools along the north -south boundary and still keep the same density. Commissioner Kriz said that if the developer could provide that additional acreage by relocating some of the units and the school board would build a two-story school, then the school would have all of the land they need. Mr. Brown said they could look at the possibility of the suggestion, possibly changing the housing type in that location to allow more space. Mr. Omdorff replied that with the land restriction, the school board would have to consider the two-story structure. Frederick County Planning Commission� N V V Page 1656 jMinutes of December 21, 2005 Pj aM. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak Mr. David Worthington, a landowner in Frederick County, said he was asked by a few of the local residents to look at some of the environmental issues involved with this project. Mr. Worthington was concerned about the protection of hardwood forests and noted that the applicants' master plan did not show specifically which hardwood forests would be preserved. He said that not only would the protection of the hardwood tree area (on the east side) provide a buffer for the existing homes, but it would provide a wildlife corridor. Mr. Worthington stated that the proposed project affects two streams; he was concerned this project would not contribute to the impaired state of the Opequon Watershed and other associated issues. Mr. Worthington also wanted the applicant to use low -impact stormwater development measures. He said the pond and wetland areas within the project should be properly maintained in their natural state and maintained by an entity other than the homeowners association. In addition, Mr. Worthington expressed concern that this development, along with other approved, but not yet started developments, such as Carpers, Russell 150, and Freedom Manor, might possibly use up the excess capacity of County services, such as schools, water, fire and rescue, and police. He questioned whether this new project stretched service capacity and if it would adversely affect response times for emergency services and police. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman DeHaven closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Commissioner Thomas believed this project had the potential to become an extremely nice development. He said that although the school site may need some adjustment, there was the potential to possibly swap housing types to keep the same density and get another acre or so of land to make an optimal school site. He said that transportation was certainly a concern until either Warrior Drive is extended to Route 37 or out to Route 522. He thought that if this plan was sent forward to the Board, the Planning Commission would not have the opportunity to modify the plan further because essentially, they would be approving the rezoning and the master development plan at the same time. Commissioner Thomas said that as much as he disliked delaying this further, he thought there were details that needed to be worked out. Commissioner Kriz agreed with Commissioner Thomas; he believed the school site situation and the transportation issues needed to be nailed down exactly. Commissioner Light believed it was the Planning Commission's responsibility to get the most optimal location for a school site as possible and he believed there were elements of this project that did not meet standards. Commissioner Light then moved for denial of the rezoning. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Unger, but failed by the following vote: YES (TO REC. DENIAL): Light, Unger, Watt, DeHaven NO: Wilmot, Manuel, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Thomas, Morris, Gochenour, Straub A motion was next made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Kriz to table the rezoning for 60 days. This motion and second passed by the following vote: YES (TABLE FOR 60 DAYS): Straub, Gochenour; Morris, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Triplett, uel, Wilmot NO: Watt, Unger, Light, DeHaven Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1657 Minutes of December 21, 2005 �� 9 -7 - Rezoning 916-05 of Willow Run, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 347.77 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, and 12.20 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District, with proffers. This property is locatedeast of Route 37 and Merrimans Lane (Route 621), north of Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622), south and west of the City of Winchester. This property is further identified with P.I.N.s 53-A-90, 53-A-91, 53-A-92, 53 -A -92A, 53 -A - 92B, 53-A-94, 53-3-A, and 53 -A -2A in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Tabled for 30 Days Commissioner Unger said that he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this item, due to a possible conflict of interest. Senior Planner, Susan K. Eddy, reported that the subject parcels are within the Urban Development Area (UDA), the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), and they are located within the boundaries of the Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan (WJELUP). Ms. Eddy proceeded to describe how the applicant's proffered Generalized Development Plan (GDP) did not conform to either the current WJELUP, adopted by the Board of Supervisors on February 11, 2004, or with the Draft WJELUP, reviewed by the Board of Supervisors on November 9, 2005 and scheduled for a public hearing. Some of the areas of concern were with the GDP's proposed density, its relation to commercial development, the absence of a school site as requested by the Frederick County School System, and the lack of protection for the two historic homes located on the property. Ms. Eddy continued by reviewing the two Transportation Impact Analyses (TIA) submitted by the applicant, the first showing access to the site from Jubal Early Drive extended in the City and the second assuming the City of Winchester would not allow the applicant to connect with Jubal Early Drive within the City. Ms. Eddy next proceeded to report the reviewing agencies comments. She said that VDOT included comments on improvements to Merrimans Lane and Breckinridge Lane and improvements to Merrimans Lane and Route 50, however, neither of these were addressed by the applicant; Public Works had comments concerning karst features; the City of Winchester had a number of comments regarding transportation, highlighting the detrimental level of service (LOS) at Merrimans Lane and Route 50, Merrimans Lane and Breckingridge Lane, and Jubal Early and Valley Avenue, which the applicant has not addressed. Ms. Eddy added that the HRAB had a number of suggestions seeking the preservation of the 750 House and the 740 House. Ms. Eddy continued her presentation with a review of the applicant's proffer statement. Ms. Eddy noted that the proffer statement within the Commission's packet is dated November 4, 2005; however, the applicant had distributed a new set of proffers to Commission members late last week and those were not included within the agenda packet. She commented that she did not know if the reviewing agencies had received the new proffers; she said that comments on the new proffers have not been received from the County's attorney. In conclusion, Ms. Eddy stated that the proposed development is not consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan; there is inadequate commercial floor space, transportation has not been fully addressed in terms of road alignment or LOS, there is no school site, the impacts to public facilities have not been fully mitigated by the proposed financial proffer, and further, the applicant has not addressed the historic houses on the property. Ms. Eddy next took questions from Commission members. Focusing on the transportation counts and the LOS, Commissioner Thomas questioned the staff's conclusion that the LOS would be less than C with the suggested transportation improvements. Ms. Eddy noted that the applicant has not committed to making all of the suggested improvements, particularly at Route 50 Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of December 21, 2005 �� 0p j Page 1658 ME and Merrnnans Lane, Valley Avenue and Jubal Early, or Breckinridge and Memmans Lane, etc., as illustrated on Figure 15A of the TIA, thereby negatively affecting the LOS. Commissioner Light asked if there were any proposed road improvements internal to the City of Winchester other than Jubal Early Drive and Ms. Eddy replied that other than the realignment of Meadowbranch, none were proposed. Commissioner Light also had questions regarding the proposed diamond interchange and whether enough space had been proffered for a alternate interchange configuration, if the diamond was not workable. He asked who would be responsible for road improvements after the 699a' unit, if the current developers left the project and, if there was the possibility of any land becoming available for a school site on the adjoining lands that may come in soon with a development proposal. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering came forward as the representative for the property owners of the Willow Run Community. Mr. Wyatt identified the property owners, Greystone Properties, LLC, Miller and Sinith at Willow Run, LLC, and the White Family, consisting of the 740 LLC, 750 LLC, and Willow Grove LC partnerships. Mr. Wyatt explained the property owners' involvement in this project over the last two years with wetlands analysis, environmental studies, and meetings with adjoining property owners. Mr. Wyatt said that the initial traffic studies by their transportation engineer, PHR&A, included modeling of a new interchange at Rt. 37; however, at the time of these initial traffic studies, the MPO had not yet adopted their final plan. Mr. Wyatt said they considered whether the best solution was to continue with an east -west out to Jubal Early and Rt. 37 with a new interchange or, if it was best to use the existing Cedar Creek Interchange. He said that several TIA model runs were submitted to VDOT and ultimately, it was decided that the most appropriate alternative was to prepare a TIA that did not show a new interchange, based on the knowledge that no guarantee was forthcoming from the Commonwealth Transportation Board that a new interchange break in access would be approved, although the momentum towards that end has certainly changed over the last two years. He said VDOT recommended the TIA be modeled assuming the interchange was not there, because it would represent a worse -case transportation scenario for this project. Mr. Wyatt next gave a power point presentation of the project, pointing out the residential and commercial areas. Mr. Wyatt explained the proffered residential unit matrix, which established minimum and maximum percentages for age -restricted and for single-family attached and detached dwellings, and assured their intent to provide a mixture of uses. He pointed out the 12.2 acres of walkable commercial land uses located along Jubal Early Drive. He described the recreational amenities and how the area would be served with water and sewer, noting the plaimed expansion of the Parkins Mill Plant in the summer of 2006. Mr. Wyatt continued with his presentation discussing the transportation improvements. He described how the lot phasing would come on line with the proffered road improvements and the timing of those improvements. He said that no lot within the project will be solely dependent on Jubal Early Drive for ingress and egress; he said that all the road systems tie together no later than the 400`h permit. He added there was no need to do improvements at Breckinridge and Merrimans because the movement through Meadowbranch will be eliminated by the Smiths, and coupled with the City's commitment, Amherst and Breckinridge will also be taken care of. Mr. Wyatt next took questions from the Commission. Commissioner Thomas presented a potential scenario involving the construction of 650 homes where the extension of Jubal Early has not yet kicked - in, there is no intersection to Rt. 37, and there is no connection of Jubal Early into the City of Winchester. He asked Mr. Wyatt what the outcome would be for the applicant's transportation plan. Mr. Wyatt replied that of the final two transportation studies submitted for VDOT comments, one had an addendum that showed no connection to the City and modeled traffic going to Cedar Creek Grade. He said the LOS at those intersections was fine, however, at complete build -out, the minor spine road connection at Cedar Creek Grade had a potential LOS "D" Frederick County Planning Commission (� �� N I� Page 1659 Minutes of December 21, 2005 V 0 + � 7 mom at p.m. peak hour at build -out. Mr. Wyatt said they fully expected the City to allow them the ability to construct the road; however, if by chance the City does not allow it, they could perform a traffic count and a warrant analysis at the intersection. If signalization is required, he said the applicant would fully fund it; however, he did not expect that to be the case. Commissioner Thomas also inquired about the Cedar Creek Grade and Rt. 37 entrance and exit ramps. Mr. Wyatt replied that the signalization and the center turn lane will bring them up to an acceptable LOS. Commissioner Gochenour was concerned about the capacity of the Parkins Mill Plant to not only provide service for this project, but all of the other development occurring in the Stephens City area, along with the potential urban development areas that may be brought in as well. She also expressed concern about disturbing the wetlands in this project. Mr. Wyatt said that comments from the Service Authority and the Sanitation Authority were both positive and acknowledged that both the source and infrastructure were appropriate. Commissioner Straub spoke about the necessity of getting the connection to Route 37 and she was concerned about the lack of a school site. Mr. Wyatt replied they were not providing land for a school on their site; however, money would be made available for the School Board to purchase another site. It was his opinion, after discussions with school officials, that an elementary school is what would be needed in this area. Chairman DeHaven next called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Mike Smith, a resident at 143 Fox Meadow Lane, said he lived off of Merriman Lane in the County and his brother lives on the other side of Merrimans Lane in the City. Mr. Smith said that both he and his brother were concerned about funneling the traffic from the proposed project onto Merrimans Lane. Mr. Smith said he had a meeting at his home with some of the residents and the applicants. Mr. Smith said he has also been working with the City of Winchester with his own rezoning project. He said the City firmly believes that the interchange must go in before they will give the connection; he believed this was the right thing to do. Mr. Smith stated that our community has too long ignored a good east -west corridor; he did not think it was proper to have vehicular traffic passing through their community because there was no eastern 37, to pick up the traffic from Route 50 and Route 522. He said he was willing to postpone development of his project until a decision on Route 37 was made. Mr. Smith recommended that the Commission table this rezoning until a study on the Route 37 interchange could be done. Mr. Smith said that he liked many of the transportation improvements the applicants are willing to make, but they were not the answer for this subdivision. He believed the transportation needs must be addressed. Mr. Smith next described the transportation improvements he thought were needed for this project in the event the Route 37 interchange did not come about. He said the exit ramps on both sides of the interchange at Merrimans needed to be widened to two lanes; he said Cedar Creek Grade will need to be four lanes with right -turn lanes both onto Route 37 and off of Route 37 to help ease congestion; and, in addition, those lanes will need to be extended on the west side. Mr. Steve Parrish, a resident of Roscommon subdivision, said that he was speaking for himself and several neighbors. Mr. Parrish said they liked the project and were not opposed except for the transportation issues_ Mr. Parrish was concerned about safety issues for his young children who would soon be drivers. He spoke about the traffic congestion getting off Route 37 to access their development; he said Cedar Creek Grade was very congested at 5:00 p.m. and early in the mornings. Mr. Parrish was adamant about having the additional interchange. He was not in favor of the developers bringing the traffic through town and onto Cedar Creek Grade. Frederick County Plaiuung Commission 011 Page 1660 Minutes of December 21, 2005 yr ttt -10 - He said the interchange off of Jubal Early was needed so the traffic can get directly onto Route 37. He said that the area residents were very concerned about the traffic problems; he said that Merriman Lane will not handle the traffic that's heading out of the development, down to the hospital, to the new Walmart. He believed a decision on the Route 37 interchange was needed before the County proceeded with the Solenberger-Bridgeforth development. Dr. Woodward Bousquet, a resident of Winchester, and Chairman of the Environmental Studies Program at Shenandoah University, said that he was a member of the local watershed association, The Opequon Watershed (TOW), and he sat on the advisory committee for the Winchester Green Circle Project. Dr. Bousquet explained that he was not authorized to represent any of the aforementioned groups; however, he wanted to make his personal comments to the Commission regarding the sections of the proffer dealing with the environmental issues and the community recreation areas. Dr. Bousquet spoke in favor of the community recreation areas, especially the ten -foot multi -use trail for cyclists and pedestrians. He said the system of trails will help to promote healthier life styles and encourage alternate modes of transportation to access the community center, the commercial areas, and other areas of the development. He believed the applicant's proffer will provide a connection from the Abrams Creek Wetlands Preserve in the City to the proposed Willow Run Community and outlying areas of Frederick County; he said this will be one of the first steps in the County's process to provide an entire network of biking and pedestrian walkway trails. Referring to the environmental sections, Dr. Bousquet said that he was invited to visit this property, on the south side of Abrams Creek, by the developers. He said the wetlands located on this property, both in the Willow Run development and around White's Pond and the area retained by the White Family, are considered to be a critical endangered habitat and are significant on a state-wide basis. Dr. Bousquet spoke of three flowering plants that grow in those areas that cannot be seen anywhere else in the Commonwealth of Virginia; and, in addition, there were over a dozen plants that were on the Virginia Rare Plant list. He said that if the area is to be developed, the proffers have a number of elements that will help to protect the natural features of the area. He supported the designation of the wetlands in Willow Run as a Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA) and noted that the provision of a 50 -foot Resource Protection Area (RPA) around the wetlands was equally important. Dr. Bousquet warned that it does little good to protect the wetlands and subsequently, put asphalt or a structure right next to the wetlands; there must be a buffer zone. Dr. Bousquet was not in favor of planting trees and shrubs in the wetlands; he said the development team has assured him that the master development plan (MDP) will involve planting trees around the perimeter, but not in the main body of the wetlands. Dr. Bousquet continued, stating that he was concerned about maintenance of the wetlands after the development is built. He said the current wording of the proffer specifies the homeowners association (HOA) being assigned that responsibility. Dr. Bousquet had little confidence that such an arrangement would ensure the ecological integrity of the wetlands and the buffer zone. He strongly recommended that the wetlands and the RPA not be placed in the hands of the homeowners association alone; instead, he recommended that the wetlands and the RPA be donated to Frederick County and placed in a conservation easement, held jointly with an agency, such as the Lord Fairfax Soil and Water Conservation District or the Virginia Department of Forestry. He said the RPA will not work unless it is properly monitored and maintained by some public agencies or appropriate private organizations. He also mentioned the wetlands on the property being retailed by the White family and was concerned that it did not have proffers similar to that of the Willow Run development, especially the inclusion of setbacks and a buffer zone. Mr. Al Omdorff, Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent of Frederick County Public Schools, verified that the School Board passed a resolution addressing the need for a school site in the WJELUP and he asked the Commission keep this resolution in mind while considering the Willow Run rezoning, as well as future rezonings. Mr. Omdorff talked about the collocation of multi -campus facilities in this area; he said that Federal Regulations require that special services be collocated. He said that Frederick County has two such Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1661 Minutes of December 21, 2005 y� ! D _11 facilities, the Robinson facility and the NREP facility which, at some point in the future, will have to have its students collocated with the rest of the school population on the same campus. He said that potentially, there will not only be the need for an elementary school, but the need to accommodate those students who exist in those two facilities today. Mr. Omdorff explained there are two benchmarks for school population enrollments: September 30 and March 30. He gave the following figures: Indian Hollow Elementary School grew by 61 students this past year; its capacity is 528 and the school opened at 586 and Orchardview Elementary School grew by 64 students this past year; its capacity is 528 and the school opened at 541. Mr. Orndorff said that certainly in the future, the replacement of Gainesboro School will help, but they will still need an elementary school and possibly, a special services facility in that general area. Mr. David Worthington, a landowner in Frederick County and previous resident of Orchardview, agreed with the continents made by Dr. Bousquet regarding the wetlands. Mr. Worthington asked about the possibility of doing more to protect the wetlands on the Whites property and to have the wetlands designated in a conservation easement area. As a resident of Harvest Drive in the City, Mr. Worthington agreed with the previous residents who spoke regarding the traffic. He said that without the interchange at Route 37, the residents of the proposed development will go up through Merrimans Lane and Harvest Drive and this will have a detrimental affect on the City of Winchester. Mr. Worthington also believed this project should only be approved with the interchange at Route 37. Mr. Worthington was not convinced that the applicant's monetary proffer contribution to Fire and Rescue Services would come close to mitigating the impacts that would be created. Mr. Tim Youmans, Planning Director for the City of Winchester, said the City has had a very good dialogue with the applicant, through Mr. Evan Wyatt, as well as with the Frederick County Planning Staff, through Ms. Susan Eddy. Mr. Youman wanted to emphasize a couple of the concerns of the City of Winchester, primarily the transportation impacts at some of the existing City intersections. He identified the intersection at Amherst Street and Merrimans Lane which had recently been approved through site plan and subdivision approvals for a re -alignment; specifically, the first phase of Meadowbranch Avenue will be constructed and Merrimans Lane will intersect into the new four -lane, divided roadway. He said the existing connection of Merriman's Lane directly to the signalized intersection at Amherst Street will be discontinued; he said the City Council vacated that stretch of roadway and vacation will occur in conjunction with the CVS project on Amherst Street, regardless of the timing of Mr. Smith's project. Mr. Youmans did not think the traffic impact analysis in front of the Commission anticipated this. He added that the intersection of Merrimans Lane and Meadowbranch Avenue is an unsignalized intersection; he said the intersection of Meadowbranch Avenue and Amherst Street, which is about 300-400 feet away, will remain a signalized intersection. Mr. Youmans thanked the applicant for his efforts regarding the revised proffers for fire and rescue services. He noted that the Shawnee Fire Company in the City of Winchester will be the first responder to most, if not all, incidences occurring in this development through full build -out and the applicant has identified a $100 per year contribution to the Shawnee Fire Company. Mr. Youmans described some triggers that would cease that agreement, such as the consolidation of City and County services or the location of a fire and rescue station in the subject area, or the construction of the Route 37 interchange. He said that while the interchange may increase the opportunity for Round Hill to be the first responder, it doesn't guarantee that Round Hill would get there before the Shawnee Fire Company. Mr. Youmans believed the issue probably needed further review. He said the City would prefer that fire and rescue contributions be based upon the percentage of calls from the City and the County and adjusted accordingly. He also stressed that the City is very interested in the continuation of West Jubal Early Drive to and including the interchange at Route 37. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairman DeHaven closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Frederick County Planning CommissionPD Minutes of December 21, 2005 t Page 1662 -12 - Mr. Evan Wyatt returned to the podium to address some of the citizen comments that were made. Regarding the comments on fire and rescue contributions, Mr. Wyatt said that Round Hill is the closest County company; however, the City's Shawnee Fire Company is closer yet and will most likely arrive at the location first. Mr. Wyatt said the $100 per unit designated within the proffer is in addition to the service fee just implemented by the City and Shawnee Fire Company would be compensated in that way. Regarding the comments from Dr. Bousquet, Mr. Wyatt said the RPA buffer is around the DSA, and includes the White's Pond and other elements on the White's property. Mr. Wyatt said they would be comfortable with a third party having the easement and maintenance responsibilities for the wetlands, instead of the HOA. Regarding the new Route 3 7 interchange, he pointed out that their proffers reflect their commitment to working with the County and the City of Winchester, and with Dr. Davis, Staunton District Representative on the Commonwealth Transportation Board, to provide the information needed to move forward. He said their traffic study indicates the proposed improvements will provide a sufficient LOS and their proposed regional transportation improvement package meets what is called for in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Commissioner Morris inquired if there were any proffers that may not be applicable to the retained White's property and Mr. Wyatt replied no. Commissioner Kriz asked Mr. Wyatt to expound on his comments of the White property. Mr. Wyatt said that certain acreages are still owned by the Whites and will be zoned both RP and B2. He explained that at this point in time, the White family does not intend to develop their property on the same track as Oakcrest and Miller and Smith. He said the Whites would like the commercial as soon as the traffic volume is there to support it and the residential may be a longer tern. He said the important point is that the proffer statement before the Commission is all encompassing for all of these properties; he thought that was important because there have been a series of developer agreements that have been executed between the Whites and the other property owners whereby the developers present will be financially responsible for the regional roads discussed. In conclusion, he said if the last segment of Jubal Early Drive was not built, it would not fall on the Whites because of the developer agreement; however, once again, bonding seems to be the obvious solution to make sure that occurs. Conniiissioner Wilmot inquired about the length of time needed for the completion of the interchange justification study because the interchange was very much tied to this rezoning. Commissioner Wilmot asked about the possibility of moving the study forward immediately, so that a definite yes or no could be received from VDOT. Mr. Wyatt said that VDOT is committed to expediting this and believed the study could be finalized within 12 months. Mr. Wyatt said that the applicants are taking care of many of the regional improvements through their proffers. He said they were trying to work in a cooperative fashion with the community and VDOT on the interchange, but in the end, they cannot guarantee the outcome of a decision by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. Conuiussion members briefly discussed with the staff the outcomes of the old impact model run compared with the new impact model run, since this application was submitted prior to the incorporation of the new impact model. Commissioner Straub said that when this land was accepted into the Urban Development Area (UDA), it was anticipated that Jubal Early Drive would go all the way to Route 37 and that was the impetus for this entire development. She said that if the County could not be guaranteed that Jubal Early Drive will get to Route 37, then the rezoning should not be approved at this time. Frederick County Planning Commission } Page 1663 Minutes of December 21, 2005 -13 - Commissioner Ours said that as long as he has been on the Planning Commission, it was known that this area of the County would be developed residentially. In addition, it was known that Route 37 to the west would be the border, so he did not think it was a surprise that it was developing in this fashion. Commissioner Ours said that, initially, he thought this development could not occur without the Route 37 interchange; however, he didn't necessarily believe that now, to the credit of the developers. Commissioner Ours believed in this case, the developers have done everything they could to mitigate most of the transportation impacts. He said the impetus is being provided for the State to seriously consider this. He believed the applicants have gone a long way to seriously provide alternatives; he especially liked the fact that a connection to Merrimans Lane would not be developed until very late in this project. At this point, Commissioner Ours thought the proposal was good. Commissioner Morris pointed out that with or without VDOT's approval of the interchange, all the County will get from this development for the interchange is approximately an $850,000 contribution to the construction. Commissioner Morris said that if this application is placed on hold because an interchange is not approved or if it is approved waiting on the outcome, the interchange will still not be constructed until funding sources are found. He agreed with Commissioner Ours that the applicant is providing a substantial outlay for transportation mitigation. Commissioner Morris then moved to approve Rezoning Application # 16-05 of the Willow Run Community. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Ours. Chairman DeHaven took further discussion from Commissioners. Conunissioner Light said that the Commission wrote a Comprehensive Policy Plan that was endorsed by the Board of Supervisors for this particular tract of land which designated transportation efforts, a school site, and public facilities. Commissioner Light said that three of the items specified in the Comprehensive Plan were missing from this rezoning. He believed the quality of the project was good, even though it possibly could have had more of a theme or central focal point; he also thought it might have incorporated more of a commercial component that could assist in driving the interchange. Commissioner Light thought it would be premature to allow this development to proceed without some kind of knowledge and justification of the Route 37 interchange and/or another alternative. He commented that the last couple rezonings presented to the Commission were large, with many complicated issues; he believed the point had been reached where some type of planned public work session, with citizens and agencies, was needed before the Commission votes. Commissioner Kriz agreed with Commissioner Light. He expressed concern that the applicants had submitted their application only two weeks prior to when the new impact model was put into effect and he also questioned whether the applicant's coimnitment to schools was adequate. Commissioner Kriz was of the opinion that the interchange study could be pushed ahead. Commissioner Wilmot also agreed with the points made by Commissioner Light. She said the last small land use plan was specifically adopted for this area and it specifies that transportation improvements must be mitigated. She commented that if the action taken can not be enforced, then she had to question the purpose of the Commission's planning efforts. Commissioner Thomas believed this was an excellent proposal and had the potential to become a nice development, however, he thought the project was probably a year or two too early. He said he would have liked to have seen more information from the State on the Route 37 interchange and he would have liked to have seen more progress from the City on the Jubal Early Drive project. Commissioner Thomas thought there was the potential for the remainder of the open land, between this development and Cedar Creek Grade, to come together. He said that since there is not a school site or a fire and rescue site proposed on this property, then the next Frederick County Planning Commission-� j {� Page 1664 Minutes of December 21, 2005 I � F� /J I r M- ;ru -14 - adjoining property that comes in for consideration, probably the Solenberger tract to the south, the Commission will have to ask them for a public facilities site. (At this point in time, the fire alarm sounded. Everyone in attendance left the building and gathered outside the building on the back patio area to wind up the discussion on this application.) Commissioner Morris withdrew his motion to approve the rezoning and Commissioner Ours withdrew his second to the motion. A new motion was made by Commissioner Ours to table the rezoning for 30 days. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Triplett and unanimously passed. (Commissioner Unger abstained from voting.) OTHER Appointment to Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) Chairman DeHaven appointed Mr. David Franks as the Top of Virginia Builders Association's representative to the CPPS. Cancellation of the Planning Commission's January 4, 2006 Meeting Upon motion made by Cominissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Manuel, the Planning Commission unanimously agreed to cancel their meeting of January 4, 2006. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commissionrn Page 1665 Minutes of December 21, 2005 pp REZONING APPLICATION #17-05 RUSSELL-GLENDOBBIN Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: January 30, 2006 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: February 15, 2006 Pending Board of Supervisors: March 8, 2006 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 67.73 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District for 130 single family homes, and to request a waiver of the preservation lot restrictions established with the Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision. LOCATION: The properties are located south and adjacent to Glendobbin Road (Route 673), approximately 3,250 feet west of the intersection of Glendobbin Road and Payne Road (Route 663). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 43-A-1513 and 43-A-16 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District. PRESENT USE: Undeveloped ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Area) South: RA (Rural Area) East: M 1 (Light Industrial) & RA (Rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Area) Use: Orchard Use: Agriculture Use: Industrial & Vacant Use: Orchard Use: Residential & Agriculture Rezoning #17-05 -- Russell-Glendobbin January 30, 2006 Page 2 PROPOSED USES: 130 Single Family Detached Residential Units REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable impact on Routes 673, 663 and 661. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Russell-Glendobbin Property rezoning application dated May 4, 2005, revised November 9, 2005, addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E Trip Generation 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: Subdivision plans shall include two separate and distinct means of access as well as extension of municipal water supplies for firefighting into the proposed site and meet the requirements of Frederick County Code section 90-4. Plan approval recommended. Public Works Department: 1. Refer to page 3 of 6, C. — Site Suitability: The discussion indicates that "the site does not contain conditions that would preclude or substantially hinder development activities". As you may or may not know, the proposed rezoning site is located within a karst area of Frederick County. The karst areas surrounding this site are characterized by linear rock outcrops and isolated sinkholes. Efforts should be made to evaluate the onsite conditions to determine if sinkholes or solutioning could impact the onsite development of a small lot subdivision. The results should be included in the Environmental Features table shown on page 4 of 6. 2. Refer to page 5 of 6 — Site Drainage: The discussion indicates that "site drainage collects and leaves the site to the south as it drains to Red Bud Run". The site drainage does eventually flow to Red Bud Run. However, based on the available topographic survey information, it appears that the runoff leaves the proposed rezoning site in three (3) distinct directions: east, west and north. This multi -directional flow will make stormwater management a real challenge. We applaud the applicant's offer to implement SMP facilities (Proffer 10.1) to control, not only the magnitude of the flows, but also the quality of the runoff. These facilities should be highlighted on the Master Development Plan. In addition, off-site drainage easements may be required in situations where point source discharges are created on or near the property limits. The covenants created for the proposed subdivision shall include requirements for the operation and maintenance of the BMP facilities. Copies of these requirements shall be submitted with the subdivision design. 3. Refer to page 5 of 6 — Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: The discussion indicates that solid waste will be collected at citizens' convenience/dumpster facilities or via private carrier(s) contracted by neighborhood residents. The closest existing citizen convenience site located in Clearbrook is experiencing traffic congestion and an increase in waste generated by new development. Consequently, we are recommending that all new residential developments employ private haulers to provide curbside trash pickup. This requirement shall be included in the homeowners' covenants. This Rezoning #17-05 — Russel l-Glendobbin January 30, 2006 Page 3 requirement will serve to offset the need to provide a suitable convenience site on the proposed subdivision property. This latter alternative will require the applicant to dedicate approximately one (1) acre to serve as a convenience site operated by Frederick County. Frederick County Inspections: No comment required at this time. Will comment on subdivision review. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comment. Sanitation Authority: No comment. Frederick -Winchester Health Department: The Frederick County Health Department has no objection to the proposal provided that the 7.2 acres outside of the SWSA remain part of larger tracts within the SWSA until such time as suitable private water supplies and sewage disposal systems are located and approved, at which point the FCHD would not object to those 7.2 acres being subdivided into the two potential residential lots as mentioned in the proposal. Department of Parks & Recreation: The proposed proffer for Parks and Recreation appears to be appropriate for the impact this development would have on the leisure services provided by the county. Department of GIS: Three road names will be required for this subdivision/development. Road names will be reviewed and approved during the MDP and subdivision process. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 130 single family homes will yield 22 high school students, 18 middle school students and 51 elementary school students for a total of 91 new students upon build -out. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollment. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Winchester Regional Airport: The proposed rezoning request has been reviewed and it appears that it will not impact operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. Frederick County Attorney: (Based on proffer statement dated May 1, 2005) I have reviewed the above -referenced Proposed Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the Proposed Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, and is legally sufficient as a proffer statement subject to the following: 1. Paragraph 1.2: Is this development to be limited to any particular type of single—family detached building types, or it's to be limited to one of the specific single-family detached building types set forth in Section 165-59(B) of the Zoning Ordinance? If it is to be limited to a specific type, that should be set forth in the proffer. 2 Paragraph 2.1: I don't understand the reference to "Butcher" in this paragraph. Rezoning 417-05 — Russell-Glendobbin January 30, 2006 Page 4 3. Paragraph 4.1: The time at which age restricted units would be "designated" should be specified. For example, would those units be designated at the time of subdivision? 4. Paragraph 12.1: It should be noted that the inflation adjustment calculation provides for the cap of 6% per year to be non - compounded. I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the specific site, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. Historic Resources Advisory Board: Upon review of the proposed rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic resources and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by the HRAB. According to the Rural Landmark Survey, there are no significant historic structures located on the properties nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It is also noted that the National Parks Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley does not identify any core battlefields that his proposed rezoning would directly impact. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned R-3 (Residential General). Parcels 43-A-16 and 43-A-17 were rezoned to A-2 (Agricultural General) in 1978 (Zoning Amendment Petition #003-78). Parcels 43-A-1 5A and 43-A-1 5B were re -mapped from R-3 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. In 2002, parcels 43 -A -15A, 43-A-16 and 43-A-17 were subdivided to form a rural preservation subdivision (Glendobbin Ridge). 16 parcels with a minimum size of 2 acres were created, and a 40% set-aside parcel with 36.54 acres (Parcel 43-A-16) was created. As per section 165-54D (1) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, this parcel cannot be further subdivided. However, Section 165-54D (3) states: "Board waiver of division restriction. Ten years from the date of the creation of any forty percent parcel and following a public hearing the Board of Supervisors may release the parcel from the restrictions of subsection D(1) through the process of rezoning, provided the rezoning is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan in effect at that time. Any forty percent parcel which is within the Urban Development Area (UDA) at the time of its creation or included within the UDA as a result of future expansion of the UDA, shall be eligible for rezoning at that point and shall not be subject to the ten year restriction on rezoning." The preservation parcel is in the UDA and the ten year period is not required. A request for a waiver of the preservation lot restrictions is included with this rezoning application. Rezoning #17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin January 30, 2006 Page 5 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 T.""d T vo The subject sites are within the Urban Development Area (UDA). All of parcel 43-A-16 and a portion of parcel 43-A-1513 are within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Any lots formed from the subject site that are outside of the SWSA are not eligible to receive public water and sewer service. The site is not within any small area land use plans in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The sites have no land use designation on the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. It is important to note that the properties do not have a residential designation on that plan. In the absence of any specific plans for this area, a careful evaluation of surrounding uses is necessary. The adjacent Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision, created in 2002, contains two -acre lots and the large set-aside parcel. (Note: The property owners in that subdivision recently bought their lots with the expectation that the set-aside parcel would remain as such.) Also adjacent to the south and west is the Spring Valley development. While five -acre lots in this area have been platted, most are undeveloped and the area is in agricultural use. Most subdivisions along Glendobbin Road, inside of the UDA, contain lots of five acres or greater. The parcels to the north are zoned RA and are in orchard use. A major rural subdivision (Welltown Acres Section 4) was platted there with 5 -acre lots, but it has not been developed. Three parcels immediately to the east are Zoned RA (Rural Areas) and are in orchard and agricultural use. While there are specific setbacks for agriculture in the RA District (200 feet between residences and orchards, 100 feet between residences and agriculture), there are no specific setbacks in the RP zone for orchards or agricultural use. Therefore, new RP houses could be located 25 feet from the rear property line, adjacent to the existing orchard. Other parcels immediately to the east are planned and zoned for industrial use (Stonewall Industrial Park). The Comprehensive Policy Plan specifically calls for separating industrial uses from residential uses. This proposal would accomplish the opposite and considerably increase the number of residences directly adjacent to planned and zoned industrial land. The applicant is advocating using a large number of new residences as a buffer between industrial and low- density residential uses. In addition, RP zoning on the subject properties would have implications for the adjacent industrial properties. New development on the adjacent M1 (Light Industrial District) properties would require a Category C Buffer against an RP District. Rezoning 417-05 — Russell- Glendobbin January 30, 2006 Page 6 Transportation The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan provides the guidance regarding future arterial and collector road connections in the eastern portion of the County by identifying needed connections and locations. Plans for new development should provide for the right-of-ways necessary to implement planned road improvements and new roads shown on the road plan should be constructed by the developer when warranted by the scale, intensity, or impacts of the development. Existing roads should be improved as necessary by adjacent development to implement the intentions of the plan (Comprehensive Plan 7-6). The future Route 37 is a road improvement need that is identified in the County's Eastern Road Plan. This section of Route 37 is the highest priority in the County's Primary Road Improvement Plan. The applicant has proffered to survey and plat the right of way for Route 37 as identified by County studies and generally shown on the Generalized Development Plan (GDP). The applicant will further dedicate this right-of-way at no cost to the County within 90 days of request by the County. However, as the final alignment of Route 37 has not been engineered, it is not possible to definitively state how much of the site will be needed for construction of the road and for associated road efficiency buffers. The location of Route 37 and the required road efficiency buffer will be identified at the Master Development Plan (MDP) stage. Staff note: Should this rezoning be approved, the placement of houses on such a limited size tract would alleviate any flexibility in the alignment of Route 37. Any variation in the route at the final engineering stage would require placing the road further east on the adjacent industrial site, further impacting this established industrial park. 3) Site Suitability/Environment The site does not contain any environmental features that would either constrain or preclude site development. In particular, there are no identified areas of steep slopes, floodplain or wetlands/hydrologic soils on the parcels identified in this application. The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcel fall under the Frederick-Poplimento-Oaklet soil association. The predominant soil type on the site is Frederick-Poplimento loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes (map symbol 14C). This soil type is not considered prime farmland. The characteristics of this soil type and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. Staff Note: The Public Works Department noted the karst areas of the site which will need to be addressed at the MDP stage. Rezoning #17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin January 30, 2006 Page 7 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Traffic Impact Anal 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. Using traffic generation figures from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition, the TIA projects that the proposed development will produce 1,300 vehicle trips per day (VPD). The TIA further indicates that the study area roads and intersections have the capacity to accommodate the trips generated by the project at Level of Service C conditions or better. The TIA does not model whether traffic will exit the development from a new road on site or from Union View Lane. Local Roads The applicant is proposing two entrances for this development. One new entrance would be located on Glendobbin Road. The second proposed entrance would be on Union View Lane at Lot #9 of the Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision. Union View Lane at this time is not a Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Road, although it is intended to be a VDOT Road. A private gated connection, for emergency access, is proposed through an existing private access easement which would connect the new development to the cul-de-sac on Union View Lane. Staff Note: It is unclear if the applicant has the authority to connect a new road to Union View Lane via a private access easement. However, while staff generally encourages inter parcel connectors, one would not be required in the Subdivision Ordinance with this application. An inter parcel connector is only required between adjacent RP zoned properties, not between RP and RA properties (Section 165-48.9). As stated in the VDOT comment, 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. This includes the new entrance to the subject parcels which is on a hill with existing visibility problems. B. Sewer and Water The site will be served by a gravity sewer that will be extended from the existing Stonewall Industrial Park system located south of the site. The planned extensions will occur across acreage owned by the applicant within the Stonewall Industrial Park that is adjacent to the subject site. Water service to the proposed development may be provided by one of two methods. The first is the extension of an eight inch water main from the existing Stonewall Industrial Park water system, which is served by the Stonewall Industrial Park Tank. To provide adequate pressure Rezoning #17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin January 30, 2006 Page 8 for both domestic and fire protection purposes, this arrangement would require installation of a booster pump station. The other option for water service would involve the extension of a high pressure main from the Northwest Water Tank transmission line into the site. These alternatives will be evaluated with FCSA staff to determine the appropriate method of water service to the project. As noted above, the portion of this site not included within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) will not be served by public water and sewer. The applicant will need to obtain permission from the Health Department for any lots outside of the SWSA that will require private wells and drainfields. Recent planning efforts have identified that evolving nutrient reduction regulations promulgated by Virginia's Bay Program will have a significant impact on the permitted waste water capabilities of Frederick County. Both the Frederick Winchester Service Authority and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority are currently undertaking efforts to evaluate the regulations and, in conjunction with the UDA Study Working Group, proactively plan to address this issue. Requests for land use modifications should be evaluated very carefully in light of the evolving nutrient loading regulations. C. Community Facilities The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model is a tool that is used to identify the capital costs associated with various types of development proposals presented to the County. The projected costs to Fire and Rescue, Public Schools, Parks and Recreation, Library, Sheriff s Office and for the Administration Building are calculated and provided to the applicant for their consideration. In recognition of the impacts that may be realized by the community, the applicant has proffered a contribution in the amount of $10,206 per residential unit. Staff Note: The Russell-Glendobbin application was received on November 28, 2005 and thus the County's Fiscal Impact Model was used for analysis. Applications received after November 30, 2005 are expected to mitigate the impact of development calculated by the new Development Impact Model which is $23, 290 for each single family detached unit. 5) Proffer Statement — Dated November 9, 2005 A) Generalized Development Plan The applicant has proffered a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) dated November 9, 2005. This GDP shows (1) an interconnection with Union View Lane, (2) right-of- way dedication for Route 37 and (3) an emergency access between Union View Lane and the new development. B) Land Use The applicant has proffered to limit the development to a maximum of 130 single family detached dwelling units on lots a minimum of 15,000 square feet. The applicant Rezoning #17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin January 30, 2006 Page 9 has proffered a phasing plan which would allow building permits for no more than 60 dwelling units within any 12 month period. C) Transportation The applicant will privately fund all transportation improvements required of this project. As stated above, the applicant has proffered a connection with Union View Lane. As noted previously, the applicant has proffered to survey and plat the right-of- way for Route 37 as identified by County studies and generally shown on the Generalized Development Plan (GDP). The applicant will further dedicate this right- of-way at no cost to the County within 90 days of request by the County. The applicant has proffered $300.00 per dwelling unit for future improvements of the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Welltown Road (Route 661). Staff Note: The proffers (IL 2 and 11.4) which establish the connections to Union View Lane do not have a tithing element. The applicant will need to revise the proffers to state clearly when these connections will occur. D) Monetary Contribution A monetary contribution in the amount of $10,206.00 to Frederick County, to be provided at the time of building permit issuance, is proffered in an effort to mitigate the impacts associated with this development on community facilities. A transportation contribution (see above) has also been proffered. E) Environment The applicant has proffered Best Management Practices (BMP) for stormwater management. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 02/15/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Two Planning Commission recommendations are required with this application: a recommendation on the rezoning request and a recommendation on the request for a waiver of the preservation lot restrictions. Denial of the waiver request would leave the application incomplete and would effectively be a recommendation of denial for the rezoning. This application is not consistent with the adopted Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The application seeks development of a housing type not found in the surrounding area and not called for on the County's Long Range Land Use Plan. The site is adjacent to industrially zoned land and an active orchard. A dense residential development in this location is incompatible with those two uses and could prejudice the operations of the adjacent industrial sites and the orchard. The site is along the future Route 37 corridor and the final alignment of that road has not been engineered. It is thus unclear at this time how much of the site will be required for the future Route 37. Rezoning #17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin January 30, 2006 Page 10 Following the requirement for a public hearing, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning this rezoning application and waiver request would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. OUTPUT MC c APPLICANT: Russell-Glendobbin Net Fiscal Impact LAND USE TYPE RP Costs of Impact Credit: Credits to be Taken for Future Taxes Paid (NPV) Total Potential Adjustment For REAL EST VAL $17,043,000 Required (entered in Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Future CIP/ Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per FIRE & RESCUE = 1 Capital Facilities col sum only) Ooer Cao Equip Expend/Debt S. Taxes. Other (Unadiusted) Cost Balance Facilities Impact Dwelling Unit Fire and Rescue Department $63,567 $0 $0 $63,567 $489 Elementary Schools $557,399 ------- Middle Schools $327,887 $91,202 $442,730 $533,932 $381,727 $984,238 $7,571 High.Schools $480,680 ---- ---- Parks and Recreation $199,550 $44,972 $44,972 $32,152 $167,398 $1,288 Public Library $34,692 $9,702 $9,702 $6,937 $27,755 $213 Sheriff's Offices $20,532 $16,823 $0 $4,193 $21,016 $15,025 $5,506 $42 Administration Building $26,349 $0 $0 $0 $26,349 $203 Other Miscellaneous Facilities $33,616 $32,417 $35,790 $68,207 $48,764 $0 $0 SUBTOTAL $1,744,271 $140,442 $478,520 $58,868 $677,830 $484,605 $1,259,666 $9,690 LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT $0 $0 $0 900 NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT $1,259,66666 $9,690 INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Included 1.0 INDEX: "1.0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Co Avg: 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = 0.533 ---------------------------- ------------------- PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 ----------------------- Ratio to Co Avg: 0.715 METHODOLOGY: 1. ------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- ---------------------- Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model. ------------------------------------------ ----------------------- ------------------- ---- 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input in row total of second column (zero if negative); included are the one-time taxes/fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated In fiscal impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed. -------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ NOTES: Model Run Date 04/27/05 CMM ------------ ---- -------------------- ---------- ------------ ---- --------------- ---- Project Description: Assumes 130 single family detached dwellings on 67 acres zoned RP District. Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. June 23, 2005 Mr. C.E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., Senior VP Patton Harris Rust & Associates 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RE: Proposed Rezoning of Russell-Glendobbin Property Dear Chuck: I have had the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application for the Russell- Glendobbin Property. The rezoning application seeks to rezone 67.73 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to the RP (Residential Performance) District. Staff's review comments are listed below for your consideration. 1. Procedure. The subject property is in the Urban Development Area (UDA), therefore the applicant is eligible to seek a Board waiver of the division restriction on the set-aside (40% parcel) of the Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision. As per Section l65-541)(3) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, this is accomplished through a rezoning, following a public hearing. Procedurally, the Board waiver and the rezoning would take place at the same public hearing. 2. Comprehensive Plan. As noted in the draft application, the subject properties are in the UDA and partially in the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). I would point out that no portion of the subject sites are designated for residential use on the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. Since this site is not in an area designated for residential development, it is not clear how the proposal is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. As you are aware, Section 165-541)(3) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance states that a rezoning covering a preservation parcel will only be granted if the rezoning is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Surrounding Area. The adjacent Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision contains two -acre lots and the large set-aside parcel. (Note: The property owners in that subdivision bought their lots with the clear expectation that the set-aside parcel would remain as such.) Also adjacent to the south and west are five -acre lots, which have yet to be developed. In fact, most subdivisions along 107 North ?dent Street, .Suite 202 • Winchester. Virginia 22601-5000 Page 2 Mr. C.E. Maddox, Jr. RE: Proposed Rezoning of Russell-Glendobbin Property June 23, 2005 Glendobbin Road, inside of the UDA, contain lots of five acres or greater. Also critical is the fact that the parcels immediately to the east are planned and zoned for industrial use. While the Comprehensive Plan seeks to separate industrial uses from residential uses, this proposal would considerably increase the number of residences, and thus residents, directly adjacent to planned and zoned industrial land. Furthermore, it appears that the proposal is advocating using a large number of new residents as a buffer between industrial and low-density residential uses. The set-aside parcel currently serves as a very satisfactory buffer. 4. Sewer and Water. Only part of the site is within the Sewer and Water Service Areas (SWSA) and thus eligible for water and sewer service. 5. Buffer. Should this application be successful, the Zoning Ordinance only requires a Category A Buffer between new RP and an existing M1 Districts. The applicant should consider enhancements to the required buffer, such as that required when new M1 locates next to existing RP. 6. Route 37. The GDP shows the future Route 37 and a proffer indicates the right-of- way for Route 37 would be dedicated to the County at no cost. Should this application be successful, the Zoning Ordinance requires buffers and screening between the residential parcels and Route 37, which would be a major arterial road. The applicant may want to consider enhancements to the required buffer and screening. Also note that the alignment of Route 37 is at present not precise, and may impact more of the site than that shown on your plans. 7. Surveyed Plat. Please supply a surveyed plat of the subject properties, which shows all property lines and proposed zoning boundary lines. Metes and bounds should be provided to verify exact locations of lots and zoning boundaries. 8. Deed. Please provide a deed to the property verifying current ownership. 9. Verification that taxes have been paid. Please provide a receipt from the Treasurer's office which verifies that real estate taxes for the properties have been paid. 10. Adjacent parcels. The list of adjoining properties should include 43-A-19 and 43- 1-21. Also, ownership of parcel 43-20-3 has changed. V err y ownerships before the actual application is submitted. Page 3 Mr. C.E. Maddox, Jr. RE: Proposed Rezoning of Russell-Glendobbin Property June 23, 2005 11. Proposed Proffer Statement (Including Generalized Development Plan). A. Page 3 of the applications states the application is for 125 units. The proffer statement (l.l) states a maximum of 130 units. Please insure consistent numbers. B. Proffer 2.1 refers to the Butcher rezoning. Please correct. C. Proffer 3.1 states a contribution to the Board for fire and rescue in the amount of $889.00 per dwelling unit. This is not consistent with the amount listed on page 6 of 6 in the impact assessment. D. Proffer 4.1 mentions units designated as "age restricted". This is not explained in the application. Please address. E. Proffer 11.1 states the applicant shall privately fund all transportation improvements required of this project. Specify the improvements and the timing of those improvements. F. Proffer 11.2 calls for a connection between the internal road network for the project and Glendobbin Ridge Road. Please be more specific on the details of this connection and the timing of the connection. 12. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency comments from the following agencies: Historic Resources Advisory Board, Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marshall, Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation, Frederick County Public Schools, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, Frederick - Winchester Health Department, Clearbrook Fire and Rescue Company, the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority and the Frederick County Attorney. Note: the proffer statement has been sent to the Frederick County Attorney by the Planning Department. 13. Virginia Department of Transportation. I have received an email from Lloyd Ingram at VDOT stating that VDOT was not satisfied with the transportation proffers. VDOT's concerns will need to be addressed before this application is submitted. 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 $9,823 is due upon submission of the official rezoning application. This is based on fees as of January 27, 2005. Fees may change. 15. Special Limited Power of Attorney. Please have the property owners complete the special limited power of attorney form which authorizes you to represent them during the application process. Page 4 Mr. C.E. Maddox, Jr. RE: Proposed Rezoning of Russell-Glendobbin Property June 23, 2005 All of the above comments and any agency comments should be appropriately addressed before staff can accept this rezoning application. Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions regarding this application. Sincerely, _d- CJ a.,O� T. 4U� Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner SKE/bad Attachment I ♦ • ♦ Urban Development Area 52 19• SWSA e _j ' Subject Property „ • � I „ r 37 / Zeni"s Map Features 81 (Business, Neighbotnood District) B2 (Business, General District) ApplicationOOV Rt 37 Bypass parcels 8 (Business, Industrial Transition District) Road Centerlines 'ice EM (E.o-aon°e LakeslPontlsMa"maoarmg Diatrmp `- SWSA HE (Higher Education District) Streams A Mt (Andus(dal, Lig ht District) B.ildings 14Vf�UDA 1. `' .11--1 General District) Tanks __ Trails IM MHi (M_ Home Community District) MS (Medicalsuppod Dlshict) ! an Develop s • • • - ,�,, �,.;,•,• • �' � LII : Map Features Eastern Frederick County Land Use Plan Rural Community Center ApPlieason OOV Rt 17 Spa -Parcels Residential �kesmonda Road Centerlines Business �swsA streams Industrial w- "�'_' eunainys N UDA 4e�.I Institutional Trans Tanks Recreation �-'";: Historic ® Mixed -Use ® Planned Unit Development REZ # 17 - 05 Russell - Glendobbin (43-A-1513, 16) We 0 7501,500 3,000 S Feet Q �m SWSA GUIY aa J,� Subject Property w..d,id, N ,000> Urban Development Area iy o • % f • Map Features REZ # 17 - 05 APPI—tor, 40VRt37Bypass P.—Is R.k.s,,,da Road Centerlines 0 �-.A Ste— Russell - Glendobbin w Buildings JDA Trails S (43 -A -15B, 16) Tanks 0 750 1,500 3,000 00#1" Feet '11 PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ. # JAN 1 g 2006 RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) PROPERTY: 67.7242 Acres +/-; Tax Map Parcels: 43-A 15B & 43-A 16 (the "Property') RECORD OWNER Glen W. and Pamela L. Russell APPLICANT- Glen W. and Pamela L. Russell PROJECT NAME: Russell - Glendobbin ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: May 1, 2005 REVISION DATE (S): August 4, 2005 November 9, 2005 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property'), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced RP conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, Russell-Glendobbin Property' dated November 9, 2005 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following: LAND USE: 1.1 Residential development on the Property shall not exceed a maximum of 130 single family detached dwelling units. 1.2 The project shall develop solely with single family detached residential uses. The minimum lot size for said uses shall be 15,000 square feet. 2. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND PLAN APPROVALS: 2.1 The Property shall be developed as one single and unified development in accordance with applicable ordinances, regulations, and design standards, and this Russell-Glendobbin Proffer Statement as approved by the Board. 2.2 The project shall be developed pursuant to an annualized phasing plan. Building permits for no more than 60 dwelling units shall be issued within any twelve (12) month period, beginning from the date of rezoning approval. FIRE & RESCUE: 3.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $889.00 per dwelling unit for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit. 4. SCHOOLS: 4.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $7,571.00 per dwelling unit for school purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit. 5. PARKS & OPEN SPACE: 4.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $1,288.00 per dwelling unit for recreational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit. 6. LIBRARIES: 6.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $213.00 per dwelling unit for library purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such single family detached unit. 7. SHERIFF'S OFFICE 7.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $42.00 per dwelling unit for the Sheriff's Office upon issuance of building permit for each such unit. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 8.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $203.00 per dwelling unit for construction of a general governmental administration building upon issuance of building permit for each such unit. 9. WATER & SEWER;- 9.1 EWER 9.1 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. 10. ENVIRONMENT.- 10.1 NVIRONMENT: 10.1 Stormwater management and Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Property shall be provided in accordance with the Virginia Storm -water Management Regulations, First Ed. 1999, Chapter 2, Table 2-3 which results in the highest order of stormwater control in existing Virginia law at the time of construction of any such facility. 11. TRANSPORTATION: 11.1 Transportation improvements shall be designed and constructed consistent with the study entitled, "A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Russell-Glendobbin Property," prepared by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc, dated May 4, 2005 (the "TIN'). The Applicant shall privately fund all transportation improvements required of this project. 11.2 The Applicant shall provide a connection between the internal road network for the project and Union View Lane. Said connection shall be extended from the Property across Lot 9 of the existing Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision to connect with Union View Lane. (See 1 on GDP) 11.3 The right of way for VA Route 37 as identified by County studies and generally shown on the GDP will be surveyed and platted. The Applicant will cause the dedication of this right of way at no cost to the County within 90 days of request by the County. (See 2 on GDP) 11.4 The Applicant shall provide a private, gated connection between the internal road network for the project and Union View Lane for emergency access. Said connection shall be extended from the Property across the existing 50 -foot access easement within the Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision to the current terminus of Union View Lane. (See 3 on GDP) 11.5 The Applicant shall place the amount of $300.00 per dwelling unit in an escrow account for future improvements of the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Welltown Road (Route 661). Such funds shall be escrowed at the time of building permit issuance for each residential unit, and shall be released to the County within 90 days of a written request by the County. 12. ESCALATOR CLAUSE: 12.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement are paid to the Frederick County Board County Supervisors (`Board") within 30 months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to the Board after 30 months following the approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index ("CPI -U") published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time contributions are paid, they shall be adjusted by the percentage change m the CPI -U from that date 24 months after the approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI -U to the date the contributions are paid, subject to a cap of 6% per year, non - compounded. SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES Respectfully submitted, Glen W. Russell By: Title: ®Ltr7� /}ice — Pamela L. Russell By: Title: © STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledgec4efore me this 19 day of tea,,,. .may , 2005, by a I ti h U . �- c� e, (G .4 ,�..'sn►// My commis e es • 30 - D 6 Notary Public r �� Russell - Glendobbin Impact Analysis Statement RUSSELL — GLENDOBBIN PROPERTY REZONING IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT August 2005 A. INTRODUCTION The 67.7242 acre Russell—Glendobbin property lies wholly within the Urban Development Area (UDA) of Frederick County, with the majority of the acreage also within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The site is located adjacent to the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision, a rural preservation subdivision created by the applicant that is currently developing with single family detached units on 2 -acre lots. The proposed development of the Russell—Glendobbin property will provide a transition from the more intensive land uses within Stonewall Industrial Park to the low density residential development pattern that extends north and west from this area. Approximately 37 acres of the site are platted as the preservation parcel of the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision. This acreage is normally reserved exclusively for open space or agricultural uses; however, Section 165-54D(3) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows the Board of Supervisors to release a preservation parcel that is within the UDA from such development restrictions through the rezoning process "provided that the rezoning is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan in effect at that time." The rezoning of the site for single family residential development is consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, which expressly calls for suburban residential uses to predominate within the UDA. The portion of the UDA wherein the Russell-Glendobbin property is located represents a transitional area that includes light industrial, low density residential, and agricultural land uses. The proposed rezoning will enable development of single family detached lots that will complement and be compatible with the transitional character of the area. Moreover, the integration of varying lot sizes and types will create an alternative residential development pattern that will ultimately enhance consumer choice and foster a dynamic housing market, both of which are key objectives of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The applicant is confident that the proposed rezoning includes a proffer program that will appropriately and effectively mitigate the impacts of this development while simultaneously contributing to the regional transportation network. The single family residential land use envisioned for the site is compatible with the surrounding community and consistent with the land use policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. As such, this rezoning request merits favorable consideration and approval. Page 1 of 6 8/2005 Russell - Glendobbin Impact Analysis Statement B. COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN The subject acreage is located wholly within the Urban Development Area (UDA). The site is not located within the boundaries of any small area plan included in the Comprehensive Policy Plan, and is therefore not subject to a specific planned land use designation. In the absence of such a designation, the general policies that govern the UDA and suburban residential land uses, respectively, combine to provide guidance concerning the appropriate use of the acreage. These policies stipulate that suburban residential land uses are intended to predominate inside the UDA, within which the public facilities necessary to support such uses either exist or are planned for expansion. As described in the introductory section of this report, the portion of the UDA wherein the Russell-Glendobbin property is located represents a transitional area that includes light industrial, low density residential, and agricultural land uses. The proposed rezoning will enable development of single family detached traditional lots that will complement and be compatible with the transitional character of the area. By introducing alternative lot sizes served by public facilities to an area of relatively low residential densities, this proposal will result in an appropriately diverse residential development pattern that will enhance consumer choice and support a vibrant land market, which the Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies as desired outcomes of the UDA concept. It is noted that the UDA boundary extends well beyond the subject acreage to include the Apple Pie Ridge Road area. The Comprehensive Policy Plan states that this area is included in the UDA due to its prevailing lot pattern, but that public facilities are not intended for extension to this established residential enclave. Implied by this statement is that suburban residential densities are not envisioned for the Apple Pie Ridge Road area regardless of its location within the UDA. Despite its proximity to the Apple Pie Ridge Road area, the use of the Russell — Glendobbin property is not similarly impacted by this unique adaptation of UDA policy. The principal factor distinguishing the site is the location of the majority of its acreage not only within the UDA, but also the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). As such, public water and sewer facilities may clearly be extended to the site thereby assuring its capacity to develop with the residential densities envisioned within the UDA. The proposed rezoning of the subject acreage from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) is consistent with the land use policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Page 2 of 6 8/2005 Russell - Glendobbin C. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE Site Backqround and History Impact Analysis Statement The Russell-Glendobbin property consists of two parcels, one of which is 36.5389 acres (Parcel A) in size and the other 31.1853 acres (Parcel B). The entire area of the site is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA). Parcel A is the preservation parcel ("40% parcel") of the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision, a rural preservation subdivision totaling sixteen lots that was approved by Frederick County in 2002. Parcel A is situated at the south end of the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision adjacent to Stonewall Industrial Park. Parcel B extends north from Parcel A to Glendobbin Road, and is immediately east and adjacent to lots 3 through 16 of Glendobbin Ridge subdivision. It is important to note that the acreage comprising the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision was located within the UDA at the time of subdivision approval. Moreover, the majority of the acreage is situated within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), which confirms its eligibility for service with public water and sewer facilities. B. Location and Access The Russell—Glendobbin property consists of 67.7242 acres of land located south and adjacent to Glendobbin Road (Route 673), approximately 3,250 feet west of the intersection of Glendobbin Road and Payne Road (VA Route 663), within the Stonewall Magisterial District. The site is adjacent to the currently developing Glendobbin Ridge subdivision, and is accessible directly from Glendobbin Road. Primary project access will occur through an entrance on Glendobbin Road. A secondary point of access will be established by an extension and inter- connection with Union View Lane within the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision. C. Site Suitability The site does not contain conditions that would preclude or substantially hinder development activities. The following table provides an area summary of environmental features: Page 3 of 6 8/2005 Russell - Glendobbin Impact Analysis Statement Environmental Features Total Project Area 67.7242 Acres Area in Flood Plain 0.00 Acres 0% Area in Steep Slopes 0.00 Acres 0% Area in Wetlands 0.00 Acres 0% Lakes & Ponds 0.00 Acres 0% The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Frederick-Poplimento- Oaklet soil association. The predominant soil type on the site is Frederick- Poplimento loams, 7 to 15 percent slopes (map symbol 14C), as shown on map sheet number 24 of the survey. This soil type is not considered prime farmland. The characteristics of this soil type and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. D. Traffic 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. Using traffic generation figures from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition, the TIA projects that the proposed development will produce 1,300 vehicle trips per day (VPD). The TIA further indicates that study area roads and intersections have the capacity to accommodate the trips generated by this project at acceptable and manageable level of service conditions. (see Figure 9, A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin, dated May 4, 2005) From a regional perspective, the planned path of VA Route 37 shown on the Eastern Road Plan crosses the southeast corner of the property. The Applicant has proffered to dedicate this area to Frederick County to ensure protection of the right of way necessary for future construction of this roadway. E. Sewage Conveyance and Water Supply The site will be served by adequately sized gravity sewer that will be extended from the existing Stonewall Industrial Park system located south of the site. The planned extensions will occur across acreage owned by the Applicant within Stonewall Industrial Park that is adjacent to the subject site. There are no identified issues with the gravity connection of sewer to the existing Stonewall Industrial Park sewer system. Approximately 316,000 square feet (7.2 acres) of the site resides outside of the SWSA. This portion of the property could be developed with the Single-family detached rural traditional housing type which allows 100,000 square foot lots, without public sewer and water. Necessary road construction across this area to Page 4 of 6 8/2005 Russell - Glendobbin Impact Analysis Statement serve the remainder of the site would limit the number of dwellings on private health systems and water supply to a maximum of two. Water service to the proposed development may be provided by one of two methods. The first is the extension of an 8 inch water main from the existing Stonewall Industrial Park water system, which is served by the Stonewall Industrial Park Tank. To provide adequate pressure for both domestic and fire protection purposes, this arrangement would require installation of a booster pump station. The other option for water service would involve the extension of a high pressure main from the Northwest Water Tank transmission line into the site. These alternatives will be evaluated with FCSA staff to determine the appropriate method of water service to the project. A maximum of 130 single family detached homes will be served by public water and sewer within the proposed development. The demand for water and discharge for sewer is therefore projected at approximately 26,000 gpd. All facilities constructed and installed on the site will meet FCSA requirements for its ultimate ownership and maintenance. F. Site Drainage Site drainage collects and leaves the site to the south, as it drains to Red Bud Run. It is anticipated that low impact development techniques together with good erosion control practice will mitigate adverse stormwater discharge impacts. The preservation of riparian buffers containing mature woodlands will provide significant mitigation of nutrient losses. Actual specification of temporary and permanent facilities will be provided with final engineering and will comply with all County, State and Federal regulations. G. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Assuming maximum build -out at 130 single family detached homes, it is projected that each dwelling will produce approximately 12 lbs. of solid waste per day for a total of 1,560 lbs. per day (.78 T/day) for the project. Solid waste from the project will be deposited in the Frederick County landfill following collection at citizen convenience/dumpster facilities or via private carrier(s) contracted by neighborhood residents. H. Historic Sites and Structures The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey does not identify any potentially significant structures on the subject 67.7242 acres or within close proximity of the properties. The subject properties are not located within the study boundary or core area of any identified Civil War battlefield. Page 5 of 6 8/2005 Russell - Glendobbin Impact Analysis Statement Impact on Community Facilities The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model was run by planning staff to project the fiscal impact on community facilities attributable to the proposed rezoning. The applicant has offered per unit monetary contributions with the proffer statement equivalent to the calculated impacts to mitigate the effects on Frederick County. Specifically, the applicant has proffered to contribute $10,506 per unit at the time of building permit issuance. The total contribution is proffered to be allocated as follows: ■ Fire and Rescue: ■ Public Schools: ■ Recreation & Parks: ■ Library: ■ Sheriffs Office: ■ Administration: ■ Offsite Road Improvements TOTAL: $889.00 per unit $7,571.00 per unit $1,288.00 per unit $213.00 per unit $42.00 per unit $203.00 per unit $300.00 per unit $10,506 per unit An escalator clause is included with the proffer statement to mitigate the effects of inflation on the value of the proffered monetary contributions. This provision stipulates that any monetary contributions proffered by the applicant that are paid after 30 months from the date of rezoning approval will be adjusted pursuant to the Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI -U). Page 6 of 6 8/2005 A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: Glen W. Russell 270 Panarama Drive Winchester, VA 22603 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Engneers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 300 Foxcroff Avenue, Suite 200 Martinsburg, West Virginia 25401 F 304711 P -R+A F 304.264.3264.3671 May 04, 2005 OVERVIEW Report Summary Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Russell-Glendobbin development located to the south of Glendobbin Road (VA Route 673), between Apple Pie Ridge Road (VA Route 739) and Welltown Road (VA Route 661), in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed project is comprised of a maximum of 130 single-family detached residential units with access to be provided via a site -driveway located along the south side of Glendobbin Road. Build -out will occur over a single transportation phase by the year 2008.. Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the location of the proposed Russell-Glendobbin development with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying the Russell-Glendobbin development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: • Assessment of background traffic including growth rates and other planned projects in the area of impact, • Calculation of trip generation for the proposed Russell-Glendobbin development, • Distribution. and assignment of the Russell-Glendobbin _development generated trips onto the completed study area road network, - • Analysis of capacity and level of service using the newest version of the highway capacity software, HCS -2000, for existing and future conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersections of Route I Welltown Road, Welltown Road/Payne Road (VA Route 663), Glendobbin Road/Payne Road, Apple Pie Ridge Road/Glendobbin Road and Apple Pie Ridge Road/Hill Road (VA Route 673). Additionally, 24-hour automatic "tube" counts were conducted along Glendobbin Road at the approximate location of the- proposed Russell-Glendobbin site -driveway. PHR+A established the ADT (Average Daily Traffic) along each of the study area roadway links using an average "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 8% as determined from the 2003 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 -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix'section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin I MLA e Project Number: 13543-1-0 May 04, 2005 €° Page 1 No Scale A e 39 �0a p11� �' ► . N 0 1LAO 1�� 673 44 � m 2�2� 67 °bbl r{'Jrj� Ooor 26(8) (21)69`z' a v a a1 SITE / AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) A_ Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin �5 ProjoctNumber: 13543-1-0' H" - May 04, 2005 Page 3 No Scale 0 UnsignaliaedI Intersection ry. J� 1p•� Jx Unsignalized P�! :moi Denotes stop sign control Denotes traffic signal control * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic ImnactAnalysis of Russell-Glendobbin ` Project Number: 13543-1-0 IM May 04, 2005 s Page 4 2008 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS PHR+A applied a conservative annual growth rate of four percent (4%) to the existing traffic volumes (shown in Figure 2) to obtain 2008 base conditions. Additionally, all trips relating to specific future "other developments" located within the vicinity of the site were included: Based upon the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, PHR+A has provided Table 1 to summarize the trip generation for the "other developments" surrounding the site. Figure 4 shows the 2008 background ADT and AMIPM peak Hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 5 shows the respective 2008 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Table 1 2008 "Other Developments" Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT In Out Total In Out Total Star Fort* - 210 Single -Family Detached 70 units 15 44 58 50 28 78 700 Total 15 44 .58 50 28 78 700 Regents `Crescent* -. 210 Single -Family Detached 28 units 7 22 29 22 12 34 280 230 Townhouse/Condo 42 units 4 21 26 20 10 30 365 Total 12 43 55 42 22 64 645 Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park 130 Industrial Park 420,000 SF 307 67 374 81 305 386 2,923 Total 307 67 374 81 305 386 2,923 Stephenson Village 210 Single -Family Detached 400 units 72 217 289 235 138 373 4,000 230 Townhouse/Condo 300 units 21 103 124 99 49 148 2,610 251 Elderly Housing - Detach 531 units 45 73 117 100 64 164 2,238 252 Elderly Housing - Attach 144 units 5, 6 12 10 6 16 501 520 Elementary School 550 stud. 94 65 160 2 4 6 710 Total 1 237 465 702 445 261 706 10,059 Adjacent Residential Development (west of Russell-Glendobbin) 210 Single -Family Detached 16 units 1 5 16 21 13 7 21 160 Total 5 16 21 13 7 21 160 Note: Although Star kbrt and Regents Crescent are located along Route 522, the traffic generated will impact Route 111Route 37 and therefore were included in analyses. i- % 4 A Traffic Impact Analysis of RusseZZ-Glendobbin —7-A P 71 roject Number: 13543-1-0 E May 04, 2005 Page 5 No Scale N 4, � a \ �a aa� �ow2(2) j29(9) (1)2 tr (2) 441 - -0 D)90 �A~� AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) mommumme4, A Traffic I»mactAnalvsis of Russell-Glendobbin Pzoject Number: 13543-1-0 May 04, 2005 Page 6 No Scale -- r ,LP1� UnsEgaa&ed p� 7�,� Denotes stop sign control Denotes traffic signal control Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 5 . 2008 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic ImpactAnalvsis of Russell-Glendobbin P p Project Number: 13543-1-0 �� _ May 04, 2005 = y Page 7 TRIP GENERATION PHR+A determined the number of trips entering and exiting the site using equations and rates provided in the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report. Table 2 was prepared to summarize the total trip generation associated with the Russell-Glendobbin development. . Table 2 Russell-Glendobbin Development Trip Generation Summary TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENTS The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the Russell-Glendobbin development. PHR+A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 6 to assign the proposed Russell-Glendobbin trips (Table 2) throughout the study area. Figure 7 shows the respective development - generated ADT and AM/PM peak hour trip assignments. 2008 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Russell-Glendobbin assigned trips (Figure 7) were then added to the -2008 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2008 build -out conditions. Figure 8 shows the 2008 build -out ADT and AMIPM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 9 shows the respective 2008 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are provided in the Appendix section of the report. CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the Russell-Glendobbin development are acceptable and manageable. Based upon HCS -2000 results, each of the study area intersections, will operate with levels of service "C" or better during 2008 build -out conditions. A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin r ; % � Project Number. y3543-1-0 May 04, 2005 a t Page 8 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT 210 Single -Family Detached 130 units 25 75 100 87 49 136 1,300 Total 1 25 75 100 1 87 49 136 1 1,300 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENTS The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the Russell-Glendobbin development. PHR+A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 6 to assign the proposed Russell-Glendobbin trips (Table 2) throughout the study area. Figure 7 shows the respective development - generated ADT and AM/PM peak hour trip assignments. 2008 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Russell-Glendobbin assigned trips (Figure 7) were then added to the -2008 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2008 build -out conditions. Figure 8 shows the 2008 build -out ADT and AMIPM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 9 shows the respective 2008 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are provided in the Appendix section of the report. CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the Russell-Glendobbin development are acceptable and manageable. Based upon HCS -2000 results, each of the study area intersections, will operate with levels of service "C" or better during 2008 build -out conditions. A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin r ; % � Project Number. y3543-1-0 May 04, 2005 a t Page 8 No Scale Figure ( Trip Distribution Percentages ♦ A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin Project Number: 13543-1-0 May 04, 2005 i a Page 9 1'a y No Scale �e�oa (�� 673 39 66 1 2 *400 L39 Fair �� ll Lane X01 ��/♦ cu ,d J vP moo - (39)60 m-% r o rpaL� 673 l o e�4ad QQ �e Hill Roax a r � �` Ya;" i�� .► 673 66 w SITE 0 739 0 a 11 U, �CD 66 11��91 Hill 1 22 11 Road 39 1� AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) X44;; PTLA +I AL Figure 7 Development -Generated Trip Assignments _ A _ A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin Project Number: 13543-1-0 �VMay 04, 2005 rti s Page 10 a'yrie�,01`11 No Scale oao 1�673 res rjq A 66 Cp X11 tp— 29 9) °aa `�, �� Lanep (2)4 w.♦ t 1011, N �� ✓ �',l (69)150 mm% o 0 a� 3 4e 4 �1'Il hof✓ �' F' 1'a"ne Hilt Roan 73 ��era°bb��R°a d 66 SITE 39 0 a 11 "a �ypSl 90. N N 1.1dHill r 6 w � Road fl j pL (6)2..r 39 J. 15�'y1�69 5$�r J AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) LT Tp+.A - _---. _ A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin Project Number: 13543-1-0 s J May 04, 2005 Page 11 No Scale J Unsignalized\T Intersection Unsignalized Intersection SITE Signalized Intersection -011 LOS=B(B) ✓ - rf 1v Denotes stop sign control Denotes traffic signal control * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin -1T / Project Number: 13543-1-0 T1 -F May 04, 2005 m m Page 12 !yi L �Y 2 V 20 0e` C 0J 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, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) Telephone: 540-667-2139 Address: 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Glen W. and Pamela L. Russell Telephone: 540-662-7083 Address: 270 Panarama Drive Winchester, VA 22603 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. (PHR+A) Telephone: 540-667-2139 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location Map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deed of property X Impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X 1 S. The Code of VirLyinia 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: Glen W. Russell Pamela L. Russell 6. A) Current Use of the Property: B) Proposed Use of the Property: 7. Adjoining Property: See Attached PARCEL ID NUMBER USE Undeveloped RP -Single Family Detached 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). The properties are located south and adjacent to Glendobbin Road (VA Route 673), approximately 3,250 feet west of the intersection of Glendobbin Road and Payne Road (VA Route 663). 2 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 of intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/L.ocation: Parcel Identification Number 43 -A -15B & 43-A-16 Magisterial: Stonewall Fire Service: Clearbrook Rescue Service: Clearbrook Districts High School: Middle School: Elementary School James Wood James Wood Stonewall 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 67.73 RA RP 67.73 Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family Home 130 Townhome Multi -Family Non -Residential Lots Mobile Home Hotel Rooms Office Retail Restaurant Square Footage of Proposed Uses Service Station Manufacturing Warehouse Other 3 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. I-/ Applicants) Date � % . . M dox, r., ,Senior Owner(s) Patton Harris Rust & ,,,� W A.-t�,c Glen W. Russell Date ,V"//- a Z Date Pamela L. Russell 4 ADJOZNERS RUSSELL - GLENDOBBIN 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 2'd floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name and Address Property Identification Number (PIN) Name: BHS, LC P.O. Box 2368 Property #: 43-A-13 Winchester, VA 22604 Name: BHS, LC P.O. Box 2368 Property #: 43-A-14 Winchester, VA 22604 Name: BHS, LC P.O. Box 2368 Property #: 43-A-11 Winchester, VA 22604 Name. Betty G. McKown 223 Payne Road Property #: 43-A-15 Clearbrook, VA 22624 Name: Lenoir City Company (M1) P.O. Box 1657- 657Property Property#: 43-19-2 Winchester, VA 22604 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. 1543 Millwood Pike Property #: 43-9-4-73 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. 1543 Millwood Pike Property #: 43-9-4-72 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. 1543 Millwood Pike Property #: 43-9-4-71 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. 1543 Millwood Pike Property #: 43-9-4-70 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. 1543 Millwood Pike Property it: 43-9-4-68 Winchester, VA 22602 W Name and Address Property Identification Number (PIN) Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. 1543 Millwood Pike Property #: 43-9-4-67 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. 1543 Millwood Pike Property #: 43-9-4-66 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. 1543 Millwood Pike Property #: 43-9-4-64 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Harley E. & Roxanne L. Ostlund 1950 Kathy Court Property #: 43-20-15 Winchester, VA 22601 Name: Glen W. & Pamela L. Russell 270 Panarama Drive Property #: 43-20-16 Winchester, VA 22603 Name: G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Property #: 43-20-13 Chantilly, VA 20151 Name: G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Property #: 43-20-10 Chantilly, VA 20151 Name: G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Property #: 43-20-9 Chantilly, VA 20151 Name: G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Property #: 43-20-7 Chantilly, VA 20151 Name: G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Property #: 43-20-6 Chantilly, VA 20151 Name: G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Property #: 43-20-5 Chantilly, VA 20151 Name: Ralph A. & Theresa K. Kaiser 6029 Sumner Road Property #: 43-20-4 Alexandria, VA 22310 Name: G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Property-#: 43-20-3 Chantilly, VA 20151 Name: KSS, LC P.O. Box 2368 Property-#: 43-12-3-18 Winchester, VA 22604 Name: KSS, LC P.O. Box 2368 Property-#: 43-12-3-1 Winchester, VA 22604 Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.coArederick.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) Glen W. Russell and Pamela L. Russell (Phone) 662-7083 (Address) 270 Panarama Drive, Winchester 22603 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(s) 040026114 and 030000473 and is described as Parcels: 15B, 16 Lot: Block: A Section/Tax Map: .43 Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) PIRA — Charles, E. Maddox, Jr., (Phone) 667-2139 ' ddress) 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200, Winchester, Virginia 22601 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 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: N/A This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. _ In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this day ofd 200 J Signature(s State of irginia, City/County ofe-Se Cj< To -wit: I, &ts 6,;L_0 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 owledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this / / qday o/ t -d, 200S_. My Commission Expires: CU 0 tary Public FINAL PLAT RURAL PRESERVATION SUBDIVISION GLENDOBBIN RIDGE o STONEWALL DISTRICT - FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA c�3 TAX MAI:' # 43A -15A,16,17 ZONE: RA USE: AGRICULTURAI SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I, David M. Furatenau, a duly authorized Land Surveyor, do hereby certify that the land In this subdivision Is in the names of Glen W. and Pamela L. Russell and is all of the land conveyed to them by deed dated March 29, 2002 and recorded among the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County aj Instrument number 020005243. ,. . David M.Vg3*au L.S. OWNER'S CERTIFICATE Above and foregoing subdivision of the land of Gen W. and Pamela L. Russell as appears In the accompanying plat Is with the free consent and In accordance with the desires of the undersigned owners, proprietors or trustrees, If any. Glen W. Russell q/+ amela L. Russell State of Virginiaor7- City/ unty of!� 1 notary public in and for the State of Virginia and the CVCounty of do hereby certify that this day personally appeared before me, Glen W. Russell and Pamela L. Russell whose names are signed to the above Owner's Certificate dated September 11, 2002 and ackn ed to a eme re me in my state and city/county as aforesaid. Notary Public Given under my hand this day ofAkIr, 2002 My commission expires W -M APPROVALS TION HEALTH DEPARTMENT FURSTENAU SURVEYING (540) 662-9323 111 SOUTH LOUDOUN STREET - WINCHESTER, VMGMM 22601 Date /O -/J d� Date dZ Date IN 1j"10/1T. ➢f DATE SEPT. 16, 2002 SCALE: 43-A'21 N=.Rq A G1CU r's' L 7 -UR T O cha UO DA JD At PURSTjK" °p NO. 14ss 3rIW + mr I o m o �� SURVO o m The proposed private drimmy/raid is not built eocnrdinq to street specifications of and Will not be maintained by, the Virginia Depertrnent of Ttar>*po uWon or Roderick County. The Improve- ment and maintenance of MW d h way/road shall be the testa responsibility of the Wom 01 ids which ars pmAded with access via- the driveway/road, gold driveway/toads will not be- comiderad for Ittckraion into the state secondery system until they meet the applicable construction standards of the Virginia Department of Transpo,,tetion. The cost of bringing said drnreway/rood to eccepW* standards shelf not be borne by the Wginia Deparlment of Tianeportation nor by Raderick County. FINAL PLRT RURAL PRESERVATION SUBDIVISION GLENDOBBIN RIDGE STDNEWRLL DISTRICT FREDERICK CUUNTY. VIRGINIA ry `� SPRING VALLEY SUED. SrCTION 4 'n lot 73 ALL LOTS IN THE NAME OF MA SHALL MILLS INC. 43-9-73 , lot 72 RA i loi 71 RA + Sot 70 RA 1 RA VACANT 43-9-72 VACANT! 43-9-71 VACAN� VACANT r Q > 67.4117" E e 43-9-70 % w z oM� 40 % RESERVE LOT 36.5367 AC. ca z ICANNOT BE FURTHER SUBDNIDED - o) 0 PER SECTION 165-54D OF THE o r�> :, a FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE) Ln ,c l 3 n` a N N�dRA1M + 0 , + FIELD Ln ,c l 2Q0' alley 50 PRL - 2D' MCKOWN 5 68009'59"E 1220 � 4-3-A-15 i RA VACANT LOT 16 ' I LOT 15 rev 10/10.'02 t - z 4 U a x' U1kZ 11U1^U MM V L~ T L NU (J4U)6��yjZ3 I DATE: SEPT. 16, 2002 1.11 SOL TS LOL DQUN STREET WINCHESTER- VTRrTTNiA '7. ?6f)] SCALE: I" - 250' C� • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 NIEMORANDU TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Kevin T. Henry, Planning Technician .�k DATE: January 31, 2006 RE: Public Dearing: 2006-2007 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) The 2006-2007 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) is scheduled for a Planning Commission public hearing on February 15, 2006. The CIP was previously considered at the following meetings: Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) - November 14, 2005 The CPPS agreed that the CIP requests were in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan and forwarded the draft document out of committee for Planning Commission discussion. • Planning Commission - December 7, 2005 The Planning Commission considered the CIP as a discussion item and the consensus of the Commission was that the projects proposed within the CIP were in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Planning Commission requested that the two proposed school facilities maps be combined and slightly modified by staff to encourage the future placement of school sites within the UDA. Board of Supervisors — January 25, 2006 The Board collectively agreed that the CIP needed clarification of what its intention is. Staff provided direct documentation from the CIP, which states, "The CIP is strictly advisory; it is intended for use as a capital facilities planning document, not for requesting funding allocations." The Board considered the CIP as a discussion item and agreed to schedule public hearings for the 2006-2007 CIP. 107 North Kent Street, Smite 202 A Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 2006-2007 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) January 31, 2006 Page 2 Please find attached with this agenda item a summary of the proposed 2006-2007 CIP; information pertaining to new or modified departmental project requests; and a draft copy of the proposed 2006-2007 CIP, which includes two maps illustrating the known locations of the CIP requests. The maps, if ultimately adopted by the Board of Supervisors as an element of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, would satisfy the review requirement of Sec. 15.2-2232 of the Code of Virginia, which states that no public facility shall be constructed unless said facility is a "feature shown" within a jurisdiction's comprehensive plan. The CIP is presented as a public hearing. A recommendation to forward to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. Please contact the Planning Department should you have any questions regarding this information. KTH/bad SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED 2006-2007- CAPITAL MPROVEMENT S The proposed CIP consists of 45 capital projects, an increase over the 43 projects included in the previous CIP. ® Of the 36 capital projects that were modified from the 2005-2006 CIP, seven of those projects have changed in priority, in particular, five projects from the public schools have changed in priority. The proposed CIP includes nine (9) new capital projects, which are as follows: Seven (7) new projects from the County public schools: o New Elementary School #12 has been brought forth to deal with residential growth in this area. o Land acquisition for eleven facilities to deal with continued growth in Frederick County o Renovations to the Robinson Educational Center and NREP due to old age, as well as growth. The school administration building renovation, which had previously been included as a separate project is included with this request. o Frederick County Middle School Renovation includes additional classrooms and upgrades to the heating, electrical, and plumbing systems for more efficient use in years to come. o Indian Hollow Elementary School Renovation will help provide additional classrooms, upgrades to mechanical and waste water treatment plant systems, replacement of windows, and repaving asphalt areas. o New Elementary School #13 is needed to provide for the continuous residential growth in Frederick County. o New Elementary School #14 will be used to relieve current over- crowding. • Two (2) new projects from County Administration: o Public Works: The Gore Refuse Site Expansion will provide a more cost efficient means of trash storage. o Fire & Rescue: Relocation of the Clearbrook Fire Station to better fill the needs of the community and upgrade equipment to better serve the growth in the area. + All of the capital projects included with the previous CIP are carried over to the proposed 2006-2007 CIP with the exception of, Elementary School #11, the Sherando Park playground, the Greenwood Road Convenience site expansion, the animal shelter, and the CFFW Community Corrections Center. Review of the 2006-2007 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) will be reviewing and discussing the 2006-2007 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). New capital project requests or modifications to previously endorsed requests have been prepared by the various county agencies and departments. Representatives from the various agencies and departments will be attending the meeting to discuss their requests with the CPPS. The role of the CPPS in this meeting will be to review the project requests in the context of the current Comprehensive Policy Plan to ensure that the requests are consistent with the adopted Plan. For your convenience, the existing Community Facility and Services and Parks and Recreation sections of the Comprehensive Policy Plan have been attached. Attached to this memo is a short summary of this year's CIP and table outlining new and modified project requests. Also attached for your reference are the 2006-2007 CIP draft spreadsheets detailing expenditure estimates and a summary report outlining both new project and project modification requests. Also included with this agenda item are copies of the Individual Project Description and Justification Forms that have been submitted by the Fredrick County Department of Public Works, Parks and Recreation Department, Handley Regional Library, Frederick County School Board, Clark-Fauquier-Frederick-Winchester Community Center Corrections Center, Frederick County Fire and Rescue, and the Winchester Regional Airport. Staff has prepared maps of the planned public facility locations. Only those facilities for which there is a specific or generalized location are mapped. The map element, if endorsed by the CPPS and ultimately adopted by the Board of Supervisors, would satisfy the Code of Virginia requirement for the 15.2-2232 Review. In essence, the code states that no public facility shall be constructed unless said facility is a "feature shown" within the comprehensive plan. Of course, proposed facilities that are not mapped would not satisfy the code requirement. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this information. Pr�o osgd 2006-22900-7 Comparison of New Project Requests and Modification Requests Frederick County Public Schools Project Type of 2005-2006 2006-2007 Difference Request LGeal Local ($) Expenditure Expenditure Request ($) Request ($) New Cairesboro Modification 17,600,000 17,750,000 150,000 Elementary School Transportation Modification 12,500,000 26,600,000 14,100, 000 Facility New Elementary New N/A 20,451,700 School #12 Robert E. Aylor Modification N/A 18,000,000 Middle SchooY Renovation Land Acquisition New N/A 12,600,000 for Eleven Facilities Robinson Ed. New N/A 15,800,000 Center/ NREP Replacement New Fourth High Modification N/A 55,000,000 School .Tames Wood High Modification N/A 18,000,000 School Renovation Frederick County New N/A 18,000,000 Middle School Renovation Apple Pie Modification N/A 5,000,000 Ridge/Bass Hoover Elementary School Renovations Indian Follow New N/A 3,000,000 Elementary School Renovation New Fifth Middle Modification N/A 26,000,000 School New Elementary New N/A 20,451,700 Schooi #13 New Elementary New N/A 20,451,700 School #14 Total 30,100, 000 277,105,100 247, 005,100 Frederick Countv Parks and Recreation Project Tyke Of 2005-2006 2006-2007 D;fference Request Local Local (�) Expenditure E, xpenditure Request ($) Request ($) Indoor Pool Modification 9,000,000 13,500,000 4,500,000 Water Slide/Spray Modification 1,000,000 1,114,560 114,560 Ground Clearbrook and Sherando Park Land in Modification 2,302,737 4,000,000 1,697,263 Eastern Frederick County Park Land in Modification 1,409,549 300,000 1,590,451 Western Frederick County Maintenance Modification 205,725 336,960 131,235 Compound- Sherando Park Open Play Areas- Modification 386,591 444,990 58,399 Clearbrook Park Skateboard Park- Modification 490,752 454,594 -36,158 Sherando Park Lace, Trails, and Modification 858,001 1,054,199 196,198 Parking with 2 -MP Melds Softball Complex- Modification 514,922 593,674 78,752 Sherando Park Baseball Complex Modification 1,056,741 1,177,802 121,061 Renovations- Sherando Park Soccer Complex- Modification 1,178,435 1,790,665 612,230 Sherando Park Tennis/Basketball Modification 403,887 449,772 45,885 Complex- Sherando Park Picnic Areas- Modification 649,882 697,280 47,398 Sherando Parr, Shelter/Stage- Modification 401,254 443,412 42,158 Clearbrook Park Access Load with Modification 829,781 1,075,304 245,515 Parking and Trails- Sherando Park Field Douse Modification 7,040,000 7,840,800 800,800 Taal 27,728,257 37,974,012 10,245,739 County Administration Project 'hype of 2005-2006 2006-2007 Dq erence Request Local Local ($) Expenditure Expenditure Request ($) Request ($) Public Safety Modification 13,000,000 13,000,000 0 Center Fire & Rescue. Modification N/A 3,100,000 N/A Station 422 Round Hill Fire Modification N/A N/A 0 Station Relocation (;2inesboro Modification 220,000 250,000 30,000 Convenience Site Relecation Modification 7,000 7,000 0 Gore Refuse site New N/A 200,000 N/A Expansion Modification 210,000 210,000 0 Clearbrook hire New N/A 1,530,000 N/A Station- Relocation 365,600 355,600 -10,000 Winchester Regional Airport Project hype of 2005-2006 2006-2067 Dljjerence Request Local Local ($) Expenditure Expenditure Re nest ($) Request ($) Land Acquisition- Modification 17,300 17,300 0 parcels 31, 46, & 53 Terminal Building Modification 110,000 100,000 -10,000 .l1;en.ovation Land Acquisition- Modification 17,300 17,300 0 Parcels 47, 47A, & 48 Up rode Airfield Modification 4,000 4,000 0 Lights Land Acquisition- Modification 7,000 7,000 0 Parcels 50, 51, & 52 A!rfield Maintenance Modification 210,000 210,000 0 Building Total 365,600 355,600 -10,000 Handley Regional Library Project 'type of 2005-2006 Local 2006-2007 Difference Req nest Expenditure Local ($} Request ($) Expenditure Request ($) Request ($) Bowman Library- Modification 228,468 228,468 0 Parking Lot & Sidewalk Extension 13, 200, 000 N/A Library facility in Modification 1,053,000 1,053,000 0 Northwestern Frederick Count), Total 1,281,468 1 1,281,468 0 Clarke-Fauquier-Frederick-Winchester Community, Corrections Center (CCC) Project 'hype of 2005-2006 2006-2007 Difference Request Local Local ($� Expenditure Expenditure Request ($) Request uest ($) See -are Detention Modification N/A 13,200,000 N/A FxPan.sion Total 13, 200, 000 N/A D A, F T FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA I G NI CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 2006-200`l F --:seal -Year TABLE Or CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................... • ............................ 1 PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................2 Frederick County Public Schools...................................................2 Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department ............................2 County Administration.............................................................. 2 Winchester Regional Airport ........................................................ Handley Regional Library .................................... . ..................... 3 CFFW Regional Jail................................................................. 3 2006-2007 CAPITAL PROJECTS MAP .................................................. 4 2006-2007 COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS CAPITAL PROJECTS MAP........... 5 2006-2007 PROJECT SUMMARY TABLE..............................................6 CIP TABLE EXPLANATIONS ............ . ..... .......................................... 7 PROJECT FUNDING........................................................................ 7 PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS................................................................ 9 Frederick County Public Schools...................................................9 New Gainesboro Elementary .............................................. 9 Transportation Facility/Central Administration Complex ............. 9 Elementary School #12 ..................................................... 9 Robert E. Aylor Middle School Renovation .............................10 Land Acquisition for Eleven Facilities ................................... 10 Robinson Ed. Center/NREP Replacement/Renovation................ 10 Fourth High School......................................................... I l James Wood High School Renovation ................................... 11 Frederick County Middle School Renovation ........................... 11 Apple Pie Ridge/Bass Hoover Elementary School Renovations..... 12 Indian Hollow Elementary School Renovation ......................... 12 Fifth Middle School.........................................................12 Elementary School#13.....................................................13 Elementary School#14.....................................................13 Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department ............................13 Indoor Swimming Pool ..................................................... 13 Swimming Pool Improvements- Sherando/C learbrook ................. 14 Park Land- Eastern Frederick County .................................... 14 Park Land- Western Frederick County ................................... 14 Maintenance Compound and Office- Sherando Park .................. 15 Open Play Area- Clearbrook .............................................. 15 Skateboard Park- Sherando.................................................15 Lake, Parking, and Trail Development/Two Multi -Purpose Fields.. 16 Softball Complex- Sherando.............................................. 16 Baseball Complex Renovation- Sherando ............................... 16 Soccer Complex- Sherando.................................................17 Tennis/Basketball Complex- Clearbrook.................................17 Picnic Area- Sherando...................................................... 17 Shelter/Stage Seating- Clearbrook........................................18 Access Road with Parking and Trails- Sherando ........................18 FieldHouse.................................................................. 18 County Administration.............................................................. 19 Public Safety Center........................................................ 19 Annex Facilities/Fire & Rescue Station #22 ............................ 19 Round Hill Fire and Rescue Station Relocation ........................ 20 Gainesboro Convenience Site Relocation ............................... 20 Gore Refuse Site Expansion ............................................... 20 Clearbrook Fire Station Relocation ....................................... 21 Winchester Regional Airport ....................................................... 21 Land Acquisition- Bufflick Road — Parcels 31, 46, & 53 .............. 21 Terminal Building Renovation ............................................ 21 Land Acquisition— Bufflick Road — Parcels 47, 47A, & 48........... 22 Airfield Lighting Upgrade ................................................. 22 Land Acquisition- Bufflick Road — Parcels 50, 51, & 52 ..............22 Airfield Maintenance Building ............................................ 23 Handley Regional Library...........................................................23 Bowman Library Parking Lot and Sidewalk Extension ............... 23 Northern Frederick County Library Branch ............................. 23 CFFWRegional Jail................................................................. 24 Secure Detention Expansion...............................................24 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FREDERICK COUNTY 006-x 007 INTRODUCTION Section 15.2-2239 of the Code of Virginia assigns the responsibility for preparation of plans for capital outlays to the local Planning Commissions. The Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) consists of a schedule for major capital expenditures for the county for the ensuing five years. The CIP is updated annually. Projects are removed from the plans as they are completed or as priorities change. The plan is intended to assist the Board of Supervisors in preparation of the county budget. In addition to determining priorities for capital expenditures, the county must also ensure that projects contained within the CIP conform to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Specifically, the projects are reviewed with considerations regarding health, safety, and the general welfare of the public. The CIP is strictly advisory; it is intendedfor use as a capital facilities planning document, not for requesting funding allocations. Once adopted, project priorities may change throughout the year based on changing circumstances. It is also possible that particular projects may not be funded during the year that is indicated in the CIP. The status of any project becomes increasingly uncertain the further in the future it is projected. PROJEC r R>N CQMMENDATIONS Frederick County Public Schools In an effort to maintain educational facilities that will handle the growing student population, the construction of three new elementary schools is recommended; one replacing the current Gainesboro Elementary building. A new high school and a new middle school have been requested to meet the future demand of a growing student population. A number of school renovations are proposed,as is a new transportation facility/administration building. Funding is also being requested for the acquisition of eleven land parcels for future school sites (6 elementary, 3 middle, and 2 high schools). It is important to note that the cost of land for the new schools in this years CIP is included as a separate project. Should land be acquired in this manner, land acquisition costs would be subtracted from the individual projects. Parks & Recreation The majority of the recommended projects are planned for the county's two regional parks (Sherando & Clearbrook). Nine projects are planned for Sherando Park: upgrade pool amenities, maintenance compound and office, skateboard park, parking and multi- purpose fields with trail development, a softball complex, renovations to the existing baseball complex, a soccer complex; picnic area with a shelter, and an access road with parking and trails. There are currently four projects planned for the Clearbrook Park which includes, upgrading pool amenities, a new open play area, a tennis/basketball complex, and shelter with an area for stage seating. In additionrthe swimming pools at both parks will be updated with water slides and a spray ground. Also planned is an indoor pool with an accompanying field house to be completed in the following years. Various options for the development of this project are being explored, including a public-private partnership. The Parks and Recreation Department has proposed to acquire land in both the eastern and western portions of the county for the development of future regional park system. Both land acquisitions call for 150-200 acres of land to accommodate the recreational needs of the growing population. County Administration Modifications to two of the County's convenience sites have been requested. 1 tie tirst request is that the current Gainesboro facility be moved because of health hazards the current site incurs. The other request is for the expanding the Gore Refuse Site to allow P for trash compactor, which will reduce operational costs, by compacting trash before it reaches the landfill. County administration has also proposed a new public safety center. This center will allow for quicker response times, because it will no longer have to compete with the heavy traffic associated with the City of Winchester. The relocation of the Clearbrook Fire Station was also requested to allow for safer exiting/entering along Rt. 11. Winchester Regional Airport All of the Airport requests were carried forward from last year. There are three carried over requests to acquire additional parcels along Bufflick Road which are required to meet noise abatement requirements. Also carried over, is the request to construct a new airfield maintenance building, and a request to upgrade the airfield lighting system to enhance safety for aircraft use of the facility. Funding for airport projects is derived through a complex formula where the federal and state governments contribute a majority of the funding, with Frederick County and the other jurisdictions providing the remaining funding. Handley Regional Library The Handley Regional Library has recommended two projects. The library's top priority is a parking lot expansion as well as improvements to sidewalk access at the Bowman Library. The parking lot expansion would accommodate 121 more parking than what is currently available. The library wishes to extend the sidewalks to serve residents traveling from the east to Lakeside Drive. CFFW Regional Jail The Clarke-Fauquier-Frederick-Winchester Regional Jail Board proposes to construct and operate, in accordance with the Public -Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002, a 34,615 square foot, 96 -bed expansion to the adult detention center. It will be nearly identical to the existing design of the units within the detention center, with additional program space used for the entire detention center population. J 2006-2007 Capital Improvements Specific or Approximate Locations 4W Parks and Recreation 1 Sherand0 Park 2 Clearbrook Park 3 Future Eastern Parkland 4 Future Western Parkland County Administration 1 Public Safety Building 4 Gainesboro Convenience Site Relocation 5 Gore Convenience Site Expansion 6 Clearbrook Fire Station Relocation Airport Library 1 Bowman Library - Parking Lot and Sidewalk Addition 2 Northern Frederick County Library Branch Jail System 1 Secure Detention Expansion Parcels Primary Roads Secondary Roads /•\' Terciary Roads Note DRAFT 2006-2007 Frederick County Capital Improvements Plan Created by Frederick County Department of Planning & Development November 07, 2005 Map represents the Capital Impre—nt Requests submitted by various county departments. DRAFT 0 12,500 25,000 50,000 75,000 0 2 4 Feet $ 12 Miles } ti #13 Elem School (2009) 414 Elem School (2011) � ephr r I #15 Elem School I r (2012) i' n, • i, n'� r Map Created by Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development 12/16/05 Potential New School Locations #4 High School #12 Elem School (2008) #5 Middle School School Locations Are Most Appropriate Within the UDA ® New School Location Alternatives Existing Elementary Schools Existing Middle Schools Existing High Schools Streets Primary Roads Secondary Roads Terciary Roads Winchester City Roads Rt 37 Bypass Urban Development Area -SWSA O City / Town Bounday N W*E S 0 1 2 4 Miles ii j r i i Department i COUNTY CONTRIBUTION PER FISCAL YEAR County Interest From Any TOTAL COUNTY Total Project Projects 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-2011 Priori Contributions Notes Debt Service COSTS Costs 1(PS) Replacement Gainesboro EIem.School 13,775 000 2,190,000 17,750,000 N/A 17,750,000 $17,750,000 2(PS) Transportation Facility/Central Admin, 12,000,000 11,575,000 1 26,600,000 N/A*` 26,600,000 $26,600,000 3(PS) Elementary School #12 1,675,000 13.,901,700 4,875,000 20,451,700 N/A* h 20,451,700 $20,451,700 4(PS) R.E. Aylor Middle School Renovations 2,500,000 13,275,000 2,225,000 18,000,000 N/A* 18,000,000 $18,000,000 5(PS) Land Acquistion for Eleven Facilities 1,350,000 3,600,000 675,000 1,350,000 5,625.,000 12,600,000 N/A* 12,600,000 $12,600,000 6(PS) Robinson Ed. Center/NREP Renovation 500,000 II 8,300,000 4,000,000 3,000;000 15,800,000 N/A* 15,800,000 $15,800,000 7(PS) Fourth High School 3,750,000 5,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 55,000,000 G N/A* 55,000,000 $55,000,000 �} 8(PS) James Wood High School Renovation i 1 1,000,000 1,000,000 13,500,000 18,000,000 G N/A* 18,000,000 $18,000,000 9(PS) Frederick Middle School Renovation 500,000 6,000,000 9,500,000 18,000,000 G N/A* 18,000,000 $18,000,000 10(PS) Apple Pie Ridge/Bass Hoover Renovation 500,000 3,500,000 1,000,000 5,000,000 N/A* 5,000,000 $5,000,000 11 (PS) Indian Hollow Elementary Renovation 230,000 1,500,000 3,000,000 G N/A* 3,000,000 $3,000,000 12(PS) Fifth Middle School 2,350,000 3,150,000 17,500,000 3,000,000 26,000,000 N/A* 26,000,000 $26,000,000 13(PS) Elementary School 413 1,575,000 100,000 13,901,700 4,875,0001 20,451,700 N/A* 20,451,700 $20,451,700 14 PS Elementa School #14.1x,575,000 100,0001 14,901,700 20,451,700_ G N/A* 20,451u 7700 $20,451,700 I{PR) Indoor Swimming Pool ;�-� 13,500,000 r I _ate 13,500,000 4 �nm 0 - 13,500,000 $13,500,000 2(PR) Water Slide/Spray Ground (CB, SP) 1,114,560 1,114,560 0 1,114,560 $1,114,560 3 (PR) Park Land Eastern County 4,000,000 4,000,000 0 4,000,000 $4000,000 4 (PR) Park Land Western County 3,000,000 3,000,000 0 3,000,000 $3,000,000 5 (PR) Maintenance Compound - SP 336,960 336,960 0 336,960 $336,960 r 6 (PR) Open Play Areas - CB 444,990 444,990 {n 0 444,990 $444,990 7 (PR) Skateboard Park - SP 454,594 454,594 0 454,594 $454,594 8(PR) Lake/Trails/Parking/MPFields -SP 1,054,199 1,054,199 0 1,054,199 $1,054,199 9 (PR) Softball Complex - SP 593,674 593,674 0 `1 593,674 $593,674 10 (PR) Baseball Complex Renovation - SP 1,177,802 1,177,802 0 1,177,802 $1,177,802 ^ 11 (PR) Soccer Complex - SP 1,790,665 1,790,665 0 1,790,665 $1,790,665 12 (PR) Tennis/Basketball Complex - CP 449,7721 449,772 0 449,772 $449,772 I3(PR) Picnic Areas- SP 697,280 697,280 0 697,280 $697,280 14 (PR) Shelter/Stage - CB 443,412 777 443,412 0 443,412 $443,412 15 (PR) Access Road with Parking & Trails - SP 1,075,304 �1,075,304 0 1,075,304 $1,075,304 16 PR ilFieldyH�ouse�� 4 - _ _ 7,840,800 7,840,800 0 $7,840,800 N/A - PPEA 13,000,000 N/A - PPEA _7,840,800 13,000,000 $13,000,000 I (CA) Public Safety Center N/A - PPEA N/A - PPEA 2 (CA) Amex/Fire & Rescue Station 922 400,000 1,100,000 1,600,000 3,100,000 C 0 `` 3,100,000 $3,100,000 3 (CA) Relocation of Roundhill Fire & Rescue N/A* D N/A N/A* N/A* 4(CA) Gainesboro Citizens Convenience Site 20,000 230,000 250;000 0 250,000 $250,000 5(CA) Gore Citizens Convenience Site 20,000 180,000 200,000 0 200,000 $200,000 6 CA Clearbrook Fire Station Relocation _ 1,530,000 X3,300 1,530,000 0 1,530,000 $ 1,530,000 I (RA) Land Acquistion -Parcels 31, 46, 53 14,000 17,300 A,B 0 17,300 $865,000 2 (RA) Terminal Building Renovation 100,000 100,000I A 0 100,000 $500,000 3 (RA) Land Acquisition - Parcels 47, 47A, 48 t 3,000 4,300 17,300 A 0 4 17,300 $865,000 4 (RA) Upgrade ,airfield Lights 1,000 3,000 4,000 A, B 0 4,000 $200,000 5 (RA) Land Acquisition - Parcels 50, 51, 52 7,000 7,000 A 0 7,000 $350,000 6 RA Airfield Maintenance Building _ 210,000 1 210,000 A 0 210,000 $300,000 I (HL) Bowman- Parking Lot/Sidewalk Extention 228,468 228,468 0 228,468 $228,468 2(HL) New Library 48,000 1,005,000 1,053,000 E 0 1,053,000 $1,053,000 1 (RJ Secure Detention Expansion N/A** N/A** N/A** N/A** N/A** N/A** F N/A ** N/A ** $13,200,000 TOTALS $49,79r.,028 $61 843 043 $47-i08 613 $56 775 996 $78 867 500 $334 796 180 $0 $334,796,180 $350,720,580 • • � ^� ^ - • ro - .P 1.1.11^ .i nv^c kV CPA' 9� Iit. r = -sumes the state Win reimburse bun of the construction costs. uepartment Priority Abbreviations: B = Partial funding from Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grants G = Funding goes beyond displayed five (5) years PS = Public Schools CA = County Administration C = Partial funding from Virginia Department of Aviation (VDOA) grants N/A = Not available PR = Parks and Recreation RA = Regional Airport D = Project costs not identified at time of printing N/A* = Project scope not determined CB = Clearbrook Park HL = Handley Library E = Partial funding from private donations. NIA'* = Funding source not determined; debt service uncertain SP = Sherando Park RJ = Regional Jail THE CIP TABLE CONTENT DESCRIPTIONS The Capital Improvements Plan table, on the previous page, contains a list of the capital improvement projects proposed for the ensuing five years. A description of the information in this table is explained below. Department Priority- The priority rating assigned by each agency or department for their requested projects. Project Description- The name of the capital improvement projects. County Contribution- The estimated dollar value that will be contributed for each project. This value is listed by individual fiscal years and by total contributions over the five-year period. The total contribution column, located to the right of the fiscal year columns, does not include debt service projections. Notes- Indicates the footnotes that apply to additional funding sources for particular projects. Interest From Any Debt Service- The projected interest that will be incurred for a particular project. Debt service projections are provided by individual departments and are based on the most accurate interest rate information available at the time the CIP is assembled. Total County Costs- The total estimated expenditures that the county will incur for a particular project. This column includes both fiscal year allocation and debt service expenses associated with each project. Essentially, this column represents the total county contributions for each particular project. Total Project Costs- The cost for each project, including county allocations and other funding sources. PROJECT FUNDING The projects included in the 2006-2007 Capital Improvements Plan have a total project cost to the county of $334,796,180 over the next five years, excluding the interest from any debt service. • School project -are funded through a combination of loans from the Virginia Public School Authority and the Virginia Literary Fund. ® Funding for Parks and Recreation Department projects will come from the unreserved fund balance of the county. The Parks and Recreation 7 Commission will actively seek grants and private sources of funding for projects not funded by the county. • Airport projects will be funded by contributions from the federal, state, and local governments. The local portion may include contributions from Frederick, Clarke, Shenandoah, and Warren Counties, and the City of Winchester. • The regional jail project will be requesting a 50% reimbursement by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Reimbursement may be "lump sum" or over a period of time specified by contract. The local share is based on the percentage of jurisdictional use averaged for the most recent 3 years for Frederick County. Frederick County Public Schocls Project Priority Ust PRIORITY 1 New Gainesboro Elementary School Description: This project involves the construction of an elementary school (grades K- 5) of lapproximately 96,300 square feet to serve 750 students. Capital Cost: $17,750,000 Justification: The current site is too limited to justify renovating. The building lacks many facilities and there are health and safety concerns. Construction Schedule: The project is estimated to take one year to complete and scheduling is yet to be determined. PRIORITY 2 Transportation Facility/Central Administration Complex Description: This project involves the site acquisition and development of a new transportation facility for the public school system. This project will also accommodate central administrative offices. Capital Cost: $26,600,000 Justification: The land will be used for the construction of a facility that will accommodate administrative offices, support staff offices, driver training areas, driver and staff meeting area, and will be utilized for the repair, inspection, and service of schools buses, cars, and trucks within the public school system. Construction Schedule: The project is estimated to take one year to complete and scheduling is yet to be determined. -F-WO ITY3 Elementary School #12 Description: This project involves the construction of a 96,300-106,000 square foot school on a 15 acre lot. The facility will be designed to accommodate 750-850 students. Capital Cost: $20,451,700 Justification: This school will be located in an area to relieve current overcrowding and to accommodate the projected new housing developments. Construction Schedule: The project is estimated to take one year to complete and scheduling is yet to be determined. 0 PRIORITV 4 Robert E. Aylor Middle School Renovation (Description: This project involves renovations of the current facility. Major areas to be included in the project are additional classroom space; a complete replacement of fire alarm and communication systems; upgrade of electrical and plumbing; and complete replacement of mechanical systems. Capital Cost: $18,000,000 Justification: Robert E. Aylor Middle School is soon to be 37 years of age and renovations are needed to a number of different areas to insure economic and efficient operation of the school for years to come. Construction Schedule: To be determined r RiDRITY 5 Land Acquisition for Eleven Facilities Description: This project will include the acquisition of land for six elementary schools (numbers 12-17), two middle schools (numbers 5 and 6), and two high schools (numbers 4 and 5). Capital Cost: $12,600,000 Justification: This project will help alleviate overcrowding in the growing areas of Frederick County. The elementary school facilities will serve up to 850 students, middle school facilities will serve 850 students and high school facilities will serve 1,250 students. Construction Schedule: N/A *Note: Should site acquisition be funded through this project, site acquisition costs will be subtracted from each individual school project costs. PRIORITY 6 Robinson Ed. Ceater/NREP Replacement/Renovation Description: This project involves the renovation and upgrade of two buildings along Smithfield Ave. and Roosevelt Blvd. and the renovation of the administration building located on Amherst St. Areas such as roof replacement; HVAC, electrical, plumbing systems, and specifically a total window replacement at the Smithfield Ave. building are needed. Capital Cost: $15,800,000 Justification: The facility that houses the ED and Long Term Suspension programs will serve from 70-80 students. The facility that houses the pre-school special education program will serve 120-180 students. Construction Completion: To be determined 10 PRI 1U YY 7 Fourth High School Description: This project consists of the development of a fourth high school serving grades 9-12 with a program capacity of 1,250 students. The project location has yet to be determined, but will have a floor area of approximately 242,000 square feet and is to be located on approximately 50 acres of land. Capital Cost: $55,000,000 Justification: This project will address continued growth in student enrollment in the school division over the next five years. It is anticipated that student enrollment will increase at all levels. Student enrollment in the high schools by the fall of 2010 is projected to be 4,120. Construction Schedule: To be determined James Wood High School Renovation Description: This project involves renovations of the existing facility. Major areas to be included in the project include increased electrical service and distribution to support technology; technology cabling, hardware, and its installation; upgrade of plumbing and mechanical systems; and modification of instructional areas to support instructional delivery. Capital Cast: $18,000,000 Justification: Updating the facility will assist the school division in meeting the community needs for the citizens and high school student in the James Wood High School attendance zone. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 10-11 PRIORITY 9 Frederick County Middle School Renovation Description: This project involves renovations to security; replacement of the fire alarm system, and roof; upgrades to the heating, electrical, and plumbing systems. Also within the renovation, additional classroom space is needed. Capital Cost: $18,000,000 Justification: Renovations are needed to a number of areas to insure economic and efficient operation of the school. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 10-11 11 PRIORITY 10 Apple Pie Ridgelflass hoover Elementary School Renovations Description: This project includes renovations to both schools, which consists of additional classroom space; roof replacement at Apple Pie Ridge; and upgrades of fire alarm, electrical, plumbing, and mechanical systems. Capital Cost: $5,000,000 Justification: These renovations are needed to a number of areas to insure economic and efficient operation of the schools for years to come. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 10-11 PRIORITY 11 Indian Hollow Elementary School Renovation Description: This project includes renovations that involve additional classroom space; security; and upgrades to mechanical and waste water treatment plant systems, replacement of windows and repaving of asphalted areas. Capital Cost: $3,000,000 Justification: The school is 18 years of age and renovations are needed to a number of areas to insure the economical and efficient operation of the school for years to come. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 11-12 PRIORITY 12 Fifth Middle School Description: This project consists of the development of a new middle school serving grades 6-8 with a capacity of 850 students. The project location has yet to be determined but will have a floor area of approximately 166,000 square feet and will be located on approximately 30 acres of land. Capital Cost: $26,000,000 Justification: This project will address continued growth in student enrollment over the next five years. Middle school enrollment in 2010 is projected to be 3,387. Construction Schedule: To be determined 12 PRIORITY 13 Elementary School #13 Description: This project consists of the development of a new elementary school serving 750-850 students. The elementary school would be located upon 15 acres with a floor space of 96,000- 106,000 square feet. Capital Cost: $20,451,700 Justification: This project will be in a location that will relieve current overcrowding and accommodate projected housing developments. Construction Schedule: To be determined PRIORI T Y 14 Elementary School #14 Description: This project consists of the development of a new elementary school serving 750-850 students. The elementary school would be located upon 15 acres with a floor space of 96,300-106,000 square feet. Capital Cost: $20,451,700 Justification: This school will be located an area to relieve overcrowding and accommodate projected new housing developments. Construction Schedule: To be determined Parrs & Recreation Department Project Priority List PRIOPITY I Indoor Swimming Pool Description: This facility would house a leisure and competitive lap swimming pool with an office, storage and locker rooms. This facility should be located on property owned or proffered to the county and would utilize approximately 10-12 acres with parking. The facility will be designed to accommodate the addition of Field House amenities (priority 16). Capital Cost: $13,500,000 Justification: Parks and Recreation has relied heavily in the past on the public schools to house Parks and Recreation programs. This project would permit the Parks and Recreation department to meet citizen programming demands, provide an instructional facility, as well as provide the area with a facility that would attract new businesses to the community. This facility would be availablc to all area residents. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 06-07. 13 PRIORITY 2 Swimming Pool Improvements — Sherando/Clearbrook Description: This project consists of removing the diving boards and installing two water slides at both Sherando and Clearbrook Park. The upgrade would also include the addition of a spray ground with 10-12 features at each pool. Capital Cost: $1,114,560 Justitieation: This project is expected to increase pool attendance by 30 percent while providing recreational opportunities for both the Sherando and Clearbrook Park service areas. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 06-07. PRIORITY 3 Park Land - Eastern Frederick County Description: Parkland acquisition in the eastern portion of the county. Capital Cost: $4,000,000 Justification: A new 150-200 acre regional park would be utilized by the entire county population. The park would be located in the primary growth center of Frederick County. This project would reduce the gap between the amount of existing parkland and the amount of parkland needed to meet the minimum standard for the Frederick County service area, as recommended by the Virginia Outdoors Plan. Construction Schedule: Acquisition in FY 07-08. PRIORITY 4 Park Land — Western Frederick County Description: Parkland acquisition in the western portion of the county. Capital Cost: $3,000,000 Justification: A new 150-200 acre regional park would be utilized by the entire county population. This project would reduce the gap between the amount of existing parkland and the amount of parkland needed to meet the minimum standard for the Frederick County service area, as recommended by the Virginia Outdoors Plan. The location of this project would provide parkland to create more accessible recreational facilities to residents in western Frederick County. Construction Schedule: Acquisition in FY 07-08. 14 PRIORITY 5 Maintenance Compound and Office— Sherando Park Description: This project involves the construction of a 1,200 square -foot office and a 4,000 square -foot storage shed for operation at Sherando Park. Capital Cost: $336,960 Justification: This facility will enable the county to maintain equipment and facilities in a more responsible and effective manner. The additional responsibility to maintain the outdoor facilities at Sherando High School increases the need for more storage, maintenance, and office space. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 07-08 -PRIORTTi V 6 Open Play Area — Clearbrook Description: This project includes development of a picnic shelter; six horseshoe pits; a volleyball court; croquet turf; shuffleboard; parking; refurbishing the existing concession stand; and renovations to existing shelters, access paths, and parking areas on the south side of the lake. Capital Cost: $444,990 Justification: These facilities will provide recreational opportunities for the Clearbrook Park Service Area which will lessen the disparity between the number of passive recreational areas needed to meet the minimum standards for this service area. Clearbrook Park offers the best location for this development. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 07-08. PRK, 0MTY 7 Skateboard Park - Sherando i;'ark Description: This project recommends the development of a skateboard bowl; a half pipe; an open skate area; vehicle parking; an access road; fencing; and landscaping. Capital Cost: $454,594 Justification: This facility will enable the county to provide a recreational facility that has been requested for the community's youth. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 07-08. 15 PRIORITY 8 Lake, Parking, and Trail Development with two Multi-purpose F leids Description: This project involves the development of a 12 acre lake; 1.5 mile trail system around the lake; 800 linear feet of access roadway; lighted parking lot with 125 spaces; and development of two irrigated 70x120 yard multi-purpose fields. Capital Cost: $1,054,199 Justification: This facility will provide recreational opportunities for the Sherando Park service area and the entire Frederick County community. The development of this facility will reduce the needs gap between the number of existing passive recreational areas and the number required to meet the minimum standards established for the service area. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 07-08 Softball Complex- Sherando Park Description: This project includes two softball fields; an access road; parking spaces; and landscaping. Capital Cost: $593,674 Justification: This facility would provide recreational opportunities for the entire county population, as well as the Frederick County School System. Presently, there are ten softball and baseball fields within the county's regional park system. Eight of the existing fields must serve a dual purpose of facilitating youth baseball, as well as adult softball programs. With the increased usage of these fields, it has become increasingly difficult to facilitate these programs. This project is needed in order for the Parks and Recreation Department to accommodate the existing demand for youth baseball and adult softball programs. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 08-09 PRIORITY 10 Baseball Complex Renovation- Sherando Park Description: This project includes an upgrade to the lighting system; renovation of four existing baseball fields; and renovations of existing restrooms, access roads, and walkways. Capital Cost: $1,177,802 Justification: This facility, presently serving as both youth baseball and adult softball fields, would be used by the Little League Programs within the Sherando Park service area. In addition to its use as a recreational facility, the athletic complex will also be used 16 by the Frederick County School System. This project cannot be completed until the Sherando Softball Complex is completed. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 08-09 PRIORITY 11 Soccer Complex- Sherando Park Description: This project includes the development of two soccer fields; access paths; restrooms; concession; one picnic shelter; a plaza; landscaping; and lighting. Capital Cost: $1,790,665 Justification: This facility will serve the entire county population and will be utilized by the Frederick County School System. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 08-09 PMORITY 12 Tennis/Basketball Complex- Clearbrook Park Description: This project includes the development of four tennis courts; two basketball courts; a shelter; access paths; parking; and landscaping. Capital Cost: $449,772 Justification: These facilities will be available to all county residents. Currently, there are no tennis courts or basketball courts in the Clearbrook Park Service Area. Clearbrook Park is utilized by over 180,000 visitors annually; therefore, these facilities are needed. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 08-09 P1R: ORI T Y 13 Picnic Area- S:lierando Park Description: This project includes a restroom/concession area; four picnic shelters; playground area; access paths; parking; and landscaping. Capital Cost: $697,280 Justification: These facilities would be used by the residents of southern Frederick County. This area of the county is growing and is deficient in passive recreational opportunities. This project is to be included for Sherando Park. Construction Sched'uie: Completion in FY 09-10 17 PRIORITY 14 Shelter/Stage Seating- Cjearbrook Park Description: This project includes the development of a shelter with a performance stage; refurbishing existing restrooms and access paths; and renovations to the lake. Capital Cost: $443,412 Justification: This facility would be used by the entire county population. Presently, there are no facilities to accommodate cultural programs within the county's park system. This project is needed to provide a facility for cultural activities. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 09-10 PRIDRITt Y 15 Access Road with Parking and Trails- Sheranao Parr Description: This project involves the development of an entrance and 1,800 linear feet of access roadway from Warrior Drive; a 100 space parking area; and 2.8 miles of trails. Capital Cost: $1,075,304 Justification: This facility will provide recreational opportunities for the Sherando Park service area and the entire Frederick County community. The development of this facility will reduce the needs gap between the number of existing passive recreational areas and the number required to meet the minimum standards established for the service area. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 09-10 PRIORITY 16 Field House Description: This facility would be attached to the Indoor Swimming Pool (Priority 1). The project involves building a 44,000 square foot facility that would contain an indoor track and at least two basketball courts. The court area would be designed to be used by indoor soccer, baseball, softball, wrestling, volleyball, tennis and badminton. The area could also be used for special events. Additionally, the project would house a fitness center, multi-purpose rooms, office, storage, and locker rooms. Capital Costs: $7,840,800 Justification: This facility would give the Parks and Recreation Department the ability to offer year round recreational programming to the residents of Frederick County. It would also allow the Parks and Recreation Department to meet the increasing demand for recreational programming in Frederick County. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 10-11 18 County Administration Project Priority List PRI01UTY 1 Public Safety Center Description: This project recommends the development of a 60,000 square foot facility for the Frederick County Sheriff's Office and Fire and Rescue Services. This will allow the Frederick County Sheriff's Office to vacate the Winchester -Frederick County Joint Judicial Center. Capital Cost: S13,000,000 .Justification: The Frederick County Sheriff's Office currently has 80 employees that occupy the space in the Winchester -Frederick County Joint Judicial Center (JJC). When this space was first occupied, there were 36 employees in the office. Representatives of the JJC have indicated that additional space is required for court offices and other arms of the judicial branch. Development of a new facility in the county will enhance the response time for emergency service in the safest possible manner. The current location of the Sheriff s Office in the JJC increases emergency response time due to congested streets and heavily populated areas, thus compromising safety to persons and property. Construction Schedule: Construction to begin FY 06-07 PRIORITY 2 Amex Facilities/Fire & Rescue Station #22 IIescriptcn: This project will consist of several facilities located at strategic location throughout the county to house employees of the Sheriffs Office, the Treasurer's Office, and the Commissioner of Revenue's Office. A 10,000 square foot fire station would be included with the offices located in the Fairfax Pike area. Capital Cost: $3,100,000 Justification: The development of satellite along major transportation networks and in areas of dense population will provide ease of access for citizens and will improve services to the county. The county continues to experience a significant rate of growth; therefore, it is important to provide services within these areas instead of requiring citizens to confront congestion, limited parking, and accessibility in the City of Winchester. Censtruction Schedule: Completion in FY 08-09 19 PRIORITY 3 Found hill Y iL a and Rescue Station Relocation Description: This project includes the relocation and building of a 22,000 square foot facility to accommodate ten or more pieces of emergency equipment and to house living and sleeping areas for staff. A community center of approximately 10,000 square feet, with a capacity of 400 people, is also planned; it would be used for fundraising events and other activities. The project would need a parcel of three to five acres. Capital Cost: N/A Justification: The existing facility serving the Round Hill area is 50+ years old and not large enough to accommodate the equipment needed to serve the Round Hill community. This community includes approximately 9,000 households, three schools, and the Winchester Medical Center. Construction Schedule: To be determined PRIORITY 4 Gainesboro Convenience Site Relocation Description: This project involves the relocation and expansion of the Gainesboro convenience site. The project would include fencing; earthwork; retaining walls; electric; and paving. Capital Cost: $250,000 Justification: The project is necessary to provide adequate trash disposal service for citizens living in the Gainesboro area of Frederick County. The existing site is inadequate and cannot be expanded to provide for safe ingress/egress or fencing to prevent illegal dumping. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 08-09 PRIORITY 5 Gore Refuse Site Expansion Description: This project involves the expansion of the site by approximately one acre to install a trash compactor. With the relocation of the landfill site and purchase of new equipment, the present compactor will be surplus. Capital Cost: $200,000 Justification: Installation of this compactor at Gore will drive down collection costs at the site where trash is now collected in 8 -yard boxes. This expansion will provide needed capacity for heavy flow times. Ultimately the intent of the site is to make best use of existing equipment while lowering operational costs in the Gore service area. Construction Schedule: Start in FY 08-09 20 PRIORITY Clearbrook Fire Station Relocation Description: The new facility is to be located either North or South of Brucetown Rd. The building is to be six (6) drive through bays, administration, eating, and sleeping facilities along with a dining hall. The structure is to be approximately 28,000 square feet. Capital Cost: $1,530,000 Justification: This project calls for Fire Station #13 to be relocated to an area that has a much safer exit/entrance way. This project will also accommodate the growth in Northeastern Frederick County. Construction Schedule: To be determined Winchester Regional Airport Project Priority List P-RIORITV 1 Land Acquisition — Bufflicli Road — Parcels 31, 46, & 53 Description: Acquisition of three parcels along Bufflick Road. Capital Cost: $865,000 Local Cost: $17,300 Justification: This project is necessary as the identified parcels are located within both the Airport's FAR Part 77 Primary Surface and/or approach surface and the FAA's projected DNL 65 noise contour. The FAA considers residential land use within the noise contour to be incompatible with airport operations and encourages airports to resolve such incompatibility through land acquisition. Moreover, under the FAA's Part 77 Surface Requirements and the Code of Virginia, the Airport is required to assume fee simple ownership of property located within the Primary Surface. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 06-07 PRIORITY 2 Teraiirial Building Renovation, Phase if Description: This project involves repairs and upgrades to the existing terminal building including fixing the exterior surface; stopping leaks in the roof, and replacing the HVAC system. Capital Cost: $500,000 Local Cost: $100,000 Justification: The building was constructed in 1992 and is beginning to show several areas of wear including delaminating of the exterior surface and a leaking roof. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 07-08 21 PRIORITY 3 Land Acquisition — Bufflick Road — Parcels 47, 47A, & 48 Description: Acquisition of three parcels located along Bufflick Road. Property is included in the 20 year Master Plan. Capital Cost: $865,000 Local Cost: $17,300 Justification: This project is necessary as the identified parcels are located within the Airport's FAR Part 77 primary surface and/or approach surface. In addition, several of the residential parcels are located inside the FAA's projected DNL 65 noise contour. The FAA considers residential use within the noise contour non -compatible with airport operations. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 07-08 PRIORITY 4 Airfield Lighting Upgrade Description: This project involves the upgrade of the existing medium intensity runway lighting to high intensity runway lighting and the upgrade of the two -box precision approach path indicator (PAPI) to a four -box PAPI. Capital Cost: $200,000 Local Cost: $4,000 Justification: This project is necessary to accommodate the increase in aircraft that utilize the Winchester Regional Airport. Construction Schedule: Design in FY 07-08 with construction in FY 08-09 PRL©RITY 5 Land Acquisition — Bufflick Road — Parcels 50, 51, & 52 Description: Acquisition of three parcels located along Bufflick Road. Property is included in the 20 Year Master Plan. Capital Cost: $350,000 Local Cost: $7,000 Justification: This project is necessary as the identified parcels are located within the Airport's FAR Part 77 primary surface and/or approach surface. In addition, several of the residential parcels are located inside the FAA's projected DNL 65 noise contour. The FAA considers residential use within the noise contour non -compatible with airport operations. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 09-10 22 PRIGWTY 6 Airfield Maintenance Building Description: Demolition of undersized wooden structure and construction of a new facility to accommodate the airport's maintenance equipment and maintenance work activities. Capital Cost: $300,000 Local Cost: $210,000 Justification: This project is necessary to accommodate maintenance activities at the airport. Construction Schedule: To be determined Handley Regional Library Project Priority List PRIORITY f Bowman Library Parking Lot and Sidewaik Extension Description: This proposal is to expand the parking lot on the Lakeside Drive side of the library from 101 to 221 parking spaces, and to provide a sidewalk that will extend approximately 400 to 500 feet beyond the sidewalk that now borders the parking lot to connect to the sidewalk on Lakeside Drive. Capital Cost: $228,468 Justification: The parking lot expansion is needed to relieve overcrowding and to accommodate library patrons. The sidewalk is necessary to provide safe access for pedestrians to the library. Planning consideration for alternative modes of transportation such as bicycle connectivity should also be considered. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 06-07 PRIORITY 2 Northern Frederick County Library Branc"- Description: This project entails the acquisition of 3 to 4 acres and the construction of a 7,000 square foot library branch with expansion possible to 10,000 square feet along Route 522 N near Cross Junction. Initial parking would accommodate 35 vehicles. Capital Cost: $1,053,000 Justification: There is no library in this area of the county to serve residents. The residents of the Gainesboro District comprise the largest population group the greatest distance away from a library. The library would serve members of the population from toddlers to senior citizens. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 08-09 CFFW Regional Jail Project Priority List 23 PRIORTTV 1 Secure Retention Expansion iaescription: A 34,615 square foot 96 bed facility that will be connected to the existing secure detention center to accommodate growth in inmate population. The expansion will be partially designed for direct supervision housing. It will also include a segregation unit, classification, and negative air flow facilities. Capital Cost: $13,200,000 Justification: The core facilities were designed to support the expansion and land was acquired during the initial construction. Construction Schedule: Completion in FY 07-08 24 C� • C COUNTY of FREDERICK _- Department of Planning and Development 5401665-5651 FAX: 5401665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Candice E. Perkins, Planner II RE: Request of Exception — Eastern Automotive Group DATE: February 3, 2006 Staff has received a waiver request from Patton Harris Rust & Associates on behalf of Eastern Automotive Group, to allow for the reduction in entrance spacing for new driveways on major collector roads in order to allow a new commercial entrance to be placed less than 150 feet from an existing commercial entrance (Capital Meats). A copy from the submitted site plan for the Eastern Automotive Group that shows the location of the new entrance, a copy from the Kernstown Commons site plan, and an aerial photograph of the site has been included for your information. The zoning ordinance §165-29A(6) specifies that: "The minimum spacing for business or industrial entrances and road intersections on major collector roads shall be 150 feet. " In accordance with Section 165-29B(1), the Planning Commission may allow other means of motor vehicle access which do not meet the requirements set forth in 165-29. The property is located across from the development known as Kernstown Commons and in front of Route 37 Self Storage. The site is identified by Property Identification Number (PIN) 75A -6-B-41 B and is within the Back Creek Magisterial District; the property is zoned B2 (Business General) and is currently vacant. The approval of this waiver will allow this property to develop an automobile sales facility with a full commercial entrance on Valley Pike (Route 11). Staff would like to note that the approval of this waiver would also allow the entrance for this site to align with one of the two signals that is being provided with the Kernstown Commons development as depicted on the attached site plan. The applicant would need a waiver of 60' off of the adjacent commercial entrance, which would place the entrance 90' off of the adjacent entrance. The Planning Commission should determine if they believe the waiver is appropriate in this case. Please contact our department if you need additional information. Enclosure CEP/bad 107 North Dent Street, Suite M2 ® Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 # B1 (Business, Neighborhood District) MS. (Medical Support District) B2 (Business, General District) R4 (Residential, Planned Community District) B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) (b RE (Residential Recreational Community District) EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) Q RA(Rural Areas District) HE (Higher Education District) Q RP (Residential Performance District) M7 (Industrial, Light District) M2 (Industrial, General District) MHt (Mobile Home Community District) 0 100 200 400 Feet Automotive Group (75A -6B -41B) B1 (Business, Neighborhood District) + MS (Medical Support District) B2 (Business, General District) V R4 (Residential, Planned Community District) ® B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) * R5 (Residents[ Recreational Community District) EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) O RA (Rural Areas District) HE (Higher Education District) Q RP (Residential Performance District) M7 (Industrial, Light District) i M2 (Industrial, General District) MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) 0 100 200 400 Feet Automotive Group (75A -6B -41B) �jA� ._:............_..... n� ,rpW" i� NA0 B ,rn+em exm.cNt>,eR rxsyls'uFvy � g,"+ 'O '` ' • axu uvl.. ws �� nuCO. LLC F E 656 B1 w s� A-. ------- -----------------. > �_ C �. �.---------- -------------_ -- - o g;i - - — -- u:- ------------- ----- ---------- ---- - - o&'srx-nsf__-__ __� ,n__ ___ __- --____ , ...................... _E uttrt u l �u an xv wnvt .. .......... I - a,,.,, � _ uvsaue omeLsm ........ T LL ,� novDmmrlua¢Lm i� ..............._............. { _ _ ------------ T z w". w--_ I ,',i C9APN/CSCALE � .1 t= 4 4 R: t tA/ W zt uc [xnEMCNELLY A. kICIE P' O 75 ((A))B a� An g DII' I` ` AMus T, c. & Rosnl E (y� ( L MEAT$) - w '{ 1 I' r ]?,.E .1 , •" . '" _ In ?/ 135]J J .. '"~ DURSEJflE65 DEun85 W Z a 1 PG i t j ---- s_, Ij I :nElf U vvr nw..tom g� -1227— 1„] E 4� ZL l s y a I M. e „r o _ °.,. c s ®_ .-........ \• Iw\ U.S.o�ROUTE 11 ^-- m�.n, `{ ---- f wrtu�,.T 1-1— — — a (~ J �(R/W VARIES) � � � _ '---- _ VALLEY PIKE tP°5 Pel - iE° A5 u sv _ -- _- —_ n ol oRArvcE PAeweas, uc. FUTURE ENYRaNC£ COND/T/ONS CAN Js -A-10 8E FOUND /N ROUTE 11 J Z0 °1UPROVEMENTS PROPOSAL SEE 5/TE 3 } IrvsRESIDENTIAL INST. t Im1e PUN f 10-05 DATED OCTOBER 2005 zr LL: luT I - A 0 0 Al N. . . . . . . . m f 0 f K) Vi co vi < =7 .1 RIF. LFw to 41 If 5 Inter ctlon Improvemen i , IC _ y I f Include SI" opLight Intersection Improvements PIN 75-A-� Includes StopLight — ADAMS ZONED: 82 PIN 75A6 -B -41B USE. COMMERCIAL14 ZON I D: 62 F TOM LLC l5ctsklrn PIN 75-A-3 W-1 USE: VACANT Pk4ftrvo�jv-f 0 SADEGHZADEH 0 ZONED. 82 (FA P I s VACANT IO vz Cil ... I PIN 75 A1 F- A4CMr �Arl • • J REZONING APPLICATION #12-05 AND MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #09-05 VILLAGES AT ARTRIP Staff Report for tbie Planning Commission Prepared: October 24, 2005 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist therm 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: 08/03/05 Tabled 60 days 10/05/05 Tabled 60 days 12/07/05 Applicant requested delay to 12/21/05 12/21/05 Tabled 60 days 02/15/06 (See Page 23 for update) Board of Supervisors: 03/08/06 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 169.924 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District for the proposed mixed use development of 793 (Previously 905) Residential Units and Retail, Restaurant and Office Uses. LOCATION: The property is located one mile west of Interstate 81, three quarters mile north of Tasker Road (Route 649),150 feet north of Fair Lawn Court (Route 1176) and west of Canter Estates Section V. TOAGfSTERIAL DiSTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY RD NUMBER: 75 -A -99A PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: (Rural Areas) District Use: Unimproved ADSOIiNING PROPERTY ZONiNG & PRESENT USE: North: B2 (Business General) RA (Rural Area) South: RP (Residential Performance) East: RP (Residential Performance) West: RP (Residential Performance) RA (Rural Area) Use: Unimproved Agricultural Use: Residential/FCSA Use: Residential Use: Residential/Vacant Residential PROPOSED USES: 793 Residential Units, Retail, Restaurants and Office Uses (a maximum of 128,550 square feet and a minimum of 20, 000 square feet of commercial use has been proffered). Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 24, 2005 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virjzinia Rept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 719. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Villages at Artrip rezoning application dated May 20, 2005 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. The developer will be required to enter into a signalization agreement with VDOT at the time the roadway is requested to be accepted into the State's Secondary System. The developer will be liable for the cost of the signal. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the T.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: Where the desire of the developer to provide proffers is appreciated, the development of this project will have an overwhelming impact on fire and rescue services. Water supplies for firefighting and access shall be addressed during the Subdivision Plan Review. Plan approval recommended. Stephens City Volunteer fire Rept.: No comments offered. Pub'Hc Forks Department: Your letter dated June 13, 2005 has adequately addressed our previous review comments related to the rezoning application and master development plan associated with the proposed Villages at Artrip. Frederick County Dept. of Inspections: No comment required. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments regarding submitted. Application recognizes that expansion of Parkins Mills is necessary to accommodate project build -out. Sanitation Authority: No comment. Health Department: No objection or comment, so long as municipal sewer and water services are provided to entire project. Department of Parks & Recreation: The area identified as a school site and open space for use by the Parks and Recreation Department does not appear to be adequate to accommodate both uses. The typical section on page three of five of the Master Development Plan indicates trails to be between five and ten feet in width. The Parks and Recreations Department recommends all trail to be a minimum of ten feet in width. The revised proffer statement has modified proffer 5.1 to reflect ten foot bike trails. The Proffer Statement should include language which indicates the bridge design (The proffer statement, Section 14.2.1.1) will accommodate bicycle lanes. The proposed monetary proffer for Parks Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 24, 2005 Page 3 and Recreation appears to be less than what the impact model would indicate is needed to offset the impact of this development. Frederick Caunty Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 155 single-family homes, 180 town houses and 570 multi -family units will yield 49 high school students, 47 middle school students and 131 elementary school students for a total of 227 new students upon build -out. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. The resubmitting of this rezoning application with its proffer statement provides approximately 11 acres to be dedicated for a future elementary school site (minimum acreage needed for an elementary site would be 15 acres). It is imperative with the above number of units included with this project that an elementary school be located in this area. With current building trends, future considerations need to be given to additional middle and high school facilities. Also because of the continued growth in Frederick County, the replacement of certain administrative facilities such as the transportation and administration, which currently have exceeded their capacity, will need to be replaced or expanded. This proffer helps to address the impact of a future elementary school; however, the impact of this type of application on other current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Winchester Regional Airport: We have reviewed the above referenced rezoning application/master plan and it appears that the proposed site plan will not have an impact on operations at the Winchester Regional Airport as the majority of the subdivision falls outside of the Airport's Part 77 surface. No special requirements or conditions are requested on behalf of the Winchester Regional Airport Authority. Frederick County Attorney: Comments to be provided by Mr. Bob Mitchell, Jr. Historic Resources Advisory Board: Upon review of the property rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic properties and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by the HRAB. The Rural Landmarks Survey and the Comprehensive Policy Plan do not identify any significant historic structures or battlefield located on or adjacent to the property. Geographic Information Systems: Warrior Drive and Lakeside Drive are continuations of existing roadways and names. Parkins Mill Road will not be accepted as a road name. It conflicts with roadways and names already in the system, and is not considered an extension of an existing roadway name. The potential for up to 21 road names has been noted. Any "Private Road" that is the primary entrance for four or more properties must be named before numbering/addressing can be completed. This MDP is presented as a suburban setting and not a rural setting. Therefore, future road names with such suffixes as Road, Lane, Loop, Trail, Bypass, Grade, Highway, Interstate, Overlook, Pike and Turnpike will not be accepted into the system. Acceptable road name suffixes for this development include Alley, Avenue, Boulevard, Circle, Court, Drive, Place, Plaza, Square, Street, Terrace and Way., Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 24, 2005 Page 4 Town of Middletown: None. Town of Stephens City: Traffic concerns as always. City of Winchester: From a regional transportation standpoint, the inability to provide connectivity to Warrior Drive where the bridge is needed at the south end raises concerns in terms of traffic impacts. Planning & Zoniniz: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned R-2 (Residential Limited). The parcels were re -mapped from R- 2 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. 2) Intended Use The applicant proposes the development of a mixed use project; a residential planned community with an arrangement of residential villages containing a mixture of housing types focused around core area which incorporates a neighborhood commercial center. Also proposed is the dedication of areas for public use including an eleven acre site for an elementary school. The project is proposed to be developed in three phases. Through the proffer statement, the project would be limited to 905 residential units. The proposed gross residential density for the Villages at Artrip is 5.40 units per acre. The applicant has not committed to construct any more than 10,000 square feet of commercial uses. However, the ability has been provided to enable up to 118,550 square feet of commercial uses. The construction of Warrior Drive as a four lane section throughout the limits of this property to connect with Warrior Drive in the Wakeland Manor and Crosspointe developments is a key component of the project. 3) Master Development Plan Requirement In order to have land rezoned to the R4 District, a master development plan, meeting all requirements of Article XVIII of the Zoning Ordinance shall be submitted with the rezoning application. In adopting the rezoning, the master development plan submitted will be accepted as a condition proffered for the rezoning. The master development plan review procedures described in Article XVIII must also be completed concurrently with or following the consideration of the rezoning. The purpose of the master development plan requirement is to ensure that the intent of the residential planned community is met. The intention of the R4 District is too provided for a mixture of housing types and uses within a carefully planned setting. Special care should be Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 24, 2005 Page 5 taken in the approval of the master development plan to ensure that the uses on the land are arranged to provide for compatibility of uses, to provide environmental protection, and to avoid adverse impacts on surrounding properties and facilities. The R4 District is intended to create new neighborhoods with an appropriate balance between residential, employment, and service uses. Innovative design is encouraged. Special care is taken in the approval of R4 developments to ensure the necessary facilities, roads, and improvements are available or provided to support the R4 development. Residential planned community developments shall only be approved in conformance with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan. 3) 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] T n»/] T kno The parcels comprising this rezoning application are located within the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Urban Development Area defines the general area in which more intensive forms of residential development will occur. In addition, The Villages at Artrip property is located within the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan and is identified with a Mixed Use designation north and east of Warrior Drive and a Residential designation south and east of Warrior Drive. As noted in the Comprehensive Plan, the mixed use areas are envisioned to include residential and commercial components, of which a maximum of 75 percent of the land area would be residential. The mixed use concept is intended to promote land use patterns that allow for internal service, employment and intermodal transportation opportunities with public open space linkages between various developments. The concept is offered as a diversion from the typical segregation of land uses into specific zoning districts that are often unrelated to each other such as is presently evident in the County. The Villages at Artrip rezoning application request is consistent with the land use designations identified in the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. With the more urban densities envisioned for development in the UDA, the Comprehensive Plan seeks to ensure that special effort is made to provide the infrastructure necessary to accommodate the desired land uses and densities. Further, as land is developed in the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan portion of the Urban Development Area, the Plan identifies the preservation of the stream valleys as environmental open space is an important goal that contributes to the protection of flood plains and water quality and provides a continuous system of green open space. Rezoning #12-05 Villages at Artrip October 24, 2005 Page 6 Transportation. The Southern Frederick Land Use Plan and the Eastern Road Plan identify new road systems which have been planned to effectively manage traffic generated from the various uses, to link various land uses with arterial and collector road systems, and to provide for signalization opportunities at critical intersections as areas develop. The most significant transportation element in the Comprehensive Plan that relates to this application is Warrior Drive. Warrior Drive is identified as a major collector road with a four lane urban section that traverses the property in a south-east to north-westerly direction. Also identified are Parkins Mill Road and an extension of Lakeside Drive into the project. Both are identified as collector roads with a two lane section. The new road systems within the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan are planned to mitigate impacts to the environmental features and historic areas. The plan encourages public access and the development of bicycle facilities and pedestrian walkway systems that serve residential, mixed use and planned unit development areas. The plan also recommends limiting commercial entrances, utilizing master planned boulevard entrances, and increased parking lot setbacks for corridor design and appearance enhancements. Pursuant to the general transportation policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, roads located adjacent to and within new development are expected to operate at no less than a Level of Service Category "C." (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 7-5) 4) Site Suitabiiity/Environment The Villages at Artrip property is located immediately south of the Opequon Creek. Areas of 100 Year Flood Plain, steep slopes, and mature woodlands associated with the Opequon Creek frame the northern boundary of the project as these features run along the entire length of the property. The majority of these environmental features will be protected in areas of open space. Disturbance of areas of mature woodlands will occur in the northwestern portion of the property. The limits of disturbance of the mature woodlands have been identified on the proffered master development plan. Further, the applicant has made efforts in the design of the MDP and within the proffer statement to minimize the disturbance of the mature woodlands and ensure the protection of these areas. Internal to the project the applicant has made further attempt to preserve areas of existing woodlands or specimen trees by ensuring their location in open space areas. This is evidenced with the location of a village green around the identified specimen Delaware Pine and the dedicated tree save area in Landbay F. A second significant stream, an urinamed tributary to the Opequon Creek, traverses the southern portion of this property. Once again this feature and its associated flood plain, steep slopes, and mature woodlands have been located within areas of open space. A small amount of disturbance of the environmental features associated with the unnamed tributary will occur due to the construction of Warrior Drive. The master development plan prepared for this project ensures and demonstrates that any disturbance of identified environmental features will be done in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal requirements. Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 24, 2005 Page 7 The majority of the Villages at Artrip site are generally more suitable for development as it relatively level and open. Historically, the site was used for agricultural purposes. Located internal to the site are smaller areas of wetlands and waters of the U.S. which have been incorporated into the design of the master development plan. Of particular note is the farm pond located central to the project that the applicant has proffered to preserve as a focal point or visual amenity to the project. This village pond and its associated wetlands maybe enhanced for stormwater management function however its environmental integrity and aesthetic quality will be maintained with its proffered preservation. 5) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis. The Trac Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for this application projects that the development of 820 residential units, 60,000 square feet of office use, 150,000 square feet of retail use, and two 6,000 square foot restaurants would ultimately generate 15,623 vehicle trips per day. The actual proffered mix of land uses, identified in the introduction to this application, should be considered in comparison to this assumption when evaluating the TIA. The report was developed with primary access to the project being via the proposed Warrior Drive, a future roadway. The report was separated into three phases generally consistent with the proffered phasing of the development. Phase I assumes 297 residential units along with the completion of Warrior Drive from south of Tasker Road to the northern property extents of the Villages at Artrip; Phase 2 assumes 577 residential units and 10,000 square feet of retail along with the completion Warrior Drive from south of Tasker Road to the northern property extents of the Villages at Artrip; and Phase 3 assumes the build out of the entire Villages at Artrip development along with the completion of Warrior Drive from south of Tasker Road to north of Crosspointe Boulevard a future roadway within the planned Crosspointe development. The TIA concludes that the traffic impacts associated with the Villages at Artrip application are acceptable and manageable. The conclusion of the TIA further identifies suggested improvements that are assumed to be implemented to achieve an acceptable level of service at intersections throughout the study area network and to achieve an acceptable and manageable conclusion. It should be noted that many of the improvements identified relate to intersections beyond the boundaries of this project and that some of the identified improvements may be accomplished with other development projects. The Villages at Artrip project has not proffered to address any of the identified off-site improvements that are identified in Figure 21a of the TIA (Phase 3: 2012 build out lane geometry and levels of service) which would accommodate this and other adjacent background projects and traffic. The assumption of the Villages at Artrip project is that these improvements will be put in place by others and that ultimate connection to the study area network will occur Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 24, 2005 Page 8 in a timely fashion. The transportation proffers provided by the Villages at Artrip project relate directly to on-site transportation improvements with one exception - the connection of Warrior Drive to its currently planned terminus on the Wakeland Manor project. Staff Comment: A scenario could be envisioned where the Phase 3 build out of the Villages at Artrip project would occur, including the construction of the road networkthrough the limits of the Villages at Artrip property, prior to any development in the adjacent portion of the Crosspointe development. This scenario would be problematic when considering the structure of the Villages TM, as this key connection to an off-site transportation network is the main assumption of the third phase of the TM. With no connection to Warrior Drive internal to the Crosspointe project, and subsequently the other transportation improvements that are part of the Crosspointe project, the assumptions of the third phase of the Villages TM should be carefully considered. With the above scenario in mind, and with the sole access to the property being via Warrior Drive south to Tasker Road, it has not been demonstrated by the applicant that a Level of Service C will be achieved at the Warrior Drive/Tasker Road (south) intersection, and at other locations throughout the study, with the full build out of the Villages project as permitted by proffer. Any effort to advance the ultimate construction of Warrior Drive from Tasker Road through to Crosspointe Boulevard as depicted in the TIA would be beneficial to the Villages at Artrip project. Transportation Approach. The Villages at Artrip application addresses the transportation improvements identified in the Comprehensive Plan and necessary to accommodate the Villages development by proffering to develop the ultimate four lane section of Warrior Drive within the limits of their property and beyond to connect with the currently planned terminus of the road on the Wakeland Manor property. The ultimate section of Warrior Drive is described in the impact statement and is identified in the MDP. Also proffered is the construction of Parkins Mill Road from its intersection with Warrior Drive to the limits of the property adjacent to the Canter Estates Section V property. Parkins Mill Road will be constructed by the applicant to a point that provides a connection to the existing road within Canter Estates Section V. The typical section of Parkins Mill Road is also depicted on the MDP. The applicant has proffered a three phased approach to the transportation improvements identified above that is consistent with the phasing provided for the proposed land uses within the project. In addition, the application has proposed an alternative three phased approach to the transportation improvements in the event that access to the project from the north and the Crosspointe development is advanced ahead of access to the south through the Wakeland Manor project. Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 24, 2005 Page 9 The completion of Warrior Drive entails the construction of the previously noted bridge over the unnamed tributary of the Opequon Creek. This significant crossing will occur with the first phase of the transportation improvements for the project. This crossing should accommodate the trail that parallels the length of Warrior Drive as identified in the proffers and the MDP. One roundabout intersection at Parkins Mill Road and two signalized intersections are identified in the TIA as being provided with this project. Pedestrian accommodations have been proffered at those locations where signalization is referenced in the TIA. Staff Comment: The Proffer Statement alludes to the provision of signalization consistent with the TIA; however, the Proffer Statement does not specifically state that signalization will be provided at the locations identified in the TIA. Clarity should be provided by the applicant and in the Proffer Statement. This is particularly critical with the proffered location ofa school site atone of these intersections. The Proffer Statement provides for the connection of Warrior Drive to the existing section of Warrior Drive in Wakeland Manor in Phase 1 of the road phasing program if Warrior Drive construction and phasing is initiated from the south. However, the road phasing program, if construction is initiated from Crosspointe, provides no commitment to making the connection to the existing section of Warrior Drive in Wakeland 1lilanor, only to Point A as identified on the MDP. This critical omission should be clarified by the applicant and in the Proffer Statement. Also, Proffer 14.7.3 should be revised to ensure that Warrior Drive is constructed to the existing section of Warrior Drive in Wakeland Manor prior to the issuance of the 681' residential building permit. All road construction triggers should refer to issuance of residential building permits, not occupancy permits. It is important to ensure that the Parkins Mill Road extension, and connection to Canter Estates Section V, is in place in a timely fashion. It is staff's belief that this connection should be in place in conjunction with Phase2 of this development if not sooner. Bicycle and pedestrian access has been provided throughout the project. The locations and details for these accommodations are clearly identified on the MDP. Staff has previously requested that consideration be given to extending pedestrian access to the adjacent Lakewood Manor subdivision. This would be extremely desirable and enhance access between the developments and to and from the dedicated elementary school site. The applicants currently own Lot 121 in the Lakewood Manor Subdivision. Pedestrian access at this location, via an access easement into the Villages at Artrip sidewalk network, would be appropriate and should be reconsidered by the applicant. The applicant should also consider extending a sidewalk along the south side of Parkins Mill road to provide a connection between the apartments and the adjacent Canter Estates Section V development. Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 24, 2005 Page 10 B. Sewer and Water The Villages at Artrip rezoning proposal is estimated to require approximately 204,710 gallons per day of water usage and is expected to generate a similar amount of wastewater. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority will serve the property and the wastewater flow from the site will go to the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Plant. The initial review of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority offered no comment and the review of the Frederick Winchester Service Authority identifies that the application recognizes that the expansion of the Parkins Mill facility is necessary to accommodate the projects build out. Recent planning efforts have identified that evolving nutrient reduction regulations promulgated by Virginia's Bay Program will have a significant impact on the permitted waste water capabilities of Frederick County. Both the Frederick Winchester Service Authority and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority are currently undertaking efforts to evaluate the regulations and, in conjunction with the UDA Study Working Group, proactively plan to address this issue. Requests for land use modifications should be evaluated very carefully in light of the evolving nutrient loading regulations. C. Historic Resources While no significant historical resources were identified on the property pursuant to the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey and other identified sources, several sites of interest were identified by the applicant. In particular, a family cemetery was identified that contained three to five gravesites. The applicant has incorporated the gravesite area into the reserved open space to ensure that it remains undisturbed. D. Community Facilities The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model is a tool that is used to identify the capital costs associated with various types of development proposals presented to the County. The projected costs to Fire and Rescue, Public Schools, Parks and Recreation, Library, Sheriff's Office and for the Administration Building are calculated and provided to the applicant for their consideration. The Fiscal Impact Model output for this project indicates a net negative fiscal impact at the build out of the project. It should be recognized that the applicant has only proffered the construction of 10,000 square feet of commercial use with the project. The ability remains to provide up to 118,550 square feet of commercial. However, the applicant has stated that this is dependent upon the ultimate completion of Warrior Drive from Crosspointe Boulevard to Tasker Road. No time frame is offered for the completion of the road and, therefore, no credit is provided for this potential commercial use. The R4 District requires that sufficient commercial areas shall be provided to meet the needs of the planned community, to provide for an appropriate balance of uses, and to lessen the overall impact of the planned community on Frederick County. The applicant has been encouraged to increase their commitment to the Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 24, 2005 Page 11 introduction of a greater amount of commercial square footage at an earlier stage of the development phasing. A result of such a commitment would be to minimize the fiscal impact of the project to the County. Obviously, the more commercial land that is developed prior to the introduction of the residential components, the more the fiscal impacts of the residential units will be mitigated. In recognition of the fiscal impacts associated with this application, the applicant has proffered a contribution in the amount of $337 per residential unit for the public school system. The comment provided by the Frederick County Public Schools should be carefully considered when evaluating the application: The evaluation anticipated that the proposed 155 single-family homes, 180 town houses and 570 multi family units will yield 49 high school students, 47 middle school students and 131 elementary school students for a total of 227 new students upon build -out. Further, that 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 ofapproved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. Following the initial review of this application, the applicant resubmitted the rezoning application with a proffer statement that provides approximately 11 acres to be dedicated for a future elementary school site. The schools provided the following comment: The minimum acreage needed for an elementary site would be 15 acres. It is imperative with the above number of units included with this project that an elementary school be located in this area. With current building trends, future considerations need to be given to additional middle and high school facilities. Also, because of the continued growth in Frederick County, the replacement of certain administrative facilities such as transportation and administration, which currently have exceeded their capacity, will need to be replaced or expanded. This proffer helps to address the impact of a future elementary school; however, the impact of this type of application on other current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. The proposed dedication of land to facilitate the location of an elementary school in a location central to the rapidly developing areas of the County, appears to be desirable in conjunction with this project. The availability of land from the properties adjacent to the proposed 11 acre dedication would have to be pursued to ensure that sufficient area could be obtained to accommodate an elementary school site. Alternately, sufficient area could be provided by the applicant within their property. It would also appear as though other impacts recognized by the public school system could be addressed to a greater extent. Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 24, 2005 Page 12 The applicant has also proffered a further dedication of five acres of public land identified as Landbay F, adjacent to the 11 acres, and has proffered a financial contribution to offset the fiscal impacts to the various County entities consistent with the results of the Fiscal Impact Model. E. Permitted Uses and %4 Modifications. The Zoning Ordinance allows a variety of uses within the R4 District. In addition to this flexibility, the Ordinance provides for the preparation of an alternative dimensional requirement plan. The applicant may also request modifications to specific requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The applicant should justify that the requested modification is necessary or justified and further advance the goals and intent of the R4 residential planned community and particular project. The applicant's justification for the Villages at Artrip is contained within the Executive Summary of the Impact Statement and generally revolves around the desire to develop a neo -traditional development within the context of the residential planned community district concept. Modification #Y (Section 165-72.B.(2)) The Villages at Artrip application proposes modifications to the housing types permitted with this project. Appendix A proposes an alternative dimensional requirement plan which is incorporated into the Proffer Statement. This appendix provides additional development standards that shall apply to the Villages at Artrip project. Appendix A introduces several new housing types, including rear loading single family detached cluster housing types, single family attached stacked flats, and single family attached back to back units. This proffered Appendix constitutes an extension to the permitted uses within this district that are specifically applicable to this project. Modification #2 (Section 165-71 Mixture of Housing Types Required) The applicant is requesting that more than 40 percent of the total residential land area may be used for multifamily housing products. The master development plan identifies the general layout of the permitted uses and provides a clear picture of how the proposed uses relate to each other. The approval of this modification would enable the master development plan be developed as presented. Modification #3 (Section 165-62.D) The applicant is requesting an increase in the overall gross density of the project from 4 units per acre to 5.4 units per acre. The gross density of any development with an approved master development plan which contains more than 100 acres shall not exceed four dwellings per acre. This requirement is contained within the RP (Residential Performance) District. It is the applicant's belief that an increase in density is warranted in order to achieve the desired neo- traditional residential planned community and facilitate the proposed public improvements and proffered land dedication commitments. Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 24, 2005 Page 13 5) Proffer Statement — Bated June 2005, revised June 17, 2045 The Villages at Artrip Proffer Statement is substantial in size and content and includes an appendix containing an alternative dimensional requirement plan. However, probably the most significant element of the Proffer Statement is the master development plan that has been prepared for this project. This master development plan identifies the layout, design, and details of the project and seeks to create an innovative and unique neighborhood that is representative of the intent of the R4 Residential Planned Community District. The master development plan identifies a core area that is designed to establish the tone and character for the development. The master development plan has been reviewed for conformance with the master plan requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (see section 7). The provision of the master development plan provides additional security as to the development of the property. Future modifications to the master development plan would necessitate this project going through a new rezoning process and a thorough public evaluation. The following is a summary of some of the other key elements of the proffer statement. 1) A maximum of 905 residential units. 2) A gross residential density of 5.40 units per acre. 3) An allowance for a 10 percent reduction in the required number of parking spaces. 4) The phasing of the development as follows: Phase I — 300 units, Phase II — 380 units for a total of 680 units and 10,000 square feet of commercial, Phase III — 225 units for a total of 905 units. 5) The construction of community facilities and improvements within the second phase of development. 6) Architectural, signage and landscaping standards. In particular, adjacent to Warrior Drive. 7) A pedestrian and bicycle trail system. 8) Financial contributions to offset the fiscal impacts of the development on County resources. 9) The dedication of 11 acres of land as depicted on the MDP for use as a future elementary school site and an adjacent five acres for public use. 10) The preservation of the Village Pond within the core area as a visual amenity. This should be guaranteed within the context of its present state and may be improved or enhanced for stormwater management purposes. 11) Transportation improvements previously discussed in greater detail in this report. 7) Master Deveiopment Plan Conformance Review This preliminary Master Development Plan for the Villages at Artrip is generally consistent with the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of some issues that still remain. These issues are as follows: Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 24, 2005 Page 14 ® Sidewalks are only shown on one side of some of the residential streets. In accordance with § 144-18 of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, sidewalks are required along both sides of the roads. The plan needs to be revised to show all of the required sidewalks, or a notation needs to be provided to that effect. • A note should be provided on the MDP that the sidewalks on the eastern side of the property will connect with the Canter Estates Section V Subdivision. • A trail should be shown through the existing Lakewood Manor Subdivision, lot 121, to give them access through the Villages project to the proposed school site. • Details for the road efficiency buffer and residential separation buffer have not been provided. A cross section of these buffers showing the required trees and opaque element needs to be provided on sheet 4 of the MDP. All of the issues identified by staff should be appropriately addressed prior to a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the Master Development Plan. Any accommodations or waivers endorsed by the Planning Commission that address the above issues should be incorporated into the MDP through this rezoning process. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 98/03/65 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Villages at Artrip rezoning, an application to rezone 169 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to R4 (Residential Planned Community), is generally consistent with the goals of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report. Elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure that they fully address specific components of the Comprehensive Plan, in particular the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. The Planning Commission should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been fully addressed by the applicant. In addition, the preliminary Master Development Plan for the Villages at Artrip, MDP# 09-05 is generally consistent with the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of some issues that still remain. The Planning Commission should ensure that the applicant fully addresses the outstanding issues on the master development plan. Confirmation of the issues identified in the staff report, and any issues raised by the Planning Commission, should be addressed prior to the decision of the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTiiON OF THE 08/03/05 MEETING: Numerous issues, such as transportation, schools, and water, were discussed by the Commission. Commission members believed the completion of Warrior Drive out to Rt. 37/1-81 was critical for this project to be successful. They also expressed concern that the applicant would only commit to construct 10,000 square feet of commercial area until Warrior Drive's completion through the limits of the property. Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 24, 2005 Page 15 Questions were raised on the results of the applicant's supplemental traffic analysis which concluded that the Tasker Road/Warrior Drive intersection would continue to function at a LOS C, even if the Crosspointe development's section of Warrior was not built soon and the Villages of Artrip was at full build -out. Commissioners believed that fixture Artrip residents wanting to commute to work in Northern Virginia would have problems accessing I-66 and I-81. The possibility of forming a CDA (Community Development Authority) with surrounding developers was suggested to the applicant as a possible solution to ensure the timely completion of Warrior Drive. Regarding the transportation issues, the applicant responded that two-thirds of Warrior Drive would be completed in sections by the end of Phase 2. The applicant commented that their transportation needs could be met with only one lane of Warrior Drive in each direction; however, they have agreed to construct two lanes in both directions. He noted that because of the economics associated with fulfilling that request, a critical mass of housing needed to go along with the road improvements, resulting in the housing construction and the length of Warrior Drive going hand-in-hand. VDOT's representative, Mr. Lloyd Ingram, anticipated signalization at Warrior Drive and Tasker Road before the applicant begins Phase 3. Mr. Ingram said that analysis of the initial plans suggested the four -lane paved section could not be justified with the commercial anticipated; however, once the connection was made into Crosspointe, the vehicle trips increased by an additional 8,000. He said the applicant provided the entire four -lane section because multiple lanes are needed over 8,000 trips and the balance of the commercial could be justified with the additional trips from Crosspointe. Since the size of the designated 11 acre school site was determined to be less than optimal by the School Board, other options were discussed, such as use of some of the open space area or use of a portion of the Sanitation Authority's property to the south. Issues were discussed regarding the waste water capabilities of Frederick County, if the pending regulations regarding nutrient reduction by the Virginia's Bay Program were enacted; in addition, the upgrade to the Parkins Mill treatment plant was discussed. A member of the Commission suggested that the wording within the transportation proffer reflect that roads will be "designed and constructed" to VDOT standards. The applicant agreed to revise the wording, but noted that areas within the development will be served by both public and private streets. Questions were raised regarding the establishment and jurisdiction of homeowners' associations for the various neighborhoods and responsibilities for maintenance of the common areas and structures. Two adjoining property owners spoke in favor of the proposed development, but with some reservations. One had concerns about increased traffic through his quiet neighborhood in Lakewood Manor, if Warrior Drive was not constructed early on; he also had concerns about the costs associated with funding a new school and providing sewer and water. The other citizen commented about the considerable wildlife on this property and he requested that a beautiful, old evergreen tree be left undisturbed because of its age, possibly dating back to the Civil War. Rezoning 412-05 — Villages at Artrip October 24, 2005 Page 16 The applicants said they would be willing to work on the issues raised at the meeting. In order to provide the applicants the additional time to work on the issues, the Planning Commission unanimously agreed to table the rezoning and master plan for 60 days. STAFF UPDATE ;FOR 10/05/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The applicant provided the County with a revised rezoning application package on September 9, 2005. The revised materials contained an updated Executive Summary, a revised Proffer Statement, and a revised Master Development Plan. Staff met with the applicants regarding the revised package on September 19, 2005. The following is a summary of staff's review of the revised materials. Summary of outstanding items (09/19/05): Master Development Plan: o Sidewalks are only shown on one side of some of the residential streets. In accordance with §144-18 of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, sidewalks are required along both sides of the roads. The plan needs to be revised to show all of the required sidewalks, or a notation needs to be provided to that effect. The applicant has requested a modification to this requirement through the proffer statement This request for modification is also on the Blaster Development Plan. Staff is of the opinion that at a minimum, sidewalks should be provided along both sides of the collector streets. This would include Parkins Mill Road and Warrior Drive (with the exception of the eastern side of Warrior Drive south of the .Elementary School access). • A note should be provided on the MDP that the sidewalks on the eastern side of the property will connect with the Canter Estates Section V Subdivision. A sidewalk has not been added to the East side of Parkins Mill Road to Canter Estates Section V. • A trail should be shown through the existing Lakewood Manor Subdivision, lot 121, to give them access through the Villages project to the proposed school site. This comment remains un -addressed by the applicant. • Details for the road efficiency buffer and residential separation buffer have not been provided. A cross section of these buffers showing the required trees and opaque element needs to be provided on sheet 4 of the MDP. The applicant has addressed the buffer details. However, a buffer detail has been added to the area adjacent to Canter Estates Section V that would ,necessitate the removal of existing trees. As existing woodlands exist adjacent to Canter Estates, a 50' Woodland Strip, as allowed by ordinance, should be utilized for the residential separation buffer adjacent to Canter V. Rezoning Application: The applicant has added a section to the Proffer Statement, Section 3.1.3.1. which provides that the applicant shall not construct any of the residential units otherwise permitted in Phase 3 until such time as Warrior Drive has been constructed, so that access is available to the property from Interstate 81 and through Wakeland Manor. Additional clarity should be provided to Section 3.1.3.1 to specify that access would be provided from Interstate 81 through the Crosspointe Development and through Wakeland Manor to Tasker Road as identified in the TIA. Rezoning #12-05 —Villages at Artrip October 24, 2005 Page 17 v The applicant has proffered that 20,000 square feet of commercial development would occur by the end of Phase 2 of the development. Previously, the applicant had committed to providing 10,000 square feet of the enabled 118,550 square feet of commercial within the first two phases. * The comprehensive sign plan should be reinstated as an appendix to the Proffer Statement. Section 4.5 has been modified to remove this commitment. Section 7 of the Proffer Statement addresses schools. Three additional proffers have been added to this section. It may be more desirable to the County for the applicant to designate the area to be dedicated for a more general public use, as opposed to a specific public use. This would provide the County with a greater amount of flexibility in the utilization of the land. In addition, Section 7.4, which contains a sunset and reversionary clause, should be carefully evaluated. This may not be desirable and is not consistent with past county actions regarding acceptance of proffers for public use. Finally, the applicant has maintained a $337 contribution for schools. This amount does not fully address the capital facility needs of the school system as identified in the Fiscal Impact Model. • With regards to Section 14, Transportation, Warrior Drive is identified as an Urban Section (Curb and Gutter) and should be referenced as such in the Proffer Statement and detailed as such on the MDP. Section 14.3.1.1. is an important section that should also be added to Section 14.4, which addresses the Alternative approach for the Phase 1 (Parkins Mill) construction of the road. Presently there is no mention of the Wakeland Manor connection beyond point A in this section. ® Staff has identified one minor modification to the Proffer Statement, the final sentence of Section 14.x.1.1., which, when considered in connection with the deletion of language within. Section 14.10, is significantly problematic to the transportation program and overa?l r ezening applieation submission, The addition of "...and the said bridge shall be completed no later than the end Phase 1 " is not acceptable. Previously, the applicant had committed to ensuring the road connection would be in place prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase I and had committed to making no connection of Parkins Mill Drive extended to Canter Estates Section V, for construction or other purposes until such time as Warrior Drive has been constructed to permit traffic access through Wakeland Manor to Tasker Road. The combination of the two modifications to the Proffer Statement would result in the development of the entire first phase, and potentially more, with sole access being provided via Canter Estates. As noted, this would be unacceptable. a The above scenario is not one which was previously presented to or contemplated by the Planning Commission. Nor was the consideration of this transportation scenario extended to the general public during the public hearing and the adjacent property owners. It should be clearly noted that the TIA prepared by the applicant for this application in no way considers the use of the adjacent subdivision as the primary means of access. The inclusion of this modification to the Proffer Statement appears to 'invalidate the conclusions of the Traffic Impact Analysis which identifies Warrior Drive as the means of access for all phases of the development. Rezoning 412-05 — Villages at Artrip October 24, 2005 Page IS The Planning Commission should evaluate the scope and impact of the modifications to the Villages at Artrip application and determine the appropriate recommendation. Based upon the modifications as submitted, at a minimum, consideration should be given to affording the general public the opportunity to further evaluate the rezoning application. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 10/05/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEET'ING_: The Villages at Artrip rezoning application to rezone 169 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to R4 (Residential Planned Community) remains generally consistent with the goals of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report and proposes creativity in the application of the County's R4 (Residential Planned Community) District. However, elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure that they fully address specific components of the Comprehensive Plan. In particular, the applicants modified commitment to the construction of Warrior Drive, a key component of the Comprehensive Plan and the County's transportation planning efforts should be considered. The applicant has not demonstrated that the resulting impacts to the County's transportation network have been addressed. Further, the failure to ensure the timely completion of Warrior Drive, a major element of the County's road network, does not appear to justify the additional density modifications requested in the application, contrary to the intent stated in the applicant's executive summary. The Planning Commission should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been fully addressed by the applicant. In addition, the preliminary Master Development Plan for the Villages at Artrip, MDP# 09-05 is generally consistent with the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of some issues that still remain and that have been identified in the updated staff report. The Planning Commission should ensure that the applicant fully addresses the outstanding issues on the master development plan. Confirmation of the issues identified in the staff report, and any issues raised by the Planning Commission, should be addressed prior to the decision of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has already held the public hearh!g for this application. Following the public meeting, a recommendation regarding this rezoning application to the Board o Su ervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Plannine Commission. Rezoning 412-05 -- Villages at Artrip October 24, 2005 Page 19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF"I HE 10105/05 IMER I ING: The staff informed the Commission that after the most recent staff report was written, the applicant had provided another revised proffer statement. Staff noted that the revised proffer statement appears to be an improvement over what was submitted for the September 9, 2005 staff report; however, the Commission should carefully consider the timing of the receipt of the revised proffers and the content of the revisions. Numerous questions were raised by Commission members. They sought further clarification regarding the proposed school sites and whether the school board had provided comment on the proposed sites and layout. Concerns continued to be raised about the traffic impacts and specifically, the potential traffic that could be generated without the benefit of the Warrior Drive road connection completed. Commission members inquired if the plan could be revised to show the phasing for construction of the various housing types and which sections of the center core area would be constructed with each phase. Questions were raised about access into the project. Concern was raised for residents in Canter Estates who would be exposed to continuous traffic through their neighborhood by this project's new residents and tradesmen working at the site. In addition, there were questions about the modification request for reduced setbacks in the rear -loading and some front -loading areas; specifically, concerning parked vehicles blocking portions of the alley in the rear or blocking sidewalks in the front. The subject of development tracking along the Route 522 South and Route 50 East corridor was raised by a member of the Commission. A question was posed regarding the potential number of units, in projects currently underway and undeveloped, but rezoned and able to move forward, that were capable of impacting the Route 522 South corridor. The benefits of the Artrip proj ect constructing a segment of the Warrior Drive connection was recognized; however, there was doubt that Warrior Drive alone would be capable of serving the potential 5-6,000 future units from various pending developments that could impact the traffic network in this area. The Commission requested that staff seek additional comments from the Sanitation Authority, the school system, and Public Works when the final submittals are received from the applicant. In view of the lateness in which the Commission members received the latest revisions from the applicant, the Commission unanimously voted to table the rezoning for another 60 days to allow more time to study the revisions that were provided. The applicant's representatives, Mr. John Foote, attorney, Mr. Jim Brown, design engineer, and Mr. John Callow, traffic consultant, were available to answer questions from the Commission. (Note: Commissioner Watt was absent from the meeting.) Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 24, 2005 Page 20 STAFF UPDATE FOR 12/21/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The applicant provided the County with a revised rezoning application package at a meeting that was held on November 28, 2005. The revised materials contained an updated Executive Summary, a revised Proffer Statement, and a revised Master Development Plan. The following is a summary of staff's review of the revised materials. ■ The most significant modification to the application involves the relocation of the proffered school site to an area internal to Land Bay A and adjacent to the Core Area of the Villages at Artrip. Previously, the proposed school site was located southeast of Warrior Drive adjacent to the property owned by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. The applicant has proffered a site of 15 acres. Previously, the site was 11 acres in size. The proposed school site is in a desirable location and is integral to the proposed community. It is noted that the proffered 15 acre school site does contain areas in the northern portion of the property, adjacent to the Opequon Creek, with topographical constraints. The applicant has been working with Frederick County Public Schools to ensure that the proposed school site is fully evaluated. The Schools Building and Grounds Committee, with the assistance of the Schools Architect, Oliver, Webb, Pappas & Rhudy, Inc. have reviewed the proposed site and have sited a 750 seat elementary school on the property. While no formal correspondence has been provided, discussions with Frederick County Public Schools indicate that the proposed school site meets the minimum standards established for a 750 student elementary school. However, constraints on the site would compromise the function of the facility, particularly the outdoor equipment areas and play field areas. The Schools request that an additional two to three acres be made available in order to provide a school site that fully meets the needs of the school system and the community. As proffered, the proposed site would not accommodate an 850 student elementary school. ■ The revised application includes a reduction in the number of residential units and overall density for the Villages at Artrip. A maximum of 793 units is proffered which is 112 less than the previous amount of 905. The net result of this modification is a reduction in the gross residential density from 5.4 units per acre to 4.6 units per acre. This reduction in residential units is related to the relocation of the proffered school site. Pursuant to the procedure for modifications to the R4 requirements, the applicant had previously requested a modification to Section 165-62D to increase the overall gross density. This modification should reflect the proposed 4.6 units/acre density. in The applicant has increased the amount of commercial square footage that may be developed within the core area by 10,000 square feet to 128,550 square feet. However, the commitment to construct only 20,000 square feet prior to build out of the project remains in place. The applicant has increased their commitment to provide more residential units within the Core Area of the project within the first phase by increasing the minimum amount that shall be built to 100 residential units of three permitted unit types. Rezoning #12-05 – Villages at Artrip October 24, 2005 Page 21 19 In an effort to simplify the mechanics of the application, the project is proposed to develop within two phases as opposed to three previously. Phase 1 shall not exceed 350 residential units and Phase II shall not exceed an additional 443 dwelling units for a total of 793 dwelling units. ■ The simplified development phasing program provides the basis for the transportation program which has been modified to ensure the timely completion of Warrior Drive as a four -lane section and to provide critical access to the proffered school site. As demonstrated, the applicant has made some relatively substantial modifications to the rezoning application. It is for this reason that an additional Public Hearing is being held at the Planning Commission for this application. Staff's review of the revised application has identified other comments and points that are more minor and administrative in context. These can most likely be attributed to the many changes that have been made to the application. Staff will be working with the applicant to ensure that the minor comments are addressed by the applicant. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR ' HI -4: 12/21/115 PLANNING COMMITSSION MEETiNG: The Villages at Artrip rezoning, an application to rezone 169 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to R4 (Residential Planned Community), is generally consistent with the goals of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report. Elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure that they fully address specific components of the Comprehensive Plan, in particular the Community Facilities Impact to the school system. The Planning Commission should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been fully addressed by the applicant. In addition, the preliminary Master Development Plan for the Villages at Artrip, MDP# 09-05 is generally consistent with the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance. Confirmation of the issues identified in the staff report, and any issues raised by the Planning Commission, should be addressed prior to the decision of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has previously held the public hearing or this amlication. Followima a second public hearine. a recommendation regyLding regardingthis rezonin,a application to the Board of'Supervisors would be appropriate. The licant should be prepared to adectuate� address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip January 26, 2006 Page 22 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY &t ACTION OF THE 12/21/05 MEETING: Commission members had questions regarding the long-term transportation plan; specifically, the timing for connecting the Phase I construction to Front Royal Pike (Route 522) and the timing for the connection of Warrior Drive to the west, towards Crosspointe. There was concern about the LOS on Tasker Road until these other two access points were made. It did not appear to some Commissioners that all of the language was in place to insure that Warrior Drive is fully connected down to Wakeland Manor, if the development starts from the north. In addition, Commission members were concerned about giving the school system a site that may be less than optimal for their needs. The applicant had described a 12 -acre flat area with, possibly, another one -and -a -half acre of recoverable area, which could be graded for soccer or softball fields. Commission members suggested the possibility of the applicant swapping housing types adjacent to the school site and squeezing them slightly to the east, thereby affording another acre or so of land to the schools, while still maintaining the same density. In addition, they suggested that the school system use a two-story structure, which would provide an additional acre of useable land. If the developer could provide the additional acreage by relocating some of the units and the school system would build a two- story structure, they concluded that the school system would have the acreage they needed. One individual came forward to speak during the public comment portion of the meeting. Speaking for himself and a few of the local residents, he expressed concern about environmental issues, particularly the preservation of the hardwood tree areas; he said they provided a buffer as well as a wildlife corridor. He was concerned about the two streams that would be impacted and the affect on the Opequon watershed; he suggested the applicant be required to use low -impact stormwater development measures. He suggested the pond and wetland areas be maintained in their natural state and maintained by an outside agency, rather than a homeowners association. He also expressed concern about the impacts to County services, such as fire and rescue, sheriff, schools, and sewer and water. Some of the Commissioners viewed the offered school site as less than optimal and had issues with some elements of the project, particularly transportation. A motion was made and seconded for denial, but failed by a majority vote. Another motion was made to table the rezoning for 60 days to give the applicant the opportunity to work with the school system and to fine tune the transportation issues. This motion was seconded and passed by the following majority vote: YES (TABLE FOR 60 DAB'S): Straub, Gochenour, Morris, Thomas, Curs, Kriz, Triplett, Manuel, Wilmot NO: Watt, Unger, Light, DeHaven Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip January 26, 2006 Page 23 STAFF UPDATE FOR 02/15/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The applicant provided the County with a revised rezoning application package on January 30, 2006. The updated materials contained a revised Proffer Statement and a revised Master Development Plan. The following is a summary of staffs review of the revised materials. The most significant modification to the application addresses the primary concerns expressed by the Planning Commission and involves the proffered school site internal to Land Bay A, adjacent to the Core Area of the Villages at Artrip. Previously, the applicant relocated the school site to this general location from a site located southeast of Warrior Drive, adjacent to the property owned by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. However, concerns were expressed by the Planning Commission and representatives of Frederick County Public Schools regarding the size of the proffered site and the usable area of the site when considering the topographical constraints in the northern portion of the property, adjacent to the Opequon Creek. The applicant has revised the location of the proffered school site slightly to the east of the previous site, increased the acreage of the proffered school site to 18 acres from 15 acres, and relocated the single family attached units from the eastern corner of Landbay A to areas internal to the project. As a result of this change the Frederick County Schools has evaluated the proposal and determined that the proffered school site will accommodate an elementary school at 750 program capacity with the required outside physical education and play areas (please see the letter from Frederick County Public Schools dated January 27, 2006).While the modified school site location does not address the Core Area and Main Street of the community as previously depicted by the applicant, the proposed school site is in a desirable location and remains integral to the proposed community. The applicant has revised the phasing associated with the development of the project by reinstituting a three phased approach. Phase I shall not exceed 325 residential units, Phase II shall not exceed an additional 275 residential units for a total of 600 units, and Phase III shall not exceed an additional 193 units for total of 793 units. The gross residential density of the project will be 4.6 units per acre. Previously, the two phased approach stated that Phase 1 shall not exceed 350 residential units and Phase 11 shall not exceed an additional 443 dwelling units for a total of 793 dwelling units The development phasing program continues to provide the basis for the transportation program which has been modified to be consistent with the revised phasing. The transportation program will ensure the timely completion of Warrior Drive as a four -lane section and will provide critical access to the proffered school site. Rezoning #12-05 —Villages at Artrip January 26, 2006 Page 24 STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 02/15/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Villages at Artrip rezoning, an application to rezone 169 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to R4 (Residential Planned Community), is generally consistent with the goals of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report. The applicant continues to enhance the application to address the concerns identified during the rezoning process. Elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure that they fully address specific components of the Comprehensive Plan, in particular the Community Facilities Impact to the school system. The Planning Commission should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been fully addressed by the applicant. In addition, the preliminary Master Development Plan for the Villages at Artrip, MDP# 09-05 is generally consistent with the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance. Confirmation of the issues identified in the staff report, and any issues raised by the Planning Commission, should be addressed prior to the decision of the Planning Commission. Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent Frederick County Public Schools Visit us at www1rederick.kl2.va.us e-mail: kapocsis@fTederick.k12.va.us To: Mr. John H. Foote Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley, Emrich & Terpak, PC FROM: Stephen M. Kapocsi Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent DATE: January 27, 2006 SUBJECT: Villages at Artrip I would like to thank you and Mr. David Frank for meeting with Mr. Albert Orndorff, assistant superintendent for administration, and me to review a revised schematic site plan developed by Dewberry & Davis. The proposed proffer of a school site at the Villages of Artrip project (on the identified location discussed on January 13, 2006) will accommodate an elementary school at 750 program capacity with the required outside physical education and play areas. If I can be of further help to you with the project, please let me know. dkr 540-662-3889 Ext 7.1.2 1.47.5 Amherst Street, Post Office Box 3508, Winchester, VA 22604-2546 FAX 540-662-3890 PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ #12-05 and MDP #09-05 RA to R4 PROPERTY: 169.924 acres +/-; Tax Map & Parcel 75-A- 99A (the "Property") RECORD OWNER: Winchester-Artrip Limited Liability Company, a Virginia Corporation APPLICANT: Winchester-Artrip Limited Liability Company PROJECT NAME: Villages at Artrip ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: June 2004 REVISION DATA: May 20, 2005 June 17, 2005 September 9, 2005 September 26, 2005 November 28, 2005 January 27, 2006 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced rezoning is not granted as applied for by the Applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "Final Rezoning" defined as that rezoning that is in effect on the day upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the `Board") grants the rezoning. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners, assigns, and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Master Development Plan" shall refer to the plan entitled "Master Development Plan, The Villages at Artrip" prepared by Dewberry (the "MDP") dated January 27, 2006, sheets 1-4; provided further that sheet 5 thereof, entitled General Development Plan ("GDP"), shall not be deemed a part of the MDP submittal but is otherwise proffered as set forth herein. {00025826.DOC 1 I PROFFERS CLEAN 01 27 06.DOC 000419 000004} 1. LAND USE 1.1 The project shall be designed so as to establish interconnected mixed- use villages in conformance with the MDP and the GDP, and as is specifically set forth in these proffers. 1.2 Except as modified herein, areas of commercial development on the Property shall be developed in conformance with the regulations of the Residential Planned Community ("R4") zoning district, as set forth in the Frederick County Code Article VII, §165-67 through §165-72, as cross-referenced to Article X, § 165-82, Sections A through D inclusive, and § 165-83. All commercial development on the Property shall comply with the aforesaid regulations, or as may be otherwise approved by Frederick County. 1.2.1 Commercial, retail, restaurant and office development on the Property shall not exceed 128,550 square feet, and shall be provided within the Core Area. 1.3 Except as modified herein, areas of residential development on the Property shall be developed in conformance with the regulations of the Planned Community ("R4") zoning district, including permissible housing types, including those set forth in the Frederick County Code Article VII, § 165-67 through § 165-72, as cross-referenced to Article VI, §165-58, through §165-66, including as set forth in Appendix A ("Housing Types"). In the event that the Applicant elects to construct any of the Housing Types that are set forth on Appendix A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, such units shall conform to the development standards established therein. Housing Types and lot layouts within these Landbays may comprise any of the permitted Housing Types identified for those Landbays as set forth on the MDP or as are otherwise authorized for the RP district as it is incorporated by reference into the R4 district; provided further that no more intensive Housing Type may be constructed in any Landbay than is identified as a Housing Type permitted therein on the MDP. ' 1.3.1 Residential development on the Property shall not exceed a maximum of 793 dwelling units, with a mix of Housing Types permitted in the R4 district, subject to the modifications as set forth in Appendix A, and dwelling types shall be constructed in the locations generally depicted on the MDP and as further set forth herein. 1.3.2 For the purposes of these proffers, single-family attached and detached and multi -family units shall include those Housing Types identified on the MDP and set forth in the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance including detached cluster housing, small lot singles, single-family urban, zero lot line singles, and village rear load singles. 2 Multi -family units shall include apartments and duplex units. 1.4 Development of commercial, residential and community uses within the area identified on the MDP as the "Core Area" shall generally conform to a grid lot layout, and the street layout and Unit Types depicted therein on the MDP. Not fewer than three Housing Types shall be provided in the Core Area. The layout of the Core Area shall be constructed in general conformance with the GDP, provided that reasonable adjustments may be made to the locations thereof upon final engineering. 1.4.1 The Applicant shall construct not fewer than 100 residential units of three different permitted Housing Types in the Core Area in Phase I of the development as otherwise set out herein. 1.5 Development within the Landbays on the Property outside the Core Area shall generally conform to the street layouts, points of connection to Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road, and the limits of development as are depicted on the MDP; provided that minor adjustments may be made to the locations thereof upon final engineering. Housing Types and lot layouts within these Landbays may comprise any of the permitted Housing Types identified for those Landbays on the MDP and authorized herein or subsequently approved by the Frederick County Planning Office; provided further that no more intensive Housing Type may be constructed in any such Landbay than is identified as a Housing Type permitted therein on the MDP. 1.6 Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, rental apartments, condominium units and rental apartments over retail and office uses shall be permitted. 1.7 The gross density of residential units shall not exceed 4.6 units per acre. 1.8 Shared parking shall be provided for retail, restaurant and office uses within Landbay "A" such that a 10% reduction or increase of the required parking spaces shall be permitted. 1.9 The Applicant shall make reasonable attempts to preserve the specimen Delaware Pine in the general vicinity of the cemetery on the property identified on the MDP as Village Green B. Such Green shall be preserved for passive recreational use, provided that a tot lot may be located thereon. During construction the limits of clearing and grading in the vicinity of the specimen Pine shall be identified and field flagged in connection with the Applicant's compliance with requirements of the Frederick County Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance to prevent unintended disturbance of areas to be preserved. 3 2. CONSTRUCTION OF A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT 2.1 The Property shall be developed as one single and unified development in accordance with applicable ordinances and regulations for the R-4 zoning district, the MDP, and this Proffer Statement as it may be accepted by the Board. 3. PHASING OF THE DEVELOPMENT 3.1 The Property shall be developed in three phases, with the commercial portions of the Property to be developed in Phase II as set forth herein. The three phases shall be authorized as follows: 3.1.1 Phase I. Residential development shall not exceed 325 dwelling units and shall consist of not fewer than three permitted Housing Types. 3.1.2 Phase II. Residential development shall not exceed an additional 275 dwelling units, for a total of 600 dwelling units comprising not fewer than three permitted Housing Types. 3.1.3 Commercial development shall include not less than 20,000 square feet of commercial/retail/restaurant gross leaseable floor space in the Core Area, which shall be completed not later than the 600th residential building permit. 3.1.3.1 Notwithstanding the foregoing, and except to the extent set forth herein, the Applicant may construct all or any portion of the commercial development authorized in these proffers at any time. 3.1.4 Phase III. Residential development shall not exceed an additional 193 dwelling units, for a total of 793 dwelling units. 3.1.5 Community improvements. Community -serving improvements such as community center, tot lots, and similar improvements as shown on the MDP shall be constructed in conjunction with the Landbay with which such improvements are associated; provided that the community center and pool to be constructed in the Core Area shall be designed and bonded at the beginning of Phase I, and constricted prior to the initiation of Phase II. 4. ARCHITECTURE, SIGNAGE, AND LANDSCAPING: 4.1 The following building materials may be used for construction within the Property, and no others: 4 4.1.1 Pavements/ Curbing shall consist of cast in place concrete, natural and colored; aggregate concrete; precast concrete, natural and colored; concrete pavers; brick pavers; stone pavers; asphalt pavers; granite; ceramic tile; asphalt. 4.1.2 House sidings shall consist of EFIS; stucco; brick; cementious siding; cedar siding; stone veneer; painted wood; vinyl siding; stained wood; aluminum; hardy plank; PVC trim. 4.1.3 Decking and fencing shall consist of pressure treated wood; stained wood; painted wood; PVC fencing; IPE decking; cedar decking; TREX decking or similar recycled product. 4.1.4 Miscellaneous materials that may be used for roofing shall consist of standing seam metal roofing, colored; slate roofing; asphalt roofing; powder coated steel, colored; galvanized steel; aluminum brushed; anodized aluminum, colored; 304 stainless steel; chrome; canvass; neon. 4.2 Vinyl siding shall not be used on the front elevation of residential structures facing Warrior Drive or on the fronts of residences located on corner lots that intersect with Warrior Drive. The side of a residential structure that faces Warrior Drive located on a corner lot on a road that intersects Warrior Drive is not permitted to have vinyl siding on that elevation. 4.3 Notwithstanding the foregoing, materials used for exterior facades of the commercial buildings shall include but not be limited to concrete masonry units (CMU) split -faced block, architectural block, dryvit, or other simulated stucco (EFIS), real or simulated wood and/or glass. Standard concrete masonry block shall not be used for the front facades of any buildings. 4.4 All buildings within the development on the property shall be constructed using compatible architectural styles. The Applicant shall establish one or more Architectural Review Boards to enforce and administer a unified development plan. 4.5 All signage within the project shall be in substantial conformity with the comprehensive sign plan incorporated herein as Appendix B to these Proffers; provided that the Director of Planning may authorize alternative signage that is substantially consistent with the aforesaid sign plan. 4.6 The major collector roadways (Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road Extended) in the Villages at Artrip shall be constructed with a minimum 20' width buffers adjacent to dedicated rights-of-way and, I except at entrance locations, shall be improved with landscape features and lighting to create a "boulevard" appearance. Illustrative details of such buffers shall be as set forth on the MDP. 5. PEDESTRIAN TRAIL SYSTEM AND RECREATION AREAS 5.1 The Applicant shall design and build a public pedestrian -bicycle trail system to Department of Parks and Recreation standards that links residential and commercial areas within the development and provides additional connectivity to adjacent properties. Said trails shall be in general conformance with the South Frederick Land Use Map and shall be in the locations generally depicted on the MDP. Five-foot sidewalks shall be constructed on all public streets and a minimum of four foot sidewalks shall be constructed on private streets in accordance with the requirements of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, except as may be otherwise depicted on the MDP. The pedestrian/bicycling trail constructed along Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Extended shall be 10 feet wide, and shall have an asphalt surface. 6. FIRE & RESCUE: 6.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $537 per dwelling unit for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 7. SCHOOLS: 7.1 Within one hundred and eighty days of written request therefor, the Applicant shall dedicate to the Board of Supervisors approximately 18 acres of land more or less as depicted on the MDP as Land Bay C, for use only as a future elementary school site. 7.2 The Applicant shall extend sewer and water lines to the boundary of the property to be dedicated therefor, at such time as sewer and water lines are constructed to the Core Area. 7.3 The Applicant shall, upon written request therefor, dedicate to the Board of Supervisors approximately five (5) additional acres of property adjacent to and on the southerly side of Warrior Drive, otherwise depicted on the MDP as preservation area, identified as Land Bay F, for public use that is compatible with residential character of the development of the Property and permitted in the R4 District pursuant to the County Zoning Ordinance. 7.4 The Applicant shall be permitted to retain an easement on any such dedicated property for the construction of permanent stormwater management facilities as well as temporary easements for the construction of utilities and structures for the Villages at Artrip. The 0 Applicant shall coordinate any such facilities with the County and the School Division to assure that such facilities do not materially impede the use of the property for an elementary school, and that, to the maximum extent possible, such facilities may serve both the Applicant and any school constructed thereon. The Applicant shall be permitted to retain the right to construct stormwater management facilities for both quality and quantity purposes, on the dedicated property. 7.5 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $337 per dwelling unit for educational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 7.6 The time for any dedication hereunder shall be extended by such time as may be required to process a subdivision application necessary to create the parcel of property to be dedicated, and the Applicant shall file and diligently pursue any such application in order to effectuate said dedication upon request therefor. 8. PARKS & OPEN SPACE: 8.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $847 per dwelling unit for recreational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 9. LIBRARIES: 9.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $137 per dwelling unit for library purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 10. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING: 10.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $144 to be used for construction of a general governmental administration building upon issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 11. CREATION OF HOMEOWNERS' AND PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION: 11.1 The residential portion of the development shall be made subject to one or more homeowners' association(s) (hereinafter "HOA") that shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of all common areas, including any conservation areas that may be established in accordance herewith not dedicated to the County or others, and stormwater management facilities not dedicated to public use, for each area subject to their jurisdiction, and shall be provided such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such associations or as may be required for such HOA herein. If there is more than one such association, the Applicant shall create an 7 umbrella HOA with respect to the entire development that shall, among other things, have responsibility for assuring compliance with design guidelines and standards, signage requirements, private road and open space maintenance, and similar matters common to the development of the Property. 11.2 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, an HOA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all common open space areas not otherwise dedicated to public use specifically including the "Village Green" areas as depicted on the MDP, (ii) common buffer areas located outside of residential lots; (iii) private streets serving the residents who are members of such association; (iv) common solid waste disposal and recycling programs, including curbside pick-up of refuse by a private refuse collection company, (v) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any street, perimeter, or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be located within easements to be granted to the HOA if platted within residential or other lots, or otherwise granted to the HOA by appropriate instrument, (vi) stormwater management facilities. 11.3 The commercial elements of the development shall be made subject to one or more property owners' association(s) (hereinafter "POA") that shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of all common areas, including any conservation areas that may be established in accordance herewith not dedicated to the County or others, and stormwater management facilities not dedicated to public use, for each area subject to their jurisdiction, and shall be provided such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such associations or as may be required for such POA herein. If there is more than one such association, the Applicant shall create an umbrella POA with respect to the entire development that shall, among other things, have responsibility for assuring compliance with design guidelines and standards, signage requirements; and similar matters. 11.4 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, a POA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all common open space areas not otherwise dedicated to public use, (ii) common buffer areas located outside of commercial lots; (iii) private streets serving the businesses and/or residents who are members of such association; (iv) common solid waste disposal and recycling programs to include dumpster and contract carrier services provided by a private refuse collection company, and (v) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any street, perimeter, or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be located within easements to be granted to the POA if platted within commercial or other lots, or parcels, or otherwise granted to the POA by appropriate instrument. 12. WATER & SEWER: 12.1 The Applicant shall be responsible for connecting the Property to public water and sewer, and for constructing all facilities required for such connection at the property boundary. All water and sewer infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. 13. ENVIRONMENT: 13.1 Stormwater management and Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Property shall be provided in accordance with the Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations, First Ed. 1999, Chapter 2, Table 2-3, or such requirements as may be applicable at the time of plan approval, for the purpose of providing the highest order of stormwater control in existing Virginia law at the time of construction of any such facility. 13.2 Stream preservation buffers shall be constructed in general conformance with the MDP, so as to create buffer requirements established by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to protect Opequon Creek and the unnamed tributary to Opequon Creek from disturbance. No clearing or grading shall occur within those buffers, except for the construction of road crossings, trails, water lines, sanitary sewer, or other utilities. 13.3 During construction on the property, the limits of clearing and grading shall be identified and field flagged in connection with the Applicant's compliance with requirements of the Frederick County Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance, for the project as a whole, to prevent unintended disturbance of areas to be preserved. 13.4 The Village Pond located within the Core Area shall be improved and preserved as a visual amenity and may be used for storm water management purposes for both quality and quantity. 13.5 The fifty -foot woodland conservation area depicted in Land Bays D and E on the MDP, adjacent to Canter Estates, shall remain undisturbed; provided that the Applicant may provide for adequate stormwater management outfall within such conservation area. Any such outfall shall be designed so as to minimize the impact on such area. 14. TRANSPORTATION: 14.1 Transportation improvements shall be constructed in conjunction with each phase of the development as set forth below. Design of the roadway system shall be phased as set forth in these Proffers and shall I be substantially consistent with the study entitled "A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of The Villages at Artrip," prepared by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, dated December 15, 2004 (the "TIA"). The exact location and design of proffered improvements shall be subject to reasonable adjustment upon final engineering thereof. The Applicant shall construct at its expense pedestrian -actualized signalization at each of those locations for which such signalization is identified in the TIA, upon issuance of warrants therefor unless such signalization has been accomplished by others. 14.2 Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for residential uses on streets to be placed into the State System of Secondary Highways, the Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Section 144-17 (A) of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance. For the purposes of these Proffers, construction of any road or street referenced herein shall mean construction consistent with the requirements of that section. 14.3 The Applicant shall construct the following road improvements as its road phasing for Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road, if construction of that road is initiated from Wakeland Manor. 14.3.1. Prior to the issuance of the first residential building permit for the project, the Applicant shall construct an extension of Warrior Drive from Point A to Point B as depicted on the MDP as a full four -lane divided roadway, including construction of a full section of a roundabout or traffic signalized intersection, as may be approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation, at the intersection of Warrior and Parkins Mill Road. In conjunction with such construction, the Applicant shall further connect Warrior Drive into the adjacent property known as Wakeland Manor, so as to match the pavement widths of that portion -of Warrior ,as constructed by others. 'The bridge crossing of the unnamed tributary of the Opequon on the southernmost edge of the Property at Point A shall be constructed to accommodate the ultimate design of Warrior Drive. 14.3.2. Prior to the issuance of the first residential building permit for the project, the Applicant shall further construct a full two lane section of Parkins Mill Road Extended, from its intersection with Warrior Drive at Point B to Point B1, as generally depicted on the MDP and within existing dedicated right -of. - way. V v 14.3.3. Warrior Drive shall be constructed as an urban section pursuant to applicable VDOT standards therefor with an ultimate right - 10 of -way 100' in width. Parkins Mill Road shall be constructed as a rural section pursuant to applicable VDOT standards therefor with an ultimate right-of-way 80' in width. 14.3.4. Upon initiation of said construction, the Applicant may further undertake grading, infrastructure construction, roads, and similar pre -construction activities and preparatory work necessary for building commercial or residential structures, upon issuance of permits therefor. 14.4 Prior to the issuance of the 326th residential building permit, the Applicant shall further construct Warrior Drive as a full four lane section roadway, from Points B to D as depicted on the MDP. 14.5 The Applicant may construct a model home or sales center on the Property concurrently with the construction of the bridge connection to Wakeland Manor, and consistently with applicable County ordinances and regulations. The Applicant shall be permitted to obtain an occupancy permit therefor once the bridge is open to the public, bonded for final completion, but not yet accepted into the State System of Secondary Roads. 14.6 In addition to the foregoing, the Applicant shall design and bond for completion the following improvements to Warrior Drive: 14.6.1. If the location of the connection of Warrior Drive into Crosspointe shall have been identified the Applicant shall complete the remainder of Warrior Drive from Point D to Point E as a full section of a four lane divided roadway to that point, by the issuance of the 601 st residential building permit. 14.6.2. If the location of Warrior Drive into Crosspointe has not been adequately identified prior to the issuance of the 601 st residential building permit, the Applicant shall design and bond for construction Warrior Drive from Point D to Point E as a full four -lane divided roadway at a location that is approved by the County, so as to assure the availability of funds sufficient to complete Warrior to a connection with Crosspointe. 14.7 Road phasing if construction of Warrior Drive is initiated from Crosspointe: 14.7.1. In the event that others have constructed Warrior Drive from Crosspointe Center to the Property boundary prior to the initiation of development of the Property and Warrior is to be constructed from that boundary to the south, then prior to the issuance of the first residential building permit for the project, the Applicant shall bond and construct Warrior Drive as a full 11 four -lane divided roadway from Point E to Point C, and construct an entrance to the school site at Point B 1 connecting the entrance of Canter Estates to the school site. 14.7.2. Prior to the issuance of the 326th residential building permit, the Applicant shall bond and construct Warrior Drive from Point C to Point A as a full four -lane divided roadway (and make its connection to Warrior Drive in Wakeland Manor as provided for if Warrior is commenced from the south), and shall complete Parkins Mill to Point B1, whereupon the Applicant will be permitted to build out the remainder of the residential units and commercial square footage. 14.8 All left and right turn residential and commercial entrances to Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road shall be limited to those locations as generally depicted on the MDP. 14.9 Warrior Drive shall be constructed with a trail section throughout the Property, and such trail shall be extended to Crosspointe and into Wakeland Manor. 14.10 The Applicant shall connect Parkins Mill Road Extended, to include sidewalk or pedestrian trail on both sides of the road, to Point B1, at such time as Parkins Mill is constructed as otherwise provided in these proffers. 14.11 The Applicant shall construct its internal road network as public or private roads as they are depicted on the MDP. In the event that the Virginia Department of Transportation declines to accept neo- traditional road designs for any such internal streets, the Applicant may construct such streets as private roads. 14.12 All public right-of-ways shall be dedicated to Frederick County as part of the subdivision approval process, consistently with applicable Virginia law. 14.13 All public streets and roads shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation specifications, and subject to review and approval by the Frederick County and VDOT. 14.14 All private streets and roads shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation standards therefor as set out on Sheet 3 of the MDP, and as modified thereby, and shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners or property owners association served by such streets or roads. 12 14.15 No construction traffic shall be permitted through Lot 121 in the adjacent Lakewood subdivision, or through Canter Estates, Section V. In no event shall a permanent interparcel connection be made through Lot 121. 14.16 The County shall permit the Applicant to construct a 2 -lane gravel access road as identified on Sheet 3 of the MDP, for construction access to the Villages at Artrip, including construction of roads, bridges, utilities, and stormwater management facilities. The County will use its best efforts to assure permission to construct such access road, if such efforts are required. 14.17 For purposes of these proffers, a road shall be deemed constructed or completed when it has been constructed to a point at which the road is open to the public, remains bonded for final completion, but has not yet been accepted into the State System of Secondary Roads. 15. CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATION AND PRESERVATION 15.1 The Applicant shall preserve the Artrip Family Cemetery. The Applicant shall further create a 0.5 acre preservation park surrounding the Cemetery, as generally depicted on the MDP. 16. ESCALATOR CLAUSE 16.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement are paid to the Frederick County Board County Supervisors ("Board") within 30 months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to the Board after 30 months following the approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index ("CPI -U") published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time contributions are paid, they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI -U from that date 30 months after the approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI -U to the date the contributions are paid, subject to a cap of 5% per year, non - compounded. SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE 13 WINCHESTER ARTRIP, Limited Liability Company In Jeffrey Abramson Title: Managing Member STATE OF MARYLAND; COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY: to -wit The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2006, by My Commission expires: VA. Notary Public APPENDIX A The following development standards shall apply to development within each Landbay for the following Housing Types listed below: SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED CLUSTER FRONT LOAD 1) IN A PROPOSED CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM TOTAL AREA PER DWELLING UNIT OF 10,000 SF, NOT INCLUDING LAND IN REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE AND ROAD ROW. NO INDIVIDUAL LOT SHALL BE SMALLER THEN 8,000 SF. FOR EACH LOT THAT IS LESS THAN 10,000 SF BY A GIVEN SQUARE FOOTAGE, AN EQUIVALENT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LAND SHALL BE ADDED TO THE REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE 2) MIN. TOTAL LOT AREA PER DWELLING 3) MIN. LOT AREA 4) MIN. YARDS: - SETBACK FROM ROAD ROW - SIDE YARDS - REAR YARD 5)M1N. LOT WIDTH AT SETBACK 6)MIN. LOT WIDTH AT ROAD ROW 7)MIN. OFF STREET PARKING EXISTING PROPOSED 10,000 SF 10,000 SF 8,000 SF 8,000 SF 35' 20' 10' 5' 25' 25' 60' 60' 30' 30' 2/ UNIT 2/ UNIT SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED CLUSTER' REAR LOAD 1) IN A PROPOSED CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM TOTAL AREA PER DWELLING UNIT OF 10,000 SF, NOT INCLUDING LAND IN REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE AND ROAD ROW. NO INDIVIDUAL LOT SHALL BE SMALLER THEN 8,000 SF. FOR EACH LOT THAT IS LESS THAN 10,000 SF BY A GIVEN SQUARE FOOTAGE, AN EQUIVALENT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LAND SHALL BE ADDED TO THE REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE 2) MIN. TOTAL LOT AREA PER DWELLING 3) MIN. LOT AREA 15 EXISTING PROPOSED 10,000 SF 10,000 SF 8,000 SF 8,000 SF 4) MIN. YARDS: - SETBACK FROM ROAD ROW 35' 15' - SIDE YARDS 10, 5' - REAR YARD 25' 20' 5)MIN. LOT WIDTH AT SETBACK 60' 60' 6)MIN. LOT WIDTH AT ROAD ROW 30' 30' 7)MIN. OFF STREET PARKING 2/ UNIT 2/ UNIT SINGLE FAMILY SMALL LOT REAR LOAD EXISTING PROPOSED 1) MIN. LOT SIZE 3,750 SF 3,750 SF 2) OFF STREET PARKING SPACES 2 2 3) SETBACK FROM STATE ROAD 25' 25' 4) SETBACK FROM PRIVATE ROAD 20' 15' 5) REAR YARD 15' 15' 6) SIDE YARD 5' 5' SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED CLUSTER REAR LOAD W/DETACHED GARAGE 1) IN A PROPOSED CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM TOTAL AREA PER DWELLING UNIT OF 10,000 SF, NOT INCLUDING LAND IN REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE AND ROAD ROW. NO INDIVIDUAL LOT SHALL BE SMALLER THEN 8,000 SF. FOR EACH LOT THAT IS LESS THAN 10,000 SF BY A GIVEN SQUARE FOOTAGE, AN EQUIVALENT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LAND SHALL BE ADDED TO THE REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE 2) MIN. TOTAL LOT AREA PER DWELLING 3) MIN. LOT AREA 4) MIN. YARDS: In EXISTING PROPOSED 10,000 SF 10,000 SF 8,000 SF 8,000 SF - SETBACK FROM ROAD ROW 35' 15' - SIDE YARDS 10' 5' - REAR YARD 25' 15' 5)M1N. LOT WIDTH AT SETBACK 60' 60' 6)MIN. LOT WIDTH AT ROAD ROW 30' 30' 7)MIN. OFF STREET PARKING 2/ UNIT 2/ UNIT MULTIPLEX STACKED FLATS PROPOSED 1) FRONT SETBACKS EXISTING PROPOSED 1) SETBACK FROM ROAD ROW N/A 35' 2) SETBACK FROM PARKING OR DRIVEWAY N/A 25' 3) SIDE YARD FROM PERIMETER BOUNDARIES N/A 15' 4) REAR YARD FROM PERIMETER BOUNDARIES N/A 25' 5) MIN. BUILDING SPACING N/A 30' MULTIPLEX BACK TO BACK UNITS EXISTING PROPOSED 1) SETBACK FROM ROAD ROW N/A 35' 2) SETBACK FROM PARKING OR DRIVEWAY N/A 25' 3) SIDE YARD FROM PERIMETER BOUNDARIES N/A 15' 4) REAR YARD FROM PERIMETER BOUNDARIES N/A 25' 5) MIN. BUILDING SPACING N/A 30' APARTMENTS/CONDOS APARTMENTS/CONDOS EXISTING PROPOSED 1) FRONT SETBACKS - FROM ROAD ROW 35' 35' - FROM PARKING OR DRIVEWAY 20' 10' 2) SIDE YARD FROM PERIMETER 17 BOUNDARIES 50' 50' 3) REAR YARD FROM PERIMETER BOUNDARIES 50' 50' 4) MIN. BUILDING SPACING 50' 50' 5) SETBACKS FOR OTHER USES NOT OTHERWISE SPECIFIED - FRONT 35' 35' - SIDE 15' 15' - REAR 50' 50' 18 APPENDIX B Comprehensive Sign Plan 19 PROFFER. STATEMENT REZONING: RZ #12-05 and MDP #09-05 RA to R4 PROPERTY: 169.924 acres +/-; Tax Map & Parcel 75-A- 99A (the "Property") RECORD OWNER: Winchester-Artrip Limited Liability Company, a Virginia Corporation APPLICANT: Winchester-Artrip Limited Liability Company PROJECT NAME: Villages at Artrip ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: June 2004 REVISION DATA: May 20, 2005 June 17, 2005 September 9, 2005 September 26, 2005 November 28, 2005 January 27, 2006 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced rezoning is not granted as applied for by the Applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "Final Rezoning" defined as that rezoning that is in effect on the day upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the "Board") grants the rezoning. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners, assigns, and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Master Development Plan" shall refer to the plan entitled "Master Development Plan, The Villages at Artrip" prepared by Dewberry (the "MDP") dated Januaiy 27, 2006, sheets 1-4; provided further that sheet 5 thereof, entitled General Development Plan ("GDP"), shall not be deemed a part of the MDP submittal but is otherwise proffered as set forth herein. Deleted: September 23, 2005 1. LAND USE 1.1 The project shall be designed so as to establish interconnected mixed- use villages in conformance with the MDP and the GDP, and as is specifically set forth in these proffers. 1.2 Except as modified herein, areas of commercial development on the Property shall be developed in conformance with the regulations of the Residential Planned Community ("R4") zoning district, as set forth in the Frederick County Code Article VII, §165-67 through §165-72, as cross-referenced to Article X, §165-82, Sections A through D inclusive, and § 165-83. All commercial development on the Property shall comply with the aforesaid regulations, or as may be otherwise approved by Frederick County. 1.2.1 Commercial, retail, restaurant and office development on the Property shall not exceed 128,550 square feet, and shall be provided within the Core Area. 1.3 Except as modified herein, areas of residential development on the Property shall be developed in conformance with the regulations of the Planned Community ("R4") zoning district, including permissible housing types, including those set forth in the Frederick County Code Article VII, §165-67 through §165-72, as cross-referenced to Article VI, §165-58, through §165-66, including as set forth in Appendix A ("Housing Types"). In the event that the Applicant elects to construct any of the Housing Types xhat are set forth on Appendix A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, such units shall conform to the development standards established therein. Housing T es nd lot lay drY Y p _Y_ nP fitted ,HousingTypes identified for those LandbaYs as set forth othe MDP or as are otherwise authorized for the RP district as it is incorporated by reference into the R4 district; provided further that no more intensive J -lousing Type may be constructed in any Landbay than is identified as a dousing Type permitted therein on the MDP. Deleted: unit types Deleted: Unit ty Deleted: pes Deleted: unit types Deleted: unit type Deleted: unit type 1.3.1 Residential development on the Property shall not exceed a maximum of 793 dwelling units, with a mix of Dousing Deleted: h ,ypes permitted in the R4 district, subject to the Deleted: t modifications as set forth in Appendix A, and dwelling types shall be constructed in the locations generally depicted on the MDP and as further set forth herein. 1.3.2 For the purposes of these proffers, single-family attached and detached and multi -family units shall include those Dousing Wipes identified on the MDP and set forth in the Deleted: h applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance including Deleted; t -� detached cluster housing, small lot singles, single-family urban, zero lot line singles, and village rear load singles. Multi -family units shall include apartments and duplex units. 1.4 Development of commercial, residential and community uses within the area identified on the MDP as the "Core Area" shall generally conform to a grid lot layout, and the street layout and,L TXpes depicted therein Deleted: unit types on the MDP. Not fewer than three lousing Wipes shall be provided in _- Deleted: b the Core Area. The layout of the Core Area shall be constructed m Deleted: t general conformance with the GDP, provided that reasonable adjustments may be made to the locations thereof upon final engineering. 1.4.1 The Applicant shall construct not fewer than 100 residential units of three different permitted Mousing Types in the Deleted: unit types Core Area in Phase I of the development as otherwise set out herein. 1.5 Development within the Landbays on the Property outside the Core Area shall generally conform to the street layouts, points of connection to Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road, and the limits of development as are depicted on the MDP; provided that minor adjustments may be made to the locations thereof upon final engineering. Mousing Types and lot Deleted: Unit types layouts within these Landbays may comprise any of the permitted ,Mousing Types identified for those Landbays on the MDP and Deleted: unit authorized herein or subsequently approved by the Frederick County Deleted: t Planning Office; provided further that no more intensive �I usin Type _ Deleted: unit t may be constructed in any such Landbay than is identified as a ousin kpe permitted therein on the MDP. Deleted: unit _ Deleted: t 1.6 Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, rental apartments, condominium units and rental apartments over retail and office uses shall be permitted. 1.7 The gross density of residential units shall not exceed 4.6 units per acre. 1.8 Shared parking shall be provided for retail, restaurant and office uses within Landbay "A" such that a 10% reduction or increase of the required parking spaces shall be permitted. 1.9 The Applicant shall make reasonable attempts to preserve the specimen Delaware Pine in the general vicinity of the cemetery on the property identified on the MDP as Village Green B. Such Green shall be preserved for passive recreational use, provided that a tot lot may be located thereon. During construction the limits of clearing and grading in the vicinity of the specimen Pine shall be identified and field flagged in connection with the Applicant's compliance with requirements of the Frederick County Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance to prevent unintended disturbance of areas to be preserved. Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.75" 2. CONSTRUCTION OF A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT 2.1 The Property shall be developed as one single and unified development in accordance with applicable ordinances and regulations for the R-4 zoning district, the MDP, and this Proffer Statement as it may be accepted by the Board. 3. PHASING OF THE DEVELOPMENT 3.1 The Property shall be developed in h: ee hases, with the commercial portions of the Property to be developed in Phase II as szt forth herein. The JILec phases shall be authorized as follows: 3.1.1 Phase I. Residential development shall not exceed 325, dwelling units and shall consist of not fewer than three permitted Housing Types. 3.1.2 Phase 11. Residential development shall not exceed an additional dwelling units, for a total of A dwelling units comprising not fewer than three permitted Housing Types. 3.1.3 Coramcrcial development shall delude oot Less than 20,000 Squ&re feet of co,,aarnercial/reta.il,!restaura,,it gloss leaseable rloor space ila the Core Area. which shall be co"'Plcted .not later than the,§00,t rcsidentlal building perinit. 3.1.3.1 Notwithstanding the foregoing, and except to the extent set forth herein, the Applicant may construct all or any portion of the commercial development authorized in these proffers at any time. 3.1.41 Phase 111 Residential developinmt shall not exceed an- - additional X93 dwelling units. for a total of 793 wctling 3.1.5 Community improvements. Community -serving -- improvements such as community center, tot lots and similar improvements as shown on the MDP shall be constructed in conjunction with the Landbay with which such improvements are associated; provided that the community center and pool to be constructed in the Core Area shall be designed and bonded at the beginning of Phase I, and constructed prior to the initiation of Phase 11. 4. ARCHITECTURE, SIGNAGE, AND LANDSCAPING: 4.1 The following building materials may be used for construction within the Property, and no others: Deleted: two Deleted: two Deleted: 5 Deleted: 0 Deleted: 0 Deleted: h i Deleted: t Deleted 443 Deleted: 246 Deleted: 793 Deleted: 546 Deleted: h Deleted: t Formatted. Bullets and Numbe Deleted: 545` Formatted: Superscript Formatted: Superscript Formatted: Bullets and Numbe Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Deleted: 246 Deleted: comprising not fewer than three permitted Housing Types. Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Deleted: playing fields, Deleted: , tennis courts 4.1.1 Pavements / Curbing shall consist of cast in place concrete, natural and colored; aggregate concrete; precast concrete, natural and colored; concrete pavers; brick pavers; stone pavers; asphalt pavers; granite; ceramic tile; asphalt. 4.1.2 House sidings shall consist of EFIS; stucco; brick; cementious siding; cedar siding; stone veneer; painted wood; vinyl siding; stained wood; aluminum; hardy plank; PVC trim. 4.1.3 Decking and fencing shall consist of pressure treated wood; stained wood; painted wood; PVC fencing; IPE decking; cedar decking; TREX decking or similar recycled product. 4.1.4 Miscellaneous materials that may be used for roofing shall consist of standing seam metal roofing, colored; slate roofing; asphalt roofing; powder coated steel, colored; galvanized steel; aluminum brushed; anodized aluminum, colored; 304 stainless steel; chrome; canvass; neon. 4.2 Vinyl siding shall not be used on the front elevation of residential structures facing Warrior Drive or on the fronts of residences located on corner lots that intersect with Warrior Drive. The side of a residential structure that faces Warrior Drive located on a corner lot on a road that intersects Warrior Drive is not permitted to have vinyl siding on that elevation. 4.3 Notwithstanding the foregoing, materials used for exterior facades of the commercial buildings shall include but not be limited to concrete masonry units (CMU) split -faced block, architectural block, dryvit, or other simulated stucco (EFIS), real or simulated wood and/or glass. Standard concrete masonry block shall not be used for the front facades of any buildings. 4.4 All buildings within the development on the property shall be constructed using compatible architectural styles. The Applicant shall establish one or more Architectural Review Boards to enforce and administer a unified development plan. 4.5 All signage within the project shall be in substantial conformity with the comprehensive sign plan incorporated herein as Appendix B to these Proffers; provided that the Director of Planning may authorize alternative signage that is substantially consistent with the aforesaid sign plan. 4.6 The major collector roadways (Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road Extended) in the Villages at Artrip shall be constructed with a minimum 20' width buffers adjacent to dedicated rights-of-way and, except at entrance locations, shall be improved with landscape features and lighting to create a "boulevard" appearance. Illustrative details of such buffers shall be as set forth on the MDP. 5. PEDESTRIAN TRAIL SYSTEM AND RECREATION AREAS 5.1 The Applicant shall design and build a public pedestrian -bicycle trail system to Department of Parks and Recreation standards that links residential and commercial areas within the development and provides additional connectivity to adjacent properties. Said trails shall be in general conformance with the South Frederick Land Use Map and shall be in the locations generally depicted on the MDP. Five-foot sidewalks shall be constructed on all public streets and a minimum of four foot sidewalks shall be constructed on private streets in accordance with the requirements of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, except as may be otherwise depicted on the MDP. The pedestrian/bicycling trail constructed along Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Extended shall be 10 feet wide, and shall have an asphalt surface. 6. FIRE & RESCUE: 6.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $537 per dwelling unit for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 7. SCHOOLS: 7.1 Within one hundred and eighty days of written request therefor, the Applicant shall dedicate to the Board of Supervisors approximately 8 Deleted: is acres of land more or less as depicted on the MDP as Land Bay C, for use only as a future elementary school site. 7.2 The Applicant shall extend sewer and water lines to the boundary of the property to be dedicated therefor, at such time as sewer and water lines are constructed to the Core Area. 7.3 The Applicant shall, upon written request therefor, dedicate to the Board of Supervisors approximately five (5) additional acres of property adjacent to and on the southerly side of Warrior Drive, otherwise depicted on the MDP as preservation area, identified as Land Bay F, for public use that is compatible with residential character of the development of the Property and permitted in the R4 District pursuant to the County Zoning Ordinance. 7.4 The Applicant shall be permitted to retain an easement on any such dedicated property for the construction of permanent stormwater management facilities as well as temporary easements for the construction of utilities and structures for the Villages at Artrip. The Applicant shall coordinate any such facilities with the County and the School Division to assure that such facilities do not materially impede the use of the property for an elementary school, and that, to the maximum extent possible, such facilities may serve both the Applicant and any school constructed thereon. The Applicant shall be permitted to retain the right to construct stormwater management facilities for both quality and quantity purposes, on the dedicated property. 7.5 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $337 per dwelling unit for educational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 7.6 The time for any dedication hereunder shall be extended by such time as may be required to process a subdivision application necessary to create the parcel of property to be dedicated, and the Applicant shall file and diligently pursue any such application in order to effectuate said dedication upon request therefor. 8. PARKS & OPEN SPACE: 8.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $847 per dwelling unit for recreational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 9. LIBRARIES: 9.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $137 per dwelling unit for library purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 10. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING: 10.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $144 to be used for construction of a general governmental administration building upon issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 11. CREATION OF HOMEOWNERS' AND PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION: 11.1 The residential portion of the development shall be made subject to one or more homeowners' association(s) (hereinafter "HOA") that shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of all common areas, including any conservation areas that may be established in accordance herewith not dedicated to the County or others, and stormwater management facilities not dedicated to public use, for each area subject to their jurisdiction, and shall be provided such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such associations or as may be required for such HOA herein. If there is more than one such association, the Applicant shall create an umbrella HOA with respect to the entire development that shall, among other things, have responsibility for assuring compliance with design guidelines and standards, signage requirements, private road and open space maintenance, and similar matters common to the development of the Property. 11.2 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, an HOA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all common open space areas not otherwise dedicated to public use specifically including the "Village Green" areas as depicted on the MDP, (ii) common buffer areas located outside of residential lots; (iii) private streets serving the residents who are members of such association; (iv) common solid waste disposal and recycling programs, including curbside pick-up of refuse by a private refuse collection company, (v) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any street, perimeter, or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be located within easements to be granted to the HOA if platted within residential or other lots, or otherwise granted to the HOA by appropriate instrument, (vi) stormwater management facilities. 11.3 The commercial elements of the development shall be made subject to one or more property owners' association(s) (hereinafter "POA") that shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of all common areas, including any conservation areas that may be established in accordance herewith not dedicated to the County or others, and stormwater management facilities not dedicated to public use, for each area subject to their jurisdiction, and shall be provided such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such associations or as may be required for such POA herein. If there is more than one such association, the Applicant shall create an umbrella POA with respect to the entire development that shall, among other things, have responsibility for assuring compliance with design guidelines and standards, signage requirements, and similar matters. 11.4 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, a POA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all common open space areas not otherwise dedicated to public use, (ii) common buffer areas located outside of commercial lots; (iii) private streets serving the businesses and/or residents who are members of such association; (iv) common solid waste disposal and recycling programs to include dumpster and contract carrier services provided by a private refuse collection company, and (v) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any street, perimeter, or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be located within easements to be granted to the POA if platted within commercial or other lots, or parcels, or otherwise granted to the POA by appropriate instrument. 12. WATER & SEWER: 12.1 The Applicant shall be responsible for connecting the Property to public water and sewer, and for constructing all facilities required for such connection at the property boundary. All water and sewer infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. 13. ENVIRONMENT: 13.1 Stormwater management and Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Property shall be provided in accordance with the Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations, First Ed. 1999, Chapter 2, Table 2-3, or such requirements as may be applicable at the time of plan approval, for the purpose of providing the highest order of stormwater control in existing Virginia law at the time of construction of any such facility. 13.2 Stream preservation buffers shall be constructed in general conformance with the MDP, so as to create buffer requirements established by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to protect Opequon Creek and the unnamed tributary to Opequon Creek from disturbance. No clearing or grading shall occur within those buffers, except for the construction of road crossings, trails, water lines, sanitary sewer, or other utilities. 13.3 During construction on the property, the limits of clearing and grading shall be identified and field flagged in connection with the Applicant's compliance with requirements of the Frederick County Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance, for the project as a whole, to prevent unintended disturbance of areas to be preserved. 13.4 The Village Pond located within the Core Area shall be improved and preserved as a visual amenity and may be used for storm water management purposes for both quality and quantity. 13.5 The fifty -foot woodland conservation area depicted in Land Bays D and E on the MDP, adjacent to Canter Estates, shall remain undisturbed; provided that the Applicant may provide for adequate stormwater management outfall within such conservation area. Any such outfall shall be designed so as to minimize the impact on such area. 14. TRANSPORTATION: 14.1 Transportation improvements shall be constructed in conjunction with each phase of the development as set forth below. Design of the roadway system shall be phased as set forth in these Proffers and shall be substantially consistent with the study entitled "A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of The Villages at Artrip," prepared by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, dated December 15, 2004 (the "TIA"). The exact location and design of proffered improvements shall be subject to reasonable adjustment upon final engineering thereof. The Applicant shall construct at its expense pedestrian -actualized signalization at each of those locations for which such signalization is identified in the TIA, upon issuance of warrants therefor unless such signalization has been accomplished by others. 14.2 Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for residential uses on streets to be placed into the State System of Secondary Highways, the Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Section 144-17 (A) of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance. For the purposes of these Proffers, construction of any road or street referenced herein shall mean construction consistent with the requirements of that section. 14.3 The Applicant shall construct the following road improvements as its road phasing for Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road, if construction of that road is initiated from Wakeland Manor. 14.3.1. Prior to the issuance of the first residential building permit for the project, the Applicant shall construct an extension of Warrior Drive from Point A to Point B as depicted on the MDP as a full four -lane divided roadway, including construction of a full section of a roundabout or traffic signalized intersection, as may be approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation, at the intersection of Warrior and Parkins Mill Road. In conjunction with such construction, the Applicant shall further connect Warrior Drive into the adjacent property known as Wakeland Manor, so as to match the pavement widths of that portion of Warrior as constructed by others. The bridge crossing of the unnamed tributary of the Opequon on the southernmost edge of the Property at Point A shall be constructed to accommodate the ultimate design of Warrior Drive. 14.3.2. Prior to the issuance of the first residential building permit for the project, the Applicant shall further construct a full two lane section of Parkins Mill Road Extended, from its intersection with Warrior Drive at Point B to Point B1, as generally Deleted:2 depicted on the MDP and within existing dedicated right-of- way. 14.3.3. Warrior Drive shall be constructed as an urban section pursuant to applicable VDOT standards therefor with an ultimate right - 10 of -way 100' in width. Parkins Mill Road shall be constructed as a rural section pursuant to applicable VDOT standards therefor with an ultimate right-of-way 80' in width. 14.3.4. Upon initiation of said construction, the Applicant may further undertake grading, infrastructure construction, roads, and similar pre -construction activities and preparatory work necessary for building commercial or residential structures, upon issuance of permits therefor. 14.4 Prior to the issuance of the 326`hom. reside_ntial -- building permit, the —t --...__ .._.. -....---- - - -- Applicant shall further construct Warrior Drive as a full four lane section roadway, from Points B to D as depicted on the MDP. 14.5 The Applicant may construct a model home or sales center on the Property concurrently with the construction of the bridge connection to Wakeland Manor, and consistently with applicable County ordinances and regulations. The Applicant shall be permitted to obtain an occupancy permit therefor once the bridge is open to the public, bonded for final completion, but not yet accepted into the State System of Secondary Roads. 14.6 hl addition to the foregoing, the Applicant shall design and bond for completion the following improvements to Warrior Drive: Deleted: 51 n Formatted: Superscript 14.6.1. If the location of the connection of Warrior Drive into Crosspointe shall have been identified the Applicant shall complete the remainder of Warrior Drive from Point D to Point E as a full section of a four lane divided roadway to that point, Deleted: 0" by the issuance of the 60"s residential building permit. 14.6.2. If the location of Warrior Drive into Crosspointe has not been adequately identified prior to the issuance of the 601" residential building permit, the Applicant shall design and bond for construction Warrior Drive from Point D to Point E as a full four -lane divided roadway at a location that is approved by the County, so as to assure the availability of funds sufficient to complete Warrior to a connection with Crosspointe. 14.7 Road phasing if construction of Warrior Drive is initiated from Crosspointe: 14.7.1. In the event that others have constructed Warrior Drive from Crosspointe Center to the Property boundary prior to the initiation of development of the Property and Warrior is to be constructed from that boundary to the south, then prior to the issuance of the first residential building permit for the project, the Applicant shall bond and construct Warrior Drive as a full 11 Deleted: 351' Formatted: Superscript four -lane divided roadway from Point E to Point C, and construct an entrance to the school site at Point B 1 connecting the entrance of Canter Estates to the school site. 14.7.2. Prior to the issuance of the 326`; residential building permit, - Formatted: Superscript the Applicant shall bond and construct Warrior Drive from Deleted: s� Point C to Point A as a full four -lane divided roadway (and make its connection to Warrior Drive in Wakeland Manor as provided for if Warrior is commenced from the south), and shall complete Parkins Mill to Point B,] , whereupon the Deleted: 2 Applicant will be permitted to build out the remainder of the residential units and commercial square footage. 14.8 All left and right turn residential and commercial entrances to Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road shall be limited to those locations as generally depicted on the MDP. 14.9 Warrior Drive shall be constructed with a trail section throughout the Property, and such trail shall be extended to Crosspointe and into Wakeland Manor. 14.10 The Applicant shall connect Parkins Mill Road Extended, to include sidewalk or pedestrian trail on both sides of the road, to gnt B 1 at Deleted: canter Estates such time as Parkins Mill is constructed as otherwise provided in these proffers. 14.11 The Applicant shall construct its internal road network as public or private roads as they are depicted on the MDP. In the event that the Virginia Department of Transportation declines to accept neo- traditional road designs for any such internal streets, the Applicant may construct such streets as private roads. 14.12 All public right-of-ways shall be dedicated to Frederick County as part of the subdivision approval process, consistently with applicable Virginia law. 14.13 All public streets and roads shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation specifications, and subject to review and approval by the Frederick County and VDOT. 14.14 All private streets and roads shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation standards therefor as set out on Sheet 3 of the MDP, and as modified thereby, and shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners or property owners association served by such streets or roads. 12 14.15 No construction traffic shall be permitted through Lot 121 in the adjacent Lakewood subdivision, or through Canter Estates, Section V. In no event shall a permanent interparcel connection be made through Lot 121. 14.16 The County shall permit the Applicant to construct a 2 -lane gravel access road as identified on Sheet 3 of the MDP for construction � S access to the Villages at Artrip, including construction of roads, bridges, utilities, and stormwater management facilities. The County will use its best efforts to assure permission to construct such access road, if such efforts are required,, 14.17 For purposes of these proffers, a road shall be deemed constructed or completed when it has been constructed to a point at which the road is open to the public, remains bonded for final completion, but has not yet been accepted into the State System of Secondary Roads. 15. CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATION AND PRESERVATION 15.1 The Applicant shall preserve the Artrip Family Cemetery. The Applicant shall further create a 0.5 acre preservation park surrounding the Cemetery, as generally depicted on the MDP. 16. ESCALATOR CLAUSE 16.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement are paid to the Frederick County Board County Supervisors ("Board") within 30 months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to the Board after 30 months following the approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index ("CPI -U") published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time contributions are paid, they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI -U from that date 30 months after the approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI -U to the date the contributions are paid, subject to a cap of 5% per year, non - compounded. SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE 13 Deleted: on land within the Property Deleted:, WINCHESTER ARTRIP, Limited Liability Company By: Jeffrey Abramson Title: Managing Member STATE OF MARYLAND; COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY: to -wit The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 12006, by My Commission expires: 14 Notary Public APPENDIX A The following development standards shall apply to development within each Deleted: b Landbay for the following Npusing Wipes listed below: neleted: t SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED CLUSTER FRONT LOAD 1) IN A PROPOSED CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM TOTAL AREA PER DWELLING UNIT OF 10,000 SF, NOT INCLUDING LAND IN REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE AND ROAD ROW. NO INDIVIDUAL LOT SHALL BE SMALLER THEN 8,000 SF. FOR EACH LOT THAT IS LESS THAN 10,000 SF BY A GIVEN SQUARE FOOTAGE, AN EQUIVALENT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LAND SHALL BE ADDED TO THE REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE EXISTING PROPOSED 2) MIN. TOTAL LOT AREA PER DWELLING 10,000 SF 10,000 SF 3) MIN. LOT AREA 8,000 SF 8,000 SF 4) MIN. YARDS: - SETBACK FROM ROAD ROW 35' 20' - SIDE YARDS 10' 5' - REAR YARD 25' 25' 5)MIN. LOT WIDTH AT SETBACK 60' 60' 6)M1N. LOT WIDTH AT ROAD ROW 30' 30' 7)MIN. OFF STREET PARKING 2/ UNIT 2/ UNIT SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED CLUSTER REAR LOAD 1) IN A PROPOSED CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM TOTAL AREA PER DWELLING UNIT OF 10,000 SF, NOT INCLUDING LAND IN REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE AND ROAD ROW. NO INDIVIDUAL LOT SHALL BE SMALLER THEN 8,000 SF. FOR EACH LOT THAT IS LESS THAN 10,000 SF BY A GIVEN SQUARE FOOTAGE, AN EQUIVALENT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LAND SHALL BE ADDED TO THE REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE EXISTING PROPOSED 2) MIN. TOTAL LOT AREA PER DWELLING 10,000 SF 10,000 SF 3) MIN. LOT AREA 8,000 SF 8,000 SF 15 4) MIN. YARDS: - SETBACK FROM ROAD ROW 35' 15' - SIDE YARDS 10' 5' - REAR YARD 25' 20' 5)MIN. LOT WIDTH AT SETBACK 60' 60' 6)M1N. LOT WIDTH AT ROAD ROW 30' 30' 7)MIN. OFF STREET PARKING 2/ UNIT 2/ UNIT SINGLE FAMILY SMALL LOT REAR LOAD EXISTING PROPOSED 1) MIN. LOT SIZE 3,750 SF 3,750 SF 2) OFF STREET PARKING SPACES 2 2 3) SETBACK FROM STATE ROAD 25' 25' 4) SETBACK FROM PRIVATE ROAD 20' 15' 5) REAR YARD 15' 15' 6) SIDE YARD 5' 5' SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED CLUSTER REAR LOAD W1 DETACHED GARAGE 1) IN A PROPOSED CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM TOTAL AREA PER DWELLING UNIT OF 10,000 SF, NOT INCLUDING LAND IN REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE AND ROAD ROW. NO INDIVIDUAL LOT SHALL BE SMALLER THEN 8,000 SF. FOR EACH LOT THAT IS LESS THAN 10,000 SF BY A GIVEN SQUARE FOOTAGE, AN EQUIVALENT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LAND SHALL BE ADDED TO THE REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE EXISTING PROPOSED 2) MIN. TOTAL LOT AREA PER DWELLING 10,000 SF 10,000 SF 3) MIN. LOT AREA 8,000 SF 8,000 SF 4) MIN. YARDS: 16 - SETBACK FROM ROAD ROW 35' 15' - SIDE YARDS 10' 5' - REAR YARD 25' 15' 5)MIN. LOT WIDTH AT SETBACK 60' 60' 6)MIN. LOT WIDTH AT ROAD ROW 30' 30' 7)MIN. OFF STREET PARKING 2/ UNIT 2/ UNIT MULTIPLEX APARTMENTS/CONDOS STACKED FLATS EXISTING EXISTINNG PROPOSED 1) SETBACK FROM ROAD ROW N/A 35' 2) SETBACK FROM PARKING OR DRIVEWAY N/A 25' 3) SIDE YARD FROM PERIMETER BOUNDARIES N/A 15' 4) REAR YARD FROM PERIMETER BOUNDARIES N/A 25' 5) MIN. BUILDING SPACING N/A 30' MULTIPLEX BACK TO BACK UNITS EXISTING PROPOSED 1) SETBACK FROM ROAD ROW N/A 35' 2) SETBACK FROM PARKING OR DRIVEWAY N/A 25' 3) SIDE YARD FROM PERIMETER BOUNDARIES N/A 15' 4) REAR YARD FROM PERIMETER BOUNDARIES N/A 25' 5) MIN. BUILDING SPACING N/A 30' APARTMENTS/CONDOS APARTMENTS/CONDOS EXISTING PROPOSED 1) FRONT SETBACKS - FROM ROAD ROW 35' 35' - FROM PARKING OR DRIVEWAY 20' 10' 2) SIDE YARD FROM PERIMETER 17 BOUNDARIES 50' 50' 3) REAR YARD FROM PERIMETER BOUNDARIES 50' 50' 4) MIN. BUILDING SPACING 50' 50' 5) SETBACKS FOR OTHER USES NOT OTHERWISE SPECIFIED - FRONT 35' 35' - SIDE 15' 15' - REAR 50' 50' 18 APPENDIX B Comprehensive Sign Plan 19 103NWO 01 lfdtLL eNlld Minn t 901GZlr ".'MN.917Y5'x 700AW gYEFAVe Z suazrry s,� so/9zz r =1 7aaii s a _ ` '�' £"SN _ - f - s6/cz s 9 sa JAWW sNi✓asry ,carr�b s ' '�'�° s - ,�,• •,,� }» 9 • x - Q9 SIl sr r TG 59.£ so/e/e sNorazrsu s ,�� S nsoz=.I:azvos IV sa/�r/s salrs/s �9ursr,tamru a dvw ALIM1A s'- r f tYN 1£tl,o sus atvas omdvao 1 r Y �A�s s0/Oz s so Ors 9�6L W xa�lx z SO/i/S O Sr Z ST.N9fl MVJ AZNIfO.] 1®d r [yyldcip0'IdxVtIx/75i lrt 6` � ... \• 1� f!- ,`. .31rr7 NOudmsa eo ar.'[°' OOE=uI-tTIdJ$ S(NIZ 11NdV 6Z AJO7&NOr9rilsu�d��b 99'£bb r .�., _ \ \ \. - �m ---i,-.tea. .��xL, ,o ££09'486"10£XVd 090c"616£'iiLl. S680i P�l�I^i 'eP��HIi+Wtd w[aJ.BnH tOS[T SaMVdWOD 2Ia1Y OL 9HZ .LN2Xd07xAHO ILVY �ffgAO rd d0 NO.LJ.9XIQ av'Iaaooi�vv3xool ,..r � � +�+� \�\�\ dHt�ao saa Ax asesxddv ms -r. - ,�.• `\` 6.\ \; \� \ _ I � { ,;+ --��xacvucsumr�.uxnos .ter as 2reoxddv fy �Sp LJJMIQidi7la.LSI'JVYg BaNddVHS r F i --- —----_ '�.\\ �� -,'3�' - ,- `.�.rY NlolluaaudllmgsxrxaVd Q rLNflQHV,I r \ \ 'Ilvu&7vedSvxo o E, �^. `�.. �� • / � - - - SHINVd{'WD IM&OI �L AO ''IV.83(8 $IH8JN00 am -A s �, '"� 3 Y �-3-� 1 / ' '� �"�. _ - : INM&OT au V 'lnralt'Iv>IaSvaaLvl ul � N •� _ �)1k ✓'�,`�, � •, .� i, �.,\\ ,!•' _jam\�T�]�j T�.,r [7 /��,T�'%�J�� !jj�� alvas HIao art" UdStlJI®Q 7 `4 X / f { CLl Q.L Q Y sL Y L7 �✓ Y l LLl1 �7i lai .LhII'I1rN[ tawNoav3;naajun.[.07. -a 1 + la h,. t y } 1 { ..� \ ,e... S 30 i .LaaRS -. vmtvm3TnUNM o ! , � MV'Id .LN9KdO'IaiEIQ 2IR.LSVL1i 1VNO1Ivr71L737I aa zRawJ ww1aly Y&O.Is Va')JIx3e 3)'VdS N3dO'arS'�a �. a Sri au msaalvs a 8 �. i 1it/gti1JV I -� :\`\ \ � � sanvaax 'msis r )• , /,,,v�� nnavavmmaooe �. ' I� l rt w l ' Tx st aoomonuiscca r r �- s .i i. 0 �b - _8¢s 1 tir j �\ £9� 1vANdINllinalNOO Z 'Wa-gliaw �ws<s3a(rrsaadas 0 � 9 �/h. � /! , � I r � � _ \� �,. � ✓ � � \ ��a� "!,_,� r 8NYI35VHd � � � �� > '3 � •. ><j /4 - i E( �`_`a-, ` \��' ti ��. \g li�fiQr�� `% NIV7d00(YUWVa)LOOT - - r+Jaas - 1i 3 }131Nv� Oi.K11L�3NND:I NltlM36h' y { I v 8ns IOOH�S i rd 1 � { 6 � _ �a L_ l S\ 1�.gru� i Y ,r--.. _ _ _ - -- �C•,� ice° /_ ore - w j— �r �� h -- o .�! ; ` k I . -�V, - a, Baas ,, t i J aar w xmcrm'vxu '.-.. .sem...' I I ,!4 y .� .. '� _ _ _ _ N✓a ASS, � �ir L �`i �1 a t rararo sD.a�x�� tvn triy;:ax ax33[�aao aor�oa � dVMdO n©nL�nlnod [----alswr»sxxull�ara�I.rurga ��` ------sOwl�raarlama'maa ��'a-,—sixvurtvasaxrax3loravL�r'ty i Ip 1vt01 3 q moaomreo� ' OHBNJ.Ltl S'I�ytli d'I�JLIS (.�.J xus(mom>,vaxax'mevaaloaLs LLvmra ®vlaa x7a•[vi amens 3vewae>—mivauLv ays'€v, rt, NO1LWIflVI. Awnsvf& MV_f3 i:Kvv 316lOohas �, SiN3LP3ffii[1383tl]€aNtlH vatl 833 bSDJ V Iir61H�3d3dlalA me�3erxexlxn N111Y-� ' RK-J-fl1VUS NaMfNJ{BVHd OVOH 1VNOICd f1 MV_f3 i:Kvv 316lOohas sin ltlnsi! vulr�asee 3sn �' - esac+3sn �, �!)N�sc sn 7d 3sn l nLN3�63ll -r asn 3 �nrsa graa�a a3/x�� asn wase a V➢1!• ,atli�4M5 .6698 .` -, i/N' G��ff,M - � :��Ibryb� ° �ZOIf -9NIN02 ^ItrvaU53L da 'Nx sa :�V b - ""— L/6[B Bx Zw/fL9 HOsf� i n lbLLN30�3b x3¢E3a sx b ec r b Nora x b r3ax, s -- , trS[g£ H ZU9YaZ8S �' zs-�[a.))�se vu ur((b A�sr rx e snjp U7 �e n� ru-(Cul Vose tyle 'O�iC83NM0 d.1:NiFdOYd 1NH.?tlidtl iaezz vn 'v Ima =w �r is sHovassz srxaHsn �rassz sa,v�sre SIHnHOHHrE- sEvooHmer sdavvasz sa�e'asz swoHmei- ami££09'18610£7LdF!!�3j�7�p7t�Op�L-,768�6vJ[Of�7i�/3�1�� yea OS 'YIl8H6'dravarc ado NH((9 HVHa- ST bi 6£ 61 dE HeS- aNOHa- JDfUSIQ7VRIr7.1.SIHJVP ff3NMVHS 0310SddS �ffidEH�dDJfNSdS[lffilf S1dSLT'fCf$La us as xutvas�raavnanmvU as os HatHYealoa rvw:.nsimHlLiflYxHVHH(E as as s�emmmHH�almaa Havx Halla [z m az xYenHn,��savavaEwHd- dE 6E MOHH4UHl�Ha- ®8GZ88d '.N4LSIXH 14Jt'ml6IL811idn I mstasaz rix �HYaisHais dao lmHU OE tl1N faJpVda9N1(I]HlH'N6¢1S VM ffiatlST(IOHIIH.CH<HHHdf®BdQHro'xavaHU s! tl/N SHHIK¢� gd�aiQOHd OHyA HH15 (f va. AvetantmEsoa�aranowLxJaexvs(z aE vrti ewaaouHiersavvm.as(t �owHd �ada'ga __ A.J07B NOfSLL9X ZMMd�ff ONY JNINNYId .dO 90d zmO va[ Aff UMOXddY HairuLsamrwauyno� lv"Oo .wl .Le affjauddv SGIIVGNVZS'IVNOISNEMC dOrJIULSI'I'IO3 SddU ilafl(lodd'IVfluLUUNH ZIod S-LxVxo Has oszv `saxvGNV.LS do saamv/A ausaabau I.NAS9IdaI SNOISNBNIIG G'IOEI`S(fdV(INV.LS KI , Na9,q I(M SNGISN3NIIa d aHO MON .s s ®vxHms(v bl bl HHtlAHVHB (i bl 9Z 06V88xYAAHdfallia HaVHSHSU SZ bZ UCDadltlaSEHJ83 H:R'HL�(£ Z Z SHJYasO[aHHYd.�.TS ddO (Z daHSLE aSHSL'E �IO'I'NHE (1 �0I08d �xffiS avo7 _ .LO'I TAMS A'JIW V3 nOMS I � I � I UVOR AWAIHd ]IIi[1 n Haaz araz aaHraxxas:sado-� of HE maamrosAYa.[mx,doT-emaU a9 m ��AYtir>HEEdmI-,sme[c m az amixHY,�- d Hi laHVdBlaE'- dl df dHlHHYUHla1Hv`4JtlfidHH- �H6-AtmeU asoma asoma YaBVJD]-eHreeE asEstoaF� as ooa'o, 'rrrdmasaaa�ram'roxox-NmiU ®HHWId SM88'88 Z'R'dsN3�.�0®NO3HIFIOiH HHa 03 OHQOV 3HTkVlS(H�VIdO t®VAW3IIHYLIDS ]P.H'ItlAi(la3 NYZPIV1OQdHHYf10HNHAPJ VxH60m0i Ntl8tSS3ISIIVH[JOEHJYiLaOd as moHL�x 1H[RHH4 W ITN SO'E'1VIlmAiHtH ON 'MOII !II[WYf' LD[H]tIN'iSOm0130.11NL1 avolym IdI.sII7o CBMVI as AlfflwzI H'ilms moa as QVO'9arlHftd -: �vHlsaao'NHmL moxawamacmm.ms'i�me m O AeYda- d AS SQ8Yd E6Q' S- ar bE mxWmHEmHia3vHias- HnHYx imeU d8�'6 MGM V3HVI0'I lmaLE asaW'd, asomm x¢[raetamavaer,oczYxoa eme(z ami ewrdsgH 3.R'�N981NN®Hu d3>Q(tDHg HHi pI HHO.OV 3HTltlL6@1VilIDPJ V]llOd dHVllab J.CIIIYAIIIn3 NY'ENlO44HHtlIlOB NHAp Y AH � OHHH t NVHES4IS1tlHl..HYIH�Ja H(la �aW'H MHH.L lidPltll�flHTIVffiIEl'f'IdnaTAi@H Otld 'rOH QtlflHmf V BJOdSlIIdil N000VOJ ®®(Ia3H M@lYI'.Y�iTJNI ]tIN'3S ro601 AO�IfI OMTIIb1H8adlAHtlltlSO.l Rf II�IDYY 3H TNBS 'JHHBt:W reaRIHa�8HI41't)Q�OdOHdYNI(1 QE'OZ.I,t1iOdC� u3sw m moxas adou oriena dHs,eHaz I mm nedz �YaiHHHlsdao'emme of ac nmsae�amFramldEsm'Emmv a9 a9 :zlrm�ivmaan.Em-smv[s aaYdHSHH- d ii at HaaYAHEos- dE .HOaQ6ita10EE8JV8.l.HS- '. IDBtlA "NHV LI asooHs asoma YHaraoi-NuvU asamal aHmoal xarrdaatE3aYvtaaYYAvi-LY.LOA-smrcz i i S,arsga H:NdaN3dl E0{mmJ03IDf103E <IDS OIHHWY H8TIYHHHNVIapH'JYIC(la HHtlI1DH IN3IVAI(IDH NV�NJpOaflHYflDa NHAHf tlAHda OOOaI AE'BLSHHESxtlSLlLYIHT'HH(Id "aSOmHN38d. ICirlE'Fa:eHTlVl3s ISYI'N1101Am[a ON 'dW 8 OtlD80HYHJVdSNHdON(1M0N� OEBHIaHa HI@LYLtH�I'Ll[1I a1lN'aRQmp! dO IIN[l 'YO•rf3dLQHHd638.VNrnr WLlimaH' (tl3H TMS 9tl�.E'SN9NdOIIA VR H3ESLD ¢450dOHd tl HI(F d�I�X6'i%O''If�NiI.iIQ�(f1 QT��7�N7! xaasn� ai�v.Laa a�aVa urns ,ya'mn� SIM =awns 7WZlII8W3].ddS LI mo*' W vdmu=.Oj-- ami££09'18610£7LdF!!�3j�7�p7t�Op�L-,768�6vJ[Of�7i�/3�1�� yea 56BOZP�Iyi'��///''C��I `HPC,/4F�HlHTgW/j�1��m��o�iYgnH IOSI ao ILL A S �--�-E-� ` ♦ d oD 9m V c � . 11EI E—_ I JDfUSIQ7VRIr7.1.SIHJVP ff3NMVHS rII.IJAnJ9M I -M SNDrAVd SHNVd/HOD N3Mo1 MU jo .LNRPUOgHARCI V a7xl2rVsVS9DV7WA .ter.r. gougpS p-mA S d0 Z ,LaaIS -�I d DIEMdOT] AFIQ Nalsvw .@¢, BHdZ YRd `SDSITYdffiH.EH aao-NH¢(9 9E tl/N ,YJ.IYdH'JCHn'nLlHNBC IS dZ V2[ S�Htl@I[I[IH tLHP6Qgga1®Hd QHYAeVHaU d, tl/N 83H62QRIOHHII:DHBSd /QOHdUHYd �Sif d2 tlM xYEfHAmH,HlEEHABtld KOHdaJVHAHS LZ 6E Y/N d1pHUYpHE®HHH]Y�BSIi ReSOIOHd S1VISRS SLIN[73liifief%(.U.%.%I ff Y�i`IHII,L7III'1i I I i t I � -: �vHlsaao'NHmL moxawamacmm.ms'i�me m O AeYda- d AS SQ8Yd E6Q' S- ar bE mxWmHEmHia3vHias- HnHYx imeU d8�'6 MGM V3HVI0'I lmaLE asaW'd, asomm x¢[raetamavaer,oczYxoa eme(z ami ewrdsgH 3.R'�N981NN®Hu d3>Q(tDHg HHi pI HHO.OV 3HTltlL6@1VilIDPJ V]llOd dHVllab J.CIIIYAIIIn3 NY'ENlO44HHtlIlOB NHAp Y AH � OHHH t NVHES4IS1tlHl..HYIH�Ja H(la �aW'H MHH.L lidPltll�flHTIVffiIEl'f'IdnaTAi@H Otld 'rOH QtlflHmf V BJOdSlIIdil N000VOJ ®®(Ia3H M@lYI'.Y�iTJNI ]tIN'3S ro601 AO�IfI OMTIIb1H8adlAHtlltlSO.l Rf II�IDYY 3H TNBS 'JHHBt:W reaRIHa�8HI41't)Q�OdOHdYNI(1 QE'OZ.I,t1iOdC� u3sw m moxas adou oriena dHs,eHaz I mm nedz �YaiHHHlsdao'emme of ac nmsae�amFramldEsm'Emmv a9 a9 :zlrm�ivmaan.Em-smv[s aaYdHSHH- d ii at HaaYAHEos- dE .HOaQ6ita10EE8JV8.l.HS- '. IDBtlA "NHV LI asooHs asoma YHaraoi-NuvU asamal aHmoal xarrdaatE3aYvtaaYYAvi-LY.LOA-smrcz i i S,arsga H:NdaN3dl E0{mmJ03IDf103E <IDS OIHHWY H8TIYHHHNVIapH'JYIC(la HHtlI1DH IN3IVAI(IDH NV�NJpOaflHYflDa NHAHf tlAHda OOOaI AE'BLSHHESxtlSLlLYIHT'HH(Id "aSOmHN38d. ICirlE'Fa:eHTlVl3s ISYI'N1101Am[a ON 'dW 8 OtlD80HYHJVdSNHdON(1M0N� OEBHIaHa HI@LYLtH�I'Ll[1I a1lN'aRQmp! dO IIN[l 'YO•rf3dLQHHd638.VNrnr WLlimaH' (tl3H TMS 9tl�.E'SN9NdOIIA VR H3ESLD ¢450dOHd tl HI(F d�I�X6'i%O''If�NiI.iIQ�(f1 QT��7�N7! xaasn� ai�v.Laa a�aVa urns .@aza rx >flc s 3 tm a a�emlH ronis9 am W9w > M na �n MQa a :.waux a -s< -•os or. .i. riou�ss -r-v�za�.x" QVOiI SSE133V .Ill"Od NM o N9LLtldI551n �3B QINIS 3NDIS "SN'9LLVfLLISroLi�Yaf J.iNClxn V3H �x 'A1n18�V15 TOaJLLI00V a03 6329tl9a 3Nf o1 BHIddV 38 AVN fll lu wvM-JD fxCra � �tl A�l3LYIQ3%%1103need 3a 11V16 31V�3CaYJtl 3SNtl0]x ti lD6s f0 allW IoNI-a v '9 "RtaatlW 3ldYN0LLJ3`xo a3Hk0 ONY SL(}Da '4wlJYf393n TY iU C3aY3Y! 33 TYXS 3JVfanS �Nlaadd aU x3xavOtl 3HI 'S xYA3.,Nw auYMwaJ.s M �3DNVOaJJDtl NII 03lJnalSNUJ ONV 03N9153C 3B tlYHS T@LSSUd 1N3U3 frv]i>�Nfnsd3e mrn[ IICaC3LtlJDlN 3. W.Z s=1 JNMatldtlAaVa]d1134 tlZ -'v39x3e 0[ ®�%3 lAN G1NOH5 53dO15 '31&SS9d 1N3IX3 31LL O1 NNaa3l ltlalLLVN r 35NrtGJ 35v8,31Va3M9tl »nave@ ®v'taHa aaJa'sm N � .s"''dbaea aauaanoc aNY ®wra@ 'rtsx n pros saseH 3'168 6L JAN 71VIYY 6YVH4dSV NOIJOdS SSaJDV NWILLSaQ21d H.LIM CI9NJISHQ HU OZ SNOT LOBS-dffJM TIS' r1- - - - SxDH,W zsxszi=x.,'_� itSQiIVQNV.Ls .LOQA 2Iad FIH OZ SNOILOHS avow gLIS-NO -amuo 7� - $.LON¢:oa rwe spa W sena aotaxru 9xm6 '[mri ,Nf' e33fne 3aYDs9NY3 ,os —IM 3dY9SaxV1 ,96 I• nJa .oe ---- 433931 5 3A3 HM 1Na1 .OL jC S9N114fa1d Sn01aVA /M woai .Z a0 wa3e 10 301 3V 3ALL3-d �V i2 Wa3H NIW 9; 91 3LL 1Sn% 30 a3 Dad 35 BBnS ,DI * £ TI! SnONlWfala 35V8 - 1nJ NNN -GINS .l .b/1 M3a Y NIR L ,�,. 31eVKl VYl 3n15 1IIN30153a .3 ]N 3VV1 W yL 3M ZL 34V1 F[ 3iVi Lli FL A'llti M/a "91N5 "O3H8 M/ate � l3AYaD 33naa3 .61 6 CL .CL .8 bL 10 OL El VNOHI 0a 3n1VJ SNIANVd N01101S 1V0WI 1 a33s1e 3dVDsaNVt ,as j d3 tAn8 a31in8 3/�LL�VNI .04 a:uav IE .91 3915 1-30193a lw.at nk SDNI1NVld SII —A iM -le Niw 9 _._. a3 — v a3A3 HZIHN II— AL , noaf .z ao Wa3e io 39k kV 3orrrJ 3afLLfti o3N1 3LL lsnw 3araD "aoae n1L.cra saaual9l lY Hs 33s 3kaN. a39NV3 afaaroal xNtl wa3B 310N. )LifdrlH 3dY950NY1 .03 a313n@ 3TLL�VNr .Ot H3iinH 3nOLLOY / 3015 TVLLN39153a S�NLLNb3d $lt01aVA /M lroal a3ifna 3dvaNNYI ,Ds wxlut a39Nr3X Di veal nNY wa3e 3koN. mow NOIS/45N J d0'ff 9" O.t2X, j d0 dOJ-=Uff 3Hl .IH (mogrdr _ aafvx'saJwaoacvvro tlAG6�LSlABLQN .f,LNl10.J SM .CH O&lONdd9 .aaiW. a mw, s S,IN TIVJS YDDZ )EIG^IIIddS L I RIo� NW7210EiI�O�iOMmI'MMM t w ££0 tWIOE(XIV!fII O�OOOL''48�6I0£"7II�J.T(S:0OT.P�VMS-ENS[�`8�?H�pvE[T4WNN p-DT$oH[OSI ►7.71-L�1 V dwoD Q�ZLI of I L loll LSIQ'IV18H.lagvwHHNMVHS M JDIZOUW'IgM SNITUVJ S3lWd VgCO'dR&CLL HHL dO �//mjJr /T lJ/��/T.fHNHI/\Ia/yO�I+'tdli\/�L�r�IJQr/d/�//''�� (sry/�/�y�T )T Y4 WL LL( I i Y ✓Lll�/ I l m H..41W SL[mas peO-d IOC'EIN S 140 f ZFURS NV'Id Lig RIKJO' IIaAH(I 2IH,LS VW f[011�36 1N3 W3AVd �VO1dAl A31lV AVM Z ..n W°ie 3o sus tnun .aoclaaan A1F.H s AYM fD 11�I ava , 3NOHd3l3[ nNV 3lHY� SY9 '9RLLD313 i0 3DNVlfikN16N ONY NOLLrnlnuw ao3 tNs3 ullun. a3fina Wa L 3dvas9Nn .oz ltllmwww tYac of �� 19l DNINavd f Ate/ 1 NYI93w n3 73 N01103S ININ3AVd -IVOIdJ.l S301S HJ -00 SNI>IaWd HIM 133a1S 30VJJJA 3k3aD so TI/ PN.: AVM aD ixD[a woa ,as 1 I 'tun Ji J3 O 01 8 MOad 3AIac 2JOINNVM NOLL03S IYOI6A1 M/a p01 aaidne 3dV3MNC Us aa33ne 3nuovNl .01a30,z 3riLLJY ,DI "-- wa3e NrW ,9 4 NVI93ry ssda9 � ��` � — 'tun M/s f " h. ams Tfurd3als 3 QI 1 N d DI b hod] INN(] aJONaVM Noll03s 7V01du a3i 9 3dVOSUNV1 .09 a3dine 3nrtDVNI ,ob o nq M■ ^o ivy :^� f muu..v�u- a y LSI/ .,.�..rr�:t.r.xu iuvbis ueunsx a __ ,oazz rn --gin x ,ms a ^^ Psme =� k'� na^r ,^a i,n s„s so ez 7 ,anls�aisl7�au 7o0a�S a .00I =.,I :aTv )s SOK MWV 6Z fj so s2 6 So/s!/s 5AML r AMOY 9 .901818 Wors AHN S �W'8dN8dmO MOj'.amn1 ,�.f � + 9a/ter/s sO Jsls xs J.Y7 caaitn s £E09'486 [OE Xtld OpOG'p$6'lOE'"iaS. S680Z4-1 1Y a4teHq1+oAC l+�o'J,i{^A IOSlI i 1 s9/oz of oT 9 �wOj �Qo�� z S dY�iOD 2I 4,L �I,L r so sr z stNaJoro� �rnoa u�d r F a.L9Q NOLLAx,�S90 1f • 1. ' �� aae+m a :wr .ra axrra�x 'Jm1IIV37,7IImV'IIIOOM - . i -, a \ ", f\�\ .. �: ` � I .LN3lFd079A9Q �Yv sNWN6'ld dU UWJ.tiU[O i `\' I HILL A9 OYADXdd9 546R'I000M'1MJ.SCQ • ', r _ \�\ \ {-: - +,�T xazran9mntr.[WIOa JJlE SIQ UViiULSIDVWZ[Mq VHS MUM 97NI iJM�3Nd77a1ISAII3INVd MM.LWMsV�MAr - _ nacvucswnrav ,cc tUao0 MIa ea maAoudde J/�T�J7J T.L�[�77Y[Y1d'0?1/c'I�AH�Q7�V7 SJmFJ1dYIdN3dd[iH �?{E.', /f }' �� ,�1� \ \ \ . f (Il QJ. CL Y .L Y �7�Z1..! Y I � s7 L Z•.L. w4 ►w �3i g�\ ` uold s-mjjnS aduospuel puu slip-ij `std 3WdSm8d Omo o } ° J�'- -> S AO b .La7HS NVg4f LIQ aWdO'IaAHQ 2Ia.LSVW SiNVL[1VL$H/'IItllflrl/®IddO � _ .�� WELLS= CEmvlsa NYHA�uva ms tlL10�V13QA'IIWVd B WMS +�,. /� '� `4 i a►�`�.s \\ - \ "uay Alt- ilk j , Y � z , �� 9°'�H � � �_� 3321E 1v1N3WVFM0 332ll SYIOnO W30 , BfINFS I[iitl tl3�3 � 33W HI3tINeflY _ � I I \ F �i pAA� wls+•a� � �,� �� '��-. 3 € d1A� '� �� . _ \ �� \ � y �" a3/dne 13r{3n,y3 avow os - :'� .s®erart arwv �racx �.*.,�a. v;aiuna 3na� a,aaaa ay.wv �w cps meaea+ .a§\SIUs -i„n' aid { S`JIJILIMd Sf'q aYA /M LYN39 ,9� -vy�a, os�,e�Ru Rlwaa�flw4mn p�rea.q I mob._ �- �l<<�.�� MOa 33a9 N33tl9N353 .9 .iSLI.fNd"Id 03�A3Nd AHfANd'H7�ddII8 dIIN�JIddHQtlOY ��" PIDIIJ35]Lidd[1H AJfL�ll31dd3RVOa