PC 08-03-05 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
August 3, 2005
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) June 15, 2005 Minutes..................................................................................................... (A)
2) Committee Reports...............................................................................................--- (nn tah)
3) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab)
PUBLIC HEARING
4) Rezoning 904-05 for Senseny Village, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 49.70
acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District and 24.09 acres
from RP (Residential Performance) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with
Proffers. This 73.79 acre site is located on the south of Rossum Lane (Route 736) and
Twinbrook Circle (Route 867), in the Red Bud Magisterial District, and is identified by Property
Identification Numbers (PINS) 65 -A -49B and 65-A-55.
Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (B)
5) 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 905 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.
Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (C)
PUBLIC MEETING
6) Master Development Plan #10-05 for Stonewall Plaza, submitted by Greenway
Engineering, for Shopping Center and Retail Service Uses. The property is located along the
Route 522 Corridor, next to the existing Trex Center and Darville Subdivision in Sunnyside,
and is identified with Property Identification Number 42 -A -198H in the Stonewall
Magisterial District.
Ms. Perkins...................................................................................................................... (D)
7) Other FILE COPY
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 June 15, 2005.
PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/
Opequon District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; Robert A. Morris,
Shawnee District; June M. Wilmot, Shawnee District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; George J. Kriz,
Gainesboro District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; H. Paige
Manuel, Member -At -Large; Barbara Van Osten, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal
Counsel.
ABSENT: John H. Light, Stonewall District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; David Shore, City
of Winchester Liaison.
STAFF PRESENT: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner;
and Beverly Dellinger, Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES
Upon motion made by Commissioner Manuel and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the
Planning Commission minutes of May 18, 2005 were unanimously approved as presented.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS)
Commissioner Kriz reported that the Board of Supervisors sent the Rural Areas Study
information back to subcommittee for revisions and Senior Planner, Susan K. Eddy, did a fantastic job of
rewriting the information, although the CPPS was not entirely pleased that changes had to be made. He said
the UDA Study Group is actively meeting and pursuing their study; the CPPS also discussed the
Comprehensive Plan amendments.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Page 1538
Minutes of June 15, 2005
-2 -
Transportation Committee
CommissI ner Straub reported that the Transportation Committee talked about the Road
Improvement Plan and heard requests from the public on whether specific roads were eligible for paving; they
also looked at the 1-81 corridor with regards to endorsing rail access.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Request for No Thru-Trucks in Brucetown
Ms. Kathy Whittier, a resident of the Stonewall District, stated that a group of residents from
Brucetown appeared before the Commission in 2003 and requested No Thru-Truck status through Brucetown.
Ms. Whittier said that the residents along Charlestown Road had been granted a similar request, however, the
Brucetown request was denied because an alternate route was not available at that time. She said that Rt. 761
(Charlestown Road) has now been re -opened, and the citizens of Brucetown would like to have their request
considered again. She said that the Brucetown residents are becoming weary of the large trucks speeding
through the town with no regard for the speed limit.
Support for Mr. Fuel Truck Facili
Mr. David E. Dovell came forward and introduced himself as a Frederick County tax payer
and a truck driver. Mr. Dovell spoke in support of the Mr. Fuel truck facility proposed for Clearbrook. He
believed Clearbrook was a good location for the facility and he thought an additional truck stop would relieve
some of the congestion at the Flying J facility. Mr. Dovell said he has already had to wait 30-45 minutes to get
fuel at Flying J. He told the Commission about the closing of a couple fuel truck stops in surrounding counties
and he noted that the number of facilities available to get fuel is dwindling. Mr. Dovell commented that
Frederick County needs the business and industrial use to build a tax base. Mr. Dovell requested that these
issues be considered, rather than basing a decision on someone's inconvenience.
AMENDMENT TO AGENDA
Chairman DeHaven announced that both Item 47, the David Shore application for Anthony
Cook, and Item #8, the Deborah Dorman Dutcher application, have been temporarily withdrawn by the
applicants and will not be considered by the Commission at this evening's meeting.
Frederick County Planning Commission W Page 1539
Minutes of June 15, 2005
-3 -
PUBLIC HEARING
Consideration of a request by Patton, Harris, Rust and Associates to include approximately 79 acres of
land into the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and approximately 57 acres of said land into the
Urban Development Area (UDA). Also, the consideration of a proposed Tasker Woods Land Use Plan
(TWLUP); this plan would become an element of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The properties are
located north of Tasker Road (Rt. 642), east of Macedonia Church Road, and west of Route 522. The
subject properties are identified by P.I.N.s 76-A-49 and 76 -A -48A in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Approval
Senior Planner, Susan K. Eddy, stated that when this application previously came before the
Planning Commission as a discussion item at the May 4 meeting, a much wider area was being studied;
however, not all of the parcels in that wider area had been assigned a future land use. She said that later, when
the Board of Supervisors considered this as a discussion item at their May 25 meeting, they were only willing
to send forward the two parcels for public hearing. She said that although the Board agreed that a wider study
area was appropriate, they referred the wider area plan back to the CPPS and the Planning Commission for
further study. Ms. Eddy said that consequently, just the two parcels are being considered this evening for
UDA, SWSA, and Land Use Plan components. Ms. Eddy next briefly reviewed the contents of the proposed
land use plan.
The main points of Ms. Eddy's presentation included: Both the SWSA and the UDA
boundary are recommended for extension and the proposal includes a mix of commercial and residential uses;
the commercial uses are proposed for the southern portion of the study area, below the intermittent stream, and
strip commercial areas are to be discouraged; the plan recommends that the SWSA be extended to cover the
designated commercial area, but not the UDA, as that would imply residential development; the plan calls for
a well-designed park and open space system for both active and passive recreation; the applicant indicates their
intention to work with representatives of the Macedonia Methodist Church on an open space site for the area;
the Eastern Road Plan designates Tasker Road and White Oak Road as improved major collector roads, and
shows a new major collector linking White Oak Road and Macedonia Church Road with Rt. 522; the proposed
LUP states that the provision of this major collector road would be the responsibility of the developers;
similarly, a signalized intersection is proposed here, also the responsibility of developers in this area; the plan
calls for a new minor collector road, which series to connect the residential portions of the development with
the commercial, and also to provide an alternative future access for the parcels along Rt. 522; an inter-
connected system of multi-purpose trails and sidewalks are proposed and because the Tasker Woods area is in
a prominent location on Rt. 522, heightened designed standards have been included in the proposed plan.
Ms. Eddy stated that a recommendation from the Planning Commission on the UDA and
SWSA expansions and on the Tasker Woods Land Use Plan is sought.
Commissioner Thomas inquired about the proposed methods to discourage strip commercial
areas. Ms. Eddy replied that since this is a long-range LUP, any proposed applications showing strip
commercial development would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Commissioner Gochenour asked about the advertising and public notification procedures. She
also inquired why a SWSA and UDA expansion was being considered while the subcommittee was in the
middle of their UDA study; she believed the subcommittee needed to reach the conclusions of their study
before new applications were considered. Ms. Eddy explained that this was a 2004 Comprehensive Policy
Plan amendment request and the BOS had designated it for further study.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1540
f
Minutes of June 15, 2005 t
h }tt}EE
-4 -
Mr. Clay Athey, representing the applicant, Alden, LLC, stated that Mr. Allen Hudson, the
managing partner of Alden, LLC and owner of the Eastgate Shopping Center, south of Tasker Road, has made
a long-term investment in the community by bringing industrial and commercial projects to Frederick County.
Mr. Athey explained that Mr. Hudson originally intended to use this property for industrial expansion.
However, after speaking with the neighborhood residents, the Reverend Jason Dooley of Macedonia Methodist
Church, and members of the Canter Estates homeowners Association, h 1tcalTed +hle resld&e -w YweerVn not eager
to have additional industrial sites across from their church and near their neighborhood; they preferred that
future development be residential. As it became clear that the proj ect would move forward in this manner, it
was placed back on the agenda for consideration. He said the proposal they sent to the CPPS was for two
parcels; however, the CPPS wanted to look at the entire 183 acres. Mr. Athey said the CPPS had some
difficulty designating a land use for some of the parcels during their study. Furthermore, when it came to the
Commission for discussion, a number of adjacent property owners were concerned that their properties would
be rezoned. Mr. Athey said the Board of Supervisors recognized the project had support from the surrounding
community and agreed to move forward with a public hearing on the 80 acres and to send the remaining 100
acres back to CPPS for further discussion.
Mr. Athey projected approximately 57 acres of residential. He said the rezoning process will
also include plans for a park area across the street from Macedonia Methodist Church, which can be used by
the church and community residents, but will not be the responsibility of Frederick County. Mr. Athey said a
transportation plan was also designed to meet the recommendations of the Comprehensive Policy Plan in this
area and to provide access to the parcels along Rt. 522. He said the remaining parcel, which will be south of
the residential portion and front Tasker Woods, is intended for commercial use, which is also consistent with
the concerns expressed about additional commercial development in Frederick County.
Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., of Patton, Harris & Rust, the design engineers for the project,
pointed out that the proposed roadway will provide a substantial buffer against the frontage parcels along Rt.
522. He commented that the multi -family use would be compatible with business, industrial, or residential.
Commissioner Morris asked Mr. Maddox if the proposed road would be accessible to the
property owners to the east; he was concerned about right-of-way and access issues. Mr. Maddox said the road
would front on their rear property lines. Mr. Maddox did not foresee any right-of-way or access issues
Commissioner Gochenour asked if the road would connect with White Oak. Mr. Maddox
replied yes; his intention was to provide a straight connection between Tasker and White Oak. He said the
road created on this plan provides suitable length, curves, and a lower speed limit so that it is not convenient
for someone who wants to go north on Rt. 522 to try to take a short-cut through here.
Chairman DeHaven next called for public comments and the following persons came forward
to speak:
Reverend Jason Dooley, pastor at Macedonia Church and a homeowner in the Canter Estates
community, favored primarily residential uses for the development of Tasker Woods. Rev. Dooley was
opposed to industrial use because of the truck traffic it would create through their neighborhood and concern
for the safety of neighborhood children. He said the church is in the process of adding a preschool and the
driveway for the preschool is very close to the proposed new road. Rev. Dooley was also concerned about how
industrial development might affect Macedonia Church's role within the community as a helper in community
development and in providing a connection between long-time residents and newcomers to the community.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1541
Minutes of June 15, 2005 k
-5 -
Mr. Harry Newman, a resident and homeowner at 115 Maverick Court in Canter Estates, and a
member of the Board of Directors of the homeowners association of Canter Estates, echoed Pastor Dooley's
comments. He believed that mixed development was the ideal way to proceed with this particular parcel of
land and that residential use should be placed next to the existing residential area. He said the neighborhood
residents would prefer to have residential use rather than heavy industrial. Mr. Newman mentioned Macedonia
Church's plans for a preschool and he mentioned the Armel Elementary School to the north.
Mr. David DeBay, adjoining property owner, raised the issue of storm water runoff. He was
concerned that if the area was developed with considerable amounts of asphalt, the lower corner of his
property, as well as his neighbor's property, would be flooded. Chairman DeHaven explained to Mr. DeBay
that a preliminary storm water management plan should be available for examination during the rezoning stage
of development.
Since everyone who wished to speak had been given the opportunity to do so, Chairman
DeHaven closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
Commissioner Morris moved for approval of the Tasker Woods LUP as presented, as well as
the subsequent UDA and SWSA expansions. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas.
Commissioner Gochenour thought the plan presented was a good one, but the timing for it was
not so good. She believed the UDA Study currently being conducted by the subcommittee needed to be
finished before any SWSA or UDA applications for expansion are considered
Commissioner Straub concurred with Commissioner Gochenour's comments. She said that
although this seemed to be an appropriate location and she liked the commercial aspect, as well as the housing
mix, the timing was a big factor for her. She commented that the Planning Staff recently presented 11
applications for proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Policy Plan and within the next month, the
Commission and the Board will be making decisions on all of these applications. In addition, she said the
UDA Study that is currently in progress. Commissioner Straub said that she liked the proposal, but she was
not sure it was the right time for it to happen.
BE IT RESOLVED, That by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
recommend approval of the Tasker Woods Land Use Plan (TWLUP), which would become an element of the
Comprehensive Policy Plan, and does hereby recommend approval ofthe request presented by Patton, Harris,
Rust and Associates to include approximately 79 acres of land into the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA)
and approximately 57 acres of said land into the Urban Development Area (UDA).
The vote was as follows:
YES (TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL): Wilmot, Manuel, Kriz, Ours, Thomas, Morris, Unger, Watt,
DeHaven
NO: Gochenour, Straub
(Commissioners Light and Triplett were absent from the meeting.)
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1542
Minutes of June 15, 2005r P
Im
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 165, ZONING, BY
THE REMOVAL OF SECTION 48.9 ADVERTISING SPECIALTIES -WHOLESALE.
Action — Recommended Approval
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, stated that the Development Review
and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) discussed the removal of Section 165-48.9, Advertising Specialties -
Wholesale, of the Zoning Ordinance at their meeting of April 28, 2005. Mr. Cheran said that the DRRS agreed
that since this use is no longer permitted in the B2 (Business General) Zoning District, it may be eliminated
from this section of the Code.
appropriate.
There were no public comments.
No issues of concern were raised by the Commission and they believed the amendment to be
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of the Ordinance to Amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, by the removal of
Section 48.9, Advertising Specialties -Wholesale.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, CHAPTER 165, ZONII+IG,
SECTION 165-48.9 BY THE ADDITION OF INTER -PARCEL CONNECTOR STREETS.
Action — Recommended Approval
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, stated that at the April 28, 2005,
meeting of the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS), committee members discussed
an amendment to insure that inter -parcel connector streets are developed between adjoining parcels located in
the County's residentially -zoned districts.
There were no public comments.
Commissioner Morris asked if a waiver allowance had been provided for special
circumstances, such as when two developments could not be connected. Also, Commissioner Straub asked
about gated communities. Mr. Cheran replied that a waiver allowance had been provided for those cases.
Chairman DeHaven said that he viewed this amendment as making sure connections are
enabled where they might be useful, as opposed to being required across the board.
Commission members believed the amendment was appropriate.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Kriz,
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1543
Minutes of June 15, 2005
1 I
-7 -
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of the Ordinance to Amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Section 165-48.9, by
the addition of Inter -Parcel Connector Streets.
OTHER
COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT PROPOSALS
Senior Planner Susan K. Eddy provided the Commission members with their 2005
Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment Proposals package. Ms. Eddy said that a date has not yet been
scheduled for a work session, but she anticipated it would be in July.
UDA WORKING GROUP ANNOUNCEMENT
Senior Planner Susan K. Eddy announced that Mr. Jessie Moffett from the Frederick -
Winchester Service Authority will be the featured speaker at the UDA Working Group meeting to be held next
Tuesday, June 21, 2005, at 11:00 a.m., in the Planning Department's Conference Room.
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and the Planning Commission adjourned by a
unanimous vote at 7:50 p.m.
Resnectfiilly submitted
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1544
Minutes of June 15, 2005 n I 3 �F
n
u
REZONING APPLICATION #04-05
SENSENY VILLAGE
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: July 21, 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 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: 08/03/05 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 08/24/05 Pending
PROPOSAL: To rezone 49.70 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance)
District and 24.09 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to RP (Residential Performance)
District with Proffers (73.79 acres)
LOCATION: South of Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867) of the Senseny
Road corridor.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Red Bud
PROPERTY IB NUMBERN: 65 -A -49B, 65-A-55
PROP ERTV ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District and RP (Residential Performance) District
PRESENT USE: Residential and unimproved.
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
North: RP (Residential Performance)
South: RA (Rural Areas)/
East: RP (Residential Performance)
RA (Rural Areas)
West: RP (Residential Performance)
Use: Residential
Use: Residential/ Unimproved
Use: Residential
Vacant
Use: Residential
PROPOSED USES: 285 residential units (145 Single Family Homes and 140 Townhomes) on 73.79
acres at a density of 3.86 units per acre.
Rezoning 404-05 — Senseny Village
July 21, 2005
Page 2
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of 'Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property
appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 657. This route is the VDOT roadway which
has been considered as the access to this property. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers
offered in the Senseny Village rezoning application dated November 22, 2004, with proffers revised
December 29, 2004, addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Before
development, this office will require a complete set of construction plan detailing entrance designs,
drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I T E Tri 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: There should be two site access points during land clearing and burning of land clearing
debris will be not be permitted. Plan approval recommended.
Greenwood Station Volunteer F&R Co.: Is there a plan to bring this subdivision out onto Sulfur
Springs Road?
Public Works Department: Please see attached letter dated January 12, 2005, and signed by Harvey
E. Strawsnyder, Jr., Director of Public Works.
Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: In my review of the rezoning application, the narrative for
conveyance and treatment of wastewater indicates that this property will be serviced by the Parkins
Mills Wastewater Treatment Plant. I believe this is in error and treatment would occur at the Opequon
Water Reclamation Facility.
Frederick Countv Sanitation Authority: No comment.
Department of Parks & Recreation: Required recreational units and open space to be reviewed upon
submittal of that information. Staff recommends bicycle trails, providing circulation within the
development and connections to Senseny Road and adjacent developments be included in the plan. The
proposed monetary proffer of $1,166 for Parks and Recreation appears to be appropriate to help offset
the impact this development will have on these county services.
Winchester Regional Airport: While the proposed development lies within the airport's Part 77
surfaces and airspace, it appears that the proposed site plan should not impede operations at the
Winchester Regional Airport.
Frederick CounO Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the
proposed 145 single family homes and 140 townhouses will yield 40 high school students, 3)7 middle
school students and 100 elementary school students for a total of 177 new students upon build -out.
Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having
Rezoning #04-05 — Senseny Village
July 21, 2005
Page 3
student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of
this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential
lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new schools facilities to accommodate
increased student enrollments. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should
be considered during the approval process.
Planning & Zoning:
1) Site History
The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Stephenson Quadrangle) identifies both
parcels as being zoned A-2 Agricultural. In 1981 Frederick County approved a request (RZ001-
81) to rezone the parent tract of 65 -A -49B, 65-A-49, from A-2 (Agricultural General) to R-3
(Residential General). Subsequently, the residential zoning classifications were consolidated
into the RP (Residential Performance) zoning district. Consequently, Parcel 65 -A -49B
maintains the RP zoning classification. The County's A-1 and A-2 agricultural zoning districts
were combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the
Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning
map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject properties and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to
the RA (Rural Areas) District. Parcel 65-A-55 maintains this RA zoning classification.
2) Master Development Plan.
The Glenmont Village master development plan, MDP 001-83 was approved by Frederick
County on 3/21/84 for the development of parcel 65-A-49 into approximately 135 single family
detached cluster units and 48 multiplex units. The master development was revised in 1989 to
change the multiplex units identified in Section 7 to 21 single family detached cluster units.
The Glenmont Village master development plan identified specific areas as open space and
single family detached cluster lots and also identified the general location of the streets
providing access to the residential lots. With the approval of the subdivision of Glenmont
Village Section 6 on 4/21/88 lot 65-A-4913 totaling 24.09 acres was created. This parcel has
remained separate from the Glenmont Village subdivision and is undeveloped until this time.
The parcel was recently acquired by the applicant of this rezoning. It is the intent of the
applicant to incorporate this parcel into the acreage of the adjacent Lambert parcel and create
the development known as Senseny Village.
In order to maintain a general level of consistency with the design and layout of Section Eight of
the Glenmont Village MDP, in particular as it pertains to the area immediately adjacent to the
existing residential land uses located in Section 6 of Glenmont Village, it was determined that
the applicant should prepare a revision to the Glenmont Village MDP specific to Section Eight
to clearly demonstrate the proposed development of this portion of the property. The MDP is
only for information at this point. The proposed master development plan is designed to meet
the master development plan requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and to preserve an area of
open space and woodland preservation adjacent to the residential properties along Glenridge
Rezoning #04-05 — Senseny Village
July 21, 2005
Page 4
Drive as a buffer. This is in the vicinity of the existing residential lots that could reasonably
have expected an area of open space to be maintained to the rear of their lots.
The design and layout of the proposed MDP has been translated into the generalized
Development Plan for the Senseny Village rezoning to guarantee that the Senseny Village
project, and therefore the parcel previously known as Section 8 of Glenmont Village, will
develop in substantial conformance with what is being presented to the County and the existing
residents of Glenmont Village.
Following the rezoning of this property, the applicant will develop a master development plan
that incorporates both parcels consistent with the proffered Generalized Development 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. I -1]
Land Use
The parcels comprising this rezoning application are located within the County's Urban
Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Urban
Development Area defines the general area in which more intensive forms of residential
development will occur. In addition, the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use map
designates the general area in which the Senseny Village property is located for residential land
uses. The average overall residential density of the Urban Development Area should not exceed
three units per acre. More specifically, the Zoning Ordinance stipulates that properties which
contain less than one hundred acres but more than ten acres should not exceed 5.5 units per acre.
With the more urban densities envisioned for development in the UDA, the Comprehensive
Plan seeks to ensure that special effort is made to provide the infrastructure necessary to
accommodate the desired land uses and densities. Further, as land is developed in the eastern
portion of the Urban Development Area, the Comprehensive Plan identifies the preservation of
the stream valleys as environmental open space is an important goal that contributes to the
protection of flood plains and water quality and provides a continuous system of green open
space.
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
Rezoning #04-05 — Senseny Village
July 21, 2005
Page 5
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).
Route 37 is a road improvement need that is identified in the Eastern Road Plan and is a priority
in the County's Primary Road Improvement Plan. Accommodations for this new major arterial
road should be incorporated into the project. Senseny Road is identified as an improved major
collector road and is also designated as a bicycle route on the County's bicycle plan.
New development in the Urban Development Area should only be approved when roads and
other infrastructure with sufficient capacity have been provided. The Comprehensive Plan
identifies that a level of service "C" should be maintained on roads adjacent to and within new
developments and that traffic analysis should be provided by the applicants to insure that needed
road improvements are identified in order to maintain or improve upon the level of service.
3) Site Suitability/Environment
The Senseny Village site has been identified as a site typical of the Martinsburg Shale Region
with steeply eroded side slopes and reasonably level plain areas. This is an accurate
identification that presents challenges when planning the development program for this
property. A tributary of the Opequon Creek bisects the 65-A-4913 portion of the property. This
feature and its associated slopes and natural drainage ways warrant particular attention and may
also provide an opportunity for enhanced protection of the riparian corridor. The application
proposes development in the reasonably level areas and offers areas that will be set aside for
environmental and open space purposes.
4) Potential Impacts
A. Transportation
Traffic Impact Analysis.
The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for this application projects that the development of
285 residential units (145 single family detached and 140 single family attached residential
units) would generate 2,668 vehicle trips per day. The report was developed with access to the
project being provided along Senseny Road via Rossum Lane and Twinbrook Circle. The TIA
concludes that the traffic impacts associated with the Senseny Village application are acceptable
and manageable. The intersections of Rossum Lane and Twinbrook Circle along Senseny Road
will maintain levels of service of C or better during the build out conditions. This is assuming
the identified eastbound right turn lane at the intersection of Senseny Road and Twinbrook
Circle is implemented.
Rezoning #04-05 — Senseny Village
July 21, 2005
Page 6
Transportation Program.
The Generalized Development Plan for Senseny Village delineates the general public road
systems that will serve the residential development. The applicant has designed the public road
system to discourage cut through traffic flow through Glenridge Drive and Twinbrook Drive
from Senseny Village. The improved Rossum Drive access to Senseny Road is emphasized as
the dominant traffic flow for this project. A traffic calming measure at the Glenridge Drive
connection would further facilitate this approach.
The Senseny Village application has proffered to design and construct right turn lanes on
Senseny Road at the Rossum Lane and Twinbrook Drive intersections prior to the issuance of
the first building permit for the project. In addition, the application proffers to design and
construct improvements to Rossum Lane to VDOT standards including curb and gutter, street
lights and storm sewer also prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the project.
Omitted from the general transportation program is an enhanced accommodation for pedestrian
circulation along the reconstructed Rossum Lane that would provide access to Senseny Road
and ultimately the adjacent residential developments. Internal pedestrian circulation should also
be provided between the residential uses within Senseny Village. Consideration should also be
given to additional frontage improvements along Senseny Road.
In an effort to address the broader transportation needs of this area, the applicant has proffered a
monetary contribution in the amount of $5,000 per single family detached residential unit and
$3,000 per single family attached townhouse unit for improvements to the Senseny Road
corridor and/or a proposed north -south connector between Senseny Road and Berryville Pike.
This proffer may generate up to $1,145,000 and may be used as matching funds by Frederick
County.
The application has also addressed the future Route 37 right-of-way by providing for a right-of-
way dedication consistent with the preliminary plans for Route 37. This dedication is identified
on the Generalized Development Plan and would be available to the County at such time the
County requests the dedication.
B. Sewer and Water
The Senseny Village rezoning proposal is estimated to require approximately 78,375 gallons per
day of water usage and approximately 64,125 gallons per day of wastewater. The Frederick
County Sanitation Authority will serve the property and the wastewater flow from the site will
go to the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant. The initial review of the Frederick County
Sanitation Authority and the Frederick Winchester Service Authority offered no comment.
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 Couno) Sanitation Authority are currently undertaking efforts to evaluate the
Rezoning 404-05 — Senseny Village
July 21, 2005
Page 7
regulations and, in conjunction with the UDA Study Working Croup, 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.
The Fiscal Impact Model output for this project indicates a net fiscal impact in the amount of
$8,987 per residential unit. In recognition of the impacts that may be realized by the community
the applicant has proffered a contribution in the amount of $10,000 per single family detached
residential unit and $8,000 per single family attached residential unit.
The comment provided by the Frederick County Public Schools should be carefully considered
when evaluating the application. The schools evaluation anticipates that the proposed 145 single
family homes and 140 townhouses will yield 40 high school students, 37 middle school students
and 100 elementary school students for a total of 177 new students upon build -out. Significant
residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having
student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative
impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved,
undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new schools
facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. The impact of this rezoning on current
and future school needs should be considered during the approval process.
Recent planning efforts have identified that the IPh elementary school anticipated to open in the
fall of 2006 will open at its programmed capacity. This is based upon the transfer of students
currently enrolled in area schools that exceed programmed capacities and the projected build
out and occupancy of previously approved residential projects in the UDA. No additional
elementary schools have been identified in the current Capital Improvements Plan for this
general area of the UDA.
5) Proffer Statement — (Dated June 14, 2005)
A) General Development Plan.
The applicant has provided a Generalized Development Plan for the purpose of identifying the
general configuration of street systems, residential land use areas, and open space areas within
the Senseny Village development. The GDP is also very helpful when addressing buffering of
the adjacent residential uses. In particular, those located in Section six of Glenmont Village.
B) Residential Uses.
The applicants have proffered to limit the total number of residential uses to 285 dwelling units.
Rezoning #04-05 — Senseny Village
July 21, 2005
Page 8
No split has been proffered regarding the specific housing types. However, the residential land
use areas have been delineated on the GDP. Further, the applicant has proffered to prohibit the
development of Garden Apartments.
The applicant has committed to a phased introduction of the residential units over a four year
time frame with seventy units within the first three years and 75 units in the fourth year. This
phasing approach specifies the calendar year in which the building permits may be obtained. It
may be more desirable to have the annual allocation occur on consecutive years following the
approval of the master development plan for this project. This would be consistent with several
other recently approved rezoning applications.
C) Transportation.
The applicant has proffered a monetary contribution in the amount of $5,000 per single family
detached unit and $3,000 per single family attached townhouse unit for improvements to the
Senseny Road corridor and/or a proposed north -south connector between Senseny Road and
Berryville Pike; right turn lanes on Senseny Road at the Rossum Lane and Twinbrook Drive
intersections; improvements to Rossum Lane to VDOT standards; and the dedication of right-
of-way for the future Route 37 Eastern Bypass.
D) Monetary Contribution.
The applicant has proffered a monetary contribution in the amount of $10,000 for each single
family detached unit and $8,000 for each single family attached townhouse unit to mitigate the
impacts to capital facilities as identified in the fiscal impact model.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 08/03/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The Senseny Village rezoning application 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 addition, the Planning Commission should ensure that the impacts associated
with this rezoning request have been fully addressed by the applicant. The Planning Commission should
pay particular attention to the capacities and capabilities of community facilities needed to serve the
planned and proposed land uses.
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.
F'ollowinga the required public hearing, a decision regarding this rezoning
application by the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant
should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Board o
Supervisors.
OUTPUT MODULE
APPLICANT: Omps Rezoning
LAND USE TYPE Light Industrial
REAL EST VAL $28,823,500
FIRE & RESCUE 4
Fire and Rescue Department
Elementary Schools
Middle Schools
High Schools
Parks and Recreation
Public Library
Sheriffs Offices
Administration Building
Other Miscellaneous Facilities
SUBTOTAL
Net Fiscal Impact
$1,341,597
LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT
$0
$0
NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT
Costs of
Impact Credit:
Credits to be Taken for Future Taxes Paid ( NPV)
Total Potential
Adjustment For
INDEX: "1.0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Co Avg: 0.0
Rev -Cost Bal =
Required
( entered in
Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap.
Future CIP/
Tax Credits
Revenue-
Net Capital
Net Cost Per
Capital Faciltiies
col sum only)
Oper Cao Equip Expend/Debt S.
Taxes. Other
( Unadiusted)
Cost Balance
Facilities Impact
Dwelling Unit
$227,768
5.
NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as
$0
$0
$227,768
$799
$1,098,857
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) .
$668,384
$177,493 $861,620
$1,039,114
$716,748
$1,921,590
$6,742
$871,097
$393,456
$88,672
$88,672
$61,163
$332,293
$1,166
$68,402
$19,130
$19,130
$13,195
$55,206
$194
$40,483
$36,881 $0
$8,268
$45,150
$31,143
$9,340
$33
$51,953
$0
$0
$0
$51,953
$182
$66,281
$71,068 $78,463
$149,531
$103,142
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL
$3,486,682 $285,442 $940,084 $116,071
$1,341,597
LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT
$0
$0
NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT
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 =
PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCE 1.0 1.0
-----------------------
Ratio to Co Avg =
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) .
$925,391 $2,561,291 $8,987
$0 -0 -0
$2,561,291 $8,987
0.514
0.690
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 11/15/04 EAW
Project Description: Senseny Village Rezoning: Assumes 145 SFD & 140 TH on 68.5 acres zoned RP.
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.
2002MODEL
I
January 12, 2005
Mr. Andy Conlon
Greenway Engineering
151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, Virginia 22602
RE: Senseny Village Rezoning
Frederick County, Virginia
Dear Mr. Conlon:
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Public Works
540/665-5643
FAY: 540/678-0682
We have completed our review of the application related to the proposed rezoning of
property referred to as Senseny Village. It is our understanding that the proposed project will
include the incorporation of an 18.6 acre parcel currently zoned RP and 50 acres currently zoned
RA. The 50 acres is currently accessed from Rossum Lane; whereas, access to the 18.6 acre
parcel is limited to a dedicated easement off of Glenridge Drive.
The 18.6 acre parcel is bisected by an unnamed tributary to the Opequon Creek and is
characterized by incised drainage swales and steep slopes. Road construction within this parcel
will be difficult especially at the stream crossing and within the steep sloped areas. Also, the 100-
year flood plain and existing wetlands will have a significant impact on construction within this
parcel.
Based on our review of the impact analysis and proffer statement, we offer the following
specific comments:
1) The introduction of the impact analysis indicates that the development will consist
of 285 residential units with a build -out date of 2008. This date conflicts with the
date of 2010 referenced under transportation discussions. This conflict needs to be
resolved.
2) Refer to access under site suitability. As previously indicated, access is proposed
via a platted inter parcel connection located on Glenridge Drive. Because of the
existing topography and associated drainage features, this point of ingress -egress
will be difficult to construct.
;) Under Flood Plains, the analysis indicates that the subject site is locat
TU
JAN 1 3
2005
107 North Kent Street o Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 1B l
Senseny Village Rezoning Comments
Page 2
January 12, 2005
100 -year flood plain. This statement may be true for the Ooequon Creek;
however, it is not applicable for the flood plain associated with the unnamed
tributary which bisects the 18.6 acre parcel. The discussion of the flood plain issue
should be revised to reflect the actual 100 -year flood plains associated with the
properties in question.
4) The discussion of impacts on wetlands only identifies one (1) manmade
impoundment which will be drained and filled to accommodate development. Our
site visit in December, 2004 revealed many more areas which we believe could be
classified as wetlands. There was evidence at the time of our site visit that
attempts had been made to delineate the wetland areas. If disturbed during
development, these areas should be remediated in accordance with the guidelines
imposed by the U. S. Corps of Engineers and the Department of Environmental
Quality.
5) Under steep slopes, the analysis concluded that there are no steep slopes on the
subject site. Based on our review of the topographic surveys furnished with the
application, we conclude that there are numerous areas where the steep slope
requirement applies. These areas can easily be delineated and will have a
significant impact on development especially on that portion of the 18.6 acre parcel
located on the south side of the unnamed tributary to the Opequon Creek.
6) Under transportation, the discussion indicates that a traffic impact analysis (T/A)
was included as a component of the application package. A copy of the T/A was
not included in the application provided for our review. In particular, we are
concerned about the impact of the development on Glenridge Drive as well as the
other major roads which access the proposed sites.
7) The discussion of sewage conveyance and treatment references the Parkins Mill
Wastewater Treatment Facility as the destination for the final treatment. This
reference is incorrect. To our knowledge, the sewage flows to the Opequon Water
Reclamation Facility. You will need to coordinate the available capacity with the
Sanitation Authority to determine if the existing conditions will accommodate the
proposed development. We will not approve a master development plan until we
receive confirmation from the Sanitation Authority verifying the available capacity.
8) The impact on solid waste facilities was limited to the availability of disposal
capacity at the landfill and the reference to providing dumpsters for the
townhouses. There was no mention about refuse collection for the single family
dwellings. Our closest solid waste convenience site is located behind the
Greenwood Fire Hall. This site has been inundated by the influx of existing
Senseny Village Rezoning Comments
Page 3
January 12, 2005
development. Any ti!rther development would exacerbate the problem unless the
applicant or subsequent developer would be willing to upgrade the existing
convenience site or provide curbside trash pickup which would negate the need for
the upgrade.
The discussion of solid waste has overlooked a very important issue which is the
location of the proposed development relative to the existing landfill. The existing
landfill is located less than one-fourth of a mile from the southern most boundary
of the proposed development. Based on the existing site elevations compared to
the future vertical expansion elevations at the landfill, it is apparent that the
residential development will have a clear view of the landfill unless all of the
existing trees can be saved. Indicate how the applicant or developer plans to
inform the prospective home buyers of this future condition prior to purchase. We
Will insure that this information is provided as part of our building permitting
process.
9) Under the prover statement (B.4), the applicant proffers to design the internal
street system to provide two (2) means of access to Senseny Road. Indicate if this
statement also implies the construction of any improvements required to upgrade
Twinbrook Circle and Glenridge Drive.
I can be reached at 665-5643 if you should have any questions regarding the above
comments.
Sincerely,
r t
i
Jf
Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E.
Director of Public Works
HES/rls
CC' Planning and Development
file
C:\Corel\\WordPerfect\Rhonda\senseneA i I[ rczco It i.1% pd
I L F:, C 0,1'? 1
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
February 28, 2005
Mr. Andy Conlan
Greenway Engineering
151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, VA 22602
Re: Preliminary Comments — Senseny Village Rezoning Application.
Dear Andy:
Thank you for forwarding to this office the Senseny Village rezoning application
materials for our continued review. The TIA for this project was received on February 15,
2005 and the latest version of the proffer statement which recognizes the recent change in
ownership of the property and updated transportation commitments was received via e-
mail on February 24, 2005. The following letter is offered to assist you as you continue to
address the issues associated with this rezoning application. As customary, it is
anticipated that these issues will be fully addressed through revisions to the application
prior to its consideration by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
1) Preliminary Matters
a) The Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2204.C. requires that the CEO of the adjacent
locality is notified if the property is within 1/2 mile of the boundary of the
adjoining locality. Please demonstrate if this provision of the State Code is
applicable with this application.
2) Impact Analysis and Proffer Statement
a) The introduction to the project in the impact statement identifies a specific mix of
housing types (145 single family detached and 140 townhouse units). Such a mix
has not been proffered by the applicant and should be removed from the
discussion. Alternately, the applicant could specify the mix of housing types in
the proffer statement.
o---4- lm • W.nrhPQtPL Viruinia 22601-5000
Page 2
Mr. Andy Conlan Application
Re: Preliminary Comments —Senseny Village Rezoning
February 28, 2005
b) It is more appropriate, and indeed necessary, to identify and address the
thissite
environmental features that exist on may on exercise. of the rezoning
the property that warrant
Areas with environmental constraints m y
particular attention and should be a consnrdecati slooe tand drainage he rezoning pssuest on the
particular, there appears to areas with c p
property.
c) The Eastern Road Plan of the CompreheInasive Plan shoo f d be thiselement of onsidered hhe
discussing this application. A prelim ry
Comprehensive Plan indicates that RouteR0 37 is a to 37 East cCorridor tStudy Planion with s in
application. I have included a copy of the
the vicinity of this project for your information and use.
d) Access to this property is described to be via Rossum Lwith ane
and onwin application
Circle
and Glenridge Drive. Detail should be provided
regarding the existing conditions and cross ecsuffice ntthese
rightsof-wayting lgebotso to
streets. It should be demonstrated thatimprovements necessary to
accommodate the additional traffic volumes and any p
achieve an appropriate typical section. The impacts to the property owners who
reside along Rossum Lane, Twinbrook Circle, and Glenridge Drive should also be
addressed in this application.
e) The Senseny Village application is adjacent to several
developeonad subdivisions
u di sio sinter-pand
other undeveloped properties. opportunities
connectivity should be evaluated and pursued development of
this intens ty requires
to the property to the southwest. Residentialp
ations. Interparcel pedestrian connectivity should also be a
pedestrian accommod
consideration of this application.
f) The TIA indicates that the Senseny Rodurin lnbrook Circle build out conditionsePlease ensure
maintain an acceptable level of serviceg
that a solution is provided to achieve an acceptable
right of -way is available to
location. It should be demonstrated that
implement this solution.
g) The application identifies a fiscal contribution to offset identified road
improvements associated with this project. Ino important
tofrecognize
cogs ze inesidential the
es
application that based upon the open ( proffered)
proposed in the application, 285 single family attached units would be permitted.
This would generate $855,000 as opposed to the $1,145,000 identified in the
impact statement and proffer statement.
Page 3
Mr. Andy Conlan
Re: Preliminary Comments — Senseny Village Rezoning Application
February 28, 2005
h) The applicant has proffered to fund or implement several transportation
improvements. It would be appropriate to further detail the scope of the specific
improvements, both immediate and future, to provide certainty in the desirability
and function of the improvements. It would appear as though a coordinated and
committed approach would be most beneficial and eliminate any future confusion
regarding the implementation of the transportation program.
i) Consistent with County policy, it would be appropriate to insure that any
proffered transportation improvements associated with the application are
provided at the beginning of the project. Any monetary contribution should be
provided prior to the onset of the project and not at the time of individual building
permit issuance.
j) Water and wastewater evaluations provided in the impact statement should be
viewed in relationship to other previously approved projects within the County. A
combined and updated figure for water resources and wastewater capacity would
be beneficial when determining the adequacy of the capacity and resources.
k) Recent rezoning applications have proffered that a private refuse collection
service will be used to collect the solid waste generated by their particular project.
It would be desirable for this application to consider such an approach. This is
beneficial as it potentially reduces the individual usage of the County's
convenience sites. Reference to the number of single family attached units in the
Solid Waste Disposal section should be removed unless the applicant is willing to
proffer a specific mix of residential uses.
1) The impacts to community facilities were evaluated using the County's fiscal
impact model and were based upon a specific mix of residential uses requested by
the applicant. The County will provide an updated output based upon a worst case
scenario should the mix of uses not be secured within the proffer statement. It
would also be desirable to have the application provide a break down of the
proffered amount based on the public entities receiving the funds.
Please feel free to contact me at any time regarding the above comments or the
application in general. I look forward to continuing our participation in the review of this
application.
Sincerely, J
Michael T. Ruddy, AICP
Deputy Planning Director
MTR/bad
X
�S
,--G 65
/\ 44C
�9y
\GG��MPN �\SPPNd
65 A 194B
CUSSEN, REMINGTON J
65 A 55
LAMBERT, HAZEL C
U
m �
v v 65 A 190
Q
65 A DAVIS, WILMER R & I
o
EFG INVESTMENTS, LLC
A '86D
EFG INVESTMENTS, LLC CORBIN, GLORIA C _ - - - b -ugh♦ I / COW GILL, CARROLL
Map Features
REZ # 04
- 05
Bridges
La°e`a°on ^,Dams
Lakes/Ponds /�/ Dams
` � Paral& Senseny Village ( 65 - A
AOrieultural8 Forestral Districts
- 4913, 65 - A - 55 )
Streams /�'' Retaining Wails
- RiuWe GMurch
Buildings Road Centerlines
Refuge Church
Tanks N
South Frederick
N 0 250 500
1,000
now
..: Trala
w E Feet
S
65 A 192
POE, ALVIN S. & NANCY J.
Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004; December 29, 2004 Senseny Village Rezming
January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005
March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005
June 14, 2005
SENSENY VILLAGE PROFFER STATEMENT
REZONING: RZ#
Rural Areas (RA) and Residential Performance (RP)
to Residential Performance (RP) with Conditions
PROPERTIES: 73.79 -acres +/-
Tax Parcels 65 -((A)) -49B and 65-((A))-55
RECORD OWNERS: Hazel C. Lambert
Taylor Grace, LLC
APPLICANT: Taylor Grace, LLC
PROJECT NAME: Senseny Village
ORIGINAL DATE
OF PROFFERS: November 22, 2004
REVISION DATE: June 14, 2005
Preliminary Matters
Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 et. seq. of the Code of Virginia, (1950, as amended), (the
"Code") and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance")
with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicants hereby proffer that in the
event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning
Application # Vq &S—for the rezoning of 49.70 -acres± from the Rural Areas (RA)
District to Residential Performance (RP) District, and for the rezoning of 24.09 -acres±
currently zoned Residential Performance (RP) District to proffered Residential
Performance (RP) District, development of the subject property shall be done in
conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such
terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such
be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said
Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these
proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no binding effect whatsoever. Upon
approval of such rezoning, these proffers shall be binding upon the applicants and their
successors and assigns.
The subject property, identified as Senseny Village, and more particularly described as
the lands owned by Hazel C. Lambert, (the "Owner of the first parcel") being all of Tax
Map Parcel 65-((A))-55 and further described by Will Book 115 at page 1563, and the
lands owned by Taylor Grace, LLC, (the "Owner of the second parcel") being all of Tax
Map Parcel 65 -((A)) -49B and further described by Instrument #050002909.
File 43924/EAW
Greenway Engineering November 22,2004; December 29, 2004 Senseny Village Rezming
January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005
March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005
June 14, 2005
A.) Residential Land Use
The Applicants hereby proffer to limit the total number of residential
units to 285 dwelling units on the combined subject properties of Tax
Map Parcels 65 -((A)) -49B and 65-((A))-55.
2, The Applicants hereby proffer to prohibit the development of garden
apartments, as defined in Section 165-65L of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The Applicants hereby proffer to develop the residential dwelling units
in accordance with the following annualized phasing plan. All
dwelling units not developed within the specified calendar year shall
be carried forward to the ensuing calendar years:
CALENDAR YEAR
2005
2006
2007
2008
TOTAL
TOTAL BUILDING PERMITS
70
70
70
75
285
B.) Generalized Development Plan and Master Development Plan
1. The Applicants hereby proffer to submit a Generalized Development
Plan (GDP) for the purpose of identifying the general configuration of
street systems, residential land use areas and open space areas within
the Senseny Village Community. The final engineering documents for
Senseny Village will be in substantial conformance with the proffered
GDP; however, it is recognized that modifications to the final road
alignment may occur due to site development constraints such as
wetlands or steep slopes. The final engineering documents will ensure
that the Senseny Village Community provides for a street
extension/connection to Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Glenridge
Drive (Route 865), an internal street system that connects to both of
the extended streets, and an inter -parcel connection to Tax Map Parcel
65-((A))-72..
2. The Generalized Development Plan (GDP) has been designed to
provide for single-family detached residential lots to adjoin the
Glerlmont Village Subdivision and the existing residential lots along
Rossum Lane, Mason Street and Broad Avenue on Tax Map Parcel 65 -
File 93924/EAW 2
Greenway Engineering November 22,2004; December 29, 2004 Senseny Village Rezming
January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005
March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005
June 14, 2005
((A))-55. Furthermore, the GDP has been designed to provide for
open space adjacent to Glenmont Village — Section 6 on Tax Map
Parcel 65 -((A)) -49B.
3. A no disturbance easement that is 10 -feet in width shall be provided
along the rear property line of all single-family detached residential
lots that abut Glenmont Village and the existing residential lots along
Rossum Lane, Mason Street and Broad Avenue for the purpose of
preserving existing woodlands on Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-55. The
open space adjacent to Glenmont Village — Section 6 shall remain
undisturbed between the state street serving the townhouse lots and the
existing residential lots within Glenmont Village — Section 6 on Tax
Map Parcel 65 -((A)) -49B.
4. A no disturbance easement shall be established within the open space
areas that are associated with the natural drainageways to protect the
integrity of the waterways and the upland slope areas. The only
activity that may occur within this no disturbance easement will
include utility installation and a single road crossing to provide access
to the southern portion of Tax Map Parcel 65 -((A)) -49B.
5. A Preliminary Master Development Plan will be submitted for the
portion of the subject property that is located on Tax Map Parcel 65-
((A)) -49B to demonstrate how this portion of the subject property
would be developed. Board of Supervisor approval of this Preliminary
Master Development Plan concept does not bind the Board of
Supervisors to any action on this rezoning application. Additionally,
Board of Supervisor approval of this Preliminary Master Development
Plan concept does not eliminate the requirement for a Master
Development Plan for the entire 73.79 -acres +/- subject site.
C.) Transportation
1. The applicants hereby proffer monetary contributions that are to be
utilized for improvements to the Senseny Road (Route 657) corridor
and/or a proposed north -south connector between Senseny Road and
Berryville Pike (U.S. Route 7). The contributions, in the amount of
$5,000 per single-family detached unit and $3,000 per townhouse unit,
total a potential maximum of $1.145 million dollars. The applicants
authorize the use of these contributions as matching funds by
Frederick County for transportation improvements to these roadways.
This monetary contribution shall be provided to Frederick County at
the time of building permit issuance for each dwelling unit.
File #3924/EAW 3
Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004; December 29, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning
January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005
March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005
June 14, 2005
2. The applicants hereby proffer to design and construct right turn lanes
(and tapers) of eleven -foot width, and to include curb/gutter, on
Senseny Road at the Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twinbrook Circle
(Route 867) intersections, within the existing Senseny Road right-of-
way. The construction of these improvements shall occur prior to the
issuance of the first building permit, but will not restrict site grading
and infrastructure installation on the subject properties.
3. The applicants hereby proffer to design and construct improvements to
Rossum Lane (Route 736), to consist of a VDOT standard pavement
section of thirty-six feet from face -of -curb, and to include curb/gutter,
street lights and storm sewer, within the existing Rossum Lane right-
of-way. Furthermore, traffic calming measures will be considered
during the design of the Rossum Lane improvement project. The
construction of these improvements shall occur prior to the issuance of
the first building permit, but will not restrict site grading and
infrastructure installation on the subject properties.
4. The applicants hereby proffer to design the internal street system to
provide two means of access to Senseny Road via both Rossum Lane
(Route 736) and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867) for all residential lots.
Traffic calming measures will be considered during the design of the
internal street system connections to Rossum Lane, Glenridge Drive,
and Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-72 if desired by VDOT.
5. The applicants hereby proffer to provide for a right-of-way dedication
for the future Route 37 Eastern Bypass as identified on the proffered
GDP. This right-of-way dedication shall be provided to Frederick
County at no cost within 90 days after receiving written request from
Frederick County that the right-of-way is needed.
D.) Monetary Contributions
The applicants hereby proffer monetary contributions in the amount of
$10,000.00 for each detached single-family dwelling unit, and $8,000.00 for
each townhouse dwelling unit, to mitigate impacts to capital facilities as
identified in the Frederick County Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model —
Output Module prepared by the Frederick County Planning Department on
November 19, 2004. This monetary contribution shall be provided to
Frederick County at the time of building permit issuance for each dwelling
unit.
File #3924/EAW 4
Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004; December 29, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning
January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005
March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005
June 14, 2005
E.) Community Trash Collection
The Applicants hereby proffer to provide commercial trash pickup and waste
removal service to all residential land uses within the Senseny Village
community. The commercial trash pickup and waste removal service shall be
established by deed covenant and shall be assigned to the Senseny Village
Homeowners Association ("HOA") or sub -association at such time as
identified in the legal documents setting forth the guidelines for the Senseny
Village HOA or sub -association. The commercial trash pickup and waste
removal service shall remain in effect and be the responsibility of the Senseny
Village HOA or sub -association until such a time that this service is provided
by Frederick County or other municipal providers.
File ##3924/EAW
Greenway Engineering November 22,2004; December 29, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning
January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005
March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005
June 14, 2005
F.) Signatures
The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the assigns and successors in
the interest of the Applicants who constitute the owners of the Property. In the event
the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the
conditions, the proffered foregoing conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in
addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code.
Respectfully Submitted:
By: J- Q-c�� v c 5
Hazel ' Lambert Date
Commonwealth of Virginia,
City/County of To Wit:
h
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this IE19 day of ' ,� `'T�'
F
20% by
U
Notary Public���
My Commission Expires
L
File #3924/EAW
Greenway Engineering
F.) Signatures
November 22,2004 '
2,2004; December 29, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning
January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005
March 17, 2005, April 14, 2005
June 14, 2005
The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the assigns and successors in
the interest of the Applicants who constitute the owners of the Property. In the event
the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the
conditions, the proffered foregoing conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in
addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code.
Respectfully
By:
Taylor-GraCe,'LLC
Denver Quinnelly, Mariage. /Member
Commonwealth of Virginia,
VVO5
Date
City/County of Crs, ds(- 1 c., K To Wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _day of
0 v
i
Notary Public,,/ --A/
My Commission Expires -0 U,
File #3924/EAW
IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
�, N ENV WitL ,A E REZONINt
Red Bud Magisterial District
Frederick County, Virginia
Tax Parcel 65-((A))4.9B and 65-((A))-55
73.79 -acres
November 22, 2004
Devised June 14, 2045
Applicant: Greenway Engineering
Current Owners: Hazel C. Lambert
Taylor Grace, LLC
Contact Person: Evan Wyatt, AICP
Greenway .Engineering
151 Windy Dill Lane
Winchester, VA 22602
540-662-4185
Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning
Revised March 17, 2004
Revised June 14, 2005
SENSENY VILLAGE REZONING
LNTRODUC'TION
This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Fredrick County
by the proffered rezoning of two parcels comprising a total of 73.79 acres, a 49.70 -acre
parcel owned by Hazel C. Lambert and a 24.09 -acre parcel owned by Taylor Grace, LLC.
The subject properties are accessed from Senseny Road (Route 657) via both Rossum
Lane (Route 736) and a previously planned connection from Twin Brook Circle (Route
867) to Glenridge Drive (Route 868). The current zoning of the 24.09 -acre parcel is RP,
Residential Performance District without proffers, while the current zoning of the 49.70 -
acre parcel is RA, Rural Areas District. The applicant proposes to rezone the 49.70 -acre
Lambert parcel to RP, Residential Performance District with proffers and to retain the
RP, Residential Performance District designation for the 24.09 -acre Taylor Grace, LLC
property and include proffers that will be applicable to this property. The subject
properties will be master planned together for the purpose of creating the Senseny Village
residential subdivision. This project is proffered to not exceed a total build out of 285
residential units, of which, 145 units are intended to be single-family detached dwelling
units and 140 units are intended to be townhouse dwelling units. The project is proffered
to be developed as a minimum four-year phased build out.
A Master Development Plan was approved for the Glenmont Village Subdivision in
1985, which was revised in 1989. The approved Master Development Plan identified
Glenmont Village as being developed within eight sections. To date, Sections 1-7 have
been developed under the single-family detached cluster ordinance. The land associated
with Section 8 was acquired by Taylor Grace, LLC as a separate parcel of land that is not
encumbered by any provisions or legal documents associated with the Glenmont Village
Subdivision. Therefore, it has been determined that a Preliminary Master Development
Plan will be required for the 24.09 -acre Taylor Grace, LLC parcel as an exhibit with the
Senseny Village Rezoning Application to demonstrate that Section 6 of the adjacent
Glenmont Village Subdivision is provided with an appropriate open space buffer, which
is further committed to on the proffered Generalized Development Plan for Senseny
Village.
Basic information
Location:
Magisterial District:
Property ID Numbers:
Current Zoning:
South of Rossum Lane (Route 736),
and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867)
Red Bud
65 -((A)) -49B and 65-((A))-55
RP, Residential Performance District and
RA, Rural Areas District
File 43924/EAW 7
Greenway Engineering
Current Use.-
Proposed
se:Proposed Use:
Proposed Zoning:
Total rezoning area:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
November 22, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning
Revised March 17, 2004
Revised June 14, 2005
Residential and Unimproved
285 single family detached and attached units
RP, Residential Performance District with proffers
73.79 -acres
The proposed site is being developed in conformance with the land use policies of the
Comprehensive Policy Plan. The subject area is within the Urban Development Area
(UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Comprehensive Policy Plan
states suburban residential land use will occur in the UDA.
GLENMONI' VH.LAGE MDP
A Master Development Plan was initially approved for the Glenmont Village Subdivision
in 1985. This Master Development Plan was approved for the development of single-
family detached dwelling units and multiplex dwelling units within eight sections. In
1989, this Master Development Plan was revised to eliminate the multiplex dwelling
units that were previously approved in Section 7 of Glenmont Village, and to identify
Sections 1-8 as single-family detached dwelling units.
The Glenmont Village Master Development Plan identified Section 8 as containing 12.05
acres of open space and did not identify the land area within lots and road right-of-way.
The RP, Residential Performance District standards that were in place when the
Glenmont Village Master Development Plan was approved called for a maximum
woodland disturbance of 25% for the gross area of the site and for a maximum
disturbance of 25% of steep slope areas. The legally recorded deed restrictions for the
Glenmont Village Subdivision state that the Master Development Plan may be revised
and do not require the Glenmont Village Home Owners Association to maintain or be
liable for any portion of the acreage within the approved Master Development Plan that
has not been dedicated to the HOA.
The land area associated with what is identified as Section 8 on the approved Glenmont
Village Master Development Plan has not been developed to date, nor has the land area
been dedicated for the use or maintenance of the Glenmont Village Home Owners
Association. This land area, totaling 24.09 acres was sold by the previous developer to
Taylor -Grace, LLC. Taylor Grace, LLC proposes to utilize this land area within the
Senseny Village Subdivision. Therefore, it has been determined by the County that a
Preliminary Master Development Plan will need to be created to demonstrate the
proposed development plan for this portion of Senseny Village. This approach, coupled
with the proffered Senseny Village Generalized Development Plan has been determined
File #3924/EAW 2
Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning
Revised March 17, 2004
Revised June 14, 2005
to be an appropriate approach for severing the 24.09 -acre parcel from the approved
Glenmont Village Master Development Plan.
A Preliminary Master Development Plan Exhibit has been prepared and submitted for
review as information with the Senseny Village Rezoning Application. This Exhibit
identifies that there will be a minimum of 11.55 acres of open space that is designed to
provide for an adequate buffer against Section 6 of Glenmont Village. This open space
area is located to preserve the mature woodland areas that adjoin Glenmont Village and is
further proffered to be preserved to protect the existing subdivision. Furthermore, the
Senseny Village Proffer Statement calls for the creation of a no -disturbance easement to
protect the natural drainageways and upland slope areas on the 24.09 -acre parcel.
A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE
Access
Tax parcels 65 -((A)) -49B and 65-((A))-55 are accessible from Senseny Road (Route 657)
via Rossum Lane (Route 736), which currently terminates in a cul-de-sac at the northwest
corner of the subject property. Rossum Lane is to be extended into the property as a
VDOT maintained street. Access is provided from Senseny Road via Twinbrook Circle
(Route 867) to Glenridge Drive (Route 868). This access point off Glenridge Drive
utilizes a platted inter -parcel connection that was established to provide access to the
Taylor Grace, LLC property.
Flood Plains
The subject site is located on the FEMA NFIP map #510063-0120-B. The entire subject
property is located "Zone C". The FEMA NFIP map identifies "Zone C" as "area outside
the 100 -year flood plain".
Wetlands
The County GIS database identifies one wetland area on the 49.70 -acre parcel, which is a
manmade impoundment. The existing pond will be drained and filled. The probability of
additional on-site wetlands exists associated with the natural drainageways and tributary
to the Opequon Creek. A detailed wetlands delineation study will occur on the subject
property subsequent to rezoning approval and will be identified as a component of the
Final Master Development Plan for Senseny Village.
Steep Slopes
There are no steep slopes (50% or greater) on the subject site; however, there is a defined
drainage channel that traverses tax parcel 65 -((A)) -49B which channels stormwater
drainage from the Carper farm on the west side of Greenwood Road through this site to
File #3924/EAW d
Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning
Revised March 17, 2004
Revised June 14, 2005
the Opequon Creek. The design for crossing this drainage channel to access the
southernmost residential land bay will minimize impacts to critical slope areas and the
drainage channel.
The Senseny Village Proffer Statement provides for the preservation of the natural
drainageways and upland slope areas within the project site with the exception of
necessary road and utility crossings. This approach will allow for the protection of these
areas that are no loner defined as steep slope; however, are still important to the integrity
of environmental features that are located on-site.
Mature Woodlands
Woodland areas exist on the subject property, as well as open fields and scrub brush. It is
anticipated that these areas will be impacted by the future development of road systems,
utility infrastructure and residential structures. The Master Development Plan and
Subdivision Design Plan for Senseny Village will meet the requirements of the Frederick
County Zoning Ordinance that was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in April 2003.
The Senseny Village Proffer Statement calls for a 10 -foot no disturbance easement along
the rear lot lines of all single-family lots that adjoin Glenmont Village and the residential
lots along Rossum Lane, Broad Avenue and Mason Street. Additionally, a no -
disturbance easement of 50 feet is provided against the residential lots within Section 6 of
Glenmont Village.
Soil Types
The Soil Survey of Fredrick County, published by the USDA Soil Conservation Service
was consulted to determine soil types contained in this tract. The subject site is located
on map sheet number 37, and contains the following soil types:
1C
Berks Channery silt loam
7-15 % slopes
3B
Blairton silt loam
2-7 % slopes
9B
Clearbrook Channery silt loam
2-7 % slopes
41D
Weikert-Berks Channery silt loam
15-25 % slopes
41E
Weikert-Berks Channery silt loam
25-65 % slopes
Table 5 on page 123 of the Soil Survey of Frederick County identifies 3B Blairton silt
loam as prime farmland soils. The first four soil types are identified as gently sloping to
moderately steep, shallow and moderately deep, well -drained soils that have a medium
textured or fine textured subsoil. The last, 41E, is moderately deep, steep and very steep,
well -drained soils on side slopes and ridges.
File #39241EAW S
Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning
Revised March 17, 2004
Revised June 14, 2005
B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
Adjoining property zoning and present use:
North: Zoned RP District Use: Residential (Glenmont Village)
South: Zoned RA District
East: Zoned RP District
Zoned RA District
West: Zoned RP District
C. TRANSPORTATION
Use: Residential (Wood Rise Lane)
And Unimproved
Use: Residential (Glenmont Village)
Use: Unimproved
Use: Residential (Rossum Lane)
The subject properties are accessible from Senseny Road (Route 657) via both Rossum
Lane (Route 736) and Twin Brook Circle (Route 867) to Glenridge Drive (Route 868).
Senseny Road is identified as a major collector road and has excellent sight distance to
the east and west at the Senseny Road intersections of both Rossum Lane and Twin
Brook Circle. Channing Drive, approximately a mile to the west, will be completed to
provide access to Valley Mill Road (Route 659), while Greenwood Road (Route 656),
approximately 1-'/2 miles to the west provides access to Berryville Pike (Route 7) and to
Millwood Pike (Route 50 East).
A traffic impact analysis (TIA) has been prepared for the Senseny Village community by
Patton Harris Rust, which is dated November 19, 2004 and included as a component of
the Impact Analysis Statement. The TIA assumes the total build out of 285 residential
units (145 single family/140 townhouse) as a single transportation phase by year 2010.
The TIA provides for a Level of Service (LOS) analysis for AM and PM peak hour traffic
volumes, as well as Average Daily Trip volumes for existing, background and build out
conditions. The TIA studies Senseny Road and its intersections with Twinbrook Circle,
Rossum Lane, Channing Drive and Greenwood Road.
Figure 9 on page 12 of the TIA concludes that all intersection points with Senseny Road
maintain an acceptable Level of Service "C" average condition assuming future
background traffic and the complete build -out of Senseny Village. Only one movement
at the Twinbrook Circle intersection with Senseny Road is identified as a Level of
Service "D" during PM peak hour conditions. The TIA recommends that the installation
of a right turn lane on Senseny Road to the Twinbrook Road intersection will raise the
Level of Service to an acceptable LOS "C" during PM peak hour conditions_ The
installation of this right turn lane, as well as the installation of a right turn lane on
Senseeny Road at the intersection of Rossum Lane has been proffered to be installed
prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Senseny Village. Furthermore, the
File 43924/EAW ti
Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning
Revised March 17, 2004
Revised June 14, 2005
applicants have proffered a monetary contribution totaling a potential maximum
amount of $1.145 million dollars for improvements to the Senseny Road/Route 7
Connector Road and/or the proposed Route 37 Bypass and to completely reconstruct
Rossum Lane to standards acceptable to VDOT. The transportation improvements and
monetary contributions provided for in the applicants proffer statement more than
mitigates the transportation impacts associated with this rezoning application.
D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT
The subject property is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the
Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) boundaries. Existing 12" and 8" sanitary sewer
mains are located on this property as is the Burning Knolls Pumping Station. The
Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) has a sewer transmission line that directs
sewage effluent to the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility. The on-site sewer
infrastructure required to convey effluent to the treatment facility will be developed by
the applicants to standards acceptable to the FCSA for future operation and maintenance.
The impact of rezoning the subject property can be based on comparable discharge
patterns of 225 GPD for residential use. The figures below represent the impact that the
total build out of the proffered 285 residential units (145 single family/140 townhouse)
will have on the sewage conveyance and treatment systems.
Q = 225 GPD per household
Q = 225 GPD x 285 residential units
Q = 64,125 GPD projected at total residential build out
The proposed rezoning is projected to increase flows to the Opequon Water Reclamation
Facility by 64,125 GPD at total build out. The design capacity of the treatment plant is
8.4 MGD, of which approximately 6.4 MGD is currently being utilized. The total build-
out of Senseny Village would require approximately 3% of the available capacity that
currently exists at this treatment facility. The applicants' have proffered to develop the
Senseny Village community through a phased plan, which limits the number of building
permits that can be obtained on an annual basis. This phasing plan limits development to
a maximum of 70-75 residential lots through calendar year 2008. Adequate capacity for
sewage conveyance and treatment will be available throughout the development of the
Senseny Village project; therefore, this rezoning proposal will not negatively impact this
facility.
File #3924/EAW 7
Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning
Revised March 17, 2004
Revised June 14, 2005
E. WATER SUPPLY
The subject property is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the
Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) boundaries. Water is readily available to the
subject development through the extension of existing lines on adjacent properties. The
Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) has an 8" water line along Rossum Lane
and an 8" water line is stubbed at the subject property line along the undeveloped street
right-of-way off Glenridge Drive. Water service will be provided from the James H.
Diehl Water Filtration Plant and the North Water Filtration Plant. These systems
currently provide approximately 6 MGD. The on-site water infrastructure required to
convey potable water to the proposed residential lots in the Senseny Village community
will be developed by the applicants to standards acceptable to the FCSA for future
operation and maintenance.
The impact of rezoning the 73.79 -acre site can be based on comparable water usage of
275 GPD for residential use. The figures below represent the impact that the total build
out of the proffered 285 residential units (145 single family/140 townhouse) will have on
the water supply and treatment systems.
Q = 275 GPD per household
Q = 275 GPD x 285 residential units
Q = 78,375 GPD projected at total residential build out
The projected water usage for the proposed rezoning is 78,375 GPD at total build out.
This projection represents approximately 1% of the unutilized capacities at the James H.
Diehl Water Filtration Plant and the North Water Filtration Treatment Plant. Therefore,
the available water source and infrastructure is adequate to accommodate the capacity
needs of the proposed 73.79 -acre residential development at total build out.
E. DRAINAGE
The dominant drainage pattern for the 73.79 -acre site is to the east, running along the
southern boundary of tax parcel 65-((A))-55 and through the central portion of tax parcel
65 -((A)) -49B through an unnamed tributary that drains to the Opequon Creek. Senseny
Village will be designed with curb and gutter lined streets, which will convey storm
water through an underground storm sewer system. Storm water management will be
designed in accordance with all applicable state and local storm water management
requirements and erosion and sedimentation control requirements. The design of the
stormwater management system will occur during the subdivision design process, and
will require approval by the Frederick County Engineer and the Virginia Department of
Transportation. Furthermore, the design for crossing this drainage channel to access the
southernmost residential land bay will minimize impacts to critical slope areas and the
drainage channel to ensure that this drainage channel is not negatively impacted.
File #3924(EAW R
Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning
Revised March 17, 2004
Revised June 14, 2005
G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
The impact on solid waste disposal facilities can be projected from an average annual
residential consumption of 5.4 cubic yards per household (Civil Engineering Reference
Manual, 4b edition). The following figures show the increase in average annual volume
based on the 285 residential units (145 single family/140 townhouse) that is projected to
develop over a 4 -year period:
AV = 5.4 Cu. Yd_ per household
AV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. x 285 households
AV = 1,539 Cu. Yd. at residential build out, or 1,077 tons/yr at build out
The Municipal Solid Waste area of the Regional Landfill has a current remaining
capacity of 13,100,000 cubic yards of air space. The projected 4 -year build out of the
subject site will generate on average 1,077 tons of solid waste annually following the
proffered four year phased build -out of Senseny Village. This represents a 0.13%
increase in the annual solid waste received by the Municipal Solid Waste area of the
Regional Landfill, which currently averages 200,000 tons per year, which can be
accommodated by this regional facility. The applicants have proffered to provide
community trash collection service for all residential land uses within Senseny Village.
This proffer provides revenues to the regional landfill in tipping fees and significantly
reduces impacts to the Greenwood Road Citizen Convenience Center. Therefore, the
proffers associated with the Senseny Village project adequately mitigate the impacts to
solid waste disposal.
R. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES
The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey does not identify any existing structures
on or near the subject property as potentially significant. Furthermore, there are no
structures in the vicinity that qualify for the national or state register of historic places,
nor does the subject site fall within core battlefield area boundaries or areas that would
potentially qualify as historic districts.
I. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES
The Frederick County Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model has been prepared for the
proposed rezoning of the subject property based on a proffered 285 residential units (145
single family/140 townhouse). The results of the Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model
identify that the build out of the Senseny Village community will create a negative fiscal
impact of $8,987.00 for each residential unit. The applicants' proffer statement provides
a monetary contribution to Frederick County in the amount of $10,000.00 for each
File #3924[F -AW a
Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning
Revised March 17, 2004
Revised June 14, 2005
detached single-family residential unit and $8,000 for each townhouse residential unit, to
mitigate the fiscal impacts to County services. Furthermore, the applicants have
proffered a monetary contribution totaling a potential maximum amount of $1.145
million dollars for improvements to the Senseny Road/Route 7 Connector Road
and/or the proposed Route 37 Bypass to assist with regional transportation impacts in
this geographic area of the County.
Attachments: 1. Zoning and Location Map
2. Future Route 37 Eastern Bypass Location Map
File #3924/EAW 7 O
REZONING APPLICATION FORM MAR
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
To be completed by Planning Staff
Fee Amount Paid,
Zoning Amendment Number - Date Receive
PC Hearing Date���5 BOS Hearing Date0
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:
2.
3.
4.
Name: Greenway En int eering Telephone: (540) 662-4185
Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602
Property Owner (if different from above)
Name: Hazel C. Lambert
Telephone: (540) 662-0623
Address: 223 Rossum Ln.,_Winchester, _VA 22602
Name: Taylor Grace, LLC Telephone: (540) 662-4164
Address: 446 Fromans Rd., Winchester, VA 22.602
Contact person if other than above
Name: Greenway Fn ing eering Telephone: (540) 662-4185
Attn.: Evan Wyatt, AICP
Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this
application.
Location map X Agency Comments
Plat _ X Fees
Deed to Property X Impact Analysis Statement
Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement
5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in
relation to rezoning applications.
Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned:
Hazel C. Lambert, owner
Taylor Grace, LLC, owner
6. A) Current Use of the Property:
B) Proposed Use of the Property:
7. Adjoining Property:
Residential and Undeveloped
Residential Subdivision
PARCEL ID NUMBER
USE
ZONING
65B-((7))-10
Residential
RP District
65D-((1))-1
Residential
RP District
65D-((2))-4
Residential
RP District
65D-((2))-5
Residential
RP District
65D-((2))-6
Residential
RA District
65D-((2))-7
Residential
RP District
65D-((2))-8
Residential
RP District
65D-((2))-9
Residential
RP District
65D-((2))-l0A
Greenspace
RP District
65D-((3))-4-53
Residential
RP District
65D-((3))-4-54
Residential
RP District
65D -((3))-4-59A
Greenspace
RP District
65D-((4))-5-71
Residential
RP District
65D-((5))-6-76
Residential
RP District
65D-((5))-6-77
Residential
RP District
65D-((5))-6-78
Residential
RP District
65D-((5))-6-79
Residential
RP District
651)-((5))-6-80
Residential
RP District
65D-((5))-6-81
Residential
RP District
65D-((5))-6-82
Residential
RP District
65D-((5))-6-83
Residential
RP District
65D-((5))-6-84
Residential
RP District
65D-((5))-6-85
Residential
RP District
65D-((5))-6-86
Residential
RP District
65D-((5))-6-87
Residential
RP District
65D-((5))-6-88
Residential
RP District
65D-((5))-6-89
Residential
RP District
65-((A))-50
Residential
RP District
65-((A))-54
Residential
RP District
65-((A))-56
Residential
RP District
65-((A))-57
Residential
RP District
65-((A))-60
Residential
RP District
65-((A))-62
Residential
RP District
65-((A))-63
Residential
RP District
65-((A))-70
Residential
RP District
65-((A))-86
Residential
RP District
65-((A))-65
Residential
RP District
65-((A))-71
Residential
RP District
65-((A))-68A
Residential
RP District
65B-((6))-38
Residential
RP District
65-((A))-72
Unimproved
RA District
65-((A))-186B
Residential
RA District
65-((A))-186J
Residential
RA District
65-((A))-190
Unimproved
RA District
Note: Please also provide public hearing meeting notice to Clarke County as the subject
property is located within Y mile of the Clarke County boundary line. Legal notice
should be provided to the following address:
Clarke County Planning Department
Attn: Chuck Johnston, Planning Director
102 North Church Street
Berryville, VA 22611
8. Location: The property is located at (give exact located based on nearest road
and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route number):
The 73.79 -acre site is located on the south of Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twinbrook
Circle (Route 867).
Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model
In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for
the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use.
Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario
for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package.
8. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 65 -((A)) -49B
65-((A))-55
Magisterial:
Fire Service:
Rescue Service:
Districts
Red Bud
Co 18, Greenwood
Co 18, Greenwood
High School:
Middle School:
Elementary School
Millbrook
Admiral Byrd
Senseny Road
10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category
being requested.
Acres
Current Zoning Zoning Requested
49.70
RA District RP District
24.09
RP District RP District with Proffers
73.79
Total Acreage to be rezoned
11. The following information should be provided according to the type of
rezoning proposed:
Number of Units Proposed
Single Family homes: 145 Townhome: 140 Multi -Family 0
Non -Residential Lots: 0 Mobile Home: 0 Hotel Rooms: 0
Square Footage of Proposed Uses
Office: 0 Service Station: 0
Retail: 0 Manufacturing: 0
Restaurant: 0 Warehouse: 0
Other 0
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, V irgirua. I k,ve) authorize Frederick Count;
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 bet of my (our) knowledge.
Applicant(s):'£ i - ' Date: I QGreenway Engineering — E+ Wyatt, IP
' � ®�
l
®=m Special Limited Power of Attorney
County of Frederick, Virginia
Planning office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Kent Street, Winchester,
Virginia 22601
Phone 540-665-5651
Facsimile 540-665-6395
Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We)
(Name) Hazel C. Lambert
(Phone) (540) 662-0623
(Address) 223 Rossum Lane Winchester, VA 22602
the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by
Will Book
instrument Ne. 115on Page 1563, and is described as
Parcel: 65 Lot: 55 Block: _A Section:
do hereby make, constitute and appoint:
(Name) Greenway Engineering
Subdivision: Sensen. Village
(Phone) (540) 662-4185
(Address) 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602
To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and
authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning application for my (our) above described
Property, including:
® Rezoning (Including proffers)
❑ Conditional Use Permits
❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final)
❑ Subdivision
❑ Site Plan
My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to
previously approved proffered conditions except as follows:
This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or
modified.
In witness thereof, I (we) haves hereto set my (our) hand apd sea] this i I day of , 200 G 6
Signature(s)
State of Virginia, City/County of Frederick, To -wit:
a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the persou(s) who
signed to the foregoing instrument and who I (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has
acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this day of . LQC 2005
K, My Commission Expires: �J
N�tary Public I-
G -T
i
Special Limited Power of Attorney
County of Frederick, Virginia
Planning office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Kent Street, Winchester,
Virginia 22601
Phone 540-665-5651
Facsimile 540-665-6395
Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We)
(Name) Denver Quinnell; manager/member of Taylor -Grace, LLC (Phone) (540) 662-4164
(Address) 446 Fromans Road Winchester, VA 22602
the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by
Instrument No. 050002909 on Page , and is described as
Parcel: 65 Lot: 49B Block: A Section: _
do hereby make, constitute and appoint:
(Name) Greenway Engineering
Subdivision: Senseny Village
(Phone) (540) 662-4185
(Address) 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602
To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and
authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning application for my (our) above described
Property, including:
® Rezoning (Including proffers)
❑ Conditional Use Permits
❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final)
❑ Subdivision
❑ Site Plan
My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to
previously approved proffered conditions except as follows:
This authorization shall
In witness thereof, I (we
Signature(s)
one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or
modified.
) hand and seal this 2 I ';,1 day of +iti`.11200
State of Virkinia,ICity/County of Frederick, To -wit:
I, t�. itjyy� L K'1i� , a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who
signed to the foregoing instrument and who I (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has
acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this {t+ day of *'JVkV41200
Vii; i_k,
My Commission Expires: L2 2 %UE
Notary Public
Owner Signature:
REZONING APPLICATION FORM
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Date
REZONING APPLICATION FORM
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Owner Signature:
Hazel C. Lambert Date
a
z
R
W
W
z
z
W
W �y
j
uwac D. Wni
M..mae»
z
5
IL
z
a.2t;
5LE:
J on
J
�' U
W
z W
WNL
V% J
9
W
z
W
a
earn ,• - soo'
® BT. .e.
roe Be. area
aE= , Wel
10 0
PARCELS 1 O COUNTY GIS.
COUNTY TO OGRAPHIC INI
0
N
ZONING LEGEND�.^•'^�
RA
RURAL AREAS DiSTRiCT
RP
RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT
R4
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED COMMUNITY
_
R5
RESIDENTIAL RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY
MHI
MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY DISTRICT
_
81
NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT
®
82
BUSINESS GENERAL DISTRICT
83
INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION DISTRICT
MI
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
M2
INDUSTRIAL GENERAL DISTRICT
EM
EXTRACTIVE MANUFACTURING DISTRICT
HE
HIGHER EDUCATION DISTRICT
0
0 '
Z
W
��
V
Z
W $
�� • E
�8
C C
4.0.
Z -" r
W ry
... 72
,LTH Op`'
MARK D. SMITH >
�}, No.022B37 X
DATE: 3/17/05
SCALE: i' - 400'
DESIGNED BY: SBW
FILE NO. 3824
SHEET 1 OF i
•
�7
•
REZONING APPLICATION #12-05 AND
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #09-05
VILLAGES AT ARTRIP
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: July 2i, 2®u5
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 them in making a decision on this
application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning mattes. Unresolved issues
concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report.
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission: 08/03/05 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 08/24/05 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 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.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 75 -A -99A
PROPERTY ZONING & USE:
Zoned: (Rural Areas) District Use: Unimproved
ADJOINING 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: 905 Residential Units, Retail, Restaurants and Office Uses (a maximum of
118,550 square feet and a minimum of 10,000 square feet of commercial use has been proffered).
Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip
July 21, 2005
Page 2
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. 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 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: 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 Dept.: No comments offered.
Public Works 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
July 21, 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 County 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
July 21, 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 & Zoning:
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
July 21, 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]
Land Use
The parcels comprising this rezoning application are located within the County's Urban
Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Urban
Development Area defines the general area in which more intensive forms of residential
development will occur. In addition, The 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
July 21, 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 atwo
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 Suitability/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 unnamed 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 Arnie
July 21, 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 may be 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 Traffic 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 1 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
July 21, 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 III build out of the Villages at Artrip project
would occur, including the construction of the road network through 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 TIA as this key connection to an off-site transportation network is the main assumption
of the third phase of the TIA. 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 TIA 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 412-05 — Villages at Artrip
July 21, 2005
Page 9
The completion of Warrior Drive entails the construction ofthe 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 Manor, only to Point 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 681s'
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 Phase two 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
July 21, 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 3-
5 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
July 21, 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 of approved, 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
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.
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 conj unction 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
July 21, 2005
Page 12
The applicant has also proffered a further dedication of 5 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 R4 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 #1 (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 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 applicants believe 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
July 21, 2005
Page 13
6) Proffer Statement — Dated June 2005, revised June 17, 2005
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 — 3 80 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 5 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 Development 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
July 21, 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 five 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 08/03/05 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.
Followin,- the required public hearing, a recommendation re'aarding this rezoning
application to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should
be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planninz Commission.
� OUTPUT MODULE
APPLICANT: Tower Artrip Net Fiscal Impact
TY
� LAND USE TYPE Mixed Use R4
U
$axed Costs of Impact Credit
REAL EST ,000 Credits to be Taken for Future Taxes Paid (NPV)
Required (entered in
Total Potential
Adjustment For
FIRE 8 RESCUE = Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Future CIP/
11 Capital Faci786 col sum only) Oper Cap Equip Expend/Debt S Taxes. Other
Tax Credits
Revenue-
Net Capital
Net Cost Per
Fire and Rescue Department $455,786
{Unadiusted)
Cost Balance
Facilities Impact
Dwelling Unit
Elementary Schools $2,302,157
$0
$0
Middle Schools $1,250,293
$455,786
$506
High Schools $1,594,291 $352,882 $1,713,024
Parks and Recreation
$2,065,906
$1,782,247
$3,364,495
$3,738
Public
Public Library $927,188 $208,957
Sheriff's Offices
$208,957
----
$180,267
$746,922
$830
$95,399 $45,081
Administration Building $116,467 $0 $19,485
$122,429
$45,081
$135,951
$38,891
$117,285
$122,299
$136
Other Miscellaneous Facilities $156,193 $0
$0
$0
$0
$224,425 $247,779
$472,2$0
$407,368
$122,429
$0
$136
SUBTOTAL $7,064,927 $693,774
LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT $0 $1,960,8D3 $273,523
$2,928,099
$2,526,057
$0
NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT
$p
$4,538,870
$5,043
$0
5-0
43
$4,538,870 $5,043
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
PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES �'0
Rev -Cost Bal =
0.643
1.0
- - - - ----------- -------------------- -------------------------------- --------------------
METHODOLOGY: 1. Capital facilities requirements are input to the first
Ratio to Co Avg
0.863
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 for
avg. 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 03/18/05 MTR
----------------------
------------------------
--------------------
----
'roject Description: Option 1 - Assumes rezoning of 169.924 acres to R4 with 190 single family detached homes, 180 single family attached homes, 530 multifamily homes,
**"Assumes no commercial development***.
)ue to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this
)utput Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date.
GLAIZE DEVELOPMENTS
% 75 A 96
a
54gRUF�
sr 4 g�R
ARTRIP
76 A 13
WINCHESTER ARTRIP
75 A 99A
j tai
,S
Wakeland Manor Land Trust
\ —Ft 75•A•101
JASBO
76 A 23
76C•1.5.385A
100
Wakeland Manor Land Trust
75•A-100
REZ#12-05/MDP#09-05
Villages At Artrip
N (75 - A - 99A)
WE 0 250 500 1,000
S Feet
1
4
1
yl
1
Map Features
/*v Bridges
•I
Alcation
ppi
_
N Culverts[
Parcels
Lakes/Ponds AV Dams
Agricultural a Forestral Districts
»o— Streams
..>'e Retaining Walls
rMuble C]iur
Buildings
Road Centerlines
Refuge Cnuri,
_j Tanks
r'. �'-
South Frederick
^/rail:
JASBO
76 A 23
76C•1.5.385A
100
Wakeland Manor Land Trust
75•A-100
REZ#12-05/MDP#09-05
Villages At Artrip
N (75 - A - 99A)
WE 0 250 500 1,000
S Feet
1
4
1
yl
1
GLAIZE DEVELOPMENTS
% 75 A 96
48
Ove
R
sr �S gOgFR
WINCHESTER ARTRIP
75 A 99A
e�
oa
a
9gg aha P
�aaaO ly 99 et cKr.0
Ftea 5�9
in
ARTRIP
76 A 13
0
Wakeland Manor Land Trust
75-A-101
JASBO
76 A 23
76C -1.5-385A' 1
100 C'.+
Wakeland Manor Land Trust
75-A-100
REZ # 12 - 05 / MDP # 09 - 05
Villages At Artrip
N (75 - A - 99A)
w E 0 250 500 1,000
S
Feet
Map Features
•i+gt
��� Application
Bridges
Parcels
, ^/ Culverts
LakeslPonds ^v Dams
;
Agricultural & Porestral Distrlets
Streams
111' Retaining Walls
Dotible Church
Buildings
Road Centerlines
R^ge Ct,
I _'.'' Tanks
-'
C� South Frederick
IV
-1,-: Trails
in
ARTRIP
76 A 13
0
Wakeland Manor Land Trust
75-A-101
JASBO
76 A 23
76C -1.5-385A' 1
100 C'.+
Wakeland Manor Land Trust
75-A-100
REZ # 12 - 05 / MDP # 09 - 05
Villages At Artrip
N (75 - A - 99A)
w E 0 250 500 1,000
S
Feet
PROFFER STATEMENT
REZONING: RZ. # 1-b : 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: June 17, 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 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 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 June 17, 2005, 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.
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 a maximum of 118,550
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. In the
event that the Applicant elects to construct any of the unit 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. Unit types and lot layouts within these Landbays
may comprise any of the permitted unit 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 unit type may be constructed in
any Landbay than is identified as a unit type permitted therein on the
MDP_
1.3.1 Residential development on the Property shall not exceed a
maximum of 905 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.
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 two 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.
2
1.4.1 The Applicant shall construct not fewer than 30 residential
units 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. Unit types and lot
layouts within these Landbays may comprise any of the permitted unit
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 unit type may be constructed in
any such Landbay than is identified as a unit 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 5.40 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 on the general vicinity of the cemetery on the property
within the Village Green area to be preserved.
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 residential portions of the Property are proposed to be developed in
three phases, with the commercial portions of the Property to be
developed in Phases II and III. The three phases shall be authorized as
follows:
3.1.1 Phase I. Residential development shall not exceed 300
dwelling units.
3.1.2 Phase II. Residential development shall not exceed an
additional 380 dwelling units, for a total of 680 dwelling
3
units. Commercial development shall include a minimum
of 10,000 square feet of commercial/retail/restaurant gross
leaseable floor space.
3.1.3 Phase III. Residential development in Phase III shall not
exceed the remaining permitted dwelling units. Because
the Applicant cannot anticipate either market conditions, or
the timing of the completion of a through connection of
Warrior Drive from Interstate 81, through Crosspointe
Boulevard (as presently named) and Wakeland Manor to
Tasker Road and Route 340/522, the Applicant cannot
commit to the construction of additional commercial at any
fixed point in time. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and
except to the extent set forth in the proceeding proffer, the
Applicant may construct all or any portion of the
commercial development authorized in these proffers at
any time.
3.1.4 Community improvements. Community -serving
improvements such as playing fields, community center,
tennis courts 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 Il, and constructed prior to the initiation of Phase III.
4. ARCHITECTURE, SIGNAGE, AND LANDSCAPING:
4.1 The following building materials may be used for construction within
the Property, and no others:
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 shall consist of
standing seam metal roofing, colored; slate roofing; asphalt
roofing; powder coated steel, colored; galvanized steel;
El
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 part of the
Rezoning and MDP; 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 are 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. The
pedestrian/bicycling trail constructed along Warrior Drive shall be 10
feet wide, and shall have an asphalt surface.
5
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
eleven (11) acres of land as depicted on the MDP for use as a future
elementary school site in conjunction with the adjacent property of
others; provided further that the Applicant shall be permitted to retain
an easement thereon for the construction of stormwater management
facilities. The Applicant shall coordinate any such facilities with the
County to assure that such facilities do not materially impede the use
of the property for an elementary school, and that, to the 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.
7.2 In the event that the Board of Supervisors, or School Board,
determines not to use the said property for an elementary school site,
and to declare the property surplus, the Applicant shall have a right of
first refusal to purchase the same at its then fair market value.
7.3 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.
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.
6
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, and similar
matters.
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" area 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, 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 HOA if platted within
residential or other lots, or otherwise granted to the HOA by
appropriate instrument.
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
7
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 dtffnpster 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 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 In addition to the dedication of property for school purposes, the
Applicant shall separately dedicate Land Bay F as generally depicted
on the MDP, in phases, to such public entity as may be directed by the
Board of Supervisors, in its discretion.
13.5.1. In any event, and regardless whether such dedication is
requested or made, the Dedicated Tree Save Area in Land Bay
F as shown on the MDP shall be preserved undisturbed.
13.5.2. If the property is dedicated, the Applicant shall be permitted to
retain the rights to temporary and/or permanent grading
easements necessary for the construction of the Villages at
Artrip, including roads, bridges, utilities and stormwater
management facilities.
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 May 6, 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 pedestrian -actualized signalization at those locations for
which such signalization is referenced in the TIA, upon issuance of
warrants therefor.
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 Phase I road phasing for Warrior Drive if construction is initiated from
Wakeland Manor: The following traffic improvements shall be
designed and constructed during Phase I if construction thereof shall
begin at the southernmost portion of the Property.
14.3.1. Prior to the issuance of the first residential occupancy permit
for the project, the Applicant shall construct an extension of
Warrior Drive in a northwesterly direction from Point A to
Point C as depicted on the MDP, as a full section of a four lane
divided roadway, including construction of a full section of a
roundabout or traffic signalized intersection, as may be
0
approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation, at the
intersection of Warrior and Parkins Mill Road.
14.3.1.1. In conjunction with such construction, the
Annlir.nnt zhnll rnnnPet Wa.—.;or Dive :--- i he
rr--- --
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. The right-of-way for the
ultimate design of Warrior Drive shall be 100' in
width.
14.4 Alternate road phasing for Phase I of Warrior Drive if constructed
from Wakeland Manor: As an alternative to the foregoing phasing
schedule for Phase I of Warrior Drive, and at the sole discretion of the
Applicant, the Applicant shall construct a full section of Warrior Drive
as a full four lane section roadway, including the bridge crossing of the
unnamed tributary of the Opequon from Point A to a full section of the
roundabout or signalized intersection at Point B, and shall further
construct a full two lane section of Parkins Mill Road from Point B to
Point 131, (or from Point B1 to B if construction access is obtained
through Canter Estates), as depicted on the MDP.
14.5 Phase II road phasing for Warrior Drive if construction is initiated
from Wakeland Manor: The following traffic improvements shall be
constructed as part of Phase II if construction thereof shall begin at the
southernmost portion of the Property.
14.5.1. Prior to the issuance of the 301s' occupancy building permit,
the Applicant shall construct Warrior Drive as a full four lane
divided roadway from Point C to Point D, as generally depicted
on the MDP or from Point B to Point C if not already
constructed.
14.5.2. At the Applicant's discretion, if the Applicant has not already
done so in accordance with the foregoing proffers, then prior to
the issuance of the 301s' occupancy building permit, the
Applicant may 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. The
right-of-way for Parkins Mill Road shall be 80' in width.
14.6 Phase III road phasing for Warrior Drive if construction is initiated
from Wakeland Manor: The Applicant shall construct the following
10
traffic improvements prior to the issuance of the 681 st residential
occupancy permit as Phase III of the said improvements if construction
thereof shall begin at the southernmost portion of the Property.
14.6.1. The Applicant shall construct the remainder of Warrior Drive
to Point E as a full section of a four lane divided roadway.
14.6.2. If not already completed, the Applicant shall 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. The right-of-way for Parkins
Mill road shall be 80' in width.
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, and Warrior is to
be constructed from that boundary to the south, then prior to
the issuance of the first residential occupancy permit for the
project, the Applicant shall construct Warrior Drive in a
southeasterly direction from Point E to Point C as Phase I of its
road improvements. The Applicant will be allowed a minimum
of 300 residential building permits within this Phase.
14.7.2. In the event the Applicant has constructed Warrior Drive from
Points E to C as aforesaid, then prior to the issuance of the
301" residential occupancy permit, the Applicant shall
construct Warrior Drive from Point C to Point B as Phase II or
its road improvements. The Applicant will be allowed to build
a minimum of 380 additional residential units in this Phase.
14.7.3. In the event the Applicant has constructed Warrior Drive to
Point B as aforesaid, then prior to the issuance of the 681 st
residential occupancy permit, the Applicant shall construct
Warrior Drive from Point B to Points A and B 1 as Phase III of
its road improvements. The Applicant will be permitted to
build out the remainder of the residential units and commercial
square footage in this Phase and prior to the completion of
Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road.
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.
11
14.10 The Applicant shall make no connection from Parkins Mill Road
extended to Estates until such time as Warrior Drive has been
constructed to permit traffic access through Wakeland Manor except
for construction purposes.
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 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 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.
14.15 No construction traffic shall be permitted through Lot 121 in the
adjacent Lakewood subdivision. In no event shall a permanent
interparcel connection be made through said Lot.
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. In the event
the Frederick County Sanitation Authority does not retain ownership
of the property through which such road would run, it shall in any
conveyance retain rights for the use of such access road by the
Applicant until full build out of the Property. Upon such completion,
the Applicant shall terminate all rights thereto, but at the request of the
County or the Authority shall leave such access road in place to permit
maintenance access to the bridge between the Property and Wakeland
Manor.
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.
12
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
Jeffrey Abramson
Title: Managing Member
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA;
CITY/COUNTY OF : to -wit
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 2005 , by
My Commission expires:
14
Notary Public
The Villages
at
Comprehensive Sign Package
The Villages at Artrip
CONTENTS
P1 : Gateway Identity Sign
p: : Primary Directional Sign
p3 : Secondary Directional Sign (option A
p4 : Secondary Directional Sign (option 6
P5 : Tertiary Directional Sign
p6 : Location Identity Sign
p7 : Secondary Location Identity Sign (option A
P8 : Secondary Location Identity Sign (option E)
P9 : Primary Village Identity Sign
plo: Secondary Village Identity Sign
P11 : Detail Tenant Signs
p12 : Multi -tenant Sign
p13: Proposed Informational Sign
�, In Via- .�' D h ll u "� a fi cA �) � !
y.
R shown � �� � G � �raPfli � Yl � e'�
F ,' d,, p u 7 !' i
s u Y �.t.: d LSP a
4 ;'. y F �1
'big '� , i@
"I°{`y� u'x�iJ...* i Apr ':I "jy''�"j'
r i g YT 'e d "ir?' Q
pa' k�y7 rhq:l J
2i d� o; m r e o f Pa �I
rr
�" A t r�'�` 'h
-gyp, `q� �
'�5.1�.,Io IJV i5 9
Brick, 5R 'i �
'ti..lk'p �Ya n4.+16 • �'s.. ricL�
i
a
�-�` �', � � +� I�If� : • ��/{[/�� �{�. P3� C a � �r fay. �rn � y/�Ay� �"' a^"°��' ��r, Ii .i�+g�; �'� Fa „ �F�
p 431 4 4 i e 4d :aa' R,,it w,h ': Pgs,�. �' g!a .n4.1ern.. p8R.i 4a�n UC
f
q
.
� r i
25� oll
P■1
t
;! I - �.q�S�/g It "� rJ�
IP i r it
SECONDARY
DIRECTIONAL
SIGN
Option
IN
SIGN
-.tLRTIARY
f•
MIN.
opplow
amol
em
OPTION A.
m
POST
PjLtIAlA"
VILLAGE
Option B
P.9
Retail T -e ant Signs
.
Projecting Sb,
gn,
Free Stand,ing,.,
signage
-d
illustratf-VA., and intei la ccinvey
TINANT
G.
P.l
PROs
JSED
INFORMATIONAL
SIGN
SiMOW
P.13
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)MIN. 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'
- RF�4R VARTI
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:
16
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)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
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' S0'
4) MIN. BUILDING SPACING 50' 50'
5) SETBACKS FOR OTHER USES NOT OTHERWISE
SPECIFIED
-FRONT
- SIDE
- REAR
35'
35'
15'
15'
50'
50'
JA00\00419 Tower\004\Application SubmittalsTROFFERSTROFFERS 062005.doc
18
The Villages atArtrip
Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan
May 20, 2005
Introduction/Project Background
The Villages at Artrip is a single tract of land acquired by the Applicant from W.F. Artrip
Jr. and Enid Artip by deed dated May 15, 1989 and recorded in the Frederick County
Clerk's office in Deed Book 713 at Page 417 (see Appendix A). The Applicant also
owns an adjacent parcel of land designated as Lot 121, Lakewood Manor Section VIII.
Historically, the Property was used for agricultural uses, but the Property has no current
uses and has remained vacant since the Applicant's acquisition. The Property has no
known resources of historic merit. A family cemetery has been located; however, it is
unknown whether burials remain on that site. Accordingly, the cemetery will be
protected by a buffer area surrounding the perimeter.
The Applicant believes that this Property is suitable for rezoning to the requested R4
category given its location within the UDA, the SWSA, the CPP and proximity to the
adjacent developments of Crosspointe Center, Lakewood Manor, Wakeland Manor and
Canter Estates (see Exhibit 9). In addition, the Applicant recognizes the transportation
elements proposed with this project (i.e. — Warrior Drive, Parkins Mill Road extended
and Lakeside Drive) constitute key "links" shown on the South Frederick Land Use Plan
(see Exhibits 10 & 11).
61
PF -V ?t
BARTONSM
0 --$-.hg
01
N
MU
Shenandoah
Moble home Park
SURROUNDING PROJECTS
THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP
WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC
D.B. 713, P& 417
PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN SHAWNEE DISTRICT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Sacred Head
Monoetery
File Number
76030007
EXHIBIT
9
410-
40
IJAQ
7,
4®r,
Wh- 130 816 Us'll
A
Drawn By
RJS
Plan Number
76030007
9
Designed By RJS
Date SEPTEMBER 2004
ecked By
MTW
SURROUNDING PROJECTS
THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP
WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC
D.B. 713, P& 417
PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN SHAWNEE DISTRICT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Sacred Head
Monoetery
File Number
76030007
EXHIBIT
9
611 WEST JUBAL EARLY DRIVE
WINCHECHESTER, VA 22601
PHONE: 540.678.2700
FAX:540.678.2703
-Lewberry
& Davis LLC
I HE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP
DATE
SCALE
j
611 WEST JUBAL EARLY DRIVE
WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC
JUNE 2004
"=2
WINCHECHESTER, VA 22601
D.B. 713, PG. 417
1 MILES
PHONE: 540.678.2700
FAX:540.678.2703
PARKINS MILL PRECINCT
PROJ. NO.
EXHIBIT
www.dewberry.com
SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
a
_
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
1276007
'�
The Villages al Artrip
Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan
May 20, 2005
Suitability of the Site
The land planning for the Villages at Artrip has carefully considered several
environmental features of note, including:
• 100 -year Flood Plains; and
• Wetlands and/or Waters of the U.S.; and
• Steep Slopes; and
• Mature Woodlands; and
• Prime Agricultural Soils; and
• Soil or Bedrock Conditions that could create construction difficulties or hazards.
Each element is discussed on the following pages. Table 1 shows the approximate areas
of these features and area of potential impacts:
2
W
Q o 0 0 0 Co
tio 0) (3) ab
O N N O
N O O O N N O
a
O
W
rc
Q
Fr
U
a v,
g W o 0 0 0 0 0 0
�OU000w co 00
L Q
a
U
2
Q
h
a w
a j
Q Q
W
LL
tu J
W
Qm Z
0 0 0 O o
IlkV3h
J ~
U-
J
O
O
W W
2
W
Q
W
rn Lo ca v m
co
x_W Q
W
J J
C ~
Z N � 0
fl -
0
z
g�
o 2:
O F-w0U
LLu0Op�
Q Z w 0 w Q
w g w a w
¢ w
cm)w~�
w ¢
UL���c).a
The Villages at Artrip
Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan
May 20, 2005
100 year Flood Plain
Two significant streams, the Opequon Creek and an unnamed tributary to the Opequon
Creek, are adjacent to or traverse the Property. FEMA has mapped a flood plain for
Opequon Creek and Frederick County's GIS data indicates a mapped flood plain for the
same, as well as for the unnamed tributary (see Exhibits 12 & 13). Because the extension
of Warrior Drive will cross the unnamed tributary, the Applicant prepared a flood plain
study demonstrating the "existing" and "proposed" conditions within the project
boundaries to ascertain any impacts to the floodplain. Given the significant
topographical variation between Wakeland Manor and the Villages at Artrip along the
Warrior Drive route, there will be minimal, if any, flood plain impacts. In addition, the
street and lot layout will not impact the flood plain for Opequon Creek. Stormwater
management systems and path/trail systems will be designed to minimize impacts.
ZONE
yS
s ZONE C \
LIMIT OF
STUDY
T)I"E VILLAG S
AT ARTRIP 0.
°
o �o
�
°
D
W
z
o
�� \ \
\\`
ZINEC
-tiz �_
O
N
21(
I WB
m
o
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
(
o
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
Wrights
\
01
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
d
P
1P
(UNICORPORATED AREAS)
Rin
w
COMMUNITY PANEL NUMBER
510063 0200 B
Q
a
ZONE ,4
a
a
EFFECTIVE JULY 17, 1978
i'±'����
"
-'�'
FEMA
Flood Insurance Rate Map
DRAFTED
KLT
CHECKED
MTW
Dewberry & Davis LLC
611 WEST JUBAL
THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP
WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC
DATE
SCALE
EARLY DRIVE
BLDG B, SUITE C
NSA
WINCHESTER,
PHONE: 540.678.2700
D.B. 713, PG- 417
PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN
JUNE 2004
PROJ.
FAX: 540.678.2703
SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
N0.
EXHIBIT
www.dewberry.com
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
76030007
2
TM 75 ((A)) -99A
ARTRF
DB 713/4' 7
169.924 A, CS.
THE ViL! AG S
AT ARTRIP
1
R FLOOD PLAIN
�y Dewberr
�
Dewberry & Davis LLC
Drawn By
RJS/KLT
Plan Number
76030007
FLOOD PLAID DELINEATION OF UfilfVf4MED TRIBUTARY TO OpEQUON CREEK
THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP
WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC
File Number
Designed By
Date
JUNE 2004
EXHIBIT
13
611 West Jubal Early Drive
Winchester, Virginia 22601
PHONE: 540.678.2700
FAX: 540.678.2703
www.dewberry.com
D.B. 713, PG. 417
PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN
SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Checked By
MTW
Scale
i "= 300'
The Villages at Artrip
Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan
May 20, 2005
Wetlands and Waters of the U.S.
The Applicant commissioned ECS, Ltd. to conduct a wetlands delineation report for the
project (see Appendix B). ECS identified and located seven wetlands and four streams
(see Exhibit 14). Those wetlands are classified as palustrine emergent (PEM), palustrine
scrub/shrub (PEMIS 5), and palustrine forested (PFO). Wetland vegetation is dominated
by green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), seedbox (Ludwigia x lacustris), Frank's sedge
(Carexfrankii) and soft rush (Juncus effuses).
The main source of hydrology for these wetlands includes ground water fluctuation and
surface runoff. The wetlands are underlain by Berks channery silt loam and Weikert-
Berks channery silt loam.
The Applicant's land plan integrates some of these features, including re -use and possible
retrofit of the farm pond as a focal point for the central village green. Additionally,
several of the swales are contained within planned open spaces.
The Applicant will work with Frederick County staff, the Army Corps of Engineers and
Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ") representatives to determine actual
impacts to these features. During the design and detailed engineering process, the
Applicant will incorporate such design features as necessary to minimize the impact to
wetlands within the open space network.
4
v.
- -
wr \-
-
� i
•
(` _ % / �I , ti ` tel•\ 1 /' ./ ,
^\ TM 75 �CA))-99
�. `ARTRIF�,
M/417 1 /
i
ACS, TOM
f, 1
ts��4
"
l �MP
a THE V1 '1-AGS AT ARTFIIP`x _yam
t' e' — •- J -'' - 1 j - - , ^ '.{ , - _ is / / -� 4: 1
-•_ �, � L'. ` / ' S ice, ..�„�'
0017
2
LEGEND
�=T,,.. .. •• fes_ "_.- \ .:- _ - -�� :\".. \` ��j'
ATERS OF THE
M
VI,'j
UNITED STATES
..'"'_ ......
....:.:.:.........:.... WETLANDS
(0.89 ACRES)
By
Plan Number
WETLANDS AND WATERS OF THE U.s
File Number
DewberryDrawn
RJS
76030007
1 I --IE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP
Designed By JLM
Date
JUNE 2004
Dewberry & Davis LLC
WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC
EXHIBIT
14
611 West Jubal Early Drive
Winchester, Virginia 22601
D.B. 713, PG. 417
Checked By
Scale
PHONE: 540.678.2700„—
KWN
1 —300
PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN
FAX: 540"678.2703
SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
www.dewberry.com
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
The Villages atArtrip
Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan
May 20, 2005
Steep Slopes
Based on uncontrolled topography dated late 1980's, areas on the Property exceeding
50% steep slopes were identified. (see Exhibit 15). Most of these steep slope areas will
remain in planned open space (50% of the open space along Opequon Creek includes
steep slopes). As permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, there will be some construction
impacts to the steep slope areas, but none that will exceed 25% of the total steep slope
area. Proper erosion and sediment control measures, grading and stabilization will be
utilized to protect the impacted areas -
5
-
_
,
r .
i
i
i
,
, _ _ � ......\ . � '_•.�-_ /� ���-.-�� 1 ...-nom' 1It,AN
s - i
t !!
\1
!_ � ,..,' .,-. .I 1 - I •\ �I..E� -� 1 \��` �.,'. �'� � -- JJ� ...�. i -�- '/IF
J r J i✓ i
t
�F
r
��`- `\ 1� , � __ ,1 1. - . • % -� `_— � f � - _ - ,.1 � 1 + J: ! %i
-TfI VI,_LAC�S:At'AR`fMP
1 J JI ri
Z. —oma.
- _ STEEP SLOPES
50% OR GREATER
DewberryDrawn By RJS Plan Number 76030007 STEEP SLOPES File Number
Date THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP
Dewberry & Davis LLC Designed By JLM JUNE 2004 WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC
611 West Juba] Early Drive
Winchester, Virginia 22601 Checked By Scale D.B. 713, PG. 417 EXHIBIT
PHONE: 540.678.2700PARKINS MILL KWN 1"=300' SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL 1CT IN 5
DISTRICT
FAX: 540.678.2703
www.dewberry-com FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
The Villages at Artrip
Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan
May 20, 2005
Mature Woodlands
Aerial photography and field visits indicate areas on the Property that contain woodlands
(see Exhibit 16). Two areas contain tree stands and/or individual trees of significant
size/caliper, including the areas adjacent to Opequon Creek and the unnamed tributary to
Opequon Creek. While most of the woodlands adjacent to the Opequon Creek will
remain in open space, some areas will be impacted by lot/street layouts, while others will
be incorporated within planned open space. The construction of Warrior Drive and a
portion of the multi -family area will impact the area adjacent to the unnamed tributary to
the Opequon Creek (Landbay "A"), but the majority of the remaining woodlands area
will be within planned open space. In addition, the Applicant will strive to retain
individual trees within the impacted areas via selective clearing on the home sites.
Minimal encroachment will occur in areas of mature tree stands_
31
-1 W— f✓,;,. --..- 011' s..ti' -- —11111. •.,.., �-�11� p.
,• ."r �.'- -� .r ° lJtd if
f 3 i { .ice ♦ a .119 13
Jii431t111ii1 i
f � / /rr=.� t.3 ✓ 1�
f ,,, / � ,�, J�{r t „,- J �.r % '�•.,_,, ` i t f t - fiJ !, l,, t)J�j�i',j�t�� �
�•/ r' (f r (t .Js$j; F�r` ��•� � 3 `; tf'r%t-1 %�r �>>;t�� fir
; t t r
✓ f 1 t�=` 1 `i • 1 L �t i !��' � r(rT .S? 'Al j3ii f
\
N
ETM T
The Villages at Artrip
Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan
May 20, 2005
Soil or Bedrock Conditions
Based on the County Soils Survey, the project contains three underlying soils types:
Berks, Clearbrook and Weikert, all of which are within the Weikert-Berks-Blairton soil
complex (see Exhibit 17).
This soil complex is generally described as gently sloping to moderately steep, shallow
and moderately deep, well drained to somewhat poorly drained soils that have a medium
textured or fine textured subsoil. The parent soils were formed in a material weathered
from shale or sandstone. These soils are poorly to moderately well suited for pasture and
crop cultivation. In addition erosion hazard is moderate and needs to be considered a
major concern. Limitations within this complex include depth to bedrock (ranging from
10" to 40" below the ground surface) and seasonal high water table (ranging from 6" to
6' below the ground surface).
Based on the aforementioned County Soils Survey, this project, as well as the eastern part
of the County, is underlain by shale and fined -grained sandstone. The County Geology
Map (see Exhibit 18) identifies this area in the Martinsburg Shale Formation. Unlike
other areas in the County that have limestone, the bedrock is not obvious from visual
surface inspection of topographical ridges or knobs. However, as discussed earlier,
shallow bedrock conditions are a concern in this area.
Given the limitations on these soils, the Applicant will consider these elements during the
design of site grading to minimize depths of cut. However, it is anticipated that
excavations and fills of 4 to 10 feet will be required, to provide balanced earthwork for
the project. The Applicant will engage a geotechnical engineer to provide site
development recommendations during the detailed site design stage in order to minimize
impacts and identify site development constraints within these soil and bedrock
conditions.
:`.. ;.
1131-BERKS CANNERY
SILT LOAM,
2-71 SLOPES
Ic
1C-BERKS CHANNERY
41E
SILT LOAM,
icl
,
7-151 SLOPES
•Sym
96
`N
�
41D
�'i7
ANNERYROO T LOAM,
1 ��
I ` I �• F ` `•. `�-_
41D
2-7% SLOPES
N 41E
r-Yr 41 E " r�
.`
26- LOWELL
,
SILT LOAM,
1B I
N
0-31 SLOPES
16 _V
��^ ^� �.="•
\�
/,
PRIME AGRICULTURAL
�/�� l /1/� ��
rILLAG
SOILS
ARTRIP
"AIT,
9B
1C ;
41 C-WEIKERT BERKS
41D
CHANNERY SILT LOAM,
=r
SLOPES
9B
• w fr
41C
2.3
f ,F
`J
1B
:
41D WEIKERTBERKS
41D-
41
CHANNERY SILT LOAM,
\.
15-2590 SLOPES
.r 4
r
41 D 1
•_.
\
° '
I
41E -WEILKERT BERKS
.: IN.`
` E � 1 •.. f �
J `--
CANNERY SILT LOAM,
F
/
25-651 SLOPES
41C
r J +
1 \
J 1
-
NOTE
TO 'SOIL SURVEY
41E
--
-
ACCORDING
l
1B
OF FREDERICK COUNTY' SOIL
1C ��4__
-
CONSERVATION SERVICE DATA,
JAN 1987, PAGE 123
_�--*:
i"�
ISSUED
--:
TABLE 5, PRIME FARMLAND,
E ONLY PRIME
\--4f
----'
AGRICULTURAL SOIL ON
_
THIS SITE IS:
1B i�l l
$
28 LOBDELL SILT LOAM—
`
LOCATED ON THE FAR
ifa
NORTHERN SIDE OF THE
PROPERTY NEXT TO
:
OPEQUON CREEK
Drawn By
Plan Number
COUNTY SOILS SURVEY EXCERPT
File Number
Dewberry
RJS/KLT
76030007
THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP
Dewberry & Davis LLC
DesignednTW By
Date JUNE 2004
WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC
611 West Jubal Early Drive
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Checked By
Scale
D.B. 713, PG. 417
EXHIBIT
17
MILL PRECINCT IN
PHONE: 540.678.2700PARKINS
IVITW
1"=400'
SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
FAX: 540.678.2703
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
www.dewberry.com
awberry & Davis LLC
611 WEST JUBAL EARLY DRIVE
WINCHECHESTER, VA 22601
PHONE: 540.678.2700
FAX:540.678.2703
www.dewberry.com
The Villages at Artrip
Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan
May 20, 2005
Other Environmental Conditions
The Applicant commissioned a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment from ECS, Ltd.
dated 03/23/04 (see Appendix C). This study concluded that there is "no evidence of
current or previous uses or conditions onsite that would be regarded as
environmentally -suspect" and that "no further environmental investigation of the
property is deemed necessary prior to development. " See Appendix C, § 1.0, Executive
Summary.
A. Surrounding Properties
The Villages at Artrip is bounded by farmland and existing or proposed residential and
commercial development (See Exhibit 19 and Table 3). To the north is an active farm
operated by W.F. Artrip, Jr. (zoned RA); to the east is the proposed Canter Estates V
single-family subdivision (zoned RP); to the southeast is the proposed Wakeland Manor
single-family and multifamily subdivision (zoned RP); to the southwest is the existing
and fully built out Lakewood Manor single-family and multifamily subdivision (zoned
RP); and to the west is the proposed Crosspointe Center commercial and residential
subdivision (portions of which were recently rezoned from RA to B2 and RP).
The closest development to the proposed project is the Lakewood Manor subdivision,
with about 12 houses within 50'+/- of the southern Property line. All other boundaries
will be proximate to the proposed development's commercial buildings or residential
units, but specific building locations have not been determined as of the date of this
document.
The Applicant is unaware of any nuisance impacts (e.g. - noise, glare, fumes, pollution,
and odors), pursuant to thresholds established by County, State and Federal regulations
that will be created as the result of this development. Furthermore, the Applicant does
not believe any other nuisance factors will be created as the result of this development.
9
J
J
Cl)
O
U
N
O
a`
a
THE VILLAGES AT ARTR/P
TABLE 2
Adjacent Property Owners
PIN
75-A-101
Name
Wakeland Manor Land Trust
Address
300 Craig St.
City
St.
Zip
Use
Zonin 9
75-A-95
75-A-96
Glaize Development, Inc.
Glaize Development, Inc.
P.O. Box 888
Stephen City
Winchester
VA
VA
22655
22604
6
2 (Residential)
RP
RA
75-A-97
Steve Dubrueler
P.O. Box 888
346 Saddleback Lane
Winchester
Winchester
VA
VA
22604
22602
6 (Over 100 Ac.)
RA
75-A-99
75G-11-8-116
Frederick County
Ronald Santoro & Pamela Chagnon
107 N. Kent St.
106 Canaan Ct.
Winchester
VA
22601
2 (Residential)
73 (Exempt)
RA
RP
75G-11-8-117
James Swiger & Michelle Vitela
105 Canaan Ct.
Stephens City
Stephens City
VA
VA
22655
22655
2 (Residential)
2 (Residential)
RP
RP
75G-11-8-118
75G-11-8-120
David T.& Tammy M. Foster
Robert & Mary E. McDonald
103 Canaan Ct.
109 Fair Lawn Ct.
Stephens City
VA
22655
2 (Residential)
RP
75G-11-8-121
Winchester/Artrip LP
11501 Huff Ct.
Stephens City
N. Bethesda
VA
MD.
22655
20895
2 (Residential)
2 (Residential)
RP
RP
75G-11-8-122
75G-11-8-123
Timothy J. Elliot Sr. & Kathleen A. Elliott
Timothy Wingfield
105 Fair Lawn Ct,
Stephens City
VA
22655
2 (Residential)
RP
75G -4-4B-60
Rodney & Suzanne R. Torp
103 Fair Lawn Ct,
102 Jade Ct.
Stephens City
Stephens City
VA
VA
22655
22655
2 (Residential)
RP
75G -4-4B-62
75G -4-4B-63
John & Melissa Corder
Patricia Gail Beardslee
P.O. Box 90010 c/o Valerie Whit
Richmond
VA
23225
2 (Residential)
2 (Residential)
RP
RP
75G -4-4B-64
Cynthia D. Rodriguez
125 Bell Haven Cr.
127 Bell Haven Cr.
Stephens City
Stephens City
VA
VA
22655
22655
2 (Residential)
RP
75G-8-5-85
76-A-13
Timothey J. & Karen E. Adams
129 Bell Haven Cr.
Stephens City
VA
22655
2 (Residential)
2 (Residential)
RP
RP
76-A-23
W.F. Artrip, Jr.
Jasbo, Inc.
1726 Front Royal Pike
Winchester
VA
22602
6-- (Over 100 Ac.)
RA
P.O. Box 480
Stephens City
VA
22655
5 (20-100 AC.)
RP
Note:
1. Information from SpecPrint Edition 13, 2004
2. Use Codes:
2- Single Family Residential (Suburban)
4- Commercial & Industrial
5- Agricultural / Undeveloped (100+ ac.)
6- Agricultural / Undeveloped (100+ ac.)
73- Regional / Local Government
The Villages alArtrip
Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan
May 20, 2005
B. Traffic
As previously stated, the Applicant commissioned from Patton, Harris & Rust, P.C. the
accompanying Traffic Impact Analysis. The project scope was established through two
meetings with Frederick County and VDOT staff. The results of the TIA study
concluded that "the traffic impacts associated with the Villages at Artrip are acceptable
and manageable. " (See Traffic Impact Analysis, page 36). Although all intersections in
closest proximity to the site maintain a level of service ("LOS") of C conditions at peak
hour, the I-81 ramps to westbound Route 37/Route 11 (Kernstown) interchange operates
at LOS F. However, others are in the process of identifying corrective measures to
implement and thus improve the conditions at the interchange so as to improve the LOS.
Additionally, the Applicant's intent to construct Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road
will significantly improve traffic conditions.
The specifics of each studied intersection are included within the TIA.
10
The Villages at Artrip
Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan
May 20, 2005
C. Sewage Conveyance and Treatment
Sewer services will be extended from existing and/or planned mains on or adjacent to the
Property to serve the development (see Exhibit 20).
The preliminary sewer layout depicted on the MDP indicates that onsite gravity sewers
will be able to serve the development and provide conveyance for the project to one
major interceptors; an existing 15" gravity interceptor line along Buffalo Lick Run in the
southeast corner of the project. This sewer line expands to 18", crosses VA Route 522
then follows Opequon Creek to the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
located at the southeast corner of Route 522 and Parkins Mill Road.
Exhibit 21 provides a schematic plan and improvements for sewers.
11
rill
TF x
BATTLEFIELD
INDUSTRIAL PARK
41
V
DewberrDrawn By
y
RJS
Dewberry & Davis LLC Designed By RJS
611 West Juba] Early Drive
Winchester, Virginia 22601 Checked By
PHONE: 540.678.2700
FAX: 540.678.2703 MTW
www.dewberry.com
�0. F. --PUMPING
0� o"
5
"4."v,
-T
o
J's �49
4.,
IiV
#
42"
Plan Number EXISTING SEWER SYSTEMS
76030007
—
Date THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP
JUNE 2004 WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC
Scale D.B. 713, PG. 417
1"=1000' PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN
SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
File Number
EXHIBIT
20
aa f
VA
'�♦ 0.
°BATTLEFIELD
l'
INDUSTRIAL PARK — r�_ ; O"F
PUMPING STATION - Q1101y
4�
w _
.r
VILLAGE AT LAGES CREEK
S LAKESIDE
r4; �� PUMPING AT ATRTIP
1�
{
sr,anON - #
i
-
�4 s 1; a� PARKINS MILL
.�Ig�� KGs fX1 t..
k� y �`„ ' 1' �� WASTEWATER
, 3` ? '�� f TREATMENT
° + �' :eE �\ y —1 PROPOSED e' PLANT
• F 3, �:,� . i v�.'� .,t3 + R LINE
ra_c z rte- SEWS
�4 -s 35 j1, 1'!„p \' X'. ,►GJ5 _omm.....,1F�a ..
t
`7 iJ { k -1
A.Fa
tai ♦ fi a►a S 41-
"rat
-"'q� 1� `K �6'
g... PUMPING �,�. •s a ,
G`yV+°�3. 40 _` STATION ;`♦°` i taw > ��♦
�!t;au. a O s~moo'
OL
Q ,
p.
i s
�4�' PROPOSED .
r '< i . ry'"� ��.. 4 •' CONNECTION.`
}POINT
cs
»�B •; y". is`,�-4 ''s i,.:. .�' -opt -y� to 'a ',L e,�'� j j .. -
' ALL OIC SITE
�' �► y
., 7� rsr-.,�G�4, � .. �c' ._ ` J �P�•" J`� t t • ��s r Gr�. GJ � - . Q ..
,• ♦ '�.1' _ - or is `7 VIfj
i
MIN
•.,, _ ,� rN,
32
AT
r.
1 Plan Number PROPOSED SEWER SYSTEMS File Number
Drawn By
Dewberry RJS 76030007
THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP
d B
Designed y
Dewberry & Davis LLC DesRJs DateJUNE 2004 WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC
611 West Jubal Early Drive D.B. 713, PG. 417 EXHIBIT
Winchester, Virginia 22601 Checked By Scale21
PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN
PHONE: 540.678.2700 MTW 1"=1000' SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
FAX: 540.678.2703
www.dewberry.com FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
The Villages at Arlrip
Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan
May 20, 2005
The anticipated sewage flow generation is provided in Table 3.
Sewage generation from this site will be treated at the Parkins Mill Wastewater
Treatment Plant (the "Parkins Mill plant"). Monthly operational data for this facility is
shown on Table 4. In addition, the FCSA on 08/20/04, provided the following data on
the WWTP:'
Current Capacity = 2,000,000 gallons per day (gpd); or 2.0 MGD
Current Usage = 1.5 MGD
Current Available Capacity = 0.5 MGD
The FCSA also noted that only Crosspointe Center will contribute additional sewage
flows. Based on the rezoning application for that development, the flow generation at
build -out conditions from that project is estimated to be 0.634550 MGD. A proposed
WWTP upgrade project scheduled for completion by 2008 will increase the WWTP's
capacity by 1 MGD.
The FCSA, through reserve funding of the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority
("FWSA'), has begun to study future expansion of hydraulic capacity at Parkins Mill,
which will require expansion to meet the increasing flow requirements within the
Opequon and Wrights Run Watersheds. Discussions with FCSA have not identified any
deficiencies in the sewer systems that will serve this project.
1 This information is based on an August 20 2004 conversation with the Applicant's
representative and Mr. Wellington Jones.
12
905 Residential Units, 118,550 sf Retail, Office, etc
RESIDENTIAL
UNIT TYPE
RESIDENTIAL
TOTAL
CUMULATIVE TOTAL FLOWS
COMMERCIAL/RETAIL/OFFICE/RESTAU RANT
THE VILLAGES AT ARTR/P
TABLE 3
WATER DEMAND/SEWAGE FLOWS
PHASE/
PHASE 11
PHASE Ili
UNITS FLOW
UNITS FLOW
UNITS FLOW
300 60000
380 76000
225 45000
300 60,000
380 76,000
225 45,000
60,000
136,000
181,000
PHASE I PHASE 11 PHASE ill
SQUARE FEET FLOW SQUARE FEET FLOW SQUARE FEET FLOW
COMMERCIAURETAIUOFFICE/RESTAURANT 0 0 10000 2000 108550 21710
CUMULATIVE TOTAL FLOWS - 2,000 23,710
GRAND TOTAL FLOWS 60,000 138,000 204,710
NOTES:
1. ALL RESIDENTIAL FLOWS ASSUMED @ 200 GPD/UNIT
2. COMMERCIAURETAIUOFFICE/RESTAURANT FLOWS @ 200 GPD/1,000 SF
THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP
TABLE 4
Parkins Mill Wastewater Plant Operational
Data
Permit
Plant Flow (MGD)
limit
2
JUL
1.8
AUG
1.6
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
AVE
2.1
1.7
1.9
2
1.7
1.9
2.5
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.0
Concentration (MG/L)
BOD
Summer
7.5
3.2
1.8
2
2.2
4.5
Winter
23
5.3
4.4
3.3
Suspended
30
4
3
6
5
6
3.4
5
5
10
4.1
5.5
Ammonia
3
3
3
6
3
5.1
6
4.4
Summer
1.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
1.1
0.3
1.2
Winter
2.4
0.2
0.5
0.6
0.2
1.8
1.8
0.6
0.9
002 PH FROM
TO
6.5
7.5
7.6
7.4
7.4
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.3
7.5
7.4
AVG
7.9
7.7
8
7.8
7.9
7.65
8.2
7.8
8
7.9
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.8
8.8
7.8
7.75
7.6
7.55
7.6
7.6
7.55
8.15
7.6
7.7
007 DO
2 Phosp
7.1
NIL
7.2
6.1
7.3
7.2
7.5
7.5
8
9.3
9.4
8.5
8.3
7.5
7.4
7.9
Nitrogen
NIL
12
6.25
12.5
8.2
N\A
%k
6.9
Quantity (KG/D)
8.8
N\A
%k
11.1
BOD
Summer
57
21
12
15
14
31
Winter
174
22
26
32
36
89
41
33
23.9
Ammonia
Suspended
227
26
22
43
31
38
30
17
20
54
33
25
41
47.6
53
33.3
Summer
12.1
0.4
0.3
0.2
1.1
0.3
Winter
18.2
N\A
N\A
0.5
1.2
1.2
17.9
6.8
Fecal Coliform
200
150
57
40
119
68
78
125
62
148
50
63
126
90.5
Rainfall (in -PM)
5.92
4.51
8.49
2.46
3.891
3.74
1.96
6.22
3.3
3.73
5.79
6.89
4.7
Rainfall (in-JHD)
4.68
3
4.2
4.42
3.32
3.39
2
down
down
down
down
7.14
4.0
The Villages al Artrip
Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan
May 20, 2005
D. Water Supply
Water services will be extended from existing and/or planned water mains on or adjacent
to the Property. (see Exhibit 22).
The following connections will be provided for water service:
1. Extension of the proposed water main from Wakeland Manor at the southeast and
Crosspointe Center at the west; and
2. Extension of the proposed water main in Parkins Mill Road Extended from Canter
Estates to the east.
A schematic plan and improvements for water mains is shown on Exhibit 23.
Water demand for The Villages at Artrip is shown on the aforementioned Table 3. The
primary water source is 3,000,000 gallons per day (MGD) of ground water pumped from
quarries on the west side of Stephens City. This water is then treated at the James H.
Diehl Water Filtration Plant (WFP) that normally treats up to 3.2 MGD. However,
additional pumps can increase this capacity to 4 MGD. The WFP is also configured for
an additional filter unit that will increase capacity to 6 MGD.
Another water source in the northern portion of the County available to the proposed
development is a quarry in Clearbrook and nearby wells. The Authority also purchases
finished water from the City of Winchester, which gets its water from the Shenandoah
River. This water is then treated at the Northern Treatment Plant, which has a current
capacity of 4 MGD, and is expandable to 6 MGD.
After treatment from one of these two WTP's, water is stored in one of three elevated and
two ground storage tanks with a total capacity of 3,00,000 gallons of system water
storage.
In addition, the FCSA provided the following WTP data:
Current Capacity =
Current Usage =
Current Available Capacity =
9.25 MGD
4.7 MGD
4.5555 MGD
According to the WTP, the only pending development anticipated to contribute additional
flows is Crosspointe Center, and the estimated flow demand from that project at build -out
conditions in 2012 is 0.634550 MGD. However, a proposed WTP upgrade project
scheduled for completion by 2012 will increase the WTP's capacity by 4 MGD.
13
The Villages at Artrip
Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan
May 20, 2005
The 20" primary water distribution main from the Diehl WFP is west of this site on the
Crosspointe Center project, and distributes water in both the Abrams Creek and Fort
Collier/Stonewall Industrial Park areas of Frederick County. Additionally, the 500,000
gallon Route 642 elevated water storage tank is located west of the project, on the
property rezoned for Crosspointe Center.
Water mains within the development will be looped and extended to existing and/or
proposed mains on the adjoining projects to meet Frederick County Sanitation Authority
("FCSA") design requirements. This combination of water supply service will provide
adequate fire protection and domestic service for all phases of the proposed commercial
and residential uses. To -date, discussions with FCSA has not identified any deficiencies
in the water systems that will serve this project.
14
r►,
The Villages at Artrip
Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan
May 20, 2005
E. Drainage
Drainage will be provided on an equal basis by two major streams: the Opequon Creek
and an unnamed tributary to the Opequon Creek (see Exhibit 24).
Drainage generally flows from the center of the site then north to the Opequon Creek or
south to the unnamed tributary to the Opequon Creek, and each stream then flows east
where they meet offsite, just southeast of the Parkins Mill WWTP.
The project will provide onsite stormwater management (SWM) in accordance with
Virginia's Stormwater Management Handbook through design of several wet and dry
SWM basins, grassed swales, and other best management practices (BMP) (see Exhibit
25).
These facilities will provide a combination of two and ten-year frequency water quantity
management by detaining and releasing post -developed runoff to pre -development rates,
as well as providing water quality management of the "first flush" (i.e. - %2" to 1" runoff
depth from impervious areas) of the post development runoff. 100 -year quantity
management will only be provided where deemed necessary by the County to protect
downstream properties from flooding conditions.
One SWM facility of note is the proposed conversion of an existing farm pond to a
central amenity lake feature. This lake will be designed to provide SWM, but will also
function as an attractive focal point for the project.
15
e
TH E V1LLAG ES
e T ARTRI P
.
i
TO OPE(UON
Drawn By
Project Number
EXISITNG MAJOR DRAINAGE DIVIDES
File Number
Dewberry
RJS
76030007
THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP
.ti
Designed By
RJS
Date
JUNE 2004
Dewberry & Davis LLC
WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC
611 West Jubal Early Drive
-4
D.B. 713, PG. 417
Drawn By
Project Number
EXISITNG MAJOR DRAINAGE DIVIDES
File Number
Dewberry
RJS
76030007
THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP
Designed By
RJS
Date
JUNE 2004
Dewberry & Davis LLC
WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC
611 West Jubal Early Drive
D.B. 713, PG. 417
EXHIBff
Checked By
Scale
Winchester, Virginia 22601
PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN
24
PHONE: 540.678.2700
FAX: 540.678.2703
MTW
1 "--2000'
SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRCIT
www.dewberry.com
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
C3�
z
i
_ �+�re.►' y+ - _. - -_ �-i,.-�.,R� suers _ - _ �-r-} .. _ " _ - - _. -. _ -- _ __ _ _..... \ .. �. .
i r
,
_. 1 7
,
01
a •
t
- -- _. -
1�
J
,
h•
Op i
UOry \,t
,
ji
{
q
- - ,
t.�> � 1 ;. i ..^ �. `-• _ ;i ice.
_ � j .fl lT�
- {
c
r
A
,,�,'� p f � 1`a•`-J/^�.. -� fir- ':. 's,T;>�,�•r �. iC./ r��,%/� _ -'�._ _ - -. - _.•.` - !') .. � _i'' �-i:
...<�. �,;. 'y,•_r�. "��� �'�f,. :� A/... :.; :l 'r;r.� fir'. ��'�.� ` - - tf -.. f_ .1- ''1t \
1
_
_ C
,
,-
EX. FARWTO BE
I POND
.} f s''., -•L :,,, -'_ c,sn. „_J.-'."�,�- �.rh y - ', m\ \•l ..7., ,.,•..._ ':f I\ �i._ •\ t�. ^! \L ] y
- f
TO A LAKE AIaEM1 tTY~
�":.•. 4 a - !r\`�\ `-,j-� f-7 \'�''",)i\..1 ,/ \ .�„ _ "yr r t..�._ 1 tr,t t-z..(•'�- FACiLrri - •,� \ = 1 _
i.\t. 'fir' •:�, 'C ` _ f - i irm �c=�!`, '.f.e \ •..L.�/�. _ �C S�ii�
r
,,. 79j. ` .,bre., , ...L. s,..._�t J,_e�-=r.-:-.. I � .,, •, ,, , .� � \\ i i ��'c .
-
7
C J
7.
�J.aa�_-� .�, 1�� \ � ��\ ..,Y!\ I��-' {l,e•� "-z'i- Cd��s�i~;,�.t' � z -
'
,_" _:<----'--r--�*....5 --•-..f�ts -t—_" fi-?'-t �`� .�!.� . J �'� �',°. \ \.,. d ,. t 1:\ 1. i1 `(r -'3 r �.1 '- i'2�, �',�..£ ej - ,i4 .i j� i �-? ...".- _ �,..• 4 .
(
L-
f ,� If I
{ v
� i
J
-\ -rit !yt—: i-� i� z• ` (` a , __tt -,:, AAP FACT _
1
,,,. _:•-�.• ,--,, i t- .� t , \: ,z' \� i =�c
y-
2,
'
-DRY SWM/BMP LIiY,
� �� J 5 �. `~ , ��y� � tt _ ' 1 _!'�-•- -.._. ._ _ .i;r
,
0
1, -7
a
t y.
�..X �,: "1 _ , est_, `- - \ u v' 9\�, \ � .ct �1' .!. i'; _ J, .til y A�..,.• ,4 ,_. _ ;i
}✓,✓�4, -' ,, ':tc 1 � 1 , t 'f-�a� ` p J'i!"r :i i . t \ V _ � ��, .. '.yt � _ I,-''-,,
t MM:
A. rpt�. -i At ti +.i-,. r ', •� • {s. l �.i t, .,\ ,{' 'a }•: ! - - _ - - . \ -
,.. -\,r. ..«1-'t• 3,, _.iii i * t _-' '.t, �'l � � .. x x. F � -'.y, 1 , �
-: r. ; _
iV _-
'co \ i 1
1
,
4 re
,.. , ' r_:• _.___.... _._..--,..-- .'ti i� - illi
ti
,
-
,'�`'t•
I �
t
\ t ,_ �'••'� ___r ! i f , ...._.. - l } ..1 1. ,. -1, , ` of
,
3
1
`.{;. " ' - •_�- '.:,: " -•- : rte, _.• i , � ....,:.�-. °.__.--"- _...,-. (; f.,ic s l__..
1 t
_
r
. , �� , tis \� 1 , i � ` ! f r'.. :- \�' ti.. �Sr �, t: - \\ 5,. , r < r � +a � ', r f .. ,. x •, t .. � `7 , t ,
*,X-
�.- `/ .'/' ,) ,� J�. ! �� S. w.)�f� > / j� \ f,i'i)V `�• <. '.�..� .jam -
-�
x L ' -/ , ; �: ^� / , -. �'----'t• \ -. ,- ' � ! <. - �, i \ . - ! - �-.-.rz•.:... -ia r...r �a=�7c_�Q-��.�`-ter - .-�:.i•�+-irv.
i
�z�
.=
-
Drawn By
Project Number
PROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT / BMP FACILITIES
File Number
Dewberry
RJS
76030007
�-
THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP
Designed By
Date
JUNE 04
Dewberry & Davis LLC
WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC
EXHIBIT
611 West Jubal Early Drive
D.B, 713, PG 417
Checked By
Scale
Winchester, Virginia 22601
PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN
25
PHONE: 540.678.2700
MTW
1 "=500'
SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
FAX: 540.678.2703
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
www.dewberry.com
,
The Villages atArtrip
Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan
May 20, 2005
F. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
The anticipated waste generation is provided in Table S.
Given the size of this project, a central trash collection facility is not warranted.
Therefore, the Applicant proposes that private refuse carriers provide curbside pickup for
haul to the County's regional, state-of-the-art Subtitle D Solid Waste Landfill, located off
of Sulphur Springs Road.
Additionally, the Applicant will encourage residents and commercial tenants within the
Villages at Artrip to reduce their trash generation, recycle, reuse, compost yard waste, by-
products made of recycled -content material, and to take tires, household chemicals and
used motor oil to recycling centers whenever possible. These actions are consistent with
the County's voluntary recycling program with nine drop off stations that are located at
the citizens' convenience centers.
16
905 Residential Units, 118,550 sf Commercial/RetaiYOfficalRestaurant
THE VILLAGES AT ARTR/P
RESIDENTIAL
UNIT TYPE
PHASE I
RESIDENTIAL
UNITS
TOTAL
300
CUMULATIVE TOTAL GENERATION
300
COMMERCIAL
PHASE
COMMERCIAL/RETAIL/OFFICE/RESTAURANTUNITS
PHASE III
TOTAL
0
CUMULATIVE TOTAL GENERATION
0
GRAND TOTAL GENERATION
UNITS
0
NOTES:
1. ALL RESIDENTIAL GENERATION @ 12 LBS/UNIT
2. COMMERCIAURETAIUOFFICE/RESTAURANT GENERATION @ 100 LBS/DAY/1,000 SF
5/20/2005 8:44 AM
P:iProjeot176030007\Admn\May20submission\REZONING TA8LES.xIs6 SOL WSTE GEN
THE VILLAGES AT ARTR/P
TABLE 5
SOLID WASTE GENERATION
PHASE/I
PHASE III
GENERATION
UNITS
GENERATION
UNITS
GENERATION
TOTAL
3600
3600
380
4560
225
2700
10860
3600
380
4560
225
2700
10860
8160
10860
PHASEI/
PHASE IU
GENERATION
UNITS
GENERATION
UNITS
GENERATION
TOTAL
0
10000
1000
165700
16570
17570
0
10000
1000
108550
16570
17570
0
1000
17570
3600
8160
28430
2843
0
NOTES:
1. ALL RESIDENTIAL GENERATION @ 12 LBS/UNIT
2. COMMERCIAURETAIUOFFICE/RESTAURANT GENERATION @ 100 LBS/DAY/1,000 SF
5/20/2005 8:44 AM
P:iProjeot176030007\Admn\May20submission\REZONING TA8LES.xIs6 SOL WSTE GEN
The Villages at Artrip
Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan
May 20, 2005
G. Historic Sites and Structures
Dewberry conducted initial referrals with the Frederick County Planning Department,
including a review of the following sources:
• RLS — Rural Landmarks Survey
• HRAB — Historic Resources Advisory Board
• VLR — Virginia Landmarks Register
• VDHR — Virginia Department of Historic Resources
• NRHP — National Register of Historic Places
• FCWBTF — Frederick County -Winchester Battlefield Task Force
• FEIS Route 37 Final Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4 (f) Evaluation.
Initial research determined the following potential sites of significance related to the
development of the Villages at Artrip (see Exhibits 26 & 27):
1. The foundation remains of a 19'h century homestead site (44FKI 12); and
2. A domestic dump with items circa 1950-1970 (44FK115); and
3. A springhead box (44FK116); and
4. An earthen dam circa Iate 19`h early 20"' century (44FK117) (note: this location may
be misrepresented on the DHR records and may be the on-site farm pond); and
5. The Artrip family cemetery with 3-5 gravesites (44FK118); interment status
unknown.
17
t
Dewberry
Dewberry & Davis LLC
611 West Jubal Early Drive
Winchester, Virginia 22601
PHONE: 540.6782700
FAX: 5402782703
Drawn By Plan Number
RJS/KLT 7603007
Designed By Date
MTW JUNE 2004
Checked By Scale
MTW 1"= 1000'
HISTORIC RESOURCES SITES
THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP
WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC
D.B. 713, PG. 417
PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN
SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
HISTORICAL RESOURES
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE
INVENTORY
2:
SITE
NUMBER FK112
OPQ
64
- LIMESTONE FOUNDATION
WILLIAM
ALBIN
FARMSTEAD
SITE
NUMBER 44FK1 15
OPQ
66
- DOMESTIC DUMP SITE
SITE
NUMBER 44FK116
OPQ
69
- DOMESTIC SECONDARY
STRUCTURE
1 I-:
SITE
NUMBER 44FK1 17
OPQ
70 -
AGRICULTURAL
18:
SITE
NUMBER 44FK1 18
OPQ
71 -
FUNERARY, CEMETERY
File Number
L�J0I11.
26
The Villages at Artrip
Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan
May 20, 2005
The Applicant commissioned R_ Christopher Goodwin & Associates to perform a
"Historical Sites & Structures Report", dated May 26, 2004 (see Appendix E). The
results of this report noted and concluded:
The earliest records examined as a part of'this survey dealt
with a parcel that Phillip Williams sold to Armed Parkins;
Mr. Williams foreclosed on a deed of trust of the Sowers
family. John Sowers may have obtained the property in two
transactions conducted in the late eighteenth century_ .. .
Thirty-five years later, in 1877, property belonging to
Alfred Parkins was sold, upon his death, to Robinson
Keyser. . . . Five years later, in 1882, Robinson and
Elizabeth Keyser sold 575 acres to Jesse R_ Bailey.1
Preliminary examination of materials at the archives at
Handley Library in Winchester provided little information
concerning past occupants of the project area_ No
significant information was found about the Artrip family;
the Slonaker family, owners of the property from 1912 to
1962, was the subject of an extensive genealogy. No
substantial information was found that revealed potential
significance of the Slonaker family. Little information was
found for other owners of the project area, including Jesse
K Bailey and Robinson Keyser. D.J. Lake's 1885 Atlas of
Frederick County, Virginia depicts Bailey's residence just
west of the Winchester -Front Royal Turnpike, on land that
probably was part of his purchase described in the 1882
deed, which included the project area.3
Although extensive evidence exists for intensive
prehistoric and historic period activity along Opequon
Creek, to date, no evidence has been found of prehistoric
activity within the Artrip parcel. The previously identified
sites date from the historic period, and reflect eighteenth,
nineteenth or twentieth century activity. Five previously
identfed archeological sites are present within the
proposed development area; at least four of the five sites
are interrelated and represent a possible district
associated with the eighteenth through twentieth century
occupation of the William Albin Farm. All of ' these sites
are located in the central and north -central portion of the
property, along the well-established drainages that drain
'Appendix E, p_ 11.
3 Appendix E, p_ 17.
18
The Villages atArtrip
Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan
May 20, 2005
northward into Opequon Creek.
The central site is the William Albin Farm (44FK1 12);
which was recorded in 1991 as an eighteenth and
nineteenth century rural farmstead. An ancillary site to the
central farmstead is the well, or sink (44FKI16) located
slightly to the west of the core farm complex. A third
component of the farm complex comprises an earthen dam
(44FK1 17), built across the major drainage on the
northwestern side of the complex_ The final component of
the complex is a small graveyard (44FK11 8) in the
northeastern portion of the area. A fifth, unrelated, site
within the proposed development area comprised a late
historic period dump (44FK115) in the extreme
northeastern portion of the property.
The present concept plan calls for the creation of a
combined residential and commercial development that
encompasses most of the 170 -acre site area. The two major
drainages that feed Opequon Creek on the north, and the
steeply sloped areas that flank them are exempted from the
design plan, as are the smaller drainages that cross the
property on the south and southeast. Two of the previously
identified resources, the Graveyard and the Dump Site, are
located within the northern area, outside of the planned
development. Avoidance has been recommended for the
dump, and evaluation of its extent and integrity has been
recommended for the graveyard( along with fencing for
controlled access. Three of the previously identified
cultural resources, the William Albin Farmstead (44FK1
12), the Earthen Dam (44FK1 18), and the Well Cistern
(44FK1 16), are located within the portion of the property
identified as Landbay A. ¢
In addition to the above, after review of the Historic Site and Structures Report, the
HRAB coordinator determined this project will not require a formal review (see Section
6).
4 Appendix E, pp. 17-18.
19
The Villages at Artrip
Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan
May 20, 2005
H. Impact on Community Facilities
The revenue projections from structures and facilities and the projection of cost of
services are set forth on the Fiscal Impact Model. Additionally, the Applicant has
provided the following additional information.
o Education
Primary and secondary educational instruction is anticipated to be provided to school-age
students generated by the project primarily in the following public schools (see Exhibit
28):
• Armel Elementary with enrollment as of 02/29/04 at 680 and a program
capacity of 662 (which may be reduced to 644 in January 2005); and
• New Middle #4 with enrollment as of 02/29/04 at 0 and a program capacity of
850; and
• Sherando High with enrollment as of 02/29/04 at 1,255 and a program
capacity of 1,400.
In addition, the Dowell J. Howard Vocational Center and Northwestern Regional
Education Program is within relatively close proximity to the project for
vocational/technical training, as is Shenandoah University and Lord Fairfax Community
College, both for higher learning institutions. A new elementary school is proposed in
this part of the County for potential opening in 2006 to alleviate overcrowding at Armel
Elementary. However, temporary structure(s) are proposed at Anne] during summer
2004 to alleviate overcrowding for the 2004-2005 school year until such time as the new
school is constructed.
The Applicant has proffered to dedicate approximately 11 acres of property to the County
for use as an elementary school site in conjunction with other adjacent properties, in
order to mitigate impact on schools occasioned by the development of not only this
property, but other properties in the area.
20
1.
1 APPLE PIE RIDGE ELEMENTARY
ES
2.
ARMEL ELEMENTARY
ES
3.
BASS—HOOVER ELEMENTARY
ES
4.
GAINESBORO ELEMENTARY
ES
5.
INbIAN HOLLOW ELEMENTARY
ES
6.
MIDDLETOWN ELEMENTARY
ES
7.
ORCHARb VIEW ELEMENTARY
ES
8.
R05EBUD RUN ELEMENTARY
1
ES
9.
SENSENY ROAD ELEMENTARY
ES
10.
STONEWALL ELEMENTARY
Fe
11.
FREDERICK COUNTY MIDDLE
MS
12.
JAMES WOOD MIDDLE
MS
13.
R.E. AYLOR MIDDLE
MS
14.
JAMES WOOD HIGH
HS
15
SHERANDO HIGH
HS
16.
DOWELL J. HOWARD VOC
VDC
17.
NORTHWESTERN REG.
VOC
ED. PROGRAM
13.
NEW MIDDLE SCHOOL
Vs
WEST VIRGINIA
a
VO,
IDewberry
Dewberry & Davis LLC
611 West Jubal Early Drive
Winchester, Virginia 22601
PHONE: 540.6782700
FAX: 540.278.2703
www.dewberry.com
IQ
YFIELD
GAINESBORO
ROUND
HILL
WEST VIRGINIA
W
VIRGINIA
6
18�
iTEPHEN
GTY :
S `•� THE VILLAGES
AT ARTRIP
MfDDLET0 ;
> ® ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
S �EDERICK CO. _ Q MIDDLE SCHOOL
WARREN CO. HIGH SCHOOL
O vo—TECH SCHOOL
SCHOOLS NEAREST SITE
SCHOOL DISTRICTS DRAFTED CHECKED
RJS/KLT Mnry
THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP DATE SCALE
WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC
JUNE 2004 1 "=4 MI.
PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN
SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT PROJ, NO, EXHIBIT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 76030007 28
THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP
TABLE 6
RESIDENTIAL UNITS STUDENT GENERATIONS
PHASE
# UNITS
ELEMENTARY
RATE
# STUDENTS
PHASE 1
300
0.39
117
PHASE 11
380
0.39
148
PHASE III
225
0.39
$8
TOTAL
905
352.95
MIDDLE
290
HIGH
RATE
# STUDENTS
RATE
0.14
42
0.17
0.14
53
0.17
0.14
32
0.17
926.7
# STUDENTS TOTAL
#STUDENTS
51
290
65
266
38
958
953.85
_
633.5
The Villages at Artrip
Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan
May 20, 2005
Police Protection
Police protection for this project will be provided by the Frederick County Sheriff's
Department in downtown Winchester, and the Virginia State Police, Kernstown Barracks.
o Fire and Rescue Protection
Primary fire protection and rescue services for this project will be provided by the
Stephens City Volunteer Fire & Rescue Company.
o Parks and Recreation
The proposed project will contain a community center and swimming pool for the
residents' use and the Applicant will dedicate land for an elementary school site, which
will contain additional recreational fields that can be enjoyed by residents of the
community, as well as by the school itself. Additionally, residents will likely utilize the
facilities at Sherando park as well as the indoor racquetball courts and weight room
facilities in the community building on the Sherando High School campus.
o Solid Waste Disposal
Residents from this project will generate refuse for disposal at the County's landfill
located off of Sulphur Springs Road (VA Route 655).
o Other Government Activities
None applicable.
See exhibits 29-32 for facility locations.
21
10 REGIONAL JAIL
STATE POLICE
WEST VIR
Dewberry
Dewberry & Davis LLC
611 West Jubal Early Drive
Winchester, Virginia 22601
PHONE: 540.678.2700
FAX: 540.278.2703
www.dewberry.com
POLICE SERVICE FACILITI
LOCATIONS
THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP
WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC
PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN
SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
DRAFTED
RJS/KLT
DATE
JUNE 2004
PROJ. NO,
76030007
MIA
CHECKED
MTW
SCALE
1"=4 MI.
EXHIBIT
29
STATI
5KEP'-4ENS CITY VOL. t,RE AND RESCUE CO.
2.I MIDDLETOWN VOL FIRE AND RESCUE CO.
13. CLEARSROOK VOL. FIRE AND RESCUE CO.
4. GORE VOL FIRE AND RESCUE CO.
5. ROUND HILL COMM. VOL FIRE AND RESCUE CO.
8. 1 GAINESBORO VOL. FIRE AND RESCUE CO.
7. STAR TANNERY VOL FIRE AND RESCUE CO.
S. GREENWOOD VOL FIRE AND RESCUE CO.
9. NORTH MOUNTAIN VOL FIRE AND RESCUE CO.
10. REYNOLDS
MI WOOD STATION
TION VOL ANDRESCUE
CO.
SCUE CO.
.itE.o.Ds:� a, WEST VIRGINIA
1p
r• �
WEST VIRGINIA Ross
Z` �O GAINESB0
o%/ '
.- ' t
= CLfgRBOK
3
ELD `T `
LIND
`VIRGINIA
/ ! -iINC Tr4 e..
STAR
R . :k NNERY 1 ` STEPHEN
ct
THE MLLAGES
AT ARTRIP
SLE
FIRE & RESCUE
cb
tpERICK CO. ADVANCED LIFE
SUPPORT
WARREN CO.
AIRPORT
FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE DRAFTED CHECKED
1r4"� FACILITY LOCATIO
,TDewberry NS RJSIKLT MTyy
o THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP
Dewberry &Davis LLC DATE SCALE
611 WEST JUGAL EARLY DRIVE WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC JUNE 2004 1"=4 MI.
WINCHPHONE: CH ,678.2 0 22601 PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN
PHONE: 540.678.2100
FAX:540.678.2703 SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT PROJ. NO. EXHIBIT
www.dewbe,rrv.com FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 76030007 30
Dewberry & Davis LLC
611 WEST JUGAL EARLY DRIVE
WINCHECHESTER, VA 22601
PHONE: 540.678.2700
FAX:540.678.2703
www.dewberry.com
PARKS AND RECREATION
FACILITIES LOCATION
THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP
WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC
PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN
SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
'INIA
DRAFTED
Dewberry
RJS/KLT
MTW
D.
SCALE
Dewberry & Davis LLC
611 WEST JUGAL EARLY DRIVE
WINCHECHESTER, VA 22601
PHONE: 540.678.2700
FAX:540.678.2703
www.dewberry.com
PARKS AND RECREATION
FACILITIES LOCATION
THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP
WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC
PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN
SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
'INIA
DRAFTED
ICHECKED
RJS/KLT
MTW
DATE
SCALE
JUNE 2004
1 "=4 MI.
PROD. NO. I EXHIBIT
7603000731
'7INI A
Dewberry
Dewberry &Davis LLC
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL LOCATIONSS
THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP
DRAFTED
RJS/KLT
CHECKED
MTW
DATE
SCALE
WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC
611 WEST JUBAL EARLY DRIVE
JUNE 2004
1"=4 MI.
WINCHECHESTER, VA 22601
640.678.2700
PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN
PROJ, NO.
EXHIBIT
FAXPHONE:
SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
www.dwber2703
www.dewberry.com
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
76030007
32
IMPACT ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
VILLAGES AT ARTRIP
Introduction)
The Winchester Artrip Limited Liability Company, a Virginia LLC, has submitted its
application for consideration by the Frederick County Planning Commission and Board
of Supervisors to rezone the Winchester Artrip LLC Property ("the Property" hereinafter)
located in Frederick County, Virginia from Rural Areas (RA) to Residential Planned
Community District (R4). The Property is identified in detailed submissions that have
been filed with the Planning Department.
The Property is currently vacant and was formerly used for farming activities for at least
the past 40 years. It is within the County's 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan (CPP)
South Frederick Planning Area. In addition, the entire Property lies within the County's
designated Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer & Water Service Area
(SWSA) and is adjacent to several prominent developments either under construction or
approved, including Crosspointe Center to the west, Canter Estates V to the east, and
Lakewood Manor and Wakeland Manor to the south.
The applicant believes this request is timely and will assure the County significant tax
revenue, transportation improvements, and more importantly, will provide an orderly
development of this Property that provides a diverse mix of uses and products in
accordance with the spirit, intent and goals of the CPP.
Development Proposal
The proposed project is aptly named for the various small villages contemplated for this
mixed-use residential and commercial development. These villages include six land bays
that include single-family and multi -family residential uses, a neighborhood commercial
center, a central "Core Area" integrating the commercial center, interior and perimeter
"greens" or "commons" as depicted on the MDP, and a comprehensive road, bike path
and sidewalk network to connect the villages and reflect master -planned roads designated
on the CPP. A significant portion of the project is laid out on a grid pattern and is
oriented with "true" north, similar to traditional development planning, both of which are
characteristics of neo -traditional design.
The proposed gross residential density is 5.40 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC), with
densities within the various land bays ranging from 2.59 to 21.08 DU/AC. The
residential land uses will include a mix of single-family and multifamily products that are
specified on the MDP and in the associated proffers.
1 This Executive Summary expands upon and describes certain details of the proposed
project that have developed in detail during the Applicant's discussions with the various
review agencies.
We note that three proposed residential products will be new to the Frederick County
market, as well as product types not specifically listed within the Zoning Ordinance.
These are the "stacked -flats" units, apartments over retail, and back-to-back town homes.
These multifamily product types have been successful in other areas within the region,
and meet the need for variety and various price points of housing, which we believe is a
key element to a successful mixed-use development.
With the inclusion of the variety of housing types, the applicant has requested
modifications to the bulk and dimensional standards to achieve the mixed-use and
neotraditional design concepts that are important to achieving the correct land use
balance. Moreover, the Applicant has committed to a residential phasing plan that is
linked to the phasing of construction of proffered road improvements, including the
extension of Warrior Drive referenced herein.
The Applicant also requests a modification of the requirements of § 165-71 of the R4
District which provides that no more than 40% of the area of those portions of the
planned community designated for residential uses shall be used, among other housing
types, for townhouses or garden apartments or any combination of those types. The
current layout of the Core Area and those elements of the associated Land Bays that
provide higher density for single family attached units and multifamily units, are critical
to the creation of that Core Area, and to the development of an integrated and "walkable"
community. It permits the integration of the several linked communities in a far more
attractive and functional manner than larger lot development would permit. Limitation of
the area that may be devoted to such homes would actually produce more suburban
sprawl than the County likely either anticipates or desires for this portion of the County.
Given the residential densities approved in Wakeland Manor, and the densities to be
developed in Crosspointe, most particularly the large amount of commercial space, a
higher density development for this project is in keeping with the Warrior
Drive/Crosspointe Boulevard corridor.
The approval of this rezoning, as it has developed during consultation with the staff, will
produce a unified and coherent series of communities that are unlike any other in
Frederick County, both in the mix of uses, the innovative and attractive design of the
Core Area and its supporting Land Bays, and the provision of much-needed public lands
and roads as further detailed herein. These design elements, together with the
Applicant's commitment to the provision of land for a school site, and construction of
major elements of the County's road network, justify the additional density that is
proposed.
This project will include commercial/retail uses, though on a materially smaller scale
than Crosspointe. Initially, the Applicant can only commit to construction of 10,000
square feet of commercial development before Warrior Drive is completed from
Interstate 81 through to Route 340/522 creating a through road that will alleviate traffic
on Tasker Road, and provide a well-designed and completed connection from one major
County transportation corridor to another. Once that connection is made, however, the
Applicant anticipates that the project will readily sustain the total commitment of 118,550
2
square feet of retail, office and restaurant space_ Because of the integration of walking
paths from adjoining residential areas to the retail, restaurant and office uses, as well as
different time periods of the uses within these elements, and because the applicant is very
sensitive to the appearance of providing a "sea of parking" for this area of the project,
and strives to reduce total impervious areas for environmentally friendly design
principles, shared parking for the retail, office and restaurant uses may be justified.
In order to assure the County that the Core Area will develop consistently with the MDP,
and in a timely manner, the Applicant has committed to certain aspects of the
development of that Area. This includes specific commitment to commercial, residential
and community uses within the Core Area, which is to conform to a grid lot layout, and
to the street layout and unit types shown. The Applicant shall continence development of
the Core Area at the outset and not fewer than 30 residential units shall be built there as
part of Phase I of the development. Not fewer than two housing types will be provided in
that Core Area overall.
Development within the Landbays on the Property outside the Core Area will also
conform to the street layouts, points of connection to Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill
Road, and to the limits of development as are depicted on the MDP subject to reasonable
adjustment on final engineering.
In addition to the MDP, the Applicant has proffered a Concept Development Plan as a
separate attachment to the MDP, which gives specific guidance on the layout of the
residential and other elements of the Core Area. Development of other Land Bays
outside of the Core Area will occur within a defined road layout and limits of
development subject to reasonable adjustment on final engineering, and the housing
styles that are permitted within each Land Bay have been identified on the MDP.
There are also specific project proposals that materially advance the County's planning
needs, beyond the development of, and commitment to, an innovative and detailed land
development plan.
Warrior Drive
The 2003 CPP's Eastern Road Plan area designates this road as a "New Major Collector".
Additional research in the CPP implies this road to be closed section/urban in character.
The adjacent development plans of record for Crosspointe Center and Wakeland Manor
show this road in various functional classifications. The Applicant has committed to the
phased construction of all of Warrior Drive on its Property, from its future connection
with Crosspointe Boulevard through to Wakeland Manor. This will include the costly
construction of a bridge crossing of a tributary of the Opequon, in the South and
construction of full four lane sections of Warrior throughout. The Applicant has
estimated the cost to construct Warrior Drive to a four -lane section through the project
(approximately 3,700 feet), including the bridge crossing at approximately $5,000,000.
3
Parkins Mill Road Extended
The 2003 CPP's Eastern Road Plan area designates this road as a "New Minor
Collector". Additional research in the CPP implies this road to be open section/rural in
character. The adjacent development plans of record for Canter Estates § V show this
road as an 80' wide reservation, with no listed functional classification. The Applicant
has committed to the construction of Parkins Mill Extended to the edge of its property
boundary, permitting an ultimate connection to Canter Estates. The proffered road
section is indicated on the MDP.
Dedication of Land for an Elementary School Site and Other Purposes
As an integral part of its revised application, the Applicant will dedicate 11 acres of
property to be used in conjunction with adjacent properties for the location of an
elementary school site. The Applicant also proposes to offer to the County additional
useable land adjacent to the school site, for public use. Such dedication is conditional
upon the preservation of a superb tree area on a knoll on that property.
Fiscal Impact
The Applicant has also proffered to contribute funds to the County consistently with
fiscal impact modeling provided by the Planning Department, and the proffers that are
associated with this rezoning application.
Summary
Because of the unique nature of this proposal, and its inclusion of design elements that
have not heretofore been accomplished in Frederick County, but which are desired
elements of the County's CPP and which employ the County's amended R4 zoning
classification to maximum benefit, the applicant also herewith requests an increase in the
permitted density cap of 4 DU/AC per County Code, Article IV, §165-72.C, an increase
in the maximum permitted land use area of 40% of the total residential area for
multifamily products, and modification of the previously -mentioned dimensional
standards to accomplish the Frederick County's outlined objectives.
The justification for the modifications sought is essentially that a neotraditional
development cannot be accomplished using the traditional Euclidian patterns of
development, and standard public and private road and lot designs. Jurisdictions in
which such developments have been approved have recognized the need for such
modifications, and the County is aware that the recent revisions to the VDOT Secondary
Road Standards now contains provisions for neotraditional street designs that
accommodate the evolving development of such street patterns.
The justification for the increased density beyond the 4 units to the acre contemplated for
the R4 district can be found in the need for such increased density to finance the private
construction of one of the County's principal arterial routes and the advancement of its
transportation plans for this area of the County, and the dedication of a school site to
service the already approved population in the area.
Moreover, the use of neotraditional designs advances
• The intent of the 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan; and
• Unification of architectural styles; and
• A truly walkable community; and
• Integration of residential villages and neighborhood commercial uses within one
"community"; and
• A balanced design of preserving environmental features, while meeting the intent
of a mixed-use community for a variety of land uses, efficient layout of the
transportation system and Land Bays, and providing a community that will not
create a burden on the tax payers; and
• Provision for multiple housing types to attract the largest variety of residential
housing consumers; and
• Completion of major CPP road links
The Applicant respectfully requests approval of this Rezoning Application.
Exhibits:
Exhibit 1
Vicinity Map
Exhibit 2
Aerial Photograph
Exhibit 3
Boundary Verification
Exhibit 4
Topographic Survey
Exhibit 5
Zoning Map
Exhibit 6
2003 Comprehensive Plan
Exhibit 7
Urban Development Areas and Sewer and Water Service Area
Exhibit 8
Illustrative Plan Housing Types
JA00\00419 Tower\0041Application Submittals11AS Narrative 061905.doc
5
INI;m
DewbeVICINITY
MAP
DRAFTED
CHECKED
rr
RJS
MTW
THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP
Dewberry & Davis LLC
DATE
SCALE
611 WEST JUBAL EARLY DRIVE+�-4,a�d�
WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC
BLDG e, SUITE C
D.B. 713, PG, 417
JUNE 2004
WINCHESTER, VA 22601
PHONE: 540.678.2700
PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN
PROJ. NO.
EXHIBIT
FAX: 540.678.2703 f
SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
www.dewberry.com +
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
76030007
.w � t-4fE:�.,� �.•as ._ "4 ,"*{ by v w ,�•� l�,yrT it iw�fr,
,• �a kyr. wr 3 '4 r
t
O�n
aNy
�r'� 1 y,iL� �� ..� �� d" i �~°'V;�h�ty r;i `��., >. �C9 k t�S�r�� C•."k�i �k7��� . `a
Ax
fol.
j
W.
4N
�° ��r:i ` i •�� �' ��' "t'. �� �j�' � tis,:
-' S• ^�r F
t
o:
THE
{ WTI
F
�., s. y. ,
may.
p
Y
-15
,
• � ass 'r
" .ITrF
+
i
I
TM -75 ((A))-95 I
N/F GLAIZE DEVEL. INC.
DB 896/1819
S66'30 59
"E 408.b9'
2k��2,
cj$ 3g� 3h
LEGEND
TM 76—((A))-13
N/F ARTRIP
DB 281/221
iS60'2�_ E�.
1011.53'
O IRON PIPE/REBAR FND.
0 TREE FND. (SIZE & SPECIES NOTED)
o WOODEN FENCE POST FND.
� 1
0.
!A Go
2
TM 75—((A))-96
N/F GLAIZE DEVEL. INC. `
DB 896/1819
TM 75—((A))-97
N/F LICHLITER
INSTR. # 01-00-1165
1
60 1 62
Dewberry
Dewberry & Davis LLC
611 West Jubal Early Drive
Winchester, Virginia 22601
PHONE: 540.678.2700
FAX: 540.678.2703
www.dewberry.com
FND. FND.
DBL. 22" 16" ELM
CHESTNUT OAK 562.55'38"E
829.34'
TM 75 ((A)) -99A
ARTRIP
DB 713/417
TRACT 1 — 169.009 ACRES
169.924 ACS. TOTAL
S7 '14' 37'�E�
i '►1
ND.
WHITE
IAK
S36'19'46"W 174.84'
IM 76—((A))-23
N/F DANFORD
RIDGE PROPERTIES, L.C.
DB 935/1533
S19'48'14"W 77.43'
ADJOINING PROPERTY
OWNER
INFO
TM 75G-((11))-116
TM 75G-8-5-85
N/F
N/F
SANTORO & CHAGNON
ADAMS
INSTR. # 00-02/789
D.B.752, PG. 322
TM 75GN�f1))-117
TM 75GN� B))-60
OO
M 11'� SWIGER & VITELA
DAVIS
00 O INSTR. # 00-02/6178
DB 673/402
O TM 75G-((11))-118
r-
TM 75G -((4B))-62
V7 FOSTER
N/F
CLARK
DB 950/671
DB 879/1310
TM 75G-((11))-120
N/F
TM 75G -((4B))-63
MILLER
N/F
DB 707/861
BEARDSLEE
TM 75G-((11))-121
INSTR. # 00-02/1481
N/F
TM 75G -((4B))-64
WINC./ARTRIP L.P.
N/F
DB 718/868
RODRIGUEZ
N0 TM 75G-((11))-122
DB 960/812
O ELLIOTT
TM 75-((A))-101
DB 981/266
WAKELAND MANOR
TM 75G-((11))-123 D7TRUST
N/F
DB6/685
WINGFIELD
TM 75-((A))-99
INSTR. # 00-00/1187
N/F
FREDERICK CO.
SANITATION AUTHORITY
DB 583/320
cfl O
r
r
TRACT 2 i9
0.915 ACRES N78'07'33"W
18.27'
N10'28'13"W S58'22'54"E N89'33'00"W
�-106.83' 1005.22' 145.60'
TM 75—((A))-101
463'14'08 W 120 117 N54'05'43"W 5a6�6h�1 FND. WAKELANANOR
937,09' 121 118 116 101 1760.52' 12" WHITE LAND TRUST
64 85 123122OAK DB 776/685
O / 99
Drawn By JM Plan Number 1276007
Designed By Date JUNE 2004
Checked By Scale
KN 1 "=300'
BOUNDARY VERIFICATION File Number
PROPERTY OF
THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP
WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC
D.B. 713 PG, 417 EXHIBIT
PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN
SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
3
Me.... . L-7 PA11
•-jlljib�' -/z
�Z,
A
M - K
x, 2
01
X
WL
zzi- F \1 74.84'
N /F,,,,,,C
nn,
x
ZO46 ELM -
M' /7
R L
... . ...... V-
60 V - Coll"
9 R
9�3
42 A
S"
C-
4"
TpR ,.,..4
E,
Z iN\
A,
oNi\
R,
ic� -:�PRGPE-RTIES; V.C,
.4 -5z
"if
j /,- --- -- -�-- C !;QVV 5,3�
Z
A r
S� Z �ff, A�,�,,�/ r. •9!.r . r,r�: . 1 . �. ; _..i r r' >r -... _ ,.../ z
N�
10 il�v
lip 1. 1.
k I lit
f
t„ i; k�i IV
-
�A,kk T
11;n
4 J,
IfUl!
S;4X-
1 �trli •A6JOINING 00PERTY!
I �l I ti; wNER oqF6
`1 :girls 0
1TM 75G-((11))-lW T� 7�G-8-�51-85i
gg;�-
ij I ,
A -,\x
A!, 0
4�
v 90,
it, Tki 75 ((A))-
N/F,
99A AJX/Mp(S'�
SANT0Fik-&'QiA(;N6N
R�
nrw ob-02/789 P Gi 321
AR:
'TM -4i
---bB 71
'A\\
5
y-
0-
--2 --l-69\924 X165` , TA -L--- -
X1, 'LA
78
7jj F1'g( 1D -
n
A if
T� C=
.2; \��,
\%
IF
'Co
A
-CI, k
L AE
ii;E', R
J 'I
i - Xv
711
Ti4
It N
r J
N/F 1
R
-DSLPE
I t _6EA�DS1104 I 'I
A
V ioi NSTR P'00�q; /1,41
tit L\P
Vo
2�
It
--Tm' �5G=�14 V_;,8)41
C4
-AD131 71� OPR q
\x
VVIN�\
TM 75'-
j
Ild q
T _tlkELLI
-- -- : i' \ \'A'
J
-D8 -W i. 2
"OR
...... .... ti
S�T
3
VIt L. v
I; t` fill i
1:0
TM 75-
�((A )--9t
N/F QLAIZE' D
!8
I
lub b9b
-4
\\ 1J -AtM4
�
p
/x"
.`TM 754( A�)-,§-7- 10
"N
N /ff,'Ll HLIT
N STR.0 -00-1165
V,
)C'
*3
A Xk-
-54 h; 9- 3'00"W
A\\
N
§58-22' A -
Ni 0 W
05.22 145.60'
k
10
TM 75-((A))-1 01
ELAND MANOR
6,yj 0
.5'43,
17,
il WHITE LAND TRUST
A I;
63 -712.0 T
AK DB 776/685
0
I,/ XI
Dewberry Drawn By I Plan Number
JLM 76030007 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY File Number
Dewberry & Davis LLC Designed By Date JUNE 2004 THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP
611 West Jubal Early Drive I I WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC
Winchester, Virginia 22601 Checked By Scale D.B. 713 PG. 417 EXHIBIT
PHONE: 540.678.2700 PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN
FAX: 540.678.2703 KWN =300' SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
www.dewberry.com FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 4
a
J
Ln
Ln
0
a�
c
rn
w
0
a -
Q
z
D
J
Q
C>
0
0
N
N_
LnCn
3
>3
J
_Z
Z
O
N
I
Cil
C:
N
N
Q
CA
U
eY
Q
C5
M
'J
CJ
>3
�a
.O
�o
tU
:ga
01
rz
int
i
6"
R
'i
}
.,-
Dewberry
Dewberry &Davis LLC
Drawn By
RJS
Project Number
76030007
ZONING MAP LEGEND --71
File Number
Designed By
RJS
Date
JUNE 2004
RA
RURAL AREA DISTRICT
D.B. 713, PG. 417
RP
RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT
Scale
EXHIBIT
R-4
RESIDENTIAL, PLANNED COMMUNITY
1 "=3 000
MILL
SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL PRECINCT (STRICT
®
R-5
RESIDENTIAL, RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
MH -1
MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY DISTRICT
B-1
BUSINESS, NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT
B-2
BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT
!�
B-3
INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION DISTRICT
M-1
INDUSTRIAL, LIGHT DISTRICT
M-2
INDUSTRIAL, GENERAL DISTRICT
EM
EXTRACTIVE MANUFACTURING DISTRICT
HE
HIGHER EDUCATION DISTRICT
=y
CITY LIMITS
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA
PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAYS
SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAYS
PRIVATE ROADS
}
.,-
Dewberry
Dewberry &Davis LLC
Drawn By
RJS
Project Number
76030007
CURRENT ZONING MAP
THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP
WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC
File Number
Designed By
RJS
Date
JUNE 2004
611 West Juba! Early Drive
Winchester, Virginia 22601
D.B. 713, PG. 417
Checked By
Scale
EXHIBIT
PHONE: 540.678.2700PARKINS
FAX: 540.678.2703
NITW
1 "=3 000
MILL
SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL PRECINCT (STRICT
wvwv_dewberry.com
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
LEGEND
Study Area
ren 7,060 acres
/**:SWSA Boundary
Arterial and Collector Raod Projects t
pt* WATS Road Improvements
141 Additional Collector Roads
l Dopowd Traffic Sieg ral
Zonirtg
q �l RA (Rural Area District)
RP (Residential Performance District)
R5 (Residential, Recreaticna Community)
MH1 (Mobile Home Community)
BI (Business, Neighborhood District)
B2 (Business, General District)
B3 (Industrial, Transition District)
M1 (Industrial, Light District)
M2 (Industrial, General District)
EM (Extractive Manufacturing District)
HE (higher Education District)
CPPS & Staff Recommendations WIC
Proposed Land Use ;0
jj Agricultural
0 Residential
'7 -y1
Business ;
:3 Industrial
.�yInstitutional
Utility
Recreation
Historic
Mixed -Use
PUD
- ` Public Trail System
Eneiromental Constraints
f.e to t R G:, r0 'Net.
bww�—
Dewberry Drawn By KLT 7sos000� Plan Number 2003 COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN File Number
SOUTH FREDERICK COUNTY LAND USE PLAN EXCERPT
Dewberry & Davis LLC Designed By Date JUNE 2004 THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP
611 West Jubal Early Drive KLT WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC
Winchester, Virginia 22601 Checked By Scale D.B. 713, PG. 417 EXHIBIT
PHONE: 540.678.2700 PARKINS MILL PRECINCT
FAX: 540.678.2703 MTW As Shaven SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
www.dewberry.com FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
I- - - - - - -------------
Urban
------ -Urban Development Area
& Sewer and Water Service Area
Frederick County, Virginia
1
1
It
T,� f illl :tt V•
i
71 A -40
THE VILQkGES
n r G T ARTRIP Mrjr Rook,
1 ;�y"Z" S t - f'onnfJ tfoundrvy
_ � 1'ry-rnls
(Uusine+�i, N- 11 I 1 ntv !
_ �/ g f Mr fnnr trim
�%i f/ \ ___EM(Eztrn.t:va �imru/raYunny fliktrlrt)
44), HE flhgher EJurofwn M,1-1)
MI lhWua'frtul. 1-fyhl ,m,Oi /
7'4d f M1(/ndustrial. (:en of D .Mc!)
MHz (Mobilo Home (-fmitg f)ivtnrt)
ms(M,,bi l S'.,a 1
munrty lhstrrcy
k;(Xrsirfen(uil Necrr<einnd l:ym
kA (Rural Areas Dist 1
---t ; RI (Re W,oGcJ fo rfo„names u,Sj egj
i
f \ r Q urban Devrlopmenf Arvn
1ru+rr oml wofer .tirnriro 4n
Dewberr
.■.
Y1
Dewberry & Davis LLC
611 WEST JUBAL EARLY DRIVE
BLDG B, SUITE C
WINCHESTER, VA 22601
PHONE: 540.678.2700
FAX: 540.678.2703
www,dewbem.com
Urban Development Area
DRAFTED
& Sewer and Water Service Area
KLT
THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP
DAIS
WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC
D.B. 713, PG. 417
JUNE 2004
PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN
PROD. NO.
SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
1276014
CHECKED
MTW
SCALE
As Shown
EXHIBIT
7
GARDEN APARTMENTS
(RIGHT)
TREE LINED
BOULEVARD
REE LINED
OULEVARD
VILLAGE OPEN SPACE
COMMERCIAL SPACE
ON GROUND FLOOR,
APARTMENTS/
OFFICE SPACE ABOVE
PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION ROUTES
THIS PLAN IS INTENDED TO SHOW POSSIBLE UNIT TYPES. ACTUAL ELEVATIONS AND MATERIALS
WILL VARY. THIS EXHIBIT IS TO BE USED FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE
RELIED UPON FOR ANY LEGAL OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. ACTUAL LOCATIONS OF STRUCTURES,
ROADWAYS, LANDSCAPING, UNIT TYPES, ELEVATIONS AND MATERIALS MAY VARY AT TIME OF
CONSTRUCTION.
ALLEY -SERVED VILLAGE HOME
STACKED FLATS
STACKED FLATS
BACK TO I3ACK UNIT
STACKED FLATS END UNIT ENTRY
STACKED FLATS
INTERIOR UNIT ENTRY
STREET FRONT TOWNHOME
(ABOVE)
VILLAGE HOME,
ALLEY -SERVED
CLUSTER HOMES
ALLEY -SERVED UNITS
FRONT LOADED DETACHED CLUSTER
..,Ire De+wberr
��* 9
Dewberry & Davis LLC
611 West Juba[ Early Drive
Winchester, Virginia 22601
PHONE: 540.678.2700
FAX: 540.678.2703
www.dewberry.com I
Drawn By
RJS
Plan Number
76030007
ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN - HOUSING TYPES
CONCEPTUAL BUILDING 1: LEVATIONS
THE VILLAGES AT ���RTRIP
WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC
D.B.713, PG. 417
PARKINS MILL PRECINTINCT
SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
File Number
Designed By
JS
Date JUNE 2004
EXHIBIT
8
Checked By
MTW
Scale
1 "=400'
I
A Phased 'traffic Impact Analvsis of the
v iiiabes at 'A'
Located in:
Frederick County, Virginia
Prepared for:
The Tower Companies
11501 Huff Court
North Bethesda, Maryland
20895
Prepared by:
Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc
Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. LandsccpeArchitects.
300 Foxcroft Avenue. Suite 200
Martinsburg, West Virginia 25401
H RAT 304.264.2711
PF 304.264.3671
December 15, 2004
OVERVIEW
Report Summary
Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has prepared this document to
present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Villages at Artrip development
located between Tasker Road and the Opequon Creek (northeast of the Lakeside Drive
dead-end) in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed project is to include 820 units of
residential, 60,000 square feet of office, approximately 150,000 square feet of retail and
two (2) 6,000 square foot restaurants with access to be provided via the planned Warrior
Drive (future roadway). The proposed development will be built -out over three (3) phases
by the year 2012. Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the location of the Villages at Artrip
with respect to the surrounding roadway network.
Warrior Drive is proposed as a new arterial that would provide a connection from
Fairfax Pike (Route 277), through Tasker Road (Route 642), to north of the future
Crosspointe Boulevard (extended Route 37). The completion of Warrior Drive, however,
may not occur until the final stages of construction for the Villages at Artrip. Therefore, in
order to address all possible roadway network conditions, PHR+A has prepared build -out
analyses for two (2) interim transportation phases. The following provides a description of
each phase: Phase 1 (2006) 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 (2009) assumes 577 residential units and 10,000 square feet of retail along
with the completion of Warrior Drive from south of Tasker Road to the northern property
extents of the Villages at Artrip; and Phase 3 (2012 - Full Build -out) 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 (future roadway within
the planned Crosspointe development).
Methodology
The traffic impacts accompanying the Villages at Artrip development were obtained
through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document:
• Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of
impact,
• Calculation of trip generation for Villages at Artrip,
• Distribution and assignment of Villages at Artrip generated trips onto the study area
road network,
• Analysis of capacity and level of service using the newest version of the highway
capacity software, HCS -2000, for existing and future conditions.
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
PH R l December 15, 2004
Page 1
No Scale
U
Figure 1
PHizn
Vicinity Map - Villages at Artrip
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 2
EXISTING CONDITIONS
PHR+A obtained AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the
intersections of Route 37/1-81 southbound ramps, Route 37/1-81 northbound ramps and
Route 37/Tasker Road from the report titled: A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis o�
Crosspointe Center, by PHR+A, dated September 10, 2003. Since these counts were
conducted prior to Year 2004, an annual growth rate of 5% was applied. PHR+A then
conducted "new" traffic counts at the intersections of Tasker Road/Lakeside Drive and
Tasker Road/Warrior Drive to complete the study area. ADT (Average Daily Traffic) was
established 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 9%.
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 Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
PH R+ 1 December 15, 2004
Page 3
Figure 2
I
11Vcrage Daily Trips
Existing ADT and AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 4
PH
���A Phased Traffie Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 5
PHASE I ANALYSES (2006
The 2006 roadway network assumes the completion of Warrior Drive from south of
Tasker Road to the northern property extents of the Villages at Artrip site. PHR+A
assumed the partial build -out Of CrOSSDOmte Center and Wakeland Manor (background
developments) to coincide with the completion of the proposed Phase 1 Villages at Artrip
development (297 residential units).
2006 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
In order to accurately depict future conditions within the study area, PHR+A
utilized the following traffic studies to determine the trips associated with not yet
completed area developments: 1) A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center,
by PHR+A, dated September 10, 2003; and 2) A Traffic Impact Analysis for Wakeland
Manor, by KELLERCO, dated June 30, 2003. Based upon the 7th Edition of the Institute
of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, Tables la and lb are provided
to summarize the calculated trips associated with each of the 2006 "other developments".
Table la
LUU6 Background Development #1: Crosspointe Center
Total Trips 484 515 999 1,126 1,148 2,274 24,433 1
Total Internal 74 74 147 304 304 608 6,478
Total Pass -by 26 26 52 112 112 225 2,405
Total "New Trips" 384 416 800 709 732 1,441 15,550 I
Table lb
LUUO Background Development #2: Wakeland Manor
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT
210 Single -Family Detached 199 units 37 111 148 125 74 199 1,985
230 Townhouse/Condo 107 units 9 45 55 43 21 64 931
Total Trips 46 157 203 168 94 262 2,916 I
PH
���A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 6
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Code
Land Use
Amount
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
210
Single -Family Detached
555 units
99
298
398
316
185
501
5,550
230
Townhouse/Condo
140 units
11
56
68
53
26
79
1,218
252
Elderly Housing - Attach
100 units
4
4
8
7
4
710
Office
95,000 SF
158
22
180
31
154
11
185
348
1,282
820
Retail
375,000 SF
211
135
346
719
779
1,498
16,035
Total Trips 484 515 999 1,126 1,148 2,274 24,433 1
Total Internal 74 74 147 304 304 608 6,478
Total Pass -by 26 26 52 112 112 225 2,405
Total "New Trips" 384 416 800 709 732 1,441 15,550 I
Table lb
LUUO Background Development #2: Wakeland Manor
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT
210 Single -Family Detached 199 units 37 111 148 125 74 199 1,985
230 Townhouse/Condo 107 units 9 45 55 43 21 64 931
Total Trips 46 157 203 168 94 262 2,916 I
PH
���A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 6
In addition to the trips relating to the specific background developments described
in Tables la and lb, existing traffic volumes were increased along study area roadways
using an historic growth rate of 5%v per year (compounded annually) through Year 2006.
Figure 4 shows the 2006 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key
locations throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 5 shows the corresponding
2006 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. HCS -2000
levels of service worksheets are provided in the Appendix section of this report.
PHASE 1 TRIP GENERATION
The total trips produced by and attracted to the Villages at Artrip site were
established using the 7`h Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip
Generation Report. Table 2 summarizes the trip generation results for the proposed Phase
1 Villages at Artrip development. A detailed description of internal/pass-by trips are
provided in the Appendix section of this report.
PHASE 1 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT
Assuming the 2006 roadway network, PHR+A utilized the trip distribution
percentages shown in Figure 6 to assign the Phase 1 Villages at Artrip trips (Table 2)
throughout the study area. Figure 7 shows the corresponding development -generated
AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments.
2006 PHASE 1 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS
The Villages at Artrip assigned trips (Figure 7) were added to the 2006 background
traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2006 build -out conditions. Figure 8 shows the 2006
Phase 1 build -out ADT and AMIPM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout
the study area roadway network. Figure 9 shows the corresponding 2006 build -out 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.
PAH
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
RDecember 15, 2004
Page 7
. �vrrage Daily Trips I
Figure 4 2006 Background ADT and AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Pk-R+A
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 8
Figure 5
SITE
,
(�=� Denotes Free -Flow Lane
* Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
2006 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 9
Table 2
Phase 1: Villages at Artrip
Trip Generation Summary
Code Land Use
Amount
In
ANI Peak Hour
Out Total
In
PM Peak Hour
Out Total
ADT
Percentage
of Total
Land Bay A
210 Single -Family Detached
230 Townhouse/Condo
39 units
258 units
9
19
28
91
37
110
29
88
17
43
46
131
390
2,245
Land Bay C
488 Soccer Complex
3 field
2
2
4
43
19
62
214
Total Trips
30
121
151
159
79
239
2,849
100%
Total Internal
Total Pass -by
1
0
1
0
2
0
16
0
16
0
31
0
107
0
7%
0%
Total "New Trips"
29
120
149
144
64
208
2,742
93%
PJ�Rl�
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 10
�T
in
No Scale
Figure 6
Phase 1: Trip Distribution Percentages
TE
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page i l
H
See/Fid re 7b
CE
M Peak Hour)
Average Daily Tris
Figure 7a Phase 1: Development -Generated Trip Assignments
PH
��A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 12
d
No Scale
Q/
3� I
/
/
. to Dove
/ Sp\IBS_
_ t
t
t
1 _
_ --_ `SiieDtiveP21B
Land Bay B 1
♦ ;'q
♦' S
♦
C�
Figure 7b
f
:d N'
S,� ,•mow
Land Bay A
SITE SSP
I
A ,I
�P Land Bay E
P ':P K,os i � •O
Land Bay D
Site r
Drive Di �fl r
i�
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
Average Daily
Phase 1: Development -Generated Trip Assignments (Detail)
PH
���A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 13
Average Baily Trips
Figure 8a Phase 1: 2006 Build -out ADT and AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
P A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
IL December 15, 2004
Page 14
No Scale
>I
qI
o I
3�cI
♦
♦
1
1
Land Bay B
�SlteD{ive P,21g2
t�
\
Land Bay A
SITE srre
. P'
I
Land Bay E
eo- Land Bay D
Site
q
Div Dl fir
�Ol
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
DailyAverage
Figure 8b Phase 1: 2006 Build -out Traffic Conditions (Detail)
PH
R+A A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 15
—"motes Pree- low Lane
* Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Figure 9a Phase 1: 2006 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service
PH
��A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 16
No Scale
Land Bay B
Hjt
Land Bay A d �-
SITE
J.
I
JfI
I
Land Bay E
n ."
9
about
A(A)
Land Bay D
* Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Figure 9b Phase 1: 2006 Build -out Lane Geometry and LOS (Detail)
PH
� A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 17
PHASE 2 ANALYSES (2009)
The 2009 roadway network assumes the completion of Warrior Drive from south of
Tasker Road to the northern property extents of the Villages at Artrip site. PHR+A
assumed the partial build -out of Crosspointe Center and Wakeland Manor (background
developments) to coincide with the completion of the proposed Phase 2 Villages at Artrip
development (577 residential units and 10,000 square feet of retail).
2009 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
In order to accurately depict future conditions within the study area, PHR+A
utilized the following traffic studies to determine the trips associated with not yet
completed area developments: 1) A Phased Traffic Impact Analysi r of Cro sspointe Center,
by PHR+A, dated September 10, 2003; and 2) A Traffic Impact Analysis for Wakeland
Manor, by KELLERCO, dated June 30, 2003. Based upon the 7th Edition of the Institute
of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, Tables 3a and A are provided
to summarize the calculated trips associated with each of the 2009 "other developments".
Table 3a
2009 Background Development #1: CrossDointe C".vntPr
Code
Land Use
Amount
In
AM Peak }lour
Out Total
In
PM Peak Hour
Out Total
ADT
210
Single -Family Detached
833 units
148
444
592
455
267
722
8,325
230
Townhouse/Condo
210 units
16
78
93
74
36
110
1,827
252
Elderly Housing - Attach
150 units
5
7
12
10
6
17
522
710
Office
142,500 SF
219
30
249
41
198
238
1,752
820
Retail
562,500 SF
269
172
441
940
1,018
1,957
20,870
Total Trips 658 730 1.388 1,519 1,526 3,045 33,296 I
Total Internal 94 94 189 397 397 795 8,436
Total Pass -by 33 33 66 147 147 294 3,130
Total "New Trips" 530 603 1,133 975 982 1,956 21,730 I
Table 3b
2009 Background Development #2: Wakeland Mang
PH" A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 18
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Code Land Use
Amount
In
Out Total
In
Out Total
ADT
210 Single -Family Detached
298 units
54
163 218
180
106 286
2,978
230 Townhouse/Condo
161 units
13
63 75
59
29 89
1,396
Total Trips
67
226 293
240
135 375
4,374 I
PH" A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 18
In addition to the trips relating 10 the specific background developments described
in Tables 3a and 3b, existing traffic volumes were increased along study area roadways
using an historic growth rate of 5% per year (compounded annually) through Year 2009.
Figure 10 shows the 2009 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key
locations throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 11 shows the corresponding
2009 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. HCS -2000
levels of service worksheets are provided in the Appendix section of this report.
PHASE 2 TRIP GENERATION
The total trips produced by and attracted to the Villages at Artrip site were
established using the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip
Generation Report. Table 4 summarizes the trip generation results for the proposed Phase
2 Villages at Artrip development. A detailed description of internal/pass-by trips are
provided in the Appendix section of this report.
PHASE 2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT
Assuming the 2009 roadway network, PHR+A utilized the trip distribution
percentages shown in Figure 12 to assign the Phase 2 Villages at Artrip trips (Table 4)
throughout the study area. Figure 13 shows the corresponding development -generated
AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments.
2009 PHASE 2 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS
The Villages at Artrip assigned trips (Figure 13) were added to the 2009
background traffic volumes (Figure 10) to obtain 2009 build -out conditions. Figure 14
shows the 2009 Phase 2 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key
locations throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 15 shows the corresponding
2009 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000
levels of service worksheets arb included in the Appendix section of this report.
PH
Jl� A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 19
Average Daily Trips
Figure 10 2009 Background ADT and AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
PH 1 + 1 December 15, 2004
Page 20
PP
No Scale
SITE
�Y-
-l�
I '
♦
♦
' signalized "S�
Intersection Impr
♦� LOS-B(B)Sig'
Wl
♦ ark
♦ e`Ro
♦-♦ B(Bj�d< F
Denotes Free -Flow Lane
Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Figure 11 2009 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service
PH
���A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December I5, 2004
Page 21
Table 4
Phase 2: Villages at Artrip
Trip Generation Summary
AM Peak Hour PM Perk hour Percentage
Code Land Use Amount In Out TotalIn Out Total ADT
of Total
210 Single -Family Detached
102 units
20
60
81
69
40
109
1,017
230 Townhouse/Condo
438 units
29
140
168
135
67
202
1811
820 Retail
10,000 SF
24
15
.39
66
71
137
1,20
Land Bay B
210 Single -Family Detached
37 units
9
27
36
28
16
44
373
Land Bay C
488 Soccer Complex
3 field
2
2
4
43
19
62
214
Total Trips
84
244
328
340
214
554
6,935 100%
Total Internal
1
I
2
16
16
31
107 3%
Total Pass -by
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0%
Total "New
Trips"
83
243
326
325
198
523
6,828 97%
PH
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
R+ADecember 15, 2004
Page 22
No Scale
Figure 12 Phase 2: Trip Distribution Percentages
PH
���A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 23
Average Daily Trus
Figure 13a Phase 2: Development -Generated Trip Assignments
P]�PA A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 24
No Scale
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
n Average Daily Trips
Figure 13b Phase 2: Development -Generated Trip Assignments (Detail)
PH
��A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 25
e6dla95i�Dt`ve
ihl- r s
/Site Dtt`e
\
Land Bay A
o r •, �,-�-'
Land Bay B
DOe
SITE
,
`�
se
q•�O�;Le
«� mob`
�'
i 3 5
U,
Land Bay E
akeside Drive
'>>
Land Ba C
y
q� Land Bay D
'P P
w�9J
oa
1
jsite
�►pttve D1
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
n Average Daily Trips
Figure 13b Phase 2: Development -Generated Trip Assignments (Detail)
PH
��A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 25
No scaic
<n.r
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
DailyAverage
Figure 14a Phase 2: 2009 Build -out ADT and AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
PAH
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
RDecember I5, 2004
Page 26
No Scale
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
n 1
Figure 14b Phase 2: 2009 Build -out Traffic Conditions (Detail)
PH
��� A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages atArtrip
December 15, 2004
Page 27
v/
a
i J
I
/S1te Di iv e
1
,.
Land Bay A
Land Ba B
Bay
`N r'
SITE
b,
Land Bay E
s
z a
akeside Dnve
Land Bay C
q�
Land Bay D
s.
l"
r site
DnveDl tp
4- I � P b
o
OIOI
J
J
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
n 1
Figure 14b Phase 2: 2009 Build -out Traffic Conditions (Detail)
PH
��� A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages atArtrip
December 15, 2004
Page 27
PT
A * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement I
- TP+/ \ AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Figure 15a Phase 2: 2009 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service
PH
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
IL December 15, 2004
Page 28
No Scale
* Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement
^ AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Figure 15b Phase 2: 2009 Build -out Lane Geometry and LOS (Detail)
PH
���A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages atArtrip
December 15, 2004
Page 29
/
Unsignalized
J�
Intersection
i
O '
Site Dnve
pi et,2ie2
Land Bay A
o
Land Bay B
SITE
'
e d
Unsignalized
Intersection ty
Pa
�'
Land Bay E
'16
Roundabout
LOS = A(A)
Lakeside Drive
Land Bay D
<t,
Land Bay C
n
ar'o
siteDrjVeDl
r
f�►
�
ti,�s�a��a
* Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement
^ AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Figure 15b Phase 2: 2009 Build -out Lane Geometry and LOS (Detail)
PH
���A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages atArtrip
December 15, 2004
Page 29
PHASE 3 ANALYSES (2012
The 2012 roadway network assumes the completion of Warrior Drive from south of
Tasker Road to north of Crosspointe Boulevard (future roadway with the planned
Crosspointe development). PHR+A assumed the full build -out of Crosspointe Center- and
Wakeland Manor (background developments) to coincide with the completion of the
proposed Phase 3 (full build -out) Villages at Artrip development.
2012 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
In order to accurately depict future conditions within the study area, PHR+A
utilized the following traffic studies to determine the trips associated with not yet
completed area developments: 1) A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center,
by PHR+A, dated September 10, 2003; and 2) A Traffic Impact Analysis for Wakeland
Manor, by KELLERCO, dated June 30, 2003. Based upon the 7th Edition of the Institute
of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, Tables 5a and 5b are provided
to summarize the calculated trips associated with each Of the 2012 "other developments".
Table 5a
1zL 1),acngruunu vevelopment 4f i: urosspointe Center
Total Trips 819 938 1,758 1,882 1,874 3,755 41,580'
Total Internal 113 113 225 481 481 961 10,174 I
Total Pass -by 39 39 79 178 178 355 3,774
Total "New Trips" 667 786 1,454 1,224 1,215 2,439 27,632 I
Table 5b
Lutz Background Development #2: Wakeland Manor
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT
210 Single -Family Detached 397 units 72 215 287 234 137 371 3,970
230 Townhouse/Condo 214 units 16 79 95 75 37 112 1,862
Total Trips 88 294 382 309 174 483 5,832
PH
��A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 30
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Code
Land Use
Amount
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
210
Single -Family Detached
LI 10 units
197
590
786
589
346
935
11,100
230
Townhouse/Condo
280 units
20
98
118
94
46
140
2,436
252
Elderly Housing - Attach
200 units
7
9
16
13
9
22
696
710
Office
190,000 SF
276
38
313
50
242
292
2.187
820
Retail
750,000 SF
320
204
524
1,136 1,231
2,367
25,161
Total Trips 819 938 1,758 1,882 1,874 3,755 41,580'
Total Internal 113 113 225 481 481 961 10,174 I
Total Pass -by 39 39 79 178 178 355 3,774
Total "New Trips" 667 786 1,454 1,224 1,215 2,439 27,632 I
Table 5b
Lutz Background Development #2: Wakeland Manor
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT
210 Single -Family Detached 397 units 72 215 287 234 137 371 3,970
230 Townhouse/Condo 214 units 16 79 95 75 37 112 1,862
Total Trips 88 294 382 309 174 483 5,832
PH
��A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 30
In addition to the trips relating to the specific background developments described
in Tables Sa and Sb, existing traffic volumes were increased along study area roadways
using an historic growth rate of 5% per year (compounded annually) through year 2012_
Figure 16 shows the 2012 background ADT and ANL/PNl peak h®ur traffic volumes at key
locations throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 17 shows the con-esponding
2012 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. HCS -2000
levels of service worksheets are provided in the Appendix section of this report.
PHASE 3 TRIP GENERATION
The total trips produced by and attracted to the Villages at Artrip site were
established using the 7ch Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip
Generation Report. Table 6 summarizes the trip generation results for the proposed Phase
3 Villages at Artrip development. A detailed description of interna]/pass-by trips are
provided in the Appendix section of this report.
PHASE 3 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT
Assuming the 2012 roadway network, PHR+A utilized the trip distribution
percentages shown in Figure 18 to assign the Phase 3 Villages at Artrip trips (Table 6)
throughout the study area. Figure 19 shows the corresponding development -generated
AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments.
2012 PHASE 3 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS
The Villages at Artrip assigned trips (Figure 19) were added to the 2012
background traffic volumes (Figure 16) to obtain 2012 build -out conditions. Figure 20
shows the 2012 Phase 3 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key
locations throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 21 shows the corresponding
2012 build -out 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.
PH
���A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 31
Average Daily Trus :1
Figure 16 2012 Background ADT and AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Pt � A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 32
i
No Scale
Figure 17
Denotes Free -Flow Lane
* Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
2012 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 33
Table 6
Phase 3: Viliages at Artrip
Trip Generation Summary
-16 ,,,,y 0 may oe reptacea oy au apartment units (ITE Code 220) with trip generation
totaling 43 AM peak hour, 62 PM peak hour and 480 daily trips. This would result in a reduction of 55 AM Peak Hour, 312 PM peak hour and 3604 daily trips.
** The completion of Warrior Drive will create diverted background thru traffic that will utilize the retail components of the Villages at Artrip.
PHFZA
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 34
AM Peak Hour
Ply l Peak Hour
Percentage
Code
Land Use
Amount
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
of Total
Land Bav A
210
Single -Family Detached
139 units
27
80
107
91
53
144
1.390
220
Apartment
76 units
8
33
41
39
21
59
456
230
Townhouse/Condo
438 units
29
140
168
135
67
202
3.811
710
Office
60,000 SF
110
15
125
25
121
146
900
820
Retail
103.700 SF
98
62
160
308
333
641
6,953
932
H -T Restaurant
6,000 SF
36
33
69
40
26
66
763
932
H -T Restaurant
6,000 SF
36
33
69
40
26
66
763
Land Bay B
210
Single -Family Detached
51 units
11
34
45
37
22
58
510
Land Bav C
488
Soccer Complex
3 fields
2
2
4
43
19
62
214
Land Say D*
820 Retail (4.2 -acres @ 0.25 FAR)
45,738 SF
60
38
98
179
194
374
4,084
Land Bav E
220
Apartment
116 units
12
48
61
53
29
81
696
Total Trips
428
519
947
989
910
1,899
20,540
100%
Total Internal
47
47
94
165
165
331
3,262
14%
Total Pass -by**
19
19
39
76
76
152
1,656
6%
Total "New Trips"
361
452
814
748
669
1,416
15,623
80%
* PHR+A nerfnrmed
an:dvcic accumino rhe v,nrci—t ,.tee ........_ , _ .,_..
—
. _ __
-16 ,,,,y 0 may oe reptacea oy au apartment units (ITE Code 220) with trip generation
totaling 43 AM peak hour, 62 PM peak hour and 480 daily trips. This would result in a reduction of 55 AM Peak Hour, 312 PM peak hour and 3604 daily trips.
** The completion of Warrior Drive will create diverted background thru traffic that will utilize the retail components of the Villages at Artrip.
PHFZA
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 34
No Scale
Figure 18
PIH-R+A
Phase 3: Trip Distribution Percentages
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 35
IL Average wily Tris
Figure 19a Phase 3: Development -Generated Trip Assignments
PH
���A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 36
No Scale
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
+nTrips
Figure 19b Phase 3: Development -Generated Trip Assignments (Detail)
PH
���A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 37
c �l
37
„Y9 .
24,
No Scale \ ` m - ~ ,, �''�,,' 'h "�2°ro
�l37
f
o,
o
0
to
Road
14
(41)6��A ((( (4)
(96)S9
Q h
JO
C o5s0bio(e �o 00
(0 B/�d ~`181( ( 8 8)
(198)6p �J rBJ
(86,446 ` , o
s o ` See Figure 20b
(4j,-
0(0)
4 SAp
SITE
L�
Lakeside Drive
a1 91
0-09 4S2 1��3rS
O 9,
Road
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
-1+ —Average Daily Trips
H'�'�
Figure 20a Phase 3: 2012 Build -out ADT and AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
PH
�� A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 38
No Scale
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
ftfl,. f �.
PAH
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
RDecember 15, 2004
Page 39
No Scale
Signalized
Intersection
LOS =D(F)
�(F
LOS F(F)
Signalized
"Sw,gested -
Intersection
Improx` ments"
LOS=C(C)
EB - t
IN
Unsignalized
Intersection
& I Freerto,, Right
/4j
NB - 2 Lel'ts
'ti'
Tkcr
1~tUs _ J� r` CE
J
Road
�c� G
`Gl
Denotes Free -Flow Lane
* Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement
37
/ Signalized
Intersection
LOS = B(B)
0
i���7 lac
I
Unsignalized
Intersection
Intersection
LOS = B1(C1�) 1c7
ssPoinre gI'd
B�q
See Figure 21b
Signalized "Suggested
Intersection Improvements"
�oS LOS=QQ Added 4th Leg
EB/WB - 1 Lt, 1 Rt
Unsignalized
Intersection
Ta NB - I Thru
s'Ee,. SB - I Lt 1 Thru I RI
/4j
CL0
'ti'
Tkcr
1~tUs _ J� r` CE
J
Road
�c� G
`Gl
Denotes Free -Flow Lane
* Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement
-Pi R+
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Figure 21a
Phase 3: 2012 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
��
PH
December 15, 2004
Page 40
No Scale
(L)L lkl
L
0
3
Signalized
Intersection
LOS = A(C)
C(C.l
Land Bay B
Signalized `� v
Intersection � �^
LOS =B(B)
G:
Land Bay A
SITE
Roundabout
LOS = A(A)
S Pa A side Drtve
at Land Bay C
l �
vi\\ 1;Ea���
Unsignalized e
Intersection
Land Bay D
r.s.
L r�
C
9
/}� packets
FlE`�f+I
Unsignalized
Intersection
Unsignalized
-� Intersection
r� rr
Land Bay E
Intersection ,v
1� F
ry►
* Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Figure 21b Phase 3: 2012 Build -out Lane Geometry and LOS (Detail)
PH Jl� A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 41
CONCLUSION
The traffic impacts associated \\ith the proposed Villages at Artrip development arc
acceptable and manageable. The fol lo�.� m2 describes the future (Year 2012) operatin`
conditions at each of the study area intersections.
• Route 37/SB I-81 ramps: In order to achieve acceptable overall levels of service of
"C" or better during 2012 background and build -out conditions, the following
intersection improvements were assumed: 1) One lane was added along the
southbound approach; 2) One thru lane in the eastbound and westbound directions.
respectively, and 3) The westbound left -turn movement to southbound 1-81 was
eliminated. All vehicles would be rerouted to the eastbound I-81 southbound ramp
via the Route 37/US Route 11 interchange.
• Route 37/NB I-81 ramps: In order to achieve acceptable overall levels of service of
"C" or better during 2012 background and build -out conditions, the following
intersection improvements were assumed: 1) The intersection is to be realigned to
the east at the approximate location of the existing Tasker Road; 2) Two eastbound
left -turn lanes were added; 3) One thru lane in the eastbound and westbound
directions, respectively; 4) One lane was added along the northbound approach; and
5) A designated right turn lane was added in the westbound direction to allow free
flow travel onto northbound I-81-
• Crosspointe Boulevard/Tasker Road: For 2012 background and build -out
conditions, this intersection will operate with overall levels of service of "C" during
the AM peak hour and "D" during the PM peak hour assuming the following
improvements: 1) Tasker Road is to be realigned to the east through the proposed
Crosspointe Center site; 2) Route 37 was extended through the Crosspointe Center
site as Crosspointe Boulevard.; 3) The new intersection of Crosspointe
Boulevard/Tasker Road will be signalized and include the following lane geometry:
Eastbound — one left -turn lane, two thru lanes and one right -turn lane; Westbound —
one left -turn lane, one thru lane and one shared thru/right-turn lane- Northbound
two left -turn lanes, one thru lane and one right -turn lane; Southbound — one shared
left-turn/thru lane and one right -turn.
In order to demonstrate the minimal impacts of the project, PHR+A has provided
Table 7 to the show the increase fn delay/levels of service between 2012 background
and 2012 build -out conditions, assuming no improvements, for the intersections of
Route 37/SB I-81 ramps, Route 37/NB I-81 ramps and Crosspointe Boulevard/Tasker
Road.
PAHl?'
APhased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 42
Table 7
Comparison of Intersection Delay and Levels of Service (without improvements)
Villap-es at Artrl D: 2012 RArkcrnllnrl %ro, i c 7M'f 111_.:1 _I
PH
� A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 43
Weekday!'riilca!
6tfersectiun Traffic Control
\�luvemem
' :i
'
Peak Hour
PM
Peak flour
Levels of
Background
Service
Build -out
Delay
Background
(in seconds)
Build -out
Q
e
-uut
Build
seconds)
-out QEB
37 & 1-31
Ramps
37 & 1-31 Signalized
Ramps
Tasker Road &
Crosspointe Signalized
\bB
NB
WB
SB
EB
WB
NB
SB
Overall
F
F
F
F
B
FE
C
E
C
C
C
C
C
F
F
F
F
B
E
D
C
C
C
C
C
132.6
235 3
135.3
_701.4
1:1
914
30.9
59A
29.'_
31.7
;3.7Boulevard
, 3 4
;I J
'029
313.6
1 39.0
3414
11.3
75.0
55.9
54.5
35.0
34.3
3>-7
34.7
30.6
+70.3
+32.8
+3.2
+40.0
-1.3
-16.4
+25.0
-4.9
-4.2
+3.1
+0.0
+1.3
11
C
D
C
D
7EF
E
C
D
D
D
%Iinwondsln
4063 -111.9Route
439.0 +94.9SiintalizedNB
x627 +256.3Overall
109.6 +34.4EB
93.0 +67.9Route
164.9 +95.0SB
153.3 +26.4Overall
+69.2
+10.8
+2-7
+13.9
+17.8
+9.6
PH
� A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 43
• Crosspoinle Boulevard/Warnor Driyc.: For 2012 background and build -out
conditions, this intersection will operate with levels of service of "C'- or hetter
during the AM and PM peak hours. This planned intersection is to be signalized
and will include the following lane geometry: Eastbound — one shared left-turn/thrix
lane and one right -turn lane: Westbound — one shared left -turn/thruh-fight-turn lane:
Northbound - one shared left-turn/thru lane and one right -turn lane; Southbound —
one shared left-turn/thru/ri ght-turn lane.
• Hillandale Lane/Tasker Road: For 2012 background and build -out conditions, this
intersection will operate with levels of service of "C" or Letter during the AM and
PM peak hours assuming the following improvements: 1) Tasker Road is to be
realigned to the east through the proposed Crosspointe Center site; 2) Hillandale
Lane was realigned to intersect with Tasker as a T -intersection.; 3) The new
intersection of Hillandale Lane/Tasker Road will maintain the following lane
geometry: Eastbound — one shared left-turn/thru lane/right-turn lane; Westbound —
one shared left-turn/thru/right-turn lane; Northbound - one shared left-turn/thru lane
and one right -turn lane; Southbound -- one shared left-turn/thru/right-turn lane.
• Warrior Drive/Tasker Road (north intersection): For 2012 background and build-
out conditions, this intersection will operate with levels of service of "C" or better
during the AM and PM peak hours assuming the following improvements: 1)
Tasker Road is to be realigned to the east through the proposed Crosspointe Center
site; 2) The planned intersection of Warrior Drive/Tasker Road (north intersection)
will maintain the following lane geometry: Eastbound — one shared thru/right-turn
lane; Westbound — one shared left-turn/thru lane; Northbound - one shared left -
turn/ right -turn lane.
• Warrior Drive/Parkins Mill Road: For 2012 background and build -out conditions,
this intersection will operate with levels of service "A" during the AM and PM
peak hours assuming the following intersection improvements: 1) Warrior Drive is
to be implemented from south of Tasker Road to north of Crosspointe Boulevard;
and 2) The proposed intersection of Warrior Drive/Parkins Mill Road will maintain
traffic control via a single lane roundabout.
PH
���A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
December 15, 2004
Page 44
• Warrior Drive/Tasker Road (south intersection): For 2012 background and build-
out conditions, this intersection will operate with levels of service -C'_ or better
during the AM and PM peak hours. This planned intersection is to be signalized
and will include the following lane aeometry. Eastbound — one left -turn lane, one
thru lane and one right -turn lane; Westbound — one left-tut-ij lane, one thru lane and
one right -turn lane; Northbound - one left -turn lane, one thru lane and one right -
turn lane; Southbound —one left -turn lane, one thru lane and one right -turn lane.
• Lakeside Drive/Tasker Road: For 2012 background and t -mild -out conditions this
intersection will operate with levels of service "C" durin- the AM and PM peak
hours. No improvements were required.
PH
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of the Villages at Artrip
RA December 15, 2004
Page 45
REZONING APPLICATION FORM
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
o be completed by Planning Staff;
ling Amendment Number
Hearing Date
Fee Amount Paid $
Date Received
BOS Hearing Date
The following information shall be provided by the applicant:
All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of
the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester.
1. Applicant:
Name: Winchester Artrip, LLC Telephone: 301-984-7000
Address: c/o The Tower Companies
11501 Huff Court, North Bethesda, MD 20895
2. Property Owner (if different than above)
Name: Winchester Artrin LLC Telephone: 301-984-7000
Address: 11501 Huff Court, North Bethesda MD 2
0895
3. Contact person if other than above
David L. Frank, CLA
Name: Dewberry Telephone: 540-678-2700
611 West Jubal Early Drive, B1dg.B, Suite C
Winchester VA 22601
4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application.
Location map _X— Agency Comments X
Plat X Fees —k
—
Deed to property X Impact Analysis Statement X
Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X
11
5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to
rezoning applications.
Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned:
Winchester Artri ,
LLC
a wholly-
owned sub sidiar of
Tower Real
Estate Group, LLC,
the
managing
members of which
are: Albert,
Jeffrey, Gary and Ronald Abraxn.son. Other non—managing
members consists of additional family individuals.
6. A) Current Use of the Property: Vacant
Residential,: Retail,
B) Proposed Use of the Property: Restaurants and Office.
7. Adjoining Property: See Table 3 following
PARCEL ID NUMBER USE
ZONING
S. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance
from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers):
South Frederick Land Use area, Tax Map 75—((A
Parcel 99A. One mile west of I-81, 3/4 mile north of
Tasker Road (VA Route 649), and 150' north of
Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176).
WE
to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model
In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the
applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the
planning staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning
District as described on Page 9 of the application package.
9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 75 - (A) - 99A
Districts
Magisterial: Shawnee High School: Sherando
Fire Service: Stephens City Middle School: James Wood & R. E. Aylor
Rescue Service: Stephens City Elementary School: Armel
10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested.
Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested
11169.924 RA R4
169.924 Total acreage to be rezoned
11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning
proposed:
Number of Units Proposed
905 Residental units - SFD/ Townhome/ MULTI - family
Single Family homes: Townhome: Multi -Family:
Non -Residential Lots: Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms:
Square Footage of Proposed Uses
Office: Service Station:
Retail: Manufacturing:
Restaurant: Warehouse:
11$,550 SF Commercial/retail/office/ Other:.
Residental
13
Resend 5-19-05; 2:31PM;DEWBERRY
;540 678 2703 ## g/ 8
12. Signature:
m 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 Fxederick County officials to enter the
property for site inspection purposes.
I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at
the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing
and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the
road right-of-way until the hearing.
I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and
accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge.
Applicant(s):
Owner(s):
Ua
12
Date:
Date:
Date: 5� ;q Ar
Date:
S-19-05; 2:28PM;DEWBERRY
540 678 2703 # 2/
Frederick County,Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package
APPLICATION
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
1.
Project Title:
The Villages
at Artri
2.
Owner's Name:
Winchester
Artri , LLC
(Please list the names of all owners or parties in interest)
3. Applicant: Winchester Artri , LLC
Address: c/o The Tower. Com antes Inc.
11501 Huff Court North Bethesda MD 20895
Phone Number: 310-984-7000
4. Design Company: Dewberry
Address: 611 West Jubal Early Drive Bldg. B Suite C
Winchester VA 22601
Phone Number: 540-678-2700
Contact Name: David L. Frank, CLA
Page 11
5-19-05; 2:28PM;DEWBERRY
;540 678 2703
APPLICATION cont'd
RIASIER DIS✓ MLOPIiII-ENT PLAN
i
5 Location of Property South Frederick Land Use are11 a, Tax Map 75 ((A)
Parcel 99A. One mile west of I-81, 3 4 mile
north of Tasker Road, IVA Route 649), and 150'
north of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route ), a -n
6. Total Acreage: 169.924
7. Property Information:
a) Property Identification Number (PIN): 75 _ A —99A
b) Current Zoning: Vacant
c) Present Use: Residentail, Retail,
d) Proposed Uses: Restaurants and Office
e) Adjoining Property Information; See Attached Table 3
Property Identification Numbers
North
South
East
West
Magisterial District.
Property Uses
Shawnee
S. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan %
Original .f Amended
I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the Frederick
County Department of Planning and Development. I also understand that themaster
development plan shall include all contiguous Iand under single or common ownership. All
required material will be complete prior to the submission of my master development plan
application.
Signature:
Date:
Page 14
5-19-05; 2:28PM;DEWBERRY
540 678 2703 # 4<
Adjoining Property Owners
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Owners ofproperty adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Co the and the Board
of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, ad joining 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 1st fXoor of the
Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street.
NAME e r,T%a m - o n r�,. --
Page 15
PIN
Name
75-A-101
Wakeland Manor Land Trust
75-A-95
Glaize Development, Inc.
75-A-96
Glaize Development, Inc.
75-A-97
Steve Dubrueler .
75-A-99
Frederick County
75G-11-8-116
Ronald Santoro & Pamela Chagnon
75G-11-8-117
James Swiger & Michelle Vitela
75G-11-8-118
David T.& Tammy M. Foster
75G-11-8-120
Robert & Mary E. McDonald
75G-11-8-121
Winchester/Artrip LP
75G-11-8-122
Timothy J. Elliot Sr. & Kathleen A. Elliott
75G-11-8-123
Timothy Wingfield
75G -4-4B-60
Rodney & Suzanne R. Torp
75G -4-4B-62
John & Melissa Corder
75G-4-46-63
Patricia Gail Beardslee
75G-4-46-64
Cynthia D. Rodriguez
75G-8-5-85
Timothey J. & Karen E. Adams
76-A-13
W.F. Artrip, Jr.
76-A-23
Jasbo, Inc.
/Vote:
1. Information from SpecPrint Edition 13, 2004
2. Use Codes:
2- Single Family Residential (Suburban)
4- Commercial & Industrial
5- Agricultural / Undeveloped (100+ ac.)
6- Agricultural / Undeveloped (100+ ac.)
73- Regional / Local Government
11/8/2004 10:30 AM
THE VILLAGES AT ARTR/P
TABLE 3
Adjacent Property Owners
Address
City
Stephen City
St.
VA
Zip
22655
Use
6
Zoning
P.O.Craig 8
Box 888
P.O. Box 888
Winchester
Winchester
VA
22604
2 (Residential)
RPP.O
RA
346 Saddleback Lane
107 N. Kent St.
Winchester
VA
VA
22604
22602
6 (Over 100 Ac.)
2 (Residential)
RA
RA
106 Canaan Ct.
105 Canaan Ct.
Winchester
Stephens City
VA
VA
22601
22655
73 (Exempt)
2 (Residential)
RP
RP
103 Canaan Ct.
Stephens City
Stephens City
VA
VA
22655
22655
2 (Residential)
109 Fair Lawn Ct.
11501 Huff Ct.
Stephens City
VA
22655
2 (Residential)
2 (Residential)
RP
RP
105 Fair Lawn Ct.
N. Bethesda
Stephens City
MD.
VA
20895
22655
2 (Residential)
103 Fair Lawn Ct.
102 Jade Ct.
Stephens City
VA
22655
2 (Residential)
2 (Residential)
RP
RP
P.O. Box 90010 c/o Valerie Whit
Stephens City
Richmond
VA
VA
22655
2 (Residential)
RP
125 Bell Haven Cr.
127 Bell Haven Cr.
Stephens City
VA
23225
22655
2 (Residential)
2 (Residential)
RP
RP
129 Bell Haven Cr.
Stephens City
Stephens City
VA
VA
22655
22655
2 (Residential)
1726 Front Royal Pike
P.O. Box 480
Winchester
VA
22602
2 (Residential)
6— (Over 100 Ac.)
RP
RA
Stephens City
VA
22655
5 (20-100 AC.)
RP
P:\Project\76030007\Admn\Rezoning Application Text Documents\REZONING TABLES.xls3 SURR OWNERS
611 West Jubal Early Drive 540 678 2700
.;.,
y.�.,� Suite C 540 678 2703 fax
ya8a' Dewberry Winchester, VA 22601 www.dewborry.com
May 9, 2005
Michael T. Rudy, AICP
Deputy Planning Director
County of Frederick
107 North Kent Street
Suite 202
Winchester VA 22601
Re: Additional Preliminary Comments
Villages at Artrip Rezoning Application
Dear Mike:
On behalf of Winchester-Artrip LLC, applicant, we are resubmitting for additional review and
comment the revised the Rezoning Application Proffer Statement and Master Development Plan. Upon
receiving a letter from your office dated 02/14/2005, the applicant has revised the Rezoning
Application Proffer Statement and Master Development Plan and offers the following responses to you
comments:
Comment:
1. The Comprehensive Plan provides two clearly stated goals that pertain to planned
communities which seek to encourage large scale new communities that are creatively and
appropriately designed to provide the highest possible quality of development and seek to ensure that
new planned communities do not have adverse impacts on the community.
Response: The revised submission attempts to address the Planning Office comments made here
and in our meetings, to increase the Applicant's level of commitment to specific design elements with
respect to the critical "Core Area" of the proposal, to refine commitments to other Landbays outside
the Core Area, and to refine the draft proffer statement to reflect construction requirements for
significant roadways, and dedication of land to public use for an elementary school.
Comment.
2. 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 approach offered with this application seeks to achieve this
desirable concept and is supported by the Comprehensive Plan.
Response: No comment necessary.
Dewberry & Davis LLC
Comment:
3. From a land use planning perspective the location and scale of this project may
present a unique opportunity to implement a truly mixed use project into Frederick County. The
property is centrally located to the developing areas of the County at the future confluence of Warrior
Drive and Parkins Mill Road. The prominent visibility and strategic location that will ultimately be
provided at this location should be advantageous to the success of this concept and project. Such a
creative approach or concept would be more preferable and acceptable than a rezoning that would
simply enable more of the existing pattern of development to occur. Recognizing the desirability of the
concept, many of the following comments seek to ensure that the impacts associated with such a
project are addressed to the greatest extent possible.
Response: The Applicant shares a desire to create a unique community in
Frederick County, and to advance the County's long-term planning and transportation goals, and the
plan and associated proffers have been developed with precisely this in mind.
Comment:
4. The narrative describing the development proposal of the project and the
residential uses is extremely flexible. It states that the uses may include and are not limited to the noted
housing types. Further, the description of the unit types depicted on the MDP is clear in that it is for
illustrative purposes only. This lack of commitment or specificity with the housing units and the MDP
would appear to leave the ultimate mix of units and the overall design of the project open to significant
modification that may ultimately frustrate the concept and design that has been presented to the
County. The applicant should evaluate if it would be more appropriate to provide a greater level of
specificity and commitment regarding the housing units and MDP. The more certainty that the
Planning Commission and ultimately Board of Supervisors has regarding the ultimate outcome of the
project may result in a greater comfort level in the disposition of the application.
Response As noted, the revised Rezoning Application and Master Plan have refined the design
concept for The Villages of Artrip community Core Area. The Core Area as depicted in the revised
Master Development Plan dated May 20, 2005 will consist of a minimum of at least two different
residential building types, commercial/retail/office/restaurant space ultimately totaling 118,550 square
feet, and community open space areas integral to the ecological design concept for the Village Pond.
Comment: 5. throughout the application there are requests to modify certain elements of the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance as enabled by Section 1.65-72.0 of the Zoning Ordinance. As
required, the applicant shall demonstrate that the requested modification is necessary or justified. It
would be helpful for the applicant to consolidate all of the requested modifications in some form of
justification statement or document. Further, an alternative dimensional requirement plan and alternate
buffer and screening plan should be prepared that clearly identifies the modifications or alternatives
that are being requested and the justification for such modification. Presently the various requests are
located throughout the application and in the proffer statement. The above would provide clarity in the
review and potential ultimate endorsement of modifications and would be most helpful to the rezoning
and MIP administration. As we had previously discussed, please find enclosed with these comments a
copy of a similar document that was accepted by the County with the Stephenson's Village rezoning
application for your information.
Dewberry
Response: The revised Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan have
consolidated residential design criteria in Appendix A of the draft proffer statement. This revised
proffer statement requires all residential development to strictly adhere to the Frederick County
ordinances, and where applicable to the design guidelines of Appendix A of the proffer statement
where innovative housing alternatives are proposed in future Subdivision Design Plans presented
for review and approval by Frederick County. These modifications to standard design guidelines
are critical to the creation of a viable neo -traditional development. Detailed justification of each
revision does not, under such circumstances, seem required but can be discussed further with the
Planning staff.
Comment: 6. A listing has been provided within the narrative that identities the dimensional
standards for which the applicant seeks modification. It is suggested that a separate document is
created that would stand alone from the application and also have the ability to be attached by
reference to the proffer statement. The justification for the modifications should be addressed in the
application.
Response: See comment response #5.
Comment: 7. It would be desirable for the applicant to expand upon the brief justify action offered
for the modifications to the dimensional standards. Further, there does not appear to be a real nexus
between the design standard modifications and the design and construction of a portion of Warrior
Drive, a major collector road. It may be more appropriate and helpful to the application to recognize
the Warrior Drive improvement in relation to older project benefits or modifications such as the overall
project density.
Response: The revised Rezoning Application, Proffer Statement and Master Development
Plan has committed to the full construction of the bridge for Warrior Drive from the Wakeland
Manor subdivision, the full construction of Warrior Drive to the applicants property to meet with
the section of Warrior Drive proffered with the Crosspointe Rezoning Application, and the
dedication of an elementary school site. This application is therefore justified in proposing the
residential densities requested in this application.
Comment: 8. The applicant has proposed a modification which would result in a reduction of the
required parking for the commercial elements of the plan. It may be helpful to expand upon the
rationale and justification for this modification request. Further, it is offered that the potential may
exist for a further reduction in the visibility of the parking area in front of the core commercial
structures. This could be achieved by relegating this parking to an area behind the core commercial
buildings and moving the core commercial buildings in a southerly direction or slightly closer to
Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road, further promoting the neo traditional concept.
Response: The revised Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan have modified
the commercial component of the central core of the community. As a result of an extensive
market study on the commercial viability of retail in this location, which accounted for already
approved retail nodes in immediate site vicinity, the revised Master Development Plan has reduced
Dewberry
the total square footage of retail/office space, and in turn reduced the total parking lot surface area
supporting the non-residential component. The Rezoning Application currently proposes the
development of a total of 118,550 square feet of retail/office space. The Applicant is also
proffering to conduct a parking study at the time of final development plans, should it be required
to demonstrate the propriety of parking reductions that may be sought. The applicant requests the
modification to reduce or increase the parking requirements by 20% to better align with current or
future market trends.
Comment. 9. With regards to the commercial uses in general, and on alternative Landbay D in
particular, the application has not committed to the design and layout of the commercial uses and
structures. Architectural design standards could be considered as a proffer that would ensure the
character and integrity of the design program that has been represented with this application. The
concepts and renditions presented would appear to be highly desirable in such a community. However,
it should be recognized that as proposed there is no guarantee that the architecture and design would be
achieved. The concept presented stands out above the typical suburban developments with unlimited
access that is currently prevalent. It is the desire of the County to ensure that what is presented in
support of this application is guaranteed with the mechanics of the rezoning application. Further, that
the innovative approach offered by the application is ultimately fulfilled.
Response: The revised Rezoning Application proffer statement has added a list of building
materials to be acceptable for the commercial and residential construction.
Comment: 10. It may be appropriate to ask the applicant which scenario is their preferred
option for Landbay D and why. The result of the implementation of the option would be a decrease of
80 units, from 900 to a total of 820, and an increase in the commercial square footage of 43,560, from
175,700 to 219,260 square feet. It should be pointed out that the MDP included with the application
does not accommodate the commercial conversion of Landbay D. A mechanism to effectuate this
should be provided in the proffers or as an alternative section of the MDP in anticipation of this being
the preferred scenario.
Response: The revised Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan no longer has
multiple versions planned for former Landbay D
Comment: 11. An important request of the application is that which requests flexibility to
change and/or relocate housing types, and as necessary, neighborhood alleys and streets, provided that
the total number of residential units and densities set forth for each landbay shall not be exceeded, and
that primary access points to proffered roads be similarly maintained. The substantial flexibility that
this request offers is extremely problematic when considering this application and its illustrated
concept. An extreme result of this flexibility could be a completely different project with only the total
number of units as the guiding element for the design. This issue needs to be resolved in favor of the
ultimate implementation of the illustrated concept depicted in the Concept and Master Development
Plans. The concept that has been presented to the County is in general terms positive and consistent
with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. However, the requested flexibility leaves open the
opportunity to change the project beyond the design and context of the presented project.
Dewberry
Response: As noted in comment #4 response, the Rezoning Application is committing to
the development concept for the Core Area. This area, as reflected graphically in the revised
Master Development Plan, will insure that the concept design remains intact in the community
Core through the development process.
Comment: 12. An exhibit has been provided that shows conceptual building elevations of the
various product types anticipated to be constructed within this development. This exhibit reflects a
positive image for the project and would be desirable. However, no commitment has been made in the
application to guarantee the successful inclusion of the various product types. It may be desirable for
the applicant to proffer the various design elements illustrated in the exhibit. In particular, the urban
core of Landbay A with its mix of commercial and residential uses in a well planned and designed
environment warrants consideration for such an approach. This focal element of the project is most
critical to ensuring the character and function of the mixed use village concept that has been introduced
with this application.
Response: See response to comment #9.
U. Transportation.
Comment. 1. It is imperative to call attention to the fact that the Concept Plan, the MDP and its
associated road designs, or the proffered transportation improvement program do not address the need
to connect the Warrior Drive improvements into the existing and/or approved off-site Warrior Drive
improvement projects. The assumptions of the TIA provide for this connection to occur in one
direction or another and ultimately in both directions. It is safe to say that the validity of the project
and rezoning application depend on the connection of Warrior Drive to existing sections of Warrior
Drive. Coordination should occur with adjacent development projects and satisfaction of this issue
should be completely secured with future modifications to this application. I have provided a copy of
the adjacent Wakeland Manor projects Warrior Drive design and commitments for your information.
Response: The revised Rezoning Application, proffer statement and Master Development
Plan have added language and graphic typical sections indicating that the connections to the existing
segments planned for Warrior Drive will occur as a result of this application.
The following comments relate to the details of the proposed transportation improvements.
Comment: 2. Consideration should be given to construction of the ultimate roadway cross
section designed for the Warrior Drive improvement portion of this project in a similar manner to the
Crosspointe project and the Warrior Drive project south of Route 277 recently completed by the
County and VDOT. It is recognized that the design of the typical sections provide for an initial and
future typical section. While the initial section for Parkins Mill Road would suffice for a more
significant length of time, the importance and location of Warrior Drive, and the projected traffic
volumes, would suggest a need to implement the ultimate design of Warrior Drive within a shorter
11.
Dewberry
time frame.
Response: The revised Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan now indicate
that the full section of Warrior Drive will be completed as each phase progresses. The full
pavement section will match the existing pavement section of Warrior Drive constructed through
Wakeland Manor. Conversations have been had with representatives of Centex Homes, developer
of Wakeland Manor, and Centex has indicated a willingness to assist in constructing the linkage of
Warrior Drive to the south. Conversations with Glaize Development, the developer of Crosspointe
are on-going and have been cordial.
Comment: 3. The proposed typical sections indicate the provision of gravel shoulders with the
interim and future sections of portions of both Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road. This approach is
not conducive to bicycle travel. As you are aware, Warrior Drive is designated in the Comprehensive
Plan as a Bicycle Route. Any accommodation that could be made to facilitate this designation should
be considered. Additional paved width in the travel lane or the provision of a paved shoulder consistent
with Virginia Department of Transportation guidelines could be introduced into the typical sections.
Response: We are aware of the need for bicycle travel opportunities in Frederick County.
It is the intent of this development to provide for bicycle travel in trails adjacent to but separated
from the northern boundary of Warrior Drive.
Comment: 4. Based upon the existing location of the Warrior Drive hiker/biker trail and
proposed expansions to the trail it would be appropriate to designate and design the trail along the east
side of Warrior Drive through the limits of the property to a point where the transportation
improvements connect into the existing or proposed road system. The typical road sections on the
MDP should be modified accordingly and should reflect the appropriate width hiker/biker trail.
Response: In the process of revising the Rezoning Application and Master Development
Plan in response to all agency comments, the Applicant will continue to provide for pedestrian and
bicycle circulation separated from the proposed vehicular transportation improvements. Typical
sections for proposed trails are included in the Master Development Plan.
Comment: 5. The responsibility of the design, dedication, and construction of Lakeside Drive
should be further elaborated on with this application. The transportation element of the Comprehensive
Plan recognizes this road connection and the application indicates a recreational use of adjacent
Landbay C with access from this road. The ultimate use of the area south west of Warrior Drive in the
vicinity of Lakeside Drive may evolve and the connection to existing Lakeside Drive may not be
timely, however, access to this portion of the project should be addressed further.
Response: Upon further review, the applicant finds that it is appropriate to reserve a 50'
the Right-of-way for a possible future connection of Lakeside Drive to Warrior Drive. However,
the design and construction of this road does not appear appropriate at this time, when considering
that the future access and environmental impacts from the south approaching the applicant's
property raise a significant number of planning and design issues. Without adequate information,
design and construction of this roadway is premature but the right-of-way will be reserved.
Dewberry
Comment: 6. Accommodations for the ultimate design of Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road
should be provided throughout the limits of this property to a point where the roads connect with
adjacent projects commitments. This should include accommodations for drainage and trails.
Response: The revised Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan ccommodate
for the ultimate design of Warrior Drive as detailed in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by
PHRA and accepted by VDOT. This includes the construction of Warrior Drive so as to not leave
any unconnected segments of this major collector from the terminus points proffered by the
Wakeland Manor and Crosspointe Development Plan Applications. Parkins Mill Road will be
constructed to the extent of the applicants property limits as depicted on the revised Master
Development Plan. All final road designs, public and private, shall be in accordance with current
VDOT design standards and engineering principles, to include accommodations for storm drainage
and trail interconnectivity where planned and appropriate, except to the extent modification of
those standards for private streets is authorized.
Comment 7. Consideration should he given to extending Parkins Mill Road to a more logical
terminus beyond the access point of the final private driveway that is depicted on the MDII. The
adjacent Canter Estates V project will provide for the necessary right-of-way dedication for the
extension of Parkins Mill Road to accommodate this expansion. I have provided a copy of the adjacent
Canter Estates V subdivision design plan for your information.
Response: The applicant proposes to extend Parkins Mill Road to the limits of the
applicant's property.
Comment: 8. The opportunity exists to further address identified community facility needs by
anticipating potential locations that may be appropriate for future public uses. Such locations would
appear to be adjacent to existing publicly owned land and land proposed to be provided for recreational
uses.
Response: The revised Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan have added the
dedication of land for an elementary school site. This dedicated site would also serve as a
community facility through the creation and use of soccer fields and playground equipment.
Additional tot lots and a 25 meter outdoor pool and bath house are shown on the revised MDP.
III. Proffer Statement.
Comment. 1. The initial and perhaps most significant proffer is Land Use Proffer 1 .1. The
language contained within this proffer is extremely permissive and provides complete flexibility to
modify the design, layout, and concept of the project from what is promoted with the rezoning
application. As presented, the language opens up the core concept of the application to be frustrated.
The County is in general support of the mixed use village concept proposed with the application and
Dewberry
would seek to ensure its completion with a commitment to a project that is in conformance with the
initially presented MDP.
Response: Revisions to both the Proffer Statement and the Master Development Plan have
addressed the staff's expressed concerns and have committed to specific development details
within the Core Area and other portions of the development. Refer to the revised Proffer
Statement.
Comment. 2. The commercial development of the property should be in a style consistent with
that presented in the application. The proffers do not ensure that this will occur. No architectural
details and site design elements have been proffered and secured. It would appear as though the core
commercial area is integral to the design of the project and the success of the concept. It may be
appropriate for the applicant to consider this within the proffer statement.
Response: See answer to Comment # 9 of Part I of this letter.
Comment 3. It has been suggested that the alternative development standards included in the
proffer statement be detached from the statement and stand alone. The proffer statement should then
make specific reference to the stand alone document as an attachment to the proffers and would
therefore be recognized as an integral part of the proffer package.
Response: The revised Proffer Statement is providing a comprehensive description,
Appendix A, in order to clarify the details of the alternative development standards. Appendix A
will function as a stand alone design guide for the future site engineering and subdivision process.
Refer to the revised Proffer Statement.
Comment: 4. It would be helpful for the application to further describe the shared parking
concept proposed for the commercial areas of this application. A reduction in the amount of 20 percent
may be appropriate. However, no justification has been provided for this reduction as required.
Response: The integration of commercial and residential uses should in theory justify a
reduction in the number of parking spaces required. However, the speculative nature of this
development and the unknown timing of Warrior Drive's connection to Crosspointe require the
above flexibility with respect to parking.
Comment: 5. A phased approach to the development of this project is desirable. The details of the
phasing program offered warrants modifications to ensure that an increased amount of commercial
comes on line earlier in the development process. Particular attention should be paid to providing for
the inclusion of the core commercial area as early as possible in the projects lifecycle. This would
provide for a key component of the overall concept of the project. Presently, 577 residential units could
be in place prior to the inclusion of 10,000 square feet of commercial. The entire 900 units could be
developed prior to the initiation of the remaining commercial product being introduced. In fact, there
appears to be no guarantee that the commercial will be provided. Certainly, there is no assurance that
the commercial will be provided in the preferable manner represented in the concept plan.
Dewberry
Response: The Applicant proposes to develop the property in three Phases, and is now committing
to the construction of 10,000 square feet of commercial development prior to the initiation of Phase
III. Because the economic viability of the project for commercial uses is so dependent upon the
completion of Warrior Drive through Crosspointe as well as through Wakeland Manor, the
Applicant does not believe that it is reasonable, or even possible, to commit to additional
commercial development prior to the connection of Warrior Drive to I-81 and through Wakeland
Manor. It can be fairly anticipated that such development will occur once the necessary road
connections are in place, and if the market permits earlier development, it will be constructed
Comment: 6. Please correct the reference in proffer 3.1.5 regarding the early construction of
Warrior Drive and its connection to area roads.
Response: The revised proffer statement accommodates this concern. Warrior Drive is
extensively treated elsewhere. Refer to the revised Proffer Statement.
Comment: 7. Connection should be provided for the provision of necessary community facilities
in relationship to the phasing program. A summary of the requirements of the Ordinance should be
provided which would include consideration of the additional recreational units for the small lot single
family housing alternative. It may be appropriate to further clarify the commitments regarding
community facilities in the proffer statement. An elaborate arrangement of community facilities has
been expressed in the Concept Plan. However, the flexibility proffered by the applicant may enable a
substantially alternative approach to be provided.
Response: Refer to the revised Proffer Statement.
Comment. 8. The architectural, signage and landscaping proffers could be more illustrative and
committal to achieving a certain design for the Villages project. The proffered buffering should be
consistent with the alternative buffer and screening plan that is developed for this project. Also, please
provide the comprehensive sign plan that is referenced in proffer 4.3.
Response: Refer to the revised Proffer Statement.
Comment: 9. It should be noted that the minimum acceptable standard for hiker biker trails is ten
feet in width. Proffer 5.1 should reflect this requirement.
Response: The revised proffer statement has modified proffer 5.1 to reflects a Hiker biker
trail width of ten feet.
Comment: 10. It would be appropriate for the application to address the full impacts on the
Community Facilities of the proposed project. Presently, the values have been omitted from the proffer
statement. A significant relationship exists between the phasing of the project, the inclusion of the
commercial land uses, and the impacts to community facilities. The identified fiscal impacts of the
Dewberry
project should be fully addressed with this application. A reevaluation of the phasing may assist in
addressing the impacts of the residential components of the project. Alternately, it may be appropriate
to offset the impacts of the residential components of the project by contributing a corresponding
amount that represents the impact of only the residential components of the project. This may ease any
concern regarding the timing of the inclusion of the commercial components of the project.
Response: The revised rezoning application and proffer statement proffers monetary and
land contributions to off -set impacts that the proposed development may have on the community.
In addition to the proffered monetary contributions, the Applicant would construct the ultimate
design of the connection of Warrior Drive from the Wakeland Manor Subdivision to the
Crosspointe Subdivision, which includes an off-site $3 million bridge improvement in the
Wakeland Manor right-of-way dedication accessing the Applicant's property. This capital
improvement to community facilities significantly contributes to the greater transportation needs of
Frederick County. The Applicant is further willing to provide land for construction of an
elementary school. Refer to the revised Proffer Statement.
Comment. 11. A fine example of a specimen Delaware Pine tree is identified in the application
and exists on the property in the general location of the original home site and gravesite. Further
consideration should be given to the preservation of this tree and the incorporation of the tree into the
overall design of the project.
Response: In the process of revising the Rezoning Application, Proffer Statement and
Master Development Plan, open spaces have been created in the vicinity of the specimen tree
noted. It is the intent of the Applicant to attempt to preserve this tree during the preparation of
final engineering documents and construction.
Comment: 12. The character of the environmental areas adjacent to the steep slope areas and the
mature woodlands that exist in this vicinity are dramatic examples that should be incorporated into the
project. Serious consideration should be given to adjusting the limits of development to minimize the
impacts on these resources. This appears to be a more critical concern adjacent to the Opequon Creek.
Such modifications would appear to have a minimal impact on the overall development of the project
and would result in enhanced areas of environmental protection.
Response: Specific attention has been given to the wooded slopes near the Opequon Creek
boundary in the Master Development Plan revisions. Additional separation has been achieved in
some areas of noted concern. Specifically, the limits of development have been moved further
away from Opequon Creek to further protect the identified environmental resource.
Comment: 13. The notations regarding the proffered transportation improvement should be
modified to ensure that the road improvements related to a specific phase of the development are
substantially completed prior to the issuance of the first building permit for that particular phase of the
project. This is consistent with existing policy of the County Department of Public Works. The design,
bonding, and platting of the phases of the project will occur prior to the issuance of any building
permits for the project consistent with customary land development practices and County policy.
": Dewberry
Response: The Applicant acknowledges that prior to building permits, related road improvements
must be designed, bonded and platted consistent with Frederick County land development policy.
Comment. 14. Specific language should he included regarding the roundabout intersection
improvement project at the intersection of Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road. In addition,
accommodations should be provided for the connection of Lakeside Drive, or an alternative entrance to
this area of the project, into the roundabout intersection.
Response: The proposed Warrior Drive roundabout will be designed to all applicable
VDOT design criteria and standards. The review and approval process will involve key VDOT
personnel having expertise in roundabout design and construction. As the County is likely aware,
VDOT has materially changed its policies on the use of roundabouts because evidence has
demonstrated that they can be safer and more effective in moving traffic than stop signed or
signalized intersections. Should VDOT decide not to have a roundabout, then the intersection with
Lakeside Drive will be signalized. The Applicant proffers to build Lakeside Drive north of
Warrior Drive (Parkins Mill Road) to the Applicants property line; or the Applicant will provide
the right-of-way required to connect to Cantor Estates where construction at the property line
cannot be completed at the point in time when build out is finished.
Comment. 15. It may he appropriate to consider advancing the substantial completion of the
transportation improvement package for the entire project with the initial phase of the projects
development.
Response: The phasing of the transportation improvements and have been revised to satisfy
the needs of VDOT as determined through the analysis of the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for
this rezoning application.
Comment: 16. Proffer 15.4.1 should be revised to reflect the correct number of units as the approach
appears to be cumulative. Also, as previously mentioned, consideration should be given with this
section to the completion of Warrior Drive and the extension of Parkins Mill Road to a more logical
terminus.
Response: Proffer 15.4.1 has been revised to reflect the revised Rezoning Application and
MDP. The Applicant proffers to build Warrior Drive from Wakeland Manor to the Warrior Drive
roundabout location as a full -section.
Comment: 17. It would be appropriate for the purpose of clarity to proffer the width of the right-of-
way that is to be dedicated in conjunction with the transportation improvements for this project.
Response: The revised Proffer Statement has specified where appropriate the width of the
Right -of -Way to be dedicated for the future construction of Warrior Drive, Parkins Mill Road and
Lakeside Drive.
Dewberry
The applicant has revised the Rezoning Application, Proffer Statement and Master Development Plan
in response to multiple reviewing agency comments. We offer the following resubmission as a result
of these application modifications. The applicant appreciates the opportunity to resubmit the revised
Rezoning Application, Proffer Statement and Master Development Plan to your office for additional
review and comment. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you wish to review or discuss the
resubmission of this Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan.
Sincerely,
J ",
David L. Frank, CLA
Project Manager
Encl.
Dewberry
C
C
•
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #09-05
STONEWALL PLAZA
Staff Report for the Planning Commission Public Meeting
Prepared: July 13, 2005
Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins — Planner II
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist in the review of this application.
It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter.
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission: 08/03/05 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 08/24/05 Pending
LOCATION: The site of the proposed development is located along the Route 522 North
Corridor adjacent to existing commercial, residential land uses and interstate uses. This property
is located next -to the existing Trex Center and Darville Subdivision, in the Sunnyside area of the
County.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 42 -A -198H
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
Zoned: B2 (Business, General)
Use: Unimproved
ZONING & PRESENT USE OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES:
North Zoned: N/A Use: Route 37
South Zoned: B2 (Business General)
East Zoned: RP (Residential Performance)
B2 (Business General)
Use: ComercialNacant
Use: Single Family Residential
Hotel
West Zoned: B2 (Business General) Use: Commercial
MDP #09-05, Stonewall Plaza
July 13, 2005
Page 2
PROPOSED USE: Shopping Center and Retail Services
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Plannin$t & Zoning:
A) Master Development Plan Requirement
A master development plan is required prior to development of this property. Before a
master development plan can be approved, it must be reviewed by the Planning
Commission, Board of Supervisors and all relevant review agencies. Approval may only
be granted if the master development plan conforms to all requirements of the Frederick
County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The purpose of the master development
plan is to promote orderly and planned development of property within Frederick County
that suits the characteristics of the land, is harmonious with adjoining property and is in
the best interest of the general public.
B) Site History
The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Winchester, VA Quadrangle)
depicts the zoning for the subject parcel as B2 (Business General) District, and therefore
does not contain proffers.
C) Intended Use
Shopping Center and Retail Services
D) Site Suitability & Project Scope
Land Use Compatibility:
The site of the proposed development is located along the North Frederick Pike (Route
522) Corridor adjacent to existing commercial, residential and interstate land uses. This
property is located next to the existing Trex Center and Darville Subdivision.
Comprehensive Policy Plan:
The subject property is located entirely within the Sewer and Water Service Area
(SWSA). In accordance with the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan, "business
and industrial areas need to be served by public sewer and water". The subject property
comprising this Master Development Plan is also within the study limits of the Eastern
Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan and is located in an area intended to remain
business. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, page 6-8) Therefore, the proposed commercial
use is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Environment:
The subject property does not contain any areas of steep slopes or floodplain.
Transportation:
Access to the site is proposed via one commercial entrance located on North Frederick
Pike (Route 522) which is a major arterial road. As required for all major arterial roads
MDP #09-05, Stonewall Plaza
July 13, 2005
Page 3
with a speed limit over 35mph, a minimum entrance separation of 200' is required for all
new entrances [Section 165-29.A (4)] which this site does meet. No new public roads are
planned for this property as this site will be served by a private road that will circulate
through the site.
The new entrance to the commercial site is located across from Westminster Canterbury
Drive which currently is an unsignalized crossover that functions with a level (C)D. This
proposed development will be installing a new traffic signal at the intersection of
Westminster Canterbury Drive and the entrance to Stonewall Plaza as well as dual left
turn lanes into the site improving this intersection to a level of service (C)C.
Buffers and Screening:
This site is bordered by the Darville Subdivision to the east. The Master Development
Plan depicts the required category B full screen buffer. This buffer includes a six foot
opaque board -on -board fence along with three trees per ten linear feet (1/3 being
deciduous). The current buffer detail provided on the MDP is incorrect and needs to be
revised to show three trees per ten linear feet, not one entire tree and to half trees.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 08/03/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The preliminary master development plan for Stonewall Plaza depicts appropriate land uses and
appears to be consistent with the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the
Zoning Ordinance. At this time only minor revisions to the MDP are needed and can be
addressed prior to the Board of Supervisors meeting. Any issues brought forth by the Planning
Commission should be appropriately addressed prior to a recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors.
Following the Planning Commission discussion, it would be appropriate to forwarc'c a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding this MI1P conformance with County
codes and review agency comments. All issues and concerns raised by the Planning
Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration.
B
D
1981
ql SpgC
F � 198E q �s8
C1 y
f
a
1956
198 g2FARR/ 6
� 19
195C
FD
P �~ KRpp 5D ES
195A pD S
42 195
_ 195D
Foxridge:Ln�
v
BAILEY
s 53 A 42A
I
43
�7 e
4 o a a SNYDER
0--
m 44 53 A 44
45
198 POPE
42 A 198
199M TC.V.
42 A 198M
198H MPN REALTY
42 A 198H
A y�9Ps w m 52
9 !Z;
53DSFNG
n 3 ? 2
8 q BENHAM 1 SBENyAM
53D3 3 D 3
N 1
a:
-0 4 BENHAM
BENHAM 53D 3 4
53D 3 T BENHAM c
53D
it 3�
SUNNYSIDE PROPERTIES
52E 53 A 52E
8 MCLgUGHLIN WILLIAMS I WILLIAMS `4MARSHALLI M
42 121 8 198A 42 A 198A 1 42 121 1 ►�� 28 28 LS
s3 ✓�c4
q
WOOD
103 104 53A 3
2105
115
y
to r
v°
G
120
^ ply
�o
3¢/ps
a s
�
i s
��lc
SSq /NC'>p
J
106
10�A�W;tl;zmsC;r-
o
113
n
3AARNES
119e
�tia w
o
CRIM
18
h
�ryb
"
29 g a
53A 1 D 4 4
4
1g9
4
h
>
53 SHAVEN o 19
q iD3 a
h ^ti
an
BUTLER e
53q
3 10
ro
n o
'D2
?
9 53NOYER
A f A
1
r
2 9
g HOUGH
53A t A
y
q8
g c/drk D//e�
8
1 53A �1 AST 14E
r
6 53 TURK
'qq ?�
�P q q>d
A IAS
0
1
eo 5 53 WARD 5
^ ?e .5?A
Q >S
2
ST Q 4 ROSNIDER
1 A 4
1 PATEL
53A A 1
3 53 KIPpS 14
A fA
1qD ?? so y
yAQ
q 3 c S
BUTC 2
-0 53 HER 0 0� to my
n A 884
o y y 4
5 v AS3 �TT'FRS
C a q qq �ry
Q �v 15
E m
n
Map Features
Plication ^� Bridges
^� Culverts Parcels
Lakes/Ponds Dams Agricultural & Forestral Districts
Streams I':s• Retaining Walls Vmtla Ch .. h
euildinys Road Centerlines Refuge Chur h N
Tanks ^, CD South Frederick
Trails W E
S
D
MDP #10-05
Stonewall Plaza
(42 -A -198H)
0 250 500 1,000
Feet
85
lal I
D
B 8 MCLAUGHLIN
-' WILLIAMS
42 121 8th '198A 42 1 WILLIAMSWIL121 v 28 MARSHALL MILLS
198 POPE `r A 198A 42 121 1 �� 42 142 28
42 A 198
1981 _ �------_,,.
198M TC.V,
42 A 198M
1" 4,04
f u 198L 4 0 `c 198H MPN REALTY
C1 4w, p! 42 A 198H
c�
c�
✓
s79 a�yiNs p✓
1D4WOOD
53A 32105
115
m
W
120
^ Q*
I � • - ,` t l
?
S gRl7
,I
�Agriculturalgr
.- w
vd
P
8 Forestrat Districts
dq Z/*0
?1p7N
106
A56
101
Williams'Cir-
- Double Mur h
RO geChurch N
42 -A -198H
ft: Tanks
113
M
StA
MES spa
53 1 D
A7p
0
11A ��
0 250 500 1,000
5
6
�
�i9
1
18
CRIM
N
^tih .ti
53q
7 D 4 4
4
195
Q
h
29 > ¢
h
DEHAVEN o 19
S
BUTLER 3 3
53q 7D
10o�
N,
h -
2 2U
NO
9 53 -
A 7
4q-:
o
1 2
N
A 9
8 53q OUGR
4%zs h Q n
h by
ti qf.
7 A 8
q5
Clark:GQ 1
53AAf CS
2qC ti0
CyFS
1958 1 a ■ le Dr A 7 74E S3A HIRF
FF ` .t 6 TURK 'q-9 Q A 4> o?
,QyV 196 42 A Y,9 �q 53q 7A
7 6 0
195C �P �h 95 rFTw 1 4 5 53 WARD ^a ?5 0� o Q >S
A :' 9P v t o ic°q A 7 A 5 W `�
195A a KRpF00 P 195DCE5 9 v i TSF s2 2 4 4 53g0S 11DER
N� 1530 3NG / 4
195 3 K/pp5 14
42
195D O I ? 2 1 PATE
L A 1
7q0
e 53A A l A 3 ?7
�j 9t n-. BENHAM BFN ; rr
x BAILEY 6 q 53D 3 3 1 53O 3 AM f BUTCH S' >8
A 42A 7AE2
a moo 4 BENHAM Q A
43 A 53D 3 4 { O 4 R :k,
BE
41 BENHAM BENHAM E Y Z Fq
53D 3 7 53D 3 5 r:, F 5 y p C $3,4 Th'FRS 'Jie �'��� Bp
o ¢ ¢ SNYDER �` 0 4 qq
4 h 56 Q Q qui 7p4
15
� � h 44 53 A 44 i o U
45 SUNNYSIDE PROPERTIES $34 AGER k �� � ' gq N
52E 53 A 52EI 6 ? 2 m co^ 6D
WiRedoubt-l:n 31 "Q Q "~ 1,00L E 3 °' D to`° 85 98 1?3
'~MDP
r\
Map Features
# 10 - 05
I � • - ,` t l
Application ^/ Bridges
`� ^�"Unn.=
,I
�Agriculturalgr
Stonewall
Lakes/Ponds ^� Dams
8 Forestrat Districts
Plaza
.M.. Streams ./V Retaining Wail.
v Buildings Road Centerlines
AV,
- Double Mur h
RO geChurch N
42 -A -198H
ft: Tanks
South Frederick
` /
. Trails
s
W+
0 250 500 1,000
S
Feet
0 250 500 1,000
Feet
JUL. 1 2
APPLICATION
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Department of Piaruning and Development g Only.
Date application received -7 Application
Complete. Date of acceptance
Incomplete. Date of return
1. Project Title:
Stonewall Plaza
2. Owner's Name MPN Realty, Inc., VA Corp.
303 South Loudoun Street
Winchester, VA 22601
(Please list name of all owners or parties in interest)
3
H
Applicant:
Greenway Engineering
Address:
151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, VA 22602
Phone Number:
662-4185
Design
Greenway Engineering
Company:
Address:
Same
Phone Number: Same
Contact Name: Jeremy Tweedie or Niki Adhikusuma, PE
5. Location of Property Route 522 North, Sunnyside
6. Total 21.91 acres
Acreage:
7. Property Information
a)
Property Identification Number
(PIN):
b)
Current Zoning:
c)
Present Use:
d)
Proposed Uses:
e) Adjoining Property Information:
North
South
East
West
Property Identification
Numbers
See attached list
t) Magisterial District:
42 -((A)) -198H
B2
Vacant
132 -Commercial
Property Uses
Stonewall
8. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan?
Original M Amended ❑
I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the
Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. I also understand that the
master development plan shall include all contiguous land under single or common
ownership. All required material will be complete prior to the submission of my master
development plan application.
Signature:
Date: j `�
STONEWALL PLAZA
Adjacent Property Owners
Tax Map # Use
South
53D-3-2
B2 -Commercial
53D-3-1
B2 -Commercial
53-4-2-D
B2 -Commercial
53A -A-5
B2 -Commercial
53A -2 -D -C
B2 -Commercial
West
42 -A -198G
B2 -Commercial
42 -A -198M
B2 -Commercial
East
53A-3-2-102
RP -Residential
53A-3-2-101
RP -Residential
53A -1-D-6
RP -Residential
53A -1-D-4
RP -Residential
53A -1-D-3
RP -Residential
53A -1-D-2
RP -Residential
53A -1-D-1
RP -Residential
53A-4-3-6
RP -Residential
53A -A-1
B2 -Commercial
North
42-A-198
RA -Residential
Route 37
File #4090/JT/dlm
,V Special Limited Power of Attorney
-' County of Frederick, Virginia
Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us
Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia,
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601
Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395
Planning office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601
Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395
Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We)
(Name) MPN Realty, Inc., VA Corp -Bruce A. Griffin, Managing Member (Phone) (540) 667-2424
(Address) 303 South Loudoun Street, Winchester VA 22602
the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by
Deed Book
Instrument No. 904 on Page 927 and is described as
Parcel: 42 Lot: 198H Block: A Section: Subdivision:
do hereby make, constitute and appoint:
(Name) Greenway ineering
(Phone) (540) 662-4185
(Address) 151 Windy Hill Lane, Winchester VA 22602
To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and
authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning application for my (our) above described
Property, including:
❑ Rezoning (Including proffers)
❑ Conditional Use Permits
/❑ Mastei DCVClGPM- rcut Pluii (aureuC mm --j and F; nal)
❑ Subdivision
❑ Site Plan
❑ Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment
My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to
previously approved proffered conditions except as follows:
This authorization shall expire one year fro the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or
modified.
In witness thereof, ave heret et my r) hand and seal this 11th day of July, 2005
Signature(s)
State of V/ ginia, City County�ofFrederick, To -wit:
I, Donna L. Meliso , a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the
person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who I (are) known to me, personally appeared before
me and las acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this 11th day of Jam, 2005.
My Commission Expires: February 29 200,9,
Notary Public