Loading...
PC 12-21-05 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia December 21, 2005 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab) 2) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC IIEARiiNG 3) Rezoning 02-05 for Villages at Artrrip, 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........................................................................................................................ (.A) 4) Rezoning #16-05 of Willow Run, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 347.77 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, and 12.20 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District with proffers. The property is located east of Route 3 7 and Merriman's Lane (Route 621), north of Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622), south and west of the City of Winchester, in the Shawnee Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Numbers 53-A-90, 53-A-91, 53-A-92, 53 -A -92A, 53 -A - 92B, 53-A-94, 53-3-A, and 53 -A -2A. Mrs. Eddy......................................................................................................................... (B) PUBLIC MEETING 5) Subdivision Request 935-05 of Richard and Donna Dick, submitted by Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C., for one single family detached traditional lot. The property is located at 1600 Millwood Pike, and is identified with Property Identification Number 64-A- 83, in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Mr. Cheran............................................................................... .... (C) 6) Other FILE COPY REZONING APPLICATION #12-05 AND MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #09-05 VILLAGES AT ARTRIP Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: October 24, 2005 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist 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 Planning Commission: 08/03/05 10/05/05 12/07/05 Board of Supervisors: 01/11/06 Action Tabled 60 days Tabled 60 days Pending (See Page 20 for update) 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 October 24, 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. 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: 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 October 24, 2005 Page 3 and Recreation appears to be less than what the impact model would indicate is needed to offset the impact of this development. Frederick 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 October 24, 2005 Page 4 Town of Middletown: None. Town of Stephens City: Traffic concerns as always. City of Winchester: From a regional transportation standpoint, the inability to provide connectivity to Warrior Drive where the bridge is needed at the south end raises concerns in terms of traffic impacts. Planning & 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 October 24, 2005 Page 5 taken in the approval of the master development plan to ensure that the uses on the land are arranged to provide for compatibility of uses, to provide environmental protection, and to avoid adverse impacts on surrounding properties and facilities. The R4 District is intended to create new neighborhoods with an appropriate balance between residential, employment, and service uses. Innovative design is encouraged. Special care is taken in the approval of R4 developments to ensure the necessary facilities, roads, and improvements are available or provided to support the R4 development. Residential planned community developments shall only be approved in conformance with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan. 3) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1] 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 October 24, 2005 Page 6 Transportation. The Southern Frederick Land Use Plan and the Eastern Road Plan identify new road systems which have been planned to effectively manage traffic generated from the various uses, to link various land uses with arterial and collector road systems, and to provide for signalization opportunities at critical intersections as areas develop. The most significant transportation element in the Comprehensive Plan that relates to this application is Warrior Drive. Warrior Drive is identified as a major collector road with a four lane urban section that traverses the property in a south-east to north-westerly direction. Also identified are Parkins Mill Road and an extension of Lakeside Drive into the project. Both are identified as collector roads with a two lane section. The new road systems within the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan are planned to mitigate impacts to the environmental features and historic areas. The plan encourages public access and the development of bicycle facilities and pedestrian walkway systems that serve residential, mixed use and planned unit development areas. The plan also recommends limiting commercial entrances, utilizing master planned boulevard entrances, and increased parking lot setbacks for corridor design and appearance enhancements. Pursuant to the general transportation policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, roads located adjacent to and within new development are expected to operate at no less than a Level of Service Category "C." (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 7-5) 4) Site 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 Artrip October 24, 2005 Page 7 The majority of the Villages at Artrip site are generally more suitable for development as it relatively level and open. Historically, the site was used for agricultural purposes. Located internal to the site are smaller areas of wetlands and waters of the U.S. which have been incorporated into the design of the master development plan. Of particular note is the farm pond located central to the project that the applicant has proffered to preserve as a focal point or visual amenity to the project. This village pond and its associated wetlands 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 Anal 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 October 24, 2005 Page 8 in a timely fashion. The transportation proffers provided by the Villages at Artrip project relate directly to on-site transportation improvements with one exception - the connection of Warrior Drive to its currently planned terminus on the Wakeland Manor project. Staff Comment: A scenario could be envisioned where the Phase 3 build out of the Villages at Artrip project would occur, including the construction of the road 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 TM, 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 TM would be beneficial to the Villages at Artrip project. Transportation Approach. The Villages at Artrip application addresses the transportation improvements identified in the Comprehensive Plan and necessary to accommodate the Villages development by proffering to develop the ultimate four lane section of Warrior Drive within the limits of their property and beyond to connect with the currently planned terminus of the road on the Wakeland Manor property. The ultimate section of Warrior Drive is described in the impact statement and is identified in the MDP. Also proffered is the construction of Parkins Mill Road from its intersection with Warrior Drive to the limits of the property adjacent to the Canter Estates Section V property. Parkins Mill Road will be constructed by the applicant to a point that provides a connection to the existing road within Canter Estates Section V. The typical section of Parkins Mill Road is also depicted on the MDP. The applicant has proffered a three phased approach to the transportation improvements identified above that is consistent with the phasing provided for the proposed land uses within the project. In addition, the application has proposed an alternative three phased approach to the transportation improvements in the event that access to the project from the north and the Crosspointe development is advanced ahead of access to the south through the Wakeland Manor project. Rezoning #12-05 -Villages at Artrip October 24, 2005 Page 9 The completion of Warrior Drive entails the construction of the previously noted bridge over the unnamed tributary of the Opequon Creek. This significant crossing will occur with the first phase of the transportation improvements for the project. This crossing should accommodate the trail that parallels the length of Warrior Drive as identified in the proffers and the MDP. One roundabout intersection at Parkins Mill Road and two signalized intersections are identified in the TIA as being provided with this project. Pedestrian accommodations have been proffered at those locations where signalization is referenced in the TIA. Staff Comment: The Proffer Statement alludes to the provision of signalization consistent with the TIA; however, the Proffer Statement does not specifically state that signalization will be provided at the locations identified in the TIA. Clarity should be provided by the applicant and in the Proffer Statement. This is particularly critical with the proffered location of a 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 I 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 681st residential building permit. All road construction triggers should refer to issuance of residential building permits, not occupancy permits. It is important to ensure that the Parkins Mill Road extension, and connection to Canter Estates Section V, is in place in a timely fashion. It is staff's belief that this connection should be in place in conjunction with Phase2 of this development if not sooner. Bicycle and pedestrian access has been provided throughout the project. The locations and details for these accommodations are clearly identified on the MDP. Staff has previously requested that consideration be given to extending pedestrian access to the adjacent Lakewood Manor subdivision. This would be extremely desirable and enhance access between the developments and to and from the dedicated elementary school site. The applicants currently own Lot 121 in the Lakewood Manor Subdivision. Pedestrian access at this location, via an access easement into the Villages at Artrip sidewalk network, would be appropriate and should be reconsidered by the applicant. The applicant should also consider extending a sidewalk along the south side of Parkins Mill road to provide a connection between the apartments and the adjacent Canter Estates Section V development. Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 24, 2005 Page 10 B. Sewer and Water The Villages at Artrip rezoning proposal is estimated to require approximately 204,710 gallons per day of water usage and is expected to generate a similar amount of wastewater. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority will serve the property and the wastewater flow from the site will go to the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Plant. The initial review of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority offered no comment and the review of the Frederick Winchester Service Authority identifies that the application recognizes that the expansion of the Parkins Mill facility is necessary to accommodate the projects build out. Recent planning efforts have identified that evolving nutrient reduction regulations promulgated by Virginia's Bay Program will have a significant impact on the permitted waste water capabilities of Frederick County. Both the Frederick Winchester Service Authority and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority are currently undertaking efforts to evaluate the regulations and, in conjunction with the UDA Study Working Group, proactively plan to address this issue. Requests for land use modifications should be evaluated very carefully in light of the evolving nutrient loading regulations. C. Historic Resources While no significant historical resources were identified on the property pursuant to the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey and other identified sources, several sites of interest were identified by the applicant. In particular, a family cemetery was identified that contained three to five gravesites. The applicant has incorporated the gravesite area into the reserved open space to ensure that it remains undisturbed. D. Community Facilities The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model is a tool that is used to identify the capital costs associated with various types of development proposals presented to the County. The projected costs to Fire and Rescue, Public Schools, Parks and Recreation, Library, Sheriffs Office and for the Administration Building are calculated and provided to the applicant for their consideration. The Fiscal Impact Model output for this project indicates a net negative fiscal impact at the build out of the project. It should be recognized that the applicant has only proffered the construction of 10,000 square feet of commercial use with the project. The ability remains to provide up to 118,550 square feet of commercial. However, the applicant has stated that this is dependent upon the ultimate completion of Warrior Drive from Crosspointe Boulevard to Tasker Road. No time frame is offered for the completion of the road and, therefore, no credit is provided for this potential commercial use. The R4 District requires that sufficient commercial areas shall be provided to meet the needs of the planned community, to provide for an appropriate balance of uses, and to lessen the overall impact of the planned community on Frederick County. The applicant has been encouraged to increase their commitment to the Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 24, 2005 Page 11 introduction of a greater amount of commercial square footage at an earlier stage of the development phasing. A result of such a commitment would be to minimize the fiscal impact of the project to the County. Obviously, the more commercial land that is developed prior to the introduction of the residential components, the more the fiscal impacts of the residential units will be mitigated. In recognition of the fiscal impacts associated with this application, the applicant has proffered a contribution in the amount of $337 per residential unit for the public school system. The comment provided by the Frederick County Public Schools should be carefully considered when evaluating the application: The evaluation anticipated that the proposed 155 single-family homes, 180 town houses and 570 multi family units will yield 49 high school students, 47 middle school students and 131 elementary school students for a total of 227 new students upon build -out. Further, that significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number 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 transportation and administration, which currently have exceeded their capacity, will need to be replaced or expanded. This proffer helps to address the impact of a future elementary school; however, the impact of this type of application on other current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. The proposed dedication of land to facilitate the location of an elementary school in a location central to the rapidly developing areas of the County appears to be desirable in conjunction with this project. The availability of land from the properties adjacent to the proposed 11 acre dedication would have to be pursued to ensure that sufficient area could be obtained to accommodate an elementary school site. Alternately, sufficient area could be provided by the applicant within their property. It would also appear as though other impacts recognized by the public school system could be addressed to a greater extent. Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 24, 2005 Page 12 The applicant has also proffered a further dedication of five acres of public land identified as Landbay F, adjacent to the 11 acres, and has proffered a financial contribution to offset the fiscal impacts to the various County entities consistent with the results of the Fiscal Impact Model. E. Permitted Uses and 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 with an approved master development plan which contains more than 100 acres shall not exceed four dwellings per acre. This requirement is contained within the RP (Residential Performance) District. It is the applicant's belief that an increase in density is warranted in order to achieve the desired neo- traditional residential planned community and facilitate the proposed public improvements and proffered land dedication commitments. Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 24, 2005 Page 13 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 — 380 units for a total of 680 units and 10,000 square feet of commercial, Phase III — 225 units for a total of 905 units. 5) The construction of community facilities and improvements within the second phase of development. 6) Architectural, signage and landscaping standards. In particular, adjacent to Warrior Drive. 7) A pedestrian and bicycle trail system. 8) Financial contributions to offset the fiscal impacts of the development on County resources. 9) The dedication of 11 acres of land as depicted on the MDP for use as a future elementary school site and an adjacent five acres for public use. 10) The preservation of the Village Pond within the core area as a visual amenity. This should be guaranteed within the context of its present state and may be improved or enhanced for stormwater management purposes. 11) Transportation improvements previously discussed in greater detail in this report. 7) Master 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 October 24, 2005 Page 14 • Sidewalks are only shown on one side of some of the residential streets. In accordance with §144-18 of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, sidewalks are required along both sides of the roads. The plan needs to be revised to show all of the required sidewalks, or a notation needs to be provided to that effect. • A note should be provided on the MDP that the sidewalks on the eastern side of the property will connect with the Canter Estates Section V Subdivision. • A trail should be shown through the existing Lakewood Manor Subdivision, lot 121, to give them access through the Villages project to the proposed school site. • Details for the road efficiency buffer and residential separation buffer have not been provided. A cross section of these buffers showing the required trees and opaque element needs to be provided on sheet 4 of the MDP. All of the issues identified by staff should be appropriately addressed prior to a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the Master Development Plan. Any accommodations or waivers endorsed by the Planning Commission that address the above issues should be incorporated into the MDP through this rezoning process. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 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. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 08/03/05 MEETING: Numerous issues, such as transportation, schools, and water, were discussed by the Commission. Commission members believed the completion of Warrior Drive out to Rt. 37/1-81 was critical for this project to be successful. They also expressed concern that the applicant would only commit to construct 10,000 square feet of commercial area until Warrior Drive's completion through the limits of the property. Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 24, 2005 Page 15 Questions were raised on the results of the applicant's supplemental traffic analysis which concluded that the Tasker Road/Warrior Drive intersection would continue to function at a LOS C, even if the Crosspointe development's section of Warrior was not built soon and the Villages of Artrip was at full build -out. Commissioners believed that future Artrip residents wanting to commute to work in Northern Virginia would have problems accessing I-66 and I-81. The possibility of forming a CDA (Community Development Authority) with surrounding developers was suggested to the applicant as a possible solution to ensure the timely completion of Warrior Drive. Regarding the transportation issues, the applicant responded that two-thirds of Warrior Drive would be completed in sections by the end of Phase 2. The applicant commented that their transportation needs could be met with only one lane of Warrior Drive in each direction; however, they have agreed to construct two lanes in both directions. He noted that because of the economics associated with fulfilling that request, a critical mass of housing needed to go along with the road improvements, resulting in the housing construction and the length of Warrior Drive going hand-in-hand. VDOT's representative, Mr. Lloyd Ingram, anticipated signalization at Warrior Drive and Tasker Road before the applicant begins Phase 3. Mr. Ingram said that analysis of the initial plans suggested the four -lane paved section could not be justified with the commercial anticipated; however, once the connection was made into Crosspointe, the vehicle trips increased by an additional 8,000. He said the applicant provided the entire four -lane section because multiple lanes are needed over 8,000 trips and the balance of the commercial could be justified with the additional trips from Crosspointe. Since the size of the designated 11 acre school site was determined to be less than optimal by the School Board, other options were discussed, such as use of some of the open space area or use of a portion of the Sanitation Authority's property to the south. Issues were discussed regarding the waste water capabilities of Frederick County, if the pending regulations regarding nutrient reduction by the Virginia's Bay Program were enacted; in addition, the upgrade to the Parkins Mill treatment plant was discussed. A member of the Commission suggested that the wording within the transportation proffer reflect that roads will be "designed and constructed" to VDOT standards. The applicant agreed to revise the wording, but noted that areas within the development will be served by both public and private streets. Questions were raised regarding the establishment and jurisdiction of homeowners' associations for the various neighborhoods and responsibilities for maintenance of the common areas and structures. Two adjoining property owners spoke in favor of the proposed development, but with some reservations. One had concerns about increased traffic through his quiet neighborhood in Lakewood Manor, if Warrior Drive was not constructed early on; he also had concerns about the costs associated with funding a new school and providing sewer and water. The other citizen commented about the considerable wildlife on this property and he requested that a beautiful, old evergreen tree be left undisturbed because of its age, possibly dating back to the Civil War. Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 24, 2005 Page 16 The applicants said they would be willing to work on the issues raised at the meeting. In order to provide the applicants the additional time to work on the issues, the Planning Commission unanimously agreed to table the rezoning and master plan for 60 days. STAFF UPDATE FOR 10/05/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The applicant provided the County with a revised rezoning application package on September 9, 2005. The revised materials contained an updated Executive Summary, a revised Proffer Statement, and a revised Master Development Plan. Staff met with the applicants regarding the revised package on September 19, 2005. The following is a summary of staff's review of the revised materials. Summary of outstanding items (09/19/05): Master Development Plan: • Sidewalks are only shown on one side of some of the residential streets. In accordance with §144-18 of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, sidewalks are required along both sides of the roads. The plan needs to be revised to show all of the required sidewalks, or a notation needs to be provided to that effect. The applicant has requested a modification to this requirement through the proffer statement. This request for modification is also on the Master Development Plan. Staff is of the opinion that at a minimum, sidewalks should be provided along both sides of the collector streets. This would include Parkins Mill Road and Warrior Drive (with the exception of the eastern side of Warrior Drive south of the Elementary School access). • A note should be provided on the MDP that the sidewalks on the eastern side of the property will connect with the Canter Estates Section V Subdivision. A sidewalk has not been added to the East side of Parkins Mill Road to Canter Estates Section V. • A trail should be shown through the existing Lakewood Manor Subdivision, lot 121, to give them access through the Villages project to the proposed school site. This comment remains un -addressed by the applicant. • Details for the road efficiency buffer and residential separation buffer have not been provided. A cross section of these buffers showing the required trees and opaque element needs to be provided on sheet 4 of the MDP. The applicant has addressed the buffer details. However, a buffer detail has been added to the area adjacent to Canter Estates Section V that would necessitate the removal of existing trees. As existing woodlands exist adjacent to Canter Estates, a 50' Woodland Strip, as allowed by ordinance, should be utilized for the residential separation buffer adjacent to Canter V. Rezoning Application: • The applicant has added a section to the Proffer Statement, Section 3.1.3.1. which provides that the applicant shall not construct any of the residential units otherwise permitted in Phase 3 until such time as Warrior Drive has been constructed, so that access is available to the property from Interstate 81 and through Wakeland Manor. Additional clarity should be provided to Section 3.1.3.1 to specify that access would be provided from Interstate 81 through the Crosspointe Development and through Wakeland Manor to Tasker Road as identified in the TIA. Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 24, 2005 Page 17 • The applicant has proffered that 20,000 square feet of commercial development would occur by the end of Phase 2 of the development. Previously, the applicant had committed to providing 10,000 square feet of the enabled 118,550 square feet of commercial within the first two phases. • The comprehensive sign plan should be reinstated as an appendix to the Proffer Statement. Section 4.5 has been modified to remove this commitment. • Section 7 of the Proffer Statement addresses schools. Three additional proffers have been added to this section. It may be more desirable to the County for the applicant to designate the area to be dedicated for a more general public use, as opposed to a specific public use. This would provide the County with a greater amount of flexibility in the utilization of the land. In addition, Section 7.4, which contains a sunset and reversionary clause, should be carefully evaluated. This may not be desirable and is not consistent with past county actions regarding acceptance of proffers for public use. Finally, the applicant has maintained a $33 7 contribution for schools. This amount does not fully address the capital facility needs of the school system as identified in the Fiscal Impact Model. • With regards to Section 14, Transportation, Warrior Drive is identified as an Urban Section (Curb and Gutter) and should be referenced as such in the Proffer Statement and detailed as such on the MDP. Section 14.3.1.1. is an important section that should also be added to Section 14.4, which addresses the Alternative approach for the Phase 1 (Parkins Mill) construction of the road. Presently there is no mention of the Wakeland Manor connection beyond point A in this section. • Staff has identified one minor modification to the Proffer Statement, the final sentence of Section 14.3.1.1., which, when considered in connection with the deletion of language within Section 14.10, is significantly problematic to the transportation program and overall rezoning application submission. The addition of "... and the said bridge shall be completed no later than the end Phase I " is not acceptable. Previously, the applicant had committed to ensuring the road connection would be in place prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase I and had committed to making no connection of Parkins Mill Drive extended to Canter Estates Section V, for construction or other purposes until such time as Warrior Drive has been constructed to permit traffic access through Wakeland Manor to Tasker Road. The combination of the two modifications to the Proffer Statement would result in the development of the entire first phase, and potentially more, with sole access being provided via Canter Estates. As noted, this would be unacceptable. • The above scenario is not one which was previously presented to or contemplated by the Planning Commission. Nor was the consideration of this transportation scenario extended to the general public during the public hearing and the adjacent property owners. It should be clearly noted that the TIA prepared by the applicant for this application in no way considers the use of the adjacent subdivision as the primary means of access. The inclusion of this modification to the Proffer Statement appears to invalidate the conclusions of the Traffic Impact Analysis which identifies Warrior Drive as the means of access for all phases of the development. Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 24, 2005 Page 18 • The Planning Commission should evaluate the scope and impact of the modifications to the Villages at Artrip application and determine the appropriate recommendation. Based upon the modifications as submitted, at a minimum, consideration should be given to affording the general public the opportunity to further evaluate the rezoning application. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 10/05/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Villages at Artrip rezoning application to rezone 169 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to R4 (Residential Planned Community) remains generally consistent with the goals of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report and proposes creativity in the application of the County's R4 (Residential Planned Community) District. However, elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure that they fully address specific components of the Comprehensive Plan. In particular, the applicants modified commitment to the construction of Warrior Drive, a key component of the Comprehensive Plan and the County's transportation planning efforts should be considered. The applicant has not demonstrated that the resulting impacts to the County's transportation network have been addressed. Further, the failure to ensure the timely completion of Warrior Drive, a major element of the County's road network, does not appear to justify the additional density modifications requested in the application, contrary to the intent stated in the applicant's executive summary. The Planning Commission should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been fully addressed by the applicant. In addition, the preliminary Master Development Plan for the Villages at Artrip, MDP# 09-05 is generally consistent with the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of some issues that still remain and that have been identified in the updated staff report. The Planning Commission should ensure that the applicant fully addresses the outstanding issues on the master development plan. Confirmation of the issues identified in the staff report, and any issues raised by the Planning Commission, should be addressed prior to the decision of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has already held the public hearing for this application. Following the public meeting, a recommendation regarding this rezoning application to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. Thea licant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 24, 2005 Page 19 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF THE 10/05/05 MEETING: The staff informed the Commission that after the most recent staff report was written, the applicant had provided. another revised proffer statement. Staff noted that the revised proffer statement appears to be an improvement over what was submitted for the September 9, 2005 staff report; however, the Commission should carefully consider the timing of the receipt of the revised proffers and the content of the revisions. Numerous questions were raised by Commission members. They sought further clarification regarding the proposed school sites and whether the school board had provided comment on the proposed sites and layout. Concerns continued to be raised about the traffic impacts and specifically, the potential traffic that could be generated without the benefit of the Warrior Drive road connection completed. Commission members inquired if the plan could be revised to show the phasing for construction of the various housing types and which sections of the center core area would be constructed with each phase. Questions were raised about access into the project. Concern was raised for residents in Canter Estates who would be exposed to continuous traffic through their neighborhood by this project's new residents and tradesmen working at the site. In addition, there were questions about the modification request for reduced setbacks in the rear -loading and some front -loading areas; specifically, concerning parked vehicles blocking portions of the alley in the rear or blocking sidewalks in the front. The subject of development tracking along the Route 522 South and Route 50 East corridor was raised by a member of the Commission. A question was posed regarding the potential number of units, in projects currently underway and undeveloped, but rezoned and able to move forward, that were capable of impacting the Route 522 South corridor. The benefits of the Artrip project constructing a segment of the Warrior Drive connection was recognized; however, there was doubt that Warrior Drive alone would be capable of serving the potential 5-6,000 future units from various pending developments that could impact the traffic network in this area. The Commission requested that staff seek additional comments from the Sanitation Authority, the school system, and Public Works when the final submittals are received from the applicant. In view of the lateness in which the Commission members received the latest revisions from the applicant, the Commission unanimously voted to table the rezoning for another 60 days to allow more time to study the revisions that were provided. The applicant's representatives, Mr. John Foote, attorney, Mr. Jim Brown, design engineer, and Mr. John Callow, traffic consultant, were available to answer questions from the Commission. (Note: Commissioner Watt was absent from the meeting.) Rezoning 412-05 — Villages at Artrip October 24, 2005 Page 20 STAFF UPDATE FOR 12/21/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The applicant provided the County with a revised rezoning application package at a meeting that was held on November 28, 2005. The revised materials contained an updated Executive Summary, a revised Proffer Statement, and a revised Master Development Plan. The following is a summary of staff s review of the revised materials. ■ The most significant modification to the application involves the relocation of the proffered school site to an area internal to Land Say A and adjacent to the Core Area of the Villages at Artrip. Previously, the proposed school site was located southeast of Warrior Drive adjacent to the property owned by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. The applicant has proffered a site of 15 acres. Previously, the site was 11 acres in size. The proposed school site is in a desirable location and is integral to the proposed community. It is noted that the proffered 15 acre school site does contain areas in the northern portion of the property, adjacent to the Opequon Creek, with topographical constraints. The applicant has been working with Frederick County Public Schools to ensure that the proposed school site is fully evaluated. The Schools Building and Grounds Committee, with the assistance of the Schools Architect, Oliver, Webb, Pappas & Rhudy, Inc. have reviewed the proposed site and have sited a 750 seat elementary school on the properly. While no formal correspondence has been provided, discussions with Frederick County Public Schools indicate that the proposed school site meets the minimum standards established for a 750 student elementary school. However, constraints on the site would compromise the function of the facility, particularly the outdoor equipment areas and play field areas. The Schools request that an additional two to three acres be made available in order to provide a school site thatfully meets the needs of the school system and the community. As proffered, the proposed site would not accommodate an 850 student elementary school. ■ The revised application includes a reduction in the number of residential units and overall density for the Villages at Artrip. A maximum of 793 units is proffered which is 112 less than the previous amount of 905. The net result of this modification is a reduction in the gross residential density from 5.4 units per acre to 4.6 units per acre. This reduction in residential units is related to the relocation of the proffered school site. Pursuant to the procedure for modifications to the R4 requirements, the applicant had previously requested a modification to Section 165-62D to increase the overall gross density. This modification should reflect the proposed 4.6 units/acre density. ■ The applicant has increased the amount of commercial square footage that may be developed within the core area by 10,000 square feet to 128,550 square feet. However, the commitment to construct only 20,000 square feet prior to build out of the project remains in place. The applicant has increased their commitment to provide more residential units within the Core Area of the project within the first phase by increasing the minimum amount that shall be built to 100 residential units of three permitted unit types. Rezoning 412-05 — Villages at Artrip October 24, 2005 Page 21 ■ In an effort to simplify the mechanics of the application, the project is proposed to develop within two phases as opposed to three previously. Phase 1 shall not exceed 3 50 residential units and Phase II shall not exceed an additional 443 dwelling units for a total of 793 dwelling units. ■ The simplified development phasing program provides the basis for the transportation program which has been modified to ensure the timely completion of Warrior Drive as a four -lane section and to provide critical access to the proffered school site. As demonstrated, the applicant has made some relatively substantial modifications to the rezoning application. It is for this reason that an additional Public Hearing is being held at the Planning Commission for this application. Staff s review of the revised application has identified other comments and points that are more minor and administrative in context. These can most likely be attributed to the many changes that have been made to the application. Staff will be working with the applicant to ensure that the minor comments are addressed by the applicant. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 12/21/05 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 Community Facilities Impact to the school system. The Planning Commission should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been fully addressed by the applicant. In addition, the preliminary Master Development Plan for the Villages at Artrip, MDP# 09-05 is generally consistent with the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance. Confirmation of the issues identified in the staff report, and any issues raised by the Planning Commission, should be addressed prior to the decision of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has previously held the public hearing for this application. Following a second public hearing, a recommendation regarding this rezoning application to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. a __ Parcels Agricultural 8 Forestral Districts Double Church - Retuge Church South Frederick Villages At Artrip ( 75 - A -99A) 0 250 500 1,000 Feet ^� Bridges Application ^/ Culverts Lakes/Ponds V Dams ^ Mn� Streams 1%/ Retaining Walls -' Buildings Road Centerlines iTanks "I i Trails a __ Parcels Agricultural 8 Forestral Districts Double Church - Retuge Church South Frederick Villages At Artrip ( 75 - A -99A) 0 250 500 1,000 Feet SF NN 41 gj bla 41 1W CR M. - ft Qg ib J5 cm TJ C Af * g FL, . )> 6? 0 0� VA 51/ PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ #12-05 and MDP #09-05 RA to R4 PROPERTY: 169.924 acres +/-; Tax Map & Parcel 75-A- 99A (the "Property") RECORD OWNER: Winchester-Artrip Limited Liability Company, a Virginia Corporation APPLICANT: Winchester-Artrip Limited Liability Company PROJECT NAME: Villages at Artrip ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: June 2004 REVISION DATA: May 20, 2005 June 17, 2005 September 9, 2005 September 26, 2005 November 28, 2005 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced rezoning is not granted as applied for by the Applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "Final Rezoning" defined as that rezoning that is in effect on the day upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the "Board") grants the rezoning. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. The term "Applicant' as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners, assigns, and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Master Development Plan" shall refer to the plan entitled "Master Development Plan, The Villages at Artrip" prepared by Dewberry (the "MDP") dated September 23, 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 {00013039.DOC/ t0 PROFFERS 11.28.05.DOC 000419 000004} 1.1 The project shall be designed so as to establish interconnected mixed- use villages in conformance with the MDP and the GDP, and as is specifically set forth in these proffers. 1.2 Except as modified herein; areas of commercial development on the Property shall be developed in conformance with the regulations of the Residential Planned Community ("R4") zoning district, as set forth in the Frederick County Code Article VII, §165-67 through §165-72, as cross-referenced to Article X, § 165-82, Sections A through D inclusive, and § 165-83. All commercial development on the Property shall comply with the aforesaid regulations, or as may be otherwise approved by Frederick County. 1.2.1 Commercial, retail, restaurant and office development on the Property shall not exceed 128,550 square feet, and shall be provided within the Core Area. 1.3 Except as modified herein, areas of residential development on the Property shall be developed in conformance with the regulations of the Planned Community ("R4") zoning district, including permissible housing types, including those set forth in the Frederick County Code Article VII, § 165-67 through § 165-72, as cross-referenced to Article VI, § 165-58, through § 165-66, including as set forth in Appendix A. 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 793 dwelling units, with a mix of housing types permitted in the R4 district, subject to the modifications as set forth in Appendix A, and dwelling types shall be constructed in the locations generally depicted on the MDP and as further set forth herein. 1.3.2 For the purposes of these proffers, single-family attached and detached and multi -family units shall include those housing types identified on the MDP and set forth in the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance including detached cluster housing, small lot singles, single-family urban, zero lot line singles, and village rear load singles. Multi -family units shall include apartments and duplex units. 10001 3039.DOC / 10 PROFFERS 11.28.05.DOC 000419 000004}2 1.4 Development of commercial, residential and community uses within the area identified on the MDP as the "Core Area" shall generally conform to a grid lot layout, and the street layout and unit types depicted therein on the MDP. Not fewer than three housing types shall be provided in the Core Area. The layout of the Core Area shall be constructed in general conformance with the GDP, provided that reasonable adjustments may be made to the locations thereof upon final engineering. 1.4.1 The Applicant shall construct not fewer than 100 residential units of three different permitted unit types in the Core Area in Phase I of the development as otherwise set out herein. 1.5 Development within the Landbays on the Property outside the Core Area shall generally conform to the street layouts, points of connection to Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road, and the limits of development as are depicted on the MDP; provided that minor adjustments may be made to the locations thereof upon final engineering. 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 4.6 units per acre. 1.8 Shared parking shall be provided for retail, restaurant and office uses within Landbay "A" such that a 10% reduction or increase of the required parking spaces shall be permitted. 1.9 The Applicant shall make reasonable attempts to preserve the specimen Delaware Pine in the general vicinity of the cemetery on the property identified on the MDP as Village Green B. Such Green shall be preserved for passive recreational use, provided that a tot lot may be located thereon. 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 t00013039.DOC/10 PROFFERS11.28.05.DOC 000419 000004}3 3.1 The Property shall be developed in two phases, with the commercial portions of the Property to be developed in Phase II. The two phases shall be authorized as follows: 3.1.1 Phase I. Residential development shall not exceed 350 dwelling units and shall consist of not fewer than three permitted housing types. 3.1.2 Phase H. Residential development shall not exceed an additional 443 dwelling units, for a total of 793 dwelling units comprising not fewer than three permitted housing types. Commercial development shall include not less than 20,000 square feet of commercial/retail/restaurant gross leaseable floor space in the Core Area, which shall be completed not later than the 701 stth residential building permit. 3.1.3 Notwithstanding the foregoing, and except to the extent set forth herein, the Applicant may construct all or any portion of the commercial development authorized in these proffers at any time. 3.1.4 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 I, and constructed prior to the initiation of Phase II. 4. ARCHITECTURE, SIGNAGE, AND LANDSCAPING: 4.1 The following building materials may be used for construction within the Property, and no others: 4.1.1 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. 100013039.DOC/ 10 PROFFERS 11.28.05.DOC 000419 000004}4 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; aluminum brushed; anodized aluminum, colored; 304 stainless steel; chrome; canvass; neon. 4.2 Vinyl siding shall not be used on the front elevation of residential structures facing Warrior Drive or on the fronts of residences located on corner lots that intersect with Warrior Drive. The side of a residential structure that faces Warrior Drive located on a corner lot on a road that intersects Warrior Drive is not permitted to have vinyl siding on that elevation. 4.3 Notwithstanding the foregoing, materials used for exterior facades of the commercial buildings shall include but not be limited to concrete masonry units (CMU) split -faced block, architectural block, dryvit, or other simulated stucco (EFIS), real or simulated wood and/or glass. Standard concrete masonry block shall not be used for the front facades of any buildings. 4.4 All buildings within the development on the property shall be constructed using compatible architectural styles. The Applicant shall establish one or more Architectural Review Boards to enforce and administer a unified development plan. 4.5 All signage within the project shall be in substantial conformity with the comprehensive sign plan incorporated herein as Appendix B to these Proffers; provided that the Director of Planning may authorize alternative signage that is substantially consistent with the aforesaid sign plan. 4.6 The major collector roadways (Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road Extended) in the Villages at Artrip shall be constructed with a minimum 20' width buffers adjacent to dedicated rights-of-way and, except at entrance locations, shall be improved with landscape features and lighting to create a "boulevard" appearance. Illustrative details of such buffers shall be as set forth on the MDP. 5. PEDESTRIAN TRAIL SYSTEM AND RECREATION AREAS 5.1 The Applicant shall design and build a public pedestrian -bicycle trail system to Department of Parks and Recreation standards that links residential and commercial areas within the development and provides additional connectivity to adjacent properties. Said trails shall be in general conformance with the South Frederick Land Use Map and shall be in the locations generally depicted on the MDP. Five-foot sidewalks shall be constructed on all public streets and a minimum of four foot sidewalks shall be constructed on private streets in { 000 1 3039.DOC / 10 PROFFERS 11.28.05.DOC 000419 000004}5 accordance with the requirements of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, except as may be otherwise depicted on the MDP. The pedestrian/bicycling trail constructed along Warrior Drive shall be 10 feet wide, and shall have an asphalt surface. 6. FIRE & RESCUE: 6.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $537 per dwelling unit for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 7. SCHOOLS: 7.1 Within one hundred and eighty days of written request therefor, the Applicant shall dedicate to the Board of Supervisors approximately 15 acres of land as depicted on the MDP as Land Bay C, for use only as a future elementary school site. 7.2 The Applicant shall extend sewer and water lines to the boundary of the property to be dedicated therefor, at such time as sewer and water lines are constructed to the Core Area. 7.3 The Applicant shall, upon written request therefor, dedicate to the Board of Supervisors approximately five (5) additional acres of property adjacent to and on the southerly side of Warrior Drive, otherwise depicted on the MDP as preservation area, identified as Land Bay F, for public use that is compatible with residential character of the development of the Property and permitted in the R4 District pursuant to the County Zoning Ordinance. 7.4 The Applicant shall be permitted to retain an easement on any such dedicated property for the construction of permanent stormwater management facilities as well as temporary easements for the construction of utilities and structures for the Villages at Artrip. The Applicant shall coordinate any such facilities with the County and the School Division to assure that such facilities do not materially impede the use of the property for an elementary school, and that, to the maximum extent possible, such facilities may serve both the Applicant and any school constructed thereon. The Applicant shall be permitted to retain the right to construct stormwater management facilities for both quality and quantity purposes, on the dedicated property. 7.5 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $337 per dwelling unit for educational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 7.6 The time for any dedication hereunder shall be extended by such time as may be required to process a subdivision application necessary to (00013039.DOC / 10 PROFFERS 1 L28.05.DOC 000419 00000416 create the parcel of property to be dedicated, and the Applicant shall file and diligently pursue any such application in order to effectuate said dedication upon request therefor. 8. PARKS & OPEN SPACE: 8.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $847 per dwelling unit for recreational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 9. LIBRARIES: 9.1 The Applicant shall, contribute to the Board the sum of $137 per dwelling unit for library purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 10. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING: 10.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $144 to be used for construction of a general governmental administration building upon issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 11. CREATION OF HOMEOWNERS' AND PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION: 11.1 The residential portion of the development shall be made subject to one or more homeowners' association(s) (hereinafter "HOA") that shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of all common areas, including any conservation areas that may be established in accordance herewith not dedicated to the County or others, and stormwater management facilities not dedicated to public use, for each area subject to their jurisdiction, and shall be provided such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such associations or as may be required for such HOA herein. If there is more than one such association, the Applicant shall create an umbrella HOA with respect to the entire development that shall, among other things, have responsibility for assuring compliance with design guidelines and standards, signage requirements, private road and open space maintenance, and similar matters common to the development of the Property. 11.2 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, an HOA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all common open space areas not otherwise dedicated to public use specifically including the "Village Green" areas as depicted on the MDP, (ii) common buffer areas located outside of residential lots; (iii) private streets serving the residents who are members of such association; (iv) common solid waste disposal and recycling programs, including curbside pick-up of refuse by a private refuse collection 1000 1 3039.DOC / 10 PROFFERS 11.28.05.DOC 000419 000004}7 company, (v) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any street, perimeter, or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be located within easements to be granted to the HOA if platted within residential or other lots, or otherwise granted to the HOA by appropriate instrument, (vi) stormwater management facilities. 11.3 The commercial elements of the development shall be made subject to one or more property owners' association(s) (hereinafter "POA") that shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of all common areas, including any conservation areas that may be established in accordance herewith not dedicated to the County or others, and stormwater management facilities not dedicated to public use, for each area subject to their jurisdiction, and shall be provided such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such associations or as may be required for such POA herein. If there is more than one such association, the Applicant shall create an umbrella POA with respect to the entire development that shall, among other things, have responsibility for assuring compliance with design guidelines and standards, signage requirements, and similar matters. 11.4 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, a POA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all common open space areas not otherwise dedicated to public use, (ii) common buffer areas located outside of commercial lots; (iii) private streets serving the businesses and/or residents who are members of such association; (iv) common solid waste disposal and recycling programs to include dumpster and contract carrier services provided by a private refuse collection company, and (v) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any street, perimeter, or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be located within easements to be granted to the POA if platted within commercial or other lots, or parcels, or otherwise granted to the POA by appropriate instrument. 12. WATER & SEWER: 12.1 The Applicant shall be responsible for connecting the Property to public water and sewer, and for constructing all facilities required for such connection at the property boundary. All water and sewer infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. 13. ENVIRONMENT: 13.1 Stormwater management and Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Property shall be provided in accordance with the Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations, First Ed. 1999, Chapter 2, Table 2-3, or such requirements as may be applicable at the time of 1000 1 3039.DOC / 10 PROFFERS 11.28.05.DOC 000419 00000418 plan approval, for the purpose of providing the highest order of stormwater control in existing Virginia law at the time of construction of any such facility. 13.2 Strearn preservation buffers shall be constructed in general conformance with the MDP, so as to create buffer requirements established by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to protect Opequon Creek and the unnamed tributary to Opequon Creek from disturbance. No clearing or grading shall occur within those buffers, except for the construction of road crossings, trails, water lines, sanitary sewer, or other utilities. 13.3 During construction on the property, the limits of clearing and grading shall be identified and field flagged in connection with the Applicant's compliance with requirements of the Frederick County Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance, for the project as a whole, to prevent unintended disturbance of areas to be preserved. 13.4 The Village Pond located within the Core Area shall be improved and preserved as a visual amenity and may be used for storm water management purposes for both quality and quantity. 13.5 The fifty -foot woodland conservation area depicted in Land Bays D and E on the MDP, adjacent to Wakeland Manor, shall remain undisturbed; provided that the Applicant may provide for adequate stormwater management outfall within such conservation area. Any such outfall shall be designed so as to minimize the impact on such area. 14. TRANSPORTATION: 14.1 Transportation improvements shall be constructed in conjunction with each phase of the development as set forth below. Design of the roadway system shall be phased as set forth in these Proffers and shall be substantially consistent with the study entitled "A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of The Villages at Artrip," prepared by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, dated December 15, 2004 (the "TIA"). The exact location and design of proffered improvements shall be subject to reasonable adjustment upon final engineering thereof. The Applicant shall construct at its expense pedestrian -actualized signalization at each of those locations for which such signalization is identified in the TIA, upon issuance of warrants therefor unless such signalization has been accomplished by others. 14.2 Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for residential uses on streets to be placed into the State System of Secondary Highways, the Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Section 144-17 100013039.DOC/10 PROFFERS11.28.05.DOC 000419 00000419 (A) of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance. For the purposes of these Proffers, construction of any road or street referenced herein shall mean construction consistent with the requirements of that section. 14.3 The Applicant shall construct the following road improvements as its road phasing for Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road, if construction of that road is initiated from Wakeland Manor. 14.3.1. Prior to the issuance of the first residential building permit for the project, the Applicant shall construct an extension of Warrior Drive from Point A to Point B as depicted on the MDP, including construction of a full section of a roundabout or traffic signalized intersection, as may be approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation, at the intersection of Warrior and Parkins Mill Road. In conjunction with such construction, the Applicant shall further connect Warrior Drive into the adjacent property known as Wakeland Manor, so as to match the pavement widths of that portion of Warrior as constructed by others. The bridge crossing of the unnamed tributary of the Opequon on the southernmost edge of the Property at Point A shall be constructed to accommodate the ultimate design of Warrior Drive. 14.3.2. The Applicant shall further construct a full two lane section of Parkins Mill Road Extended, from its intersection with Warrior Drive at Point B to Point B2, as generally depicted on the MDP and within existing dedicated right-of-way. 14.3.3. Warrior Drive shall be constructed as an urban section pursuant to applicable VDOT standards therefor with an ultimate right- of-way 100' in width. Parkins Mill Road shall be constructed as a rural section pursuant to applicable VDOT standards therefor with an ultimate right-of-way 80' in width. 14.3.4. Upon initiation of said construction, the Applicant may further undertake grading, infrastructure construction, roads, and similar pre -construction activities and preparatory work necessary for building commercial or residential structures, upon issuance of permits therefor. 14.4 Prior to the issuance of the 351" residential building permit, the Applicant shall further construct Warrior Drive as a full four lane section roadway, from Points B to D as depicted on the MDP. 14.5 The Applicant may construct a model home or sales center on the Property concurrently with the construction of the bridge connection to 100013039.DOC / 10 PROFFERS 11.28.05.DOC 000419 000004 )10 Wakeland Manor, and consistently with applicable County ordinances and regulations. The Applicant shall be permitted to obtain an occupancy permit therefor once the bridge is open to the public, bonded for final completion, but not yet accepted into the State System of Secondary Roads. 14.6 In addition to the foregoing, the Applicant shall design and bond for completion the following improvements to Warrior Drive: 14.6.1. If the location of the connection of Warrior Drive into Crosspointe shall have been identified the Applicant shall complete the remainder of Warrior Drive from Point D to Point E as a full section of a four lane divided roadway to that point, by the issuance of the 600th residential building permit. 14.6.2. If the location of Warrior Drive into Crosspointe has not been adequately identified prior to the issuance of the 351s' residential building permit, the Applicant shall design and bond for construction Warrior Drive from Point D to Point E at a location that is approved by the County, so as to assure the availability of funds sufficient to complete Warrior to a connection with Crosspointe. 14.7 Road phasing if construction of Warrior Drive is initiated from Crosspointe: 14.7.1. In the event that others have constructed Warrior Drive from Crosspointe Center to the Property boundary prior to the initiation of development of the Property and Warrior is to be constructed from that boundary to the south, then prior to the issuance of the first residential building permit for the project, the Applicant shall bond and construct Warrior Drive from Point E to Point C, and construct an entrance to the school site at Point BI connecting the entrance of Canter Estates to the school site. 14.7.2. Prior to the issuance of the 351St residential building permit, the Applicant shall bond and construct Warrior Drive from Point C to Point A (including its extension to connect to Warrior Drive in Wakeland Manor as provided for if Warrior is commenced from the south), and shall complete Parkins Mill to Point B2, whereupon the Applicant will be permitted to build out the remainder of the residential units and commercial square footage. { 00013039.DOC / 10 PROFFERS 11.28.05.DOC 000419 000004 } 11 14.8 All left and right turn residential and commercial entrances to Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road shall be limited to those locations as generally depicted on the MDP. 14.9 Warrior Drive shall be constructed with a trail section throughout the Property, and such trail shall be extended to Crosspointe and into Wakeland Manor. 14.10 The Applicant shall connect Parkins Mill Road Extended, to include sidewalk or pedestrian trail on both sides of the road, to Canter Estates at such time as Parkins Mill is constructed as otherwise provided in these proffers. 14.11 The Applicant shall construct its internal road network as public or private roads as they are depicted on the MDP. In the event that the Virginia Department of Transportation declines to accept neo- traditional road designs for any such internal streets, the Applicant may construct such streets as private roads. 14.12 All public right-of-ways shall be dedicated to Frederick County as part of the subdivision approval process, consistently with applicable Virginia law. 14.13 All public streets and roads shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation specifications, and subject to review and approval by the Frederick County and VDOT. 14.14 All private streets and roads shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation standards therefor as set out on Sheet 3 of the MDP, and as modified thereby, and shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners or property owners association served by such streets or roads. 14.15 No construction traffic shall be permitted through Lot 121 in the adjacent Lakewood subdivision, or through Canter Estates, Section V. In no event shall a permanent interparcel connection be made through Lot 121. 14.16 The County shall permit the Applicant to construct a 2 -lane gravel access road as identified on Sheet 3 of the MDP, for construction access to the Villages at Artrip, including construction of roads, bridges, utilities, and stormwater management facilities. 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 (00013039.DOC / 10 PROFFERS 11.28.05.DOC 000419 000004) 12 County or the Authority shall leave such access road in place to permit maintenance access to the bridge between the Property and Wakeland Manor. 14.17 For purposes of these proffers, a road shall be deemed completed when it has been constructed to a point at which the road is open to the public, remains bonded for final completion, but has not yet been accepted into the State System of Secondary Roads. 15. CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATION AND PRESERVATION 15.1 The Applicant shall preserve the Artrip Family Cemetery. The Applicant shall further create a 0.5 acre preservation park surrounding the Cemetery, as generally depicted on the MDP. 16. ESCALATOR CLAUSE 16.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement are paid to the Frederick County Board County Supervisors ("Board") within 30 months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to the Board after 30 months following the approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index ("CPI -U") published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time contributions are paid, they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI -U from that date 30 months after the approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI -U to the date the contributions are paid, subject to a cap of 5% per year, non - compounded. SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE 100013039.DOC / 10 PROFFERS 11.28.05.DOC 000419 000004 } l 3 WINCHESTER ARTRIP, Limited Liability Company Jeffrey Abramson Title: Managing Member STATE OF MARYLAND; COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY: to -wit The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2005 , by Notary Public My Commission expires: 100013039.DOC / 10 PROFFERS 11.28.05.DOC 000419 000004} 14 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 {00013039.DOC/10 PROFFERS11.28.05.DOC EXISTING PROPOSED 10,000 SF 10,000 SF 8,000 SF 8,000 SF 000419 000004 } 15 4) MIN. YARDS: - SETBACK FROM ROAD ROW 35' 15' - SIDE YARDS 10' 5' - REAR YARD 25' 20' 5)MIN. LOT WIDTH AT SETBACK 60' 60' 6)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: EXISTING PROPOSED 10,000 SF 10,000 SF 8,000 SF 8,000 SF {00013039.DOC / 10 PROFFERS 11.28.05.DOC 000419 000004116 - 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 100013039.DOC / 10 PROFFERS 11.28.05.DOC 000419 000004} 17 BOUNDARIES 50' 50' 3) REAR YARD FROM PERIMETER BOUNDARIES 4) MIN. BUILDING SPACING 50' 50' 5) SETBACKS FOR OTHER USES NOT OTHERWISE SPECIFIED - FRONT 35' 35' - SIDE 15' 15' - REAR 50' 50' [00013039.DOC / 10 PROFFERS 11.28.05.DOC 000419 000004} 18 APPENDIX B Comprehensive Sign Plan 100013039.DOC / 10 PROFFERS 11.28.05.DOC 000419 000004 )19 Vb 120es Ott Artrbp Comprehensive Sign Concept Plan Prepared by - Winchester Artrip LLC November 5, 2004 ve� Major Entry Materials: possibly brick, wood, precast concrete, stone, or metal. Text shown on this sign is for illustrative purposes only. Location: At Major entrances. Purpose: To provide a community identification. Sign Concept Plan September p Page 2 Major Directional Materials: Possibly brick, wood, precast concrete, wood, stone, or metal. Text shown on this sign is for illustrative purposes only. Location: On major arterial, and collector roadways. Near community facilities.. Purpose: To provide pedestrian and vehicular direction. A -- Option B September 10, 2004 Sign Concept Plan Page 3 Neighborhood Identification Materials: possibly brick, wood, precast concrete, stone, or metal. Text shown on this sign is for illustrative purposes only. Location: At intersections of major arterial roads and neighborhood entrances. Size/Area: Not exceeding (50) square feet in area, and (6) feet in height Purpose: To provide neighborhood identification. Option B Sign Concept Plan September 10, 2004 Page 4 Materials: Possibly brick, wood, precast concrete, stone, or metal. Text shown on this sign is for illustrative purposes only. Location: Close proximity to park entrance and parking facilities. Size/Area: See illustrative drawings below. Purpose: To provide identification September 10, 2004 Sign Concept Plan Page 5 Community Center/Facility Materials: Possibly wood, metal, precast concrete, stone, or wood. Text shown on this sign is for illustrative purposes only. Location: Visible location for pedestrians and vehicles. Near or adjacent to font entrance of UUllding . Purpose: To provide community center identification throughout the community. Text shown on this sign is for illustrative purposes only. Sign Concept Plan September 10, 2004 Page 7 Multifamily Community Materials: brick precast concrete, pin -mounted letters Text shown on this sign is for illustrative purposes only. Location: At intersections of major arterial roads and neighborhood entrances. Size/Area: Not exceeding (5) feet in height Purpose: To provide neighborhood identification throughout the community. Text shown on this sign is for illustrative purposes only. September 10, 2004 Page 8 Sign Concept Plan Directional - Materials: Possibly brick, metal, precast concrete, stone, or wood. Design Character to be compatible with village center architecture. Location: Close proximity to parking areas, at circulation crossroads Purpose: To provide an information for visitors and community residents. September 1 O0, 2004 Page 9 Sign Concept Plan Identification Materials: Possibly brick, precast concrete, stone, wood, or metal. Text shown on th;s sign is for illustrative purposes only. Location: At major entrances off of arterial roads. Purpose:, Identification and orientation within the community. September lo, Sign Concept Plan 2004 Page 10 Sign Concept Plan Tenant Identification signs. Color: Tenant will be permitted to display their logo and color. Material: Possibly precast concrete, stone, brick, wood, or metal. Text shown on this sign is for illustrative purposes only. Building Address September 10, 004 Page 11 Directional Materials: Precast concrete, black metal pin -mounted letters. Text shown on this sign is for illustrative purposes only. Purpose To provide direction to office campus amenities. Location: Proximate to tenant identification sign. Along pedestrian an routes. Sign Concept Plan September 10, 2004 Page 12 PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ #12-05 and MDP #09-05 RA to R4 PROPERTY: 169.924 acres +/-; Tax Map & Parcel 75-A- 99A (the "Property") RECORD OWNER: Winchester-Artrip Limited Liability Company, a Virginia Corporation APPLICANT: Winchester-Artrip Limited Liability Company PROJECT NAME: Villages at Artrip ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: June 2004 REVISION DATA: May 20, 2005 June 17, 2005 September 9, 2005 September 26, 2005 November�8, 2005 Deleted: \ The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced rezoning is not granted as applied for by the Applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "Final Rezoning" defined as that rezoning that is in effect on the day upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the `Board") grants the rezoning. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners, assigns, and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Master Development Plan" shall refer to the plan entitled "Master Development Plan, The Villages at Artrip" prepared by Dewberry (the "MDP") dated September 23, 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 Formatted: Font: 8 pt 1,00013039.130C/10 PROFFERS 11.28.05.130C 000419 0000041 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 f"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 s_ 128.550 square feet, and sh_ a11--. -_ - Deleted: a ma�um of - R berovided within the Core Area, �------------------------------------- Deleted: 118,550 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. Deleted: and Land Bay F Inserted: and Land Bay Inserted: F 1.3.1 Residential development on the Property shall not exceed a maximum of 793 dwelling units, with a mix of housing -- Deleted:9o5 F--� ------------------------------ types permitted in the R4 district, subject to the Deleted: modifications as set forth in Appendix A, and dwelling Inserted: 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 --.- Deleted: 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. Formatted: Font: 8 pt --- ------------------------------------------- f00013039-DOC/ 10 PROFFERS 1 L28.05.DOC 000419 00000412 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 hree housing types shall be provided in __--- Deleted. two the Core Area. The layout of the Core Area shall be constructed in general conformance with the GDP, provided that reasonable adjustments may be made to the locations thereof upon final engineering. 1.4.1 The Applicant shall construct not fewer than 100 residential Deleted: 30 units of three different permitted unit types in the Core Area in Phase l 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 4.6 unitsper acre. __ ,. -- -- Deleted: 5.40 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 infiiegeneral vicinity of the cemetery on the property Deleted: on identified on the MDP as �Vlllage _ Gr_een J3. Such Green shall .be ------ Deleted: within preserved for passive recreational use, provided that a tot lot may be Deleted: the located thereon. Deleted: area 2. CONSTRUCTION OF A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CDeleted: co 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 Formatted; Font: 8 pt ------------------------- ,(00013039.DOC / 10 PROFFERS 11.28 05.DOC 000419 000004',3 3.1 The Pr9_pgrty h,�all be_ developed_ in wo _hases, with the commercial_ .-_----1Deleted:residentialportionsofthe portions of the Property to be developed in Phaseh The wo hases :;,, Deleted: are proposed to , shall be authorized as follows: Deleted: three 3.1.1 Phase I. Residential development shall not exceed X50 Deleted: s dwelling units and shall consist of not fewer than three ' ., `` Deleted: and III permitted housing types. Deleted: three Deleted: 300 3.1.2 Phase II. Residential development shall not exceed an------- additional 44 dwelling_ units, for a total_of7 3 dwell'419 Formatted: Bullets and Numbering units comprising not fewer than three permitted housing ;; f Deleted: 380 tees. Commercial development shall include blot less than Deleted: 5 s ware feet of cial/retail/restaurant gross 0,000 commercial/retail/restaurant q - -------------------------------, . Deleted: 580 leaseable floor space in the Core Area which shall be •, , J Deleted:5 completed not later than the 7P Is_(_ residential building `,, ` - -- Deleted: a minimum -- ep rmlt• l Deleted: of 3.1.3otwithstanding the foregoing,_ and except to the extent set Deleted: 00 _ forth herein, the Applicant may construct all or any_portion Formatted: superscript of the commercial development authorized in these proffers Deleted: <4> q at any time. Phase III. Residential development in Phase III shall not exceed the remaining permitted dwelling units. Because the 3,1.4 Communily improvements. Communi-servin '- --- ---- g Applicant cannot anticipate either market , improvements such as playing fields, community center 5 conditions, of the timing of the tennis courts and similar improvements as shown on the '; completion of a through connection of Warrior Drive from Interstate 81, through MDP shall be constructed in conjunction with the Landbay ` Crosspointe boulevard (as presently with which such improvements are associated; provided named) and Wakeland Manor to Tasker Road and Route 340/522, the Applicant that the community center and pool to be constructed in the cannot commit to the construction of Core Area shall be designed and bonded at the beginning ofadditional commercial at any fixed point in Phase ],_and constructed prior to the initiation of Phase hi. time. Deleted: the proceeding proffer 4. ARCHITECTURE, SIGNAGE, AND LANDSCAPING: t Deleted: <9>Notwithstandingany other provision of these proffers to the contrary, the Applicant shall not construct 4.1 The following building materials may be used for construction within ' any of the residential units otherwise in Phase III Warrior Drive the Property,and n0 others: permitted until has been constructed such that access is 1 available to the Property from Interstate 4.1.1 Pavements / Curbing shall consist of cast in place concrete, ` �,� W through o me and through through ManorTasker Road. , natural and colored; aggregate concrete-, precast concrete,Formatted: anto ¶ natural and colored; concrete pavers; brick pavers; stone Bullets and Numbering pavers; asphalt pavers; granite; ceramic tile; asphalt. Deleted: I Deleted: I 4.1.2 House sidings shall consist of EFTS; 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. Formatted: Font: 8 pt -------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OOI3039.DOC / 10 PROFFERS 11.28.05 -DOC 000419 00000414 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; aluminum brushed; anodized aluminum, colored; 304 stainless steel; chrome; canvass; neon. 4.2 Vinyl siding shall not be used on the front elevation of residential structures facing Warrior Drive or on the fronts of residences located on corner lots that intersect with Warrior Drive. The side of a residential structure that faces Warrior Drive located on a corner lot on a road that intersects Warrior Drive is not permitted to have vinyl siding on that elevation. 4.3 Notwithstanding the foregoing, materials used for exterior facades of the commercial buildings shall include but not be limited to concrete masonry units (CMU) split -faced block, architectural block, dryvit, or other simulated stucco (EFIS), real or simulated wood and/or glass. Standard concrete masonry block shall not be used for the front facades of any buildings. 4.4 All buildings within the development on the property shall be constructed using compatible architectural styles. The Applicant shall establish one or more Architectural Review Boards to enforce and administer a unified development plan. 4.5 All signage within the project shall be in substantial conformity with the comprehensive sign plan incorporated herein as Appendix B to these Proffers; provided that the Director of Planning may authorize alternative signage that is substantially consistent with the aforesaid sign plan. 4.6 The major collector roadways (Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road Extended) in the Villages at Artrip shall be constructed with a minimum 20' width buffers adjacent to dedicated rights-of-way and, except at entrance locations, shall be improved with landscape features and lighting to create a "boulevard" appearance. Illustrative details of Deleted: are such buffersha, ll be as -set -forth. on the MDP. ---------------------------------------------------------------= 5. PEDESTRIAN TRAIT, SYSTEM AND RECREATION AREAS 5.1 The Applicant shall design and build a public pedestrian -bicycle trail system to Department of Parks and Recreation standards that links residential and commercial areas within the development and provides additional connectivity to adjacent properties. Said trails shall be in general conformance with the South Frederick Land Use Map and shall be in the locations generally depicted on the MDP. Five-foot sidewalks shall be constructed on all public streets and a minimum of four foot sidewalks shall be constructed on private streets in Formatted: Font: 8 pt ------------------------ ---------------- --------------------- ;00013039.DOC/ 10 PROFFERS 11.28.05.DOC 000419 000004}5 accordance with the requirements of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, except as may be otherwise depicted on the MDP. The pedestrianibicycling trail constructed along Warrior Drive shall be 10 feet wide, and shall have an asphalt surface. 6. FIRE & RESCUE: 6.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $537 per dwelling unit for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 7. SCHOOLS: 7.1 Within one hundred and eighty days of written request therefor, the Applicant shall dedicate to the Board of Supervisors approximately E15 ,acres of land as depicted on the MDP as Land Bav C, for use only as a fue elementary school site, --------- tur TApplicant ll -extend sewer and water lines tthe bundaa --- 7.2 the p operty to beadedicat d therefor, at uch time as sewer and water — �;;, • lines are constructed to the Core Area, 7.3 The Applicant shall, upon written request therefor, dedicate to the-, Board_ of _Supervisors approximately five (5) additional acres of property adjacent to and on the southerly side of Warrior Drive otherwise depicted on the MDP as preservation area identified as Land Bay F, for public use that is compatible with residential character of the development of the Property and permitted in the R4 District pursuant to the County Zoning Ordinance. l Deleted: eleven Deleted: \ Inserted: Deleted: (11) Deleted: in conjunction with the adjacent property of others. Deleted: t + Insetted: the Applicant shall shall extend sewer and water lines to the boundary of the property to be dedicated therefor Deleted: shall Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Formatted: Bullets and Numbering 7.4 The Applicant shall be permitted to retain an easement on any such -,----- dedicated property for the construction of permanent stormwater management facilities as well as temporary easements for the construction of utilities and structures for the Villages at Artrip. The Applicant shall coordinate any such facilities with the County and the School Division to assure that such facilities do not materially impede the use of the property for an elementary school, and that, to 1he___--_- maximum extent possible, such facilities may serve both the Applicant and any school constructed thereon. The Applicant shall be permitted to retain the right to construct stormwater management facilities for both quality and quantity purposes, on the dedicated property. 7.5 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $337 per dwelling unit for educational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 7.6 The time for any dedication hereunder shall be extended by such time as may be required to process a subdivision application necessary to ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- 1 00013039. DOC/ 10 PROFFERS 1128.05.DOC 000419 00000416 Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Deleted; maximum Inserted: maximum Formatted: Font: 8 pt create the parcel of property to be dedicated, and the Applicant shall file and diligently pursue any such application in order to effectuate said dedication upon request therefor. 8. PARKS & OPEN SPACE: 8.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $847 per dwelling unit for recreational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 9. LIBRARIES: 9.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $137 per dwelling unit for library purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 10. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING: 10.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $144 to be used for construction of a general governmental administration building upon issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 11. CREATION OF HOMEOWNERS' AND PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION: 11.1 The residential portion of the development shall be made subject to one or more homeowners' association(s) (hereinafter "HOA") that shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of all common areas, including any conservation areas that may be established in accordance herewith not dedicated to the County or others, and stormwater management facilities not dedicated to public use, for each area subject to their jurisdiction, and shall be provided such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such associations or as may be required for such HOA herein. If there is more than one such association, the Applicant shall create an umbrella HOA with respect to the entire development that shall, among other things, have responsibility for assuring compliance with design guidelines and standards, signage requirements, private road and open space maintenance, and similar matters common to the development of the Property. 11.2 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, an HOA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all common open space areas not otherwise dedicated to public use specifically including the "Village Green" areas as depicted on the MDP, (ii) common buffer areas located outside of residential lots; (iii) private streets serving the residents who are members of such association; (iv) common solid waste disposal and recycling programs, including curbside pick-up of refuse by a private refuse collection Formatted: Font: 8 t p A----------------------------------------------------------- --------------- J00013039.DOC / 10 PROFFERS 1128.05.DOC 000419 00000417 company, (v) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any street, perimeter, or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be located within easements to be granted to the HOA if platted within residential or other lots, or otherwise granted to the HOA by appropriate instrument, (vi) stormwater management facilities. 11.3 The commercial elements of the development shall be made subject to one or more property owners' association(s) (hereinafter "POA") that shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of all common areas, including any conservation areas that may be established in accordance herewith not dedicated to the County or others, and stormwater management facilities not dedicated to public use, for each area subject to their jurisdiction, and shall be provided such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such associations or as may be required for such POA herein. If there is more than one such association, the Applicant shall create an umbrella POA with respect to the entire development that shall, among other things, have responsibility for assuring compliance with design guidelines and standards, signage requirements, and similar matters. 11.4 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, a POA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all common open space areas not otherwise dedicated to public use, (ii) common buffer areas located outside of commercial lots; (iii) private streets serving the businesses and/or residents who are members of such association; (iv) common solid waste disposal and recycling programs to include dumpster and contract carrier services provided by a private refuse collection company, and (v) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any street, perimeter, or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be located within easements to be granted to the POA if platted within commercial or other lots, or parcels, or otherwise granted to the POA by appropriate instrument. 12. WATER & SEWER: 12.1 The Applicant shall be responsible for connecting the Property to public water and sewer, and for constructing all facilities required for such connection at the property boundary. All water and sewer infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. 13. ENVIRONMENT: 13.1 Stormwater management and Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Property shall be provided in accordance with the Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations, First Ed. 1999, Chapter 2, Table 2-3, or such requirements as may be applicable at the time of Formatted: Font: 8 pt d----------------------------------------------- --------- 00013039.DOC / 10 PROFFERS 11.28 05 DOC 000419 0000W,8 plan approval, for the purpose of providing the highest order of stormwater control in existing Virginia law at the time of construction of any such facility. 13.2 Stream preservation buffers shall be constructed in general conformance with the MDP, so as to create buffer requirements ectahlichad by the Fredarink C aunty Zoning Ordi-n-mce t0 protect -� Opequon Creek and the unnamed tributary to Opequon Creek from disturbance. No clearing or grading shall occur within those buffers, except for the construction of road crossings, trails, water lines, sanitary sewer, or other utilities. 13.3 During construction on the property, the limits of clearing and grading shall be identified and field flagged in connection with the Applicant's compliance with requirements of the Frederick County Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance, for the project as a whole, to prevent unintended disturbance of areas to be preserved. 13.4 The Village Pond located within the Core Area shall be improved and preserved as a visual amenity and may be used for storm water management purposes for both quality and quantity. 13.5 The fifty -foot woodland conservation area depicted in Land Bays D and E on the MDP, adjacent to Wakeland Manor, shall remain undisturbed; provided that the Applicant may provide for adequate stormwater management outfall within such conservation area. Any such outfall shall be designed so as to minimize the impact on such area. 14. TRANSPORTATION: 14.1 Transportation improvements shall be constructed in conjunction with each phase of the development as set forth below. Design of the roadway system shall be phased as set forth in these Proffers and shall be substantially consistent with the study entitled "A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of The Villages at Artrip," prepared by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, dated December 15, 2004 lthe "TIA" ). The exact— location ------------------- location and design of proffered improvements shall be subject to reasonable adjustment upon final engineering thereof. The Applicant shall construct at its expense pedestrian -actualized signalization at each of those locations for which such signalization is identified in the TIA, upon issuance of warrants therefor unless such signalization has been accomplished by others. 14.2 Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for residential uses on streets to be placed into the State System of Secondary Highways, the Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Section 144-17 Deleted: May 6, 2004 Formatted: Font: 8 pt ----------------------------------------------------------------- f00013039.DOC / 10 PROFFERS 11.28.05.DOC 000419 00000419 (A) of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance. For the purposes Deleted: Phase of these Proffers, construction of any road or street referenced herein i, Deleted: :The following traffic shall mean construction consistent with the requirements of that improvements shall be designed and SBCtlOn. constructed during Phase I if construction thereof shall begin at the southernmost portion of the Property 14.3 The Applicant shall construct the following road improvements as its Formatted: Bullets and Numbering road_phasing for Warrior Drive and Parkins Miil Road, -if construction ;, ;", Deleted: Warrior Drive ina of that road is initiated from Wakeland Manor----------------------------------- ;' ,' i northwesterly direction Deleted: C 14.3.1. Prior to the issuance of the first residential building permit forF` the project, the Applicant shall construct an extension of ;'; Deleted: as a fun section of four lane dividedroadway, Warrior Drive Point A to Point J3 as depicted on the - ;; ' Deleted: --------------------------------------------- ets and Numbering MDP, �ncludingconstruction of a full section of a roundabout .' ;EDEeleted: or traffic signalized intersection, as may be approved by the ��E ;' Virginia Department of Transportation, at the intersection of j', Deleted:. The Warrior and Parkins Mill Road. In conjunction with such Inserted:. The construction, the Applicant shall further connect Warrior Drive ;, , ultimate right-of-way design for Warrior Drive shall be 100' in into the adjacent property known as Wakeland Manor, so as to ;''' wid& match the pavement widths of that portion of Warrior as ;'f Deleted:. constructed by others. The bridge crossing of the unnamed Deleted: design for Warrior Drive shall tributary of the Opequon on the southernmost edge of the be Property at Point A shall be constructed to accommodate the Deleted:. ultimate designof Warrior Drive. Deleted: <#>In con junctionw;thsneh construction, the Applicant shall further 14.3.2. The Applicant shall further constructfull two Iane section of connect Warrior Drive into the ad i ,a ; Parkins Mill Road Extended, from its intersection with Warrior �'V,; Inserted: <#>further Deleted: The right-of-way for t Drive at Point B to Point Bg2, as generally depicted on the MDPfz l and within existing dedicated right-of-way. ;;,"e ; ; ', Formatted: Superscript -- Deleted: Alternate road phasing 3 14.3.3. Warrior Drive shall be constructed as an urban section ursuant-�Ir i;'� Deleted: As an alterative to th= a able VDO standards herefor with an lt_1_mate Deleted: schedule _right-_ ii of -way kins Mill Road shall be constructed 1 ;,, - _ Deleted: for Phase I of Warrior I fsl as arura010 sectionpursuant to applicable VDOT standards ;;!; ... Deleted: a full section of therefor with an ultimate right -of way 80' In width. r Deleted' including the bridgecr 6 ;,', 14.3.4. Upon initiation of said construction, the A licant further � � �, Inserted: , _ _ mai undertake raiding, construction roads, and Deleted: A _infrastructure similar pre -construction_ activities and prime aratory work ;ti:;-;';'.; Deleted: to a full section of the necessary for buildiniz commercial or, residential structures, Inserted: upon issuance of permits therefore r;;:', ---------------------------------------- Deleted: and within existing de a 14.4 Prior to the issuance of the 351st residential building permit, theti'�-,'-' Inserted: Parkins Mill Roads g Applicant shall further construct Warrior Drive as a full four lane ;it""'%•'' Deleted: T ---------------------- -------------------- section roadway,,ft P- ints � Jo D as depicted on the MDP _ - r-------------------------. Inserted: and withinexistin g ---- Deleted: <#>Inconjunction 14.5 The Applicant may construct a model home or sales center on the—,,"- Formatted iz Property concurrently with the construction of the bridge connection to Inserted: <#>I 13 Formatted: Font: B pt ----- ------ -- ----- -------- - -- --- ---- ------ - - -- -- ------------------ 100013039.DOC / 10 PROFFERS 11.28.05,DOC 000419 000004110 14.6 t Inserted: The Applicant sha Deleted: The right-of-way for Deleted: <#>The Applicant sh Wakeland Manor, and consistently with applicable County ordinances Formatted: Bullets and Nurc and regulations. The Applicant shall bepermitted toobtain anDeleted, <#>: The following t;' ;`;;'; occupancy permit therefor once the bridge is ol2en to the public;r';';{Deleted: <#>., q bonded for final completion, but not yet accepted into the State System Deleted: <#>o ep of Secondary Roads ;';, Deleted: <#>51 -residential bt ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Deleted: <#>o 14.6.1.jf the location of the connection of Warrior Drive into Crosspointe shall have been identified She Applicant shall om rete the remainder of Warrior Drive from Point D to Point E as a full section of a four lane divided roadway to that point; by the issuance of the 600th residential building permit. 14.6.2. If the location of Warrior Drive into Crosspointe has not beenF adequately identified prior to the issuance of the 351St location that is approved by the County, so as to assure the availability of funds sufficient to complete Warrior to a connection with Crosspointe. 14.7 ,Road_phasing__if construction of Warrior Drive is initiated Crosspointe: 14.7.1. In the event that others have constructed Warrior Drive from Crosspointe Center to the Property boundaryprior to the initiation of development of the Proper%and Warrior is to be constructed from that boundary to the south, then prior to the issuance of the first residential building permit for the project, the Applicant shall bond and construct Warrior Drive ,from Point E to Point C, and construct an entrance to the school site i at Point 131 connecting the entrance of Canter Estates to the 14.7.2. Prior to the issuance of the 35 Vst_residential ­building­permit_the, Applicant shall bond and construct Warrior Drive from Point C to PoinA Jincluding its extension to connect to Warrior Drive in Wakeland Manor as provided for if Warrior is commenced from the south), and shall complete Parkins Mill to Point 132 - whereupon She Appulicant will be permitted to build out the remainder of the residential nits and commercial square i IL------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---------- 00013039.DOC / 10 PROFFERS 11.28.05.130C 000419 000004111 1 Deleted: <#>Notwithstandmg { Deleted: <#>the completion of Deleted: <#>Parkins Mill Roa Deleted: <#>effected Deleted: <#>6 Deleted: <#> 70 +; Inserted: <#>5. -.,...Warrior Deleted: <i"? residential b !> Deleted: <#-completed not rat Inserted: <#>5... and within Deleted: <#>The right -of --way f}rt Inserted: <#>70 Deleted: <#>5 Deleted: <#>Oth residential bttr Deleted: <#> as set forth in Prf i; j Deleted: <#>. 1;$ Deleted: Phase III road phasinf ,� ' : complete, lete, or bond 1^�l ,f jr,r Inserted: complete, or bond frT Deleted: , Insetted: , the following road � X33 Deleted: road ... prior to the is�34 Inserted: prior to the issuance,,, (35 Deleted: 650 Deleted: 70 Insetted: 700 Deleted: 0 Deleted: Ist residential building permit Inserted: Ist residential buildi Deleted:. Inserted: . Deleted: In the event that Inserted: In the event that Deleted: sufficiently to permit Deleted: T Deleted: construct ... C.... Inserted: . Formatted: Bullets and Num(- Formatted Deleted: 650 Deleted: 70 Inserted: 700 Deleted: 0 Formatted: Bullets and 14.8 All left and right turn residential and commercial entrances to Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road shall be limited to those locations as generally depicted on the MDP. 14.9 Warrior Drive shall be constructed with a trail section throughout the Property, and such trail shall be extended to Crosspointe and into Wakeland Manor. 14.10 The Applicant shall connect Parkins Mill Road Extended, to include sidewalk or pedestrian trail on both sides of the road, to Canter Estates_- Deleted:, theseproffers..--- Phase n ------ -_ -- — provided Deleted: prior to the completion of ,at such timeme as --Parkins in Parks Mill is constructed as otherwise roo ved in De _---_-- P Deleted: I 14.11 The Applicant shall construct its internal road network as public or Deleted: ii, private roads as they are depicted on the MDP. In the event that the FI�nserted: , at such time as Parkins Mill Virginia Department of Transportation declines to accept neo- onstructed as otherwise provided in traditional road designs for any such internal streets, the Applicant se proffers may construct such streets as private roads. 14.12 All public right-of-ways shall be dedicated to Frederick County as part of the subdivision approval process, consistently with applicable Virginia law. 14.13 All public streets and roads shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation specifications, and subject to review and approval by the Frederick County and VDOT. 14.14 All private streets and roads shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation standards therefor as set out on Sheet 3 of the MDP, and as modified thereby, and shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners or property owners association served by such streets or roads. 14.15 No construction traffic shall be permitted through Lot 121 in the adjacent Lakewood subdivision, or through Canter Estates, Section V. In no event shall a permanent interparcel connection be made through Dented; said -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- of 121. 14.16 The County shall permit the Applicant to construct a 2 -lane gravel access road as identified on Sheet 3 of the MDP, for construction access to the Villages at Artrip, including construction of roads, bridges, utilities, and stormwater management facilities, 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 Formatted; Font: 8 pt ------------------------------------ ,'. ------------------------- 00013039.DOC / 10 PROFFERS 11.28.05.DOC 000419 0000041,12 County or the Authority shall leave such access road in place to permit maintenance access to the bridge between the Property and Wakeland Manor. 14.17 For purposes of these proffers, a road shall be deemed completed when--------- f Formatted: Bullets and Numbering it has been constructed to a point at which the road is open to the public, remains bonded for final completion, but has not vet been accepted into the State System of Secondary Roads. 15. CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATION AND PRESERVATION 15.1 The Applicant shall preserve the Artrip Family Cemetery. The Applicant shall further create a 0.5 acre preservation park surrounding the Cemetery, as generally depicted on the MDP. 16. ESCALATOR CLAUSE 16.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement are paid to the Frederick County Board County Supervisors (`Board") within 30 months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to the Board after 30 months following the approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index ("CPI -U") published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time contributions are paid, they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI -U from that date 30 months after the approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI -U to the date the contributions are paid, subject to a cap of 5% per year, non - compounded. SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE Formatted: Font: 8 pt --------------------------------------' ;00013039.DOC / 10 PROFFERS 11 28.05.DOC 000419 000004} 13 WINCHESTER ARTRIP, Limited Liability Company Jeffrey Abramson Title: Managing Member STATE OF MARYLAND; COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY: to -wit The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this , 2005, by My Commission expires: day of Notary Public Formatted: Font: 8 pt L------- --------------- --------------------------- {00013039.DOC / 10 PROFFERS 11.28.05.DOC 000419 0000041 14 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 EXISTING PROPOSED 2) MIN. TOTAL LOT AREA PER DWELLING 10,000 SF 10,000 SF 3) MIN. LOT AREA 8,000 SF 8,000 SF 4) MIN. YARDS: - SETBACK FROM ROAD ROW 35' 20' - SIDE YARDS 10' 5' - REAR YARD 25' 25' 5)MIN. LOT WIDTH AT SETBACK 60' 60' 6)MIN. LOT WIDTH AT ROAD ROW 30' 30' 7)MIN. OFF STREET PARKING 2/ UNIT 2/ UNIT SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED CLUSTER REAR LOAD 1) IN A PROPOSED CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM TOTAL AREA PER DWELLING UNIT OF 10,000 SF, NOT INCLUDING LAND IN REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE AND ROAD ROW. NO INDIVIDUAL LOT SHALL BE SMALLER THEN 8,000 SF. FOR EACH LOT THAT IS LESS THAN 10,000 SF BY A GIVEN SQUARE FOOTAGE, AN EQUIVALENT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LAND SHALL BE ADDED TO THE REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE EXISTING PROPOSED 2) MIN. TOTAL LOT AREA PER DWELLING 10,000 SF 10,000 SF 3) MIN. LOT AREA 8,000 SF 8,000 SF Formatted: Font: 8 pt A---------- ------------------------------------------------- .00013039.DOC / 10 PROFFERS 11.28 OS DOC 000419 000004)l 5 4) MIN. YARDS: - SETBACK FROM ROAD ROW 35' 15' - SIDE YARDS 10' 5' - REAR YARD 25' 20' 5)MIN. LOT WIDTH AT SETBACK 60' 60' 6)MIN. LOT WIDTH AT ROAD ROW 30' 30' 7)MIN. OFF STREET PARKING 2/ UNIT 2/ UNIT SINGLE FAMILY SMALL LOT REAR LOAD EXISTING PROPOSED 1) MIN. LOT SIZE 3,750 SF 3,750 SF 2) OFF STREET PARKING SPACES 2 2 3) SETBACK FROM STATE ROAD 25' 25' 4) SETBACK FROM PRIVATE ROAD 20' 15' 5) REAR YARD 15' 15' 6) SIDE YARD 5' 5' SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED CLUSTER REAR LOAD W/DETACHED GARAGE 1) IN A PROPOSED CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM TOTAL AREA PER DWELLING UNIT OF 10,000 SF, NOT INCLUDING LAND IN REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE AND ROAD ROW. NO INDIVIDUAL LOT SHALL BE SMALLER THEN 8,000 SF. FOR EACH LOT THAT IS LESS THAN 10,000 SF BY A GIVEN SQUARE FOOTAGE, AN EQUIVALENT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LAND SHALL BE ADDED TO THE REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE EXISTING PROPOSED 2) MIN. TOTAL LOT AREA PER DWELLING 10,000 SF 10,000 SF 3) MIN. LOT AREA 8,000 SF 8,000 SF 4) MIN. YARDS: Formatted: Font: 8 pt �---------------------------- ----------------- ---------------- {00013039.DOC / 10 PROFFERS 1128.OS.DOC 000419 000004116 - 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 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 Formatted: Font: 8 pt -------------------- --------------------- ;00013039.DOC / 10 PROFFERS 11.28.05.DOC 000419 000004117 BOUNDARIES 50' 50' 3) REAR YARD FROM PERIMETER BOUNDARIES 50' 50' 4) MIN. BUILDING SPACING 50' S0' 5) SETBACKS FOR OTHER USES NOT OTHERWISE SPECIFIED - FRONT 35' 35' - SIDE 15' 15' - REAR 50' 50' Formatted: Font: 8 pt ----------------- - {00013039.DOC/ 10 PROFFERS 11.28.05.DOC 000419 000004k18 APPENDIX B omprehensive-Sian_ Plan ----------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- WOO13039.DOC / 10 PROFFERS 11.28.05.DOC 000419 000004119 Deleted: LANDSCAPING PLAN Formatted: Font: 8 pt Page 10: [1] Deleted dfrank 11/28/2005 12:19 PM 14.3.1.1.In conjunction with such construction, the Applicant shall further connect Warrior Drive into the adjacent property known as Wakeland Manor, so as to match the pavement widths of that portion of Warrior as constructed by others. The bridge crossing of the unnamed tributary of the Opequon on the southernmost edge of the Property at Point A shall be constructed to accommodate the ultimate design of Warrior Drive. Page 10: [2] Deleted jfoote 11/22/2005 9:02 AM The right-of-way for the ultimate design of Warrior Drive shall be 100' in width. Page 10: [3] Deleted jfoote 11/22/2005 9:07 AM Alternate road phasing for Phase I of Warrior Drive if constructed from Wakeland Manor: Page 10: [4] Deleted dfrank 11/28/2005 12:06 PM As an alternative to the foregoing phasing Page 10: [5] Deleted dfrank 11/28/2005 12.06 PM for Phase I of Warrior Drive, and at the sole discretion of the Applicant, t Page 10: [6] Deleted dfrank 11/28/2005 12:07 PM including the bridge crossing of the unnamed tributary of the Opequon, Page 10: [7] Deleted dfrank 11/28/2005 12:07 PM 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 Bl, as depicted on the MDP Page 10: [8] Deleted dfrank 11/28/2005 12.07 PM and within existing dedicated right-of-way sufficiently to connect to the intersection of Parkins Mill Road and access to Canter Estates, as may have been constructed by others. Parkins Mill Road shall be constructed as a rural section pursuant to applicable VDOT standards therefor. The right-of-way for Parkins Mill Road shall be 80' in width. Page 10: [9] Inserted jfoote 11/22/2005 8:28 AM Parkins Mill Road shall be constructed as a rural section pursuant to applicable VDOT standards therefor. The right-of-way for Parkins Mill Road shall be 80' in width. Page 10: [10] Inserted jfoote 11/22/2005 8:25 AM and within existing dedicated right-of-way sufficiently to connect to the intersection of Parkins Mill Road and access to Canter Estates, as may have been constructed by others Page 10: [11] Deleted dfrank 11/28/2005 12:07 PM In conjunction with such construction, the Applicant shall connect Warrior Drive into the adjacent property known as Wakeland Manor, so as to match the pavement widths of that portion of Warrior as constructed by others. The bridge crossing of the unnamed tributary of the Opequon on the southernmost edge of the Property at Point A shall be constructed to accommodate the ultimate design of Warrior Drive. The Applicant may further undertake grading, infrastructure construction, roads, and similar pre -construction activities and preparatory work necessary for building commercial or residential structures, upon issuance of permits therefor. Page 10: [12] Formatted jfoote 11/22/2005 9:18 AM Indent: Left: 0.75", Hanging: 0.5", Outline numbered + Level: 2 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Tab after: 0.55" + Indent at: 0.55", Tabs: 0.75", List tab + 1.25", List tab + Not at 0.55" Page 10: [13] Inserted jfoote 11/22/2005 9:07 AM The Applicant may further undertake grading, infrastructure construction, roads, and similar pre -construction activities and preparatory work necessary for building commercial or residential structures, upon issuance of permits therefor. The Applicant may construct a model home or sales center on the Property concurrently with the construction of the bridge connection to Wakeland Manor, and consistently with applicable County ordinances and regulations. Page 11: [14] Inserted jfoote 11/22/2005 9:17 AM The Applicant shall be permitted to obtain an occupancy permit therefor once the bridge is open to the public Page 11: [15] Deleted jfoote 11/22/2005 9:04 AM The right-of-way for the ultimate design of Warrior Drive shall be 100' in width. Page 11: [16] Deleted dfrank 11/28/2005 12:17 PM The Applicant shall construct the following improvements as its Phase II road phasing for Warrior Drive if construction is initiated from Wakeland Manor Page 11: [17] Change WCLET 9/26/2005 3.13 PM Formatted Bullets and Numbering Page 11: [18] Deleted dfrank 11/28/2005 12:17 PM The following traffic improvements shall be constructed as part of Phase II if construction thereof shall begin at the southernmost portion of the Property Page 11: [19] Deleted dfrank 11/28/2005 12:17 PM 14.5. Prior to the issuance of the 3 Page 11: [20] Deleted dfrank 11/28/2005 12:17 PM 14.5.1.51" residential 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 Warrior has not been already constructed to Point B. In order to permit the Applicant to initiate development of the Property from either Warrior Drive or Parkins Mill Road, in the Applicant's discretion, and if it has not already done so in accordance with the foregoing proffers, then prior to the issuance of the 3 Page 11: [21] Deleted dfrank 11/28/2005 12:17 PM Notwithstanding any other provision hereof, the improvements to Page 11: [22] Deleted dfrank 11/28/2005 12.17 PM Parkins Mill Road shall be bonded and Page 11: [23] Inserted jfoote 11/22/2005 8:26 AM 5 Page 11: [23] Inserted jfoote 11/22/2005 8:26 AM Page 11: [23] Inserted jfoote 11/22/2005 8:26 AM Warrior has Page 11: [23] Inserted jfoote 11/2212005 8:26 AM been Page 11: [23] Inserted jfoote 11/22/2005 8:26 AM to Point B Page 11: [24] Deleted dfrank 11/28/2005 12:17 PM 51" residential 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 B 1, as generally depicted on the MDP and within existing dedicated right-of-way sufficiently to connect to the intersection of Parkins Mill Road and access to Canter Estates as may have been constructed by others. Page 11: [25] Deleted dfrank completed not later than the issuance of the 11/28/2005 12:17 PM Page 11: [26] Inserted jfoote 11/22/2005 8:27 AM 5 Page 11: [26] Inserted jfoote 11/22/2005 8:27 AM and within existing dedicated right-of-way sufficiently to connect to the intersection of Parkins Mill Road and access to Canter Estates as may have been constructed by others Page 11: [26] Inserted jfoote 11/22/2005 9:10 AM The right-of-way for Parkins Mill Road shall be 80' in width. Notwithstanding any other provision hereof, the improvements to the completion of Parkins Mill Road shall be bonded and effected completed not later than the issuance of the 6 Page 11: [27] Deleted dfrank 11/28/2005 12:17 PM The right-of-way for Parkins Mill Road shall be 80' in width. Page 11: [28] Deleted dfrank 0th residential building permit Page 11: [29] Deleted dfrank as set forth in Proffer 14.6.2, below Page 11: [30] Deleted dfrank 11/28/2005 12:17 PM 11/28/2005 12:17 PM 11/28/2005 12:17 PM Page 11: [31] Deleted jfoote 11/22/2005 8:29 AM Phase III road phasing for Warrior Drive if construction is initiated from Wakeland Manor: The Applicant shall construct the following traffic improvements prior to the issuance of the 681st residential building permit as Phase III of the said improvements if construction thereof shall begin at the southernmost portion of the Property. Page 11: [32] Inserted jfoote complete, or bond for completion Page 11: [33] Inserted jfoote , the following road improvements Page 11: [34] Deleted road dfrank 11/22/2005 8:29 AM 11/22/2005 8:29 AM 11/28/2005 1:47 PM Page 11: [34] Deleted dfrank 11/28/2005 1:47 PM prior to the issuance of the Page 11:[35] Inserted jfoote 11/22/2005 8:29 AM prior to the issuance of the 650 Page 11: [36] Inserted jfoote 11/27/2005 4:51 PM 1 st residential building permit Page 11: [37] Deleted dfrank 11/28/2005 2:09 PM sufficiently to permit construction of Warrior to that point on the Property, Page 11: [38] Deleted dfrank 11/28/2005 1:49 PM construct Page 11: [38] Deleted dfrank 11/28/2005 12.18 PM C Page 11: [38] Deleted dfrank 11/28/2005 1.49 PM Page 11: [39] Change jfoote 11/22/2005 9:20 AM Formatted Bullets and Numbering Page 11: [40] Formatted dfrank 11/28/2005 12:31 PM Superscript Page 11: [41] Deleted dfrank 11/28/2005 12.18 PM 1 st Page 11: [41] Deleted dfrank 11/28/2005 12:18 PM shall complete Warrior from Point C to Point D, and Page 11: [41] Deleted dfrank 11/28/2005 12:32 PM further Page 11: [41] Deleted dfrank 11/28/2005 12:21 PM to the Property boundary with Crosspointe Page 11: [42] Change WCLET 9/26/2005 3:13 PM Formatted Bullets and Numbering Page 11: [43] Deleted dfrank 11/28/2005 12:18 PM If not already completed, the Applicant shall bond and construct a full two lane section of Parkins Mill Road Extended, from its intersection with Warrior Drive at Point B to Point Bl, as generally depicted on the MDP. Notwithstanding any other provision hereof, Parkins Mill Road shall be bonded and completed not later than the issuance of the 701" residential building permit. Page 11: [44] Inserted WCLET 11/23/2005 4:15 PM Notwithstanding any other provision hereof, Parkins Mill Road shall be bonded and completed not later than the issuance of the 701St residential building permit. Page 11: [45] Deleted dfrank 11/28/200512:18 PM The right-of-way for Parkins Mill road shall be 80' in width. Page 11: [46] Deleted dfrank in a southeasterly direction Page 11: [46] Deleted dfrank as Phase I of its road improvements 11/28/2005 12:25 PM 11/28/2005 12:23 PM Page 1: [47] Formatted WCLET 11/23/2005 4:12 PM Font: 8 pt IMPACT ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VILLAGES AT ARTRIP November 28, 2005 Introduction The Winchester Artrip Limited Liability Company, a Virginia corporation, has submitted its application for consideration of the Frederick County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to rezone the Winchester Artrip Limited Partnership Property ("the Property" hereinafter) located in Frederick County, Virginia from Rural Areas (RA) to Residential Planned Community District (R4). The Property is identified in detail 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, 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 A through F, 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 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. 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 and that reflected in earlier Executive Summaries . This revised Summary is substituted for previous versions, and the Exhibits heretofore filed are incorporated herein by reference. The proposed gross residential density has been reduced to 4.6 dwelling units per acre (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. We note that two 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, and apartments over retail. 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 of development serves not only this project but the Warrior Drive/Crosspointe Boulevard corridor. The approval of this rezoning, as it has been yet further revised during consultations with the Planning Commission and 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 20,000 square feet of commercial development prior to completion of the project, and prior to the completion of a through connection to Crosspointe. But the Applicant has also heard 2 clearly the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission for commercial development of the area, and once this connection is made the Applicant anticipates that the project will readily sustain the total commitment of 128,550 square feet of retail, office and restaurant space. The Applicant is also aware that Crosspointe has submitted, or will soon submit, a Master Development Plan :;r its property that will be the first step in the construction of that project. 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. Not fewer than three housing types will be provided in that Core Area. The Applicant shall commence development of the Core Area at the outset and not fewer than 100 residential units shall be built there as part of Phase I of the development. 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. 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, 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 3 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 conservatively 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 $6,000,000. Construction of Warrior will be undertaken with the development of this Property, including either the construction of the connection between Warrior at the Crosspointe boundary, if a set location for that connection has been determined, or bonding of the extension if that location has not been determined by the time that the Applicant is engaged in the development of that portion of the Property. 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 and connecting to Canter Estates. Dedication of Land for an Elementary School Site and Other Purposes As an integral part of its revised application, the Applicant will dedicate 15 acres of property to be used for the location of an elementary school site. The proposed location of this school has been completely revised to increase the amount of land to be dedicated, to be on land entirely within the Applicant's control, and to be adjacent to the Core Area. This change has been discussed with the School Division staff, which will provide revised comments.2 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 a modest increase in the permitted density cap of 4 DU/AC per County Code, Article 1V, § 165-72.C, an increase in the maximum permitted land use area of 40% of the total residential area for 2 The Applicant had formerly proposed to dedicate approximately 5 acres of additional land, but has revised its submission to show increased commercial uses for that property. 11 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 the provision of a probable school site to add significantly to the sense of that 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 N REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Tobe completed byPlanning Staf Fee Amount Paid Zoning Amendment N=bcr Date Received C Hearing Date E30S 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 Artri 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 Artrip LLC _ Telephone: 301-984-7000 Address: 11501 Huff Court, North Bethesda, MD 20895 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 X 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 Artrip, LLC,....a wholly owned subsidiary of Tower Real I Estate Group, LLC, the managing members of which are: Albert, Jeffrey, Gary and Ronald Abramson. 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). 10 Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 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 169.924 RA R4 169.924 Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed : 905 Residental units - Single Family homes: Non -Residential Lots: Office: Retail: Restaurant: Number of Units Proposed SFD/ Townhome/ MULTI . Family Townhome: Multi -Family: Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms: Square Footaze of Proposed Uses _ Service Station: Manufacturing: Warehouse: 118,550 SF Commercial/retail/office/ Other: Residental 13 Resend 5-19-05; 2:31PM;DEWBERRV 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederica County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property i61 site inspection purposes. I (we) understandthat the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the PIanning 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): Date: Date: Owmer(s): Date: -:SOq Ase UO -� Date: 12 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Pian Application Package APPLICATION MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. Project Title: The Villages at Artrip 2. Owner's Name: Winchester Artrip, LLC (Please list the names of all owners or parties in interest) 3. Applicant: Winchester Artrip, LLC Address: c/o The Tower. Companies, 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 Frederick County, Virginia Master hevelonment Plan Application Packat,,, APPLICATION cont'd AL STrg DEVEX.npAn-ivT prLAl� �,v .L 1 5. Location of Property 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 Route649), and 150' north of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176). 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 X Amended I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. I also understand that the'master development plan shall include all contiguous land under single or common ownership. All required material will be complete prior to the submission of my master development plan application. Signature: Date: Page 14 Frederick County, Virginia Master D evelol2ment, Plan Applicgtfion Package Adjoining Property Owners MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Owners ofproperty adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right of way, a private right -of -wap, 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 floor of the Frederick County AaWnistration Building, 107 North Kent Street. NAME eT%T1a'U-od /_- Page 15 THE VILLAGES AT ARTR/P TABLE 3 Adjacent Property Owners PIN 75-A-101 Name Wakeland Manor Land Trust Address 300 Craig St. City St: Zip Use Zoning 75-A-95 Glaize Development, Inc. P.O. Box 888 Stephen City Winchester VA VA 22655 6 75-A-96 75-A-97 Glaize Development, Inc. Steve P.O. Box 888 Winchester VA 22604 22604 2 (Residential) 6 (Over 100 Ac.) RA RA 75-A-99 . Frederick County ick County 346 Saddleback Lane 107 N. Kent St. Winchester VA 22602 2 (Residential) RA 75G-11-8-116 Ronald Santoro & Pamela Chagnon 106 Canaan Ct. Winchester Stephens City VA VA 22601 73 (Exempt) RP 75G-11-8-117 75G-11-8-118 James Swiger &Michelle Vitela 105 Canaan Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 22655 2 (Residential) RP David T.& Tammy M. Foster Y 103 Canaan Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 75G-11-8-120 75G-11-8-121 Robert & Mary E. McDonald 109 Fair Lawn Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 75G-11-8-122 Winchester/Artrip LP Timothy J. Elliot Sr. & Kathleen A. Elliott 11501 Huff Ct. N. Bethesda MD. 20895 2 (Residential) 2 (Residential) RP RP 75G-11-8-123 Timothy Wingfield Y g 105 Fair Lawn Ct. 103 Fair Lawn Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 75G-4-413-60 Rodney & Suzanne R. Torp 102 Jade Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 75G-4-46-62 John &Melissa Corder P.O. Box 90010 c/o Valerie Whit Stephens City Richmond VA VA 22655 -2 (Residential) RP 75G -4-4B-63 75G -4-4B-64 Patricia Gail Beardslee Cynthia D. Rodriguez 125 Bell Haven Cr. 127 Stephens City VA 23225 22655 2 (Residential) 2 (Residential) RP RP 75G-8-5-85 Timothey J. & Karen E. Adams Bell Haven Cr. 129 Bell Haven Cr. Stephens City VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 76-A-13 W.F. Artrip, Jr. 1726 Front Royal Pike Stephens City Winchester VA VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 76-A-23 Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 480 Stephens City VA 22602 22655 6— (Over 100 Ac.) 5 (20-100 AC.) RA 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 11/8 110:30 AM RkProjectV, J0071AdmnlRezoning Application Text Documents\REZONING TABLES.xls3 SURR OWNERS v N�O�B �°6I833„� 1 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHEET 1 OF 5 THE VILLAGESATARTRIP A DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOWER COMPANIES PARKINS MILL PRECINCT' IN SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DI STRICT J THE TOWER COMPANIES 11501 Huff Court NodhBdhmdq ?&ry d20895 TEL 301.984.7000 FAX 301.984.6033 vrnw.lawemmpmlusmm 29 APRIL 2005 SCALE: V" 100' R GRAPHIC SCALE �� r oizzn APPROVER BY 7N£ COUNTY "MMISTRATOR APPROPFD B)THE DIRECTOR OF lLINNINF ,IND DEYELOP.&ffNr 5/RdY'NR uF FLLY. s OSYFL D"u R SMN BLOCE BAWRLPTION DATE 1 PSR COUNTY C0NNFVT7 2 15./0.5 5/I/— TLUDDYJ(E£77N0 6/10/05 5120/05 9 RUDDY LE7TF'R 5 31;'OS 6117105 f REVISIONS B'O,/05 5 _ HUODY AIEETIA'4' 919105 91,3105 evcwseFs>au o-.ricmlmxF 6 SCHOOL SUMMARY TABULATICN rorAL erre wcaeAr�aavlx SIN(Q.B PAMLLY DSI)1®DPBAtI �9PAHR.Y DEIACABJ QISBrit _ ATE-FAMLY TOTAL CW�O✓L' ML/RFGR/OFFICE/IB4L1URANM ,ssna rmo� TOIALDV/RLLM'1RRIa _____ wm OVlKAU ESDVf17ALD�_--_—__ rrmr.v.c C� D�GT®H�.@rfARY 3CB001. S1'�_____— une. PLICEIDTR(W WAY p-.av®mo. ® WT/�ON DPPN�ALE vzss>. .cw�e .mere .crne �u+a �w E11VEIM104ItiALFEAIMUS s.cue.m �0 YFiAR JOOTIPCAW S16 25'Y�i "?N ==d 13.66 . �.�: _,.o FE k:4..5 r �P' AT-yldt3 .. zj ra, ^'r+. L ""F°'Y """ (d Dewberry SCALB: 3"=2x700 TEWORARI CUL-DESP.0 FROM CANTER ESTATES, S19;4513F77.43' �e srm R C � PLAN RBY -� 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN � 0 PLTASELINe ,moi, STEEP SLOPES > SONr �� i ,��:= • � � rCDNTOUR INTERVAL ,;y�Yl3 EXISTING WOODLAND 1 4_v WOODLAND CLEARING o weT I-AN»s o ;? WATERS OF THE US • Q �3 HISTORICGRAVE Lr_� RESERVE AREA I � STORM WATER MANAGEMENT - @ RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE k$� CENIRALCOREARFA _ TOTLO'r/RBCREAT[ONALEQOIVALEN- f � � DEDICATED PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 3 10 WIDE ASPHALT TRAIL T WIDE CONCRETE 91DEWALL ORASPHALT TRAE. �0 YFiAR JOOTIPCAW S16 25'Y�i "?N ==d 13.66 . �.�: _,.o FE k:4..5 r �P' AT-yldt3 .. zj ra, ^'r+. L ""F°'Y """ (d Dewberry SCALB: 3"=2x700 PV R/W ROAD HFFI XR4CYBDFMSEMCN SCALE: I'=10' MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHEET 4 OF 5 Parks, Trails and Landscape Buffers Plan THE VILLAGESATARMP A DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOWER COMPANIES PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT -I THE TOWER COMPANIES 11501 Huff Court Nosh Bemesda, Maryland 20695 TEL.301.984-7000 FAX 301.984-6033 WN W.toWemompanLCBAfpID 29 APRIL 2005 SCALE: 1"=1W APPROVED BY THE COUNTY ADNINISTRA ME muxrr eormxsxaem mx. APPROVED BY TRE BMECPOR OF P44NNBVO AND DEVELOPMENT Rmw _ REMVIV RLOCR'_ DESClBPTION DATE ! PER COUNTY COAtReNTS 2/15/05 5 105 RUDDY AlE2T/NG 5 !0 05 5 20/05 .y RUDDY LETTER 5 v 05 6117105 1 Rd'V7SlONS 9 9 D5 51 RUDDY BOO6PING 9/1.9/04; 9/23/05 r4 vIW� L 1681 s pinzz evcLr¢VrS .sem c smn�mxx. ROAD EFMCIENCY BUFPERPIAN VIEW PREFptREDPLANTIM SCALE: P-10 -L_ � C®pN® 9mmfiel�imtl C®71m 9moEfe l3® °h' '� ,�� �:. • - E, � "rra.vav nn'e xr wdrp - -to +✓pyt� - ' �hL� p naw+ w`t y`�l�luy.�`` �-� -- �, �'" � "'� ,,rte, � .°i°.� >e -. EvfxcwE[u IRE£ EVEwcr+EE s+ Dcapuous mcc Drswaawrau mec v�p.Ew ��+�^ �� w+`�W ,...+•m.pr y..w�w Dewberry per Menry p tlll JuhN Earth D�Lve. pu3ld�ng B. Swie L v�nchat=r. VA _try. REZONING APPLICATION 416-05 WILLOW RUN Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: December 5, 2005 Staff Contact: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 12/21/05 Pending Board of Supervisors: 01/11/06 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 347.77 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District and 12.20 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) with proffers. LOCATION: The property is located east of Route 37 and Merriman's Lane (Route 621), north of Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622), south and west of the City of Winchester. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 53-A-90, 53-A-91, 53-A-92, 53 -A -92A, 53 -A -92B, 53-A-94, 53-3-A and 63 -A -2A PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District PRESENT USE: Agricultural and residential ADJOINING PROPER'T'Y ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RP (Residential Performance) City of Winchester South: RA (Rural Areas) RP (Residential Performance) East: City of Winchester West: RA (Rural Areas) RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential Residential & open space Use: Agricultural and residential Residential Use: Residential Use: Residential and recreational Residential Rezoning #16-05 — Willow Run December 5, 2005 Page 2 PROPOSED USE: Residential and commercial REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virstinia Dept. of Transportation: Please see attached letter dated October 14, 2005, signed by Lloyd A. Ingram, Transportation Engineer. Please see attached letter dated June 20, 2005, signed by Garrett Moore, VDOT Staunton District Administrator Fire Marshal: This project will further tax the combination Fire and Rescue services in Frederick County. The additional dwelling units will ultimately create more "incidents" or calls for service. Upgrades to our current system are imperative to maintain a consistent level of expected service throughout community. Therefore requiring additional personnel, equipment and rescue stations. Plan approval recommended. Round Hill Volunteer Fire & Rescue: No comments. Proposal looks very good. Public Works Departinent: Please see letter dated October 7, 2005, from Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E., Director of Public Works Sanitation Authority: I have reviewed this rezoning request and concur with the water and sanitary sewer remarks. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: I have no comments with regards to the submittal. I will, however, make a general comment with regards to the potential limitations of future capacity at the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority facilities, due to load caps instituted under the Bay Program. Frederick -Winchester Health Department: Health Department has no objection or comment as property on public water and sewer. Department of Parks & Recreation: Plan appears to provide for required open space; however, no calculations for required or usable open space have been provided. The residents of the age -restricted housing units will undoubtedly spend time outside of the development and have an impact on the recreational services provided by the county. Therefore, staff believes a monetary proffer for these units would be appropriate. Plan appears to provide for the required recreational units; however, specific requirements have not been stated in the plan. To ensure a connection to Cedar Creek Grade, the Transportation Enhancements should offer an area for a 10' wide asphalt bicycle/pedestrian trail along Willow Run to Cedar Creek Grade. In additional to providing the Proffer Model, staff recommends the Proffer Statement include a list of proposed monetary proffers by agency. If this project includes the planning for or construction of a new interchange at Route 37, the proposed Transportation Improvement Program proffer should offer the ability to facilitate a 10' wide bicycle trail to cross over Route 37 at this location. Rezoning 416-05 — Willow Run December 5, 2005 Page 3 Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 850 single family homes with 10 percent (85 units) being age-restricted, will yield 130 high school students, 107 middle school students and 299 elementary school students for a total of 536 new students upon build-out. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Please see attached resolution dated January 18, 2005 from the Frederick County School Board Winchester Regional Airport: The proposed site does lie within airspace of the Winchester Regional Airport and is in close proximity to the approach path for Runway 14/32. Residential occupants should be forewarned that they might experience noise from over flights of aircraft departing to and from the Winchester Regional Airport. Frederick County Attorney: Please see attached letter dated November 8, 2005 from Robert T. Mitchell, Jr., County Attorney Historic Resources Advisory Board: The Rural Landmarks Survey Report for Frederick County identifies the 740 House (Willow Grove 934-89), the 750 House (Baker, Jacob House #34-90) and the Penbrook-Cove Farm (#34-1236) as being on the property. The HRAB expressed concern that the 740 and 750 Houses on the property might be removed. While the current owner does not intend to demolish the structures at this time, future owners' intentions are unknown. Information from the VDHR State Review Board determined that the Baker, Jacob House (750 House) is eligible for the Virginia Landmarks Register and the State and National Register of Historic Places. The HRAB recommended approval of the application so long as the following be considered to mitigate impacts: 1.) Evergreen trees or other measures along Cedar Creek Grade to minimize the perspective view of the adjacent historic Homespun; 2.) A more detailed study be conducted to locate foundations of the house on the Penbrook-Cove farm complex, which was destroyed in a fire; 3.) The property owners should consider preserving the 750 and 740 Houses; and 4.) The owners of the 750 House should pursue placing the 750 House on the State and National Registers. Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation: Part of the site is a remnant of the core land area that is part of the First Winchester battlefield in Frederick County. The Battlefields Foundation does not have funds for the property in question nor has it had plans to acquire this land. While we do not like to see any battlefield land compromised, given the lack of context and the relatively small size of this fragment of First Winchester, the Battlefields Foundation would not pursue other funding sources for land acquisition. We hope that if the development project proceeds and Jubal Early Drive is extended as planned, that due consideration be given to both the historic and environmental issues on this property. City of Winchester: Please see attached Memorandum dated November 10, 2005 fi°om Tim Youmans, Winchester Planning Director. Rezoning #16-05 — Willow Run December 5, 2005 Page 4 Planning Department: Please see attached letter dated 0etoher 6, 2005 from Susan K Eddv, Senior Planner. 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 subject 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) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-11 Land Use The subject parcels are within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The subject parcels are within the area covered by the Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan, which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on February 11, 2004. The subject parcels are within the area covered by the draft Western Jubal Early o November 9, 2005 and Land schedu scheduled Plan. for public hearing. raft was reviewed by the Board of Supervisors The Board requested a number of policy changes to the WJELUP and these are noted, where appropriate, in this report. The adopted WJELUP calls for urban and suburban residential uses. The gross residential density for development within the WJELUP area is up to four dwelling units per acre. This application seeks 850 residential units with the housing types and mix as prescribed in the proffered matrix. The proposed Willow Run density of 2.36 units per acre (850 units on 360 acres) is low in relation to the density called for in the WJELUP. Considering the current demand for housing in the existing UDA, this is perhaps an inefficient use of the site and fails to achieve intended density. A density similar to that called for in the WJELUP would make commercial development in the area more viable. The adopted WJELUP designates areas of mixed use (residential and commercial) along the planned route of the Jubal Early Drive extension. The plan clearly calls for the integration of Rezoning #16-05 — Willow Run December 5, 2005 Page 5 land uses within the mixed use areas. The proffered Generalized Development Plan (GDP) does not show any mixed-use area. The GDP shows three isolated commercial areas, which could contain up to 110,000 square feet of commercial floorspace. The adopted WJELUP calls for between a 25% and a 50% commercial component in the mixed-use area. The applicant has not demonstrated that this commercial component will be met. It is critical to note that only 10,000 square feet of commercial development (approximately 1 acre) is proffered, and that is only proffered with the 600th non -age restricted residential unit. As it is possible, based on the proffered housing mix, that only 510 non -age -restricted units will be built, even the 10,000 square feet of commercial floorspace is not guaranteed. The adopted WJELUP also calls for a mixture of housing types in the mixed-use areas. The application does not show ahousing mix in the mixed-use areas. In the absence of a plan for the mixed-use areas as designated on the WJELUP, and in the absence of a commitment to provide adequate commercial development and a mix of housing types, this application is not in conformance with the adopted WJELUP as it relates to the mixed-use areas. Staff note: The draft WJELUP, scheduled for public hearing, eliminates the mixed-use areas and replaces them with commercial areas, thus highlighting the Board of Supervisor's desire for commercial development in the WJELUP area. As only 10,000 square feet of commercial floorspace is proffered, and that only with the 600th non -age restricted residential unit, the Willow Run application would not be in conformance with the emerging WJELUP as it relates to the commercial areas. Transportation The adopted WJELUP identifies Jubal Early Drive extending in a continuous east -west flow from its terminus in the City of Winchester to a new interchange at Route 37. The plan incorporates the extension of Jubal Early Drive as its principal transportation component. The extension of Jubal Early Drive is envisioned as an urban divided four -lane cross section that includes landscaped medians as well as pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Additionally, a major collector road system is planned to facilitate traffic movement in a north -south direction to provide a linkage between Jubal Early Drive and Cedar Creek Grade. Staff note: The draft WJELUP, scheduled for public hearing, seeks the transportation improvements of the adopted plan, as detailed above, and also calls for improvements to Cedar Creek Grade, to a four lane divided highway with a bicycle lane, and improvements to the interchange at Route 37 and Cedar Creek Grade. It also envisions the major collector road as an urban divided four -lane cross-section that includes landscaped medians as well as pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The draft WJELUP clarifies that it will be the responsibility of private property owners and developers to insure the development of new road systems, including a new interchange at Route 37, new signalization and improvements to existing road systems. The financial responsibility will rest primarily with private property owners and developers, although they may be able to demonstrate how a partnership, possibly with the Virginia Department of Transportation the City and/or the County will accomplish the necessary road improvements. The draft WJELUP further states that no rezonings should be approved until the County is certain that the transportation impacts of development will be mitigated. Rezoning #16-05 — Willow Run December 5, 2005 Page 6 As stated above, the adopted WJELUP is fundamentally linked to the extension of Jubal Early Drive to a new Route 37 interchange. The Willow Run application includes the extension of Jubal Early Drive only to Merriman's Lane. The proffered layout (Transportation Enhancement Section E — Exhibit 2) shows Jubal Early Drive extending from the City to a roundabout at the new major collector road, Willow Run Drive. A roundabout is proffered unless VDOT determines that an alternative intersection design is warranted. The proffered GDP and Exhibits 1 and 2 clearly show the main traffic movement in a north/south direction. This is contrary to the WJELUP which shows the traffic movement in an east/west direction. It is critical that whether a roundabout or an alternative intersection design is warranted, that the straight through movement be Jubal Early Drive itself. If a T -intersection, or similar configuration is warranted, the turn movement should be to Willow Run Drive. This will insure that traffic flows easily to the future Route 37 interchange in the manner envisioned by the WJELUP, and not down to Cedar Creek Grade. The applicant has proffered the construction of Jubal Early Drive (see Transportation Enhancements Section E -Exhibit 2) in three phases. Details are contained in the proffer section of this staff report. This application includes land dedication on the east side of Route 37 to accommodate an urban diamond interchange at Jubal Early Drive (see Transportation Enhancements Section E -Exhibit 3). The applicant has proffered completion of an Interchange Justification Study (IJS). The IJS will evaluate the need for this interchange and also identify if an urban diamond interchange is appropriate and how much right-of-way will be needed. The applicant has also proffered a financial contribution of $1,000 per residential unit towards construction of the interchange. The first road to be developed in the Willow Run project will be the minor spine road, which will intersect with Cedar Creek Grade (see Transportation Enhancements Section E -Exhibit 5). This access will be constructed before the first building permit is issued. Turn lanes on Cedar Creek are proffered to be constructed when requested by VDOT. The construction of the first segment (2 -lane) of Willow Run Drive, from Cedar Creek Grade north to the property line, is proffered by the 100th residential permit (see Transportation Enhancements Section E -Exhibit 1). This section of Willow Run Drive is owned by others. The completion of the 2 -lane Willow Run Drive to Jubal Early Drive is proffered by the 400th residential permit. Signalization at the intersection arelow Run Drive and Cedar Creek be provided when requested by Grade and turn lanes on Cedar Creek Gra proffered to VDOT. The applicant has proffered signalization at the intersection of Cedar Creek Grade and the northbound and southbound Route 37 ramps. Also proffered is a center turn lane within the Cedar Creek Grade right-of-way to serve the existing Route 37 ramps. Improvements will occur when requested by VDOT. There is no proffered transportation exhibit associated with these improvements. Staff Note: The proffers do not fully implement the vision for Cedar Creek Grade, as a 4 -lane divided highway with a bicycle lane, as set forth in the draft WJELUP. Rezoning #16-05 — Willow Run December 5, 2005 Page 7 The applicant has proffered to complete the ultimate (4 -lane section) of Jubal Early Drive if a new Route 37 interchange is approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB). If this interchange is not approved by the CTB, the applicant proffers to complete the 4 -lane section of Willow Run Drive on their property. No timeframe has been given for completing this construction, so the proffer is not enforceable. The applicant has not given any indication of the cross sections for roadways on the subject site or for Cedar Creek Grade off-site. Thus the County cannot be assured that road standards as called for in the WJELUP will be followed. It would be very useful for the applicant to address access by construction vehicles at the rezoning stage. Construction vehicles and traffic should be prevented from using adjacent neighborhood streets. The City of Winchester has not yet agreed to allow the construction of Jubal Early Drive through a City owned parcel (see Transportation Enhancements Section E -Exhibit 2). If Jubal Early Drive cannot be connected in the City, the Willow Run rezoning would be in even greater conflict with the adopted WJELUP. The planned transportation network would be thwarted and the commercial component would likely never develop beyond the proffered 10,000 square foot minimum. The City and VDOT have both reserved the right to provide additional comments on this application if the City does not allow this construction. Careful thought should be given to the proposed land use and transportation network should the completion of Jubal Early Drive not be possible. Another important component of the adopted WJELUP is alternative modes of transportation. The plan calls for trail and sidewalk connections within and to the mixed-use areas. This has not been shown in the application. The plan calls for the Green Circle Trail to be connected to the site and extended to both Merrimans Lane and Cedar Creek Grade. The applicant has proffered a ten foot asphalt pedestrian/bicycle trail along Jubal Early Drive that would connect to the Green Circle in the City. If the City does not allow the right of way for the Jubal Early Drive com7ection, the section of the Green Circle Tail in the City, along Jubal Early Drive, will not be constructed. The applicant has also proffered a ten foot trail along Willow Run Drive on its own property. The Parks and Recreation Department encouraged the extension of the Green Circle Trail further south along Willow Run Drive to Cedar Creek Grade. Parks and Recreation also recommended a 10' wide bicycle trail on Jubal Early Drive over Route 37 as part of the new interchange. Community Facilities Staff Note: The draft WJELUP, scheduled for public hearing, calls for a school site in the WJELUP area. No school site has been designated in the Willow Run application. Rezoning #16-05 — Willow Run December 5, 2005 Page 8 3) Site Suitability/Environment The National Wetlands Inventory Map identifies two areas of wetlands along the northern and eastern portion of the site. The applicant has prepared a Wetlands Delineation Study for the subject properties. The applicant's proffered Generalized Development Plan (GDP) delineates Developmentally Sensitive Areas (SDA) based on the results of this study. A wetlands mitigation plan must be approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality before any wetlands can be disturbed. Protected and disturbed wetland areas will be identified during the Master Development Plan (MDP) stage. A number of proffers covering the wetlands area have been offered. These are detailed in the staff report section on proffers. The subject sites are covered by FEMA NFIP Maps #510173-0001-B and #510173-003-B prepared for the City of Winchester. Areas of floodplain exist around Abrams Creek and are similar to the areas identified as wetlands. Detailed floodplain studies will be required at the MDP stage and any identified floodplains would be subject the County's FP Floodplain District and other applicable floodplain regulations. Minor steep slopes exist on the site. Areas of steep slope disturbance will be identified at the MDP stage to ensure compliance with County ordinance requirements. A number of areas of mature deciduous trees exist on the subject parcels. These will likely be disturbed during the development of the site. The MDP and subdivision design plans will identify tree save areas and insure compliance with County ordinance regulations. A particularly scenic row of trees, along with a stone wall, line Orchard Lane. Consideration should be given to the expressed protection of these features. The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that Frederick- Poplimento loams comprise the majority of the subject site, which possess moderate shrink - swell potential. A band of Carbo silt loam follows the western portion of the site, which possess a high shrink -swell potential. Massanetta loam is located within the floodplain and wetlands areas. Development within the Massanetta loam soils will be limited to the extension of Jubal Early Drive. Karst features are known to exist on the property. Four sinkholes have been identified in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Reports submitted by the applicant to the County. The applicant has proffered to conduct a geotechnical analysis on all residential properties platted within 100 feet of the major karst feature identified on the GDP prior to the issuance of building permits of such lots. The Director of Public Works highlighted in his comments that three small sinkholes, in addition to the major one, have been identified on the site. He suggested that the geotechnical analysis encompass all residential areas because of the potential for sinkhole development within the karst limestone. Rezoning #16-05 — Willow Run December 5, 2005 Page 9 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared for this application by Patton Harris Rust and Associates (PHR&A) dated July 12, 2005. The TIA assumed a total build out of 850 residential units (573 single family detached, 192 single family attached, & 85 elderly detached) and 110,000 square feet of commercial floorspace (50,000 SF office, 50,000 SF retail & 10,000 SF restaurant) by the year 2010 as a two-phase plan. (This precise mix of units and uses is not proffered.) Since the rezoning proffers do not match the first phase as analyzed in the TIA, the applicant has agreed that only the total build, out as detailed in the TIA, will be considered with this application. It is important to note that the TIA was modeled without the connection of Jubal Early Drive to Route 37. Access to the site was modeled from Jubal Early Drive extended in the City, Merriman's Lane, Cedar Creek Grade and Cidermill Lane/Orchard Hill Drive/Harvest Drive. The Phase II: 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service (PHR&A Figure 15) indicates that a number of intersections in the area will fall below level of service "C". Level of service "C" is the level the Comprehensive Policy Plan requires to be maintained on roads adjacent to and within new development in the County. PHR&A Figure 15, demonstrates that the intersections of Route 37 and Cedar Creek Grade, Jubal Early Drive and Valley Avenue, Route 50 (Amherst Street) and Merrimans Lane, and Merrimans Lane and Breckinridge Lane will have a significant negative impact due to this development PHR&A Figure 15a suggests a number of improvements to increase the build -out level of service. It is important to note that only the center turn lane in the Cedar Creek Grade right-of- way and signalization at the intersection of Cedar Creek Grade and Route 37 are proffered. None of the suggested improvements in the City of Winchester are proffered. The applicant also had PHR&A prepare an alternative TIA (dated July 12, 2005) should the City of Winchester not allow the applicant to connect with Jubal Early Drive in the City. The same numbers of residential units and commercial floorspace were used in this alternative analysis. In this alternative (see PHR&A Figure 6), the intersections that have a significant negative impact due to this development are Cedar Creek Grade and Route 37, Cedar Creek Grade and the minor spine road, Route 50 (Amherst Street) and Merrimans Lane, and Merriman Lane and Breckinridge Lane. PHR&A Figure 6a suggests a number of improvements to increase the build -out level of service. It is important to note that only the center turn lane in the Cedar Creek Grade right-of- way and signalization at the intersection of Cedar Creek Grade and Route 37 are proffered. None of the suggested improvements in the City of Winchester are proffered and no extra consideration is given to the intersection of Cedar Creek Grade and the minor spine road, which falls to level of service B(D). Rezoning #16-05 — Willow Run December 5, 2005 Page 10 Neither TIA modeled the new intersection of Merrimans Lane/Meadow Branch Avenue and Route 50 (Amherst Street), which has been approved by the City and will soon be under construction. Traffic on Merrimans Lane will intersect with Meadow Branch Avenue at an unsignalized T -intersection. Levels of service at Merrimans Lane and the new section of Meadow Branch Avenue will likely be worse than those projected in the TIAs. B. Sewer and Water The Willow Run rezoning proposal is estimated to require approximately 246,000 gallons per day of water usage and to generate approximately 197,000 gallons per day of wastewater. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority has agreed to provide public sewer service and public water service to the Willow Run Community. C. Historic Resources One building on the property, the Baker, Jacob House (750 House), is eligible for the Virginia Landmarks Register and State and National Register according to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources State Review Board. (Staff Note: Protection of this building is strongly encouraged in the Draft WJELUP.) Two other sites, the 740 House (Willow Grove #34-89) and the Penbrook-Cove Farm (334-1236), are identified in the Rural Landmarks Survey Report. The Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) made a number of recommendations concerning this application (see earlier comments). The only HRAB recommendation that the applicant has addressed is the landscaping along Cedar Creek Grade. D. Community Facilities 850 new housing units, plus a small commercial component, will have a significant impact on community facilities in this area. The Fiscal Impact Model output for this project indicates a negative fiscal impact of $9,078 per residential unit. (The model assumed 10,000 square feet of commercial floorspace.) The applicant has proffered this $9,078 amount, but only for the non- age -restricted units. $500 per unit has been proffered for the age restricted units. The applicant has thus not taken into account the impact of the age -restricted units on Parks and Recreation, Libraries, Sheriff's Office and County Administration. Staff Note: The Willow Run application was received on November 14, 2005 and thus the County's Fiscal Impact Model was used for analysis. Applications received after November 30, 2005 are expected to mitigate the impact of development calculated by the new Development Impact Model at $23,290 for a single family unit and $17,731 for a townhouse. As stated previously, the applicant has not provided a school site as requested by the School Board and identified in the draft WJELUP. The applicant has proffered a number of recreational facilities, all of which will count towards the applicant's County Ordinance required recreational units. The applicant has not proffered any recreational amenities that are above and beyond what the ordinances require. Rezoning #16-05 — Willow Run December 5, 2005 Page 11 5) Proffer Statement — (Dated November 4, 2005) A) Residential Land Use Total dwelling units are limited to 850. Garden apartments are not allowed. Dwelling units are limited to 200 non -age restricted units per year. (A total number of units per year would give greater certainly, and 100 total units per year may be more manageable to the County.) A minimum of 85 units will be age -restricted. Evergreen trees will be planted along Cedar Creek Grade, although this does not supersede the required road efficiency buffer. The minimum and maximum for each housing type is listed in the Willow Run Community Residential Unit Matrix. B) Commercial Land Use A minimum of 10,000 square feet and a maximum of 110,000 square feet of commercial floorspace will be provided in the B2 (Business General) zoned land. Construction of the 10,000 square feet of commercial development is guaranteed by the 600th non -age restricted dwelling unit. As stated previously, the project may build out with 510 non -age -restricted units, and the commercial floorspace may never appear. Allowable construction materials for the commercial buildings have been listed. A number of uses, otherwise allowed in the B2 Zoning District, are restricted on the site. C) Generalized Development Plan (GDP) The GDP delineates the major collector roads, the general location of residential and commercial development, the general location of the community center and park area, the general location of developmentally sensitive areas, the major karst feature and the location of the extended Green Circle Trail D) Master Development Plan (MDP) A single MDP will be prepared. Only land disturbance can take place before this MDP is approved. Land disturbance should not be allowed until the MDP is approved; therefore the proffered action is not in accord with good planning practice. E) Transportation Enhancements Five Transportation Exhibits have been proffered. Right-of-way will be obtained for Willow Run Drive through the Jova Property to the south. The southern section of Willow Run Drive will be constructed (2 -lane) by the 100th residential permit. The northern section of Willow Run Drive will be constructed (2 -lane) by the 400th residential permit. Jubal Early Drive will be constructed in three phases. Phase I will include diverting Jubal Early Drive in the City and a 4 -lane roadway to the intersection with Willow Run Drive. There is no timing associated with this Phase I. This will need to be clarified, otherwise the proffer is not enforceable. Also, the applicant has not proffered to realign Meadow Branch Avenue. Should the City not grant approval for Jubal Early Drive to be diverted to the site, the applicant will build Phase I as a 2 -lane segment from Willow Run Drive east to the commercial land bay shown on the GDP. Jubal Early Drive Phase II, from Willow Run Drive to the community Rezoning #16-05 — Willow Run December 5, 2005 Page 12 center, will consist of a 2 -lane roadway by the 404th residential permit. Jubal Early Drive Phase III, from the community center to Merrimans Lane, including a reconfigured intersection with Merrimans Lane, will consist of a 2 -lane roadway by the 7001h residential permit. Land will be dedicated on the east side of Route 37 for an urban diamond interchange at Jubal Early Drive. An Interchange Justification Study for the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) to consider the new interchange will be completed. $1,000 per residential unit will be given towards construction of the interchange, or other transportation projects if the interchange is not warranted. The ultimate (4 -lane section) of Jubal Early Drive will be completed if a new Route 37 interchange is approved by the CTB. If this interchange is not approved by the CTB, the applicant will complete the 4 -lane section of Willow Run Drive on their property. No timeframe has been given for completing these 4 -lane sections. The first road to be developed in the Willow Run project will be the minor spine road, which will intersect with Cedar Creek Grade. This access will be constructed before the first building permit is issued. Turn lanes on Cedar Creek will be constructed when requested by VDOT. Signalization at the intersection of Willow Run Drive and Cedar Creek Grade and turn lanes on Cedar Creek Grade will be provided when requested by VDOT. The applicant has proffered signalization at the intersection of Cedar Creek Grade and the northbound and southbound Route 37 ramps. Also proffered is a center turn lane within the Cedar Creek Grade right-of-way to serve the existing Route 37 ramps. Improvements will occur when requested by VDOT. The Green Circle Trail will be extended along Jubal Early Drive and along Willow Run Drive to the edge of the owner's property. Parks and Recreation has recommended the trail extension along Willow Run Drive to Cedar Creek Grade. Private alleys will allow one-way travel within a 16 -foot wide easement having 12 feet of pavement. F) Monetary Contributions $9,078 per non -age -restricted dwelling unit is proffered to capital facilities. $500 per age - restricted dwelling unit is proffered to Fire & Rescue Services. As stated previously, the age - restricted units do not mitigate their full capital facilities impact. $25,000 will be given to the Round Hill Fire and Rescue Company and $25,000 will be given to the Shawnee Fire and Rescue Company. Thirty months following the approval of the MDP, the monetary contributions will be adjusted based on the Urban Consumer Price Index. G) Community Recreation A community center, swimming pool and bathhouse will be constructed before the 400tH building permit. These amenities will be used to satisfy ordinance requirements. They are not an addition to minimum requirements. The Green Circle Trail (10 feet wide) will be extended Rezoning #16-05 — Willow Run December 5, 2005 Page 13 along Jubal Early Drive to Merrimans Lane and along Willow Run Drive to the edge of the owner's property. As with the construction of Jubal Early Drive in the City, construction of the Green Circle in the City has no timeframe tied to the proffers. An internal pedestrian trail system (5 feet wide) will be provided as part of the ordinance required recreational units. The karst feature will be used for active recreation. The Director of Public Works has recommended that no buildings or structures be allowed on this major karst feature. J) Environmental A Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA) is delineated on the GDP. No residential lots will be platted within the DSA and no commercial development will occur within the DSA. A 50' buffer adjacent to the DSA will be called the Resource Protection Area (RSA). The only disturbance that will be allowed within the DSA and RPA will be road crossings, utility crossings, and pedestrian and bicycle facility crossing. The applicant has proffered to conduct a geotechnical analysis on all residential properties platted within 100 feet of the major karst feature identified on the GDP. The development of a landscape plan for the wetlands south of Jubal Early Drive will be prepared. All planting described in that plan will be installed. (The proffer does not include timing for the preparation of the study or for the installation of the plant materials.) The Shenandoah University Environmental Studies Department will be allowed access to this area as an outdoor land lab. Commercial site plans and the community center site plan will be designed to implement Low Impact Development and/or Best Management Practices to promote stormwater quality measures. S'T'AFF CONCLUSIONS FOR T11E 12/21/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Planning Commission will need to consider whether this application adequately addresses the adopted WJELUP, particularly as the applicant has only guaranteed a minimal amount of commercial floorspace and has not demonstrated that the road system will function as called for in the WJELUP. Specifically, the WJELUP calls for the traffic on Jubal Early Drive to flow in an east/west direction, and good policy indicates that all proffered transportation improvements should have an enforceable time frame and that road design standards should be agreed. These elements have not been fully addressed by the applicant. (Careful consideration should also be given to the draft WJELUP as it relates to commercial land uses and transportation.) In addition, the applicant has not demonstrated a satisfactory level of service on area roads. In terms of community facilities, the applicant has met only minimal County recreation standards, has not fully addressed the impacts generated by the age -restricted units, and has offered no solution to meeting the need for a school site in the area. Furthermore, this may be the County's only opportunity to influence the fate of the historic 750 House and 740 House. Since the City of Winchester may not agree to the extension of Jubal Early Drive through its property, the Planning Commission should carefully examine the implications of this possibility. The applicant is seeking this rezoning regardless of the City's decision. Rezoning #16-05 — Willow Run December 5, 2005 Page 14 This is a rare opportunity for the County to plan for development on 360 acres in the UDA. The Planning Commission should be certain that the proposed development meets the needs of this new community and creates a quality living environment. Following- the required public hearing, a recommendation regarding this rezoning application to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. OUTPUT MODULE APPLICANT: Willow Run Net Fiscal Impact LAND USE TYPE Resid. & Comi Costs of Impact Credit: Credits to be Taken for Future Taxes Paid (NPV) Total Potential Adjustment For REAL EST VAL ########### Required (entered in Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Future CIP/ Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per FIRE & RESCUE = 9 Capital Faciltiies col sum only) Oper Cap Equip Expend/Debt S. Taxes, Other (Unadjusted) Cost Balance Facilities Impact Dwelling Unit Fire and Rescue Department $368,967 $0 $0 $368,967 $434 Elementary Schools $3,475,664 ---- Middle Schools $2,074,694 $565,534 $2,745,314 $3,310,847 $2,389,175 $6,053,527 $7,122 High Schools $2,892,345 ---- ---- Parks and Recreation $1,244,382 $280,442 $280,442 $202,373 $1,042,009 $1,226 Public Library $216,334 $60,503 $60,503 $43,660 $172,674 $203 Sheriffs Offices $128,036 $110,620 $0 $26,150 $136,770 $98,696 $29,340 $35 Administration Building $164,313 $0 $0 $0 $164,313 $193 Other Miscellaneous Facilities $209,627 $213,451 $235,663 $449,114 $324,090 $0 $0 SUBTOTAL $10,774,361 $889,604 $2,980,977 $367,096 $4,237,677 $3,057,995 $7,716,366 $9,078 LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT $0 $0 $0 L0 5-0 NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT r $7,716,366 1 $9,078 INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Included 1.0 INDEX: "1.0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Cc Avg: 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = 0.538 PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Co Avg 0.722 ---------------------------------------------- METHODOLOGY: 1. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model. ------------------ -------------------- ---------------------- -------------------- 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input in row total of second column (zero if negative); included are the one-time taxes/fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated in fiscal impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed. NOTES: Model Run Date 11/14/05 SKE Project Description: Assumes 10,000 sq. ft. of office space, 658 single family detached units and 192 townhouses on 360 acres. Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module will not be valid beyond November 30, 2005. Of) A/IfA/fnT\\T1A7P AT 7Y -T ed 17nli P-T7.TT A %-V A V.& A T.0- `Lf' .L 4 V V J6.Ei JL JL4 JL JL JL 'LY J V JL JL %%-J JL.L `7 JL.L 1i DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 14031 OLD VALLEYPIKE GREGORYA. WHIRLEY EDINBURG, VA 22824 ACTING COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONER October 14, 2005 Mr. Evan Wyatt C/0 Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Ref: Willow Run Dear Evan: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 621, 622, and 37. These routes are the VDOT roadways which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT in general can support the proposed Willow Grove L.L.C. Rezoning Application (dated September 1, 2005 with transportation revisions received by VDOT October 7, 2005) with the following comments: Due to the complexity of the rezoning and the question of the connection to Jubal Early Drive, VDOT reserves the right to make additional comments once the fate of the city connection has been determined. The applicant appears to have offered proffers that address the mitigation of the impacts on the Route 37 & Route 622 interchange. The location of the intersection of the major spine roadway will need to be determined prior to Master Plan Development approval, as well as the possible improvements to the eastbound Route 622. Exhibit #4 lacks the left turn lane into Willow Run Drive as deemed necessary in the TIA exhibit. The timing of the construction of the minor spine roadway and the associated Route 622 improvements are not identified in the proffers and this should be clarified. The left turn lane is also missing in exhibit #5. VirginiaDOT.org f� WE KFEP VIRGINIA MOVING r. Mr. Evan Wyatt Ref: Willow Run October 14, 2005 Paae #2 The TIA appears to show that with the connection to Jubal Early Drive and Route 621, Route 621 falls to a LOS "D" and if this proves to be true the developer should be prepared to make improvements to the intersections of Merrimans Lane with Breckenridge Lane as well as Route 50. The proffers identify 110,000 sq. ft. of commercial building but in the TIA this square footage is broken into 3 categories. Are these goals that should be proffered or should the TIA reflect the worst case scenario? VDOT is satisfied with the applicants approach to the Interchange Justification Study, the dedication of property of the diamond design of the proposed east side on the interchange and the financial approach to funding the construction through the per unit contribution to Frederick County. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right- of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Lloyd A. Ingrafr` Transportation Engineer LAI/rf Enclosure: Comment Sheet COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GREGORY A. WHIRLEY P.O. Box 2249 ACTING COMMISSIONER Staunton, Virginia 24402-2249 June 20, 2005 Mr. Richard Shickle, Chairman Board of Supervisors of Frederick County 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Shickle: Thank you for your recent letter regarding a possible interchange improvement on Rte. 37. We understand that the City of Winchester and Frederick County support a new interchange at future Jubal Early Drive extending where existing Rte 621 (Merriman's Lane) crosses over Rte 37. VDOT District and Residency staff agree that this interchange may be able to solve many traffic issues related to future growth in this area. VDOT recently supported the inclusion of this proposed new interchange in the Draft MPO Long Range Plan, and we have no objection to it being included in the County Comprehensive Plan. There are several issues that need to be evaluated and discussed, but we believe these issues can be successfully worked out as long as this interchange concept provide the best long term solution for Rte 37 and the overall roadway network. Before VDOT staff can submit this new interchange proposal to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for approval, several steps must be taken as described in the attached memo. An important initial step is to conduct a 20 year traffic study to evaluate the proposed interchange. VDOT staff met with representatives of the Willow Run development and their traffic consultant a few months ago to scope this traffic study. We hope that this traffic study will be continued so that we can begin working our way through these issues and gain CTB approval in a timely manner. Our district planner, Bob Ball, will be available to work with Jerry Copp, Rcsideney Administrator, and County Staff on this. Please feel free to contact him at (540) 332-9067. www.VirginiaDOTorg WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Moore, P.E. n District Administrator Ac cc: Mr. Malcolm T. Kerley, P.E. Dr. Phillip Stone October 7, 2005 Mr. Evan Wyatt, AICP Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 RE: Willow Run Rezoning Frederick County, Virginia Dear Evan: COUNTY of iii REDEI C1i Department of Public Warks 540/665-5643 FAX: 5,10/1578-0682 �] M 0.[) M U T M 1j C T LL:, t 001 We have completed our review of the proposed Willow Run rezoning dated September 1, 2005, and offer the following cominents: 1) Suitability of the Site, page 3 and 4: The discussion included within this section references the Phase I Environmental Assessment Report and the need to delineate the Development Sensitive Areas (DSA). We sugguest that in addition to the topics presented as Flood Plains, Wetlands, Steep Slopes, etc., that you add a detailed discussion devoted to karst features. Based on our recent site visit, it was apparent that the major karst feature located on the Marshall site has been filled using excess material derived from an adjacent subdivision. However, there were other karst features highlighted in the ECS reports that should be included in this discussion. Also, we would recommend that a detailed geotechnical investigation be expanded to study the entire area being developed. The Phase I environmental site assessment report highlights several sensitive topics which exist on the Marshall property. A separate discussion should be added to the impact analysis to address the ultimate disposition of these issues. In addition, the existence of an open dump site observered during our recent site visit should be added to this discussion and included in the ESA report.. 2) Steep Slopes, page 4: The discussion of the major karst feature sliall be modified to reflect the current conditions. 3) Transportation, page 6, 7 and 8: Please provide this ofce with a copy of the traffic impact analysis (TIA). Without a copy of this analysis, we cannot adequately evaluate the conclusions presented on pages 6 and 7. Also, it is not apparent that the TIA included the impact of constructing (or not constructing) an interchange at the intersection of Jubal Early Drive and Route 37. The discussion of the transportation network indicates that the site can be accessed from Cedar Creek Grade, Merriman Lane and through the extension of Jubal Earlv Drive and Cidern-till Lane. However, it appears r. _ ec hest ._, 'T_rugIne '1'9661 .0666161 t9/ 1`I®�r? li'��R1L .�L��t a lldlllCJl�Cdy 4'51"�'llxl[C d/VV-avvu Willow Run Rezoning Comments Page 2 October 7, 2005 that the extension of the latter roads is dependent on approval from file City of Winchester. Without their cooperation, the Wester Jubal Early Drive Lane Land Use Plan cannot be achieved. The discussion indicates that the proffered transportation improvements will mitigate the traffic impacts associated with the proposed development. However, it appears that this conclusion may be flawed if all of the improvements are not implemented for one reason or another. It appears that there is a possibility that the construction of Jubal Early Drive from Meadow Branch Drive to Route 37 may not occur. Also, the construction of an interchange at Jubal Early Drive and Route 37 is very questionable. Indicate what impact these situations would have on the traffic patters on Cedar Creek Grade. 4) Sewage Conveyance and Treatment, page 9: The calculations indicate that the proposed development at buildout will generate a sewage flow of 197,350 G.P.D. Indicate how this flow impacts the unutilized capacity at the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Facility. 5) Drainage, page 10: The discussion indicates that the proposed development will utilize retention facilities to accommodate stormwater management. To insure the success of these facilities in the karst environment, it will be necessary to line the basins. We also recommend that a geotechnical investigation be performed at the site of each basin to insure adequate stability of the underlying soil/rock. We applaud the use of BMP facilities for the conunercial property. Detailed operation and maintenance requirements shall be prepared by the designer and provided to the organization that will be responsible for the maintenance. These maintenance plans shall also be developed for each stormwater retention facility. 6) Solid Waste Disposal, page 11: The calculations should be corrected to reflect the comparison of the complete total waste generation at buildout (3,629 tons per year) to the current waste generation at the landfill of 200,000 tons per year. Based on our calculations, the anticipated solid waste generated by the proposed development would result in an annual increase of approximately 1.8 percent at the landfill. We certainly support the requirement to implement curbside trash pickup within the proposed development. 7) Proffer Statement, E). Transportation Eiiliancements, pages 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10: Item 1: It is stated that the applicant will obtain the necessary right-of-way for the construction of Willow Run Drive (Major Spine Road). A tune line should be established for the acquisition and recording of this right-of-way. At a minimum, it should occur prior to submittal of the Master Development Plan. b. Item 2: This paragraph proffers the design and construction of Willow Run Drive in Phase I of the development. The proffer indicates that the road will be Willow Run Rezoning Comments Page 3 October 7, 2005 completed prior to the issuance of the 100th residential building permit. However, Frederick County will only issue one (1) building permit until Willow Run Drive is completed as designed. This construction shall also include any related infrastructure as well as drainage improvements. It is anticipated that additional road construction will be required to access the actual building lots considering Willow Run Drive will be designed as a major feeder road.. C. Item 13; This paragraph indicates that the applicants will proffer $1,000 per residential lot for the purpose of constructing a northbound on-ramp from Jubal Early Drive onto Route 7. Confirm that this amount will be added to the monetary proffers outlined in Section F, Monetary Contribution. Also, provide the basis for the $1,000 amount. d. Item 18: The discussion highlights the construction of an additional travel lane on the north side of Cedar Creek Grade near the intersection of the Minor Spine Road. However, there is no indication in the rezoning application when this road will be constructed. Indicate via phasing references when this road will be constructed. 8) Proffer Statement, H). Community Curbside Trash Collection, page 12: We certainly support the applicant's offer to provide commercial trash pickup and disposal for all residential land uses. However, we reconunend that the last sentence in this paragraph end at "HOA". Eliminate the statement "until such tin -le .... by Frederick County or other municipal providers." 9) Proffer Statement, J). Environmental, page 14: Explain why the geotechnical analysis is limited to just 100 feet from the major karst feature. It may be prudent to conduct a geotechnical investigation which encompasses all of the proposed residential developments considering the potential for sinkhole development within the karst limestone. Sincerely, � eJ Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works HES/rls cc: Planning and Development file C:\Prcg,run Files\iVor(!Per:ect 0nice 11\12horda\TENIPC.'CNIA ENTS\willowwnrezcom.wpd FREDERICK COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE NEED FOR THE INCLUSION OF LAND FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN THE WEST JUBAL EARLY LAND USE PLAN" WHEREAS, a request to expand the Urban Development Area (UDA) to incorporate parcels owned by the White and Marshall families was approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in February 2004; and WHEREAS, a UDA expansion request has been submitted for the 262 acre Solenberger/Bridgeforth property; and WHEREAS, a new community of over 600 acres is being land -planned in a portion of the county that was previously agricultural farmland; and WHEREAS, the planned land use will be primarily residential with a mix of commercial and residential uses; and WHEREAS, "The West Jubal Early Land Use Plan" estimates up to 2,400 dwellings that could be built in this area; and WHEREAS, the capital facilities impact model yields up to 1,680 students from "The West Jubal Early Land Use Plan NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County School Board of Frederick County, Virginia requests that "The West Jubal Early Land Use Plan" include 25-30 acres for a multi -campus school site; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the school site be consistent with the Community Facilities and Services policies in the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. Resolution dated this 18th day of January , 2005. 4� awrence K. Van Hoose, Chairman Frederick County School Board Stephen M. Kapoc er HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS WILBUR C. HALL (1892-1972) THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924-1999) SAMUEL D. ENGLE O. LELAND MAHAN ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR, JAMES A. KLENKAR STEVEN F. JACKSON DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR. HAND -DELIVERED ATTORNEYS AT LAW & MITCHELL 1 a 7 EAST MARKET STREET ® EAST BOSCAWEN STREET LEESBURG, VIRGINIA I.NfINICHESTER, VIRGINIA TELEPHONE 703-777-1050 TELEPHONE 540-662.3200 FAX 540662-4304 E-MAIL lawyers@hallmonahan.COm November 8, 2005 Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Willow Run Proffer Statement Dear Susan: PLEASE REPLY TO: P. O. Box 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22504-0848 I have reviewed the above -referenced proposed Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the proposed Proffer Statement is in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, and is legally sufficient and enforceable as a Proffer Statement, subject to the following comments: SECTION A -RESIDENTIAL LAND USE 1. In Paragraph A(2), the Applicants proffer to prohibit the development of garden apartments, otherwise permitted in Section 165-65 of the Zoning Ordinance. The paragraph goes on to provide that all of the housing types set forth in Section 165-65, "current and future," shall be allowed. I question the advisability of including "and future" in the proffer. It is possible that Section 165-65 of the Ordinance could be amended in the future to permit multifamily dwellings other than itgardenapartments." I would recommend that this proffer limit the housing types to the types permitted in current Section 165-65. It should also be noted that this proffer HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy November 8, 2005 Page 2 does not limit the number of any of the particular building types permitted in the RP district. Presumably, therefore, there could be 850 townhouse units. If the County desires for there to be a mixture of housing types, that should be set forth in this proffer. 2. In Paragraph A(4), the enforcement and administration of the age - restricted covenant is to be assigned to the homeowners association. It should be noted, although I do not believe it is necessary to be included in the proffer, that as a proffered condition of the rezoning, the County will also have enforcement and administration powers with respect to the age -restricted provisions. 3. In Paragraphs A(5) and A(6), the Applicants proffer to "utilize"a "Carriage House" and a "Village House" residential unit within the development. First of all, Section 165-59 (13)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance sets forth the permitted type of residential structures in the RP Zoning District. Section 165-65 details the dimensional requirements for the permitted types of residential structures. Neither "Carriage House" nor "Village House" are housing types identified in Section 165-59 (B)(1) as permitted housing types. If "Carriage House" and "Village House" are merely another way of describing two of the housing types in Section 165-59 (13)(1), then the proffer should reference the housing type by the title identified in the ordinance. Otherwise, it does not appear that the proffered housing types are currently permitted under the Zoning Ordinance in the RP District. Further, a proffered minimum lot area would only be appropriate if the minimum lot area being proffered is larger than the minimum lot area permitted in the ordinance. Also, I do not know what the term "dimensional standards" means in the last sentence of these two proffers. B. COMMERCIAL LAND USE 4. In Paragraph B(1), I am not clear why the Applicants are proffering a maximum square footage of building improvements in the property to be zoned B-2. In fact, the County may be interested in the Applicants proffering a minimum square footage of building improvements in the Commercial District. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy November 8, 2005 Page 3 5. In Paragraph B(2), the staff should review whether "standing seam metal" and "dimensional shingles" are appropriate materials to be included in the proffer. 6. In Paragraph B(4), it should be noted that the Applicants are not committing to any construction of commercial structures until building permits for over 70% of the entire residential development have been issued. Also, it would appear that if a "commercial market does not exist , the commercial development may never occur. Who determines that a "commercial market does not exist"? Further, it is not clear to me what monetary contribution is to be made if the commercial development does not occur. Is it a recalculation of the monetary contribution for each non -age -restricted dwelling unit in the development, or is it contemplated that the commercially zoned property would be rezoned residential and the references to dwelling units that would be constructed on the property originally zoned commercial? In any event, I would think that this proffer would not be satisfactory if the County is interested in having a commitment for commercial development. 7. In Paragraph B(5), I would recommend that the staff review the commercial uses to be excluded from the B-2 zoned property to determine if the County wants all of these commercial uses excluded, including the limitation on the size of a food store. D. MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 8. In Paragraph D(1), the Applicants proffer to develop the property under a single Master Development Plan. I would recommend that it be expressly set forth in this proffer that there will be no development activity on the property until approval of the Master Development Plan by the Board of Supervisors. 9. I am not clear for the reasons for the provisions set forth in Paragraph D(2). The application for approval of a Master Development Plan, and any revision of a Master Development Plan, is required to be signed by all owners of the property. Since it will be a proffered condition of the zoning on the property that the HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN be MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy November 8, 2005 Page 4 development of the property has to comply with the single Master Development Plan, it does not seem to me that it going to take an agreement between the Applicants and subsequent developers to accomplish this. Perhaps this is intended as more of a notice provision to notify developers in the project that the property must be developed in accordance with the approved Master Development Plan. E. TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENTS 10. While I believe it is implied, the proffers should include an express statement that the Applicants will dedicate the right of way for Willow Run Drive and Jubal Early Drive, including the portion of Willow Run Drive located on property currently owned by Jova Properties, LLC. Further, the proffer should specify a time, satisfactory to the County, by which the dedications would be made. 11. The proffers related to Jubal Early Drive should set forth a requirement as to when the various stages of construction will be completed. 12. With respect to Paragraphs E(7) and E(8), (second and third phases of Jubal Early Drive), I am not clear what is meant by the provision that the undeveloped portion of the right-of-way shall count "towards the overall open space for the Willow Run Community." How can a pot iscontemplated n of a road ghat in the future ht -of -way count towards a permanent open space requirement it will be converted to a street? 13. The proffer to enter into signalization agreements as provided in Paragraph E(14) and E(17), should provide that the provisions of the signalization agreement shall be as determined by VDOT. F. MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS 14. It is my understanding that the monetary contributions set forth in Paragraph F(1) and F(2) are based upon a calculation under the Frederick County Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model, and that that calculation has allocated the HALL; MONAHAN, ENGLE. MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy November 8, 2005 Page 5 monetary contribution among specified County capital projects. I would recommend that the printout of that calculation be included as an exhibit to the proffer, so that it is established for the record how the monetary contributions are to be allocated. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-2303.2 requires the local governing body to account annually to the Commission on local government as to the collection and expenditure (by category) of proffered monetary contributions.) G. COMMUNITY RECREATION 15. It should be noted that the proffer concerning the construction of a community center building, contained in Paragraph G(1), does not provide for the construction of the community center until building permits for almost half of the total development have been issued. L CREATION OF HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 16. Paragraph I(2) provides for the creation of an Architectural Review Board to insure that all "design guidelines" are met for exterior additions and alterations to existing dwelling units. I am not clear as to what "design guidelines" are being referenced. In any event, the design guidelines seem to only apply to additions and alterations to existing dwelling units, and there does not seem to be any proffered design guidelines as to the dwelling units to be constructed. 17. In Paragraph I(3) it should be noted that there is no minimum to the assessment referenced. Presumably, that assessment could be minimal. J. ENVIRONMENTAL 18. It should be noted that Paragraph J(3), concerning the resource protection area, only restricts the location of residential lots. While it may not be of concern to the County, it is noted that there is no restriction upon the proximity of commercial development to Developmentally Sensitive Areas, and it appears that a small portion of one of the areas to be zoned B-2 is located in a Developmentally Senitive Area. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy November 8, 2005 Page 6 19. It should be noted that the landscaping plan for the wetland areas, referenced in Paragraph J(4), is not a part of the proffer, but the Applicants are merely proffering to "develop" a landscaping plan. It should be noted that I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for this specific development, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. In particular, and without limitation, the staff will want to review the appropriateness of the limit on the number of residential units in the development, and, as to the transportation proffers, the details of the road improvements, the timing of the road improvements, the extent of the construction to be performed by the Applicants, and the appropriateness of the bicycle and pedestrian facilities. If there are any questions concerning the foregoing comments, please contact me. truly yours, Robert T. Mitchel, Jr. RTM/ks CITE' OF WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA MEMORANDUM TO: Evan Wyatt, Greenway Engineering CC: Eric Lawrence, Frederick County Planning & Development Director FROM: Tim Youmans, Winchester Planning Director Rouss City Hall 15 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 540-667-1815 TDD 540-722-0782 RE: CITY COMMENTS FOR PROPOSED WILLOW RUN MIXED USE COMMUNITY REZONING APPLICATION DATE: November 10, 2005 Thank you for providing an opportunity for the City of Winchester to review and comment on the conditional rezoning for the proposed Willow Run Mixed Use Community. The following comments are based upon analysis of the following submitted inaterials: eA Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run, dated July 12, 2005; @Alternative Build -out Scenario for: "A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run, dated April 2005 ", this report dated July 12, 2005; and, © Willow Run Community Rezoning Application—Mixed Use Development, dated September 1, 2005 (with revisions to Proffers # 5 and 18 dated October 27, 2005 and received via fax on November 3, 2005). Comments herein are those of City Planning staff and should not be taken as an official position of the City Planning Commission or the Winchester Common Council ("City Council"). At the writing of this memo, a City Subdivision application to permit the extension of W. Jubal Early Drive to the County line and establishment of a three-way intersection with Meadow Branch Avenue is pending consideration before the City Planning Commission prior to being forwarded to City Council for action. Decisions of these two bodies could differ considerably from this staff position and would supersede or expand the positions contained herein. Transportation impacts are the primary concern of the City. The overriding concern is the degree of assurance that W. Jubal Early Drive (JED), if approved by the City for extension from its current transition into Meadow Branch Avenue, will connect to a new interchange at Rte 37 as called for in numerous transportation plans including: The Win -Fred MPO's Long -Range Transportation Plan; The Winchester Area Transportation Plan; the City of Winchester Comprehensive Plan; and the Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan (WJEDLUP) update of the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The City acknowledges the efforts of the applicant to undertake an Rte 37/JED Interchange Justification Study, dedicate and construct JED through the rezoning site, dedicate land for the northbound on- and off -ramps in the area of the present- MEMO to Evan Wyatt 11/10/2005 Page 2 day Merrimans Lane overpass, and offer a cash contribution of $1,000 per residential lot for construction of the N.B. on-ramp subject to CTB approval of the new interchange. The City also acknowledges that the applicant has proffered to let the JED/Merrimans Lane connection be a gated emergency access, but this is only if requested by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. However, if the CTB rejects the new JED/Rte 37 interchange, the City believes that the impacts arising from the development permitted with the conditional rezoning request would have a detrimental impact on existing and proposed City roadways and neighborhoods. Specifically, the traffic impact analysis shows significant impacts on Merrimans Lane. Figures 10 of the Traffic Impact Analysis depicts Phase 2 traffic for the year 2010 showing background ADT traffic volumes of 6,770 without the new development. Figures 14 of the Traffic Impact Analysis depicts Phase 2 traffic for the year 2010 showing Build -out ADT traffic volumes doubling to 13,578 on this narrow, winding two-lane roadway with the new development. Of great concern is the detrimentally reduced Level of Service (LOS) resulting at the intersection of Merrimans Lane and Amherst St (Rte 50) in the City due to build -out development caused by this rezoning. Figure 11 depicts 2010 background PM peak hour LOS's of C or D at this intersection. Figure 15 depicts 2010 build -out PM peak hour LOS's of F (except for one D) at this intersection. Figure 15a offers suggested improvements on Merrimans Lane including additional turn lanes and signalization at the Merrimans Ln/Breckinridge Ln intersection and additional left- and right -turn lanes at all four approaches to the Merrimans Lane/Rte 50 intersection. None of these mitigating measurers appear to be proffered. City Council has recently approved a subdivision at the intersection of Merrimans Lane and Amherst St that will severe the direct connection of Merrimans Lane and Amherst St. The revised roadway configuration in this area calls for Merrimans Lane to swing eastward and intersect newly constructed Meadow Branch Avenue approximately 400 feet south of the current intersection with Amherst St. Vehicles heading north on Merrimans Lane will be required to make a left turn from a single left/thru lane onto Meadow Branch Avenue at an unsignalized intersection and then approach the signalized intersection of Meadow Branch Avenue and Amherst Street. The traffic impact model for the Willow Run project should be updated to reflect this configuration since it has been approved by City Council and has been bonded for 100% private developer construction by the developers of the recently approved CVS Pharmacy. Figure 15 of the Traffic Impact Analysis depicts a detrimental 2010 build -out PM peak hour LOS of F (down from a 2010 background LOS of D without the build -out) at the eastbound approach to the JED/Valley Ave intersection. Other approaches to this intersection see Peak Hour LOS drop to D and E. Figure 15a suggests improvements at the JED/Valley Ave intersection consisting of dedicated right -turn lanes at two of the approaches and an additional thru lane at a third approach. None of these improvements are proffered in response to the detrimental impacts caused by development arising from the rezoning of Willow Run. While the impacts on City roadways associated with 2010 Alternative Build -out analysis (.i.e. with no JED connection in the City) are fewer, there are still a number of reduced levels of service not mitigated through proffers. Examples are depicted in Figure 6 of the Alternative MEMO to Evan Wyatt 11/10/2005 Page 3 Analysis and include, among others, the PM Peak Hour LOS'S of `F' at the Breckridge Lane/Merrimans Lane intersection, and 'E'at the Harvest Dr/Cedar Creek Grade intersection. Although there are some concern about the possible temporary impacts associated with traffic patterns resulting during interim phases, the focus herein is primarily on ultimate build -out permitted by the rezoning. The October 27, 2005 amendments to Proffers 5 and 18 help to understand the potential impacts relative to phased connection to JED in the City. In general, the City feels that commitments to constructing at least part of the JED/Rte 37 interchange instead of incrementally improving the Cedar Creek Grade/Rte 37 interchange will provide greater benefit to the residents of the rezoning area as well as the adjoining neighborhoods, both in the City and the County. The improvements to Cedar Creek Grade can more appropriately be addressed by proffers in conjunction with rezonings of the properties along that roadway frontage at a future date. Thank you again for providing the City with an opportunity to comment on the rezoning request for this development. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the comments in this response. COUNTY of FREDERICK ICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 5401665-6395 October 6, 2005 Mr. Evan Wyatt Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 RE: Proposed Rezoning of Willow Run Dear Evan: I have had the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application for the Willow Run Property. The rezoning application seeks to rezone 359.97 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to the RP (Residential Performance) District and B2 (Business General) District. Overall this site presents the exciting opportunity to create a new community in an undeveloped area of the County. I have provided a number of comments which are included below. While general transportation comments are included in this letter, detailed comments on the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and the Alternative TIA are included as attachments. I would very much welcome the opportunity to discuss my comments with you so that we can both work towards development of an exemplary community in Frederick County. 1. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The subject properties cover 359.97 acres. The Comprehensive Policy Plan (6-79) states that "in the Urban Development Area, parcels of 100 acres or more should only be allowed to develop residential uses under the R-4 (Planned Community) Zoning District". I would strongly recommend that you investigate rezoning to the R-4 District. This district is intended to create new neighborhoods with an appropriate balance of residential, employment and service uses. This district enables greater design flexibility, including the introduction of new housing types, which is not allowed in the RP (Residential Performance) District. 2. Western Jubal Early Area. As you are aware, the Solenberger/Bridgeforth properties, south of the subject sites, have requested to be included in the Urban Development Area (UDA). This request has yet to be acted upon by the Board of Supervisors. It would clearly be in the best interest of the county to plan the entire 600 acre Western Jubal Early Area as a whole. It is a particular concern that the development of the subject sites as currently proposed could prejudice the ability of the Solenberger/Bridgeforth properties to develop. I have provided specific 16 7 North KIC:b1t ii Cis S® fame- e0v - Ninchesster, V ra .n—J- Z�.��� 9 a ��_... Page 2 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Willow Run Property October 6 , 2005)J examples in my comments. See comments 26, 31 and 42. As Greenway Engineering is also representing the Solenbergers and Bridgeforths in their UDA expansion request, I hope that full information on this rezoning application is being provided to them. 3. Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan (WJELUP). The subject properties are within the area covered by the Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan (adopted by the Board of Supervisors on February 11, 2004). I have based many of my comments on this adopted plan. However, as you are aware, the Board of Supervisors is considering revisions to that land use plan. The latest draft plan was endorsed by the CPPS on April 4, 2005. The Planning Commission provided comments to the Board of Supervisors on this draft on May 4, 2005. It is possible that a revised plan may be adopted before this rezoning application is submitted. Therefore, in a number of relevant places, I have referred to policies in the draft plan (4/4/05). 4. WJELUP — Residential Density. The WJELUP (2/11/04) envisions urban and suburban residential uses. The residential designation is intended to continue the established land use pattern in the vicinity. The gross residential density for development within WJELUP anticipates up to four dwelling units per acre, with full density credit being provided for DSA designated land. The proposed Willow Run density of 2.36 units per acre (850 units on 360 acres) is low in relation to the density called for in the WJELUP. Considering the current demand for housing in the existing UDA, this is perhaps an inefficient use of the site and fails to achieve intended density. A density similar to that called for in the WJELUP would make a mix of uses in the development more viable. 5. Housing Type. The applicant is proposing all housing types allowed in the RP (Residential Performance) District except for garden apartments. However, the application mentions 658 single family detached units and 192 single family attached units. The Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact Model was run on the basis of these numbers although this particular housing split was not proffered. This should be clarified. Also, in my opinion, garden apartments are not out of character with the area. The Summerfield apartments are adjacent to the site to the east and the Mews condominiums are located just to the north in the Meadow Branch area. I suggest that the applicant reconsider the inclusion of garden apartments, particularly in the mixed-use areas. As stated above, the applicant could also consider other housing types that may be permitted should they seek an R4 designation. 6. Age Restricted. The application gives no indication of the total number (other than the minimum) of age -restricted units. This is important given that many of the Page 3 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Willow Run Property October 6, 2005 proffers are tied to non -age -restricted units. The application is silent on where these age -restricted units will be located and in what phases these will be built. The application is also silent on when the units will be designated as age -restricted. Perhaps it is at the Master Development Plan (MDP) stage. Please clarify. 7. Residential Phasing. Only the non -age -restricted units are limited to 200 per year. (This far exceeds the customary 50-70 units per year seen in Frederick County.) If the entire development was age -restricted, the entire development could be built in one year. I suggest that the total number of units be restricted to 70 per year. I also recommend that the phasing be aligned with the phasing in the TIA. The TIA clearly set out for two distinct phases — Phase 1 with 400 single family detached units (85 of them age -restricted) and Phase 2 with 258 single family attached units and 193 single family attached units, plus commercial development. If that is the applicant's intent, it should be set out in the proffers, otherwise the TIA is not based on the actual application. Also, the TIA has general locations for the two residential phases in order to assign vehicle trips. I can find nothing in the application or proffer statement to indicate the location of any residential phasing. The TIA clearly conflicts with the rezoning application. 8. WJELUP — Mixed -Use. The WJELUP (2/11/04) designates areas of mixed residential and commercial land uses along the planned route of the Jubal Early Drive extension. The plan clearly calls for the integration of land uses within the mixed use areas. It is further expected that residential and commercial uses will be designed and configured in a complementary and unified manner to ensure development of a visually distinctive and functionally efficient community. The proffered GDP does not show any mixed-use area. It is possible that the applicant is planning a mixed-use area with residential and commercial uses designed and configured in a complementary and unified manner. However, the GDP only shows isolated commercial areas. The application needs to clearly designate and detail a mixed-use area. I would suggest that the applicant consider proffering a more detailed plan of the mixed-use area. In the absence of a plan for the mixed-use areas, as designated on the WJELUP, this application is not in conformance with the WJELUP. 9. WJELUP — Mixed -Use Location. The WJELUP (2/11/04) designates a large mixed-use area along and on both sides of Jubal Early Drive. The GDP shows two isolated commercial areas that may form part of an integrated mixed-use area, but again it is unclear from the application, whether the mixed-use areas called for in the WJELUP are in the appropriate location. Page 4 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Willow Run Property October 6, 2005 10. WJELUP — Mix of Uses. The WJELUP calls for a minimum of 25% commercial component in the mixed-use area. The applicant has not demonstrated that this 25% commercial component has been met. The WJELUP also calls for a mixture of housing types in the mixed-use areas. The application does not show any housing mix. As stated above, I would suggest that the applicant consider providing a more detailed plan of the mixed-use area. This should also show the interconnection of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The applicant should be able to demonstrate how the mixed-use area will be the focal point of the new community. 11, WJELUP — Mix of Uses. The positioning of the recreational use in proximity to the commercial area is welcome and provides for greater overall vitality. The recreational uses would contribute even more to the vitality of the area if they were public. 12. New Commercial Site. The westernmost commercial site shown on the GDP was not designated for any particular land use in the WJELUP (2/11/04). It is not unreasonable, given its location adjacent to Route 37 and Merriman's Lane, that it should be designated for commercial use. However, this must be viewed as commercial development above and beyond what was called for in the WJELUP for the mixed-use areas and should not count towards the commercial component of the mixed-use area. 13. Commercial Floorspace. The application mentions 50,000 square feet of office use, 50,000 square feet of retail use and 10,000 square feet of restaurant use. The Fiscal Impact Model and Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) were run on this basis. However, a general floorspace maximum of 110,000 square feet is proffered. The TIA will need to reflect the maximum possible density of 110,000 square feet of retail use. In addition, as a minimum commercial floorspace is not proffered, the Fiscal Impact Model will need to reflect zero commercial development. 14. Impact Analysis Statement (Access, p. 3). The application notes access from Cedar Creek Grade, Meniman's Lane, Cidermill Lane and through the extension of Jubal Early Drive. The application does not mention access through the extension of Sterling Drive in the City of Winchester. As this road is designed to access the site, an explanation of why this access in not being pursued is sought. 15. Impact Analysis Statement (Floodplains, p. 4). The application notes that the FEMA floodplain maps for Frederick County do not cover this entire site. I would point out that FEMA maps prepared for the City of Winchester, specifically Maps # 510173-0001-B and 510173-003-13, do cover the subject sites. The application mentions a Phase I Environmental Assessment Report and a Wetlands Delineation Page 5 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Willow Run Property October 6, 2005 Report. The Planning Department has not been provided a copy of either of these reports. In the absence of this information, I cannot determine whether the Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) on the proffered Generalized Development Plan are accurate. This information will need to be provided before this rezoning application can be accepted. 16. Impact Analysis Statement (Wetlands, p. 4). As stated above, the Planning Department has not been provided a copy of the Wetlands Delineation Report and therefore cannot verify the accuracy of the (DSA) on the proffered GDP. 17. Impact Analysis Statement (Mature Woodlands, p. 5). Following a site visit, it is clear that some woodlands merit particular attention. I would suggest that the preservation of key woodlands, including the trees and the associated stone wall along Orchard Lane, be considered at the rezoning stage. This could be an enhancement of the GDP. 18. Impact Analysis Statement (Soil Types, p. 5). The information on soil types is inaccurate. The subject sites are located on Map Sheet #35 of the Soil Survey of Frederick County Virginia. The soil types also include 17E — Frederick- Poplimento- Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes. The Soil Condition Exhibit is correct. 19. Impact Analysis Statement (Soil and Bedrock Conditions). The applicant has not included information on soil or bedrock conditions which could create construction difficulties or hazards. This is clearly required in the rezoning application. Given the known location of a large sinkhole, the applicant will need to provide further geotechnical information at the rezoning stage. 20. Impact Analysis Statement (Soil and Bedrock Conditions). A recent site visit has revealed that the large sinkhole has been filled. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance (165-31) restricts the disturbance of sinkholes. Filling of the sinkhole is also contrary to the WJELUP (2/11/04) which designated this a developmentally sensitive area that should be preserved. As you will recall, the applicant participated in the creation of the WJELUP, so was clearly aware of the sinkhole and its designation. The proffered GDP shows this as a developmentally sensitive area. The applicant will need to address how the impact of this fill will be mitigated and how the area will now be protected from further sinking and either preserved or developed, if that is even possible. 21. Transportation (Phasing p. 6). The impact analysis statement, and the TIA, divide the development into two phases - the first includes the development of 400 Page 6 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Willow Run Property October 6, 2005 residential units, the second includes the total build -out of 850 residential units and 110,000 square feet of commercial, retail and restaurant uses. The two phases are not defined in the proffer statement or shown on the GDP. It is unclear where the first 400 houses will be located. Please provide information about the two phases. 22. Transportation (Alternate Build -out Analysis p. 6). The applicant has provided a 2010 Alternate Build -out Analysis should the connection to Jubal Early Drive not be permitted by the city of Winchester. In this scenario, only 10,000 square feet of commercial floorspace is proposed (given 600 non -age -restricted residential units). It is unclear where this commercial development will be located, since three B2 Districts are sought. Also, reducing the amount of commercial land would be contrary to the WJELUP as it relates to the mixed-use areas. 23. Transportation (Level of Service and Proffered Transportation Improvements p. 7). Specific comments concerning these issues are covered under the comments on proffers and the analysis of the two TIAs. 24. WJELUP - Transportation. The WJELUP (2/11/04) is fundamentally linked to the extension of Jubal Early Drive and the new Route 37 interchange at Jubal Early Drive. If Jubal Early Drive cannot be extended from the City, or if the interchange is no longer proposed, it would be not possible for the application to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 25. Transportation. The application should address the railroad crossing that would accompany Jubal Early Drive extended. 26. Sewage Conveyance and Treatment (p. 8). The application states that the applicant will provide a new sewer force main and a new sewer pump station with capacity for the Willow Run community that is expandable to serve additional development in the area. The applicant should consider a proffer to cover this commitment and its timing. Also, when sizing the sewer force main and pump station the applicant will need to consider the SolenbergerBridgeforth properties and the fact that the emerging WJELUP allows up to 2,400 residences, plus commercial development, in the overall WJELUP area. 27. Sewage Conveyance and Treatment (p. 9). The application states that the phasing plan limits the number of permits that can be obtained on an annual basis. This ensures that the build -out cannot occur until 2010 at the earliest. This is incorrect. There is no limit on the non -age -restricted units. Therefore, an 850 unit age -restricted community could be built in the first year, long before the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Facility is projected to be completed. Also, in this era Page 7 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Willow Run Property O(Anher 6, 2005 of evolving nutrient reduction regulations, the county has a heightened awareness of the potential impacts that may result from future rezonings. 28. Drainage (p. 10). Given the known sinkhole on the site, the geotechnical analysis for the property should be prepared before the rezoning stage. 29. Historic Sites and Structures (p. 12). The applicant has been advised that a Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) recommendation is required with this application. 30. Impact on Community Facilities (p. 12). The impact model submitted with the application was based on 658 single family detached houses, 192 single family attached houses, 50,000 square feet of office, 50,000 square feet of retail and 10,000 square feet of restaurant. The proffers only include a maximum of 850 residential units and 10,000 square feet of commercial floorspace (assuming 600 non -age -restricted units). The applicant can either clearly proffer what is in the impact model or revise the impact model to reflect what is currently proffered. 31. Impact on Community Facilities (p. 12). The draft WJELUP (4/4/05) calls for a site for school facilities to mitigate the impact of large number of school children as a result of development in this area. As the applicant is aware, the Frederick County School Board on January 18, 2005 passed a resolution requesting 25-30 acres for a multi -campus school site in the Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan area. While this resolution took account of the wider Jubal Early area, including the Solenberger/Bridgeforth properties, the resolution needs to be addressed in this application. This development is larger than the Solenberger/Bridegeforth properties, yet the applicant appears to be leaving the responsibility to provide the entire school site to the Solenberger/Bridgeforth properties. Please confirm that the adjacent property owners are aware of their future responsibility. 32. Impact on Community Facilities (p. 13). The reduced proffer for each age restricted unit only takes fire and rescue impacts into consideration. The model shows impacts to fire and rescue, parks and recreation, public library and administration building. These all need to be considered. 33. Generalized Development Plan (GDP). The GDP shows RP zoning for parcel 52- A-310. This is incorrect as that parcel is not part of this application. 34. Proffer Statement - General. It is not appropriate, nor allowable, to proffer items that conflict with ordinances. Proffers are intended to enhance regulations, not to detract from, conflict with, nor undermine them. Page 8 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Willow Run Property October 6, 2005 35. Proffer Statement A3. The proffered phasing plan only applies to non -age - restricted units. Therefore, 850 age -restricted units could be built in year one. Consider rewording this proffer. (Also, there is no phasing plan to match that contained in the TIA.) The County cannot act in a police role between landowners. Permits applied for first will be dealt with first regardless of any private agreements between landowners. This is especially important when improvements are tied to building permits. The proffer statement should be clear and set out responsibilities based on land area and phasing. A phased plan with a map would resolve many of these issues. 36. Proffer Statement A4. When will the age -restricted units be designated? Where will they be located? How many units will be age -restricted? None of these questions are answered in the proffer statement, yet the TIA uses definite numbers, locations and phases to determine traffic impacts. There is a disconnect between the proffer statement and the TIA. 37. Proffer Statement A5 and A6. The application proffers two new housing types, the Carriage House and the Village House. The introduction of new housing types is not allowed in the RP District and should not be included in the proffer statement. The applicant would need to seek a rezoning to the R4 District, as suggested in comment 41, in order to introduce new housing types. I would note that RP District allows single family lots as small as 3,750 square feet, with, as you are aware, a required community center. 38. Proffer Statement B3. .The phasing for the commercial development does not match the phasing in the TIA. The phasing for the commercial development as written in the proffer statement does not commit the applicant to anything. 39. Proffer Statement B4. This proffer allows the applicant to develop the entire Willow Run project with no commercial development. A miniscule 10,000 square feet of commercial land use is proffered with the 600th non -age restricted dwelling unit. The applicant might develop 599 non -age restricted units, thus no commercial development would occur. This is contrary to the WJELUP (2/11/04). The second part of the proffer which would provide a monetary contribution to make up for the lack of 110,000 square feet of commercial floorspace is vague. It is difficult to see how this proffer could be enforced as there are multiple owners of the site and hundreds of building permits would already have been issued before this proffer would come into play. More importantly, a monetary contribution would not overcome the lack of conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Page 9 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Willow Run Property October 6, 2005 40. Proffer Statement B5. It is unclear why the applicant has proffered to restrict so many B2 uses. Some of these uses are part of a vibrant, local community. The applicant should especially reconsider restricting fire stations and rescue squads. The Draft WJELUP (4/4/05) states that it may be necessary for future development to provide a site for other public facilities to mitigate the impact of the large number of residents resulting from the development in this area. 41. Proffer Statement C1. The proffered GDP identifies the major road systems. However, the applicant may not be able to connect to Jubal Early Drive and thus the GDP could be fundamentally incorrect. It is premature to submit this application until it is clear whether the connection to Jubal Early Drive can be made. In addition, the WJELUP (2/11/04) clearly designates Jubal Early Drive extended as the main through route. The GDP shows Jubal Early Drive/Willow Run Drive as the major through route, with the western portion of Jubal Early Drive as subservient. This road configuration is contrary to the WJELUP. 42. Proffer Statement E1. The applicant will be required to provide proof of an access easement across tax map parcel 63-A-1 when the rezoning application is submitted. 43. Proffer Statement E2. The draft WJELUP (4/4/05) calls for Willow Run Drive to be an urban divided four lane cross-section that includes landscaped medians as well as pedestrian and bicycle facilities. This should be incorporated into the design for this road. Construction of the two-lane section prior to the issuance of the 100th residential building permit is not consistent with the TIA, which calls for the first 400 units to be built without access to Cedar Creek Grade. 44. Proffer Statement E3. Landscaping, as called for in the draft WJELUP (4/4/05) (see comment above) should be incorporated into the design for this road and the landscaping should be provided with the first two-lane section. 45. Proffer Statement E4. The phasing of the construction of Jubal Early Drive is not tied to any specific time or event such as the issuing of building permits. Revise, to tie the phasing to verifiable events. 46. Proffer Statement E4. The WJELUP (2/11/04) designates Jubal Early Drive as an urban divided four -lane -cross-section that includes landscaped medians as well as pedestrian and bicycle facilities. This should be designed and built along with the first two-lane section. Page 10 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Willow Run Property October 6, 2005 47. Proffer Statement E5. It is unclear from Exhibit 2 how Meadow Branch Avenue will intersect with Jubal Early Drive extended. The applicant should clarify if they intend to fund any of the realignment of Meadow Branch Avenue. 48. Proffer Statement E5. Timing the completion of this section of roadway to opening for public use is too vague. Please tie to a verifiable event such as the issuance of building permits. 49. Proffer Statement E7. There is no timing for this proffer. Please tie to a verifiable event such as the issuance of building permits. 50. Proffer Statement E7 and E8. It is unacceptable to the County to allow the undeveloped portion of Jubal Early Drive to count towards the overall open space for the Willow Run Community. The roadway will eventually be completed and the residents would then have a deficit of open space. 51. Proffer Statement E8. Gating Jubal Early Drive at Merrimans Lane was not modeled in the TIA and it is therefore impossible for the County to evaluate this proffer. 52. Proffer Statement E10. VDOT will need to verify that enough land has been reserved for a new Route 37 interchange. 53. Proffer Statement E10. The applicant should be prepared to pay an equitable share of the proposed interchange. $850,000 may not represent their fair share. 54. Proffer Statement E11. While the initiation of this study is proffered, its completion is open-ended and may never happen. 55. Proffer Statement E16. The applicant should consider a continuous right turn lane westbound on Cedar Creek Grade from the City of Winchester to the interchange with Route 37. 56. Proffer Statement E16. The TIA shows a second through lane eastbound on Cedar Creek Grade. This is not proffered, but appears, based on the TIA, to be necessary. The WJELUP (4/4/05) also calls for Cedar Creek Grade to be a four lane divided highway with a bicycle lane. The design should be established and the road built to meet that design or part of the design. 57. Proffer Statement E18. The timing of this proffer is unclear. It is based on the construction of the minor spine road, but this road is not proffered. Page 11 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE; Proposed Rezoning of Willow Run Property October 6, 2005 58. Proffer Statement E19. The GDP shows the bicycle trail connecting to the trail in the City of Winchester. This is not reflected in the proffer statement. Revise the proffer to reflect the full connection of the trail to trails in the adjoining neighborhoods as called for in the WJELUP (2/11/04). Also, the applicant should look into the emerging county bike plan in order to determine if other connections are appropriate. 59. Proffer Statement 1E20. Alleys may not work in the RP District, given the access and setback requirements. 60. Proffer Statement Transportation. It would be very useful for the applicant to address access by construction vehicles at the rezoning stage. 61. Proffer Statement F1. The Capital Facilities Impact Model was based on specific commercial development. As this commercial development is not proffered, any monetary contribution should be based on a purely residential scheme. 62. Proffer Statement Fl. It is unclear how the County will know which units are age -restricted. Perhaps this could be required information at the MDP stage. 63. Proffer Statement F2. The reduced proffer for each age -restricted unit only takes fire and rescue impacts into consideration. The model also shows impacts to parks and recreation, public library and administration building. 64. Proffer Statement Gl. Proffers should go beyond ordinance requirements. It appears that this proffer in not guaranteeing anything above that which is already required by county ordinance. 65. Proffer Statement G2. The minor spine road is not proffered, nor is it shown on the GDP as stated in the proffer statement. Therefore, the location of the trail along this road is unclear. The applicant should connect the trail to the Green Circle as called for in the WJELUP. 66. Proffer Statement G3. County ordinances require sidewalks on both sides of the road in residential developments. The applicant appears to be proffering a lesser standard of asphalt pedestrian trails. If the applicant is proffering trails in addition to the required sidewalks, these should be 10 feet in width and have asphalt surface, as per County Parks and Recreation standards. Page 12 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Willow Run Property October 6, 2005 67. Proffer Statement J1, J2 and J3. The applicant will need to revise these three proffers in light of the fact that the large sinkhole has been filled. 68. Proffer Statement J4. Very little of the wetlands are south of Jubal Early Drive. Why does this proffer not apply north of Jubal Early Drive? This proffer is also missing information on when the landscape plan will be prepared and who will review it. It is also unclear who will put in the landscaping and how it will be maintained. 69. Surveyed Plat. Please supply a surveyed plat of the subject properties, which shows all property lines and proposed zoning boundary lines. Metes and bounds should be provided to verify exact locations of lots and zoning boundaries. It appears that this information may be included on the proffered GDP, but in its current form, it is not legible. 70. Deed. Please provide a deed to the property verifying current ownership. 71. Verification that taxes have been paid. Please provide a receipt from the Treasurer's office which verifies that real estate taxes for the properties have been paid. 72. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency comments from the following agencies: Historic Resources Advisory Board, Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marshall, Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation, Frederick County Public Schools, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, Frederick - Winchester Health Department, City of Winchester, Winchester Regional Airport, Round Hill Fire and Rescue Company, the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority and the Frederick County Attorney. Note: the proffer statement has been sent to the Frederick County Attorney by the Planning Department. 73. Fees. The fee for this application includes a $3,000.00 base fee plus $100.00 per acre, and a $50.00 public hearing sign fee. Thus, a total of $39,050 is due upon submission of the official rezoning application. This is based on fees as of January 27, 2005. Fees may change. 74. Special Limited Power of Attorney. Please have the property owners complete the special limited power of attorney form which authorizes you to represent them during the application process. Page 13 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Willow Run Property October 6, 2005 In summary, this preliminary application conflicts with the WJELUP and does not match what is proposed in the TIA. An application consistent with the WJELUP, with traffic impacts that are acceptable and manageable, would achieve the vibrant, mixed-use community envisioned by the County for this area. All of the comments in this letter and any agency comments should be appropriately addressed before staff can formally accept this rezoning application. Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions regarding this application. Sincerely, 1 �• Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner SKE/dlw Attachments Attachirnent I Preliminary Comments Willow Run Rezoning Traffic Impact Analysis General Comment. The underlying assumption of this TIA is that Jubal Early Drive will not connect to Route 37 at a new interchange. This connection is called for in the WJELUP and the MPO 2030 Transportation Plan. The Comprehensive Policy Plan has been totally disregarded. The applicant will need to justify their nonconformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 2, General Comment. Proffer #E8 states that the connection to Merrimans Lane will be gated to allow for emergency access only if requested by the Board of Supervisors. This option is not included in the TIA, making evaluation of this proffer impossible. Report Summary (p. 1). The minor spine road is not proffered. As such, findings based on this road are insupportable. 4. Report Summary (p. 1). The breakdown of commercial floor space — 50,000 square feet of retail, 50,000 square feet of office, and 10,000 square feet of restaurant space is not proffered. The TIA should reflect what is proffered — a maximum of 110,000 square feet of B2 floor space. 5. Figure 2 (p. 4). Figure 2 shows the average daily trips along Merrimans Lane. In Figure 2, this is broken into three sections — north of the intersection with Cedar Creek Grade, in the general area north of the intersection with the future Jubal Early Drive extended and north of the intersection with Breckinridge Lane. Provide the levels of service for these three segments on Figures 3, 5, 9, 11 and 15. 6. Figure 3, Figure 5, Figure 9, Figure 11 and Figure 15. Each of these figures shows levels of service.. Levels of service are missing for some intersections; for example, northbound on Merrimans Lane (Route 62 1) at the intersection with Breckinridge Lane. Provide all levels of service at intersections shown. 2007 Background Conditions (p. 6). The background conditions do not include a number of relevant developments. Firstly, the City of Winchester has rezoned 34 acres of land at the intersection of Merriman's Lane and Amherst Street (Route 50) for commercial and residential use. Inclusion of this development in this TIA is important for a number of reasons including the projection of trip generation and the road layout (lane geometry) as proffered with that rezoning. On a smaller scale, Frederick County recently rezoned 1.0 acres of land on Northwestern Pike (Route 50) for B2 use. Residential development is also taking place in the City of Winchester in the South Meadow Branch area. All of these projects should be included in the TIA. Phase 1 'Trip Generation (p. 7). While it is helpful to consider the project as two clear phases, Phase 1 and Phase 2, this is not proffered. The residential split of 315 single-family detached units and 85 single-family detached elderly units in Phase I is not proffered. The applicant should ensure that the TIA reflects what is actually proffered. Page 1 of 4 Attachment 1 Preliminary Comments Willow Run Rezoning Traffic Impact Analysis 9. rigui,e 4 (f,. 8). Figure 4 shows the 2007 Backgro„ rnd ADT_ 31,490 average daily trips are shown for the section of Route 50 directly west of the interchange with Route 37. This does not match with the figure of 43,707 average daily trips for the same section of Route 50 as presented in the TIA (also prepared by PHR&A) for the Marathon Bank Rezoning. The figure of 43,707 reflects the 2007 Build -out traffic conditions. While the TIA for Willow Run does not include the Marathon Bank, the discrepancy in figures is so great that it warrants an explanation. 10. Figure 6 (p. 10) and Figure 12 (p. 21). It would be helpful if the trip distribution percentages were shown for roads within and closer to the development, such as Jubal Early Drive, Willow Run Drive and Merrimans Lane. The data is clearly available as it is shown on Figures 7 and 13. 11. Figure 7 (p. 11). Figure 7 shows the Phase 1: Development -Generated Trip Assignments. This cannot be substantiated, as the location of the Phase 1 residential units is not shown, let alone proffered, in the rezoning application. According to the TIA, all. Phase 1 traffic will be generated in the vicinity of Willow Run Drive and Jubal Early Drive extended, and flow onto either Jubal Early Drive or Meadow Branch Avenue. No traffic will use the major spine road, the minor spine road or Orchard Hill Drive. This is very unlikely given that the applicant has proffered to construct Willow Run Drive to Cedar Creek Grade by the 100th building permit (proffer #E2). The applicant should clearly show the location of the Phase I residential development in the rezoning application in order to justify the data in the TIA. 12. Figure 9 (p. 13) and 9a (p. 14) at Breckinridge Lane. Figure 9 shows the Phase 1 build -out lane geometry and levels of service. The unsignalized intersection of Breckinridge Lane and Merriman's Lane Route 621 shows a PM Peak Hour Level of Service F. Figure 9a shows the suggested improvements. These suggested improvements include additional lanes on Merriman's Lane and Breckinridge Lane and signalization of the intersection. None of these improvements are proffered. Therefore, the improved level of service at this intersection should not be shown on Figure 9a as it is misleading. 13. Figure 9 (p. 13) and 9a (p. 14) at the Cedar Creek Grade/Route 37 southbound ramp. Figure 9 shows level of service E(F) at this unsignalized intersection. Figure 9a shows suggested improvements of an additional lane exiting Route 37 and signalization of the intersection. The additional lane exiting Route 37 is not proffered. The signalization is proffered only if warranted by VDOT (proffer #E14). This may not be in Phase 1. Therefore, the improved level of service at this intersection should not be shown on Figure 9a as it is misleading. Page 2 of 4 Attachment I Preliminary Commebats Willow Run Rezoning Traffic Impact Analysis 14. Figure 9 (p.13) and 9a (p.14) at the Cedar Creep Grade/Route 37 northbound ramp. Figure 9 sizows level of service (F)C at this unsignalized intersection. Figure 9a shows the suggested improvement of signalization of the intersection. The signalization is proffered only if warranted by VDOT (proffer #E14). This may not be in the Phase 1. Therefore, the improved level of service at this intersection should not be shown on Figure 9a as it is misleading. 15. Phase 2 'Traffic Analysis (2010) (p. 15). The minor spine road is not proffered. 16. Figure I I a (p. 19). Figure l la shows background level of service suggested improvements. This is never explained in the text and it is unclear who the applicant expects to make these improvements. 17. Phase 2 Trip Generation Summary (p. 20). As stated previously, the breakdown of residential units and commercial floor space is not proffered, therefore, it is insupportable. 18. Figure 13 Phase 2: Development -Generated Trip Assignments (p. 22). Harvest Drive connects Cedar Creek Grade and Jubal Early Drive. This comlection is missing from all TIA figures. Figure 13 shows zero vehicles from the development using Harvest Drive. This appears unrealistic. Please re-evaluate. 19. Figure 13 Phase 2: Development -Generated Trip Assignments (p. 22). This figure shows no traffic traveling north on Route 37 from the Cedar Creek Grade interchange as a result of this development. This appears unrealistic. Please re- evaluate. 20. Figure 15 (h. 24). Figure 15 shows Phase 2: 2010 Build -Out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service. Many locations drop in level of service due to the proposed development with no proffers to correct the situation. These include: Merriman Lane north of the intersection with Jubal Early Drive extended ; ® The intersection of Breckinridge Lane and Merrimans Lane; W The intersection of Route 50 and the southbound ramps to Route 37; ® The intersection of Merriman's Lane and Route 50; and ® The intersection of Jubal Early Drive and Valley Avenue; This needs to be adequately addressed in the application. 21. Figure 15 (p. 24). Figure 15 shows Cedar Creek Grade with two lanes eastbound at Willow Run Drive and the minor spine road. This is not proffered. This should not be shown and levels of service should be adjusted, unless the applicant proffers the improvements. Page 3 of 4 Attachment I Preliminary Comments Willow Run Rezoning Traffic Impact Analysis 22. Figure 15a (p. 25). Figure 15a shows 2010 build -out LOS (suggested improvements). This figure should show only the proffered improvements. Otherwise, it leads to the conclusion that improvements are being made that will not be made. 23. Con�ciusions 2007 Phase 1 (p. 26). The conclusion that acceptable levels of service will be maintained is based on the suggested improvements shown in Figure 9a. As already stated in earlier comment, not all of these improvements are proffered. Therefore the conclusion is incorrect. 24. Conclusions 2010 Phase 2 (p. 26). The conclusion that unacceptable levels of service will be maintained on a number of intersections is accurate. While it is true that some of this is based on background conditions, some is clearly due to this development. 25. Proffered Transportation Improvement Program (p. 26). While most of these items are proffered, they are not proffered in a clear Phase 1 and Phase 2 as presented in the TIA. The completion of the minor spine road is not proffered. The TIA will need to be considerably revised in order to present an accurate description of the impacts of the proposed development. Page 4 of 4 Attachment 2 Preliminary Comments Willow Run Rezoning Traffic Impact Analysis — Alternative Build -out Analysis General Comment. Many of the comments that were provided in Attachment 1 on the original TIA apply to this alternative TIA as well. In most cases they have not been repeated in this attachment, but will still need to be considered. 2. Introduction (p. 1). It appears from this TIA that in the alternative scenario there will only be one development phase, competed in 2010. The original TIA had two distinct phases. This needs to be clarified. 3. 2010 Alternative Build -out Analyses (p. 1). The completion of the minor spine road is not proffered. Analysis should not be based on an unproffered road. 4. Figure 1: 2010 Background Conditions. Harvest Drive connects Cedar Creek Grade and Jubal Early Drive. Change all figures. 5. Figure 2: 2010 Background LOS. Levels of service are missing from some intersections; for example, northbound on Merrimans Lane at the intersection with Breckinridge Lane. Provide all levels of service at intersections shown on Figure 2 and Figure 6. 6. Figure 2a: Background Suggested Improvements (p. 5). Improvements to the intersection of Valley Avenue and Jubal Early Drive are not proffered. 7. Figure 4: Development Generated 'Trip Assignments (p. 8). It is inconceivable that no trips are assigned to Harvest Drive. As Harvest Drive connects Cedar Creek Grade to Jubal Early Drive, this would be the easiest route to Jubal Early Drive in this alternative. 8. Figure 6: Build -out Level of Service (p. 10). On Figure 6, please divide Merrimans Lane into three sections (north of the intersection with Cedar Creek Grade, north of the intersection with Jubal Early Drive extended, and north of the intersection with Breckinridge Lane). Provide level of service information for all three sections. 9. Figure 6: Build -out Level of Service (p. 10) Figure 6 shows Cedar Creek Grade with two lanes eastbound at Willow Run Drive and the minor spine road. This is not proffered. This should not be shown and levels of service should be adjusted. 10. Figure 6a: 2010 Build -out LOS Suggested Improvements (p. 11). The suggested improvements to the intersection of Breckinridge Lane and Merrimans Lane are not proffered; thus the intersection will function at level of service B(F) as per Figure 6. The TIA will need to be revised, per the comments in this attachment and Attachment 1, in order to present an accurate description of the impacts of the proposed development. Page l of I PERRY 53 A 68 3j1 o 750 53 A 926 to h' S OF X\ WILLOW GROVE SJ 4p / 53 A 92• 'Q pp R&T Packing 52-20-5-54 51 Z S\FR q JOVA PROPERTIES 63 A 1 MILLER 8 SMITH AT WILLOW RUN 53 A 92A GREYSTONE PROPERTIES 53 A 91 Map Features M / pis & REZ # 16 - 0 5 C . `��°„ I,aeR�,9 0" l e�,d.Jru��) � 8 U� IE> R4,Ra_, e�, .��..mm�, o! Re ,o,,ao,„„ o„��'„ �o,=U,n, o ^ Q �' „ R doted� `Hllin iii BRIDGEFORTH 63 A 2D ( 53-A-90,91,92,92A,92B,94 J)r nin z RrnRs ,RMea=,eaea°�,ea, o♦ ,a Rerto,ma a o,s„M, RP al 000 53 -3-A, 63 -A-2A ) o L� ®MR, IMoe,�a'Rome �o ° ��,,, o,��„�„ HE52NRY 6J w - _ 9 i'Q c r ' % c ��� Ir i�� v° it s ,11 ��I uon W E Map Features Zoning REZ # 16 - 0 5 C . `��°„ I,aeR�,9 RezE, a,as IE> R4,Ra_, e�, .��..mm�, Willow Run Re ,o,,ao,„„ o„��'„ �o,=U,n, „ R doted� o Ra(R—Ar=D—') ( 53-A-90,91,92,92A,92B,94 = ;adM„�'Io RrnRs ,RMea=,eaea°�,ea, o♦ ,a Rerto,ma a o,s„M, ) N 53 -3-A, 63 -A-2A ) ®MR, IMoe,�a'Rome �o ° ��,,, o,��„�„ ��I uon W E 0 250 500 1,000 s Feet C1 ax tai:mes:, Gon¢raiav,i¢rl � HE �H.lh¢l Ed. -I., DIm, Hl (Maeda Home commumry o�so-ss] MS (M.. (R-1 A-1 -Z-) RP (R.1d.1t,.1 P--- D,,,,g 53 -A-90,91,92,92A,92B,94 ( 53 -3-A, 63 -A-2A ) Greenway Engineering September 1, 2005 Revised November 4, 2005 WILLOW RUN PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ # Rural Areas (RA) District to Residential Performance (RP) District (347.77± acres) and Business General (132) District (12.20± acres) PROPERTY: 359.97± -acres (here -in after the "PROPERTY") Tax Map Parcels 53-((A))-90; 53-((A))-91; 53-((A))-92; 53 -((A)) - 92A; 53 -((A)) -92B; 53-((A))-94; 53-((3))-A & 63 -((A)) -2A RECORD OWNER: Willow Grove L.C.; 740 LLC; 750 LLC; Miller and Smith at Willow Run L.L.C.; Greystone Properties, LLC APPLICANT: Willow Grove L.C.; 740 LLC; 750 LLC; Miller and Smith at Willow Run L.L.C.; Greystone Properties, LLC (here -in after the "APPLICANTS") PROJECT NAME: WILLOW RUN ORIGINAL DATE September 1, 2005 OF PROFFERS: REVISION DATE: November 4, 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 (as hereinafter defined) hereby proffer that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # 1 (,,,'d5" for the rezoning of 347.77± acres from the Rural Areas (RA) District to Residential Performance (RP) District, and for the rezoning of 12.20± acres from the Rural Areas (RA) District to Business General (132) 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 Applicants (as hereinafter defined) and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall have no binding effect whatsoever. Upon approval of such rezoning, these proffers shall be binding upon the Applicants (as hereinafter defined) and their successors and assigns. File #3800WG/EAW Greenway Engineering September 1, 2005 2 Revised November 4, 2005 The subject property, identified as Willow Run, and more particularly described as the lands owned by Willow Grove L.C., 740 LLC, 750 LLC, Miller and Smith at Willow Run, L.L.C., and Greystone Properties, LLC, (the "Applicants") being all of Tax Map Parcels 53-((A))-90, 53-((A))-91, 53-((A))-92, 53 -((A)) -92A, 53 -((A)) -92B, 53-((A))-94, _ !_7 �� A �� '1 A .-„a .mbar oc cbnxx7n nn the Final Plat for Boundary Line 53-«3))-H and 63-llh))-/_rA; anu IULLt— .... .. _ ... - - - --- Adjustment Between the Lands of Willow Grove L.C. and Miller and Smith at Willow Run, L.L.C., prepared by Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C. dated April 27, 2004, together with the Deed for Greystone Properties, LLC, from Pembroke Cove Properties, L.L.C. , recorded as Instrument # 030024683 and containing an attached plat prepared by Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C. recorded in Deed Book 886 Page 447 and an attached plat prepared by Lee A. Ebert, C.L.S. recorded in Deed Book 543 Page 247, together with the Deed for Miller and Smith at Willow Run, L.L.C., from Melco, Inc., recorded as Instrument # 040017302 (collectively, the "Property"). A.) Residential Land Use 1. The Applicants hereby proffer to limit the total number of residential units to 850 dwelling units, exclusive of the existing residential units on the subject properties. 2. The Applicants hereby proffer to prohibit the development of garden apartments, as defined in Section 165-65 of the Ordinance, from the subject properties. All other housing types identified in the aforementioned Ordinance section shall be allowed provided that all requirements of the Master Development Plan have been met. 3. The Applicants hereby proffer to limit the number of residential building permits to a maximum of 200 building permits during each calendar year until the buildout of the Willow Run Community, exclusive of residential dwelling units identified as age -restricted dwelling units, model homes, and the community center. The Applicants shall not carry forward residential building permits that are not obtained during each calendar year to the ensuing calendar year. 4. A minimum of 85 of the total number of residential units developed within the Willow Run community shall be age -restricted. Except to the extent otherwise prohibited by the Virginia Fair Housing Law, the Federal Fair Housing Law, and other applicable federal, state, or local legal requirements, any dwelling unit within the portions of the Property identified as age -restricted housing shall be restricted to housing for older persons as defined in Va. Code Ann. § 36-96.7, or a surviving spouse not so qualifying. No person under 19 years of age shall be permitted to be regularly domiciled or to reside permanently therein. The restriction provided for herein shall also be in the form of a restrictive covenant with respect to the residential portion of the File #3800WG/EAW Greenway Engineering September 1, 2005 3 Revised November 4, 2005 Property designated as age -restricted, and any Homeowners' Association or sub -association created with respect thereto shall have assigned responsibility for the enforcement and administration of the said age -restricted covenant. 5. The Applicants hereby proffer to provide a single row of evergreen trees on the southern most residential lot that is located across Cedar Creek Grade from the Homespun property to minimize viewshed impacts. The single row of evergreen trees shall be planted along the property line closest to Cedar Creek Grade and shall be a minimum of four feet in height when planted. 6. The Applicants hereby proffer to provide for a mixture of housing types within the Willow Run Community consistent with the minimum and maximum percentages and permitted housing types identified in the Willow Run Community Residential Unit Matrix as set forth below. Willow Run Community Residential Unit Matrix Category Minimum Maximum Housing Types Permitted % of Units % of Units Age -Restricted 10% 40% Single-family Small Lot; Duplex; Multiplex Single -Family 10% 40% Duplex; Multiplex; Atrium House; Attached Weak -Link Townhouse; Townhouse Single -Family 20% 65% Single-family Traditional; Single-family Detached Urban; Single-family Cluster; Zero Lot Line; Single-family Small Lot B.) Commercial Land Use 1. The Applicants hereby proffer that commercial development within the 12.20± -acre portion of the Property to be zoned B-2, General Business District shall provide for a minimum of 10,000 square feet of building improvements, but shall not exceed 110,000 square feet of building improvements. File #3800WG/EAW Greenway Engineering September 1, 2005 4 Revised November 4, 2005 2. The Applicants hereby proffer to utilize similar construction materials and similar development themes for all commercial development within the Willow Run Community. The principal construction materials shall be limited to brick, stone, simulated stucco, wood, glass, standing seam metal or dimensional shingles. These construction materials shall be utilized on all building walls and rooflines. 3. The Applicants hereby proffer to develop the commercial land bays in two phases. The first phase will include the land bay along Jubal Early Drive to the east of the Jubal Early Drive/Willow Run Drive (Major Spine Road) intersection as depicted on the proffered Generalized Development Plan. The second phase will include the land bays located to the west of the community center and adjacent to Route 37 as depicted on the proffered Generalized Development Plan. 4. The Applicants hereby proffer to guarantee the construction of 10,000 square feet of commercial land use prior to the issuance of the building permit for the 600th non -age -restricted dwelling unit. S. The Applicants hereby proffer to prohibit the following commercial land uses within the portion of the Willow Run Community that is zoned B2, General Business District: Exterior Boarding Kennels Electric, Gas & Other Utility Transmission and Distribution Facilities Automotive Dealers & Automotive Repair Hotels & Motels Organization Hotels & Lodging Car Washes Multiplex Motion Picture Theaters Golf Driving Ranges & Miniature Golf Courses Self -Service Storage Facilities Electrical Supplies (Wholesale) Hardware, Plumbing & Heating Equipment (Wholesale) Commercial Outdoor Batting Cages Flex Tech Adult Retail Furthermore, the Applicants proffer to prohibit food stores in excess of 20,000 square feet of floor area that are permitted in the B2, General Business District. File #3800WG/EAW Greenway Engineering September 1, 2005 5 Revised November 4, 2005 C.) Generalized Development Plan 1. The Applicants hereby proffer to develop the Property in substantial conformance with a Generalized Development Plan submitted with and approved as part of the rezoning application. The Generalized Development Plan is intended to delineate the major collector road systems, the general location of residential and commercial land uses, the general location of the community center and park area, the general location of developmentally sensitive areas ("DSA"), the location of the major karst feature as well as the general location of the extended Green Circle pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the Willow Run Community. D.) Master Development Plan 1. The Applicants hereby proffer to develop the Property under a single Master Development Plan. The Applicants will be limited to land disturbance development activities until the Master Development Plan is approved by the Board of Supervisors. 2. The Applicants hereby proffer to enter into an agreement, which will require all current and subsequent developers to agree to the execution of all County documents necessary for processing the original Master Development Plan and all Master Development Plan revisions. A copy of this agreement shall be provided to the Planning Department. E.) Transportation Enhancements 1. The Applicants hereby proffer to obtain right-of-way necessary for the construction of Willow Run Drive (Major Collector Spine Road) on tax map parcel 63-((A))-1 currently owned by Jova Properties, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, to allow for the construction of the north -south major collector road between Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622) and the northern property line adjoining the Willow Run Community, in the general location as identified on the Willow Run Drive (Major Spine Road) Right -Of -Way and Construction Plan prepared by Greenway Engineering dated September 1, 2005, and included as a proffered exhibit with this rezoning application under Transportation Enhancements Section E — Exhibit 1. 2. The Applicants hereby proffer to grade the ultimate road section and construct a two-lane section of Willow Run Drive (Major Collector Spine Road) within a 90 -foot right-of-way between Cedar Creek File #3800WG/EAW Greenway Engineering September 1, 2005 6 Revised November 4, 2005 Grade (Route 622) and the street intersection within the Willow Run Community closest to the northern property boundary of tax map parcel 63-((A))-1 owned by Java Properties, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, as identified as Phase I on the Willow Run Drive (Major Collector Spine Road) Right -Of -Way and Construction Plan prepared by Greenway Engineering dated September 1, 2005, and included as a proffered exhibit with this rezoning application under Transportation Enhancements Section E — Exhibit 1. This two-lane section of Willow Run Drive (Major Collector Spine Road) will be desined and constructed to base pavement prior to the issuance of the 100t residential building permit and bonded to ensure that the top coat of asphalt is guaranteed. 3. The Applicants hereby proffer to grade the ultimate section and construct a two-lane section of Willow Run Drive (Major Collector Spine Road) within a 90 -foot right-of-way between the terminus of Phase I and the intersection with Jubal Early Drive as identified as Phase II on the Willow Run Drive (Major Collector Spine Road) Right -Of -Way and Construction Plan prepared by Greenway Engineering dated September 1, 2005, and included as a proffered exhibit with this rezoning application under Transportation Enhancements Section E — Exhibit 1. This two-lane section of Willow Run Drive (Major Collector Spine Road) will be designed and constructed to base pavement prior to the issuance of the 400th residential building permit and bonded to ensure that the top coat of asphalt is guaranteed. 4. The Applicants hereby proffer to construct Jubal Early Drive in three phases, as identified on the Jubal Early Drive Construction Phase Plan prepared by Greenway Engineering dated September 1, 2005, and included as a proffered exhibit with this rezoning application under Transportation Enhancements Section E — Exhibit 2. A variable right- of-way width for Jubal Early Drive will be provided throughout the Willow Run Community beginning with an 80 -foot right-of-way through the 3.68± -acre parcel owned by the City of Winchester, then transitioning to a variable right-of-way to the Jubal Early Drive/Willow Run Drive (Major Collector Spine Road) intersection, then transitioning to an 90 -foot right -of way width to Merriman's Lane (Route 621). 5. The first phase of Jubal Early Drive construction shall begin east of the Willow Run community to include the realignment of Jubal Early Drive beginning in the City of Winchester with a terminus to the west of the Jubal Early Drive/Willow Run Drive (Major Collector Spine Road) intersection identified as Phase I on the Jubal Early Drive Construction Phase Plan prepared by Greenway Engineering dated File #3800WG/EAW Greenway Engineering September 1, 2005 7 Revised November 4, 2005 September 1, 2005 under Transportation Enhancements Section E — Exhibit 2. Phase I of Jubal Early Drive shall include the ultimate road section, which will be designed and constructed to base pavement and bonded ensure that the top coat of asphalt is guaranteed. At no time will any lot within the Willow Run Community be dependent solely upon Jubal Early Drive for access. 6. In the event that the Winchester City Council will not allow for the construction of Jubal Early Drive through the 3.68± -acre parcel owned by the City of Winchester, the Applicants proffer to construct a two- lane section of Jubal Early Drive as Phase I from the intersection with Willow Run Drive (Major Collector Spine Road) to a location appropriate to serve the commercial lay bay. Furthermore, the Applicants proffer to provide right of way from the terminus of Jubal Early Drive to the 3.68± -acre parcel owned by the City of Winchester to allow for the future continuation of Jubal Early Drive by others. 7. The second phase of Jubal Early Drive shall begin at the terminus of Phase I and continue with a terminus to the west of the intersection serving the community center building and community swimming pool identified as Phase II on the Jubal Early Drive Construction Phase Plan prepared by Greenway Engineering dated September 1, 2005 under Transportation Enhancements Section E — Exhibit 2. The Applicants hereby proffer to dedicate a 90 -foot right-of-way and construct a two- lane section of Jubal Early Drive, which shall be designed and constructed to base pavement prior to the issuance of the 4001h building permit and bonded to ensure that the top coat of asphalt is guaranteed. 8. The third phase of Jubal Early Drive shall begin at the terminus of Phase II and continue to a terminus with Merriman's Lane, including the realignment of Merriman's Lane on the north side of Jubal Early Drive identified as Phase III on the Jubal Early Drive Construction Phase Plan prepared by Greenway Engineering dated September 1, 2005 under Transportation Enhancements Section E — Exhibit 2. The Applicants hereby proffer to dedicate a 90 -foot right-of-way and construct a two-lane section of Jubal Early Drive, which shall be designed and constructed to base pavement prior to the issuance of the 700th building permit and bonded to ensure that the top coat of asphalt is guaranteed. The connection of Jubal Early Drive to Merriman's Lane will be gated to allow for emergency access only if requested by the Board of Supervisors. 9, The Applicants hereby proffer to design, bond and construct the realignment of approximately 1,000 feet of Merriman's Lane to the north of Jubal Early Drive to create a "T" intersection. The File #3800WG/EAW Greenway Engineering September 1, 2005 8 Revised November 4, 2005 construction of this realignment shall be completed during the construction of Phase III of Jubal Early Drive. 10. The Applicants hereby proffer to dedicate the land necessary for the ultimate design of an urban diamond interchange at the terminus of Jubal Early Drive along the east side of Route 37 to the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") as depicted on the Route 37//Jubal Early Drive Interchange Right -Of -Way Dedication Exhibit prepared by Greenway Engineering dated September 1, 2005 and included as a proffered exhibit with this rezoning application under Transportation Enhancements Section E — Exhibit 3. The dedicated land area to construct said interchange shall be provided at no cost to VDOT within 60 days that the right-of-way is requested in writing by VDOT. 11. The Applicants hereby proffer to initiate and complete an Interchange Justification Study ("IJS") for the proposed Route 37 interchange at Jubal Early Drive. The Applicants shall initiate this IJS within 90 days of final and non -appealable rezoning approval and submit the US to VDOT within 12 months of final and non -appealable rezoning approval to determine if a new interchange at this location on Route 37 is warranted. 12. The Applicants hereby proffer to complete the ultimate section of Jubal Early Drive if a new Route 37 interchange is approved at this location by the Commonwealth Transportation Board ("CTB"), or to complete the ultimate section of Willow Run Drive (Major Collector Spine Road) to the northern boundary line of tax map parcel 63-((A))- 1 if a new Route 37 interchange at this location is not approved by the CTB. In the event that the CTB has not made a decision to approve or deny the proposed Route 37 interchange at this location by the issuance of the 7001h building permit for the Willow Run Community, the Applicants proffer to construct the ultimate section of Willow Run Drive (Major Collector Spine Road) from the intersection with Jubal Early Drive to the northern boundary line of tax map parcel 63-((A))-1 and shall not be obligated to construct the ultimate section of Jubal Early Drive. 13. The Applicants hereby proffer to provide $1000.00 per residential lot for the purpose of constructing a northbound on-ramp from Jubal Early Drive onto Route 37 if the CTB approves a new interchange at this location. The $1000.00 per residential lot contribution shall be made payable to Frederick County at the time of building permit issuance for each residential lot. The $1000.00 per residential lot contribution may be utilized by Frederick County as a local match for VDOT Revenue Sharing Funds or other applicable funds to assist with the development File #3800WG/EAW Greenway Engineering September 1, 2005 9 Revised November 4, 2005 of the Jubal Early Drive/Route 37 Interchange. In the event that the CTB does not allow for a new interchange at this location, or has not made a decision to approve or deny the proposed Route 37 interchange at this location by the issuance of the 7001h building permit for the Willow Run Community, the Applicants authorize Frederick County to utilize the $1000.00 per residential lot contribution unconditionally towards other transportation improvements. 14. The Applicants hereby proffer to enter into a signalization agreement with VDOT for the cost of traffic signalization at the intersection of the Route 37 northbound and southbound ramps and Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622) if warranted by VDOT. Provisions of the signalization agreement shall be determined by VDOT. The signalization agreement shall specify the dollar amount required from the Applicants and the timing of signalization construction once signalization is warranted by VDOT. 15. If approved by VDOT, the Applicants hereby proffer to design, bond and construct a center turn lane within the Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622) right-of-way necessary to serve the existing Route 37 northbound and southbound ramps. The construction of the center turn lane shall occur concurrently with the installation of traffic signalization at the intersection of the Route 37 northbound and southbound ramps and Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622), as described in Section E(13) above. 16. If approved by VDOT, the Applicants hereby proffer to construct a continuous right turn lane from the intersection of Willow Run Drive (Major Spine Road) to the existing Route 37 northbound on-ramp as depicted on the Cedar Creek Grade/Willow Run Drive (Major Collector Spine Road) Improvements Exhibit prepared by Greenway Engineering dated September 1, 2005 and included as a proffered exhibit with this rezoning application under Transportation Enhancements Section E — Exhibit 4. The continuous right turn lane from the intersection of Willow Run Drive (Major Collector Spine Road) to the existing Route 37 northbound on-ramp shall be installed at the time of construction of the Willow Run Drive (Major Collector Spine Road) connection to Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622). 17. The Applicants hereby proffer to enter into a signalization agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for the cost of traffic signalization at the intersection of Willow Run Drive (Major Collector Spine Road) and Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622). Provisions of the signalization agreement shall be determined by VDOT. The signalization agreement shall specify the dollar amount required from the Applicants and the timing of signalization construction once signalization is warranted by VDOT. File #3800WG/EAW Greenway Engineering September 1, 2005 10 Revised November 4, 2005 18. The Applicants hereby proffer to construct an additional travel lane on the north side of Cedar Creek Grade on a portion of the Property beginning at the terminus in the City of Winchester and continuing to the intersection of the local street identified as the Minor Spine Road as depicted on the Cedar Creek Grade/Minor Spine Road Improvements Exhibit prepared by Greenway Engineering dated September 1, 2005 and included as a proffered exhibit with this rezoning application under Transportation Enhancements Section E — Exhibit 5. The additional travel lane on the north side of Cedar Creek Grade shall be installed at the time of construction of the Minor Spine Road connection to Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622). The first phase of the Minor Spine Road will be designed and constructed to base pavement prior to the issuance of the first residential building, exclusive of building permits for model homes, and bonded to ensure that the top coat of asphalt is guaranteed. 19. The Applicants hereby proffer to develop a 10 -foot wide asphalt bicycle and pedestrian facility within the dedicated right-of-way along Jubal Early Drive and the Willow Run Drive (Major Collector Spine Road) for the purpose of constructing the portion of the Green Circle bicycle path within the Willow Run Community. The 10 -foot wide asphalt bicycle and pedestrian facility will be constructed along Willow Run Drive (Major Collector Spine Road) between the Jubal Early Drive/Willow Run Drive (Major Collector Spine Road) intersection and the northern boundary line of tax map parcel 63-((A))- 1, and along Jubal Early Drive between the eastern commercial land bay and Merriman's Lane. The construction of the 10 -foot wide asphalt bicycle and pedestrian facility shall be phased and shall be constructed concurrently with the phased construction of Jubal Early Drive and Willow Run Drive (Major Collector Spine Road) as described within Section E of the proffer statement. 20. Where private alley systems are utilized within the Willow Run community, the Applicants hereby proffer to design and construct the private alley systems as one-way travel within a 16 -foot wide easement having 12 feet of pavement with a two -foot shoulder on each side of the pavement along the entire alleyway. The cross sectional dimension of pavement thickness and compacted base thickness will meet public street pavement standards utilized by the Virginia Department of Transportation. All private alleys that intersect other private alleys at 90 -degree angles or have turns at 90 -degree angles shall provide for a minimum turning radius of 25 feet. Private alley intersections with public streets shall provide curb cuts extending two feet beyond the paved edge of the standard alley width. The maintenance of all private alley systems shall be the responsibility of File #3800WG/EAW Greenway Engineering September 1, 2005 11 Revised November 4, 2005 the Homeowners' Association or sub -association for the Willow Run community. F.) Monetary Contributions 1. The Applicants hereby proffer a monetary contribution for each dwelling unit that is non -age restricted in the amount of $9,078 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 July 21, 2005. This monetary contribution provides for the total fiscal impacts for non -age restricted dwelling units, as commercial fiscal credit is only given for the 10,000 square feet of commercial land use that is guaranteed in proffer B(4). This monetary contribution shall be provided to Frederick County at the time of building permit issuance for each non -age restricted dwelling unit. 2. The Applicants hereby proffer a monetary contribution for each age - restricted dwelling unit in the amount of $500.00 to mitigate impacts to Fire and Rescue Services as identified in the Frederick County Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model — Output Module prepared by the Frederick County Planning Department on July 21, 2005. This monetary contribution shall be provided to Frederick County at the time of building permit issuance for each age -restricted dwelling unit. 3. The Applicants hereby proffer to contribute a total of $50,000.00 to further support the Round Hill and Shawnee Volunteer Fire and Rescue Companies in Frederick County and the City of Winchester, which will provide first response service to the Willow Run Community. A payment totaling $25,000.00 shall be made to each Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company at the time of building permit issuance for the first residential dwelling unit. Evidence of these payments shall be provided to the Frederick County Planning Department as a condition of building permit approval. 4. The monetary contributions identified in the Frederick County Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model — Output Module prepared by the Frederick County Planning Department on July 21, 2005 shall be limited to that amount for all building permits issued for the initial 30 months following approval of the Master Development Plan. All monetary contributions paid after the 30 -month timetable shall be adjusted every 24 months in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index ("CPI -U") published by the United States Department of Labor, subject to a cap of 4% per year, non -compounded. File #3800WG/EAW Greenway Engineering September 1, 2005 12 Revised November 4, 2005 G.) Community Recreation The Applicants hereby proffer to construct a community center building that is a minimum of 4,000 square feet in floor area, community swimming pools and bathhouse with a minimum combined water surface of 3,500 square feet, which shall count towards the active recreational amenity requirement for the Willow Run Community. The community center building and community swimming pools and bathhouse shall be constructed and available for use by residents of the Willow Run Community prior to the issuance of the 400th building permit. The maintenance of the community center building and the community swimming pool shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners' Association or sub -association for the Willow Run Community. 2. The Applicants hereby proffer to design and construct a public extension of the Green Circle pedestrian and bicycle facility that connects to the developed portion within the City of Winchester that will be located along the north side of Jubal Early Drive and within the right-of-way throughout the limits of the Property, and within the road right-of-way from the south side of Jubal Early Drive along the north - south major collector road as identified on the Generalized Development Plan. This public pedestrian and bicycle facility shall be 10 feet in width and have an asphalt surface, and shall count towards the active recreational amenity requirement for the Willow Run Community. 3. The Applicants hereby proffer to design and construct an internal pedestrian trail system, which shall count towards the active recreational amenity requirement for the Willow Run Community. This internal pedestrian trail system shall be five feet in width and have an asphalt surface. The internal pedestrian trail system shall be private and shall be owned and maintained by the Homeowners' Association or sub -association for the Willow Run Community. 4. The Applicants hereby proffer to provide for active recreational use within the area identified on the proffered Generalized Development Plan as the Major Karst Feature. The active recreational use will be identified on the Master Development Plan for the Willow Run Community. File #M00WG/EAW Greenway Engineering September 1, 2005 13 Revised November 4, 2005 H.) Community Curbside Trash Collection 1. The Applicants hereby proffer to provide commercial trash pickup and waste removal service to all residential laird uses and the community center within the Willow Run community. The commercial trash pickup and waste removal service shall be established by deed covenant and shall be assigned to the Willow Run Homeowners Association ("HOA") or sub -association at such time as identified in the legal documents setting forth the guidelines for the Willow Run HOA. The commercial trash pickup and waste removal service shall remain in effect and be the responsibility of the Willow Run HOA until such a time that this service is provided by Frederick County or other municipal providers. I.) Creation of Homeowners Association 1. A Homeowners Association (HOA) or sub -associations shall be created by the Applicants in conformity with the Virginia Property Owners' Association Act (Title 55, Chapter 26 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended). The HOA shall have title to and/or responsibility for: a. All common areas including, but not limited to, buffer areas, internal pedestrian trail systems and stormwater management facilities not otherwise dedicated to public use or maintained by commercial entities. b. Maintenance of private streets and alleyways. C. Residential curbside trash collection. 2. The Applicants hereby proffer to incorporate into the Declaration creating the Willow Run Community provisions creating an Architectural Review Board ("ARB"). The purpose of the ARB will be to review and approve all exterior additions and alterations to the existing dwelling units within the Willow Run Community to ensure that all design guidelines are met, together with all such other duties and responsibilities as may be imposed by the Declaration. 3. The Applicants hereby proffer to incorporate into the Declaration creating the Willow Run Community provisions creating an assessment to be collected at the time of the initial transfer of title to any residential lot in the Willow Run Community (whether to a builder File #3800WG/EAW Greenway Engineering September 1, 2005 14 Revised November 4, 2005 or otherwise) as well as at the time of any subsequent transfer of title. Such sums shall be paid to the association or sub -association, as appropriate, for use in the maintenance and upkeep of the common areas, as determined by the Board of Directors of the association. J.) Environmental 1. The Applicants hereby proffer to identify and delineate a developmentally sensitive area ("DSA") boundary on the Generalized Development Plan. The DSA will identify the location of wetland areas. Information regarding potential impacts within the DSA and methods for mitigation will be incorporated as a component of the Master Development Plan for the Willow Run Community. 2. The Applicants hereby proffer to conduct a geotechnical analysis on all residential lots that are platted within 100 feet of the major karst feature identified on the Generalized Development Plan, prior to the issuance of building permits of such lots. 3. The Applicants hereby proffer to provide a resource protection area ("RPA") buffer of 50 feet adjacent to the DSA boundary. No portion of any residential lot will be platted within the DSA. Additionally, commercial development within the eastern commercial parcel (2.465 acres) shall not occur within the DSA. The only disturbance that will be permitted within the DSA or the RPA will be for road crossing, utility crossing and pedestrian and bicycle facility crossing. 4. The Applicants hereby proffer to develop a landscaping plan as an enhancement for the wetland areas located on the south side of Jubal Early Drive and provide for the planting of all elements of the plan subsequent to wetlands disturbance. The landscaping plan shall include trees and shrubs that are recommended for wetland areas by the Corps of Engineers and trees and shrubs that are recommended for riparian areas by the Virginia Department of Forestry. The Applicants will establish language within the Homeowners Association documents, which provides for the maintenance of the landscaping described above and allows the Shenandoah University Environmental Studies Department access to this area for the purpose of studying and monitoring this wetland enhancement project as an outdoor land lab educational opportunity. File #3800WG/EAW Greenway Engineering September 1, 2005 Revised November 4, 2005 15 5. The Applicants hereby proffer that all commercial site plans and the community center site plan submitted to Frederick County will be designed to implement Low Impact Development ("LID") and/or Best Management Practices ("BMP") to promote stormwater quality measures. A statement will be provided on each commercial site plan and on the community center site plan identifying the party or parties responsible for maintaining these BMP facilities as a condition of site plan approval. File #3800WG/EAW Greenway Engineering September 1, 2005 Revised October 27, 2005 K.) Signatures 15 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 proffered conditions set forth in this proffer statement, the foregoing proffered conditions shall apply to the Property rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Ordinance. Respectfully Submitted: By. illow Grove L.C. Date Commonwealth of Virginia, City/County of 1�:7y-e-dcffX CX To wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this .74K day of n.10\1Q,-,r\b-e-,r 20 by 6 --�e Notary Public C-01 tc--- t j k, My Commission Expires Nc; File 43800WG/EAW Greenway Ingineering September 1, 2005 16 Revised October 27, 2005 IC.) Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the assigns and successors in the interest of the Annlirantc ,u n rnnctitijtP the miners of the Property. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the proffered conditions set forth in this proffer statement, the foregoing proffered conditions shall apply to the Property rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Ordinance, By:C- 4 LC a e 7 OD L , Commonwealth of Virginia, City/County of Tr Zi c_)� To Wit: }-h The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 4 day ofND v` 20 o5 by Notary Public Z,00, /711 L My Commission Expires36 Cep Pile #3800WG/EAW Greenway Engineering September 1, 2005 17 Revised October 27, 2005 K.) 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 proffered conditions set forth in this proffer statement, the foregoing proffered conditions shall apply to the Property rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Ordinance. d —A LLC Date Commonwealth of Virginia, City/County of )F"c t'_AP-f 101 To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 200'-77) by Notary PublicX- My Commission Expires nJ rv,%Q.ir 30_ DOC -Is File #3800WG/EAW Greenway Engineering September 1, 2005 Revised October 27, 2005 K.) Sil4natures 18 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 proffered conditions set forth in this proffer statement, the foregoing proffered conditions shall apply to the Property rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Ordinance. Miller a d S itl at Willow Run L.L.C. Date Commonwealth of Virginia, City/Count of CA i ``0,.To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before ine this i &T�\day of L\� o ifm bcf- 209 by C— 1 1Ct,Cac I � �: Mc,n &C \& r�-z4Q Notary Public My Commission Expires �� a p O File #3800WG/EAW Greenway Engineering September I, 2005 19 Revised October 27, 2005 K.) 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 proffered conditions set forth in this proffer statement, the foregoing proffered conditions shall apply to the Property rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Ordinance. i/Greystoi e Properties LLC `h' Date' Commonwealth of Virginia, City/County of �Fce-A Q -Y 'k, To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of -�LQ 20 05 by C/ Notary Public My Commission Expires `7 /O�/P�-�i�� . ✓��� I- t:; � 900VAi/E Aw WILLOW RUN COMMUNITY NOV. 4, 2005 OGREENWAY ENGINEERING GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN 5 u3m-ll m'-4- 14 ml FAX 540-7=-2= TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENTS SECTION E - EXHIBIT 1 MERRIMANS d LANE ' (ROUTE 621) WILLOW RUN DRIVE -PHASE 1 (MAJOR SPINE ROAD) _— RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICTION JUBq� EARLY AND 2 -LANE ROAD CONSTRUCTION O���. � WILLOW RUN DRIVE -PHASE 11 F ` (MAJOR SPINE ROAD) RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICTION AND 2 -LANE ROAD CONSTRUCTION MILLER AND ��� %SMITH AT '� ' WILLOW RUN, LLC s 'll0000,41; ,Q.• GREYSTONE , PROPERTIES, LLC WILLOW RUN DRIVE / SPINE ROAD) , - - (MAJOR , 4e 4# / , /Zr JOVA / PROPERTIES, LLC ♦' O� 63A«A))-1 � i / I !' A%ARIABLE R.O.W. CEDAR CREEK GRADE (ROUTE 622) CITY OF WINCHESTER THE ROUNDABOUT WILL BE DEVELOPED UNLESS VDOT DETERMINES THAT AN ALTERNATIVE INTERSECTION DESIGN IS WARRANTED a Z 2 W W z z W o v E a ' C!� Nm V Z s e ,a _ � W r ui g. C s .0r cy MARK D- SMITH NO -022837 DATE 11/04/05 SCALE i - 300' DESIGNED 8Y: SGM FILE NO. 30WWG SHEET 1 OF I TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENTS SECTION E - EXHIBIT 2 m 0 1 ?y IjJf �J! j MERRIMANS I! LANE J�( REALIGNMENT PHASE III VARIABLE R.O.W. (90' MINIMUM) COMMUNITY CENTER WILLOW RUN DRIVE (MAJOR SPINE ROAD) PHASE 1 - 4 LANE ROAD SECTION (IF R.O.W. GRANTED BY CITY OF WINCHESTER) PHASE 1 - 4 LANE ROAD SECTION (IF CONNECTION TO CITY OF WINCHESTER PROPERTY CAN OCCUR) PHASE 2 - 2 LANE ROAD SECTION PHASE 3 - 2 LANE ROAD SECTION PHASE VARIABLE R.O.W. (80' MINIMUM) CHESTER DPERTY) THE ROUNDABOUT WILL BE DEVELOPED UNLESS VDOT DETERMINES THAT AN ALTERNATIVE INTERSECTION DESIGN IS WARRANTED a Z RE W W z a z W a m m NN uq zLu �� W 0.± z NARK D. SMITH No.022837 z 0 3 O J J 3 DATE: U/04/05 SCAM NTS DESIGNED BY: SGY FBE NO. 3800VG SHEET 1 OF I TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENTS SECTION E - EXHIBIT 3 RTE. 37 � m ■r R.O.W. AREA TO RE DEDICATED TO VDOT R.O.W. AREA TO TO VDOT PROPOSED COMMERCIAL 3.962+ ACRES 200 O 200 400 SCALE t" = 200' 0 z RE W W z a z W m LU a° c n ��E NARK D. SMITH No.0228a7 DATE 09/01/05 SCALE 1' — 200' DESIGN® BY: SGY FBE NO. 3800AG BNEEP 1 OF 1 TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENTS SECTION E - EXHIBIT 4 0 JOVA PROPERTIES, LLC 63-((A))-1 R.O.W. MET EXISTING CEDAR CREEK GRADE (ROUTE 622) 0 EXISTING CEDAR CREEK GRADE EAST AND WEST LANES PROPOSED CEDAR CREEK GRADE WEST BOUND LANE AND TURN LANES 3 JOVA PROPERTIES, LLC o� 0 63-((A))-1 os CITY OF WINCHESTER a z W W z c5 z W 91 a Nm u° z��� n�e w q a a MARK D. SMITH No.022037 W Z CC ~ E- 0 X 0= Z J W A cc O W W x J W w 3 CC > W d W I - V Q W V DATE: 11/04/05 1 SCALE: N.T.S. DESIGNED BY., SGM FHE NO. 3800WG SHEET I OF I TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENTS SECTION E - EXHIBITS v�2A' I EX• RLO-w' LANE A�_ DITO__�---------`�.___------ EXISTIN R3 L. , PR p No#?I r SIDE ADDITION' CED RCREEK GRADE (ROUTE 62 2) EXISTING PAVEMENT PROPOSED PAVEMENT EX: PAVEMENT CITY OF WINCHESTER a z RE W W z B z W zLu Lu ^s a p = ag NARK D. SMITH N0.022837 0 Q cc W Z a!:F OC=a o Z W_ a x O W W o wog � uul a uj CC0 cc a 0 W V DATE: 11/04/06 SGALR N.T.S. DESIGNED BY SGN FILE N0. 30WWG SHEET I OF I IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT WILLOW RUN REZONING Shawnee Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia Tax Parcels 53-((A))-90; 53-((A))-91; 53-((A))-92; 53 -((A)) -92A; 53 -((A)) -92B; 53-((A))-94; 53-((3))-A & 63 -((A)) -2A 359.97± Acres September 1, 2005 Revised November 4, 2005 Current Owners: 740 LLC 750 LLC Willow Grove L.C. Greystone Properties, LLC Miller and Smith at Willow Run, L.L.C. Contact Person: Evan A. Wyatt, AICP Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 540-662-4185 Greenway Engineering September 1, 2005 Revised November 4, 2005 WILLOW RUN REZONING INTRODUCTION Willow Run Rezoning This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Fredrick County by the proffered rezoning of eight contiguous parcels comprising 359.97± acres, owned by 740 LLC, 750 LLC, Willow Grove L.C., Greystone Properties, LLC, and Miller and Smith at Willow Run, L.L.C. The subject properties are located adjacent to and east of Route 37, adjacent to and east of Merriman's Lane (Route 621), adjacent to and south of the Winchester and Western Railroad, north of Cedar Creek Grade, and adjacent to and south and west of the City of Winchester Corporate Limits. The current zoning of the parcels comprising the 359.97± -acre tract is RA, Rural Areas District. The property owners propose to rezone these parcels to establish 347.77± acres of RP, Residential Performance District and 12.20± acres of B2, Business General District. Please refer to the attached Willow Run Generalized Development Plan Exhibit. Basic information Location: East of Route 37 and Merriman's Lane (Route 621), North of Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622), South and West of the City of Winchester Corporate Limits Magisterial District: Shawnee Property ID Numbers: 53-((A))-90, 53-((A))-91, 53-((A))-92, 53 -((A)) - 92A, 53 -((A)) -92B, 53-((A))-94, 53-((3))-A, 63- ((A)) -2A Current Zoning: RA, Rural Areas District Current Use: Agricultural and Residential uses Proposed Use: Residential, Service Commercial and Office Proposed Zoning: RP, Residential Performance Dist. (347.77± acres) B2, Business General District (12.20± acres) Total rezoning area: 359.97± -acres 2 Greenway Engineering September 1, 2005 Willow Run Rezoning Revised November 4, 2005 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The parcels comprising the subject site are located within the study area boundary of the Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan. The Board of Supervisors adopted the policies guiding future land use development within the Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan on February 11, 2004. These policies recommend that the predominant land use should be urban and suburban residential use with areas of mixed residential and commercial land use along the planned route of the Jubal Early Drive extension. A Land Use Plan Exhibit has been prepared for the Willow Run Community, which depicts the areas of the site that will be developed as residential, commercial, and mixed residential and commercial land use. Additionally, the Applicants' proffer statement provides for a residential unit matrix table that provides for a minimum and maximum percentage of age -restricted, single-family attached, and single-family detached housing product types. Many of these housing product types will be developed within the mixed residential and commercial land use areas that are identified on the Land Use Plan Exhibit to provide for a variety of housing types that are integrated into the neighborhood scale commercial land uses. The 359.97± -acre site is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA); therefore, expansion of the UDA and SWSA beyond the existing property boundaries is not required by this application. A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE Access The subject site, tax parcels 53-((A))-90, 53-((A))-91, 53-((A))-92, 53 -((A)) -92A, 53- ((A)) -92B, 53-((A))-94, 53-((3))-A, and 63 -((A)) -2A are accessible from Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622), Merriman's Lane (Route 621), and through the extension of Jubal Early Drive, Sterling Drive and Cidermill Lane, which currently terminate in the City of Winchester. The extension of Sterling Drive is not proposed due to additional impacts to the wetland areas that have been identified by the Corp of Engineers on the south side of Jubal Early Drive extended. Connections to, and extensions of all other identified roads will provide safe and efficient access to the Willow Run Community. The Western Jubal Early Drive Land Use Plan (WJELUP) identifies the extension of Jubal Early Drive in an east -to -west direction through the limits of the subject site and connecting to Route 37 West at a new interchange. Furthermore, this plan identifies a new major collector road, which connects Cedar Creek Grade to Jubal Early Drive in a north -to- south direction. The need for intermodal access is also identified in the land use plan, which recommends the expansion of the Green Circle bicycle and pedestrian facility into the County with linkages to the west and south. 3 Greenway Engineering September 1, 2005 Willow Run Rezoning Revised November 4, 2005 The Applicants' proffer statement has been designed to allow for traffic from the development to access Cedar Creek Grade during the initial development phases of the Willow Run Community, while access to Jubal Early Drive will begin during favorable dry weather conditions following subdivision and plan approval by the City of Winchester. Merriman's Lane is designed to be constructed and accessible to the public by the end of the project if desired by Frederick County. Connectivity to Merriman's Lane is proffered to be designed to accommodate emergency services only if requested by the Board of Supervisors. The Applicants' proffer statement also provides for the continuation of the Green Circle along the north side of Jubal Early Drive, with an additional public bicycle and pedestrian system along Willow Run Drive (north -south major collector road) to the southern limits of the Willow Run Community. Floodplains The subject site is located on the FEMA NFIP Map #510063-0115-B. The FEMA NFIP Map identifies floodplain areas associated with Abrams Creek from the north side of Northwestern Pike (Route 50 West) to the west side of Merriman's Lane (Route 621). The limits of the study end at this point; however, it is reasonable to expect the floodplain areas identified as Zone A to continue through the northern portion of the subject site along Abrams Creek to the City of Winchester Corporate Limits. The Applicants have prepared a Phase I Environmental Assessment Report and a Wetlands Delineation Report for the subject properties, a copy of which has been provided to the Planning Department. The Applicants' proffered Generalized Development Plan delineates Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) based on the results of these studies. Detailed floodplain studies will be conducted for any development that is proposed along the northern portion of the subject site that adjoins the DSA to ensure that design criteria is consistent with all applicable floodplain regulations. Wetlands The National Wetlands Inventory Map identifies two areas of wetlands along the northern and eastern portions of the 359.97± -acre site. The Applicants have prepared a Wetlands Delineation Report for the subject properties, a copy of which has been provided to the Planning Department. The Applicants' proffered Generalized Development Plan delineates Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) based on the results of this study. The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers has issued a Jurisdictional Determination Letter to ensure that all wetland areas are identified on-site. The treatment of the wetland areas will be determined through the development of a wetlands mitigation plan that is prepared by the Applicants and approved by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Protected and disturbed wetland areas will be identified during the Master Development Plan process for the Willow Run Community, including the design of the Jubal Early Drive extension. in Greenway Engineering September 1, 2005 Willow Run Rezoning Revised November 4, 2005 Steep Slopes Minor areas of steep slope exist on the 359.97± -acre site, which are located primarily in the area of the Merriman's Lane and Orchard Lane intersection, in the area of the major karst feature in the southeastern portion of the site and along the central and western ridgelines. Disturbance of steep slope areas will occur along the ridgelines and the Merriman's Lane/Orchard Lane intersection area to accommodate the development of the internal road and utility infrastructure systems. These areas of disturbance will be identified on the Master Development Plan for the Willow Run Community to ensure compliance with County Ordinance requirements. Mature Woodlands Areas of mature deciduous trees exist along the Abram's Creek corridor, as well as in the western and central portions of the 359.97± -acre site. It is anticipated that these areas will be impacted by the future development of road systems, utility infrastructure and residential land bays; however, the Master Development Plan for the Willow Run Community will be designed to provide for linear tree save areas of mature trees. Furthermore, disturbed mature tree areas and existing open areas will be replanted with new trees to meet the requirements of the County Ordinance that was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in April 2003. The Master Development Plan and subsequent Subdivision Design Plans for the Willow Run Community will provide for tree save areas and will provide for tree replant areas to ensure compliance with County Ordinance requirements. 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 24 & 30, and contains the following soil types: 5B -Carbo Silt Loam: 2-7% slope 14B-Frederick-Poplimento Loam: 2-7% slope 14C-Frederick-Poplimento Loam: 7-15% slope 14D-Frederick-Poplimento Loam: 15-25% slope 16C-Frederick-Poplimento Loam —Very Rocky: 7-15% slope 16D-Frederick-Poplimento Loam — Very Rocky: 15-25% slope 17C-Frederick-Poplimento Rock Outcrop Complex: 2-15% slope 17E-Frederick-Poplimento Rock Outcrop Complex: 15-45% slope 29-Massanetta Loam Table 5 on page 123 of the Soil Survey of Frederick County identifies the 5B -Carbo Silt Loam, the 14B-Frederick-Poplimento and 29-Massanetta Loam as prime farmland soils. `1 Greenway Engineering September 1, 2005 Willow Run Rezoning Revised November 4, 2005 Frederick-Poplimento loams comprise the majority of the subject site, which possess moderate shrink -swell potential. A band of Carbo Silt loam follows the western portion of the subject site, which possesses a high shrink -swell potential, while Massanetta loam is located within the defined flood plain and wetland areas. These soil types are consistent with the soil types found in the neighboring Meadow Branch and Morlyn Hills communities; therefore, community development activities can be supported by the soil conditions on the subject site. Development within the Massanetta loam soils will be limited to the extension of Jubal Early Drive. The Applicants will conduct geotechnical analysis throughout the development of the Willow Run Community for the road construction, utility installation and within areas where karst features are present. B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Adjoining Property Zoning and Present Use: North: Zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD - LR) Use: Residential South: Zoned Residential Performance (RP) Use: Residential Zoned Rural Areas (RA) Use: Commercial & Agricultural East: Zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD -HR) Use: Residential West: Zoned Residential Performance (RP) Use: Residential Zoned Rural Areas (RA) Use: Residential & Golf Course C. TRANSPORTATION The subject site, tax parcels 53-((A))-90, 53-((A))-91, 53-((A))-92, 53 -((A)) -92A, 53- ((A)) -92B, 53-((A))-94, 53-((3))-A, and 63 -((A)) -2A are accessible from Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622), Merriman's Lane (Route 621), and through the extension of Jubal Early Drive and Cidermill Lane, which currently terminate in the City of Winchester. The Western Jubal Early Drive Land Use Plan identifies the extension of Jubal Early Drive in an east -to -west direction through the limits of the subject site and connecting to Route 37 at a new interchange. Furthermore, this plan identifies a new major collector road, which connects Cedar Creek Grade to Jubal Early Drive in a north -to- south direction. The need for intermodal access is also identified in the land use plan, which recommends the expansion of the Green Circle bicycle and pedestrian facility into the County with linkages to the west and south. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) has been prepared for the Willow Run Community by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc dated July 12, 2005 (revised from the November 2004 submission) and included as a component of the Impact Analysis Statement. The TIA assumes the total build out of 850 residential units and 110,000 square feet of 6 Greenway Engineering September 1, 2005 Willow Run Rezoning Revised November 4, 2005 commercial land use by year 2010 as a two-phase plan. The first transportation phase projects the impacts associated with the development of 400 residential units, and the second transportation phase projects the impacts associated the total build out of the Willow Run Community that includes 850 residential units and 110,000 square -feet of commercial, retain and restaurant pana T1,P TTA provides for a Level of Service use. .... (LOS) analysis for AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, as well as Average Daily Trip (ADT) volumes for existing, background and build out conditions for each transportation phase. The TIA studies all critical intersections in the Willow Run Community and within close proximity of the Willow Run Community, the existing Route 37 interchange ramps for the regional transportation system, and the continuation of Jubal Early Drive from its terminus in the City of Winchester to Merriman's Lane. Additionally, Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pe has prepared a 2010 Alternative Build- out Analyses for the Willow Run Community that would occur if the City of Winchester does not allow the Applicants to continue Jubal Early Drive through City property to the project site. This TIA assumes the development of 850 residential units and 10,000 square feet of commercial office land use that will be developed in the easternmost mixed use commercial area 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 (ADT) volumes for existing, background and build out conditions for the Willow Run Community. The TIA studies all critical intersections in the Willow Run Community and within close proximity of the Willow Run Community, the existing Route 37 interchange ramps for the regional transportation system, and the construction of Jubal Early Drive from the eastern commercial land bay to Merriman's Lane. The 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service (LOS) for AM and PM Peak Hour traffic volumes identifies the projected traffic impacts for all critical intersections in the Willow Run Community and within close proximity of the Willow Run Community, the existing Route 37 interchange ramps for the regional transportation system, and the continuation of Jubal Early Drive from its terminus in the City of Winchester to Merriman's Lane. The TIA demonstrates that the transportation impacts associated with the build -out of the Willow Run Community residential and commercial land use, coupled with the projected background traffic impacts, are acceptable at the unsignalized Jubal Early Drive intersection with Meadow Branch Avenue, at the Jubal Early Drive intersection with Merriman's Lane, at the Merriman's Lane intersection with Cedar Creek Grade, at the signalized Willow Run Drive (Major Spine Road) intersection with Cedar Creek Grade, and at the unsignalized Minor Spine Road intersection with Cedar Creek Grade. The TIA demonstrates that the unsignalized Route 37 on and off ramps at Cedar Creek Grade have a deficient LOS, and deficient LOS exists at several regional intersections including Route 37 at Northwestern Pike, Jubal Early Drive at Valley Avenue, Breckinridge Lane at Merriman's Lane, and Merriman's Lane at Amherst Street. The Applicants' proffer statement has been designed to address the transportation impacts associated with the build -out of the residential and commercial land uses for the Willow Run Community, and to assist in the mitigation of several regional transportation 7 Greenway Engineering September 1, 2005 Willow Run Rezoning Revised November 4, 2005 issues that are a result of other developments and projected traffic volume increases. These proffered transportation improvements include the following: Proffered Transportation Improvement Program • Installation of traffic signalization at the Cedar Creek Grade/Route 37 interchange for the northbound and southbound on and off ramps. • Construction of a center turn lane at the Cedar Creek Grade/Route 37 interchange. • Construction of a continuous right turn lane from the Willow Run Drive (Major Spine Road) intersection at Cedar Creek Grade to the Route 37 northbound on-ramp. • Land dedication on the east side of Route 37 to accommodate an urban diamond interchange design at Jubal Early Drive and Route 37. • Completion of an Interchange Justification Study (IJS) for Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) consideration of a new interchange at Jubal Early Drive and Route 37. • Financial contribution towards the construction of a northbound on-ramp for the new interchange at Jubal Early Drive and Route 37. • Construction of the ultimate section of Jubal Early Drive from the City of Winchester to the intersection with Willow Run Drive (Major Spine Road). • Construction of a half -section of Jubal Early Drive from the intersection with Willow Run Drive to Merriman's Lane with right-of-way dedication for the ultimate section. Construction of the ultimate section of Jubal Early Drive if the CTB approves a new interchange at Route 37 and Jubal Early Drive. • Construction of the realignment of approximately 1,000 feet Merriman's Lane on the north side of Jubal Early Drive to create a T -intersection. • Construction of a half -section of Willow Run Drive from the intersection with Jubal Early Drive to Cedar Creek Grade with traffic signalization and with right-of-way dedication for the ultimate section. Construction of the ultimate section of Willow Run Drive from Jubal Early Drive to the southern Property limits if the CTB denies or fails to act on a new interchange at Route 37 and Jubal Early Drive. • Construction of an additional entrance to Cedar Creek Grade (Minor Spine Road) to include an additional travel lane on Cedar Creek Grade from the City of Winchester to the entrance and a left turn lane on Cedar Creek Grade. • Continuation of the Green Circle bicycle and pedestrian facility from the existing facility in the City of Winchester along Jubal Early Drive and Willow Run Drive (Major Collector Spine Road). The Applicants' proffered transportation program will mitigate the impacts associated with the development of the Willow Run Community and will improve existing and future conditions associated with other off-site regional transportation matters. Solutions to the critical regional intersections identified in the Willow Run TIA and the Route 37 Greenway Engineering September 1, 2005 Willow Run Rezoning Revised November 4, 2005 interchange areas will be accomplished through proffered development proposals such as this application, public funded improvements, and public-private partnerships. D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT The 359.97± -acre site is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) boundaries. In May 2004, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority Board voted to provide public sewer service to the Willow Run Community. This determination requires the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) to develop the infrastructure system necessary to service the Willow Run Community. The FCSA has undertaken an infrastructure project for the design and construction of a new sewer force main that will connect to the Willow Run Community at the Minor Spine Road intersection at Cedar Creek Grade and the 15" Hogue Run Sewer Interceptor, which directs flows to the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Facility. The design of the new sewer force main will provide capacity that is adequate to accommodate the residential and commercial land uses associated with the Willow Run Community and additional development within the area. The Applicants will provide for a new sewer pump station that will be located in the northeastern portion of the property adjacent to the Abram's Creek wetlands. The design of the new sewer pump station will provide capacity that is adequate to accommodate the residential and commercial land uses associated with the Willow Run Community that is expandable to serve additional development within the area. The Applicants will also provide for a new sewer force main that connects the new sewer pump station to the FCSA new sewer force main at Cedar Creek Grade that will be sized to accommodate the residential and commercial land uses associated with the Willow Run Community and additional development within the area. The on-site sewer infrastructure required to convey effluent to the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Facility will be developed by the Applicants to standards acceptable to the FCSA for their future operation and maintenance. The impact of rezoning the 359.97± -acre site can be based on comparable discharge patterns of 500 gallons -per -day (GPD) per acre for commercial land use and 225 GPD for residential land use. The figures below represent the impact that the total build out of the proffered 110,000 square feet of commercial and office land use and the proffered 850 residential units will have on the sewage conveyance and treatment systems. Q = 500 GPD per acre Q = 500 GPD x 12.20± acres of commercial and office land use Q = 6,100 GPD projected at total commercial build out I Greenway Engineering September 1, 2005 Willow Run Rezoning Revised November 4, 2005 Q = 225 GPD per household Q = 225 GPD x 850 residential units Q = 191,250 GPD projected at total residential build out TOTAL Q = 197,350 GPD at total project build out The proposed rezoning is projected to increase flows to the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Facility by 197,350 GPD at total build out. The Applicants have proffered to develop the Willow Run Community through a phased permitting plan that limits the number of residential building permits that can be obtained on an annual basis. This phased permitting plan will ensure that the build -out of the Willow Run Community cannot occur until calendar year 2010 at the earliest. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority Board has approved a plan to expand the capacity of the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Facility to 5 million gallons per day (MGD). The 5 MGD expansion of the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Facility is projected to be complete in 2009, which will occur prior to the earliest possible build -out of the Willow Run Community based on the proffered phased permitting plan. Adequate capacity for sewage conveyance and treatment will be available throughout the development of the Willow Run Community as a result of the infrastructure improvements provided by the Applicants' and the FCSA. E. WATER SUPPLY The 359.97± -acre site is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) boundaries. In May 2004, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority Board voted to provide public water service to the Willow Run Community. This determination requires the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) to develop the infrastructure system necessary to service the Willow Run Community. The FCSA will provide a water transmission line that will follow Route 37 and adjoin the Willow Run Community. This water transmission line will create a loop system that ties together the water systems to the north between the Sunnyside Community and to the south in the Apple Valley Road and Shady Elm Road area. This loop will allow for water service to be provided from both the Stephens City quarry system from the James H. Diehl Water Filtration Plant and the Clearbrook quarry system from the North Water Filtration Plant. These systems currently provide 6.0 MGD and can be increased to 10 MGD. The on-site water infrastructure required to convey potable water to the proposed residential and commercial land uses in the Willow Run Community will be developed by the applicants to standards acceptable to the FCSA for future operation and maintenance. The impact of rezoning the 359.97± -acre site can be based on comparable water usage of 1,000 GPD per acre for commercial and office land use and 275 GPD per unit for 10 Greenway Engineering September 1, 2005 Willow Run Rezoning Revised November 4, 2005 residential land use. The figures below represent the impact that the total build out of the proffered 110,000 square feet of commercial and office land use and the proffered 850 residential units will have on the water supply and treatment systems. Q = 1,000 GPD per acre Q = 1,000 GPD x 12.20± acres Q = 12,200 GPD projected at total commercial and office build out Q = 275 GPD per household Q = 275 GPD x 850 residential units Q = 233,750 GPD projected at total residential build out TOTAL Q = 245,950 GPD at total project build out The projected water usage for the proposed rezoning is 245,950 GPD at total build out. This projection represents approximately 6.0% of the unutilized capacities at the James H. Diehl Water Filtration Plant and the North Water Filtration Treatment Plan. Therefore, available water source and infrastructure will be adequate to accommodate the capacity needs of the proposed residential and commercial land uses for the Willow Run Community. F. DRAINAGE The 359.97± -acre parcel has pronounced drainage divides, which follow the ridgelines located in the western and central portions of the project site. These drainage divides direct stormwater to the central and western portions of the project site, which then flow in a northern direction to Abram's Creek and to the southwest near Route 37. The Willow Run Community will be designed to capture the majority of the stormwater flows in the central portion of the development within stormwater management retention facilities. These facilities will be created within the area of the Willow Run Community Center and designed as an amenity for the community and will be maintained by the Willow Run Homeowners Association in conjunction with the community center. Furthermore, the Applicants' proffer statement provides for the use of best management practices (BMP) in conjunction with all commercial land uses to mitigate water quality impacts to Abram's Creek. This proffer statement also commits to the preparation of a geotechnical analysis for the purpose of ensuring that development impacts near the major karst feature do not adversely impact water quality through storm water management design. Storm water management will be designed in accordance with all applicable state and local storm water management requirements and erosion and sedimentation control requirements. 11 Greenway Engineering September 1, 2005 Willow Run Rezoning Revised November 4, 2005 G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL The impact on solid waste disposal facilities can be projected from an average annual business consumption of landfill volume of 5.4 cubic yards per 1,000 sq ft. of structural floor area and an average annual residential consumption of 5.4 cubic yards per household (Civil Engineering Reference Manual, 4th edition). The following figures show the increase in average annual volume based on the 110,000 square feet of commercial and office land use, and 850 residential units that are projected to develop over a 5 -year period: AV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. per 1,000 sq. ft. AV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. x 110 (1,000 sq. ft.) AV = 594 Cu. Yd. at commercial build out/yr, or 416 tons/yr at build out AV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. per household AV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. x 850 households AV = 4,590 Cu. Yd. at residential build out, or 3,213 tons/yr at build out TOTAL AV = 3,629 tons/yr / 5 -yr build -out = 726 ton annual increase 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 5 -year build out of the subject site will generate on average 726 tons of solid waste annually. This represents a 0.36% 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. The complete build out of the Willow Run Community is projected to increase the solid waste received by the Municipal Solid Waste area of the Regional Landfill by 1.8% annually. The Applicants' proffer statement provides for curbside trash pickup service in the Willow Run Community; therefore, transportation and increased volume impacts at the citizen convenience centers will be mitigated and tipping fees will be generated that will create a continuous revenue source for the Regional Landfill by the Willow Run Community. H. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey identifies three structures on the 359.97± -acre site as the 740 House (#34-89), the 750 House (#34-90) and the Marshal House (#34-1236), although none of these structures are deemed potentially significant. Two sites within close proximity are identified as potentially significant, which include the Stuart Brown House (#34-1239) and Homespun (#34-180). The Homespun site is further identified as being potentially eligible for the state and national register of historic places. Furthermore, the southwestern portion of the 2nd Winchester Core Battlefield area is located in the northeastern portion of the subject site. 12 Greenway Engineering September 1, 2005 Willow Run Rezoning Revised November 4, 2005 The Stuart Brown House (#34-1239) is located on the Jova Properties, LCC parcel adjacent to the Route 37 interchange area at Cedar Creek Grade. This structure is currently utilized as a residential rental property, and is not visible from the Willow Run Community. The Homespun site (#34-180) is located across Cedar Creek Grade from the southeastern portion of the site. An adaptive reuse of the Homespun site has been complete, which converted the historic structure into a commercial land use. Additionally, the Harvest Ridge Residential Community is being developed adjacent to and south of the Homespun site. The Homespun site has a mature row of evergreens along its frontage, which adequately screens the structure from Cedar Creek Grade. The Minor Spine Road intersection at Cedar Creek Grade is designed to align with the commercial entrance serving the Homespun site; therefore, no additional impacts are anticipated between the Willow Run Community and the Homespun site. The Applicants' proffer statement provides for an evergreen tree planting screen along the southern most residential lot that is located across Cedar Creek Grade from the Homespun site to minimize viewshed impacts. In August 2004, the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation Executive Committee (SVBF) was asked to consider the potential for acquiring the potion of the 2nd Winchester Core Battlefield area that is located on the subject site. The SVBF Executive Committee provided a letter to Greenway Engineering dated August 16, 2004, which stated that there was not a desire to acquire this area due to the significant amount of lost integrity of the overall core battlefield area resulting from the development of the Meadow Branch Community. Therefore, the development of the Willow Run Community will not have a negative impact to existing historic structures and core battlefield area. I. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES The Frederick County Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model has been prepared for the proposed rezoning of the 359.97± -acre site based on a proffered maximum square footage of 110,000 square feet of commercial and office land use and 850 residential units. The results of the Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model identify that the build out of the Willow Run community will create a negative fiscal impact of $7,692.00 for each residential unit. The Applicants' proffer statement guarantees the development of 10,000 square feet of commercial land use; therefore, Greenway Engineering has prepared a fiscal impact model run that only provides commercial land use credit for this guarantee. The Applicants' proffer statement provides a monetary contribution to Frederick County in the amount of $9,078 for each non -age restricted residential unit to mitigate the fiscal impacts to public schools, parks and recreation, fire and rescue services, and other County services. A monetary contribution of $500.00 is proffered for each age restricted residential unit for Fire and Rescue Services, which exceeds the impacts projected by the Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model. Furthermore, the Applicants' proffer statement provides an additional $50,000.00 to mitigate impacts to the volunteer fire and rescue 13 Greenway Engineering September 1, 2005 Willow Run Rezoning Revised November 4, 2005 services. This monetary proffer provides $25,000.00 to the first responder companies in Frederick County and the City of Winchester that will provide service to the Willow Run Community. Additionally, the Applicants' proffer statement provides for community recreational amenities that include a community center facility that is a minimum of 4,000 square feet in floor area, swimming pools and bathhouse, public and private bicycle and pedestrian facilities and neighborhood parks. Therefore, the monetary contributions provided for in the Applicants' proffer statement, coupled with the recreational amenities adequately mitigate the community facilities impacts and capital cost needs for the Willow Run Community. 14 ZONING LEGEND Cr1.'gJ`+••+� ZONING DISTRICTS LEGEND , RA RURAL AREAS DISTRICT MR RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT - R4 RESIDENTIAL PLANNED COMMUNITY _ R5 RESIDENTIAL RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY _ MH1 MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY DISTRICT �. Bi NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT B2 BUSINESS GENERAL DISTRICT M-2 83 INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION DISTRICT HEALTH SERVICE DISTRICT Mt LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT i HE -1 M2 INDUSTRIAL GENERAL DISTRICT _ EM EXTRACTIVE MANUFACTURING DISTRICT _ HE HIGHER EDUCATION DISTRICT CITY ZONING DISTRICTS LEGEND , LR LAW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT MR MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT HR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT HR -1 LIMITED HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT RO-1 RESIDENTIAL OFFICE DISTRICT RB -1 RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS DISTRICT B—I CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT B-2 HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT - CM -1 COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT M-1 LIMITED INDUSTRIAL. DISTRICT M-2 INTENSIVE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT HS HEALTH SERVICE DISTRICT MC MEDICAL CENTER DISTRICT i HE -1 HIGHER EDUCATION DISTRICT IsIP EDUCATIONAL, INSTITUTIONAL, & PUBLIC DISTRICT PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT -- PMH PLANNED MOBILE HOME DISTRICT ---- PSC PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER DISTRICT — —�� HISTORIC WINCHESTER DISTRICT Lu W 21 SCALE: I• ♦ :_ NJ a Lu 6 r�yy .". '� •,•`� _ ,�,�'•„� \., Vii, o _lot 4`x- \ \ \ SITE _ �►` �'` �� ` i ` , MARK D. SAI1}i _s u� W L F Q U Q cc z 3 Z F9 U O 0 a J G w w 3a�� Z _0 V 0 J DAM 08/01/05 SCAM 1' - 10D0' DESIGNED BY: 611 FB8 NO. 580ONG SHEET 1 OF 1 LEGEND WETLANDS 81 FLOOD PLAIN DELINEATION 0 KARST FEATURE w00 0 Psw 2000 SCALE: 1' • 1000 , r� � `. CLQ / Le 0 f 7 ,i I e" 4 a y � SITE I in VA F I it f r + rf r'r � Ntc �, .. - .�. .'�.� � ._SI"•a� —-..—'�,.r , � it ~ 11 }JA a Z' oc W I ZI W N m� ILLI m f7M� b N es a F2 z 0 W a MARK D. SMITH H0.022837 m m1 Z: uu1 I ^r ILU IV) U I , z A 'UA o� O L v x J mi 2 Q a N I:TJ 3 W Z O cc W DATE: 09/01/05 SCALE: 1 — 1000' DESIGNED BY: EN FDE NO. 36WWG SHEET 1 OF 1 �LEGEND rlli4�.. z .,B -CARBO i SILT LOAM 2-7% _ ,% ---- ,� .�� 14B=FREDERICK- - -POPLIMENTO LOAMS WI 14C FREDERICK POPLiMENTO LOAM. 7% SLOPE --___ ;. Z 14D-FREDERICK-POPLIMENTO LOAM: 15-25% SLOPE �r , .Z 16C-FREDERICK-POPLIMENTO LOAM -VERY ROCKY: 7-15% SLOPE d t` _r loD-FREDERICK-POPLIMENTO LOAM -VERY ROCKY: 5-25% SLOPE 17C-FREDERICK-POPLIMENTO ROCK OUTCZOP CCbIPLEX: 2-15% SLOPE,_ , ,. Z S sN 17E-FREDERICK-POPLIMENT0 ROCK OUTCROP COMPLEX: 15-45% SLOPE # �' ° W nN .4 - 1 j z_ a !.- rl J a �;1r rip ''.M. b i s--•- r -.F rr r r'-�; - ai 29-MASSANETTA LOAM r z s rcw; 8 F WATER e t } - _—�" •' ] °_.. �/ _ k" e IOPMV 0 1'�>10 2009 rL"'r� air- ps �% i _ 56 �-� �t i�� 1 �" t �� ] � � t � "1 _ I d to - p d � r >°� �` f' -,i- ' - a - t, "WE d t dt el I4 tf 1 .�t�_ f e dtr I -t r ti � �J __i �- d 'e,.yl. `�} / �t .� d rai Y f � _ F '`L',/J��,6✓ `Ii` t��/��y�, �� a 58 16C / i6D a10, 16D 14C J 16C / /1 I 17E 14C -1 14D 14D 16C .- �' �16D 14c\, 140 16D i 04#4 MARK D. SMITH No.022837 6 � U I FZ WI y due 02 H� a s,� e 1R. ms z r4 Emu � �rta{a *� DATE: 08/01/05 SCALE: 1' — 1000' f DESIGNED BY, EW PDE N0. 3800WG SHECr I Or 1 . #34-89 a Bicycle Trail ,�/ •• mmu- NTERvj��4;RK Ai i i k. 0v 3v / #34-1237 i #34-1239 1 G��7��.ti 400200 0 400 800 ' ' • • #34-1236 Trail #34-180 CORE RURAL LANDMARKS SURVEY LEGEND #34-89 • 740 HOUSE #34-90 - 750 HOUSE #34-180 - HOMESPUN #34-1236 • PENBROOK - COVE FARM #34-1237, HOUSE, ROUTE 622 #34-1239 - STUART BROWN HOUSE -- - 2nd WINCHESTER CORES BATTLEFIELD LEGEND RP RESIDENTIAL P13RFORMANCE DISTRICT 347.77 ± iaCRES 82 BUSINESS GENERAL DISTRICT 12.20 ± ACRES DSA DE ELOPMErNTALLY SENSITIVE ASS WILLOW RUN 1, 00' COMMUNITY' OCT. 2 005 k, � .s,-.;•ww.n r'..�;.anwuxsc�.� HISTORICAL SITES ANIS STRUCTURES ----.asw�u�,a�*s� .n+waar...a y.aaz��:.+.:»-..r.�s,.msa's.-,ra��a�-�rarssuxssx-s�eaare.ra*a� �%s3i P]1:, if�yr�r. 7e •s � • e.�.l� FAIL 3W -744 -fel! -.�N Willow Run Community Residential Unit Matrix Category Minimum Maximum Housing Types Permitted % of Units % of Units Age -Restricted 10% 40% Single-family Small Lot; Duplex; Multiplex Single -Family 10% 40% Duplex; Multiplex; Atrium House; Attached Weak -Link Townhouse; Townhouse Single -Family 20% 65% Single-family Traditional; Single-family Detached Urban; Single-family Cluster; Zero Lot Line; Single-family Small Lot i•I ' •• • iI• •I• LAND USE LEGEND RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL MIXED USE COMMUNITY CENTER & PARK AREA DSA "RST FEATURE ----- GREEN CIRCLE EXTENSION WILrL.C)RUN COMMUNITY LAND USE PLAN' SCALE: 1 "-800' A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: Miller and Smith Greystone Properties 8401 Greensboro Drive Suite 300 McLean, VA 22102 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Eng neers. Surveyors. Planners. Landsccpe Architects. PH]R+-A'00' 00 Mainsbur ,Avenue, Suite 54Martinsburg, West Virginia 25401 T 304.264.2711 F 304.264.3671 July 12, 2005 (Revised from the November 2004 submission) OVERVIEW Report Summary Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has prepared this "revised" traffic study (from November 2004 submission) for Miller and Smith and Greystone Properties to present the impacts associated with the proposed Willow Run development located northeast of the Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622)/Route 37 interchange in Frederick County, Virginia. The purpose of this report is to provide new Phase 2 (full build -out) analyses assuming the anticipated future roadway network that includes the following: 1) Completion of Jubal Early Drive Extended from the existing Jubal Early Drive, through Willow Run, to Merrimans Lane; 2) Completion of Willow Run Drive from Jubal Early Drive Extended to Cedar Creek Grade and 3) Completion of minor spine road from Jubal early Drive Extended to Cedar Creek Grade. The total Willow Run development remains consistent with the November 2004 submission that includes: 850 units of residential, 50,000 square feet of retail, 50,000 square feet of office and a 10,000 square feet of restaurant space. Primary access will be provided via Jubal Early Drive Extended (proposed roadway) and Cedar Creek Grade via Willow Run Drive (proposed roadway). The proposed development will be built -out by the year 2010. Phase 1 analyses, as published in the November 2004 submission, is provided as well. Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the location of Willow Run with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying the Willow Run 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 Willow Run, • Distribution and assignment of Willow Run generated trips onto the completed study area road network, • Analysis of capacity and level of service using the newest version of the highway capacity software, HCS -2000, for existing and future conditions. R+A A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run PJuly 12, 2005 HPage 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) obtained AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersections of Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622)/Merrimans Lane (Route 621), Cedar Creek Grade/Route 37 interchange ramps, Cedar Creek Grade/Harvest Drive, US Route 50/Route 37 interchange ramps, US Route 50/Merrimans Lane, Merrimans Lane/Breckinridge Lane, Jubal Early Drive/Handley Avenue and Jubal Early DriveNalley Avenue. Additionally, 24-hour automatic "tube" counts were conducted along the Cedar Creek Grade west of Harvest Drive. PHR+A established the ADT (Average Daily Traffic) along each of the study area roadway links using an assumed "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 10%. 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 Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run P R+A July 12, 2HPagee 3 3 x,194 4439 1206)542...%P i t R (433)899If 0 Zro Nb Route b N h N� ~` 64(360) Br 15(89) j�ek�db'e Ln �v 37 rN %ftw 24(63) r I 4-39(128) i dl� 59(91) (51)53_► � rl (3)12 o � n rh q Ch N / ib 4-27(147) (45)89 d"' 43(69) (563)441 59)108 Route 622 (56)47–% r� CsTade 45(43) �[ 4274(1067) ' if"133059) (44)31 1 (5 0)6 �j j��► b 1 ♦� N N �O A%x387( ♦56(1 621 No kale I b 53(45) 1 L r16(H'n Han Ave ve � 1'/ ho ar I tel 4-/ 60(364 156(265) �86-,6G03�� 234(365) 51(98) 4-2 855) 622 (603) 4 = AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 2 Existing ADT and AAI/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run T TRA July 12, 2005H Page 4 Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of willow Kun PAJuly 12, 2005 IPPage 5 ) Signalized *IR Intersection 4: -It'50 LOS = D(C) / (C)D --* �� No Scale q T Route 50 Signalized `J Signalized C B �� ( ) �+ Yr Intersection LOS = B(C) (� Intersection LOS = C(C) �~ 4■ B(C) kr,d >A(B)* (C)C Route 50 Breek. Handley eLn t Ave t W 621 to 1 6 Unsignalized � N, Intersection d * Two -Lane o a > Q' B(C)C Roadway LOS = A(A) � Handley Ave Bre �► Cin N~ b Unsignalized G� G Intersection e 4 37 �- � 7 f ro�5 r a7y +- C(C) Qre6 i�J ��r► �,�,� r * s r�_ N,� • Q. Signalized GIntersection ♦— LOS = C(C) Q +>B 622 '(B)A4 Unsignalized Intersection 'tel (B) Creek *(B)B � Ce Daae Unsignalized Intersection a 4— 4'' j *(A)AJt �Rt 622 Route 622 *w ?� � �q Unsignalized t� ro Intersection p Denotes critical unsignalized movement nT �+n T AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of willow Kun PAJuly 12, 2005 IPPage 5 PHASE I TRAFFIC ANALYSES (2007) In coordination with the completion of Phase 1 of Willow Run, Juba] Early Drive Extended is to be constructed from the existing Jubal Early Drive through the westernmost extents of site to provide a connection from the existing Jubal Early Drive into the site with Merriman's Lane (Route 621). 2007 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS In order to accurately depict future conditions within the study area, PHR+A utilized the following traffic study to determine the trips associated with not yet completed area developments: A Trac Impact Analysis of the WWW Property, by PHR+A, dated December 5, 2002. Based upon the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Tr ip,Generation Report and the aforementioned traffic study, Tables la and lb are provided to summarize the calculated trips associated with each of the 2007 "other developments". Table la Background Development #1: WWW Property Phase 1 Trip Generation Summary ITE Land Use Amount AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT In Out Total In Out Total Code Total 750 Office Park 5 acres 350 30 381 34 194 228 2,241 813 Discount Superstore 135,000 SF 127 122 248 253 263 516 6,101 820 Shopping Center 25,000 SF 43 27 70 121 131 252 2,795 Total 520 1 179 1 699 1 408 588 995 11,137 Table lb Background Development #2: Valley Health Systems and Degrange Properties Phase 1 Trip Generation Summary ITE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Amount ADT In Out Total In I Out Total Code Valley Health Systems Property 150 Warehousing (Distribution Center) 5 acres 63 25 88 25 47 73 383 710 Office (Administration Building) 50,000 SF 94 13 107 23 112 135 779 750 Office Park 5 acres 350 30 381 34 194 228 2,241 620 Nursing Home 24,000 SF 7 4 10 4 6 10 164 253 Elderly Housing - Attached 80 units 4 2 6 5 3 8 278 Sub-101al 518 74 592 91 363 454 3,846 Deg range Property 312 Business Hotel 50 rooms 17 12 29 19 12 31 364 760 Research & Development Park 5 acres 70 13 84 9 68 77 398 820 Shopping Center 25,000 SF 43 27 70 121 131 252 2,795 912 Drive-in Bank 2,400 SF 17 13 30 66 66 131 805 832 H -T Restaurant 7,600 SF 37 34 70 50 33 83 991 Sub-101al 184 100 284 264 310 574 5,352 Total 1 702 1 173 1 875 1 355 1 672 1 1,027 1 9,198 A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run PHR �_ nJuly 12, 2 �1 Pagee 6 6 In addition to the trips relating to the specific background developments shown in Tables la and lb, the existing traffic volumes were increased along study area roadways using an historic growth rate of 5% per year (compounded annually) through Year 2007 as determined in aforementioned WWW Property traffic study. Figure 4 shows the 2007 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 5 shows the corresponding 2007 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. PHASE 1 TRIP GENERATION PHR+A determined the number of trips entering and exiting the site using equations and rates provided in the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report. Table 2 was prepared to summarize the trip generation associated with the Phase 1 Willow Run development. Table 2 Proposed Development: Willow Run PhacP 1 Trin Generation Summary ITE Land Use Amount Code AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT In Out Total In Out Total 210 Single Family Detached 315 units 251 Elderly Housing Detached 85 units 57 9 172 15 230 24 190 27 111 17 301 44 3,150 472 Total 67 188 254 216 128 345 3,622 PHASE 1 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the road network surrounding the proposed site. PHR+A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 6 to assign the Phase 1 Willow Run trips (Table 2) throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 7 shows the respective Phase 1 development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. PHASE 12007 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Phase 1 Willow Run assigned trips (Figure 7) were added to the 2007 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2007 Phase 1 build -out conditions. Figure 8 shows Phase 1 2007 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 9 shows the respective Phase 1 2007 build -out lane geometry and levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run PP_`N July l2, 2005 H Paoe 7 PHASE 2 TRAFFIC ANALYSES (2010) Phase 2 (full build -out) is analyzed assuming the anticipated future roadway network that includes the following: i) Completion of Jubal Early Drive Extended from the existing Jubal Early Drive, through Willow Run, to Merrimans Lane; 2) Completion of Willow Run Drive from Jubal Early Drive Extended to Cedar Creek Grade and 3) Completion of minor spine road from Jubal early Drive Extended to Cedar Creek Grade. 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS In order to accurately depict future conditions within the study area, PHR+A utilized the following traffic study to determine the trips associated with not yet completed area developments: A Trafc Impact Analysis of the 1V141W Property, by PHR+A, dated December 5, 2002. Based upon the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report and the aforementioned traffic study, Tables 3a and 3b are provided to summarize the calculated trips associated with each of the 2010 "other developments". Table 3a Background Development #1: WWW Property Total THD Generation Summary ITE AM Peak our I PM Peak Hour Land Use Amount Code ADT In Out Total In I Out Total 750 Office Park 35 acres 702 61 763 136 769 905 6,304 813 Discount Superstore 135,000 SF 127 122 248 253 263 516 6,101 820 Shopping Center 150,000 SF 124 79 203 394 427 821 8,847 Total 953 1 262 1 1,215 782 1,459 2,242 21,252 A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run R+A July 1 2, 2015 Page 15 PH Table 3b Background Development #2: Valley Health Systems and Degrange Properties Total Trin (generation Summary ITE AM Peak Hour PM PeakHour ADT In ®ut Total In Hut Total Land Use Amount Code Valley Health Systems Property 150 Warehousing (Distribution Center) 10 acres 90 35 125 43 80 122 645 710 Office (Administration Building) 108,900 SF 176 24 200 34 167 201 1,417 750 Office Park 15 acres 468 41 508 75 422 497 3,595 620 Nursing Home 24,000 SF 7 4 10 4 6 10 164 253 Elderly Housing - Attached 80 units 4 2 6 5 3 8 278 Sub -total 744 105 849 160 678 838 6,100 Degrange Property 312 Business Hotel 100 rooms 34 24 58 37 25 62 727 760 Research & Development Park 23 acres 324 62 386 43 313 355 1,831 820 Shopping Center 162,325 SF 130 83 213 415 450 864 9,308 912 Drive-in Bank 2,400 SF 17 13 30 66 66 131 805 832 H -T Restaurant 7,600 SF 37 34 70 50 33 83 991 Sub -total 542 216 758 610 886 1,496 13,661 Total 1 1,286 1 321 1 1,607 1 770 1 1,564 2,334 19,761 In addition to the trips relating to the specific background developments shown in Tables 3a and 3b, the existing traffic volumes were increased along study area roadways using an historic growth rate of 5% per year (compounded annually) through Year 2010 as determined in aforementioned WWW Property traffic study. Figure 10 shows the 2010 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 11 shows the corresponding 2010 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. A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run P R+A 16July 12, 20H Paae 16 v � f,ZO(218) ( p) 621 Z�� 7 ao O ry O ` b (520)720 � 32_(84 ) 52(172 ) Ir' 79(122) 8'1 (19 (68) (4) b �p 50 N ti ti �60(5f 1 4"779(1 *4'178(2 (59)421 (4)968 o (3 )131�ti a�� titi 0 L 260(386) 4.1000(1895 1 Route 50 910/h> No Scale c4ade ti %519(887 4 75(154) 436(197) (60)119 Route 6 22) ,#--58(92) (754)591 �ir (79)145■=.► Route 622 ti o (7s)6310 — • / Q �`' AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Average Daily Trips m� A O New Intersection Figure 10 Phase 2: 2010 Background ADT and AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run R+A 17July I2, 20 Page 17H7 621 I I N � _ 2 f7g8)g8�L('✓��23f �'9S' N 66(55) d r 1A � 26(28) / Handley Ave °bdl eExtd / Q� ✓' o�1g1 �n 4ti^q�ti1 b L TT S1TE�i I 1 ifLaf �JLd ��� - f 80 a�g862���I 88 / *�20 (35 r., *"-314(48 moi►~314(489) 37 j °��bb, — 1 Qo • 68(131) J �o 7)68369(1 146) 622 (8p(8 )943 "am I c4ade ti %519(887 4 75(154) 436(197) (60)119 Route 6 22) ,#--58(92) (754)591 �ir (79)145■=.► Route 622 ti o (7s)6310 — • / Q �`' AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Average Daily Trips m� A O New Intersection Figure 10 Phase 2: 2010 Background ADT and AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run R+A 17July I2, 20 Page 17H7 Intersection LOS = C(C) A A Q� Q` Gree B(E)D dge Ln 0 Unsignalized / Intersection P1 400W 9iq)* Unsignalized 621 Intersection Two -Lane Roadway LOS = C(C) 1 5 7 xQ* Unsignalized Intersection I BreekinrlQ, e L �CA)� �� 621 n tp Unsignalized Unsignalized Two -Lane s Intersection RoadwaC Intersection r Co LOS = C(D) Q rr o B(B)* Overall ! }Handley Ave LOS A(A) Two -Lane dub � a1 Ea,� Roadway +.: ,`Olive Fxrd LOS = C(C) 4. ,01 C(F) SITE r rbJC, �► l� 37 Signalized t Jtr Intersection z LOS = C(E) *(B)A4Unsignalized t 622 ®� Intersection Daae Signalized 4— R �Rt 622 Intersection LOS = C(C) ♦— 4 � C(C) Unsignalized Intersection * Denotes critical unsignalized movement 50 �• Signalized �� t Route ! Route 50 Intersection LOS = B(C) B)B ~ �� G No Scale (QCT v� '�.. .�.� 1031 Route SO is T 1 (C)B .* V ak BreekinrlQ, e L �CA)� �� 621 n tp Unsignalized Unsignalized Two -Lane s Intersection RoadwaC Intersection r Co LOS = C(D) Q rr o B(B)* Overall ! }Handley Ave LOS A(A) Two -Lane dub � a1 Ea,� Roadway +.: ,`Olive Fxrd LOS = C(C) 4. ,01 C(F) SITE r rbJC, �► l� 37 Signalized t Jtr Intersection z LOS = C(E) *(B)A4Unsignalized t 622 ®� Intersection Daae Figure 11 Phase 2: 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (NOTE: SEE FIGURE Ila FOR SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS) A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run R+-A July ]2, 20P HPage18 l8 4— �Rt 622 Denotes Free -Flow Lane Unsignalized Intersection * Denotes critical unsignalized movement AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) O New Intersection Figure 11 Phase 2: 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (NOTE: SEE FIGURE Ila FOR SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS) A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run R+-A July ]2, 20P HPage18 l8 Signalized Intersection LOS = B(C) U. Cade P nanmey Ave No Scal U Signalized Intersection LOS = QQ AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 11a Phase 2: 2010 Background LOS (Suggested Improvements) A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run R+A 19July l 2, 20P HPage 19 PHASE 2 TRIP GENERATION PHR+A determined the number of trips entering and exiting the site using equations and rates provided in the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (TTF) Trip Generation Report, Table 4 was prepared to summarize the trip generation associated with the Phase 2 (total) Willow Run development. Table 4 Proposed Development: Willow Run Phase 2 Trin Generation Summary ITE Land Use Amount AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT, In Out Total In Out Total Code 210 Single Family Detached 573 units 103 308 411 325 191 516 5,730 230 Single Family Attached 192 units 15 72 87 69 34 103 1,670 251 Elderly Housing Detached 85 units 9 15 24 27 17 44 472 710 Office 50,000 SF 95 13 108 23 112 135 782 820 Retail 50,000 SF 63 40 103 190 206 396 4328 932 H -T Restaurant 10,000 SF 60 55 115 67 1 43 1 109 1272 Total 344 504 848 700 602 1,302 14,254 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the road network surrounding the proposed site. PHR+A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 12 to assign the Phase 2 Willow Run trips (Table 4) throughout the study area. Figure 13 shows the corresponding development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Willow Run assigned trips (Figure 13) was then added to the 2010 background volumes (Figure 10) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figure 14 shows 2010 Phase 2 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 15 shows the corresponding 2010 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. A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run R+A July 12, 20i � Pagee 20 Residential Retail 1" Figure 12 Phase 2: Trip Distribution Percentages A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run PH R+A July 12, e 21 Page 21 S(]8) 8le Air r L2r6- 4g 621 Of J1 Route 62: j� 18(28) +i+ 4. 20(12) low% ear Cri Grade {77)50 c h � J1 Route 62: low% i �i X11(14) = 61(96) Route 62: Figure 13 �2Q(12) )6 Route 50 37 (266)1 40 (266)147"0'1i n L 153 ♦— 20( R Ir No Scale 621 Ln (lpyg�85�j1O < g t 1Handley Ave (362)17 . bal 16j(265) (139)421 13(42) JU v E .- 'r'EXatd SITE (IZ� A t�36(9g S VA _ F=28(49) V(48)31 �► 622 1� CTeek GCaae � Ne t far k - ubal� N (Sq Drr� 47(712 � 10(21) (24.2) 2q(S6)) �■ 1$(28) 2 ly` edar Creek i 61 4 .m 61(96) (21) son* Grade Route 622'', N {30) 15 � J y q�e AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Average Daily Trips 0 New Intersection Phase 2: Development -Generated Trip Assignments A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run R+A July 12,l � Pagee 22 22 a r 413(626) r rvYo`prbr� ♦.m 1019(1907 r �b'D �l f�1049(1669 (276)727-.0 Route 50 e-306(808) 1340)1435�� N` r %"41 (2g3 1072)1516♦ Route 50 q 1 q ��n O 1 20(119 (520)720 16 o ,�ti No Scale Gree ) P4 h y o l d�eL 1 �p� L60(58``'o �~ 1 4779(1631) Route 50 l X204(297) (59)421 j 4 (1244)968�� .a (597)278"" I4g) Lp�) �recke � 621 n f23)ap � SSS 621Jk �,c i c f29 X218 �%1 J Ids X39 b erg a'V 66(55) 3 ¢ 26(28) A (495)26 / r 212(483 1 Handley Ave n� 3 (139)42 i� 13(42) Juba!18(28)J E rD c 45 (213) y Drr ve Edy �yry1g1 1� q o ` `aa Cedar Creek SITE m (77)x0 Grade o L �/ I 1 (876)1018�� � t��r�af %--80(488) 4_245 �0. �i Jj yierd �r453)g391� ` . 314(4 89 �i S M SS LM 37 6.x(131) e v"� (47)68_ 4-m 3!17(1195) y' a %--43(99) +-52(172) 622 (856)97q , d_ 79(122) CeaaT Creek � (68)71 (4)16 n Ne J N� .c irbal� o ,r 1 e e (27��18 I93 D� ~ 9,(330) %.10(21) (242)3 24( 6) 11 4�455i1229) ro -� 'x...519(887) edar Creels ti a (2116 4..� 136(250) -u'a � 1027�'� Grade 4.47(211) (60)1190=p Route 622 q �y 1885) T 119(189) (754)591�� �� x Route 622 ^o o (93)68--%,, ` `r AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) DAverage aily Trips U New Intersection Figure 14 Phase 2: 2010 Build -out ADT and AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volwnes A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run PRA TTJuly 12, 2005 H Page 23 Signalized Intersection LOS = D(D) C' Gree B(F)I dge Ln D Unsignalized / Intersection s2 1)Unsignalized Intersection j +*-&B(B) ♦_ C622 Signalized ,,3)B 4 Intersection / mm♦ LOS=BiBi/ Two -Lane Roadway LOS = C(C) * Q' g(C)* (D)EI �^ Route 50 , + ay C4 Ln Rnnt C. 1 Signalized Intersection LOS = C(C) I SOO ignalized �P /j Intersection (B)B .r 4C(F) 1 (D)B * Vr� 0 SITE 37 622 Cedar Creek r �yae H— *(g)q a �Ri f.♦ �4 q Unsignalized _t Intersection 4- 4— C(C) 4— Rou G No Scale Bs � reekz�nd �(.g 1 621 Unsignalized lZ Unsignalized Intersection woL * Intersection ane LOS = D(D) d p o B(B)* Overall Handley Ave LOS A(A) J °bad E�� Two -Lane Roadway Drive Extd LOS = C(B) G� �arlydi �f D(E) Or * 3/* Signalized Intersection *B)A LOS = C(E) JI i♦ Unsignalized ®, Intersection D bal� r 4(A) Unsignalized \ersection.a CA I n 622 *(B)Ai Unsignalized Intersection Denotes Free -Flow Lane * Denotes critical unsignalized movement AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) O New Intersection Figure 15 Phase 2: 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (NOTE: SEE FIGURE l5a FOR SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS) A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run RA July 12, 24P H Pagee 24 50 Q izz. dge L N~ Signalized Intersection LOS = A(B) 621` IL— ♦— ,lit t B(C) Now*3�I Signalized Intersection (QC N 4v LOS = QQ Cb w p i x 9 CD �, Ijr�veFbal Fart 4 tended 37 ti b I Ofe� SITE oRI�d r 622 Cedar Creek C4aae Signalized Intersection LOS = B(C) 4/4;r Rt 622 C(C) (C)B 4 V (B)C 4 Route 622 Signalized Intersection V fl Pry � ,d Signalized Intersection LOS = B(C) T�� n No Scale ve rt`baI � G� L rfy� t j 111 J U �- Signalized Intersection LOS = C(C) AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) I Figure 15a Phase 2: 2010 Build -out LOS (Suggested Improvements) A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run R+A July 12, 5 HPage 2 25 P CONCLUSIONS The traffic impacts associated with the proposed Willow Run development are acceptable and manageable. For Phase 1 and Phase 2, PHR+A has provided the following conclusions as well as "suggested improvement measures" as required to achieve levels of service "C" or better per the Frederick County minimum standards. For unsignalized intersections with levels of service of "E", "suggested improvement measures" were not provided since traffic signalization warrants would not be satisfied. 2007 Phase 1 - As shown in Figure 9, all existing intersections except Merrimans Lane/Breckinridge Lane, Cedar Creek Grade/Route 37 interchange ramps and Cedar Creek Grade/Harvest Drive, will maintain levels of service "C" or better during 2007 Phase 1 build -out conditions (improvements are shown at the intersection of Route 50/Route 37 interchange ramps since upgrades are currently underway). "Suggested improvement measures" are shown in Figure 9a to maintain acceptable levels of service during build -out conditions. 2010 Phase 2 - As shown in Figure 15, all existing intersections except Route 50/Merrimans Lane, Merrimans Lane/Breckinridge Lane, Jubal Early Drive/Valley Avenue, Cedar Creek Grade/Route 37 interchange ramps and Cedar Creek Grade/Harvest Drive, will maintain levels of service "C" or better during Phase 2 2010 build -out conditions (improvements are shown at the intersection of Route 50/Route 37 interchange ramps since upgrades are currently underway). Each of the aforementioned intersections will maintain unacceptable levels of service during background and build -out conditions. PHR+A has provided Figure I I a and Figure 15a to show "suggested improvement measures" for 2010 background and build -out conditions, respectively. Miller and Smith and Greystone Properties have utilized the information from this "revised" traffic study to develop a proffered transportation improvement program for the Willow Run development. The following proffered improvements mitigate the impacts from this project and will allow the Willow Run development to maintain acceptable levels of service during build -out conditions. Furthermore, these proffered transportation improvements improve existing and future conditions associated with off-site regional transportation matters. Proffered Transportation Improvement Program • Completion of the ultimate section of Jubal Early Drive from the City of Winchester to the roundabout intersection with Willow Run Drive. A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run PHP`_A July 12, 2005 Page 26 • Completion of a half -section of Jubal Early Drive from the roundabout intersection with Willow Run Drive to Merriman's Lane with right-of-way dedication for the ultimate section. • Completion of the ultimate section of Willow Run Drive from the roundabout intersection with Jubal Early Drive to the Solenberger property. • Completion of a half -section of Willow Run Drive through an easement on the Solenberger property to Cedar Creek Grade with traffic signalization and appropriate turn and taper lanes. • Installation of traffic signalization at the Cedar Creek Grade/Route 37 interchange for the northbound and southbound on and off ramps. • Construction of a center turn lane at the Cedar Creek Grade/Route 37 interchange. • Realignment of Merriman's Lane on the north side of Jubal Early Drive. • Completion of an additional connection to Cedar Creek Grade (Minor Spine Road) with appropriate turn and taper lanes. • Continuation of the Green Circle bicycle and pedestrian facility along Jubal Early Drive and Willow Run Drive. A Revised Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run P 05 - /� July 12, 27 1---1 l Pagee 27 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 300 Foxcroff A\enue, Suite 200 PR+A T Mcr 1i nsburg, West U rgi ri a 25401 u F 304.264.2711 Memorandum 1 1 F 304.264.3671 To: Lloyd Ingram Organization/Company: VDOT-Edinburg From: Michael Glickman, P.E. Date: July 12, 2005 Alternative Build -out Scenario for: A Phased Trak Im1� act Anal .ry it of Project Name/Subject: Willow Kun, dated April 2005 PHR+A Project file Number: 12883-1-0 cc: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has prepared this document as an update to the report titled: A Phased Tra[ ac Impact Analysis of Willow Run, by PHR+A, dated April 2005. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide analyses for an Alternative Build -out Scenario that would occur should the City of Winchester not allow the applicant to connect with Jubal Early Drive. Per this scenario, primary access would be provided via the intersection of Willow Run Drive/Cedar Creek Grade and secondary access would be provided via the intersection of Minor Spine Road/Cedar Creek Grade. The total Alternative Build -out development includes: 850 units of residential and 10,000 square feet of office. Analyses are provided for 2010 background and 2010 build -out conditions. PHR+A will also submit, upon your request, an "all encompassing" report that incorporates the information providing the April 2005 study as well as the analyses relating to the Alternative Build -out Scenario included in this memorandum. 2010 Alternative Build -out Analyses In order to accommodate the projected 2010 traffic volumes, PHR+A assumed the following infrastructure improvements: ■ The completion of an East-West Internal Roadway (Jubal Early Drive Extended in the April 2005 report) that will connect the Willow Run development with Merrimans Lane. ■ The completion of Willow Run Drive from the East-West Internal Roadway to Cedar Creek Grade. ■ The completion of the Minor Spine Road from East-West Internal Roadway to Cedar Creek Grade. ■ The completion of the Orchard Hill Drive Extended to provide an internal connection to Harvest Drive. Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc An Update to: A Phased Traffic Imt�act Analyrir of Willow Rarn, dated April 2005 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Memorandum Page 2 PHR+A utilized the 2010 background traffic volumes from the April 2005 report titled: A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Willow Run, by PHR+A, as a basis for the revised volumes published in this report. The following reiterates the methodology utilized in the April 2005 traffic study: In order to accurately depict future conditions within the study area, PHR+A utilized the following traffic study to determine the trips associated with not yet completed area developments: A Traffic Impact Analysis of the WWW Property, by PHR+A, dated December 5, 2002. The existing traffic volumes were increased along study area roadways using an historic growth rate of 5% per year (compounded annually) through Year 2010 as determined in aforementioned WWW Property traffic study. The total 2010 background traffic conditions were determined by summating the existing traffic volumes (as included in the April 2005 draft report), the annual growth through Year 2010 and all other future background development trip assignments. Figure 1 shows the 2010 background ADT and AMIPM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 2 shows the corresponding 2010 background lane geometry and levels of service. HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are provided in the appendix section of this memorandum. TRIP GENERATION Based upon the 7`h edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, PHR+A has prepared Table 1 to summarize the trip generation for the proposed Willow Run Alternative Build -out development. Table 1 Alternative Build -out Scenario: Willow Run 'T«:.. (_o.,c.ro+inn Ciimmary ITEAM Land Use Amount Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT In Out Total In I Out Total Code 210 Single Family Detached 573 units 103 308 411 325 191 516 5,730 230 Single Family Attached 192 units 15 72 87 69 34 103 1,670 251 Elderly Housing Detached 85 units 9 15 24 27 17 44 472 710 Office 10,000 SF 26 1 4 1 30 15 75 901 227 Total153 399 552 436 317L52 8,099 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Memorandum An Update to: A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis o{ Wlillow Run Page 3 dated April 2005 b�bN 86(482 Bre 20 (119) dgeLn J `b 32(84) S «'52(1717 2) a ar" 79(122) (19)28.r (68)71 soft* q�ze (4)16 *. v � o b � All b viij" 4.."36(197) i X58(92) 19)145 Route 622 (75)63 --%_W , I Tl Tl A 50 L il-178(213) (59)421 (1244)968► qo ^I (331)131 qa ti 0 zn &a& i X71(60) fi2mwey Ave S a z q�ze t I4( All SITE ♦ i 01 ♦ ♦ (47)68 622 f808)943 n� &a& i X71(60) fi2mwey Ave S a z q�ze t I4( No Scale (488) *"209(35 5 (I �14y``d1 �'�314(489) %.6 31) 1�qi1in� (754)591�,� q �~ AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) 1 L__r Figure 1 Alternative Build -out Scenario: 2010 Background Traffic Conditions Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Memorandum An Update to: A Phased Tra#jc Impact Anal ry it of Willow. ern, Page 4 dated April 2005 Signalized Signalized Intersection Intersection -� �' LOS = C(C) LOS = C(C) 4— C(C) * �A C(C) -.# Route 50 [� f� Signalized mole t Route 50 Intersec)B tion ° No Scal LOS = B(C) (BG (C)C� r cdgeL� ��i� G A(D) Unsignalized Route 50 Intersection (C)B ) -� e§N Two -Lane Roadway LOS = C(C) Q B(C)* *B)B JI Unsignalized �1i1► Q Intersection y � 1 Ln oaae 0 4— �► �� Route 622 *� t+ q Unsignalized `a9 Intersection Unsignalized Intersection B(C)* H�e�e tU Denotes Free -Flow Lane * Denotes critical unsignalized movement 1 fl `1 Figure 2 Alternative Build -out Scenario: 2010 Background LOS (NOTE: SEE FIGURE 2a FOR SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS) �G 4111—C(C) rb f 9C. Q' r 4� Signalized Intersection LOS = C(D) Unsignalized Intersection tU Denotes Free -Flow Lane * Denotes critical unsignalized movement 1 fl `1 Figure 2 Alternative Build -out Scenario: 2010 Background LOS (NOTE: SEE FIGURE 2a FOR SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS) Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Memorandum An Update to: A Pbared Tra Zc ImPact Analyfir o{ Villow Ra Page 5 dated Aprd 2005 Ln GOae Signalized Intersection LOS = B(C) Rt 622 4 A(A) i 7 B(B) (A)A 4 (B)B Route 622 G Signalized d lotersection LOS = B(B) No 1 ba. q� q .1m U —s Signalized Intersection LOS = C(C) A rR ID—t, Peak "mir) —IL "N --L Figure 2a Alternative Build -out Scenario: 2010 Background LOS (Suggested Improvements) Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc An Update to: A Phased Ira ic Impact Analysis of 6Y/illow Kun, dated April 2005 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENTS Memorandum Page 6 The assumptions regarding the distribution of Willow Run development trips remain consistent with those determined for the April, 2005 draft report. PHR+A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 3 to assign the revised Willow Run trips (Table 1) throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 4 shows corresponding development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2010 ALTERNATIVE BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Willow Run assigned trips (Figure 4) were added to the 2010 background traffic volumes (Figure 1) to obtain revised 2010 build -out conditions. Figure 5 shows the 2010 Alternative Build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 6 shows the corresponding 2010 build -out lane geometry and levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this addendum. Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Memorandum An Update to: A Phased Trak Impact Analysis o� Willow Run Page 7 dated April 2005 Residential Commercial :9 Figure 3 Alternative Build -out Scenario: Trip Distribution Percentages Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Memorandum An Update to: A Phased Trak Impact Anal .cy is of Willow Run Page 8 dated April 2005 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Memorandum An Update to: A Phased Tra zc Impact Analysis of Wlillow Run, Page 9 dated April 2005 260(386) 4.m1012(1937) 4--1049(1669 (276)727mmO Route 50 x"'318(850) ' t 1074)1288► �� ' 86(48 1051)15091 a Route 50 �� a� �4.,h o d B 20(I j9) (541)726 h` b y \ N p �b No Scale �' w -� d 1 Oa L60(58 N I� geL� n l 40791(1673) Route 50 T191(255) r (59)421 j (1268)10081000* CR 00 b� (331)131 qa 4o(z tttt 2W16) gree e Rd 621 Ln b '> x21(23) y _'4 q ~9(23 1 Handley Ave SD -� (2o)20 �0 ) v a (I4(2o)20 a j� (0) d ✓ %.� 34(107) i / +=m457(1213) q` o Road J q p�ti��ti1 ji Cedar Creek (876)1018r� . Grade �v SITE 80 (_209488) (486).3Q (355) a � � °' t QISe fir► 328(532) }/�► 37 ! �b��bQ'ti L68(131) N $ �n 4--418(1296) h c(47)68 Maio 32(84) 622 (8)1082 r/1 52(172)(41)36 , �t79(122) Cedar Cjeek (68)71 �� (4)I6� e e mal ROad M'� 0(0) 'v a 15(44) (10)O0 0(0) f 4—■471(1307) n x...678(1021) dar Creek 4�115(197) (21)6 Grade ^+ 'O 0 923)1111, 1 b X36(197) (60)119...o Route 622 J- ` ,r 98(135) (930)655♦ qa (79)145=u+Route 622 ti o (75)63�ap �' pyo` _ 4 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) IJT TT+ A Q New Intersection IFigure 5 Alternative Build -out Scenario: 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions I Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc An Update to: A Phased Trak• Impact Analysis o{ I-Villow Kun, dated April 2005 Memorandum Page 10 Signalized Signalized R� Intersection Intersection 4 - LOS = C(C) CJ`s 4� LOS = C(C) 4 C(C) * �A � C(C) � Route Intersection rj 50 1 Signalized Route 50 RB -0 Los =13(D) 4 S� No Scale �♦ � G ?J -,Cc B(Fj (QCT & %.. dge GOW C(D) r Unsignalized Route 50 Intersection Y Q' Iot A(A)A Breed e L 621 n a b W Unsignalized Unsignalized * w Intersection Intersection d w o B(B)* a� o � Handley Ave `Y cY Inte U o anal Road LJ a__'4 �B(C) 4� 4— 622 GG1 Z Signalized ge tB)B +�I Intersection �! e Ubal �/s 4- 1111111111110 LOS = B(C) aSS 3 Ore �y�r i C(D) SITE Two -Lane i' Roadway 37 �y 1� �18; Signalized LOS = C(C) Intersection � B LOS = C(D) Q ( )A� Unsignalized 1 Q 622 Now* Intersection * Cedat e (B)B Unsignalized �jLade gnal"zed Q Intersection I Uja Unsignalized to {� Intersection Q mal Rd _ * ``I(A)* «— 622 oa,o * �- *(B)A4 Unsignalized b y mowIntersection 4— vV9�.a '7 * *(B) Rt 622 -+ 1[ A(A> 4� a. �� Route 622 *`. n Unsignalized Denotes Free -Flow Lane Intersection * Denotes critical unsignalized movement AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) -1 " '%,-L Figure 6 Alternative Build -out Scenario: 2010 Build -out LOS (NOTE: SEE FIGURE 6a FOR SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS) Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc An Update to: A Phased Trak Impact Anaxrz.r of Willow Kzrn, dated Aprd 2005 Memorandum Page 11 Figure 6a Alternative Build -out Scenario: 2010 Build -out LOS (Suggested Improvements) 621 L No Scale GG' = B(C) Route 50 em Signalized (C)C —+ G Intersection LOS = C(C) c Unsignalized 7 e Intersection iY p. Handley Ave Late a' Road 4� 37 ��y J �l ro45 U 0- dt SITE Signalized Intersection 622 LOS = C(C) Cel CTeek coal - Signalized Intersection LOS = B(C) Rt AW 1 622 4— (QB 4 Route 622 (QB7k— V G Signalized IntersectionLOS = B(C) AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) nT,P+Ar * Denotes critical unsignalized movement Figure 6a Alternative Build -out Scenario: 2010 Build -out LOS (Suggested Improvements) Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Memorandum An Update to: A Phased Trak Impact Analysis o{ l lillow l�un, Page 12 dated April 2005 CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the Willow Run 2010 Alternative Build -out Scenario are acceptable and manageable. PHR+A has provided the following conclusions as well as "suggested improvement measures" as required to achieve levels of service "C" or better per the Frederick County minimum standards. For unsignalized intersections with levels of service of "E", "suggested improvement measures" were not provided since traffic signalization warrants would not be satisfied. As shown in Figure 6, all existing intersections except Route 50/Merrimans Lane, Merrimans Lane/Breckinridge Lane, Jubal Early DriveNalley Avenue, Cedar Creek Grade/Route 37 interchange ramps and Cedar Creek Grade/Harvest Drive, will maintain levels of service "C" or better during 2010 Alternative Build -out Scenario (improvements are shown at the intersection of Route 501Route 37 interchange ramps since upgrades are currently underway). Each of the aforementioned intersections will maintain unacceptable levels of service during build -out condition. PHR+A has provided Figures 2a and 6a to show "suggested improvement measures" for 2010 background and build -out conditions, respectively. Proffered Transportation Improvement Program • Completion of a half -section of Jubal Early Drive from the roundabout intersection with Willow Run Drive to Merriman's Lane with right-of-way dedication for the ultimate section. • Completion of the ultimate section of Willow Run Drive from the roundabout intersection with Jubal Early Drive to the Solenberger property. • Completion of a half -section of Willow Run Drive through an easement on the Solenberger property to Cedar Creek Grade with traffic signalization and appropriate turn and taper lanes. • Installation of traffic signalization at the Cedar Creek Grade/Route 37 interchange for the northbound and southbound on and off ramps. • Construction of a center turn lane at the Cedar Creek Grade/Route 37 interchange. • Realignment of Merriman's Lane on the north side of Jubal Early Drive. • Completion of an additional connection to Cedar Creek Grade (Minor Spine Road) with appropriate turn and taper lanes. • Continuation of the Green Circle bicycle and pedestrian facility along Jubal Early Drive and Willow Run Drive. REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff.' Fee Amount Paid Zoning Amendment. Number Date Receive PC Hearing Date 1 ,l 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: Greenway Engineering Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 2. Property Owner (if different from above) 3. Name: Willow Grove L.C. 740 LLC 750 LLC Miller and Smith at Willow Run L.L.C. Greystone Properties, LLC Telephone: (540) 662-4185 * Please see attached address and telephone number for each identified owner Contact person if other than above Name: Evan Wyatt Telephone: (540) 662-4185 4. 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 M 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: Willow Grove L.C. 740 LLC 750 LLC Miller and Smith at Willow Run L.L.C. Greystone Properties, LLC 6. A) Current Use of the Property: B) Proposed Use of the Property: 7. Adjoining Property: Agricultural & Residential Residential & Commercial * Please see attached adjoining property owner information PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING 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): East of Route 37 and Merriman's Lane (Route 621) North of Cedar Creek Grade Route 622) South and West of the City of Winchester Corporate Limits. ADJOINING PROPERTY INFORMATIUA FREDERICK COUNTY AND CITY OF WINCHESTER No. TAX ID OWNER ZONE USE 1.) 53G-1-4-48 LYNCH, MAURADE ANN RP SFAM 2.) 53G-1-4-47 WIMSATT, WILLAIM LEE RP SFAM 3.) 53G-1-4-46 HERNANDEZ, EDGAR B. RP SFAM 4.) 53G-1-4-45 STANEART, BRIAN KENT & LINDA CHUN RP SFAM 5.) 53G-1-4-44 CHASE, EDWARD M. & MARIETTE A. RP SFAM 6.) 53G-1-1-8 CASTILLO, JUAN RP SFAM 7.) 53G-1-1-7 MELLOTT, DONALD E. & NANCY K. RP SFAM 8.) 53G-1-1-6 SWOGGER, JAMES F. & JERI L. RP SFAM 9.) 53G-1-1-5 MARCOCCIO, ANTHONY & BRENDA T. RP SFAM 10.) 53G-1-1-4 CASTRO, MARTIN & MARIA S. RP SFAM 11.) 53G-1-1-3 CHAMBERLAIN, ANTHONY & SANDRA G. RP SFAM 12.) 53G-1-1-2 GOLIGHTLY, ROBERT & MARIAN M. RP SFAM 13.) 53G-1-1-1 CRESPO, RAUL & NEREIDA RP SFAM 14.) 53-A-89 EMMONS, ELMER L. & BETTY M. RA SFAM 15.) 53-A-88 PERRY, STUART M. INC. RA AGRI 16.) 52-A-313 PERRY, STUART M. INC. RA SFAM 17.) 52-18-5 R&T PACKING CORP. RA SFAM 18.) 52-18-6 TRAPNELL, ANDREW P. & JESSICA M. RA SFAM 19.) 52-18-7 CODELLA, DOMENICO & MARIELA RA SFAM 20.) 52-18-8 ROUSE, JASON RA SFAM 21.) 52-20-5-54 R&T PACKING CORP. RA SFAM 22.) 53-A-95 GORDON, JAMES C. JR. RA SFAM 23.) 53-3-A1 GORDON, JAMES C. JR. RA SFAM 24.) 63-A-1 JOVA PROPERTIES, L.L.C. RA AGRI 25.) 63 -A -2D BRIDGEFORTH, RUTH D. RA AGRI 26.) 249-01-2 RACEY, LESTER E. R01 SFAM File #3800WG/EAW/bp/dlm ADJOINING PROPERTY INFORMATI(w FREDERICK COUNTY AND CITY OF WINCHESTER No TAX ID OWNER ZONE USE 249-01-3 MELCOINC. HR MULTI 27.) 28.) 249-01-4 .- BARTON, 13011111411E13011111411E�1C u. Hr-? BFAM,�,..�� 29.) 249-03-46A BYRD, SHARON M. HR SFAM 30.) 249-03-46B SCHMITT, JOSEPH ET. UX. HR SFAM 31.) 249-03-47A IAROSIS, MITCHEL F. ET. UX. HR SFAM 32.) 249-03-47B CRANSTON, ANN CASEY HR SFAM 33.) 249-03-48A IAROSIS, MITCHEL F. ET. UX. HR SFAM 34.) 249-03-48B DOLL, JOSHUA J. HR SFAM 35.) 249-03-49A OAKCREST PROPERTIES L.L.C. HR SFAM 36.) 249-03-49B COLEMAN, PAIGE K. HR SFAM 37.) 249-07-189 ELSEA, SUSAN E. HR SFAM 38.) 249-07-190 HINKLE, SUZANNE M. HR SFAM 39.) 249-07-191 QASIMYAR, MOHAMMED J. HR SFAM 40.) 249-07-192 BASNILLO, MARKCO A. V. HR SFAM 41.) 249-07-193 HALL, CHRISTOPHER E. HR SFAM 42.) 249-07-194 HUGHES, WILLIAM C. HR SFAM 43.) 249-07-195 SHANK, ROBERT J. HR SFAM 44.) 249-07-196 249-07-197 MILONE, KIMBERLY A. CHANEY, BELINDA K. HR HR SFAM SFAM 45.) 46.) 47.) 48.) 49.) 50.) 51.) 249-07-198 249-07-199 249-07-200 249-07-201 249-07-202 229-03-203 TELLEZ, ROCIO B. SHANKS, VERA DIANNE TRUSTEE WILSON, MARGARET BRIDGET OAKCREST PROPERTIES L.L.C. OAKCREST PROPERTIES L.L.C. OAKCREST PROPERTIES L_L.C. HR HR HR HR HR HR SFAM SFAM SFAM SFAM SFAM SFAM 2 File #3800WG/EAW/bp/dim ADJOINING PROPERTY INFORMATIUN FREDERICK COUNTY AND CITY OF WINCHESTER No. TAX ID OWNER ZONE USE 52.) 229-03-204 OAKCREST PROPERTIES L.L.C. HR SFAM 53.) 229-03-205 OAKCREST PROPERTIES L.L.C. HR SFAIVI 54.) 229-03-206 OAKCREST PROPERTIES L.L.C. HR SFAM 55.) 229-03-207 OAKCREST PROPERTIES L.L.C. HR SFAM 56.) 229-03-208 OAKCREST PROPERTIES L.L.C. HR SFAM 57.) 229-03-220A OAKCREST PROPERTIES L.L.C. HR SFAM 58.) 229-01-A-21 G&M HOMES L.L.C. NUMBER THREE PUHR SFAM 59.) 229-01-A-20 G&M HOMES L.L.C. NUMBER THREE PUHR SFAM 60.) 229-01-A-19 G&M HOMES L.L.C. NUMBER THREE PUHR SFAM 61.) 229-01-A-18 G&M HOMES L.L.C. NUMBER THREE PUHR SFAM 62.) 229-01-A-17 G&M HOMES L.L.C. NUMBER THREE PUHR SFAM 63.) 229-01-A-16 G&M HOMES L.L.C. NUMBER THREE PUHR SFAM 64.) 229-01-A-15 WILLIAMS, RANDOLPH W. PUHR SFAM 65.) 229-01-A-14 WILLIAMS, RANDOLPH W. PUHR SFAM 66.) 229-01-A-13 SHAFRAN, STEVEN P. PUHR SFAM 67.) 229-01-A-12 JUSTICE, KAREN E. PUHR SFAM 68.) 229-01-A-11 MORRIS, DUANE LEE PUHR SFAM 69.) 229-01-A-10 JAROTZKY, VLADIMIR PUHR SFAM 70.) 229-01-A-9 MAXWELL, SCOTT J. PUHR SFAM 71.) 229-01-A-8 LITTELL, CANDACE L. PUHR SFAM 72.) 230-04-6 DAN RYAN BUILDERS INC. PUHR SFAM 73.) 209-01-1 CITY OF WINCHESTER PULR COMM 74.) 188-06-61 CITY OF WINCHESTER LR XMPT 75_) 188-04-1 SFEIR, RAMSEY ET. UX. LR SFAM 76.) 188-04-2 750 L.L.C. LR SFAM File 43800WG/EAW/bp/dlm ADJOINING PROPERTY INFORMATION FREDERICK COUNTY AND CITY OF WINCHESTER No. TAX ID OWNER ZONE USE 77.) 78.) 63-9-2-24A 63 -A -2H 269-05-A-1 52-A-310 53G -1-4-48A 53G -1-1-1A �GREYSTONE DEVELOPMENT, INC TURNER ENTERPRISES, LLC TURNER ENTERPRISES, LLC GLAIZE, FRED L. III & ANN W. MERRIMANS CHASE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION MERRIMANS CHASE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION RA RA B2 RA RP RP XMPT SFAM SFAM SFAM XMPT XMPT 79.) 80.) 81.) 82.) File 93800WG/EAW/bp/dlm Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 53-((A))-90, 53- ((A))-91, 53-((A))-92, 53 -((A)) -92A, 53 -((A)) -92B, 53-((A))-94, 53-((3))-A, 63 -((A)) -2A Magisterial: Fire Service: Rescue Service: 10. 11. Districts Shawnee Round Hill VFRD Round Hill VFRD High School: Middle School: Elementary School: James Wood James Wood Orchard View Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 347.77± RA District RP District 12.20± RA District B2 District 359.97± Total Acreage to be rezoned The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: 658 SFD Townhome: 192 SFA Non -Residential Lots: Mobile Home: Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office: 50,000 sq.ft. Service Station: Retail: 50,000 sq.ft. Manufacturing: Restaurant: 10,000 sq.ft. Warehouse: Other Multi -Family Hotel Rooms: 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. i (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the bet of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s): CtiDate: C los- Owner (s): Date: * Please refer to Special Limited Power of Attorney Agreements that have notarized signatures of all property owners that are authorized to sign on behalf of the various LCs and LLCs. Property Owner Information: Greystone Properties, LLC 2055 Valley Avenue Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 722-4101 Greystone Properties, LLC 13 South Loudoun Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 662-7215 Tax Map Parcels 53-((A))-91 & 63 -((A)) -2A Tax Map Parcels 53-((A))-91 & 63 -((A)) -2A Miller and Smith at Willow Run L.L.0 Tax Map Parcels 53-((A))-92 & 53-((A))-94 8401 Greensboro Drive Suite 300 McLean, VA 22102 (703) 821-2500 ext 224 Willow Grove L.C. 720 South Braddock Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 667-1710 740 LLC 720 South Braddock Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 667-1710 750 LLC 720 South Braddock Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 667-1710 Tax Map Parcels 53-((3))-A & 53-((A))-92 Tax Map Parcel 53-((A))-90 Tax Map Parcel 53 -((A)) -92B 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) Willow Grove, LC (Phone) (540) 667-1710 (Address) 720 South Braddock Street, Winchester, VA 22601 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Deed Book No. 869 on Page 596, Deed Book No. 871 on Page 32, and is described as Parcel: 53 Lot: 92 Block: A Section: Subdivision: Parcel: 53 Lot: 3 Block: A Section: Subdivision: _ do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Greenway Engineering (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 ❑ 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 from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my,�our) hand and seal this day o'� 20(UL Signature(s) -State of Virginia, City/County of Akd ; To -wit: ,, 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 a eared before :r-)era`nd has acknowledged the sante before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this,_ day ofd, 'x'200 )` Q, o_ rMy Commission Expires0[:1Zko, 5th{ Jm Notary Public ) Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, 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) 740, LLC (Phone) (540) 667-1710 (Address) PO Box 87 Winchester, VA 22604 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 No. 918 on Page 1139, and is described as Parcel: 53 Lot: 90 Block: A Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Greenway Engineering (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 ❑ 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 from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. ff' In witness thereof, I (we) hav r to s my (our) an a seal this)% day of ��� 200a Signature(s) Sate of irginia, City/ ount f ( �To-wit: ' I, � �, -4V , 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, personjilly appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid thisday of \� `'/ , 200,5 V Jai. J , �J My Commission Expires: bu -) 1 Notary Public Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, 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) 750, LLC (Phone) (540) 667-1710 (Address) 750 Merrimans Lane, Winchester, VA 22601 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded iii the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Deed Book No. 918 on Page 1141, and is described as Parcel: 53 Lot: 92B Block: A Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) GreenwaEngineering (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 ❑ 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 from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. ^. In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto setny (our) hand and seal this°` day of, 200a Signature( v State of Virginia, City/County of e.. e�cTo-wit: VANotary 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, per ally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid thisWday of+� t �+' , 2005 31Wl.0 l� My Commission Expires: Notary Public Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, 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) Miller and Smith at Willow Run, LLC (Phone) (703) 821-2500 ext. 224 (Address) 8401 Greensboro Drive Suite 300, McLean VA 22102 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. 040008798 on Page Instrument No. 040017302 on Page and is described as Parcel: 53 Lot: 92A Block: A Section: Subdivision: Parcel: 53 Lot: 94 Block: A Section: Subdivision: _ do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Greenway Engineering (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 ❑ 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 from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof,j,-qq,e) Signature(s) 4 hereto sot my (our) hand and seal thisday of C ",F, 200 State 6/Virginia, City/County ofFA , To -wit: I��RRI �Arn�o5 , 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 acknowled ed the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this _ day of 01 c , 200J. y/ My Commission Expires: i " /i�y Notary Public 4 - i 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) Greystone Properties, LLC (Phone) (540) 662-7215 (Address) 13 South Loudoun Street, Winchester, VA 22601 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. 030024683 on Page Instrument No. 040017913 on Page , and is described as Parcel: 53 Lot: 91 Block: A Section: Subdivision: Parcel: 63 Lot: 2A Block: A_ Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Greenway Engineering (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 ❑ 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 from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof (we) have reto set my (our) hand and seal this 5 day of LcT6�z�_200� Signature(s) / State of Virginia, City ounty f cel .i( C; To -wit: I,�o'rti+e, L-M&PA 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 ackn ledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid thisafil day of I r , 2005 �l My Commission Expires: ����G► Notary Public • :] C c� co SUBDIVISION REQUEST # 35-05 RICHARD AND DONNA. DICK Staff Resort for the Planning Commission w Prepared: December 7, 2005 Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator 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: 12/21/05 Pending Board of Supervisors: 01/11/06 Pending LOCATION: This property is located at 1600 Millwood Pike (Rt.50) MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 64-A-83 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: R-4 (Residential Planned Community) District Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) South: RA (Rural Areas) East: R-4 (Residential Planned Community) West: R-4 (Residential Planned Community) Use: Residential Use: Winchester Regional Airport Use: Vacant Use: Golf Course SUBDIVISION SPECIFICS: Subdivision of a 64.6114 acre parcel, resulting in 2 lots: 3.161 acres with an existing single family dwelling, and a 61.450 acre vacant parcel. Subdivision Application #35-05 December 7, 2005 Page 2 REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS: Department of Transportation: N/A Fire and Rescue: N/A Sanitation Authority: In concurrence with Rezoning #11-05. .4tnff RPviPw- Public Meeting Requirement The Subdivision Ordinance requires that land divisions in the R-4 (Residential Planned Community) Zoning District, without an approved master development plan, be presented to the Board of Supervisors for final approval. The Master Development Plan (MDP) requirement may be waived under Section 165-134A of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance provided: 1) A proposed subdivision contains ten (10) or less traditional detached single-family dwelling units. 2) The proposed subdivision is not an integral portion of a property proposed or planned for future development. 3) The proposed subdivision is harmonious with the surrounding properties and land uses. 4) The proposed subdivision does not affect the intent of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, and Code of Frederick County Chapter 144; Subdivision of Land. The applicant has been granted a waiver of the MDP requirements. Therefore, Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors review and action on the Subdivision request is necessary. Background The proposed subdivision results in the creation of a 3.161 acre lot from a 64 acre parcel that was rezoned from RA (Rural Areas) to R-4 (Residential Planned Community) October 12, 2005 (Rezoning #11-05). This proposed 3.161 acre lot will contain an existing dwelling. This proposed lot complies with the dimensional requirements of the single family detached urban housing type; in particular, the minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. Access to this lot is a sixty (60) foot ingress/egress easement onto Millwood Pike (Rt. 50). The balance of the parcel, 61 acres, will be subject to the Master Development Plan review process. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 12/21/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The attached plats appear to meet all ordinance requirements. Staff is seeking administrative approval authority; therefore, a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors regarding the subdivision request is desired. A $m Zoning JGR THREE, LLC ETALS a RQ 64 A 86 a, n a� 64 A �\ \ q E?7�FSPFyTON / 'AtLEROSE, SANDRA 20� R C 17-71 GINEERING CO MC ' w0 '0 124 c DICK, RICHARD G & DONNA C 64 A 83 DILL, JAMES T 8 GLO ZRIA J s A 130 JBG,t lC 'LLC 64 A 140 /\ 8 Y rJOUMAS, LONA 82 L ETALS 64 11i1 WINCHESTER REGIONALJIM n "L TRUSTEE 64 A Bol Map Features ^� Bridges Zoning Subd Req #35 - 05 �Plicatlon ^� Culverts Lakes/Ponds ^� Dams Bi (Business, Neighborhood District) R4 (Medical Support Ditrict) s,` 82 (Business, General District) Q R4 (Residential, Planned' Community District) Richard & Donna Dick �+— Streams /N,� Retaining Walls B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District).til R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) Buildings Road Centerlines Tanks 40V EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) Q RA(Rural Areas District) �' HE (Higher Education District) Q RP (Residential Performance District) /'� e w — ^ 3 64 H MI (Industrial, Light District) UJ Parcels ^/Trails `� r M2 (Industrial, General District) N SWSA JDA + MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) � r W E 0 125 250 500 S Feet P J� EPG, LLC 64 A 159E NIQ . 11` A T. A D f m� D >� N o WINCHESTER REGIONAL . \ \ 64 A 79 J Cy�sr � .1 71RusT %0 F�Ms 4 1ZI Bgp f�"pN DICK, RICHARD G & DONNAC 64j A 83 tr r�. \\Y % GLAIZE & BRO, LC 64 A 80J I AMBROSE, SANDIV, ANNE CARPER / 64 A 129 / r 1 G\NEERING CO INC - PIE RRYEN� A 124 ~° ✓Y A DILL, JAMES � =t:y i4 T lOR1A J A13U f J 8 G; A 140 8 y ( 4 4 \TJOUMAS,CONSTANCELETALS l f' 1 64 A 82 41' FPi P r c� N,f{ SPP F 'Jl q (� CC 4Q'6p p� do`n eiQ 0% G q CyF FP doFTFP PERRY PROPERTIES 9 y 64 A 158 O b�4el' P Fu f6 hb°< 64 A WpRky y4 HILL, HARRY TRUSTEE 800 RG CORP ` EFG, LLC 64 A B01 / 64 A. 159E Map Features /N/ ^� Bridges Zoning Subd Req #35 - 05 Application ^Culverts Lakea/Pcnds N Dams <_� B1 (Bus--, Neighborhood District) MS(medical Support District) Planned Community District) B2 (Business, Genesi District) n R4 (Residential,Richard & Donna o n n a Dick Streams ^I Retaining Wells r B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) �f. R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) Buildings ROadCehterNrles fTanks -' '„'� EM(Extract-ManufacturingDistrict) Q RA (Rural Areas District) HE (Higher Education District) Q RP (Residential Performance District) (64 A 83 ) I& M1 (Industrial, Light District) Parcels Trails M2 (Industrial, General District) N OSWSA o-, UDA -' MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) W E 0 125 250 500 S Feet w _ -Ob •4. ..r�y� 6 THF✓' A �F.q..- ,,` � e Yap •• � JGR•fl#.RE_ELLC ETAL510 ' - ,•4• Ail MW l� 1 Zoning Subd Req #35 - 05 • RMUROSE, B1 (Business, Neighborhood District) MS (Medical SupportDistrict) B2 (Business, General District) R4 (Residential, Planned Community District) Richard & Donna Diel Stream s SALIN AkNE CARPER 61 A 129 + � 63 (Business, Industrial Transition District)) + RS (Residential Recreational Community District) e Road Centerlines **&#s r exp � [.a'tic co ac (64 - A - 83 ^/ ¢� MI (Industrial, Light District) €_ ".�_ Parcels Trails > M2 (Industrial, General District) N r ire SWSA %e 0�I UDA � MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) W E 0 125 250 500 S Feet Y Icc'. A i{d • ©ICK, RICRARP 1: i.1NS�.A" �l' jIIIAMSr an t ge„ '•flC ,s/ '' _ PERRYYROPER Ae ° WLL, BARRY YRUSTEE 64JOPA 10 Map Features ^� Bridges Zoning Subd Req #35 - 05 ��Plicafion LakesPonds h� ^� Culverts ^, Dams B1 (Business, Neighborhood District) MS (Medical SupportDistrict) B2 (Business, General District) R4 (Residential, Planned Community District) Richard & Donna Diel Stream s ^ � Retaining WaIIs + � 63 (Business, Industrial Transition District)) + RS (Residential Recreational Community District) Buildings Tank Road Centerlines **&#s +' EM(ExtractiveManufacturing Dist -t) O RA (Rural Areas Distnot) V HE (Higher Education District) Q RP (Resid—bai Performance District) (64 - A - 83 ^/ ¢� MI (Industrial, Light District) €_ ".�_ Parcels Trails > M2 (Industrial, General District) N SWSA %e 0�I UDA � MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) W E 0 125 250 500 S Feet MARS H & LEG0.�E LAND SU.R VEOFF. ' P.L. : 560 North Loudoun Street, Winchester, VA 22601 c 540-667-0468 c Fax: 540-667-0469 n E-mail: officeeam.arshandlegge.com Decen liber 6, 2005 HAND DELIVERED Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director County of Frederick Planning Department 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Property of Richard G. Dick PIN 64-A-83 Minor Subdivision Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mike: Per our meeting last Friday, we have attached three copies of the Minor Subdivision of the Richard G. Dick property situated on the south side of U. S. Route 50 in Frederick County, Virginia. We understand that the property was recently rezoned to R-4 and, therefore, our proposed subdivision of one 3.161 -acre parcel, which will contain the existing residential dwelling, will be required to be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. The proposed subdivision of this parcel will have a 60 -foot wide ingress/egress easement following the existing driveway to the existing entrance that provides access to U. S. Route 50. The existing dwelling currently has public 'sewer service by way of a four -inch sanitary sewer service line to an existing sanitary sewer manhole on the remaining lands. Water to the dwelling is provided by an existing well that was approved by the Frederick County Health Department at the time of the construction of the residential dwelling. This well is situated on the new subdivision lot at a location that meets the Health Department requirements for private well service. With this letter and the attached plat, we respectfully submit this Minor Subdivision to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors for review and approval. We have also attached the Frederick County fee of $200.00 for this subdivision submittal. We trust that you will be able to place this request on the agenda for the next scheduled Board meeting. Mr. Michael T. Ruddy December 6, 2005 Page Two Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to give me a call. SWM/clh Attachments Sincerely, Scot W. Marsh, L.S. Copies to: Mr. Richard G. Dick (with one copy of plat) Mr. John T. Conrad, Vice President Miller and Smith (with one copy of plat) _,- APPROVED BY: FREDERICK COUNTY SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATOR G1 DATE FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY - — DATE OWNERS' CERTIFICATE THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING MINOR SUBDIVISION OF THE LAND OF RICHARD G. DICK AND DONNA C DICK, AS APPEARS IN THE ACCOMPANYING PLAT, IS WITH THE FREE CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRES OF THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS, PROPRIETORS, AND TRUSTEES, IF ANY. RICHARD G. DICK NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE COUNTY OF FREDERICK THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS OF BY RICHARD G. DICK and DONNA C. DICK MY COMMISSION EXPIRES DONNA C. DICK DAY NOTARY PUBLIC SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE LAND CONTAINED IN THIS MINOR SUBDIVISION IS THE LAND CONVEYED TO RICHARD G. DICK AND DONNA C. DICK BY DEED DATED 18 NOVEMBER 1983, SAID DEED RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA IN DEED BOOK 568 AT PAGE 769. MINOR SUBDIVISION OF THE LAND OF RICHARD G. DICK and DONNA C. DICK DEED BOOK 568 PAGE 769 SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DATE: 12/06/2005 1 COVER SHEET I SHEET 1 OF 3 Marsh & Legge Lard Surveyors, P.L.C. �{ )� 560 NORTH LOUDOUN STREET — WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 �/% PHONE (540) 667-0468 — FAX(540)667-0469 — EMAIL office@marshandlegce.com �a O�P jH OF �c U Y S. W. Marsh No. 001843 qAID s u R I'a:4 DRAWN BY: CAJ DWG NAME: ID7036-MS o a. SITE _,- APPROVED BY: FREDERICK COUNTY SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATOR G1 DATE FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY - — DATE OWNERS' CERTIFICATE THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING MINOR SUBDIVISION OF THE LAND OF RICHARD G. DICK AND DONNA C DICK, AS APPEARS IN THE ACCOMPANYING PLAT, IS WITH THE FREE CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRES OF THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS, PROPRIETORS, AND TRUSTEES, IF ANY. RICHARD G. DICK NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE COUNTY OF FREDERICK THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS OF BY RICHARD G. DICK and DONNA C. DICK MY COMMISSION EXPIRES DONNA C. DICK DAY NOTARY PUBLIC SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE LAND CONTAINED IN THIS MINOR SUBDIVISION IS THE LAND CONVEYED TO RICHARD G. DICK AND DONNA C. DICK BY DEED DATED 18 NOVEMBER 1983, SAID DEED RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA IN DEED BOOK 568 AT PAGE 769. MINOR SUBDIVISION OF THE LAND OF RICHARD G. DICK and DONNA C. DICK DEED BOOK 568 PAGE 769 SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DATE: 12/06/2005 1 COVER SHEET I SHEET 1 OF 3 Marsh & Legge Lard Surveyors, P.L.C. �{ )� 560 NORTH LOUDOUN STREET — WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 �/% PHONE (540) 667-0468 — FAX(540)667-0469 — EMAIL office@marshandlegce.com �a O�P jH OF �c U Y S. W. Marsh No. 001843 qAID s u R I'a:4 DRAWN BY: CAJ DWG NAME: ID7036-MS o x z IRS = D FCSA INGRESS EGRESS N M EASEMENT DB 89 PG 82011 �lr /L��Oe ��L�R�F 40' W. 0 CMFcn h D ° EX 20' FCSA M "?�\mss. ar7j �oJ 7� M Q SEWER EASMENT A��F �i� J I ~'� ti / s \\ INS(020003790 ��� RCMFctQ U RCMF MF�j �Qz =\ ti .�/(SEE SHEET �(��;� �� RCMF ,dao¢ I 0 3OF3) o I �� -,� 3.161 Ac. 327320�E1 �cu a % PIN 64-A-83 9�1 I 64.6114 Ac. (Original) I 61.450 Ac. (Remainder) /IRF l5 "X, 5i Qui IRF _y IPF a w ,n wou�v� ILL, -'-v o Q o Z V Iof� / 1 �Vd J �! c3 'p Q° rte• Q. � �2 CAPPED IRF o00 LINE TABLE o e� 5 / � IRF TM 64-A-79 N/F WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY DB 659 PG 175 ZONED: RA USE: AIRPORT MINOR SUBDIVISION OF THE LAND OF RICHARD G. DICK and DONNA C. DICK DEED BOOK 568 PAGE 769 SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DATE: 12/06/2005 I SCALE: 1"=400' I SHEET 2 OF 3 Marsh & Legge Land Surveygrs, P.L.C. 560 NORTH LOUDOUN STREET - WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 PHONE (540) 667-0468 - FAX (540) 667-0469 - EMAIL office@marshandlegge.com No BEAR/NG D/ST L 1 N 64 06 58" W 139.00' L2 N 0651'10" W 184.92' L3 S 5575'05' E 169.32" L4 S 46'04'57' E 149.87' L5 S J652'71" E 185.59' L6 S 367203" E 94.54' L7,S 625006" E 180.69' L8 S 360622" E 137.53" PLT H OF bIr� U D S. W. Marsh No. 001843 DRAWN BY: CAJ DWG NAME: ID7036-MS rl z -1 ➢ � IS• . °ss O w�¢ (T /i \ r rn 60, �'��'6 �� 0.�6 AA ala Q, 10 �. c �`\\ ♦ ��s9 7�oJ \ \ le R\ XPi 334' to EX. FCSA SEWER ESM'T \ \ 15' PRIVATE SANITARY \� SEWER EASEMENT o s. (CENTRED ON EX. 4° SAN. SEWER SERVICE) �\ \ \ *S 80°24'19" E 492.74' (TOTAL) X15' BRL IRS IRS (I7. 9') WELL° / �r NEW PIN 64-A—£s3� CAP 3.161 ACRES z Zoned: R-4 / o ;�' /ao� I Use: Residential . N 1 1/2 STORY-__� A I CAPE COD gATEC=_��, �p6� �v�1 , ,' �� , s6 M DWELLING / ,' ' Q �✓ N 120.1' � O / �3 p00 mI o. 266.5' O N M (J) h W 1 15' BRL IRS *N77°27'57" W 450.77 Cx.f� IRS LEGEND: IRS - IRON ROD SET IPF - IRON PIPE FOUND IRF - IRON ROD FOUND NOTES: 1. NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED. 2. EASEMENTS MAY EXIST THAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. 3. * DENOTES NEW PROPERTY LINE. PIN 64-A-83 64.6114 Ac. (Original) 61.450 Ac. (Remainder) Zoned: R-4 Use: Vacant MINOR SUBDIVISION OF THE LAND OF RICHARD G. DICK and DONNA C. DICK DEED BOOK 568 PAGE 769 SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DATE: 12/06/2005 I SCALE: 1"=100' I SHEET 3 OF 3 Marsh & Legge Land Surveyprs, P.L. 560 NORTH LOUDOUN STREET - WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 - PHONE (540) 667-0468 - FAX (540) 667-0469 - EMAIL office@marshandlegge.com PLT H OF`� U D S. W. Marsh No. 001843 S U R'J'2 "o DRAWN BY: CAJ DWG NAME: ID7036-MS