Loading...
PC 01-19-05 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia January 19, 2005 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) December 15, 2004 Minutes............................................................................................ (A) 2) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab) 3) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 4) Rezoning #13-04 of Westbury Commons, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 3.13 acres from B2 (Business General) District to RP (Residential Performance) District. This property fronts on the east side of Westminster -Canterbury Drive (Route 1318), approximately 1,000 feet south of the intersection of North Frederick Pike (Route 522), in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Numbers (PINs) 53-4-3-E and 53-4-3-F. Ms. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (B) 5) Rezoning #14-04 for the Haggerty Property, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 111.56 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District. This property is located adjacent and east of Eddys Lane (Route 820), approximately three miles east of Winchester and 1,500 feet south of Route 7. The subject site is further located adjacent and south of the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant property and adjacent and west of Opequon Creek, which forms the boundary of Clarke County, in the Red Bud Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Numbers (PINs) 55-A-212 and 55 -A -212A. Mr. Ruddy..................................................................................................................... (C) 6) Other FILE COPY • :� C MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on December 15, 2004. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Gary Dove, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; Barbara Van Osten, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District STAFF PRESENT: Eric R Lawrence, Planning Director; Susan Eddy, Senior Planner; Mark R Cheran, Zoning Administrator; Candice Mills, Planner II; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the minutes of November 3, 2004 were unanimously approved as presented. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the minutes of November 17, 2004 were unanimously approved as presented. COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) —12/09/04 Mtg. Chairman DeHaven reported that the DRRS discussed a possible amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow for waivers to the buffer distance requirements. Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1416 Draft Minutes of December 15, 2004 -2 - Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) —11/08/04 Mtg. Commissioner Light reported that the CPPS is continuing with their work on the Rural Areas Study. He said the CPPS was presented with another option, known as the Ten -and -Five Option. Commissioner Light said that the staff will present a brief update at the end of the Planning Commission's meeting. CITIZEN COMMENTS Ms. Paula Corbett, a resident of the Red Bud District, was seeking the Commission's support for the construction of a regional aquatic center for Frederick County. Ms. Corbett spoke about how membership in the local high school swim teams has grown over the years and that swimming is a growing sport. She said that it is difficult to schedule pool practice time for members of the swim team and that the facilities are crowded. She believed a regional facility would benefit residents of the community and promote physical health and well-being. Ms. Teresa Crouse, a resident of the Gainesboro District, stated that she was a life-long swimmer, a parent of high-school swimmers, a current Virginia High School League Swim Official, and a past president of the Winchester Swim Team. Ms. Crouse believed our community needed a new pool. She agreed with the limitations mentioned by the previous speaker, Ms. Corbett, and noted that the Winchester pool is an aging facility. She said that more than half of the swimmers on the Winchester Swim Team are from Frederic]-- County. rederickCounty. She pointed out there is not enough available time at the Sherando or Clearbrook pools for life guard classes or water safety instruction classes and students wishing to take these classes travel to Clarke County, Martinsburg, Leesburg, or Tysons Corner. Ms. Crouse said the Winchester Parks & Recreation Department has generously tried to accommodate County residents and swim teams; however, they have simply outgrown the facility. Ms. Crouse believed a modern facility was needed. She said that Frederick County, the City of Winchester, and Valley Health System have all expressed interest in ayear-round aquatic facility. Ms. Crouse hoped there could be regional cooperation towards this common goal. Ms. Jocelyn Carver, a resident of the Gainesboro District, said she was a member of the James Wood High School Swim Team, the Winchester Swim Team, and the Clearbrook Swim Team. Ms. Carver said that members of her high school swim teams experience difficulty getting pool practice time. She wasconcemed about how future swim teams would be able to get enough practice time in order to compete. She added that swimming provides health benefits for all ages and everyone in the community. Ms. Stephanie Vaughn stated that she managed a new USA swimming team out of Strausburg at Signal Knob and she was a professor of aquatics and swimming at Lord Fairfax Community College. Ms. Vaughn said that she would also like to get behind an aquatic facility for Frederick County. Ms. Vaughn described the many programs available and the benefits of water activities. She said there are three high school teams that need a pool to practice in. Mr. Steve White, a resident of the Stonewall District, agreed with the benefits of swimming and the need for a facility for the high school swim teams. In addition, he believed a regional swimming pool would be good for the local infrastructure and would be an attractive amenity for employees of new businesses coming into our area. Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1417 Draft Minutes of December 15, 2004 -3 - PUBLIC MEETING Conditional Use Permit #24-04 of Shenandoah Mobile Company for a telecommunications facility. This property, zoned RA (Rural Areas) District, is located at 226 Stony Hill Road (Rt. 688) and is identified with P.I.N. 28-A-165 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Conditions Zoning Administrator Mark R. Cheran reported that the proposed use is to replace a 125 -foot monopole telecommunications tower with a 199 -foot commercial telecommunications facility at 226 Stony Hill Road. Administrator Cheran stated that the applicant has provided an inventory of existing telecommunication facilities in the area and staff would concur that there are no existing facilities or appropriate structures available for collocation in this general area. He said that the applicant has also demonstrated there is a need for the infrastructure in this area of the County. Administrator Cheran added that a certified Virginia engineer shall provide verification that the tower is designed and will be constructed in a manner that, should the tower collapse for any reason, the collapsed tower will be contained in an area around the tower, with a radius equal to or lesser than the setback, measured from the center line of the base of the tower. Administrator Cheran concluded by saying that the staff believed the application had adequately addressed the requirements of Section 165-48.6 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance in that a need for this facility, based on a lack of coverage and capacity in this part of the County had been demonstrated. He next read a list of recommended conditions, should the Planning Commission find the use to be appropriate. Ms. Paula Figgett with Shenandoah Mobile Company stated that Verizon is currently on the proposed site; however, Shenandoah Mobile Company sold their license to Verizon last year and will need two more carriers on that pole. She said that Cingular has made application to them and also, Shentel will be putting their digital system there. Ms. Figgett explained that both towers will be up at the same time for a short while because they are under a contractual obligation to Verizon not to shut them down. There were questions from the Commissioners about whether or not the tower would be lighted. It was suggested that the applicant might be attempting to avoid the lighting requirement by erecting a 199 -foot tower, which was just below the FAA's (Federal Aviation Administration) 200 -foot mandate for lighting. A comment in the staff report from the Winchester Regional Airport indicated that the airport desired to see the 199 -foot tower marked, lighted, and maintained in accordance with the FAA regulations. Other Commissioners believed the topography of the area in question was such that it did not warrant the tower to be lighted. Ms. Figgett said that they are not required to submit to the FAA, if the tower is below 200 feet. She said that if Frederick County would like the tower to be lighted, they would certainly do so; however, the Commission should make the lighting a condition of their conditional use permit. The Chairman of the Regional Airport Authority, Mr. Charles L. Wilmot, Jr., came forward to help clarify the Winchester Regional Airport's position on the lighting issue. It was Mr. Wilmot's opinion that for safety reasons, a tower height of 199 feet was very close to the 200 -foot limit and he requested that lighting be placed on the tower. Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1418 Draft Minutes of December 15, 2004 -4— Chairman DeHaven called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak. Commissioner Kriz made a motion to approve the conditional use permit with the conditions as presented by the staff. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Triplett. Subsequently, Commissioner Rosenberry moved to amend the motion to include a lighting requirement as requested by the Winchester Regional Airport. Corm issioner Rosenberry's motion was seconded by Commissioner Gochenour. The amended motion failed, however, upon the following vote: YES (TO APPROVE WITH LIGHTING): Rosenberry, Gochenour, Straub, DeHaven NO: Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Thomas, Light, Morris, Watt (Note: Commissioner Unger was absent) The Commission next voted on the original motion which was made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, and recommended approval of the conditional use permit with the conditions as presented by the staff. This motion was passed by the following vote: YES (TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED): Watt, Morris, Light, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Triplett, Rosenberry, DeHaven NO: Straub, Gochenour (Note: Commissioner Unger was absent) BE IT RESOLVED,That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #24-04 of Shenandoah Mobile Company for a 199 -foot commercial telecommunications facility at 226 Stony Hill Road (Rt. 688), with the following conditions: All Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requirements and review agency comments shall be addressed and complied with at all times. The tower shall be available for collocating personal wireless services providers. A minor site plan shall be approved by Frederick County. 4. The tower shall be removed by the applicant or property owner within twelve months of abandonment of operation. 5. In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within twelve months of the approval of this conditional use permit, the conditional use permit will be deemed to be invalid. 6. The existing telecommunications tower must be removed 90 days after the start of construction of the new 199 -foot telecommunications facility. 7. A certified Virginia engineer shall provide verification that the tower is designed and will be constructed in a manner that, should the tower collapse for any reason, the collapsed tower will be contained in an area around the tower, with a radius equal to or lesser than the setback, measured from the center line of the base of the tower. Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1419 Draft Minutes of December 15, 2004 -5 - PUBLIC MEETING Waiver Request of Hilda Maye Meadows for an exception to the minimum entrance spacing requirements. This property is located on the north side of Apple Valley Road (Rt. 652), 0.25 miles west of Valley Pike (the Rt. 11 and Rt. 652 intersection), and is identified with P.I.N. 63 -A -52A in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Approved Planner Candice E. Mills reported that this application was a waiver request from Section 165- 29A(6) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to allow for the reduction in the entrance spacing for new driveways on minor collector roads. Planner Mills explained that the request is to allow a new public road to be placed less than 70 feet from an existing residential driveway. She said that the MDP (master development plan) for Hilda Maye Meadows was recommended for approval by the Commission on November 17, 2004; however, the driveway spacing was overlooked. She noted that VDOT has already approved the road configuration Commission members noted that the most significant aspect of this was the safety concern and they asked the applicants if they believed it was a good idea from a traffic safety standpoint. Commission members pointed out that there would be elderly citizens coming out of an exit that would be a deceleration lane for vehicles turning into another entrance. Commissioners believed it created a conflict of traffic movement. Mr. Dennis Derflinger pointed out three access points for the proposed development. Mr. Derflinger said that he did not want to impinge on the property rights of the adjoining property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Charles H. Harless, and likewise, he did not want to create a safety problem. Mr. John Erickson of Bowman Consulting, the design engineering company, said there were no available parcels along the existing road for purchase that would give them the 70 -foot spacing. He said it would require closing both entrances on the Harless's property. Board of Supervisors' Liaison, Ms. Barbara Van Osten, asked how far the proposed entrance was from Shady Elm Road; it was determined to be 250 feet away. Ms. Van Osten commented that she frequently travels through this area and traffic has become increasingly congested on this road. Mr. Darrell M. Grim, an adjoining property owner on the west side of Burlington Court, stated that his deed states that Burlington Court is a 60 -foot right-of-way. Mr. Grim believed the 60 feet should be ample room to take care of the number of houses proposed for this development. Mr. Charles H. Harless, adjoining property owner residing on the east side of Burlington Court, at 188 Apple Valley Road, stated that he and his wife, Helda L. Harless, were not present to speak against Mr. Derflinger's development, but wished to speak only regarding some pertinent safety issues. Mr. Harless shared some of his reasons why he did not want the west side of his circular driveway taken from use; he described his porch and a study area on that side of the house which his guests access. Mr. Harless believed his property would be impacted by the development of Hilda Maye Meadows and more directly by the construction of the state - maintained roadway leading from Apple Valley Road to Burlington Court. He said that he, along with some of his neighbors, initially understood that the development would be a retirement -type residential area. Subsequently, he heard the proposed structures were to be single-family residences and he became concerned Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1420 Draft Minutes of December 15, 2004 about the safety issues. Mr. Harless was apprehensive about the increased number of vehicles going in and out of development each day, in addition to school buses and service vehicles. He said that vehicular traffic in the area from Apple Valley Road to the proposed development has increased tremendously over the past 12 to 24 months. He said that much of the traffic is tractor -trailer or industrial park -related, and through traffic from Rt. 11 to Middle Road. Mr. Harless pointed out that 250 feet to the west of the proposed street entrance is the busy intersection of Apple Valley Road and Shady Ehn Road. He said that traffic from Shady Elm Road feeds into Apple Valley Road freely, with no stop sign. He said that approximately 200 feet to the west and opposite the proposed street is the General Electric employee entrance. Furthermore, to the east, at approximately 400 feet, is the crest of a hill and traffic exiting the proposed state -maintained new street will not see approaching traffic past the crest of the hill. Mr. Harless believed these concerns needed to be considered as the Commission examined the requested waiver. Chairman DeHaven asked Mr. Harless if he would have any objection to a "right -in -only" on the western portion of his drive. Mr. Harless replied that there is no deal that he would consider on either side of the driveway. Commissioner Light asked the staff what would happen to this application without the waiver. Planner Mills replied that the master development plan would not go to the Board of Supervisors. Chairman DeHaven added that the master development plan would not be in compliance with the ordinance. Commissioner Light asked the Commission's legal counsel if the County could be held negligent, if there is an accident here after the waiver and master development plan are approved. The Commission's legal counsel replied no, the County would not be held liable. Chairman DeHaven commented that his understanding is that the Harless family does not object to the entrance, as long as it doesn't affect their ability to use their drive as it exists. A motion was made by Commissioner Rosenberry and seconded by Commissioner Gochenour to deny the requested waiver; however, this motion failed by the following vote: YES (TO DENY WAIVER): Rosenberry, Triplett, Light, Gochenour, Straub NO: Watt, Morris, DeHaven, Thomas, Ours, Kriz (Note: Commissioner Unger was absent.) Some commissioners voiced their view that although there were safety issues, the property has been granted an access easement and the property was a suitable location for development. A motion was next made by Commissioner Moms to approve the waiver request_ This motion was seconded by Commissioner Ours and was approved by the following majority vote: YES (TO APPROVE WAIVER): Kriz, Ours, Thomas, DeHaven, Morris, Watt NO: Rosenberry, Triplett, Light, Gochenour, Straub (Note: Commissioner Unger was absent.) Commissioner Thomas requested that the developer work with VDOT, the Harless family, and the surrounding community to try to come up with a safety system that makes this as safe an intersection as possible within limits. Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1421 Draft Minutes of December 15, 2004 -7 - DISCUSSION DISCUSSION OF THE 2005-2006 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN (CIP) FOR FREDERICK COUNTY Senior Planner, Susan K. Eddy, stated that on November 8, 2004, the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) met with county department and agency representatives to discuss new project requests and project modification requests associated with the 2005-2006 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). She said that after discussion, the CPPS agreed that the CIP requests were in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Planner Eddy stated that the CIP was being presented to the Planning Commission this evening as a discussion item prior to the document's advertisement for public hearing. Planner Eddy next summarized the 12 new capital projects for the Commission. Those projects included five new projects from the Frederick County Public Schools, four new projects from the Department of Parks and Recreation, two new projects from the Department of Public Works, and one new project from the Winchester Regional Airport Authority. In addition, Planner Eddy presented a map indicating specific or approximate locations for proposed CIP projects. Commissioner Thomas wanted to say for the record that he was in favor of an indoor swimming pool and he was in support of the citizens who spoke regarding that issue during the Citizen Comments portion of the meeting_ Commissioner Thomas said that he has raised the issue of the County's need for an indoor swimming pool for the last ten -to -twelve years during the Commission's CIP discussion. Commissioner Thomas strongly encouraged the Board of Supervisors to consider the request from the citizenry that it's time to build an indoor swimming pool for Frederick County. He said that the County has three high schools that have to depend on the City of Winchester for members of their varsity sports program to practice. Commissioner Straub concurred with Commissioner Thomas' statements. She noted that Frederick County students follow second to City students when it comes to scheduling practices and they usually received the least desirable time slots. Commissioner Straub supported the construction of an indoor pool for Frederick County residents. Commissioner Ours was also in support of the aquatic center and noted that one has been needed for a long time. He said there have been opportunities for partnerships that have gone by the wayside. Commissioner Ours supported construction through a partnership and believed an aquatic facility would benefit many people. Commissioner Morris said that as Frederick County grows in size and affluence, the demands for these types of Parks and Recreation and school facilities increases. Commissioner Morris stated that the Parks and Recreation staff was successful in convincing the CPPS that the pool was a financially -viable program which could pay for itself in a short time, in addition to providing the county with other economic benefits, such as business for hotels, motels, and food service establishments. Commissioner Morris believed the proposed CIP reflected the citizen's demand for quality of life facilities and the county needed to be responsive to that. Commissioner Light commented that the CIP process was changed in direction to promote multiple uses of the same facilities by various county agencies from schools to Parks and Recreation and from the Sheriff's Department to Emergency Services. Commissioner Light believed that when the County consolidates uses and consolidates the money to manage the uses, then the CIP becomes a better process and satisfies the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1422 Draft Minutes of December 15, 2004 Commissioner Kriz supported Commissioner Ours suggestion of looking at partnerships, or other means of funding a county swimming pool, besides solely using County monies. He also believed that the CIP projects were in agreement with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Con--mu'ssloner Gochenour also voiced her support for an aquatic center; she said that not only would it be available for students, but it would also benefit the area's senior citizens as well. She also voiced her support for the sidewalk expansion project at the Handley Regional Library. In addition, Commissioner Gochenour requested some further explanation on the Regional Jail's project for the expansion ofthe correctional facility for younger inmates. Regional Jail Administrator, Fred Hildebrand, was available to describe the Regional Jail's two proposed projects, a free-standing 200 -bed facility and an addition to the existing facility. Mr. Hildebrand said the two projects will supply a total of 300 additional beds. Chairman DeHaven confirmed a consensus of the Planning Commission's members that the proposed projects within the 2005-2006 CIP were in complete conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. OTHER UPDATE ON DISCUSSIONS OF THE RURAL AREAS STUDY Senior Planner Susan Eddy provided a brief update of the Rural Areas Study. She referred to a memo sent to all the Planning Commission members in the Rural Areas Study group, dated December 6, 2004, which included a copy of all the comments received at the six public meetings and the eight stake -holders meetings. Planner Eddy said that after reviewing all of the comments received, the members of the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) were of the opinion that the proposals concerning green infrastructure, the rural economy, the rural community centers, and the relationship of the RA to the UDA did have broad community support. In addition, mandatory clustering, increasing the amount of open space to be set aside, decreasing the minimum lot size, and offering density bonuses were proposals for land development that also received strong community support. Planner Eddy reported that the CPPS believed, however, there was considerable opposition, particularly from the large landowners, to all three of the proposed density changes. Therefore, she said the subcommittee is no longer pursuing any of the three land development options that were presented at the public and stake -holder meetings. She said the CPPS is now working with the assumption that the density will remain at one dwelling per five acres. Planner Eddy reported that on December 13, 2004, the CPPS agreed in principle to proceed with pursuing a phasing proposal. She explained that with this type of approach, landowners would be able to develop their property by right, with a certain number of lots over a certain time period. She said the study group is currently considering ten units for each five-year period. Planner Eddy stated that if a landowner wanted to develop his site faster, a rezoning would be required. She noted that in any case, however, the density would remain at one dwelling for five acres. Planner Eddy continued, stating that a phasing plan, such as the one she outlined, would allow a farmer to sell lots to generate cash and would allow the County to plan for this by -right development. She pointed Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1423 Draft Minutes of December 15, 2004 mom out, however, that very large residential developments would have to go through a rezoning process and would be expected to mitigate their impacts. She noted that the CPPS plans to forward a more thoroughly -crafted proposal early in 2005. She provided copies of the basic outline of CPPS discussions to date for the Commission. ADJOURNMENT No fiurther business remained to be discussed and the Planning Commission adjourned by a unanimous vote at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Eric R Lawrence, Secretary Fredrick County Planning Commission Page 1424 Draft Minutes of December 15, 2004 REZONING APPLICATION #13-04 ®� WESTBURY COMMONS Staff Report for the Planning Commission Meeting Prepared: January 3, 2003 „a Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins, Planner II This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 01/19/05 Pending Board of Supervisors: 02/09/05 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 3.13 acres from B2 (General Business) District to RP (Residential Performance) District. LOCATION: The property fronts on the east side of Westminster -Canterbury Drive (Route 1318), approximately 1,000 feet south of the intersection of North Frederick Pike (Route 522). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERN: 53-4-3-E, 53-4-3-F PROPERTY ZONING: 132 (Business General) District PRESENT USE: Unimproved ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential & B2 (Business General) Use: Commercial South: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential East: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential West: B2 (Business General) Use: Commercial PROPOSED USES: 11 age -restricted single family small lot detached dwellings Rezoning #13-04, Westbury Commons January 3, 2005 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have some measurable impact on Route 1318. 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 Harvest Communities, Inc., rezoning application dated August 16, 2004 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshal: Landscaping and other materials shall be placed in a manner so as not to inhibit use of the entire driveway width to individual dwelling units. Fire Hydrants shall comply with Frederick County Code Section 90-4. Plan approval recommended. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments. Public Works Department: We have completed our review of the proposed rezoning and offer the following comments: 1) Site Drainage: In addition to onsite stormwater management, it may be necessary to implement some offsite improvements to protect the existing residential development located east of the proposed project. We definitely concur with your offer to control the 100 -year storm. Also, keep in mind that it will be necessary to consider the existing upgradient detention pond located immediately to the south of your site. 2) Solid Waste Disposal: In the second sentence, correct the word daily to indicate yearly volume. Also, consideration should be given to providing curbside trash pickup for this proposed development. Sanitation Authority: No comment. Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation: Staff anticipates the residents of this community will have every opportunity to benefit from the parks and recreational services offered by Frederick County. To calculate this impact on Parks and Recreation services, I would recommend we trust the formula included in the County Impact Model. Frederick County Public Schools: This letter is in response to your request for comments concerning the rezoning application for the proposed Harvest Communities, Inc., project located, fronting on the west side of Westminster -Canterbury Drive, approximately 1,000 feet south of the intersection ofNorth Frederick Pike. Based on the information provided that all parcels would be age -restricted, there would be no impact to the school population upon build -out. Attorney Comment: Ihave reviewed the proposed Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the Proffer Statement is in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Rezoning 413-04, Westbury Commons January 3, 2005 Page 3 Code of Virginia, subject to the following: 1. I would suggest, for uniformity and easy reference purposes, that the document be titled "Proposed Proffer Statement" and the statement of rezoning request, property, record owner, etc., be summarized at the beginning. 2. In Paragraphs B.3 and D, it is provided that the deeds to individual lots will provide for maintenance responsibility for shared driveways (B.3) and for the age -restricted conditions (D). If the rezoning is granted, the owner will apply for and obtain subdivision approval, after which a document in the nature of a Deed of Subdivision and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants ("Declaration") will be recorded, which will record the subdivision plat, will set for the restrictive covenants on the property, and will provide for the property owners' association. It is my recommendation that the proffers provide that, in addition to being set forth the deeds to the individual lots, the subject provision will be set forth in the Declaration. 3. It is also my recommendation that the proffers provide that the maintenance responsibilities of the property owners' association [private street (Paragraph C); pedestrian trail (Paragraph E); community commons area (Paragraph F.1); full screen buffer (Paragraph F.2); landscape buffer (Paragraph F.3)) will be set forth in the Declaration. In this regard, it is not clear whether the fence referenced in Paragraph F.3 is to be maintained by the property owners' association or the individual lot owner, and that should be clarified. Also, it should also be specifically provided that the property owners' association shall have the maintenance responsibility for the community center building. 4. While the details of the pedestrian trail may be addressed at the subdivision plat stage, I note that the generalized development plan (GDP) shows the trail connecting at three points to private driveways. It would appear that a pedestrian trail easement would need to be placed on the three private driveways to connect the trail to the private street, assuming it is not the intention to have the trails dead-end at the driveways. It would probably be sufficient at this point to have the easements shown on the generalized development plan. 5. With respect to the monetary proffer (Paragraph G), the purpose or purposes of the monetary proffer should be detailed in the manner in which the County intends to expend the funds, as the County if required to account for the expenditure of the funds pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2- 2303.2(C). (It is noted in Paragraph 1 of the Impact Statement that the $1,000.00 per lot proffer is apparently intended to address impacts to County Administration, Fire and Rescue, Public Libraries, and Sheriff's Dept.). 6. With respect to the community center depicted on the GDP, there should be a specific provision in the proffers that a community center shall be constructed by the owner, and a statement of the timing of the construction (prior to the sale of any lot?). You have noted that the GDP shows the community center accessed only by the pedestrian trail system, but that the center will have to be handicap accessible and provide parking, in addition to meeting other site planning requirements. Accordingly, the proffer should also include language to the effect that the community center shall be located as generally shown on the GDP, and will be handicap accessible, provide for parking, and meet other requirements of County ordinances. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) depicts the zoning of the subject parcel as B-2 (Business General) District. 2) Comprehensive Policeman The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as Rezoning #13-04, Westbury Commons January 3, 2005 Page 4 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 Urban Development Area (UDA) is the principal land use tool of the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The general purpose of the UDA is to define the areas in the county where more intensive forms of residential development will occur. It does this by dividing the County into rural and urban areas. The UDA was originally created with the intent that it would be adequate enough to accommodate long term growth needs in areas of the County where public services are most available. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-1, 6-2) The subject property is located entirely within the UDA. In accordance with the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan, "any new suburban residential development served by sewer and water will have to be located within the UDA." While this area is located within the UDA, the area comprising this rezoning is within the study limits of the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan and located in an area to remain business. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, pages 6-66.2) Therefore, this rezoning is inconsistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Transportation The subject site is currently accessible via Westminster -Canterbury Drive (Route 1318). The Westbury Commons development will contain a private road that will serve the 11 lot subdivision. This private road will be accessed off of Westminster -Canterbury Drive which intersects with North Frederick Pike (Route 522) at a median crossing. The existing traffic on Westminster -Canterbury Drive is 1,800. 3) Site SuitabilityXnvironment No flood plains, lakes or ponds, wetlands, sinkholes, steep slopes, or other enviromnental features have been identified on the 3.13 acre site. The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcel fall under the Frederick-Poplimento Loams soil association (1413 & 17C). The soil type 14B (25% of the site) is designated as prime farmland and the soil type 17C (75% of the site) is more suitable for woodlands due to rock outcrops. 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Using the standards found in the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 7t" Edition (page 453), single- family adult housing generates an average of 3.71 tips per day (VPD). VDOT has recognized an Rezoning #13-04, Westbury Commons January 3, 2005 Page 5 average VPD of 5.6 for this land use in recent traffic studies; therefore, the proffered 11 unit subdivision would produce an average daily traffic volume ranging between 41 and 62 vehicle trips. B. Sewer and Water An impact of 2,475 gpd is projected based on an average of 225 gpd per residential unit. The Sanitation Authority and Service Authority have offered "no comment" for this rezoning. C. Capital Facilities Impact Based on the modeling exercise, this development will create impacts on Fire & Rescue, Parks and Recreation, the Public Library, the Sheriff's Office and County Administration. The Capital Facilities Impact Model projects a total fiscal impact of $2,081 per dwelling (this excludes the amount for the public school system because of the age -restricted designation proffered by the applicant). The applicant is proffering a $1,000 contribution for each residential unit, this amount equates to a $1,081 deficit in the public services required for this project. D. Single family Small Lots By ordinance, single family small lots are lot types intended to serve a specialized population; i.e., age -restricted housing. The applicant has proffered that the project will be a singe family detached small lot age -restricted development. When choosing the single family small lot housing type, the ordinance requires that a community center (equivalent to three recreational units) as well as one additional recreational unit per 30 dwellings is provided to serve the needs of such a community. This proposed development will, therefore, require a community center and one additional recreation unit that is age appropriate for the communities' residents. The appropriate community center and recreation unit will be provided by the developer for this project. Details associated with the recreational units will be worked out during the Master Development Plan and Subdivision phases. 5) Proffer Statement - Dated August 13, 2004 and Revised December 22, 2004 The following list is a summary of the proffered conditions associated with this rezoning application: • The property will be developed in conformance with the Generalized Development Plan submitted with the rezoning package. • Contribution of $1,000 per lot to lessen the impacts on capital facilities. • Assurance that the site will be developed to accommodate no more than 11 age -restricted single family detached dwelling units with a minimum of 6,000 square feet per lot. • The site will be served by a private street that meets the public street requirements utilized by VDOT and that the Homeowners Association will be responsible for the maintenance. • A five foot wide asphalt pedestrian trail system will be constructed throughout the project, with connections to the center commons and community center. • Community common open space will be provided in the center and northwest quadrant of the property, as well as around the perimeter of the site. Rezoning # 13-04, Westbury Commons January 3, 2005 Page 6 • A Category B full screen buffer along the portion of the northern property line adjacent to the existing B2 zoned parcel. • The applicant will provide a twenty-five (25) foot landscaped buffer along the western project property line, adjoining Westminster -Canterbury Drive. A fence, of a minimum of four feet in height, shall be constructed along the residential lot lines that adjoin this buffer. Planning Staff Comments: In the comments provided for the rezoning proffer by Mr. Robert Mitchell, Esq., the following issues have not been addressed by the applicant in the revised proffer statement: • Maintenance of the trail system, the buffers and fencing, and the community center is unclear. Construction and maintenance of the community center shown on the GDP is unclear. Also, the GDP shows the community center only accessed by a trail. Mr. Mitchell felt it would be appropriate to include language in the proffer to the effect that the community center shall be located as generally shown on the GDP, and will be handicap accessible, provide for parking, and meet other requirements of County ordinances. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 01/19/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: This application is a request to rezone approximately 3.13 acres of land from the B2 (Business General) District to the RP (Residential Performance) District. While the land requested for rezoning is within the UDA (Urban Development Area), the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan indicates that the property should be used for commercial use. Due to the subject site's location adjacent to the RP zoned Westminster Canterbury development, a rezoning from a B2 zoning to a RP zoning may be supported to continue the consistency and compatibility of the area, if all impacts are appropriately mitigated. Following the required public hearink, a decision regarding this rezoning application by the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Board of Supervisors. m N i9 CL LO 01 M LO LO %o LD v LO I OUTPU. ..JDULE I APPLICANT: Westbury Commons Net Fiscal Impact I LAND USE TYPE. RP Costs of impact Credit: Credits to be Taken for Future Taxes Paid (NPVj Total Potential Adjustment For I REAL EST VAL $1.573,200 Required (entered In Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Future CIP/ Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital Nei Cast Per FIRE & RESCUE = 9 Capital Faciitifes wi sum only) Over Cap EQUID ExpendOebt S. Taxes. Other fUnadiustedl Cast Balance Facitttie3 Impact Dwenina Unit Fire and Rescue Department $5,412 $0 $0 $5,412 $451 Elementary Schools $51,452 .-. -- Middle Schools 530,266 $8,419 $40,857 $49,266 $35.236 590,853 $7,571 Higb Schools $44,370 - Parks and Recreation $18,420 $4,151 54,151 $2.966 $15452 $1.288 Public Library $3,202 $896 $896 $340 SZ562 $213 Sheritts011ices $1,895 $1,553 $0 $387 $1.940 $1,357 $508 $42 Administration Building $2.432 $0 so s0 $2,432 $203 Olher Miscellaneous Facilities $3,103 $2,992 $3,304 $6,296 $4.501 So So SUBTOTAL $160,554 S12,964 $44,171 $5,434 $62,569 $44,733 5115.822 $9,652 LESS: NET FISCAL I MPACT $0 $d $0 $ so NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT $115,822 1 $9,652 � INDEX: 'Y.0" If Cap. Equlp Included 1.0 I INDEX: "1.(r it Rev -Cost Bei,'0.0" ff Ratio to Co Avg: 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = 0.533 t PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Co Avg 9.715 { METHODOLOGY: 1. Capital facilities requbarnents are Input to the first column ar. caiculatsd in the model. 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations Is Input in row, total of second column j (zam if negative); Included are the one-time taxes/(Des for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future open cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal imparts. 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 fa; new facilities. as calculated for each new facility. I 6. Columns three through five aTe added as potential credits against the calculated capital I facilities requirements. These are adjusted for parcent of costs covered by the revenues I from the proja:t (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). I NOTE, Proffercalculations do not include Include Interest because they are cash payments up front. Cradrts do include interest it the projects are debt financed. ....._..._....-•---._....._...__.,-.-- I I -------------- __--- -- NOTES: Model Run Data 08105104 SKE -.--------_--_-- -------._._...__. _..-----•-----. I Project Dascriptlan: Assumes 12 single family detached units on 3.03 acres zoned RP Ofstrlct. Due to changing conditions associated vdth development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. M ' � r 4 •,7 J ,h �• ! S. � t..� ,f'"- ;=`., wry � � J r t i _ 9�.' a �F' y 3 _ ip 1 -���,: . I.— X lw., ��� �' � i �I d'I �I t � i I,y y� a � '�fi �.`.'� '•� .r ." i i . er 1 _ r 11�f ylliv L i F i r Ga 1 w Y y x t ! a r o. r Proffer Statement File #4079/EAWajc Greenway Engineering August 13, 2004 Westbury Commons Rezoning Revised September 29, 2004 Revised November 3, 2004 Revised December 2, 2004 Revised December 22, 2004 REZONING: PROPERTY: RECORD OWNER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: REVISION DATA: Preliminary Matters PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT RZ # Business General (132) to Residential Performance (RP) 3.13 -acres +/-; Tax Parcels 53-((4))-3-E & 53-((4))-3-F (the "Property") Harvest Communities, Incorporated Harvest Communities, Incorporated WESTBURY COMMONS REZONING August 13, 2004 December 22, 2004 Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # for the rezoning of 3.13 -acres from the Business General (B2) District to Residential Performance (RP) District, development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon these applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The subject property, identified as Westbury Commons, and more particularly described as the lands owned by Harvest Communities, Incorporated, being all of Tax Map Parcel 53-((4))-3-E and 53-((4))-3-F and being the same property as shown on a plat of survey prepared by Elliot Ritchie, Jr., LS, recorded in Clerk's Office of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book 553 at Page 489. File #4079/AJC 1. Greenway Engineering August 13, 2004 Westbury Commons Rezoning Revised September 29, 2004 Revised November 3, 2004 Revised December 2, 2004 Revised December 22, 2004 A. Generalized Development Plan The applicant hereby proffers to develop the 3.13 -acre property in substantial conformance with a Generalized Development Plan approved as part of the rezoning application. B. Declaration A Deed of Subdivision and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants ("Declaration") shall be recorded with the subdivision record plat. The Declaration shall provide for a Homeowners Association and set forth maintenance responsibilities for all common areas and facilities. C. Residential Use Enhancements 1. The applicant hereby proffers that the 3.13 -acre property shall be developed pursuant to the "Single-family small lot" detached dwelling unit option as permitted in the Residential Performance (RP) District. All other housing types allowed in Section 165-65 are hereby prohibited. 2. The applicant hereby proffers to limit the total number of "Single-family small lots" to eleven (11), with all lots being subdivided to a minimum of 6,000 square feet within the privately held lot area. Each lot shall adjoin common open space areas along the rear property line. 3. The applicant hereby proffers that for those lots that share a driveway with an adjacent lot, the Declaration and the deeds for the affected properties shall set forth the maintenance responsibilities for the shared driveways. D. Private Street The applicant hereby proffers to serve the community with a private street. The cross sectional dimension of pavement thickness an compacted base thickness will meet or exceed the public street pavement section standards utilized by the VDOT. The Westbury Commons Homeowners Association shall be responsible for the maintenance of this street. All residential lots shall have frontage on the private street access easement. File #4079/A7C 2 Greenway Engineering August 13, 2004 Westbury Commons Rezoning Revised September 29, 2004 Revised November 3, 2004 Revised December 2, 2004 Revised December 22, 2004 E. Age -Restricted Community The applicant agrees that the following language shall be included in the Declaration and the deeds conveying real property designated as age -restricted housing on that portion of the property. All occupied residential units shall be occupied by at least one person fifty-five (55) years of age or older and within such units the following conditions shall apply: 1. All other residents must reside with a person who is fifty-five (55) years of age or older, and be a spouse, a cohabitant, an occupant's child of eighteen (18) years of age or older, or provide primary physical or economic support to the person who is fifty-five (55) years of age or older. Not withstanding this limitation, a person hired to provide live-in, long term or terminal health care of a person who is fifty- five (55) years of age or older for compensation may also occupy a dwelling during any time such person is actually providing such care. 2. Guests under the age of fifty-five (55) are permitted for periods of time not to exceed sixty (60) days total for each such guest in any calendar year. 3. If title to any lot or unit shall become vested in any person under the age of fifty- five (55) by reason of descent, distribution, foreclosure or operation of law, the age restriction covenants shall not work a forfeiture or revision of title, but rather, such person thus taking title shall not be permitted to reside in such lot or unit until he/she shall have attained the age of fifty-five (55) or otherwise satisfies the requirements as set forth herein. Notwithstanding, a surviving spouse shall be allowed to continue to occupy a dwelling unit without regard to age. F. Recreational Amenities The applicant hereby proffers to construct a five-foot wide asphalt pedestrian trail system throughout the project, with connections to the center commons and community center as depicted on the Generalized Development Plan. The pedestrian trail shall be linked to the private street, at a minimum, via a crossing at the entrance and legal access in the vicinity of specific driveways, as depicted on the Generalized Development Plan. G. Open Space The applicant hereby proffers to provide community commons open space in the center and northwest quadrant of the project, as well as around the perimeter of the site. File #4079/AJC 3' Greenway Engineering August 13, 2004 Westbury Commons Rezoning Revised September 29, 2004 Revised November 3, 2004 Revised December 2, 2004 Revised December 22, 2004 2. The applicant hereby proffers to provide a Category B full screen buffer along the portion of the northern project property line adjacent to existing B2 zoned parcel. 3. The applicant hereby proffers to provide a twenty-five (25) foot landscaped buffer along the western project property line, adjoining Westminster -Canterbury Drive (Route 1318). A fence, of a minimum four feet in height, shall be constructed along the residential lot lines that adjoin this buffer. H. Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The undersigned owner of the above-described property hereby voluntarily proffers that in the event rezoning application # is approved, the undersigned will pay into the General Fund of Frederick County, Virginia $1,000 for each residential lot that is platted, to mitigate fiscal impacts to County services. This monetary contribution will be paid at the time of the building permit issuance for each residential lot. File #4079/AJC 4 , Greenway Engineering August 13, 2004 Westbury Commons Rezoning Revised September 29, 2004 Revised November 3, 2004 Revised December 2, 2004 Revised December 22, 2004 SigLiatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Sub By: /T tua er, President *Date Harvest Communities, Inc. Commonwealth of Virginia, Ci /County bf l r i, , To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this �- .: day of 20 c'4- by 4 10i, A 1, l ,--) Notary Public My Commission Expires h'Aa—'-,'cd =j, ' C= ,r File #4079/AJC 5 Impact Analysis Statement File #4079/EAWaje Greenway Engineering August 13, 2004 Westbury Commons Rezoning Revised September 29, 2004 Revised [November 1, 2004 Revised December 2, 2004 X1 T_ Q rr Y3J TTi XT 1► /f!1U r"T S T'• x711 IN' ,a z. --t - - INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Fredrick County by the proffered rezoning of a 3.13 -acre subject property identified as Westbury Commons and owned by Harvest Communities, Incorporated. The subject property consists of two contiguous parcels, those being: TM 53-((4))-3-E containing 1.59 -acres and TM 53-((4))-3-F containing 1.54 acres. The subject site is located on the west side of Westminster -Canterbury Drive (Route 1318), approximately 1,000 feet south of the intersection of Westminster - Canterbury Drive (Route 13 18) and North Frederick Pike (Route 522). The applicant proposes to conditionally rezone the 3.13 -acre tract from Business General (B2) District to Residential Performance (RP) District. The applicant plans to create a compact eleven -unit community of detached single-family small lot homes. (Reference Attachment 1. Location and Existing Zoning Exhibit for Westbury Commons) Basic information Location: Fronting on the west side of Westminster -Canterbury Drive (Route 1318), approximately 1,000 feet south of the intersection of North Frederick Pike (Route 522) Magisterial District: Stonewall Property ID Numbers: 53 -((A)) -3-E and 53-((4))-3-F Current Zoning: Business General (132) District Current Use: Unimproved Proposed Use: Residential, Single-family small lot, detached Proposed Zoning: Residential Performance (RP) District Total rezoning area: 3.13 acres Proposed build -out 11 Single-family detached residential lots File #4079/EAW/ajc 2 Greenway Engineering August 13, 2004 Westbury Commons Rezoning Revised September 29, 2004 Revised November I, 2004 Revised December 2, 2004 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE 1. Urban Development Area Expansion of the Urban Development Area (IrDA) beyond its e-k;stirig boundary is not required by this application. 2. Sewer and Water Service Area Expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) beyond its existing boundary is not required by this application. 3. Recreational Units Requirement Frederick County Code Section 165-64 states: A. Housing types with lots sizes of less than 5,000 square feet shall provide the following recreational units or equivalent recreational facilities, for each 30 dwelling units. All such developments shall contain at least one such recreational unit. In addition, developments containing single- family small lot housing shall provide a community center that provides for the equivalent of three age-appropriate recreational units for each 30 dwelling units. The facilities shall be in a configuration and location that is easily accessible to the dwelling units that they are designed to serve. The design and amount of facilities shall be approved by the Planning Commission, in conjunction with the Administrator and the Department of Parks and Recreation, using the following recreational unit as a guideline. The design of such facilities shall be approved at the time of site plan review. [Amended 10-27-1999] B. A recreational unit is designed to meet the recreational needs of 30 dwelling units. The units may be broken into smaller units or added together to meet the needs of the total development.... The applicant proffers all lots shall be at least 6,000 square feet in area. The subdivision will utilize the "small lot development" option of the Residential Performance (RP) District. The applicant proffers to limit the total number of units to only eleven (11) homes. The project is exclusively for age -restricted residents, as enforced through proffers and deed restrictions. In keeping with the spirit of the ordinance as well as the interests of these future residents, the applicant intends to provide recreational amenities. A recent Planning Department interpretation holds that the ordinance requires the subject proposal to provide a community center building valued at $75,000, as well as other recreational amenities valued at $25,000. File #4079/EAW/ajc 3 Greenway Engineering August 13, 2004 Westbury Commons Rezoning Revised September 29, 2004 Revised November 1, 2004 Revised December 2, 20'O T lie applicant requests the Planning Commission, in conjunction with the Administrator and Department of Parks and Recreation, consider a "design and amount of facilities" proportional and appropriate to eleven age -restricted homes. In keeping with the recent Planning Department interpretation, community ;center tis -_included in the proposal. In ; addition, the applicant proffers to provide an age-appropriate pedestrian trail .system. A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE Ar rPcc The subject site, consisting of tax parcels 53-((4))-3-E and 53-((4))-3-F, is located within a manmade boundary created by Westminster -Canterbury Drive (Route 1318) on the western frontage of the property, commercially zoned and developed adjacent properties to the north, the J.P. Darlington residential subdivision to the east, and the Canterbury Square and Westminster Canterbury residential communities to the south. The sole access to the subject site will be from Westminster -Canterbury Drive (Route 1318). A Generalized Development Plan (GDP) has been submitted as a proffered exhibit. The GDP identifies the general common open space, buffer, and road layout. (Reference Attachment 2, Generalized Development Plan Exhibit for Westbury Commons) Flood Plains The subject property can be found on FEMA NFIP map #510063-0105-B. The entire site is located outside the 100 -year flood plain in designated "Zone C". WPtlnnrlc The National Wetlands Inventory data from the Frederick County GIS database indicates there are no wetlands on this site. Soil Types The soil types contained in this tract have been obtained from the Frederick County GIS database. The subject site contains the following two soil types: 14B Frederick Poplimento loams 2-7% slope covers approx. 25% of site 17C Frederick Poplimento rock outcrop complex 2-15% slope covers approx. 75% of site Table 5 on page 123 of The Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia, identifies the 14B Frederick Poplimento loams soils as prime farmland; however given the small area of these soils within the subject property and the existing development surrounding the property, it is not well suited to agricultural activities. The remaining soil type on site is not identified as prime farmland soil. File #4079/EAW/ajc 4 Greenway Engineering Other Environmental Features August 13, 2004 Westbury Commons Rezoning Revised September 29, 2004 Revised November 1, 2004 Revised hex ^giber 2, 2004 The :site does not; ;contain areas of steep slope or =woodlands, as defined.bv the Frederick _ Count, Zoning Ordinance. y B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Adjoining property zoning and present use: North: Business General (B2) District Residential Performance (RP) District South: Residential Performance (RP) District East: Residential Performance (RP) District West: Business General (B2) District C. TRANSPORTATION Use: Commercial; car wash Use: Mixed; residence and grocery store Use: Residential; Canterbury Square Use: Residential; Darlington Subdivision Use: Commercial; Sunnyside Plaza Traffic will access the site via Westminster -Canterbury Drive (Route 1318). Westminster - Canterbury Drive (Route 1318) intersects North Frederick Pike (Route 522) at a median crossing, which provides the ability to safely cross North Frederick Pike to access commercial services and the Route 37 By-pass to the west. Westminster Canterbury Drive averages 1,800 vehicle trips per day according to VDOT 2002 counts Pursuant to the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition (page 453), single-family detached adult housing generates an average of 3.71 vehicle trips per day (VPD). VDOT has recognized an average VPD of 5.6 for this land use in recent traffic studies; therefore, the proffered eleven -unit subdivision would produce an average daily traffic volume ranging between 41 and 62 vehicle trips. Sight distance at the North Frederick Pike intersection is very good and a median crossing exists to facilitate safe traffic movement from Westminster Canterbury Drive. The internal subdivision street is to be a private road, maintained by the Westbury Commons Home Owners Association. The Proffer Statement ensures the cross sectional dimension of pavement thickness and compacted base thickness will meet or exceed the public street pavement section standards utilized by VDOT. The private road is to be contained within an access easement, with all individual lots having frontage on the access easements (as permitted through Code § 144-24.C.2.b). File #4079/EAW/ajc 1 5 Greenway Engineering August 13, 2004 Westbury Commons Rezoning Revised September 29, 2004 Revised November 1, 2004 Revised December 2, 2004 D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT The 3.13 -acre property is located in the northwestern portion of the Sewer and Water Service . Area_4SWSA). There is., an existing • Frederick? County Sanitation:. Authority , I' CSA): sanitary sewer niam on the South arid east side of. the subject site, which will se, ve fhe-z •a project. Effluent is conveyed from this geographic area to the Opequon Waste Water Treatment Plant through a series of transmission lines ranging in size from 12 inches to 30 inches. The eleven lots will be connected to the main in accordance with FCSA regulations. Impacts of the proposed rezoning on the sewage conveyance and treatment system are based on the proffered land use of eleven single-family detached dwelling units. Design figure estimates are based on 225 gallons per day (GPD) per single-family detached unit. The figures below represent the impact that this project would have to the sewage conveyance system and treatment system at full build -out of eleven (11) dwelling units: Q = 225 GPD per dwelling unit Q = 225 GPD x 11 dwelling units Q = 2,475 GPD The proposed zoning is estimated to add 2,475 gallons per day to the public sewage conveyance system and the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant. The design capacity of the treatment plant is 8.4 million gallons per day, of which the City and the County are currently utilizing approximately 6.4 million gallons per day. The total build -out of the proposed subdivision would require approximately 1/10 of one percent of the available capacity at the Opequon Waste Water Treatment Plant; therefore, adequate capacity, source and infrastructure is available for this development. E. WATER SUPPLY The 3.13 -acre property is located in the northwestern portion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). There is an existing FCSA 8 -inch water line along Westminster -Canterbury Drive, which will serve the project. Impacts of the proposed rezoning on the water supply system are based on the proffered land use of eleven single-family detached dwelling units. Design figure estimates are based on 275 gallons per day (GPD) per single-family detached unit. The figures below represent the impact that this project would have to the water supply system at full build -out of eleven dwelling units: Q = 275 GPD per dwelling unit Q = 275 GPD x 11 dwelling units Q = 3, 025 GPD File #4079/EAWlaje 6 Greenway Engineering August 13, 2004 Westbury Commons Rezoning Revised September 29, 2004 Revised November 1, 2004 Revised December 2, 2004 The proposed development would utilize an estimated 3,025 gallons per day. The North West water storage and Sunnyside water Storage tank provide; water source and maintain adequate pressure for the Sunnyside community. The water storage tanks are served by :-dequate transmissiont lines and sourcei which niiudes :t he Stephens-: Ci;y quare es =and: water purchased from the 'City. of .'Winchester. The -projected water tt�age at build -::out is negligible Therefore, adequate capacity, source and infrastructure are available for this subdivision. F. SITE DRAINAGE The 3.13 -acre site is relatively flat, generally falling gently eastward from the Westminster Canterbury Road frontage to the rear of the tract. The topographic low point of the site is in the northeast corner. An onsite storm water management pond is proposed in this corner of the property to control the increased run-off. Stormwater will be detained during peak recovery of 2, 10, and 100 -year storm events for discharge into an existing shallow Swale at or below pre -development rates. All storm water management measures are to be approved by the County Engineer. G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL The impact on solid waste disposal facilities can be projected based upon each household having an annual average volume (AAV) of 5.4 cubic yards of landfill volume (Civil Engineering Reference Manual, 4th edition). The following figures show the increase in daily volume based on the proffered density of 11 dwellings. AAV = 5.4 cu. yd. per dwelling AAV = 5.4 cu. yd. X 11 dwellings AAV = 59.4 cu. yd. It is estimated that the proposed development will provide approximately 1/10 of one percent increase in the Municipal Solid Waste portion of the Regional Landfill. The Landfill has the capacity to accommodate this increase in solid waste generation. File #4079/EAW/aje 7 Greenway Engineering August 13, 2004 Westbury Commons Rezoning Revised September 29, 2004 Revised November 1, 2004 Revised December 2, 2004 H. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES 1. Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks The Rural Landmarks Survey Repoil for F ederick. Count- iden. fies° 'the Martin Horse (fire #34-527) as a potentially significant property within this geographic area of the County. The Martin House is not listed as a property potentially eligible for the State and National Register of Historic Places. The Martin House, located more than a quarter mile east of the subject property, and to the east of the Budget Motel, is not visible from the Westbury Commons site. Therefore there are no impacts to the Martin House as a result of this rezoning application. 2. Winchester Regional Preservation Office Department of Historic Resources There were no archeological artifacts found on the site. 1. OTHER IMPACTS The Frederick County Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model has been applied to the development of twelve (12) single-family detached dwelling units (an earlier design of the project yielded one more lot). The results of this model run indicate that development of the subject site with typical single-family homes would result in a net fiscal impact of $9,652 per dwelling unit. However, it is noted the Westbury Commons community is proffered as an age -restricted community; therefore the impacts would not be that of typical (i.e. not age - restricted) residences. This difference is most evident in the very limited impact this project will have on the school system. Removing the $7,571 attributed to Public Schools from the formula leaves a net fiscal impact of 2,081 per dwelling unit. Due to the current interpretation of Zoning Ordinance provisions for RP District small lot subdivision, this application is required to provide on-site recreational amenities valued at approximately $100,000 (i.e. four recreational units), or $9,090.91 per dwelling unit (exclusive of operating/maintenance costs). The cost of these required recreational amenities far exceeds the anticipated value to the residents and should more than satisfy any further contribution to the Parks and Recreation component of the model. Removing the $1,288 attributed to Parks and Recreation from the formula leaves a net fiscal impact of $793 per dwelling unit. It is acknowledged this development will have fiscal impacts to County services, including County Administration, Fire and Rescue, Public Libraries, and Sheriffs Department. The applicant has proffered a $1,000 per dwelling unit monetary contribution to mitigate impacts projected by the fiscal impact model. File #4079/EAW/aje 8 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff.- Zoning taffZoning Amendment Number Date Received PC Hearing Date BOS Hearing Date D The following information shall be provided by the applicant.- All pplicant: 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: Harvest Communities Inc. Attn.: Stuart Butler Address: 147 Creekside Lane Winchester, VA 22602 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Same as above 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Greenway En ineerin Attn.: Evan A. Wyatt, AICP Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Telephone: (540) 678-1462 Telephone: 540) 662-4185 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map X Plat X Deed to property X Verification of taxes paid X Agency Comments X Fees X Impact Analysis Statement X Proffer Statement X 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 lo be rezorled: Harvest Communities, Incorporated. 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Unimproved (3.13 acres) B) Proposed Use of the Property: Residential, Single-family small lot, detached 7. Adjoining Property: Please see attached PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING 53-((4))-3D1 Commercial B2 53-((4))-3E Commercial B2 53-((4))-3F Commercial B2 53 -((A)) -52C Commercial B2 53 -((A)) -52E Commercial B2 53A -((A))-6 Residential B2 53A -((2))-D-3 Residential RP 53A -((2))-D-4 Residential RP 53A -((2))-D-5 Residential RP 53A -((2))-D-6 Residential RP 53A -((2))-D-7 Residential RP 53A -((2))-D-8 Residential RP 53A -((2))-D-9 Residential RP 5313-((4))-7 Residential RP 53B-((4))-8 Residential RP 53134(4))-9 Residential RP 53134(4))-20A Residential, common space RP 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): Fronting on the west side of Westminster-Canterbu Drive Route 1318 approximately 1,000 feet _south of the intersection of North Frederick Pike (Route 522). 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.. o, provide information concerning the specific& bf the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff wi-1 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 Numbers- 53- Districts 5 3 —'r' Magisterial: Stonewall High School: James Wood High School Fire Service: Round Hill Middle School: Frederick County Middle School Rescue Service: Round Hill Elementary School: Apple Pie Ridge Elementary School 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 3.13 B2 RP 3.13 Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: 11 Townhome: 0 Multi -Family: 0 Non -Residential Lots: 0 Mobile Home: 0 Hotel Rooms: 0 Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office: Service Station: 0 Manufacturing: 0 Warehouse: 0 0 Retail: 0 Restaurant: 0 Other: 0 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant: Harvest Communities, Inc. B: Stuart Butler, President *2D e Owner: Harvest Communities, Inc. B l Stuart Butler, President Date Adjoining Property Ow lers Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side' or rear or. any property directly across a public {- right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse frorri the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name and Property Identification Number Address Name Upper Crust, LLC 112A Bruce Drive Winchester, VA 22601 Property # 53-4-3D1 Name James T. &Jessie S. Wilson 1200 Fairfax Street Stephens City, VA 22655 Property # 53-4-3E Name A's Copier Sales & c/o Gary L. Adams 249 Glenridge Drive Winchester, VA 22602 Property # 53-4-3F Name Harry K. Benham 21 South Loudoun Street Winchester, VA 22601 Property # 53 -A -52C Name H.K. Benham III &James T. Anderson PO Box 368 Winchester, VA 22604 Property # 53 -A -52E Name Vernon B. &Frances A. Unger 5179 Barley Drive Stephens City, VA 22655 Property # 53A -A-6 Name Almira L. Kipps 106 Hickory Lane Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 53A -2-D-3 Name Almira L. Kipps 106 Hickory Lane Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 53A -2-D-4 Name Betty Lou Reeves Bean 112 Hickory Lane Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 53A -2-D-5 Name and Property Identification Number Address Name . Betty Lou.Repvss Bean :. 112 Hickory Lane , Winc ;enter, VA 1'60:3 Property # 53A -2-D-6 Name Betty Lou Reeves Bean 112 Hickory Lane Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 53A -2-D-7 Name Thomas J. Place 116 Hickory Lane Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 53A -2-D-8 Name Thomas J. Place 116 Hickory Lane Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 53A -2-D-9 Name Jeremy P. & Holly L. Blick 105 Rugby Place Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 53B-4-7 Name Edward H. & Gertrude H. Corddry 103 Rugby Place Winchester, VA 22603 Property # 53B-4-8 Name Stephen G. Butler PO Box 2097 Winchester, VA 22604 Property # 53B-4-9 Name North Frederick Realty PO Box 2800 Winchester, VA 22604 Property # 53B -4-20A F0.�1:.._ .- til .•0• 3li.7!' JL•Y.61 • ,el,r 1 t._ ... _ , Tot YSIIE! .°.r-i�.�.+.�50• 'r��a,.'3M.f:• ,t °i •t6-� •'� `:+�' • t • t , L��- - '� � 'h, 3ti N 4`` zo• Ut 111 of �ss� • W104fi rf MAP M • � � � lP � �' 3MlM►INNTER P"M LTI-FA I , Q• Mllltl-gMIIY •� O.6m Acus A=13{.00• HALL X Firf © 1116 02'56'c r f,re r ` wj.t4• ', • 1 179.AY �i3t;va�---«t'�'fl 1492. w70i lid 1:100.3 1tW ♦ N ; lOt T tY (n LOT F LOT kp ? 1L 1 LOT M •+ LOT 0 1.�10 Ac. r•�t LOT A 1 � _I.20% AC. � x1.3101 AC. 1 pi .3685 lc. J• � , p•■ g :.u7s Ac. h r, • t' St ' •er ` _ __ sls.w, iA i-Isso.aQ•T' - I40.00• ' t" tt° j� i • I . 102.00• 10• Utfli 3 It° 32• is- p t7 Easlwnst - I.vp7.S0' _ ' 20' UI {11 t► E46430.20 r • ,1E6[MO N' l3+ir ewsr so M••r�ter Lifts SM, —sanitary Nomhol• PLAT Neter CetytiH Pqt FREDERICK MALL, L - OAINESI0N0 Ols" FREDffRIC[ COUNTY. - 3CALE1!•�2Q0• s[ RIT�MIE SURYE1 3TE►NENL CITY. Yf �111GN�J4°/i�P+•L�DW:rMS�CSKQWNi7 N71. ' I ul.. l.,Y',.L7s1' N wAlfit( WAS /rwdu . . ' p-�1•a�� W WIN f ■tKY� .NMc..0 rNiOCN1cN OGtlMtt'. ictt. tos Mw1nwM W .rtN110.k � ' n J Owl. x0ult O.u63 •e, e..alee ter r T,01•Iuve� IL •0.6.67 AcI `: • �� ��`.'�F/4e�0' YLil.ty Eaee,enl���� 30. 5 Ut.l'1► 0re1^e9e ?ROMEO s)M sc i. :SNOFFING CENTER It L � tot A 12.SIFS ACRES 0.6:50 Ac, _ • roaEo •FAM1lYS 3 = c 'J'� O` = toy D ACRE8 �w v P• 1.005% Ac. ' c IV t :' ' Fire itYd 7 t Q :-., . tar t v� _ LL Aa17 i4r A s r Lai, ^ �— e 'FireORr yE y, 161?00, 70;13' '1� Y�r - - -%1 1 z' i $ A=109.5r r 0-1 s.�r7Rr,,�� I� to LOT F lOT E :� yr,(1iv)!Ae'go • LOr LOTS,• R LOTS 1,I 1. 16 AC. .�1,5SR/ AC W 121St• ^ 0.6T07 Ac, i I. 366S AG.. ' s • r -- " ,Opt-- r Scwr TeF .1001 Ai., x1.3101 AC.- N 1 s - 3 is 31' 15 w . 36e.5a '60*12'I5•E-O.12- 'I e $ 0' Dre.nape Eeee,ant A T N Ie / • ,�r� •, .9 Utility E..e�enL S. I�.Opr Utility lose Ne•1 R• Sewor r Sewer Top Sto Out aF �• lw - rbc ;wLjl4')� PLAT' +� r irr FREDERICK MALL LAND JrRU$Y ^l� Elliott RftnK A. GAINE310RO DISTRICT r -Z,) St r FREDERICK COUNTY. YINGINIAY i LI(`FtvSE No , SEITEMREk 10. I902• o NI rCN IE SII.fyEYl fi, •• STE►MENS CITY, YIMOINIA .T V j4ar �. � - -• tom` S,-� , 000" F-LOCNKDt OOAM. %Re In* ' m/•',S�g+AAI+..aee/ aenRk.", on OW �•''�1�+�i-��A�� 10 record. Ornb m . IF ��' I �N1�11e11t FN'EDTJeIGR OOIMAY, lOT. TNe AlKaerneeel N "A/ea mat pdegd 1+ eea ew ti Q NI-AO:Q�.L� �� �M wtN dw ell e,rtK+oeY e/ to reeal/ �/owrerlyeeeot Ore+i -am" we adieus r^ 37 i+ x` z 1"°^° vii � t � �• f " _ e j � F` i . .. ._...._ •-..._.__ . _ ... ... _-_, . :,.:- .�.:_....- �r�"rr .. .s,dw ...-�J4 '4T ��'Y'�`�� .w^�� a F ..l— - bll : �. 1 �/ ��"ti I I (:. of .'4 `�..,t �;�;:.. �_.... -'" _ -` �'..,� «.' -r ,:�� ^'•_l' a, f-�. z':--. i °P4.i { r a x� �`:� ♦ u c - 1 • „! � � P �a ��-r�'>�"' � x''t�'�-. ,?' _�... ' nz%rs : i'a'i : e f a�1 � �� .. tz� ,�� �" + r: � �t1 i t. ,,, r,f �-"v,'�..,,�' < ; /, tr �"•`., '><aa ",x;: x�c '4-: R3& ���..,-r n r Aid t� ! � , —_. '� .: :. � ...,•e=�.�'�_ a" }} -•.,.- �,.;�j' rr _ r't'�x,.. _.__ s. ' -i .�. -. yf, ., .. -:... <"� . "-- 1 �; ���ti � '�' ��-�, ..�. ��" _ `•>�� i- - ��'•�.. "� tr; ,.� <1f ; .,t - I�'�x, -- T." � r• .: F, is t. _ - f. /�,y�'p - � :,..- _ .. r-. � � � :.�. i' ...-� v'. "' - �-«��.`',s / } t •`< - � �• i � � I 7 - • f wr.''".a.�`'"` .:I�o�,. a.: c�� � .�,n 7,^`' s. � _ t ^5:; _ s� �� �., � Y y ? i J __..., --.. ` r . r:, " $.j =, "� %s: y` "c - 7 F _ • Sf--_ ., fz f,+ y e'`?'' :. r.,` jj �F -pYr` r s t_ a' a' - (r ' i - -: [! t�-' w : - r r , - i 1. - • �,, .' k -.., ,. .r,�� x i r� �il ` i _ , i _ d 17 F .. YeJ, A t I r i ✓f ,t,� hi �R �� •Y t f A", y( ' torr'[.. t 3. °xpAitN AL Yom" M ( 1 _1 L 7 ,ate, %:+r•v+�. y{,.e t t � f _� _. .� _ i 21 �$ :.. .9 '� ,�♦� t s it r.f !� `�I� �. 1 '�1 ! - f - d ! e f..:'m wj t to, r `s �r ` ._ _ ...; 'I Sam c' `lt �� 7' _: ,.i -' ��'• _ - µ t s. 4 ( i , f r � : x� t 1 *•yi / _Y S / f t e i x j1 r ` e r s , �4 r t s n r Y d h , . Sp I I I I TM: 53-((A)l-52E "SUNNY SIDE PLAZA CIRCLE' N, K. BENHAM III I JAMES T, ANDERSON DB: 113, PG: 34 ZONE: 52 USE: COMMERCIAL LEGEND OPEN SPACE I 1 LOT AREA RESIDENTIAL FOOT PRINT El F -I PEDESTRIAN TRAIL * PEDESTRIAN TRAIL EASEM 1 \ / TM: 53A d(2)) -D-3 ALMIRA L. KIPP$ \ `"•. —'`..'i✓/ DB: 61, PG: 446 / \ ZONE: RP \ USE: ESWLE FAMILY DENTIAL "may 7M: 53A-ALMIRA L. KI PS DB: 61, PG: 446 ZONE: RP USE: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - / TM: 53A-((A)l-6 j I I VERNON B A FRANCES A. — — DB. 2SS, 798. F FG: 65 :.. • ZONE: RP USE: SINGLE-FAMILY � RESIDENTIAL TOPOGRAPHY BY COUNTY GIS. TM: 53A4(7)) -D-6 LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. BETTY LOU R. BEAN 1 \ / TM: 53A d(2)) -D-3 ALMIRA L. KIPP$ \ `"•. —'`..'i✓/ DB: 61, PG: 446 / \ ZONE: RP \ USE: ESWLE FAMILY DENTIAL "may 7M: 53A-ALMIRA L. KI PS DB: 61, PG: 446 ZONE: RP USE: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - / TM: 53A \ j I I -((2))-D-5 BETTY LOU RBEAN l \ I I DB: 141 ZONEONE:; —I -F USE: SINGLE-FAMILY :.. • RESIDENTIAL � J TOPOGRAPHY BY COUNTY GIS. TM: 53A4(7)) -D-6 LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. BETTY LOU R. BEAN { DB: 8102, PG: 141 ZONE: RP USE: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL \ TM: 53A -((2))-D-1 R. BEAN \ BETTY LOU �.�. DB: 5102, PG: 141 ZONE: RP SINGLE-FAMILY 1 1 � RESIDENTIAL EDW 3B-fC4))-8 1 GERTRUDE H, 1 CORDORY TM: 535-((4))-20A N / �✓ !` 030024056 1 TM: 535-((4))-1 ' NORTH FREDERICK REALTY ' ZONE: RP 1 JEREMY P. A DB: 121, PG: 142 \ USE: HOLLY L. BUCK / ZONE` RP /{; 53A -f(21)- -9 SINGLE-FAMILY ' INST': 030028103 1 USE: COMMON AREA FOR THOMAS J. PL CE 51DENTIAL ZONE: RP CANTERBURY SQUARE / ' DB: B105ONE': :743 USE: ZONE: kP SINGLE-FAMILY 1 USE: SINGL61-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL / RESIDE TIAL / 3 RE W �LLI V Z W m gs Nm' NII " W f s yrs aA � CP S O T C 41 41 4 MARK D. SMITH N0.022837 Z F CO z" G a vim) 5 z [] W G3 O d E-' Ui ' + w =>v O 3 C) 0. d U b = F Ll W Ta r z z yLlj O W U) 3 DATE: 05/24/04 SCALE: NTS DESIGNED BY: SB1( FILE NO. 4079 SHEET 1 OF 1 J `\ J � J TOPOGRAPHY BY COUNTY GIS. BOUNDARY BY DEED COMPOSITE. UTILITY LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. 3 RE W �LLI V Z W m gs Nm' NII " W f s yrs aA � CP S O T C 41 41 4 MARK D. SMITH N0.022837 Z F CO z" G a vim) 5 z [] W G3 O d E-' Ui ' + w =>v O 3 C) 0. d U b = F Ll W Ta r z z yLlj O W U) 3 DATE: 05/24/04 SCALE: NTS DESIGNED BY: SB1( FILE NO. 4079 SHEET 1 OF 1 • C • REZONING APPLICATION #14-04 HAGGERTY PROPERTY Staff Report for the Planning Commission Meeting Prepared: January 3, 2005 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 01/19/05 Pending Board of Supervisors: 02/09/05 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 111.56 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers. A maximum of 300 units has been proffered at a density of 2.68 units per acre. LOCATION: The property is located adjacent and east of Eddys Lane (Route 820), approximately three miles east of Winchester and 1,500 feet south of Route 7. The subject site is further located adjacent and south of the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant property and adjacent and west of Opequon Creek, which forms the boundary of Clarke County. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Red Bud PROPERTY ID NUMBER(S): 55-A-212, 55 -A -212A PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District PRESENT USE: Agricultural/Vacant/Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Area) South: RA (Rural Area) East: Clarke County West: RA (Rural Area) RP (Residential Performance) Use: Municipal Water Reclamation Facility Residential Use: Residential and Agricultural Use: Vacant and Agricultural Use: Residential and Agricultural Vacant PROPOSED USES: Residential (single-family detached homes and single-family attached townhomes, with a maximum number of 300 units). Rezoning #14-04 — Haggerty Property January 3, 2005 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The proposed development put forth by PHR&A has an excellent internal roadway system and a potential for putting forth a vital first step in a collector roadway extending from Route 7 to Senseny Road that is critical in the County's future growth. This will need to be addressed by Frederick County. VDOT is concerned that the existing road system cannot accommodate this additional traffic. Unless the developer designs a collector roadway, obtains the needed right-of-way for the collector roadway traffic and builds two lands of this roadway VDOT cannot support this development as currently proposed. If the developer(s) adopts the spine road with a new crossover option on Route 7, VDOT will propose a cul-de-sac design for Route 820 at approximately the 20+00 location. Through inter -parcel connectors connecting existing as well as future development will have access to the proposed spine road to Route 7 or Route 657. Fire Marshal: An emergency vehicle access should be diligently pursued which will allow a separate access to the site during construction. Extension of municipal water supplies for firefighting shall meet the requirements of Frederick County Code Section 90-4. Plan approval recommended. Department of Inspections: No comment required except that 100 year flood plan elevation shall be identified on subdivision when submitted. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: Please see the attached letter dated January 6, 2005 from Jesse W. Moffett, Executive Director. Public Works Department: Please see the attached letter dated June 4, 2004, from Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P. E., County Engineer. Sanitation Authority: Will there be adequate water pressure and volume with only one supply line? Will the "future water loop" referred to on the water and sewer layout drawing be required with "initial construction?" Refer to Eastern States Engineering's revised master development for Channing Drive, Phases 9 and 10, for water routing to the site. Frederick -Winchester Health Department: Adequate water and sewer must be provided. Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation: Plan appears to offer an appropriate proffer to offset the impact this development will have on the parks and recreational services provided by the county. Plan also indicates adequate open space and recreational units will be provided. However, detailed information regarding open space and proposed recreational units (including trails) will be required later in the review process. Winchester Regional Airport: Please see attached letter dated May 13, 2004, from Serena. R. Manuel, Executive Director. Frederick County Public Schools: Please see the attached letter dated July 9, 2004, from Mr. Al Orndorff, Assistant Superintendent for Administration. Rezoning # 14-04 — Haggerty Property January 3, 2005 Page 3 Historic Resources Advisory Board: Upon review of the proposed rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic resources and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by the HRAB. As you have indicated in your impact statement, the Rural Landmarks Survey and the Comprehensive Policy Plan do not identify any significant historic structures or battlefields located on or adjacent to the property. Clarke County Planning Administrator: Please see attached letter dated December 21, 2004, from Mr. Chuck Johnston, Planning Director, Clarke County. Attorney for Planning Department: Please see attached letter dated November 23, 2004, from Mr. Robert T. Mitchell, Jr. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Stephenson Quadrangle) identifies this parcel as being zoned A-1 Agricultural. The County's A-1 and A-2 agricultural zoning districts were combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject properties and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA (Rural Areas) District. Historically, this site was used for agricultural activities and was primarily unimproved. A farmhouse and an agricultural building still exist on the site today; however, active agricultural operations have evidently not occurred on the property for several years. 2) Comprehensive Polio 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 Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use map designates the general area in which the Haggerty property is located for residential land uses. The average overall residential density of the Urban Development Area should not exceed three units per acre. More specifically, the Zoning Ordinance stipulates that properties which contain more than one hundred acres should not exceed four units per acre. With the more urban densities envisioned for development in the UDA, the Comprehensive Plan seeks to ensure that special effort is made to provide the infrastructure necessary to Rezoning # 14-04 — Haggerty Property January 3, 2005 Page 4 accommodate the desired land uses and densities. Further, as land is developed in the eastern portion of the Urban Development Area, the Comprehensive Plan identifies the preservation of the gtr,-n�m valleys as envirnnmental ntnen space is an importarIt gnat that the protection of flood plains and water quality and provides a continuous system of green open space. Transportation The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan provides the guidance regarding future arterial and collector road connections in the eastern portion of the County by identifying needed connections and locations. Plans for new development should provide for the right-of-ways necessary to implement planned road improvements and new roads shown on the road plan should be constructed by the developer when warranted by the scale, intensity, or impacts of the development. Existing roads should be improved as necessary by adjacent development to implement the intentions of the plan (Comprehensive Policy Plan 7-6). Route 37 is a road improvement need that is identified in the Eastern Road Plan and is apriority in the County's Primary Road Improvement Plan. Accommodations for this new major arterial road should be incorporated into the project. In an effort to provide a safe and efficient road system, the County's transportation policy also seeks to identify new collector and arterial roads that are needed in the general road plan and develop a means to reserve rights-of-way for these roads. This policy is applicable when considering solutions to the transportation needs of this particular section of the County. New development in the Urban Development Area should only be approved when roads and other infrastructure with sufficient capacity have been provided. The Comprehensive Plan identifies that a level of service "C" should be maintained on roads adjacent to and within new developments and that traffic analysis should be provided by the applicants to insure that needed road improvements are identified in order to maintain or improve upon the level of service (Comprehensive Policy Plan 7-5). 3) Site Suitability/Environment The Haggerty site has been identified as a site typical of the Martinsburg Shale Region with steeply eroded side slopes and reasonably level plain areas. This is an accurate identification that presents challenges when planning the development program for this property and the implementation of a variety of regional infrastructure needs. The Opequon Creek provides the eastern border of the site. This feature and its associated floodplain warrant particular attention and may also provide an opportunity for enhanced protection of the riparian corridor. The area of this site in floodplain, wetlands, lakes, and ponds totals approximately twenty acres, or eighteen percent of the 111.56 acre site. By current County definition this project contains no steep slopes. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the preservation of the stream valleys as Rezoning # 14-04 — Haggerty Property January 3, 2005 Page 5 environmental open space as an important goal that contributes to the protection of flood plains and water quality and provides a continuous system of green open space. The application proposes development of a greater intensity in the reasonably level open areas and offers areas that will be set aside for environmental and open space purposes. In the area most impacted by site constraints, downhill to the east of the Route 37 right-of-way, the residential uses will be clustered to accommodate the site features and a significant amount of open space and park land is proposed. This open space should be designed to effectively buffer the riparian nature of the Opequon Creek and its minor tributaries. The application identifies that the project reserves approximately twenty acres of open space area adjacent to the FWSA property. This area contains environmental features, is bordered by the Opequon Creek, and was previously identified as being available for public use, potentially as a park site. The current application states that this acreage may be used by the FWSA for enhanced buffering of the treatment facility or to support facility expansion. Recognizing the above statement and given the character of this land and its location, it would be appropriate for the application to secure the dedication of this land for public use by incorporating it into the proffer statement for the application. 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for this project projected that the mixed residential development plan consisting of 300 units would generate 2, 833 vehicle trips per day. The report was developed assuming that sole access to the project was provided to Route 7 via Eddys Lane, Route 820, and Valley Mill Road, Route 659. The distribution and assignment of the Haggerty property generated trips was placed onto the study area road network and an analysis of the capacity and level of service for existing and future conditions was performed. As is described in an upcoming section, the transportation approach was modified considerably, in particular the site access. However, based upon discussions with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the conclusions of the report can comfortably be translated to the intersection of the proposed collector road and Route 7. It is important to recognize that the suggested improvements and lane geometry identified as being needed to maintain an acceptable level of service should be fully implemented at the new intersection with Route 7 and should be guaranteed with the Haggerty project. Route 37. The Haggerty rezoning application addresses the Route 37 major arterial road improvement project identified in the County's Eastern Road Plan for Frederick County by proffering to fully dedicate the right-of-way needed to accommodate this important road project through the subject property. The 12.48 acres proffered to be dedicated is consistent with the location and detail identified in the Route 37 Corridor Study Plans and would enable the ultimate construction of Route 37 through the subject property. It is important to note that the proposed Rezoning # 14-04 — Haggerty Property January 3, 2005 Page 6 language regarding the land dedication of the Route 37 right of way contains a ten year sunset clause on the dedication of the right-of-way. The County should evaluate ifsuch a sunset clause is appropriate given the magnitude of the road improvement the dedication would facilitate. It is staff's belief that the timing of the dedication should be reevaluated with the sunset clause being eliminated. Transportation approach. The transportation needs in this area of Frederick County are recognized as are the traffic impacts generated by this proposal. Of particular importance is the need for a north -south collector road that would provide safe and convenient access between Senseny Road, Route 657, and Route 7. This may be considered a short term solution when compared to the completion of Route 37. However, a collector road making a direct connection to Route 7 is an important short term solution to Eastern Frederick County's transportation needs. The original concept evaluated with this project proposed utilizing Eddys Lane, Route 820, and Valley Mill Road east, Route 659, as the principal means of ingress and egress for the project from Route 7. It was evident that the impacts associated with such an approach were problematic without substantial improvements to Eddys Lane, Route 659, and Route 7. The feasibility of this option as a means of addressing the access to the project was deemed to be unacceptable. Further, the feasibility of this route as a viable collector road connection from Route 7 to Route 657 was questionable. The applicant then pursued a thorough evaluation of the transportation needs of this area and developed a responsive transportation program which is described as follows. The concept of a major collector road parallel to the Route 37 right-of-way with a direct extension north to Route 7 and provisions for a continuation of the road to the southern property line of the Haggerty property was developed and identified as a desirable solution to the transportation needs of the project and the area. This approach was recognized as the preferred transportation concept of the County provided there are no additional impacts to the present and future function of the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility property and that the ultimate construction of Route 37 is not negatively impacted. The applicant has continued to work with the FWSA regarding the road location and ensuring that the proposed program does not negatively impact their facility. At their meeting on December 27, 2004, the FWSA provided an endorsement of the concept provided that the needs of the FWSA as previously identified were addressed by the applicant. The described collector road connection has merit both as a solution to the project's transportation needs before and after the construction of Route 37, and the broader transportation needs of the County. The roadway connection linking the west and east sides of the development has been located to recognize the ultimate construction of Route 37 and consideration has been given to minimizing future construction costs associated with Route 37 and inconvenience to the future residents of the project. South of the Haggerty project, the opportunity exists to continue this collector road concept to Route 657 in conjunction with future plans for the adjoining property to the south of the Haggerty property. To the North, Rezoning # 14-04 — Haggerty Property January 3, 2005 Page 7 discussions with VDOT indicate merit to an at grade intersection further west of the existing median crossover on Route 7. This would be in direct alignment with the proposed eastern most access to Route 37. The transportation approach also provides for the reservation of a sixty foot right-of-way to the adjoining properties to the west which would facilitate inter -parcel connectivity, access to the collector road, and accommodate future trips from the properties to the west in a coordinated way. The proposed reservation of this right of way should be reduced to fifty feet to ensure that a local street connection could be accommodated as apposed to a collector road. The intent of the connection is to provide access to the Haggerty collector road from adjacent Adams property. As proposed by the applicant, the transportation approach appears to address the general needs of the project and would provide the framework for an acceptable solution to the immediate transportation needs of the area. To provide a complete solution, specific attention needs to be paid to the detail of the connection to Route 7 described below. Recent discussions with VDOT indicate their endorsement of the approach presented by the applicant. However, it should be noted that VDOT share the concerns of the Planning Staff with regards to the lack of clarity on the collector roads intersection with Route 7 and the completion of any associated improvements, including the signalization. It is reiterated that the suggested improvements and lane geometry identified in the TIA as being needed to maintain an acceptable level of service should be fully implemented at the new intersection of the collector road and Route 7 and should be guaranteed with the Haggerty project. Failure to implement this critical component of the transportation program would result in an unacceptable level of service at this significant intersection with Route 7 and a conclusion that the transportation impacts associated with the Haggerty Property rezoning have not been fully mitigated. B. Sewer and Water The Haggerty rezoning proposal is estimated to require approximately 50,000 gallons per day of water usage and to generate a corresponding amount of wastewater flow. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority will serve the property and the wastewater from the site will go to the Opequon Regional Wastewater Facility. Regional infrastructure needs have been identified in this area of the County and planned for by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority with the Senseny Road Sewage Upgrade Program. The needed improvements include a regional sewage pump station near the Opequon Creek and an associated force main that would provide a direct connection with the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility. The Haggerty application addresses the FCSA's needs by proffering the dedication of the lands needed to accommodate the regional pump station and force main. Water Service will be provided to this site from the adjacent development to the west. The Rezoning # 14-04 — Haggerty Property January 3, 2005 Page 8 Haggerty application proposes the extension of the water main system beyond the limits of their site to address a need of the FWSA and the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility. This facility is presently served by an independent water system and the extension of the water system to this facility would enhance their water supply service and provide them with improved fire protection. It has been noted previously that the applicant has discussed the potential dedication of approximately twenty acres of land adjacent to the FWSA property for potential open space or public use. The acquisition of this property for public use is desirable and should be secured with this application. It would enhance the operations of the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility and provide a significant buffer adjacent to the proposed road and residential development. A buffer of 600 feet from the presently planned future treatment units has been proffered by the applicant. This is consistent with current ordinance requirements. Clearly the dedication of the area identified would significantly improve the effectiveness of any buffering of the Opequon facility. The potential may exist for portions of this land to be jointly used for open space or recreational purposes which further enhances the desirability of the property. C. Historic Resources The Rural Landmarks Survey of Frederick County includes the Haggerty House (#34-398) which is located at the center of the site on parcel 55 -A -212A. However, the survey does not identify this as a significant historic structure. Further, there are no battlefields located on or adjacent to the property. Consequently, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic resources and it was determined that it was not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by the HRAB. D. Community Facilities The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model is a tool that is used to identify the capital costs associated with various types of development proposals presented to the County. The projected costs to Fire and Rescue, Public Schools, Parks and Recreation, Library, Sheriff's Office, and for the Administration Building are calculated and provided to the applicant for their consideration. In an effort to mitigate the impacts generated by the Haggerty project on the identified community facilities, the applicant has proffered a per unit monetary contribution in the amount of $10,211 for each single family detached unit and $8,051 for each single family attached townhouse unit. This is consistent with the capital costs identified in the Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model. In addition, the applicant has included an escalator clause in the proffer statement that seeks to address the effects of inflation on the value of proffered monetary contributions. It is desirable for the escalator clause associated with the payment ofproffers to be initiated within a shorter timeframe. Eighteen months would be appropriate and consistent with other projects the County is familiar with. Rezoning # 14-04 — Haggerty Property January 3, 2005 Page 9 5) Proffer Statement - Dated December 20, 2004 A) General Development Plan. The applicant has provided a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) for the Haggerty project, a copy of which is included with the application and Proffer Statement. The GDP provides guidance in the interpretation of the Proffer Statement and identifies specific proffered improvements including the following: The proposed FCSA Regional Pump Station project (1), the 600' buffer adjacent to the FWSA operations (2), the extension of the water main to the FWSA property (3), the construction of the "spine" collector road from Route 7 to the southern property line (4), the right-of-way for a future collector road to the properties to the west (5), the right-of-way for Route 37 through the limits of the Haggerty property (6), and the construction of landscape screen adjacent to the Route 37 right-of-way (7). B) Residential Uses. The applicant has proffered that residential development on the property shall not exceed three hundred (3 00) residential units and that housing types shall be limited to single family attached and single family detached units. Flexibility within an identified range has been maintained with the actual mix of residential unit types. More specifically, the proffer statement states that single family detached housing types shall comprise a minimum of 60 units, but shall not exceed a maximum of 150 units. Conversely, this would represent that single family attached townhouse units would comprise of a minimum of 150 units and a maximum of 240 units. The overall residential density of this project is proposed to be 2.68 units per acre. Section 2.2 of the statement identifies a phased approach to the construction of the residential development. The reality of the approval process would suggest that the 36 month requirement of Section 2.3 would result in all of the units being built in a very short period of time. The intent of the phasing is to ensure a steadier inclusion ofresidential units and residents in to the County. It is suggested that the 36 month condition is removed from the proffer statement, and potentially Section 2.3 in its entirety. This would assist in the mitigation of the impact of a large influx of new building permits in a short period of time. C) Transportation. As discussed previously in the report the applicant has proffered transportation improvements consistent with the Generalized Development Plan that seek to address the impacts of the project on the transportation system and enhance the regional transportation network. The proffered improvements include the dedication of a the right-of-way for Route 37, the construction of a central collector road from Route 7 to the southern property line of the Haggerty project parallel to the right-of-way for Route 3 7, the preservation of a right-of-way for a future local street connection to the adjacent Adams property located to the west of the Haggerty site, and the construction of a landscape screen adjacent to the future Route 37. With regards to the dedicated right-of-way for Route 37, it would be appropriate for the applicant to specify the actual width of the right-of-way and ensure that it is consistent with the right-of-way dedicated for projects at the southern end of Route 37. It is also important to point out that the Rezoning # 14-04 — Haggerty Property January 3, 2005 Page 10 proffered landscape screening adjacent to the Route 37 right-of-way does not eliminate the road efficiency buffer requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The more intensive requirement would be applicable. It has been proffered by the applicant that the transportation improvements shall be initiated at the outset of the development process unless otherwise specified in the Proffer Statement. Initial review agency comments identified that critical transportation improvements designed to accommodate the project, in particular those at the intersection of Route 7, should be completed at the outset of the project. This is still desirable given the revised transportation approach. The applicants proffer states that the collector road shall be constructed from Route 7 to the project site prior to the issuance of the 515' building permit. As noted previously, Staff and VDOT have identified that additional clarification should be provided by the applicant regarding the improvements at the collector roads intersection with Route 7. This clarification could be incorporated into the Proffer Statement. D) Monetary Contribution. The monetary contribution proffered to offset the impact to community facilities is based upon the residential housing type with a total of $10,211 for each single family detached unit and $8,051 for each single family attached townhouse unit being proffered by the applicant. This monetary contribution to Frederick County is allocated within the proffer statement to the address Fire and Rescue, Public Schools, Parks and Recreation, Library, Sheriff's Office, and Administration Building needs. As mentioned previously, it is desirable for the escalator clause associated with the payment of proffers to be initiated within a shorter timeframe. Eighteen months would be appropriate and consistent with other projects the County is familiar with. It is noted that the Proffer Statement, potentially through the Generalized Development Plan, could be modified to address the concerns identified in the staff report. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 01/19/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Haggerty Rezoning Application is generally consistent with the goals of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report. The staff report also identifies several impacts generated by this rezoning request that have not been fully mitigated with the details of this application. It may be appropriate for the applicant to modify the rezoning application and proffer statement, to ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning application, previously identified in this staff report and noted below, are fully mitigated. Rezoning # 14-04 — Haggerty Property January 3, 2005 Page 11 1) The proffer regarding the land dedication of the Route 37 right of way and the desirability of the ten year sunset clause on the dedication of the right-of-way. 2) The implementation of the suggested improvements and lane geometry at the new collector road intersection with Route 7, identified as being needed to maintain an acceptable level of service, should be fully implemented and guaranteed with the Haggerty project. 3) The dedication of the twenty acres of land for public use should be guaranteed by incorporating it into the proffer statement for the Haggerty project. These items, and any issues raised by the Planning Commission, should be addressed prior to the decision of the Planning Commission. Frederick- Winchester Service Authority Post Office Box 43 Winchester, Virginia 22604 Office: 107 North Kent Street County Office Complex Winchester, Virginia 22601 1-540-722-3579 January 6; 2005 C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. Senior Vice President Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Chuck: Reference: Roadway Proposal — Opequon Water Reclamation Facility This letter is to service as a follow up to your presentation and the FWSA Board's action regarding the request for a road right of way across the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility site. The Board approved by motion at its December 27, 2004 meeting, the acceptance of the preliminary roadway layout and alignment. In agreeing to accept this proposal for further consideration and final approval, the Board is requested the following considerations: - Deed remaining undeveloped portion of parcel south of the plant site and along the Opequon Creek to the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority. With the construction of the roadway public water would be extended and tied into the existing on-site water system of the Opequon facility. Developer will design and construct a new plant entrance along the new roadway with necessary fencing and gated entry. FWSA shall provide approval of plans and specifications prior to construction. FWSA will provide specifications and reimburse developer for security entrance system. Developers will construct an earthen berm and pine buffer along new roadway. - Formal endorsement of roadway and its alignment from the County of Frederick and Virginia Department of Transportation. i cerely, t , ' w _ �N J se W. Moffett Executive Director Frederick -Winchester Service Authority Cc: Frederick -Winchester Service Authority Board Members (�rrz-- -- John R. Riley. — County Administrator — County of Frederick r Eric R. Lawrence — Director — Planning and Development w now JAN 'Maihtaihing and Promloting t/ia Vaekes vE t!ie Comlffili i,it tAroa A am�iro y g wti¢Ht ardgl4ip" � �...;..; FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING & DEVELOPWNT N June 4, 2004 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E_ Vice President Gilbert W. Clifford and Associates, Inc. a division of Patton Harris Rust & Associates, p.c. 117 E. Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Haggerty Rezoning Frederick County, Virginia Dear Chuck: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/678-0682 We have completed our review of the proposed rezoning and offer the following comments: 1) Under the description of location and access, the narrative indicates 60 feet of road -frontage on Route 820 (Eddys Lane). This width does not appear to be sufficient to accommodate a future major collection road as annotated on Figure 10. Please indicate how the developer will address this issue. 2) Under the Traffic discussion, we concur with your conclusion that safe and convenient access to Virginia Route 7 is paramount to the traffic improvements. Also, we support your proposal to provide a stoplighted intersection at Route 7 and Route 656. According to the traffic study this will improve the level of service at this intersection turn from an "F" to a "C" rating. However, we recommend that this improvement occur at the initial phase of construction rather than in Phase II as proposed in the proffer statement. This action will insure the safe and convenient access for all phases of development. 3) As indicated in the proffer statement, improvements will be required to Eddys Lane to accommodate the increase in traffic. The proffer statement indicates that the applicant will provide minor road widening of Eddys Lane and Valley Mill Road within currently available right -of ways including installation of dedicated right-of-way and left turn lanes on Route 659 at the Virginia Route 7 intersection. Eddys Lane is currently showing signs of pavement deterioration. Therefore, we 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Haggerty Rezoning Comments Page 2 �i ,lune 4, 2004 recommend that the above improvements be expanded to include a sufficient overlay to accommodate the additional traffic loading. The improvements may also require additional ditching and piping to accommodate storm drainage. The narrative should indicate who will be responsible for obtaining the necessary right - of ways if the existing right-of-ways are not sufficient to accommodate the proposed improvements to Eddys Lane and Valley Mill Road. 4) Figure 10 indicates a suggested interconnection between Channing Drive and Eddys Lane. We realize that this connection is conceptual in nature especially with the proposed cul-de-sac closure of Valley Mill Road to the west of the one way bridge at Abrams Creek. If this connection is adopted, it will be necessary to upgrade Eddys Lane beyond the improvements highlighted in the proffer statement. Indicate if the applicant will implement these additional improvements at the time of the construction of the interconnection roadway. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the above comments. Sincerely, F. A:tt Harvie E. trawsn der P.E. Y Y � Jr., Director of Public Works HES/rls cc: Frederick County Planning and Development file LJ IAAhaggertyrezcom.wpd A f� SEWNG TNF FOP OF VIRGINIA I May 13, 2004 �X i T T Ue-® i5, aSSOC. b40 -66b-0493 p.2 WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT 491 AIRPORT ROAD WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 (540) 662-2422 Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. Gilbert W. Clifford and Associates 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Rezoning Comments Haggerty Property Red Bud Magisterial District Dear Mr. Maddox: The Winchester Regional Airport Authority offers the following comment regarding the proposed rezoning plan for the Bean Property. Neither the location or the elevation of this site requires a 7460-1 to be filed with the Federal Aviation Administration, however it does lie within the air space of the Winchester Airport. Due to its proximity to the airport, property owners may experience aircraft fly -over noise from aircraft entering into or departing the flight pattern from the North. Special considerations will not be requested by the Winchester Regional Airport. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to review this rezoning request. Sincerely, S. R. Manuel Executive Director FbECE� WE nLl OAP - 7 2005 FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT C� #4 ictr vs,%V *bllr -'1rhw�'s ! it t1 A L 0 l0 '�.� V s1 Y i. it,a 0 ti Gv s ®es eri ■ ...to -ensure all studer-ts -an-dxcelJerzt-edtxadon A651btaAl SupedMandant For Adrnini3lretbli ,;uly 99, 2004 Tirmothy Price Gilbert W. (.;fi iiffor �&_pAssac., Inc. {� t 17 E. PiccaCtlil�• S tmet, Vuite 200 Winchester, VA 2251 RE: Haggerty Rezoning Gear Mir. Price: At Omdorff arndbrfa@f1ad®risk.k12,V8. os This letter is in ieS_ptsnSe to your request for com 'mitis cork: sming the r e_or4'ing application for the proposed Haggett • f?ropetty project. Easel on the information provided, it is a nificipated that the proposed 150 single fm4y. homes, es, 1 o2 townhouses, and 24g unils Will y1eld 39 thigh school students, 36 middle school �-tudents, and 97 .'1,'ii:Si a;y _silldents for a t r� of 171 new students (iport-bw d-Dut. Tiiia does not ial0e :this any -age restricted units since the 'application 0210' not provide any. spec`o numbers f•.ir tlaots-- units. Significant rerSi6@tn4ii3l-ggrowth in i`rederici� CioLft�iiji rias resiiiif�ii lin the Scl- Lily Gr:�it:�f tf =3 area flavin . StU6cTit enr�iifiir r�t5 r;Ga irrt �i exceeding their practical ca -30t . The Impact 07 ails project and 5iliirf5 of SiiTeui' 6iGic, cotlj3ieti With tiie ni.: tt'r3er of eF:pI F'eu, -uD evakged residential I6ts inthe area, vwiil ii6GE5aiiaie iiia future Ct i,ist1avtbn of nlaw S-10�1 facilities tO accommodateinef-e-wed Student enrollments. The irnpaci of this r'azonirfE,3. on current and future ach-ovl needs s, - d be :va~:c'�re�rVA during the approval process. Resp&vtf y f auras, For Administration LVJiiiiaiii C. iii;d: i, P') %:, D. i a.e:p..t iP, n t,:z:i :t of, n.e..::c.vi --1� A srLLG �iporint�-4a tSteveKap3csi, Mimi ii6'fall - AsisLGiiL t:i:es 1415 Amherst$lreet utivw,freder#ciFkl2.va.us- 540-8623889 axl 112 P.O. UOX �5G9 5�u ss 2;"ss irvinchesier, virgini� LCPi14-[EGD cin tap_?nen �i CLARKE CO 21 December 2004 Charles E. Maddox, Jr. Clifford & Associates 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, VA 22601 DEC 2 3 2004 1 Lo!/i 1 FREDERICK COUNTY i—i ,NNING & DEVELOPMENTi == RE. Haggerty Property Rezoning — Frederick County 4_" _ 14,)� i Thank you for your request for comments on the above referenced request. Members of the Clarke County Planning Commission, the County's engineer, and I have reviewed the material provided and we have three minor issues and two major issues. Minor Issues 1. There is an error in the chart titled "Planned Development Program" in section C., Site Suitability: the chart shows 146 single-family attached units in land bay 1 and 64 such units in land bay 3 with a total of 200 such units. In addition, the chart states there will be 100 single-family detached units. 2. The section titled "Proposed Trip Generation" states there will be 60 townhouses. 60 apartments, and 180 single-family detached units. This is different than the chars referenced in item one. Which is correct? 3. This project will increase the volume of traffic on Valley Mill Road by 45%. In addition to sight improvements, pavement width and construction improvements would seem warranted. Maior Issues 1. Impact on Route 7. This project, combined with all the other projects approved in the UGA by Frederick County, is gradually causing the overloading of Route 7. Like the lobster that doesn't realize it is being boiled to death by the slow increase in temperature, so the traffic volumes on Route 7 are gradually rising to levels that cannot be accommodated by a four -lane road, designed and built almost 40 years ago without access limits. Current Frederick UGA traffic is causing congestion today on Route 7 in Clarke County. We don't look forward to a 32% increase, to about 36,000 trips a day, coming out of Frederick County by 2007. • Proffers for rezonings in the Frederick UGA should address such impacts. Such proffers could include financial support for commuter bus operations and for park and ride lots in Frederick County on this corridor. • Given the increase in traffic volumes on Route 7 from already approved development in the UGA, it would seem unwise to consider action on any future rezoning requests in this coiridor until a plan is in place, with a funding mechanism, to address this situation. 102 North Church Street Voice (540) }55-5132 Berryville, VA 22611 www.cu.ciarke.va.us Fax (540) 955-40021 Haggerty Rezoning Comments Page 2 • The Traffic Impact Analysis does not identify the levels of traffic on the proposed Route 3 i. 11 the volumes on Route 27 will be less than Route 7, then the ramps at their intersection should be reversed, with the signals on 37 instead of on 7, or there should be a full -movement interchange. 2. Impact on Opequon Creek. Having more than a half -mile of frontage on the Opequon Creek, this project has a unique opportunity to contribute to the long-term protection of this important resource. The proposed 20 acres of public use, in reality, contain very little area of usable land; 75% of the property being steep slopes, wetlands, and sewer treatment plant buffer. This land, combined with the proposed open space along the Opequon and the unnamed creek on the southern portion of the property should be placed under a permanent open space/riparian easement to the Soil and Water Conservation District and/or other easement holding entity. Such open space should include all land near these streams with slopes in excess of 15%. Again, thank you for this opportunity. Please contact me if you have any questions or responses. Charles Johnston Planning Administrator Copy: Mike Ruddy, Frederick County Planning Department Frederick County Board of Supervisors Frederick County Planning Commission Clarke County Board of Supervisors Clarke County Planning Commission Rick Travers, View Engineers 1-'klir- 021 UJ HALL, MONAHAN,-Et4GLE,-M,4HAN S1 MITCHELL A WARTNER5HIM *F PROFEBSIOkAL GDAPOR�CnON-'r ATTOAM:Ey,s AT LAW WLL_B.uA .C_. HALL. (1.5a 2.19 7 2J THOMAS v, MONAMAN 0024-199$1 1 a 7 FA-oT mAf%KET STREET`- 9 EAST OD;CAW!W STREET SA7MUEL. D. ENOLS LEE984RG. VXMWWAA WJ"0"1EGTt.R, VIRQINIa O. L.ELAND MAMAN TELtiPHoNE 701,7-10MD TELEPNOME-U&C-!r"-`nD- R4a8 AT T'.- WrCKELLi J+} rrr.s.+eeeaeaoa Lj-n1,4�r'Ai:' E(L£NK-AR ' C'MnIL IwrynrsQrhallmonaMn.Cpm PLCARE RMY TO: STCYEM--F, JACKSON R a. BOX 848 DrNNIS J-MGLQUGHLIN. JI'iaR. Novee 23 220&4- VVINC:"WTER, VIRciw^ E21504-0840 Mr. Wchael- T. Ruddy,- AICg, Dtputy.Director County Department of _- Zlanmx and Development L07 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 -RAND DELIV1ERED Re: The Cd -n -yo rr,-LC (Haggerty pr �. I� e po�',Proffer Stater a.ent Dear Mike: I ha-vexe-N=1gewc..d-tike abvve PfPrPn cLProposr--Pr4f.�e�-Statei[,cli.t. It is my Qpi �s.Q1-tl ..t �iwL` L- ffPi.' �ta �_Prn-stis n-_ fo -1-o,t the requirements af-t-hz �rcdcrFctcCountyZ-ordrrg'Qrdixance-.nd the -Code of Virginia, subject to the following: 1. In Proff-er No. 11.2,.i.t.-should-be stated'.when-the-la;�ds; and. easements •Mil be yrovided;� for example; .P;tr1 E; i thirty ( ) days of a written. request by tIie FC&A. 2. 1n, Proffer Nl o. 13..1., iathe_-Zransport=►rionseeti-en; the statement is made that " 1 t is the �>,pplicar►t" itent to pritiTap ly f,.,nd the work required af-this.pr*_d_` Fcannot_kterm.ine the purpose of this statemenrin the pr -offer, -.as. the rung pre€�ers in the Tfdrisportatian section state that the �hpricarir 7shall provide" the aus-rtrpottaGfcin•ih�overs;Eents- .ntii�., 3.- I;n 111'�,ffcr No.- .13:6,, i.t,should- be --expressly stated, that the Applican..t WP-survey-and FJcattht- F"ight`0 way f&r VA'Roq`te 37. ifthat is the case. 11128/ ZE104 1 1: Q -L Z)qUbb7OI57D La-.; i :-c U;1; U� HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAH N & MITCHF-LL Mr. -Nfiehael-T, Ruddy -r-r-6de%rick-County Department of Tlanning and Development November 23, 2004 Page 2 I hav enoLtmvtvxed eL -the-subs=mof Lhr—proff -&- aa -a - t -whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate fo-r tire' Oroperty ,as itis any uiiftrstanding that that review Wilt hen V by thettaffan&tN�Mnnihg Co-mmi&sion.. conceming, the.. fiamgaiiig, please contact me. Rbbift T- Mitchell, RTM/glh Rezoning # 14 - 04 - HAGGERTY PROPERTY tODSM (53 - A - 212 & 55 - A - 212A) 0 � 250 500 1,000 tsoo 2,000 Net OF Wt. . :. . ''• }.'. ,,.'.� '.,.+1. 4} ry., �-. r' • 'Lj�'"�'yr .��.R' rf�y vary..' •4 r'+ . ' La '.".3 „!y. �' ,.': ..';•t }... �ti, we,r� qtr ...'Q Fry s. � �•Nf ll. .9�'L„W i k Y f • v ' t , T �- yr a Il F. .•}F'i "�:,- L' r y� .!..y i • a 4E .w ,1 t ip 415 ell Ali — ,iia .h:.. p' ,'r�F • �,�'y, '}w�'} L�N, �7�v IF 7 'kt f ! :y .. • ,. � •, e�"� , I t,. ,1r � _4�?p�,r 1 A L .fit • _ � i 1 � S yr � 8 R�i I � 1 f - � '. r'-�• '� L •r�' j , S + REZONING APPL ICA TION )JR, 371 f 7- 'M1'l. •1' �'Y.rt4•ifi1t, u r r° ��` ,� fl'd V % try !f S ➢r yy V +y'T - K f t o a:• s . h Dov x ", �. f, "� '`.+ V�f •. �y'4 ;�i�� .. �'• Z:,,ti f:igY y��1{ i�I,,f .rd','Rx A.,.r 5�rra� ,r ++��y, �1�e� rwxanrr .1 }' f •- n� ' i A MW ,,�•,s � r' F s •:-. ,. irfY.{ v++ �:_� �� ,y,, ;�r..o a ¢`',�N'� t_c� y�r�� � t ., 1 1� Ab' x- 4 lIRRISr r d' d.. 15, h:� '. I IN �� � a• t � � t "�}} ..w" �°s �� �� a +�d� yam+°# ��+ , � I . n' k,, � ♦A y �5f 4N iR_,,,t. � i rd F ,.., "?" } ,�.• � R' � � ^ � n F ` `' t �r�'� a , f �„`r`M, � M,�?7;a”' "° s"fi' 'PSA ' � 1 �Na k r�`� l Com' °�`'�,`-•& , `�'�° t ``w h�r �'`;•;`'� �S ZJ ' �+.�« t �- ' %�-; �'� y � 4 Y of ''fir. .�! HAGGERTY PROPERTY DECEMBER 2004 Hr gilbert w. clifford & associates a division of Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc 117 E Picadilly St Winchester, Virginia 22601 VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 Frederick County, Virginia IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT AND REZONING APPLICATION MATERIALS FOR REZONING REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE HAGGE RTY PROPERTY Red Bud Magisterial District December 2004 Prepared by. Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc 117 E. PiccadiUy Street Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone: 540-667-2139 Fax: 540-665-0493 PH [ZA Haggerty Impact Analysis Statement Table of Contents I. - Application II. Summary and Justification III. Impact Analysis A. Site Background and History B. Location and Access C. Site Suitability D. Traffic E. Sewage Conveyance and Water Supply F. Site Drainage G. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities H Hstoric Sites and Structures I. Impact on Community Facilities IV. Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model output V. Proffer Statement VI. Agency Comments VII. Survey Plat and Deed VIII. Tax Ticket I APPLICATION REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA :;To be completed jay, l'lanning,Sigff Fee Aniouni Pta%d Zoning Amendment Number, Date Deceived PC, Hcarirag Dat BBS 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: Patton Harris Rust & Associates Address: 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Telephone: 667-2139 Name: The Canyon, LC Telephone: 540-667-2120 Address: P.O. Box 3276 Winchester, Virginia 22601 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Charles E. Maddox, Jr. Telephone: 667-2139 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location Map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deed of property X Impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: The Canyon, LC David B. Holliday 6. A) Current Use of the Property: UnimprovedNacant Residential B) Proposed Use of the Property: Mixed Residential Development 7. Adjoining Property: SEE ATTACHED. 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). Located adjacent and east of Eddys Lane (Route 820), approximately 3 miles east of Winchester and 1,500 feet south of Route 7. The subject site is further located adjacent and south of the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant property and adjacent and west of Opequon Creek, which forms the boundary of Clarke County. 2 Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density of intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 55-A-212 & 212A Magisterial: Fire Service: Rescue Service: Red Bud Greenwood Greenwood Districts High School: Middle School: Elementary School James Wood James Wood Senseny Road 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 111.56 RA RP 111.56 Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family Home 100 Townhome 200 Multi -Family 0 Non -Residential Lots NA Mobile Home NA Hotel Rooms NA Office Retail Restaurant RN NA NA Square Footage of Proposed Uses Service Station Manufacturing Warehouse Other NA NA NA NA 3 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s) Owner(s) The Canyon, LC Date 9/10/04 Date 9/10/04 Haggerty — Rezoning ID # Name Address Zonin2 Use 55-A-209 Fu-Shep Farm Partnership 405 Briarmont Drive, Winchester, VA 22601 RA Residential 55-A-211 Fu-Shep Farm Partnership 405 Briarmont Drive, Winchester, VA 22601 RA Vacant 55-A-213 Fu-Shep Farm Partnership 405 Briarmont Drive, Winchester, VA 22601 RA Vacant 55-A-210 Goldie's LC 310 Eddy's Lane, Winchester, VA 22602 RA Residential 55-4-1 Frederick — Winchester P.O. Box 433, Winchester, VA 22604 RA Vacant 55-4-2 Steve Thomas Chadwell 6825 Valley Pike, Middletown, VA 22645 RA Residential 55-4-3 Michael Edward McKee 283 Eddy's Lane, Winchester, VA 22602 RA Residential 65-A-195 Lisa Ann & Mildred L Riggleman 2737 Senseny Road, Winchester, VA 22602 RA Agricultural 12-A-1 Robert A Ballantine 9910 Old Court Rd., Woodstock, VA 21163 RA Agricultural 12-A-2 Philip E & Mary V Wine 305 Cha el Hill Rd., Cross Junction, VA22625 RA Residential 56-A-19 Frederick — Winchester P.O. Box 433, Winchester, VA 22604 RA Vacant 56-A-19 Crown Communications, Inc PMB 353, 4017 Washington Rd., McCurra , PA 15317 RA j Local Government Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We) (Name) The Canyon, LC (Phone) 667-2120 (Address) P.O. Box 3276, Winchester, Virginia 22601 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument Number 040014715 and is described as Parcels: 212, 212A Lot:—Block: A Section/Tax Map 55 Subdivision: N/A do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Patton Harris Rust & Associates: Charles E. Maddox, Jr. (Phone) 667-2139 (Address) 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200, Winchester, Virga 22601 To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including X Rezoning (including proffers) _ Conditional Use Permits Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) _ Subdivision Site Plan My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set rgy/ur) hand and seal this 106 day of September , 2004 , Signatures State of Virginia, City/County of To -wit: W12 6 h , Wd I I& / I, ��[j5C': ��� f 1 S C�.v� a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this , h a day of Vt*200 . `�--ter, My Commission Expires:_ _ tar,)r; Notary Public II SUMMARY Haggerty H. Summary and Justification Impact Analysis Statement The Haggerty site lies wholly within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) of Frederick County, bordering approximately 3,735 feet of the Opequon Creek that also serves as the Frederick County - Clarke County boundary. The site is accessed from Valley NO Road (Route 659) via Eddys Lane (Route 820), and is east and adjacent to the "Fu-Shep" property, a part of the RP (Residential Performance) zoned Channing Drive project, and south and adjacent to the Opequon Regional Wastewater Facility. The site further contains a substantial part of the route alignment of proposed VA Route 37 (2,175 linear feet +/-). The rezoning of the site for a mixed residential development is consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, which expressly calls for suburban residential uses to predominate within the UDA. The site is generally located within an area designated for residential land use on the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan map. By using available land within the UDA, this rezoning promotes a dynamic housing market within the county's designated growth area, and therefore advances the important goal of reducing development pressure in the outlying rural areas. The applicant is confident that the proposed rezoning includes a proffer program that will appropriately and effectively mitigate the impacts of this development while simultaneously contributing to the regional infrastructure network The applicant's proposal provides a significant foundation for long-term infrastructure improvements within the easternmost portion of the UDA by reserving the rights of way for VA Route 37 and the planned regional sewerage pump and force main system. This proposal further establishes a collector road system that will ultimately provide a direct connection between VA Route 7 and Senseny Road, which will yield a tangible improvement to traffic conditions in the easternmost portion of the UDA. The mixed residential land use envisioned for the site will promote housing choice and result in a vibrant neighborhood that is consistent with the land use policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. As such, this rezoning request merits favorable consideration and approval. III IMPA C T A NA L YSIS Haggerty III. Impact Analysis A. Site Background and T1-ristory Impact Analysis Statement The Haggerty site is comprised of two parcels totaling 111.56 acres. The site is located wholly within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) of Frederick County, and is adjacent to the "Fu-Shep" component of the RP zoned Channing Drive project. As per the approved Master Development Plan for the "Fu-Shep" development, the residential use planned immediately adjacent to the Haggerty site will consist of single family small lot units. (See Figures 1 and 2). The site was historically used for agriculture; however, active farming has not occurred on the properties for many years. The farmhouse associated with the acreage still exists, although the majority of the site is unimproved. The path of proposed VA Route 37 traverses the site. The segment of the roadway that will ultimately pass through the project will establish the critical connection between Berryville Pike (Route 7) and Senseny Road (Route 657). The proposed development program for the Haggerty site reflects the importance of proposed VA Route 37 as a regional improvement through the dedication of required right-of-way and compatible project design. The site is not located within the boundaries of any small area plan included in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The land use policies governing the UDA and suburban residential development provide the general guidance and justification for the transition of the site to suburban residential land uses. The requested rezoning from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) will enable continued development within the UDA in accord with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. HAGGER% ? ` PROPERTY I gilbert w. clifford & associokes o di5ion of LIPS`A! LC�I`LL PMElYT AREA Potton, Har SEWL-R—PPATER SERVICE ARSA Horns, Frust &Associates, pc I I I E. PicadMy ;l. Vochnier, Wginia 226Di FREDERICK COUNTY, WROINIR I YOU; (540) 667-2134 Fax: (541) 665-0493 F;oure � Haggerty B. Location and Access Impact Analysis Statement The Haggerty site is accessed from Valley NO Road (Route 659) via Eddys Lane (Route 820), and is east and adjacent to the "Fu-Shep" property, a part of the RP (Residential Performance) zoned Channing Drive project, and south and adjacent to the Opequon Regional Wastewater Facility. The Haggerty site is bounded to the east by approximately 3,735 feet of the Opequon Creek that also serves as the Frederick County - Clarke County boundary. (See Figure 3) Access planning for the Haggerty site and adjoining properties has been the subject of significant study for many years. Initial planning efforts began with the Twin Lakes proposal in 1989, which included a proposed north -south collector road to accommodate three tracts of land, two of which are now included in an adjacent master planned community (Giles and Fu-Shep properties). As originally conceived, this collector road would have directly connected Senseny Road with VA Route 7, thus providing a critical eastern access to Route 7 for a principal growth corridor of the UDA. Around the time of the Twin Lakes proposal, the concept of an eastern bypass (Route 37 east) was in the planning stages and the possibility of the collector road being an integral part of the Route 37 project was explored. Central to this study was the potential impact of such a roadway on the regional wastewater treatment facility managed by the Frederick Winchester Service Authority (FWSA). Following careful analysis and extensive discussion, the connector road project was generally supported by the FWSA; however, economic conditions in the early 1990's caused planning to stall. The concept of Channing Drive as a means of connecting the Senseny Road corridor with Route 7 was introduced by the developers of the Giles, Fu-Shep, Lynnhaven and Fieldstone subdivisions in the mid to late 1990's. Located further west than the collector road originally envisioned through the Twin Lakes project, Channing Drive is intended to connect Senseny Road with Greenwood Road and ultimately Route 7 via Valley Mill Road. This road project is now under construction. Haggerty Impact Analysis Statement Discussions with the FWSA concernirig a connector road were resumed again in late 2003, beginning with a plan for a road providing access to the Haggerty site from Route 7 that would follow the general alignment of proposed VA Route 37. The proposed path of the access road would have ultimately crossed FWSA property in closer proximity to the facility's operable treatment plant units than was anticipated with the approved alignment of VA Route 37 (Alternate "C" - see Figure 3). Not comfortable with this probable design outcome, the FWSA rejected the proposed roadway alignment to avoid potential facility expansion conflicts. The decision of the FWSA temporarily shifted the focus of transportation planning for the project to the site's existing access arrangement involving Eddys Lane (Route 820) and Valley Mill Road (Route 659). Analysis of this access scenario indicated that the scope of improvements necessary to support projected traffic would be problematic due to several factors, which include (1) the one lane bridge across Abrams Creek, (2) property owner requests to not improve the bridge, and (3) limited right-of-way availability along Eddys Lane and, in particular, at its intersection with Valley Mill Road. The outcome of these efforts was a return to the concept of a direct connection between the Haggerty site and VA Route 7. The transportation program proposed with this application includes the initial components of a collector road system intended to serve the easternmost portion of the UDA The key element of the proposed system is a "spine" collector road that is planned to traverse the Haggerty site from north to south and ultimately connect VA Route 7 and Senseny Road. The spine road will be constructed from VA Route 7 to the Haggerty site by the developer during the first phase of the development process. The spine road will be aligned to traverse the FWSA property further west than originally proposed in 2003, and will connect with VA Route 7 to form an at grade intersection opposite the planned juncture of the VA Route 37 entrance/exit ramp. The spine road will serve as the principal means of access for the proposed development and serve the local access needs of the easternmost portion of the UDA for the early year operation of VA Route 37. �6 '? f J .. .N o l orl -� 10 �VP�-�' 659 c •" � �: �`�--�� 4 PROPERTY Q ' 6r wv FIX p 'FUTURE ACCEss By GTHHERs HAGGERiY ; PROPERTY HAGGERTY S� _ PROPERTY f t! z 3 A � COLLECTUR Onf i OTHERS) N HAGGERTY PROPERTY gilbert w. clifford & associates a division of o LOCATION AND ACCESS Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc Q\ 117 E Picadii ly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 A fREDERICK COUNTY, MAMA VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 figure 3 Haggerty C. Site Suitability Impact Analysis Statement The site does not contain conditions that would preclude or substantially hinder development activities. The following table provides an area summary of environmental features: Haggerty Environmental Features Total Project Area 111.56 Acres Area in Flood Plain 19.67 Acres 17.63% Area in Steep Slopes 0.00 Acres 0.0% Area in Wetlands, Lakes, & Ponds 0.60 Acres 0.54% Total Area in Environmental Features 20.27 Acres 18.175% The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Weikert-Berks-Blairton soil association, with the particular geology being Martinsburg shale. Such geology is prevalent on land located east of Interstate 81 and is not identified as prime farmland. Topographic mapping for the site indicates a site typical of the Martinsburg shale region with steeply eroded side slopes and reasonably level plain areas. Typical of other properties within the Urban Development Area, this site has certain areas which have excellent potential for quality RP zoned cluster uses. Likewise, there are other areas that will appropriately be set aside for environmental and open space purposes. The Comprehensive Policy Plan envisions an overall density within the UDA not to exceed 3.0 dwelling units (Dq per acre, and the Zoning Ordinance perniits a maximum project density of 4.0 units per acre on an RP -zoned parcel greater than 100 acres in size. The challenges presented by site characteristics and regional infrastructure demands suggest a lesser density of use for the Haggerty site. The following matrix outlines the aggregate development program proposed with this rezoning and further breaks down the project by land bay. The proposed land bay configuration is depicted on Figure 6. Haggerty Haggerty Rezoning Planned Development Program Dwelling Unit Mix & Density Impact Analysis Statement Land Bay #1 Land Bay #2 Land Bay #3 Land Bay #4 TOTAL Single Family, detached 62 0 38 0 100 Single Fan -@y, attached 146 0 64 0 200 Total Units 208 0 102 0 300 Land Area 31.38 12.48 47.7 20.0 111.56 DU Densi 2.66 'Land Bay Notes —Land Bay #2 consists solely of the reserved right-of-way for proposed Route 37. Land Bay #4 consists exclusively of reserved open space. The mix of housing types proposed for this project was determined by several factors that significantly influence site development, namely the Route 37 corridor that traverses the site, the flood plain and riparian systems, and the topographic features. The upland areas are suitable for a mixture of single family detached and attached residential uses. Dense evergreen buffers between areas of housing and the right of way are to be planted early in the process to attenuate light and sound issues presented by the ultimate construction and operation of VA Route 37. It is anticipated that these buffers will be mature by the time of actual construction of the roadway. The area most impacted by site constraints is downhill to the east of the VA Route 37 right of way. As such, fewer residential units are planned for this area. A mix of single family detached and attached units will comprise the area, which will be clustered to accommodate site features. Significant open spaces and park land are also planned in this general area. The transportation system planned for the project will be multi -modal, consisting of internal roadways and trails that will interconnect the land bays and housing types, ensuring a fully unified and walkable development. The "spine" collector road and the future east -west collector will be located to facilitate a future bridge crossing by the limited access VA Route 37. Haggerty Impact Analysis Statement The Haggerty rezoning is a "mixed residential" proposal that is restricted by proffer to a maximum of 300 dwelling units. The mixture of actual housing types may vary during master plan preparation as allowed by RP district standards. The general housing mix outlined in the table above is presented for the purposes of estimating project impacts and preparation of the proffer statement. The proffer statement has been developed so that maximum impacts are predicted and effectively addressed, and any adjustment to housing types and/or quantities within land bays will not result in additional traffic, water and sewer use or solid waste generation. Further, the monetary contributions included in the proffer statement are established by unit type, thereby ensuring the accurate capture of capital facilities impacts regardless of the ultimate unit mix. Maintaining flexibility in the ultimate housing mix is essential to allowing project design to evolve pursuant to the outcomes of detailed analysis generated in subsequent phases of the design process. To ensure that a mix of housing types is achieved on the Haggerty site, the applicant has proffered that no more than 50% and no less than 20% of the project will develop as single family detached units. The final mix will be determined based upon its capacity to achieve the intended product of a high-quality master planned community. Land planning for the Haggerty project also reserves roughly 20 acres of open space area adjacent to the FWSA property. This acreage may be used by the FWSA for enhanced buffering of the treatment facility or to support facility expansion as needed to meet the increasing treatment requirements associated with the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. The following exhibits show the zoning context for the property (Figure 4), the characteristics of the site (Figure 5), planned project land bays (Figure 6), and the proposed Generalized Development Plan (GDP) for the project (Figure 7). fa 'L o��Q��AN��si a � Rif � •� r�� e � ` ` ,it ! ., Cn h • r �jo CW n a it 2 wqm PRO PFEY, 1 } ��'� � � 'fir ���r� tf f j� �` 3"�""! ,� �� .Y '_ 3 `-' ,•f ' . , /t � ti PROPM . �'.> .m � •t ��,�11"„`�,.� � ��. t•.c ..�„ �y��r� Ih�iv\,,• r Sar ��j � ~ � (i,„ f 1Fr5, is r $� g ✓ � '"y, '£ d' `" i1►d44 . +r r `q� t ` �c Y ken ViN.yah• ':�' t'r L — � '�� ��r„����°�Y��r ` , �•�T���,`F`.. � �i _ .. ';^ ,GT 'W&I ED �i A�rl •5 .plc, n . s� d� 1,7 C � Cz ��-�-� � =ice_..- ^ Lit' ,. •,�� C - - } Figure 4 � HAGGERTY PROPERTY gilbert w. clifford & associates II 3 a division of o \ CURRENT AREA PLANNING MAP Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc 117 E. Ficodi6y O O s1. Wm&Adw, Wonja 22601 ` Q fREDERICK COUNTY, 14ROIN14 VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 Figure 4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN KEY 'fir ♦ FLOODPLAIN S} -WETLAND PROPOSED RT. 37 ALIGNMENT i� THROUGH SITE ) Y WOODLANDS AREA HACCERTY PROPERTY gilbert w. clifford & associates a division of ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES AND PLAN Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc n 117 E. Picodilly Si. Wmchesler, Virginia 22601 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAR: (540) 665-0493 5 Figure 7 HAGGERTY PROPERTY gilbert w. clifford & associates lit a division of 0 o GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc O \ 117 E Mcadilty St Winchester, Yeginia 22601 A FREDERICK COUNTY, 14RGIN14 VOICE (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 Figure 7 Haggerty D. Traffic Impact Analysis Statement Using traffic generation figures from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 7`h Edition, the proposed mixed residential development plan is projected to produce 2,833 vehicle trips per day (VPD). The projected traffic will utilize a proposed "spine" collector road that will extend from the site across the adjoining FWSA property to form a direct connection with VA Route 7. Impacts to the Valley Mill Road corridor will be eliminated through this arrangement. The traffic impact analysis (TIA) prepared for this project shows that the transportation improvements proffered by the applicant will mitigate projected traffic impacts and result in acceptable and manageable level of service conditions on study area roads. The UA report follows this summary section. Transportation Background Of strategic importance to achieving acceptable traffic conditions within the subject portion of the UDA is the provision of safe and convenient access to VA Route 7. At present, there are three points of connection to Route 7 from the Senseny Road corridor, namely Valley Mill Road (west) at I-81, Greenwood Road, and Valley Mill Road (east) near the Clarke County line. Long-range transportation planning for this area provides for the additional connection of VA Route 37 at the location shown in Figure 8. The Haggerty site as well as several adjoining undeveloped tracts currently rely upon the indirect path of Eddys Lane (Route 820) and Valley Mill Road (east) to access VA Route 7. As noted in the Access and Location section of this analysis, transportation and land use planning in this area has included several concepts that would have enabled a direct link between these tracts and VA Route 7, none of which have come to fruition. Moreover, transportation alternatives that maintain reliance on Eddys Lane and Valley Mill Road to support the area's projected traffic growth have presented implementation challenges that compromise both the viability and desirability of such approaches. Haggerty Impact Analysis Statement The challenges presented by these access limitations prompted an extended period of study and deliberation involving the applicant, other area property owners, county planning staff, and VDOT. The outcome of this effort was the realization that a unique transportation approach was needed for the easternmost portion of the UDA. The transportation program developed for the Haggerty tract therefore involves a broader scope and purpose than is customary for rezoning petitions of its scale and intensity. Indeed, the transportation program proposed with this application introduces a long-range strategy for infrastructure development that will accommodate future access and traffic demands anticipated for not only the Haggerty tract project, but the surrounding area as a whole. Proposed Transportation Program A collector road system is proposed through this application that will be designed to enable connections with future developments in the vicinity of the Haggerty site, and will further set the foundation for a direct connection between Senseny Road and VA Route 7. The project's internal road network will be oriented on a north—south spine road constructed generally parallel to the VA Route 37 right-of-way. The spine road is planned to provide exclusive access to the proposed development and will therefore be constructed from VA Route 7 to the site during the first phase of development activities, and will consist of two travel lanes and a center turn lane. The availability of the spine road connection with VA Route 7 allows elimination of the Eddys Lane entrance to the site and the exclusion of Eddys Lane and Valley Mill Road from the transportation programs proposed with this and future projects. As noted above, the internal road network serving the Haggerty project land bays will extend from the proposed spine road. Future projects in the area will also use the spine road for access from VA Route 7, and will therefore be expected to provide for the construction of collector road connections to the proposed roadway. To facilitate the expansion of the collector road system, the applicant will provide the right of way necessary to enable the east -west connection required to support future development west of Eddys Lane. The spine road will further be constructed to the south property boundary to enable its eventual extension to Senseny Road. Haggerty Impact Analysis Statement The proposed "spine" collector road will additionally offer the FWSA an alternative point of access for its treatment facility that will allow the elimination of the facility's existing entrance on VA Route 7. This will provide stoplight controlled turning movements for traffic generated by the treatment facility, which will enhance access management and traffic safety on the impacted segment of VA Route 7. Coordination of these access modifications will occur during the first phase of site planning for the Haggerty project. The proposed collector road system represents a substantial opportunity to advance traffic planning and improve traffic conditions within the easternmost portion of the UDA. The central spine road will create an alternative path for north -south traffic movement that will complement Greenwood Road and Channing Drive, providing an additional outlet for the Senseny Road corridor. Moreover, the collector road system has been designed to ensure accommodation of trips generated by the future development of land located west of Eddys Lane, thereby ensuring that Eddys Lane and Valley Mill Road will avoid direct impacts from growth in the area. The proposed collector road system therefore offers a solution to the transportation dilemma that has historically impacted the subject site in particular and the easternmost portion of the UDA as a whole. Indeed, this approach fills a notable void in the Eastern Road Plan by introducing a viable road development strategy to the area and establishing a framework for its implementation. In addition to the referenced infrastructure improvements, the applicant has proffered to dedicate the right of way needed for the future construction of VA Route 37 through the site. It should be noted that this dedication of 12.48 acres of right-of-way, at no cost to Frederick County, has a measurable and significant effect on the applicant's development program. Despite this impact, the conceptual design of the project is compatible with both the immediate right-of-way reservation and the future construction and operation of VA Route 37. The proffered right-of-way dedication promotes attainment of a key regional transportation objective. Haggerty Impact Analysis Statement The transportation improvements proffered by the applicant are identified on the Generalized Development Plan (see Figure 7), and are labeled numerically to correspond with the text of the proposed Proffer Statement. N-1 LAP/Ntio'l ��I ■ ;ay +EJfCat REMVE wT'r CHANGE fl140%TQ BE 01.1DED BY „ A r,HESTEH NMI P =. � � l 4 ' I Fredencic ' 41 tz' •er is ki m •= County RFCONFiGURC �" = (� CUNNECTION t � A 1 I , 1 i /I REMOVE --AD t PROJECT i' n AREA ._:r_ new'-.L-•+�: µt l t sr 'Prc cn M T n r,�cy .e:.w asrx+n fr_.w.sr . cw�sar K+. S:.rep TYPICAL SEMONS JEW j 1 L + - r '-�A .; U2 - U4 U411 A if, t:_ R40 Z r;` WAIS SUN \I o' I �a FRREDFR11-K C011AITY, U7RWIV/A I '46 %L ME gilbert ta. ciifford rr a:;sucic�tes u division of Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc 1;7 E. Picadil;y 5t. R4rochester, Vir;inia 22647 VOICE: (540) 667 21A FAX: (540) 665 4493 •er is ki m •= County RFCONFiGURC �" = (� CUNNECTION t � A 1 I , 1 i /I REMOVE --AD t PROJECT i' n AREA ._:r_ new'-.L-•+�: µt l t sr 'Prc cn M T n r,�cy .e:.w asrx+n fr_.w.sr . cw�sar K+. S:.rep TYPICAL SEMONS JEW j 1 L + - r '-�A .; U2 - U4 U411 A if, t:_ R40 Z r;` WAIS SUN \I o' I �a FRREDFR11-K C011AITY, U7RWIV/A I '46 %L ME gilbert ta. ciifford rr a:;sucic�tes u division of Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc 1;7 E. Picadil;y 5t. R4rochester, Vir;inia 22647 VOICE: (540) 667 21A FAX: (540) 665 4493 A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Haggerty Property Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: Dave Holliday 205 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Engineers. Surveyors, Planners, Landscape Architects. September 22, 2004 208 Church Street, SE Leesburg, Virginia 20175 _"T 703.777.3616 H_, %__I&F 703.777.3725 September 22, 2004 OVERVIEW Rennrt C�immmary r J Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Haggerty Property development to be located southeast of the Route 7 (Berryville Pike)/Valley Mill Road (Route 659) intersection in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed project will include a total of 180 single family detached units, 60 apartment units, and 60 townhouses with sole -access provided along the Eddy's Lane via Valley Mill Road. The development will be built -out in a single phase by the year 2007. PHR+A has provided Figure 1 to illustrate the location of Haggerty Property with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying the Haggerty Property development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: • Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of impact, • Calculation of trip generation for the proposed Haggerty Property development, • Distribution and assignment of the Haggerty Property generated trips onto the study area roadway network, • Analysis of capacity and level of service using the newest version of the highway capacity software, HCS -2000, for existing and future conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS PHR+A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersections of Route 7 /Valley Mill Road and Valley Mill Road/Eddy's Lane in Frederick County, Virginia. Additionally, PHR+A counted the eastbound u -turning volume at the intersection of Route 7/Redbud Road since planned improvements would require this movement to be diverted to the Route 7 Nalley Mill Road intersection in the future. In order to determine the ADT (Average Daily Traffic) along the study area roadway links, a conservative "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 10% was assumed. Figure 2 shows the existing ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersections of Route Walley Mill Road and Valley Mill Road/Eddy's Lane. Figure 3 shows the respective existing lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All traffic count data and HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Haggerty Property PH R+A September 22, 2004 Page 1 No Scale �} F+'BtJ� t V� ,,,).Rtd . r ew ! �r_ a Ct fg - drr> . Fa or Pine Rdeif(R npmt P P 1 H Figure 1 PR+A H °wviil� f��ce � � --Rd u r, c� t Leslie Ke stone vak%ey tv1�i1 4t � j si `SITE P: 7 #I Hagmerty Property Vicinity Map w -y -; if Q -$ Reek I A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Haggerty Property September 22, 2004 Page 2 No Scale 636 17,49) AM(PM) Figure 2 Existing Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Haggerty Property PH R+A September 22, 2 Pagee 3 3 No Scale 7 r� �(C)D Unsignalized Intersection BoRYv;Ue p� llRLX y1 659 Unsignalized Intersection h rb r' Weekday AM(Weekday PM) IJ �� *Denotes Critical Unsignalized Movement Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Level of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Haggerty Property PH R+A September 22, 2 e 4 Page 4 2007 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS PHR+A increased the existing traffic volumes along Route 7, Valley Mill Road and T 1,f_ r .1 r r rclay � i,ane using a conservative growth rate of live percent (5%) per year through Year 2007. The eastbound u -turning volumes from the Route 7/Redbud Road intersection were then diverted to the intersection of Route 7 /Valley Mill Road to account for the planned improvements described in the Existing Conditions section of this report. Additionally, PHR+A included all trips relating to specific future "other developments" located along Channing Drive and Valley Mill Road as obtained from the report titled: A Tra Ic Impact Analysis of Fieldstone, by PHR+A, dated November 21, 2003. Based upon the 7t1i Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, PHR+A has provided Table 1 to summarize the 2007 "other developments" trip generation. Figure 4 shows the 2007 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersections of Route Walley Mill Road and Valley Mill Road/Eddy's Lane. Figure 5 shows the corresponding 2007 background lane geometry and levels of service. All HCS - 2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Table 1: Background Trip Generation A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Haggerty Property PR+A September 22, 2004 u Page 5 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT Red -Bud Run 210 Single -Family Detached 300 units 55 165 219 182 107 288 3,000 Total 55 165 219 182 107 288 3,000 Toll Borthers- Eddy's Lane 210 Single -Family Detached 80 units 16 49 65 55 32 88 800 Total 16 49 65 55 32 88 800 Other Developments along Channing Drive 210 Single -Family Detached 300 units 55 165 219 182 107 288 3,000 230 Townhouse/Condo 130 units 11 53 64 50 25 75 1,131 820 Retail 120,000 SF 107 68 175 339 367 706 7,645 Total 172 286 458 570 498 1,069 11,776 Fieldstone Development 210 Single -Family Detached 63 units 13 40 54 45 26 71 630 230 Townhouse/Condo 207 units 16 77 92 73 36 109 1,801 Total 29 117 146 118 62 180 2,431 Chadwell Property 210 Single -Family Detached 30 units 8 23 30 23 13 36 300 Total 8 23 30 23 13 36 300 A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Haggerty Property PR+A September 22, 2004 u Page 5 i Is No Scale AM(PM) Figure 4 2007 Background Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Haggerty Property PH R+A September 22, 2 e 6 Page 6 TV Suggested No Scale Improvements 7 (B)C~qlq 659 <C� Signalized Intersection 7 LOS=C(C) *(D)B Unsignalized �Q,LQ1 Intersection Bon3'vill� pie SITE 1J�>>1Ra � 9r V a>>e YYJa� tTi 659 � Unsignalized Intersection h Weekday AM(Weekday PM) T A *Denotes Critical Unsignalized Movement Figure 5 2007 Background Lane Geometry and Level of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Haggerty Property P R+A September 22, 2HPagee 7 7 PROPOSED TRIP GENERATION PHR+A determined the number of trips entering and exiting the site based upon a total development of 180 single family detached units, 60 apartment units, and 60 townhouses. Using the 7th Edition of ITE's Trip Generation Report, Table 2 was prepared to summarize the trip generation results for the proposed Haggerty Property development. Table 2: Proposed Trip Generation Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT Haggerty Property 210 Single -Family Detached 180 units 34 102 135 115 67 182 1,800 220 Apartment 60 units 7 27 33 33 18 51 511 230 Townhouse/Condo 60 units 6 28 34 26 13 40 522 Total 46 157 203 174 98 272 2,833 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 Haggerty Property trips (Table 2) throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 7 shows the respective development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2007 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Haggerty Property assigned trips (Figure 7) were added to the 2007 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2007 build -out conditions. Figure 8 shows the 2007 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersections of Route 7/ Valley Mill Road and Valley Mill Road/Eddy's Lane. Figure 9 shows the respective 2007 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. CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the proposed Haggerty Property development are acceptable and manageable. The intersection of Valley Mill Road/Eddy's Lane will maintain acceptable levels of service "A" during 2007 build -out conditions. The intersection of Route Walley Mill Road will operate with levels of service of "F" during both the 2007 background and build -out traffic conditions indicating a negligible impact from the proposed development. The addition of a traffic signal during would increase the level of service to "C" or better. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Haggerty Property P R+A September 22, 2004 H Page 8 No Scale Figure 6 PR+AH Trip Distribution Percentage A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Haggerty Property September 22, 2004 Page 9 No Scale 7 SIO V'94 r` �1^D1 v 399 �6 ~ Ra �1 SITE V alae �y r9� a D D n AM(PM) Figure 7 Development -Generated Trip Assignments A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Haggerty Property 10 R+ASeptember 22, 2004 Page 10H0 114 No Scale AM(PM) Figure 8 2007 Build out Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Haggerty Property P R+A September 22, 2004 HPage 11 N Suggested No Scale Improvements 7 (B)CME4 65C� 9 `C� Signalized Intersection 7 LOS=C(C) *(D)B M� Unsignalized �Q,Lpl Intersection B�'rn'�7leplke SITE to 659 Unsignalized Intersection h Weekday AM(Weekday PM) *Denotes Critical Unsignalized Movement Figure 9 2007 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Haggerty Property PHR+A September 22, 2004 Page 12 APPENDIX HCS -2000 Worksheets Traffic Counts Haggerty E. Sewage Conveyance and Water Supply Impact Analysis Statement The Haggerty site exists within the designated Urban Development Area (L)DA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) of Frederick County (See Figure 10). The property is therefore entitled by policy to service by public water and sewer facilities. The site will be served by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) and the project will assist in implementation of the current Senseny Road sewage system upgrade program. The FCSA plans to implement a regional sewer pump station near Opequon Creek, which will lessen present sewer flows to the Frederick Heights interceptor and further relieve hydraulic overload conditions in the FWSA Abrams Creek interceptor line. Sites on the Haggerty site for both the regional pump station and the force main are provided by proffer thereby allowing direct access to a connection within the Opequon Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility. The connection location may include a new headworks facility that is presently under study by FWSA and FCSA. Water service to this site will be extended from the Senseny Road water system across the Fu-Shep development. Extension of the system will further provide water supply service, including fire protection, to the Opequon Regional Wastewater Facility, which is presently served by an independent system. Future phase development will allow looping this single line facility to increase flexibility and system redundancy. The following table provides a list of proposed uses and flow generation estimates for the purposes of impact analysis. The impact created by this rezoning is acceptable and manageable. Figure 11 shows the locations of utility infrastructure planned in this phase of study area development. Haggerty Impact Analysis Statement Haggerty Rezoning Water Use/Wastewater Flow Summary Single Family, Attached 200 - = - 150- - - - - 30,000 Project Total: 50,000 gpd EWER & WATER rgum /U/i H4GGERTY PROPERTY gilbert w, clifford & associates a division of URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA MAP Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 Figure 11 ME „ \ H,4GGERTY PROPERTY gilbert w. clifford & associates a division of 0 o WA TER &SEWER Patton, Harris, Rust &Associates, pc o \ 117 E Pica ft St Vindater, Virginia 22601 Q FREDERICK COUNTY, WRGIN14 V01M (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 Figure 11 Haggerty F. Site Drainage Impact Analysis Statement Figure 12 shows the decentralized natural drainage pattern that exists on this site. The lack of drainage concentration allows the utilization of low impact type stormwater management techniques within the various sub -sheds. The sub -sheds affected by development are both small and localized. Design practices will protect the natural swale areas to the maximum extent possible. Disturbance will be limited primarily by right angle road crossings. Adequate channel calculations will be provided to ensure that direct runoff is contained within the channel and post development velocities will be managed to protect the existing stream banks, including the Opequon Creek. An open space plan is shown on Figure 13 that depicts how site design will protect the natural drainage channels. Of note is the significant impact presented by the future construction of VA Route 37 on the site's stormwater management systems. This application includes a proffer allowing use of the project's open space by VDOT to implement effective E 8 design at the time of VA Route 37 engineering and construction. Given the relatively low density proposed with this rezoning and the reservation of substantial open space within the sensitive drainage areas, the employment of low impact site design techniques will result in an acceptable and manageable drainage system for the Haggerty development. Figure 12 HAGGERTY PROPERTY gilbert w. clifford & associates II a division of oSTORMWATEP MANAGEMENT PLAN Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc Q 117 E Picadily I Wnchester, Yronio 22601 FREDERICK COUNTY, WRGIN14 VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX- (540) 665-0493 Figure 12 Rp PLj O0 � 1 MAN •. 60' R/W FOR FUTURE ACCESS BY OTHERS HAGGERTY PROPERTY I ROAD CO�LLECCTOR Y (BY OTHERS) 31 wwrP DENOTES OPEN SPACE Figure 13 N3 HAGGERTY PROPERTY gilbert w. Clifford & associates if o \ OPEN SPACE PLAN a division of Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc O 117 E Finaa SL MfirrchmW, Virginia 22601 FREOER/CK COUNTY W VIN14 VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FQ (540) 665-0493 Figure 13 Haggerty G. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Impact Analysis Statement The 300 units comprising the Haggerty project will generate approximately 3,000 lbs. of solid waste per day (1.50 T/da�. Solid waste from the project will be deposited in the Frederick County landfill following collection at citizen convenience/dumpster facilities or via private carrier(s) contracted by neighborhood residents. Haggerty Rezoning Solid Waste Generation Summary Solid Unit Type No. of Units Waste Total Waste 'Generation (#'S)- (#_/day) #'s)_(# /day) Single Family Detached 100 12 1,200 Single Family, Attached . 200 9 1,800 Total Waste (#'s)/day 3,000 Total Waste (tons)/day 1.50 Haggerty H. Historic Sites and Structures Impact Analysis Statement Research of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for Route 37, the Rural Landmarks Survey of FrederickCount, and the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia revealed that the Haggerty site does not contain any historic or potentially significant sites or structures. Moreover, the site is not located within the designated core area of any recorded Civil War battlefield. Development of the Haggerty site will not impact any potentially significant resources located in the surrounding community. It is noted that the Rural Landmarks Survey of Frederick County includes the Haggerty House (# 34-398), which is located on the subject property. However, this structure is not identified as potentially significant and therefore does not warrant unique treatment or preservation. Given the absence of potentially significant resources on the site and the relative distance to any notable off-site resources, planning staff determined that review of this application by the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) was not necessary. Figure 14 shows historic sites or structures located in the vicinity of the Haggerty site. RURAL LANDMARKS POTEN77ALL Y NUMBER DESCRIP77ON SIGNIFICANT 397 Adams House No J98 Haggerty House No 1150 Carter—Lee—Damron House No 5 Millbank Yes H4GGERTY PROPERTY gilbert w. clifford & associates il` a division of o RURAL LANDMARK STUDY Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc p 117 E. Fludlly St Winchester, Virginia 22601 fREDERICK COUNTY, WRGIN14 VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 Figure 14 Haggerty I. Impact on Community Facilities Impact Analysis Statement The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model was run by planning staff to project the fiscal impact on community facilities attributable to the proposed rezoning. The applicant has offered per unit monetary contributions with the proffer statement equivalent to the calculated impacts to mitigate the effects on Frederick County. The total contribution is proffered to be allocated according to housing type as follows: An escalator clause is included with the proffer statement to mitigate the effects of inflation on the value of the proffered monetary contributions. This provision stipulates that any monetary contributions proffered by the applicant that are paid after 30 months from the date of rezoning approval will be adjusted pursuant to the Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI -U). Single Family, Detached (per unit) Single Family, Attached (per unit) Fire and Rescue $889.00 $707.00 Public Schools $7,571.00 $5,881.00 Recreation & Parks $1,288.00 $1,040.00 Library $213.00 $173.00 Sheriff's Office $50.00 $50.00 Administration Bldg. $200.00 $200.00 TOTAL $10,211.00 r$8,051.00 An escalator clause is included with the proffer statement to mitigate the effects of inflation on the value of the proffered monetary contributions. This provision stipulates that any monetary contributions proffered by the applicant that are paid after 30 months from the date of rezoning approval will be adjusted pursuant to the Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI -U). Iv FRE-DE"CIKCOLWTFIMPACT MODEL OUTPUT MQDULr. #PPUCANT; ' Haggerty LAi,JD USE TYPE RP REAL tnST-VAL $27,130.000 FIRE & RESCUE = 4 Fire and Rescue Department Eleinghlaq s600ls Middle, Schools ' High *hcols Parks and Recreation' ouYI,c Library Shen ffs Offices �dinipistraiion Building Pther Miscallarteous Facilities SPOTOTAII LE$4:.NET FISCAL IIMPACj'i NkTCAP. FACILITIE IMPAf,T Nft fiscal Impact Coats at: Inmoac)Qedi4 Required (entered in Cad(at F2 Ig1U'[cs coI sum only) $23(),176 $1,140,401 st 4,599 $848,259 5397,616 $�9 125 $40,411 352,503 316¢.982 $43,$00,571 $0 redits be T n kli Flitute Taxes P P Tphal,Potgntial Cur. Budget C1 Bud et a. fulrire CIO/ ' TO> Crlatiits dyer Pilo ab Eati�n cwt S. Taxes, OMerIW!IaAuVWJ $178.3$5 $855,999 689,609 $19,333 $38,822 s0 $8.355 to $74,8DS ;82,593 siz�2,gt 54$,592 X1)7,95 41,044,394 89,BQ9 19,333 �4f,178 . 5A 5157,4p1 A}FiUsime1nl For RR+lenue• Net Capital tiet Cast Per gst Jsr F tl(�G}slmoa dwelling Unit $0 $230,l715 $767 I S709,544 {1.933,714 $6,446 l I _ $60,879 3$36,737 $1;122 13,134 555,991 4167 324062 s8,"8 $30 f .sq $52,30$ $175 I $106;936 s0 3a I b $922;545 $2,5MW$ $8,593 I $d a 1 n5 3 IVI)EX: " 1.0' 111 Cap. equip IroiJttd fol 1 •p 111Rev-Qdsi dal. " .0° it Ratio tR Ca Avg: 0.0 Rev,tost Bal "N{ NgDk�T`.PIttFt€ ,CE -ES 4A. 1.10 _... _.__ R�botoCPAYg METKODOL,OGY. 1. apd8) pci�ities reQuirelments ire InptrE to the (Inst cdlef{nn a �atcu�at�d in trig model. 2. tet Frsr al iRro4.4 Nt / om r�bgA1 t4IclA ffa� is lnpu laj royr R6t*l of $e and Column (zero It eyatf+i$); il+cl4 ed, ate a orre�tlme I ' foe �r5p yQaf 4 iy a� Ar'1 valve. 3. NP}! 0 tyre bper cap f quip tuxes; pb d in thlt 0901 P as Ap ulalt'r in decal impacts. 4- NPV re 4pltyi drfpegd►hire paiQ R{o 'f{ X01' C�Icfrtat�d in itlkaI impacts. 3. NPU q tutyre take's p0rd ir3 bong curr�rr! GOUhIY ttP to starrdOrd tdr rrew facilities„ as Fal u led for each nem [aFi1i,4�. 61 o umhs three fhrou��► Eve sfe adde j as.pot 401 crledits against the calWleCed capital rrc liti�s requirements. These are^ alp ustgd for percent of costs ooyer6d by the revenues I rom the pre1ett (ai:t k or, ads ratio to avg: [qi all iegioantlal devr9opmeni). NATE: Proffer c�lgtfl"dIQ rpt In lupe jnµude }n rqs) because they }jr$ catsh payrfents u� kont Credits dp rndgde interest it the projects Bre debt financed NpTi�' ---'•.r✓`-MOdehRun;�1e 1140{1-04(� Project Description: Assumes maximum number of 300 residential units on 112 acres (100 Single Family Detached and 2DD Single Family Attached). Maximum density DI 2-68 units per acre; Maximum density of 2.68 units per acre. Due to changing conditions associated vrith development in the County. the results of this Output Module may not be %al[d beyond a period of 9D days from the model run date. PROFFER STA TEMEAr' PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ. # Rural Areas (RA) to Residential Performance (RP) PROPERTi': 111.56 acres +/-; Tax Map Parcels 55-A-212 & 212A (the "Property") RECORD OWNER The Canyon, LC APPLICANT: The Canyon, LC PROJE CT NAME: Haggerty Property ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: December 20, 2004 REVISION DATE (S): N/A The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as described above, shall bein strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced RP conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, Haggerty Property" dated December 20, 2004 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following: LAND USE: 1.1 Residential development on the Property shall not exceed a maximum of 300 dwelling units. Housing types shall be limited to single family detached and single family attached units. 1.2 Single family detached housing types shall comprise a minimum of 60 units, but shall not exceed a maximum of 150 units. Page 1 of 7 Haggerty Proffer Statement 2. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND PLAN APPROVALS: 2.1 The Property shall be developed as one single and unified development in accordance with applicable ordinances, regulations, and design standards, and this Haggerty Proffer Statement as approved by the Board. The project is a mixed use residential type allowing a range of housing types within limits established by this proffer statement. 2.2 The maximum dwelling units for which certificates of occupancy are requested shall be 100 in any 12 month period beginning on the date of final master development plan approval by the Board. 2.3 After 36 months from master development plan approval by the Board, any remaining certificates of occupancy up to 300 maybe requested. 3. PEDESTRIAN TRAIL SYSTEM AND RECREATION AREAS 3.1 The Applicant shall design and build a public pedestrian -bicycle trail system to Department of Parks and Recreation standards that links residential and open space areas within the development. The precise location of said trail system shall be determined during the master development plan (MDP) process, pursuant to the approval of the Director of Parks and Recreation and the Planning Commission. The trails shall be 10 feet wide, have an asphalt surface and shall be located to enable connections with adjoining developments. 4. FIRE & RESCUE: 4.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $889.00 per dwelling unit for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit. 4.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $707.00 per dwelling unit for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family attached unit. 5. SCHOOLS: 7.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $7,571.00 per dwelling unit for school purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit. 7.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $5,881.00 per dwelling unit for school purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family attached unit. Page 2 of 7 Haggerty Proffer Statement 6. PARKS & OPEN SPACE: 6.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $1,288.00 per dwelling unit for recreational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit. 6.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $1,040.00 per dwelling unit for recreational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family attached unit. 7. LIBRARIES: 7.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $213.00 per dwelling unit for library purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such single family detached unit. 7.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $173.00 per dwelling unit for library purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such single family attached unit. SHERIFF'S OFFICE 8.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $50.00 per dwelling unit for the Sheriff's Office upon issuance of building permit for each such unit. 9. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 9.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $200.00 per dwelling unit for construction of a general governmental administration building upon issuance of building permit for each such unit. 10. CREATION OF HOMEOWNERS' AND PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCJATION: 10.1 The residential development shall be made subject to a homeowners' association (hereinafter "HOA") that shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of all common areas, including any conservation areas that may be established in accordance herewith not dedicated to the County or others, for each area subject to their jurisdiction, and shall be provided such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such associations or as may be required for such HOA herein. 10.2 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, an HOA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all common open space areas not otherwise dedicated to public use, (ii) common buffer areas located outside of residential lots; (iii) common solid waste disposal programs, if they decide to use a commercial collection company, (iv) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any perimeter or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be located within easements to be granted to the HOA if platted within Page 3 of 7 Haggery Proffer Statement residential or other lots, or otherwise granted to the HOA by appropriate instrument and (v) responsibility for payment for maintenance of streetlights. 11. WATER & SEWER:- 11.1 EWER: 11.1 The Applicant shall be responsible for connecting the Property to public water and sewer, and for constructing all facilities required for such connection. All water and sewer infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority ("the FCSA"). 11.2 The Applicant shall provide needed lands and easements on this site at no cost to the FCSA in order to implement the Senseny Road Regional Sewage Pump Station project. (See 1 on GDP). 11.3 The Applicant shall establish a buffer to a distance of 600' from presently planned future treatment units on the Frederick Wmchester Service Authority ("the FWSA") site. No residential dwelling units (structure) shall be located within this buffer. (See 2 on GDP). 11.4 The Applicant shall install a water main to a point of connection with the FWSA Opequon Sewer Plant property line. The water main will be installed and serviceable before the 10151 building permit is issued. (See 3 on GDP). 12. ENVIRONMENT: 12.1 Stormwater management and Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Property shall be provided in accordance with the Virginia Stonnwater Management Regulations, First Ed. 1999, Chapter 2, Table 2-3 which results in the highest order of stormwater control in existing Virginia law at the time of construction of any such facility. 13. TRANSPORTATION: 13.1 Transportation improvements shall be initiated at the outset of the development process unless otherwise specified below. 13.2 The Applicant shall construct a collector road as the "spine" of the project's internal road network and to provide direct access from the project to VA Route 7. Said collector road shall be located within a sixty foot right of way aligned parallel to the planned right of way for VA Route 37, and shall be constructed as an urban undivided (U2) cross section with a center turn lane. The collector road shall be constructed from VA Route 7 to the project site prior to issuance of the 5? building permit for the project, and shall be completed to the south project boundary prior to issuance of the 151ST building permit. (See 4 on GDP) 13.3 The Applicant shall dedicate the right of way for the future construction by others of an east -west collector road that will connect to the "spine" collector Page 4 of 7 Haggegy Proffer Statement road. Said right of way shall be provided within Land Bay # 1 and shall be sixty (60) feet in width. (See 5 on GDP) 13.4 The right of way for VA Route 37 as identified by County studies and generally shown on the GDP will be surveyed and platted. The Applicant will cause the dedication of this right of way at no cost to the County within 90 days of request by the County. If this right of way has not been requested for dedication by the 10' anniversary of approval of the rezoning, then this agreement to dedicate is null and void and the Applicant may utilize the land without restriction except as provided for within County and State law. (See 6 on GDP). 13.5 The Applicant shall construct a complete densely planted landscape screen on a 20' landscape easement adjacent to both sides of the proposed VA Route 37 night of way and/or the proposed "spine" collector road. At least 3 trees are to be planted for each 10 linear feet of easement and are to be 4 feet in height at time of planting. The mix of trees are to be determined through discussion with the Virginia Forestry service and VDOT and shall be shown on initial construction plans. (See 7 on GDP). 15, ESCALATOR CLAUSE: 15.1 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 24 months after the approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI -U to the date the contributions are paid, subject to a cap of 6% per year, non - compounded. SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES Page 5 of 7 Haggerly Proffer Statement Respectfuuy submitted, The Canyon, LC Title: Manager STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20.04, by My commission expires Notary Public Page 6 of 7 C W4 gilbert w. Clifford &associates N HAGGERTY' PROPERTY a division of °p o GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc o Q Q 117 E Picadlly St Winchester, Virginia 22601 'p fREOER/CK COUNTY, WGINL4 VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 fry oQ 1 meet i at i AGE'NCYCoffff 1 S VDOT COMMENTS TO HAGGERTY & CHADWELL REZONING November 10, 2004 Item: Transportation — VDOT will require that any development using a Route 820 and Route 659 combination to access Route 7, bring these existing roads up to a Minor "U4" Collector Road Standard. Using a 40 MPH design speed, the minimal acceptable right-of-way would be 56' and greater at intersections for needed turn lanes. 13.1 TIA - Staunton District Traffic Engineering Comments dated November 4, 2004 are attached. VDOT requests a master plan and traffic impact analysis that better defines the full potential growth of this area of eastern Frederick County. 13.2 • Applicant's proposal of the spine road is an excellent proposal due to its potential to be the first step in a connector between Route 7 & Senseny Road. • The proposed spine road 60' right-of-way is sufficient of a collector roadway. • Currently the developer shows the proposed constructed portion of the spine road ending at tie-in with Route 820. Route 820, currently has insufficient right-of-way (40� for a collector roadway. • While the developer is building a significant portion of the spine road, he has extended the right-of-way the entire length of the property. • The end portions of the spine road have been left for others to build. 13.3 • The developer's proposed improvements for the intersection of Routes 820 & 659 will be extremely limited if the improvements will only occur within the current right- of-way. The intersection of Route 820 with Route 659 has sight distance constraints due to a large embankment on the northeast side of the intersection. As most of this embankment appears to be off of the right-of-way there appears to be little improvement that can be made within the right-of-way. Additional right of way will need to be obtained for a collector road that is envisioned to tie into the spine roadway. This right-of-way should be of a sufficient size to allow the Route 820 traffic to become the through traffic priority via a construction of a curve meeting collector road design criteria. This would then limit the eastbound Route 659 to a "stop" condition at the intersection. • Route 820 appears to be only a prime and double seal. A bond to cover potential damage to the existing roadway will need to be posted by the developer prior to the start of construction. VDOT Comments to Haggerty & Chadwell Rezoning November 10, 2004 Page #2 13.4 • Route 659 roadway geometrics and additional lane improvements should also be included as part of the total intersection improvements. 13.5 • While VDOT agrees with the proposed financial arrangements it has concerns about the method proposed to trigger the placement of the signal bond into escrow. It may be advantageous to install the signal at an earlier date if it is determined to be more cost effective compared to some extensive intersection improvements that may be required or if the traffic signal is warranted in the early stages of the development. • There is extensive turns lanes to be built as well as a sight differential between the east and west bound left turn lanes that could require extensive improvements to the total roadway cross-section. • VDOT also requests that the language not restrict the proffer to the Route 7 & Route 659 intersection, as the signal may need to be located at the proposed intersection of the spine road and Route 7. • There may also be a safety issue, due to the increased traffic from the development, at the Route 7 & Route 659 intersection that would make it imprudent to wait for the 76th building permit before modifications are made to the crossover or the traffic light is needed. 13.6 • VDOT is agreeable. Summary The proposed development put forth by PHR&A has an excellent internal roadway system and a potential for putting forth a vital first step in a collector roadway extending from Route 7 to Senseny Road that is critical in the County's future growth. This will need to be addressed by Frederick County. VDOT is concerned that the existing road system cannot accommodate this additional traffic. Unless the developer designs a collector roadway, obtains the needed right of way for the collector roadway traffic and builds two lanes of this roadway VDOT cannot support this de ve%pment as currently proposed. If the developer(s) adopts the spine road with a new crossover option on Route 7. VDOT will propose a cul-de-sac design for Route 820 at approximately the 20+00 location. Through inter -parcel connectors existing as well as future development will have access to the proposed spine road to Route 7 or Route 657. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION November 10, 2004 TO: PATTON, HARRIS, RUST & ASSOCIATES FROM: LLOYD A. INGRAM SUBJECT: HAGGERTY PROPERTY REF. ROUTE 7,659, TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND 820 REVIEW COMMENTS FREDERICK COUNTY The following comments were received from Staunton District Traffic Engineering: We have reviewed "A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Haggerty Property located in Frederick County Virginia prepared by PHR&A and dated September 24, 2004. This analysis included Intersection Route 7/Route 659 and Intersection Route 659/Route 820. Signalization will be warranted at the Route 7/Route 659 Intersection. Two-way stop control is anticipated to be adequate at intersection Route 659/Route 820. This Traffic Impact Analysis does not: 1. Provide an analysis at the Haggerty Main Entrance/Route 820 Intersection, [See also Chadwell review comments dated November 4, 2004] 2. Address the need for roadway improvements on Route 820 from Intersection Route 659 to the Haggerty Main Entrance Intersection. 3. Address the need for roadway improvements on Route 659 from the Route 7/Route 659 Intersection to the Route 659/Route 820 Intersection. 4. Address the Route 7 east bound lane left turn lane and taper and the east bound lane right turn lane and taper at the eastbound lane approach to the Route 7/Route 659 Intersection. 5. Address the Route 7 west bound lane left turn lane and taper at the west bound lane approach to the Route 7/Route 659 Intersection. Additional information indicates the entrance to Chadwell, and two of three entrances to Haggerty may be served from a proposed spine road beginning near a Route 659 horizontal curve extending east, turning and continuing south along the location of a proposed Route 37, as shown on a "Haggerty Property Generalized Development Plan" by Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, dated 10/24/04. Other properties currently accessed near the south end of Route 820 have the potential for an additional 3,700 to 3,800 daily vehicular trips. Haggerty and Chadwell represent 3133 daily vehicular trips. When the four areas are combined a projected 6833 to 6933 additional daily vehicular trips are anticipated on Route 659 and in the Route 659/Route 7 Intersection. Due to the potential as represented in several undeveloped areas of this neighborhood, we are requesting a master plan and traffic impact analysis that defines and analyses the entire area of potential development. Traffic impact analysis shows an existing ADT of 350 on Route 820, ADT of 1370 on Route 659 from Route 820 to Route 7. The combined 1370 VPD and ADT 6933 = 8300 VPD and by design standards will require two lanes each direction divided by 18 foot width median. We request a master plan and traffic impact analysis that better defines the full potential of the area. If you have additional questions, please contact me. Ro edet i lk C � � nN t Pu 11 k 'cc -hoofs to em-urc, all students an exce'lk-,nt education AsswWl SuWmiendent poor Adminis:ratiat July 9, X04 Timothy Price Gilbert W. plifford & Assoc., Inc. 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Haggerty Rezoning Dear Mr. Price: At OMdtuff orndorta@fredarick.k12,va.us This letter is in response to your request for comments concerning the rezoning application for the proposed Haggerty Property project. Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 150 stride family homes, 102 townhouses, and 48 units will yield 39 high school student;, 35 middle school s�udetits, and 97 elernentsry school .students for a iota of Ii 71 neve students upon auiid-out. This does not tale iriw consideration any age restricted units since the application did not provide any specific nu=ra ;ors f;;r t`ose units. 71grt111Cant residential -growth in Frederick County pias resufiEid iif thie school's ser vins thl- area having, student enrollments nearing or exceeding their practical capacity. The cumuiatiVe impact of this project and others of sin}ilar nature, coupled v h the number Of, approve;, -undeveloped residential lots in the area, Will necessitate the future construOt on of new scud—U! facilities t0 accommodate imTeased student enrollments. i he impact of this rezoning on curierit and fiUdure school needs sliould whe c.onskjv-red during the approval process. Respectfully yours, ArGrndrirff- Assistant ruf __ CC r•+ -r_ .- h c up -e" to idlens f C..ho to 'vppyi: vcfilfiaiii "v. i�P. Eli i, i -.i. ice., u}sc:iriLor6a�� :�: uv:sv's�.-. _ �_•_: ••-__ sista.- 6,r ♦L.. C. riots rl w4 �7Le�e r�apfSf:.Sa, iiCiilili iiBirSltVv r'Ti33f9tu11F. `rt' u�c :�c1F•c::.:cci�uee=. Fdr Administration 1415 AmhMtStrest wmnai.tm&Jck k-12.va+is 540-8623BB9 axt 112 P.O.- Box 35M 54M45-2439 Winchester.45rgiKA 22604-2546 :104652-3O° fax COUNTY of FREDERICK I a` Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 718` FAX: 540/665-6395 November 22, 2004 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. P.E., VP Patton Harris Rust & Associates 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Additional Preliminary Comments — Haggerty Rezoning. Dear Chuck: Thank you for forwarding to this office the revised Haggerty rezoning application materials for our review. The following letter is offered to assist you as you continue to address the issues associated with this rezoning application. These comments are provided in addition to those previously offered by this department. It is my understanding that VDOT has also been provided with the revised rezoning application materials and has provided you with their comments. As customary, it is anticipated that these issues will be fully addressed through revisions to the application prior to its consideration by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. 1) Preliminary Matters a) Item 6.13) of the Rezoning Application identifies the proposed use of the property as Single Family and Multi -Family Residential. This should be revised to reflect the mix of housing types proposed in the revised rezoning package. In addition,. the materials accompanying this rezoning application maintain several references to multifamily housing unit types that are no longer proposed with this particular application. Attention should be paid to ensuring that the Impact Statement, Proffer Statement and TIA accurately reflect the desired mix of housing types and that they avoid any redundant and potentially confusing language or inaccurate trip generation figures pertaining to housing unit types that are no longer proposed. b) Item 7. of the Rezoning Application requires that a listing of all adjoining property owners is provided. This appears to be the first rezoning proposal that Frederick County has entertained that directly adjoins Clarke County. The Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2204.C. requires that adjoining property owners in 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Charles E. Maddox, Jr. Re: Haggerty Rezoning November 22, 2004 Page 2 adjacent jurisdictions of the Commonwealth are notified of the proposed zoning change. Please ensure that property owners in Clarke County who adjoin the Haggerty property via the Opequon Creek are included in the adjoining property listing. The Code also requires that written notice is also provided to the CEO of the adjacent locality if the property is within 1/2 mile of the boundary of the adjoining locality. Recognizing this requirement, it is critical that this application is provided to the County Administrator and Planning Director of Clarke County as soon as possible for their review. It is expected that their review comments will be part of any rezoning application that is officially submitted for this project. In addition to the above, it appears as though two properties that do not adjoin this project have been erroneously included in the listing. c) Item 5. of the Rezoning Application requires full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please ensure that the managing members of The Canyon, LC are identified in the final application. d) Throughout the rezoning application materials, there is a connection between the Haggerty property application and the proposed Chadwell rezoning application. This is particularly evident with the proposed access and transportation program. The relationship between the two applications could be strengthened with the consolidation of the two applications into one package and, ideally, one rezoning application. This would greatly simplify the evaluation of the rezoning requests and aid in the fixture administration of the rezoning commitments and development of the projects. At a minimum, the connection and timing of commitments in the proffer statements should be strongly associated between the two projects. 2) Impact Analysis and Proffer Statement a) The Summary and Justification statement envisions a mixed residential land use that will promote housing choice and result in a vibrant neighborhood. It would be helpful if any specific design or layout elements and neighborhood concepts that may have been formulated to affect this vision could be explained and incorporated into the application. The initial appearance of the project is that at the outset of the project, the Route 37 right-of-way, and ultimately Route 37, would create two distinct neighborhoods. Effort should be made and concepts incorporated into the application that would clarify how the two neighborhoods would relate to each other prior to the construction of Route 37 and how they relate to and/or maintain their own identity and function upon the completion of Route 37. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. Re: Haggerty Rezoning November 22, 2004 Page 3 b) The Site Background and History narrative identifies the subject site as being unimproved, yet recognizes the historic farmhouse as still existing on a separate lot of record that is part of this application. Please clarify in the narrative that the separate parcel of record containing the historic farmhouse is part of the subject site for which the rezoning is being sought and that the subject site is improved. It is recognized that parcel 55-A-212 is unimproved. c) Transportation. i) Frederick County recognizes that the section of Route 37 that will ultimately pass through this project will establish a critical connection between Route 7 and Route 657. The incorporation of this transportation element into the project is critical. To further the concept of a direct connection between the Haggerty site and Route 7 and ultimately between Route 7 and Route 659, it is strongly recommended that the concept described in the text of the statement and identified on Figure 3 as a future extension (by others), be revisited. This concept identifies a major collector road parallel to the Route 37 right-of-way with a direct extension north to Route 7 and provisions for a continuation of the road to the southern property line of the Haggerty property. At this time, this would be the preferred transportation concept of the County, provided there are no additional impacts to the present and future function of the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility and that the ultimate construction of Route 37 is not negatively impacted. Such a collector road connection has merit both as a solution to theprojects transportation needs before and after the construction of Route 37, and the broader transportation needs of the County. It is recognized that this is a short term solution when compared to the completion of Route 37. However, a collector road making a direct connection is an important short term solution to Eastern Frederick County's transportation needs. The opportunity may . then exist to continue this collector road concept to Route 657 in conjunction with future plans for the adjoining property to the south of the Haggerty property. Preliminary discussions with VDOT indicate merit may be given to an at -grade intersection further west of the existing median crossover on Route 7. This could be in direct alignment with the proposed eastern -most access to Route 37. ii) Regarding the applicants desire to use Valley Mill Road via Eddys Lane as the means of site access from Route 7, it is a continued concern that without substantial improvements to Eddys Lane, Route 659, and Route 7, the feasibility of this option as a means of addressing the access to the project is not acceptable. Further, the feasibility of this route as a viable collector road connection from Route 7 to Route 657 is questionable. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. Re: Haggerty Rezoning November 22, 2004 Page 4 iii) In addition to preserving inter parcel connectivity to the adjacent property to the south, please ensure that connectivity in appropriate locations is provided to the other surrounding properties to the west. It may behoove this application to work closely with the adjacent properties to ensure the implementation of a workable local transportation program. iv) The roadway connection linking the west and east sides of the development should be designed to recognize the ultimate construction of Route 37. In designing the connection, consideration should be given to minimizing future construction costs associated with Route 37 and inconvenience to the future residents of the project. It may be helpful to describe the details of this connection, including the location, grading, and future public costs of the connection, in more detail in the application and potentially in the proffer statement. This may provide the County with some assurances that the future impacts of Route 37 on this connection are acceptable. v) Regarding the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). It is recognized that by distributing the trips associated with this development wholly to Route 7 via Route 659 the greatest potential impact to this section of the road network can be evaluated. However, recognition should be given to the continued use of the one - lane bridge by some portion of the traffic generated by this project. Any impacts to the level of service of the road segment and one lane bridge feature should be addressed. The TIA does not appear to address the full impact of the project, and the latest modifications to the access plan, on Route 820 Eddy's Lane. Also, the TIA does not accurately represent the proposed and proffered housing mix and should be modified accordingly. It is important that the initial public submission is as accurate as possible. vi) It would be desirable to ensure that the ultimate transportation improvements associated with this project are implemented as early as possible in the development of this project, preferably prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy. The Proffer statement commits to the property being developed as one single and unified development. However, there appears to be several contradictions to this approach. The Proffer Statement identifies a phased approach to the project with several commitments tied into the phasing of the project. It would be helpful to provide further clarification of the commitments and phasing within the Generalized Development Plan and Proffer Statement. The phased approach may need to be reevaluated to ensure the necessary initial road improvements are completed and the phasing is logical with the design of the development. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. Re: Haggerty Rezoning November 22, 2004 Page 5 vii) Please provide further clarification on the multi -modal elements of the plan. In recognition of the proposed public dedication associated with this application, it would be helpful to clarify the multi -modal elements of this plan, including their location and connectivity to the various elements of the project. As previously requested, this could be done as a separate exhibit for clarity. Opportunities appear to exist to connect such elements to adjacent properties and development projects. In particular, consideration should be given to coordination with the open space and trail system of the FU-Shep/Channing Drive project. Further consideration could be given to a lineal element along the Opequon Creek connecting the proposed public dedication area to the adjacent properties to the north and south. Additional riparian benefits may be realized with such a concept. Recognizing recent State and local efforts to incorporate bicycling elements into road improvement projects, an evaluation of bicycle improvements within the right-of-way would also be appropriate. viii) Road efficiency buffers associated with Route 37 and any collector road element incorporated into the plan should be recognized in the design of the project. Special attention should be given in the application to the design of these elements. It is recognized that a landscaped buffer area adjacent to Route 37 is proffered by the applicant. However, it is important to point out that proffer conditions offered by the applicant should be limited to identifying commitments that enhance and exceed those that are required by the Zoning Ordinance. As previously noted, it is inappropriate and unnecessary to include or repeat the requirements of County ordinances in the proffer statement. Further discussion may be warranted regarding the potential north south collector road and its relationship to the future Route 37 road efficiency buffer. Special consideration of this feature and improvement may be appropriate. d) The Site Suitability Analysis indicates that the site does not contain conditions that would preclude or substantially hinder development activities. However, it is indicated that the site is typical for the Martinsburg shale region with steeply eroded side slopes and reasonably level plain areas. Further, that area unsuitable for development has been appropriately set aside for environmental and open space purposes and that clustering - techniques have been employed to accommodate site constraints. The environmental table is helpful in identifying the conditions of the site. It is requested that a similar table is provided specifically for the twenty acre parcel proposed to be dedicated for public purposes. This will be of assistance to the County Agencies in their review of this recent proposed dedication. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. Re: Haggerty Rezoning November 22, 2004 Page 6 e) Land dedication in the amount of approximately twenty acres has been proffered by the applicant for public use. As the applicant has also identified that this would be for the placement of parks and recreation and/or public school facilities, it is important that the two agencies responsible for such public uses are provided the opportunity to review this proposal. Please ensure that their review comments on this recent modification to the rezoning application are provided as part of the official submission of the rezoning package. As previously noted, opportunities may exist to incorporate such a dedication into a larger program of public improvements that could benefit the project and surrounding area. f) The proposed language regarding the land dedication of the Route 37 right-of- way and the timing of the dedication should be reevaluated. It is recommended that the third sentence be eliminated and that language similar to that used for the proposed dedication of the twenty acres for public use be substituted in its place. g) The Haggerty House is identified in the Rural Landmarks Survey of Frederick County. Please comment on the potential of incorporation of the house into the projects design. It would appear as though with some imagination, consideration could be given to maintaining the house on its own lot and central to the project, to the use of the house as a community facility and part of the recreational compliment of the project, or to the relocation of the house to an alternate part of the site as a core element of the public space of the project. The house could be particularly valuable if the Small Lot Single Family housing unit option which would require a community center is ultimately part of the vision for the project. h) The provision of water service to the Opequon Regional Wastewater Facility is desirable and should be facilitated to provide a connection to the existing lines within the Opequon facility's property. This would be beyond what is currently proffered to the property line. Ultimately, the water tank providing service and fire suppression to the Opequon facility may become redundant. Discussion may be appropriate at this time between the County, FCSA, FWSA, and the applicant regarding the use of this elevated site as a future community water tank location. If it is determined that this concept has merit, accommodations to facilitate this concept could be incorporated into this application. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. Re: Haggerty Rezoning November 22, 2004 Page 7 Please feel free to contact me at any time regarding the above comments or the application in general. As I have identified in this letter, further coordination of the review with Clarke County, the Frederick County Director of Parks and Recreation, and the Frederick County School System is of primary importance at this time. I look forward to continuing our participation in the review of this application. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Planning Director, MTR/bad HR n CORPORATE: Chantilly VIRGINIA OFFICES: Chantilly ,ridgewater Fredericksburg Leesburg Richmond Virginia Beach Winchester Woodbridge gilbert w. clifford & associates a division of Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects, December 2, 2004 Mr. Michael Ruddy, .AICD Deputy Director Department of Planning and Development Frederick Comity, Vnig4tia 107 N Int St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Haggerty and Chadwell Rezoning Proposals Subject Response to Additional Preliminary Comments Dear Mrke: This carresPGndcnce is in response to your letter dated November 225 2004, wherein you offer several pages of comments concernmg the Haggerty and Chadwell rezoning applications, which we are currently preparing for submission. These comments were offered in addition to the initial staff review, which was issued on July 12, 2004> Each issue raised through your analysis is summarized below and organized according to the outline of your letter. I have provided a response to each comment provided in your letter. It is requested that this document be included in the official record of the Haggerty and Chadwell applications. The issues and responses are as follows: LABORATORIES: Chantilly 1 Fredericksburg MARYLAND OFFICES: a') Baltimore Columbia Frederick Germantown Hollywood WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE: Martinsburg T 540.667.2139 F 340.665.0493 1.17 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, VA 22601 Preliminary Matters Staff Issue: Application form included reference to "multi- family" in proposed use description. Also, development program assumed by TTA includes multi -family and different sm& family attached and detached totals that described 'in' IAS. Staff recommends amending all application components that reference multi -family units, to include TLA. PHR+A Response: (1) Application form will be amended to state "mixed residential," rather than specifically- referencing pecificallyreferencing housing types. (2) Remainder of IAS consistently speAs to "wed residential" and uses 200 single family Ilaggerty & Chadwell rezoning - Response to Planning Comments 12/3%2004 Page 2 of 16 attached and 100 single family detached units as basis for impact projections. There should be no confusion about land use vision. In €ac , single family detached units represent the most isive residential use vis -1 -vis impact generation, and the proposed proffer statement accordingly limits the total number of such units to no more than 150 (minimum of 60 to ensure ). Tangible impacts are adequately controlled by this restriction, and it ensures the validity of the TIA, which assumes 180 single family detached units. Thus, all transportation planning for this project was based on a more intensive land use scenario than is proposed by proffer thereby ensuring that whatever the ultimate 1 uP 1 housing mid impacts will be mitigated effectively. b} (3) Due to the fact that the assumptions used in the TIA capture the scope and impacts of the proposed development program, there is no reasonable basis for amending the TIA. To require modification of the TIS when it is not fundamentally flawed fails to satisfy any reasonable purpose. The TIA is a technical document provided to ensure that VDOT is able to accurately assess impacts to its public road network and properly evaluate proposed improvements. It is noted that VDOT has not questioned the validity of the TIA following revision of the development program, and appears satisfied with the assumptions and scope of the aa*sis. The TLA is -therefore sufficient in its present for and will continue to be used in support of this application. Staff lssIIe: The project adjoins Clarke County_ adjoining property in Clarke County should be included with the application for the purposes of legal notification. It was further noted that the Code of Virginia requires that notice be provided to the chief operating officer of any locality within Vz mile of a rezoning in an adjoining jurisdiction. Staff suggested that the planning director in Clarke County, should comment as a component of the rezoning exercise. Also, staff astutely pointed out that two properties r J r Haggerty & Chadwell Rezoning - Response to Planning Comments 123/2004 Page 3 of I that are not adjacent were erroneously identified as such on the application form. PHR+A Response: (1) Section 15-22204.C. of the Code of Virginia requires that notice be provided to the chief administrative officer of any locality situated within one half mile of a proposed- rezoning in an adjoining Jurisdiction- Responsibility for such notification falls clearly on the locality Wherein the rezoning is proposed, and specifically on the local commission or its designated- representative. 'ihe applicant has no legal responsibility to inform the adjoining jurisdiction of their land use proposal, and should iL:Ij� ' /� therefore not be compelled to modify or delay an - + L otherwise complete application to accommodate- the 1 1 review or commentary of an adjoining locality. In deference to the wishes of staff, a copy of the application package was sent to Chuck Johnston, Clarke County Planning Administrator,, on November 23, 2004, as a courtesy to facilitate awareness of the proposal. However, the applicant has no intention of indefinitely postponing submission of the application for the purposes of either receiving comment or addressing concerns voiced by Mr. Johnston on behalf of Clarke County. The public process is arguably the appropriate venue for resolution of inter-*r-isdictional land use issues, especially since this proposal conforms with the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. (2) While staff suggests that two parcels are erroneously identified as adjoining properties on the application forth, they fail to specifically identify these parcels for confirmation of this claim. Regardless, there is no harm in "over -notifying" by providing public hearing notices to properties in the vicinity of a proposed rezoning that are not clearly adjacent to the subject parcel. As the county is responsible for providing legal notice to adjoining property ciwners, it is certainly the prerogative of staff to eliminate parcels from the "adjoiner" list provided `by the applicant if such properties are ultimately deemed to not be adjacent:- Haggerty & Chadwell Rezoning - Response to Planning Comments Page 4 of 1E C) -Staff Issue: The managing members of The Canyon, LC must be identified on the application form as they have ownership interest in the property. PHR+A Response: The application form will be amended to specify the managing members of'Phe Canyon, F C. d.) Staff Issue: Staff suggests that the Chadwell and Haggerty rezoning petitions should be consolidated as a single application. Also, it is recommended that the timing of improvements associated with each should be P-�-1 . A more eleady identified. h PHR+A Response: (1) 'The Chadwell and Haggerty rezoning proposals involve different property owners and are intended to develop independently. Given the coincidental timing of the proposals, it was determined that traffic analysis efforts should occur in a coordinated fashion to ensure an equitable transportation improvement strategy for the area. - 'The coordinated impact analysis resulted in an initial proposal for the respective applicants to share the cost of signalization at the intersection of Route 3 and Route 659�. However, outside of transportation issues, the two projects are not intended to be integrated, particularly with regard to project and/or unit phasing. The county's most notable experience with the consolidation of otherwise independent projects under a single rezoning is the Channing Drive project The implementation of the development plan for -Channing Drive has been anything but integrated, and has instead been plagued by controversy and litigation that has proven costly to all parties involved, to include the county. It is not advisable for either applicant in this case to subjugate their unique interests and requirements to a collective development scheme. (2) The phasing of unit occupancy and site improvements is clearly delineated by proffer. Staff did not specify which elements of the proposed development program caused confusion or uncertainty. The applicant has attempted- to be Haggerty & Chadwell Rezoning - Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2114 Page 5 of 16 precise in defining triggers for unit phasing and site improvements, and is comfortable that the current approach is sufficient to ensure completion of the project in a phased and reasonable m2nner. _2 Impact Analysis and Proffer Statement a} Staff Issue: Staff recommends providing speck design and/or layout concepts intended to achieve housing choice and the vibrancy referenced in the Statement of Justification section of the IAS. Staff also notes that Route 37 will ultimately create two neighborhoods on the site, and requests that the application 1 T T -A demonstrate how these neighborhoods would relate �j to each other before and after construction of the road ow wiff each maintain its ident€ty)-. PHR+A Response: (1) As noted in the IAS, the layout of the site is dictated by the future path of Route 37, as well as the planned collector road system that will extend from the project The distinct neighborhoods referenced by staff will in fact be formed at the outset of the project The neighborhoods will be linked together by an mteraal collector road system complemented by the proffered traf networE These connections will remain in place following actual construction of Route 37- through the site. As such, it is difficult to envision a discernable chime in the physical identity of the project or its constituent neighborhoods that would demand a specific design response in the application. (2) By including single family attached and detached housing types within a unified development scheme, this project will offer an alternative to the homogeneity of the single family detached - neighborhoods that dominate the UDA. The combination of such units in a walkable setting will enhance the potential for interaction amongst residents of varying social and economic backgrounds- Such interaction is the essence of a vibrant; mterestsng, and healthy living environment. Haggerty & Chadwell Rezoning- Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 6 of 16 (3) Similarly, by delivering a range of product types within a single project, there will inherently be greater choice for prospective homebuyers. A more diverse selection of Dousing types will be accompanied by a_ broader array of price points from which to choose thereby promoting affordability. The proffers proposed with this rezoning effectively codify housing choice, as the applicant has proffered to limit single family detached units to no more than 150 (minimum of 6), or 509/6, of the project total. (4) Housing choice and neighborhood vibrancy are not mere matters of design as implied by staff, PT but rather are fundamental characteristics of positive, H 1 well managed growth for a community. This application is structured to deliver these outcomes and cont elute to an improved Ding environment within the LTD.A. b) t Staff Issue: Site background indicates that site is unimproved, but references the presence of the original farmhouse JJaggerty House) on a parcel included in the rezoning. This inconsistency should be addressed. C). P'HR+A Response: The IAS wxll. be amended to note that the site is largely unimproved, with the exception of the original farmhouse. Staff )issue; The proposed collector road linking the project directly to Route 7 is the preferred transportation concept for the area, and should be implemented through this application to the extent feasible. Staff contends that the Route 920 - Route 659 connection to Route 7 is not an acceptable arrangement for primary project access without "substantial" improvernents to these roadways_ PHR+A Response: (1) The transportation network serving the Haggerty project has been re -designed to de- emphasize the referenced access arrangement. The central "spine" road proffered by the applicant will be extended through the )WSA property to connect with Route 7, which will serve as the principal Haggerty & Chadwell Rezoning - Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 7ofM project access. The Haggerty project will not have a direct entrance on Eddys Lane through this approach thereby alleviating the concerns expressed by staff. Future land development proposals for properties wrest of Lddys Lane will be responsible for improving an east -west collector that will: enable their residents to access Route i via the spine road. (2) As per the staff comment, the re -designed access arrangement is the preferred transportation concept for the Haggerty, project and the easternmost portion of the LJDA as a whole. it is therefore expected that county staff and VDOT will PHRA support efforts to negofiiate with fine FWSA to obtain the necessary right of wap for the proposed collector road. The transportation system originally proposed with this application was based upon a collector road traversing the FWSA property. In December 2003, the Planning Department questioned the appropriateness of this arrangement in the midst of the applicant's discussions with the FWSA, which negatively influenced- negotiations resulting in the abandonment of the collector road concept This action prompted a copy design exercise aimed at establishing a mutually acceptable alternative access and.- transportation scheme, a process that has continued to the present. It is ironic that the proposal originally discouraged by staff is now the preferred alternative, suggesting that the applicant has been forced to endure a circular evaluation process that did nothing more than impede public review of the rezoning petition. (3) It is important to note that the location of the proposed collector road across the FWSA property is further west from the operable units of the Opequon Regional'Wastewater Facility (O1- than the original collector road concept. This shift in alignment will- ensure that the road will not impede or otherwise compromise the expansion and long- term viability of OR—WF operators. Staff Issue: Provide opportunities for connectivity with parcels to the west of the site. Haggerty & Chadwell Rezoning - Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 9 of 16 PHR+A Response: (1) - The GDP included with the proposed proffer statement provides for connections with parcels to the West and southwest for both vehicles and pedestrians. The LAS f ether describes how the proposed transportation program will facilitate inter - parcel connection. Specifically, the LAS indicates that an cast -west connector road wM ultimately link properties to the west with the Haggerty site and the proposed "spine" road. This combination of collector roads will provide access to the project(s) from. Route 7 as well as Senseny Road in the future. Thus, the suggestion by staff that utter -connectivity remains an unresolved or unexplored concept is P1 P A simply inaccurate. H(2) The GDP shows a potental connection point with the Fu -Steep project for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. It is understood that an extensive trail system is planned with the Fu-Shep IVDP, whish is oriented aroundthe prominent lake feature. At present; it is unclear whether county staff ensured that the design of this trail system provided for connectivity with adjoining sites, particularly the Haggerty tract: Consistent with the current GDP, the applicant is willing to hak the respective trail systems in order to both promote recreational opportunities and establish a true multi -modal transportation system within the easternmost portion of the LDA. As such, the potential connection points will be maintained on the GDP, although actual connectivity will depend on the status of the Fu-Shep design process and the-wiIlingness of its -developer(s) to establish links with the Haggerty project. Staff Issue: Staff has requested that the rezoning application include detailed design information concerning the project's internal connecting road that will ultimately be bridged by Route 37. Also, concern was raised that impacts to the one -lane bridge on Route 659 had not been adequately addressed by the LAS. PHR+A Response: (1) As noted above, the transportation program has been re -designed to effectively eliminate the use of Fddys sane and Route 659 for project access. Haggerty & Chadwell Rezoning - Response to Planning Comments _ 12/3/2004 Page 9 of 16 The issue of impacts to the one lane bridge is therefore moot. (2) Detailed design information for all internal roads will be provided during the master development plan (IMP) process, as required by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The connecting road will be located and constructed pursuant to VDOT standards, with particular attention to its relationship to the future construction of VA Route 37. The information requested by staff exceeds the level of detail that is either necessary or appropriate for evaluation of a rezoning proposal. RA Comfort with the transportation concept and its ability to adequately mitigate projected impacts is of PH principal importance at this stage of the design process. As per discussions with planning staff and VDOT on november 22, 2004, all parties appear satisfied with the transportation concept with the clear understanding that its successful implementation. will depend upon accorninodation of future VA Route 37. (3) A follow-up meeting was held with VDOT on november 29, 2004 to discuss the design of the "spine" collector road, and general agreement was reached concerning the preferred location for the road and its intersection with VA Route 7. This alignment has been submitted to the FWSA for concurrence. Attached with this letter is an exhibit depicting the proposed road alignment.. Staff Issue: Staff suggests that the proffer language stating that the project will be developed as one single and unified development is incorrect.- It is further suggested that the phasing of certain project elements contradicts this statement. PHR+A Response: (1) The Haggerty project will ultimately be developed pursuant to a single unified master development plan (SDP). The transportation improvements required to serve particular sections of the project will be clearly delineated on the MDP, and access to these sections will be dependant upon construction ` of these . irrTrovernents_ if PHI2� Haggerty & Chadwell Rezoning - Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 10 of 16 transportation improvements shown on the MDP and subsequent subdivision design plans are not complete, the county will not issue occupancy, permits for impacted dwellings. Given that project access will be dependant upon the collector "spine" road, it is reasonable to conclude that this most essential transportation component will be completed prior to the issuance of the project's first occupancy permit. (2) The proposed proffer statement clearly species triggers for all other transportation improvements, which ensure an effective link between the construction and occupancy of dwellings and the initiation and completion of the project's transportation network. (3) The contradictions suggested by staff are not evident in the structure and content of the proposed proffer statement, or when the proffered development program is considered in the context of the county's established land development process. Throughout the comments provided by staff, it appears that details consistent with a preliminary AARP are desired as part of the rezoning application. It is important to note that current ordinance provisions only require an 1NIDP at the time of rezoning with R4 (Planned Residential Community) proposals. Staff Issue: Clarification of the plan's multi -modal elements is needed. PHR+A Response: (1) The proposed proffer statement provides for the installation of a public pedestrian and bicycle trail network constructed to Parks and Recreation standards. As such, the trail system will be developed pursuant to prevailing AASHTO standards, which call for 10400t wide trail sections constructed with an asphalt surface. These standards are explicitly stated in the proposed proffer statement, and are adequate to support both pedestrian and bicycle irate The proffer statement further indicates that these trails will link internal components of the project as generally shown on the PHRA Haggerty & Chadwell Rezoning - Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 11 of 16 GDP. The trail system is depicted as a thin solid line that follows the project's road system. It is important to note that the AMP for the project will provide greater detufl concerning the trail. system, and is likely to outline a more extensive system than what is shown on the GDP as product types and Iayouts are finalized_ The GDP provides the fundamental framework upon which the overall system articulated through the MDP will be based. The current proffer statement and GDP arguably provide sufficient information concerning the planned traf network for this stage of the development review process. (2) The current development concept for the Haggerty property does not include disturbance of the riparian areas associated with Opequon Creek for recreational purposes. Installation of 10 -foot wide asphalt trails adjacent to the creek is arguably inconsistent with the important goal of protecting the natural value of the riparian areas. Should the applicant ultimately choose to provide a lineal trail element near the creek, it is likely to be located outside of the riparian buffer area, comprised of pervious materials, and reserved for the passive use of the project's residents. Decisions concerning such amenities will be made during the IMP process. Staff Issue: Project design should account for road efficiency buffers required adjacent to major collector and Arterial roadways. Proffered screening of the Route 37 corridor appears to involve a lesser standard than what is required by ordinance through the road efficiency buffer requirements. PHR+A Response: (1) Preliminary project design has indeed provided for the inclusion of buffers on the site where required by the Zoning Ordinance. Such buffers will be depicted on the MDP for the project pursuant to final project design. (2) The referenced evergreen screen is proffered as an enhancement to standard ordinance provisions, and is neither intended nor proposed as an Haggerty & Chadwell Rezoning - Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 12 of 16 d) alternative to otherwise required buffers. The relationship of the enhanced screening to the required buffers will be detailed on the MDP. Staff Issue: Staff claims that the IAS provides contradictory information concerning site suitability, as it states that no conditions exist that will preclude or substantially hinder development despite the presence of slopes and riparian features. PHR+A Response: (1) The assessment of the site suitability section of the IAS stating that the -site is developable is PA accurate. The soil type of the Haggerty property is generally consistent with Martinsburg shale, which PH contains some areas of steeply eroded dopes, especially adjacent to streams and natural drainage ways_ As such, the soils comprising the Haggerty site are similar to those found on the majority of land located east of Interstate 81 within the UDA. It is noted that although moderate slopes are prevalent on the site, no steep slopes as defined by the Zoning Ordinance have been identified. (2) The IAS appropriately acknowledges that the preliminary project design has deliberately acconn odated the unique nahn—A characteristics of the site. Such accommodation is the signature of contextually sensitive design, and ensures that the most valuable attributes of a site are included in the ultimate development programa. To that end, certain areas of the site are'inherently more or less favorable and/or desirable for particular product types and layouts, resulting in some being deemed "unsuitable" through the design process. The natural features of the site represent discernable challenges to. project design, but do not constitute constraints that would preclude or otherwise hinder site development. (3) The principal constraint to site development identified by the IAS is the planned path of VA Route 37, and, more specifically, the substantial right of way proffered by the applicant to facilitate its eventual construction_ The preliminary design for the project demonstrates that the site remains H� Haggerty & Chadwell Rezoning - Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 13 of 16 0 developable despite the significant impacts of this future roadway. Staff Issue: The proposed land dedication for public use(s) requires the analysis and approval of those agencies that are identified as potential users of the site, namely Frederick County- Public Schools and Parks and Recreation. Such comments should be submitted as components of the -formal application. PHR+A Response: (1) Relevant components of the application have been modified to eliminate the proposed land dedication for public use. This area --will be reserved to allow flexibility in project design at the applicant's discretion. The ultimate use of this area may include a portion of the proffered residential program and/or open space and recreational amenities for project residents, the exact design of which will be established through the required MBP. Additional comments froin Frederick County- Public Schools r and Parks and Recreation are therefore unnecessary. f) Staff Issue: The proposed proffer language governing the tinning of the right of wap dedication for VA Route 37 should be re-evaluated. Specifically, staff recommends eha inating the third sentence of the condition., which specifies that if the right of way is not requested by the county within 10 years of rezoning approval, the dedication agreement will become null and void. The proffered condition further stipulates that the acreage reserved for dedication may be used at the applicant's discretion without restriction should the 10 year period elapse without the request for dedication. PHR+A Response: (1) The right of way dedication offered by the applicant is made willingly to advance regional transportation objectives despite its discernable impact on the use of the site. The proposed language contested by staff is intended to provide assurance to the applicant that the county, will utilize the land as intended within a reasonable period of time. This provision offers a mutually beneficial g) Haggerty & Chadwell Rezoning - Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 14 of 16 arrangement whereby the applicant's responsibility for the acreage will be limited and certain, while the county will be provided time to move forward with planning for the road without assuming immediate liability for the property. The proposed proffer further codifies that accountability for the availability and use of the dedicated acreage is shared between the applicant and county. This is arguably an appropriate proposal befitting the significance of the proffered dedication to both the applicant and the community as awhole. (2) It is important to reiterate that the proffered dedication of the VA Route 37 right of way is a voluntary offer to the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County. The applicant is willing to dedicate the right of way to further transportation objectives of the county's Comprehensive Plan_ The property owner retains the option of by tight RA (Rural Areas) development on the site, which could occur without any provision for the planned path of VA Route 37. Furthermore, the construction of VA Route 37 is fundamentally a public road improvement project, which entitles the property owner to compensation for acquisition of the required right of Way. The proffered dedication therefore represents a tangible savings to the taxpayers of Frederick County. In the context of the rezoning the suburban residential use of the Haggerty and Chadwell sites is supported by adopted land use policy, which implies the appropriateness of RPS zoning assuming effective impact mitigation. It is reasonably debatable whether the rezoning could legally be rejected on the basis of dissatisfaction with the parameters stipulated by the applicant governing a voluntary dedication, or due to other issues related purely to VA Route 37. Staff Issue: Consideration should be given to the preservation and incorporation of the Haggerty House in the project's design. PHR+A Response: (1) As reported in the IAS, the Haggerty House is not identified as a potentially historic structure by Haggerty & Chadwell Rezoning - Response to Planning Comments 12/3/2004 Page 15 of 16 the Rural Landmarks Survey of Frederick County. The HRAB comment received from planning staff reflects the relative insignificance of this structure by noting that "the proposal does not significantly impact historic resources and it is not necessary to schedule formal review of the rezoning by the HRAB" (see letter from Candice E. Mills to Chuck Maddox, dated April 27, 2004). As such, there is no compelling rationale for retaining the house on the site and incurring the cost of its renovation for public or community, use_ h) /� Staff Issue: The applicant has proffered to extend water lines to PURL 1, the boundary of the Qpequon Regional Wastewater 1 1 Facility (ORWF)- Staff has suggested that the applicant proffer to increase the length of this extension to connect with the existing lines already in place on the ORWF property. PHR+A Response: (1) The applicant has proffered the water line extension to the ORWF property as per discussions with FWSA representatives_ This proffer has been welcomed and accepted by FWSA and FCSA. (2) The comment provided by staff concerning the redundancy of the dedicated ORWF water tank and the need to pursue discussions with the FCSA and the FWSA to replace this tank with a "community" water storage tank appears inappropriate. Planning staff does not possess responsibility for the design, construction, and/or maintenance of the public water conveyance or treatment facilities in Frederick County, nor does it possess the expertise to assume such responsibility or offer connnent on related matters. Moreover, the current FCSA long range water facilities improvement plan does not include or identify the need for an elevated "community" wafer tank anywhere near the ORWR Nevertheless, the applicant will work with. the FCSA and the FWSA as required to ensure adequate water and sewer service to the project, to include any related facility enhancements. Haggerty & Chadwell rezoning- Response to Plaaxg Conenrts 12/3/2004- Page 2/3/2004Page 16 of 16 (3) It is noted that neither the FCSA nor the FWSA offered any objection to the proposed rezoning of the FTaggertypropay. I look forward. to submitting the Faggert and Chadwell applications for formal review by the lanning Commission and Board of Supervisors in the very near future. Please do not hesitate to contict me should you have any questions or concerns regarding the content: of this correspondence. Sincerely. PATTON HARRIS UST SOCIATES, pc PpR+A:.Maddw�, Jr., P. , enior Vice President CEMJkf Attachment cc: ME Jerry Copp, VDOT Mr. Lloyd Inger, VDOT Mr. Eric Lawrence, AICD, Frederick County Planning Director COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 July 12, 2004 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. P.E, VP G.W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., A Division of PHR&A 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Preliminary Comments - Haggerty Property Rezoning Proposal Dear Chuck: This correspondence is intended to identify issues of concern regarding the preliminary application materials for the Haggerty Property rezoning proposal. The preliminary application package consists of the following principal components: (1) Impact Analysis Statement, to include A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Haggerty Property, dated March 29, 2004, prepared by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, PC; (2) Proposed Proffer Statement dated March 29, 2004; and (3) Generalized Development Plan (GDP) dated March 19, 2004. It is anticipated that these issues will be fully addressed through revisions to the application prior to its consideration by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The following comments are offered for your records: A. Impact Analysis Statement 1. Traffic a. A future transportation phase is included in the Impact Analysis Statement that depicts a collector roadway extending from Route 820 (Eddys Lane) to Channing Drive. As you are aware, the viability of this roadway is dependant upon its inclusion with other development plans, most notably the Fieldstone project, within which the connection with Channing Drive would occur. It is noted that the revised master development plan for Fieldstone does not provide for this connection. The future transportation phase shown in the Impact Analysis Statement is therefore impossible and should be amended accordingly. b. The feasibility of closing Route 659 (Valley Mill Road) immediately west of the one - lane bridge would arguably depend upon the availability of an alternative path to Route 7 for eastbound traffic. In the absence of a new collector roadway, an effective alternative would be possible only through the realignment of Route 659 to move traffic around the one -lane bridge. However, no provisions for the realignment of 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Page 2 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. Re: Haggerty Property Rezoning Proposal July 12, 2004 Route 659 are included with this application. It is therefore recommended that the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) be revised to assume the continued use of the one -lane bridge and the impact of this feature on level of service conditions both on Route 659 and Route 820. C. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for this application does not address impacts to Route 820 (Eddys Lane), which is the principal means of access to the subject site. It is noted that this roadway will not be used exclusively by development of the Haggerty Property, as it is planned to provide access to Phase 10 of the Channing Drive project (Fu-Shep tract) and will further be used to carry trips generated by the future development of parcels located west of the Haggerty Property. As such, it is recommended that the TIA be revised to specifically address projected conditions on Route 820. S. Proposed Proffer Statement Land Use 1.2 Unless otherwise addressed by the proffered conditions proposed by the applicant, development of the subject site will be permitted pursuant to the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and, in particular, the requirements of the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District. If the rezoning is ultimately approved, the proposed proffer statement will be adopted as an ordinance unique to the subject site, the provisions of which should exceed or complement those enumerated by county ordinances. It is therefore inappropriate and unnecessM to include or repeat the requirements of county ordinances in the proposed proffer statement. As such, the statement indicating that the mix of uses will be allowed in accord with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance is not necessary and should be deleted from the proposed proffer statement. 1.4 The Zoning Ordinance allows up to 40% of RP developments greater than 50 acres in size to consist of multi -family housing types (Section 165-62.].C.). The proposed proffer statement repeats this standard by stipulating that no more than 120 multi -family units will be developed on the subject site, which equals 40% of the total number of dwelling units proffered for the project. As noted above, it is inappropriate and unnecessary to include or repeat requirements of county ordinances in the proposed proffer statement. The proffered condition limiting the number of multi -family units is therefore not necessary and should be deleted from the proposed proffer statement. Page 3 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. Re: Haggerty Property Rezoning Proposal July 12, 2004 2. Conditions Precedent to the Issuance of Permits and Plan Ap rp oval Recommended Clari ication: It is recommended that the proposed proffer statement clearly articulate the number and composition of land use phases for the development. While it is assumed that each phase consists of 100 dwelling units, no language is provided that confirms this assumption for the purposes of implementing the remainder of the proposed proffer statement. 2.2 The proposed proffer statement stipulates that building permits for no more than 100 dwelling units will be issued within any twelve (12) month period beginning on the date of final master development plan approval. It is noted that building permits are not issued for individual multi -family units. Indeed, the building permit for a single multi -family building provides for the development of multiple units, a fact that could confuse implementation of the proffered phasing schedule. Indeed, as currently written, the subject proffered condition arguably does not guarantee that a maximum of 100 units will be constructed in any given twelve month period. It is recommended that the language of this proffered condition be clarified. 2.3 The proposed proffer statement provides for the phasing of dwelling units over a thirty (36) month period beginning on the date of final master development plan (MDP) approval. In the event that the actual development cycle extends beyond - or begins after - this three year period, no phasing of dwelling units would be required. Indeed, given the variables affecting site development activities following MDP approval, it is highly possible that a substantial number of allowable units may remain undeveloped at the conclusion of the thirty six month phasing period and would therefore be exempt fromhp asing. To ensure the graduated introduction of new dwelling units and their associated impacts to the community, it would be advisable to either lengthen the phasing period or simply commit to a set number of units per year, regardless of the passage of time. 3. Pedestrian Trail System and Recreation. Areas 3.1 The trail system is difficult to follow on the proposed Generalized Development Plan (GDP). It is recommended that the scale of the GDP be adjusted to more clearly depict the trail system and other development features, or that an additional GDP sheet be used to delineate the trail system relative to the remainder of the project. Page 4 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. Re: Haggerty Property Rezoning Proposal July 12, 2004 4, Schools 5.3 The proffered monetary contribution for public school purposes includes an exception for designated "age restricted" housing. Such housing is neither discussed nor proposed in the Impact Analysis Statement, and there is no reference to such housing in preceding sections of the proposed proffer statement. The application should be clarified to address the possibility of "age restricted" units within the proposed development, and highlight any implications to the development program (phasing, etc.) should such housing be introduced as either a portion of the mix or as the predominant product type. 5. Transportation 13.1 through 13.5 Several issues concerning the scope and assumptions applied in the draft Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) have been identified in this correspondence. Until these issues are resolved, it is difficult to conclusively evaluate the content of the transportation proffers proposed by the applicant. Specifically, the TIA must be modified to include assessment of impacts to Route 820 (Eddys Lane) and provide analysis of road conditions under the assumption that Route 659 (Valley Mill Road) will not be closed at the one lane bridge. This information will assist in determining the effectiveness of the transportation proffers proposed with the application thereby enabling final comment by both planning staff and VDOT. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions or concerns regarding this correspondence. Sincerely, 1::�Q- - Christop er M. Mohn, AICP Deputy Planning Director CMM/bad cc: Jerry Copp, Virginia Department of Transportation Ben Lineberry, Virginia Department of Transportation Lloyd Ingram, Virginia Department of Transportation CLARKE COUNTY 6 December 2004 Charles E. Maddox, Jr. Clifford & Associates 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE. Haggerty Property Rezoning — Frederick County iNIN Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above referenced request. CO I distributed the first few pages of your materials to the Clarke County Planning Commission and the matter was discussed at their December 3rd regular meeting. They requested me to forward a complete copy of your materials to the County's engineer for review and requested a committee of the Commission to review a complete copy. By copy of the letter I am distributing these materials. By what date would you like comments? We will make every effort to respond quickly and again appreciate this opportunity. &U-& C L Charles Johnston Planning Administrator Copy: Mike Ruddy, Frederick County County Planning Commission Policy Committee Rick Travers, View Engineers 102 North Church Street Voice (540) 955-5132 Berryville, VA 22611 www.co.clarke.va.us Fax (540) 955-4002 11/28/2004 17:41 5406656395 FRED CO PLANNING DEP PAGE 02/03 . -HALL, MONAHAN, -ENGLE, -MAHAN & MITCHELL 1MiL8UR..C__ HAJ.J_ (1.5-9 2.19 7 2) TMOMAS V. MONAMAN 0924.1999) SAMUEL D. ENGLE O. LELAND MANA14 R404Z-RT T. MITCHELL; JR-, J^*ms--A;- Ku-KNK^R 5TCVCW-F. 4A--KSON DENNIS J.-McLoUGHLIN. JR, A PAR1WCR-,HJ0 OF PRO5ESSON&L CORPOAKMOMr- ATTonwFv,!& AT LAW I L 7 EAST MAftKEf!%TREEr- o rAsy apscAWI!m STREET LEE90%0W­ WAWWA, WING"Er'TCA, VIRGINIA TELEPHONE 70.7-77710'90 TE1EPKONE_U,&C`M7--M0Cr- PLEASE PCIBILY TO: Novernber 23, ' 2W4 - Mr; Michael T. Ruddy, AICD, Doty- Director Frederick- �ounty Department of P,lan-ningand Development 1Q7 North Kent Street WmQhester, VA 22601 F.� 0. Box 048 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA PES04-084a ]RAND DELIVERED R -e- The Canydn,_LC (Haggerty Property .Prop ose4;Proffer Statement Dear Mike: I have. reviewed.: thee aboy-es-referent Propose-d-Pro-f-fer--&atemclit. It is my qpinion, that thz-PoposedTroffer -Statement ds -in.-a- form -to meet the requirements of-dw Frederic-tc,-,County-Z-onin-&-Oid.iiiarice-,md the-0-�"e of Virginia, subject to the following: 1. In Proffer No. 11.2, it-shoul&be atated-. when -the- lands and easements w i provided; dxarn16; 'withid thirty {3 days of a written, request by the FC -SA. 2. Iti Proffer No, 13.-l-,.in-the_-Tran.&portationsect-i-on, the statement is made that 'Tt is the AP1 plicant's intent to privately fund the work requir6l.Qf.tbi-project-'-.Tcannotdeter.m.i:nc fiie purpose of this statemenrin the proffer, as the, rerrrxittkn g -proffers in the Tfdnsportati6h section state thkt the A&Bcant ,shall provide" the va4ibus-trarisportadoa- }fir-ovements- * nti&d", 3.- In Proffcr No.- -13:6; it -should- be --expressly stated that the Applicant * H -survey -and pjat th..e_ rigtit-of way fair VA.-- Roi4.'te 37, if that is the case. 11/28/2004 17:41 5406656395 FRED GO PLANNING DEP PAGE 03/03 HALL, MONAHAN ENGLE, MAHgN & MITCHELL Mr. Miehael-T., Ruddy rederic -County Department of -Planning and Development November 23, 2004 Page 2 -( have- not_reYiewedthe._suhs&-u=oftlp–prQff& m—aa-tQ-whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate fol the""property,, as it is my understanding that that review will ised'vne by thettaff anct-the Vannhig Commission.. If th_r-e_ aru-arrygcres6un& come Ing the--Burege-ing, please contact me. yours, Robert T. Mitchell, r. RTM/g1b 07/06/2004 09:11 5408681061 FCSA PAGE 03 Rezon'in Commie�ut� -HAGGIERTY REZONP4 Frederick County Sanitation Authority Mali to: Frederick Co. Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer P_O. Box 1877 Wiupchester, VA 22604 (540) 868--1_Q61 HAP Ieiiv -to: Frcderi& Co. Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer 315 Tasker Road Stephens City, VA Applicant's Name: Gilbext W. Clifford & Assoc. R�Ione: (540)667-2139 Mailing Address: c% C. E. Maddox. Jr., P.E.. VP 117 E Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: Approx. 3 miles East of Winchester and south of Route 7. Bounded on the north by the Opequon-V—rWT? and East of Eddy's Lane (Route 820). Current -Zoning- RA Zoriia -Requested_ R1'- Acreage: 111-56Ac Sanitation-AutboriW Comments- Will flAcA e be adeqtinte " mer presstwe and volume VAth only one supply4inalvw t1c "futilge junter loop" referred to on the water and sewer layout drawing be required witli "initial constructign? Refer to Eastern- States Engineenng°s revised master development plan for Channing Drive, Phases 9 and 10 or water routing to dw site. Sanitation Authority Signature & Date: �U© D Notice to Sanitation Awx – Please Return This Farm to the Applicant 15 June 4, 2004 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. Vice President Gilbert W. Clifford and Associates, Inc. a division of Patton Harris Rust & Associates, p.c. 117 E. Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Haggerty Rezoning Frederick County, Virginia Dear Chuck: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/678-0682 We have completed our review of the proposed rezoning and offer the following comments: 1) Under the description of location and access, the narrative indicates 60 feet of road frontage on Route 820 (Eddys Lane). This width does not appear to be sufficient to accommodate a future major collection road as annotated on Figure 10. Please indicate how the developer will address this issue. 2) Under the Traffic discussion, we concur with your conclusion that safe and convenient access to Virginia Route 7 is paramount to the traffic improvements. Also, we support your proposal to provide a stoplighted intersection at Route 7 and Route 656. According to the traffic study this will improve the level of service at this intersection turn from an "F" to a "C" rating. However, we recommend that this improvement occur at the initial phase of construction rather than in Phase II as proposed in the proffer statement. This action will insure the safe and convenient access for all phases of development. 3) As indicated in the proffer statement, improvements will be required to Eddys Lane to accommodate the increase in traffic. The proffer statement indicates that the applicant will provide minor road widening of Eddys Lane and Valley Mill Road within currently available right -of ways including installation of dedicated right-of-way and left turn lanes on Route 659 at the Virginia Route 7 intersection. Eddys Lane is currently showing signs of pavement deterioration. Therefore, we 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Haggerty Rezoning Comments Page 2 June 4, 2004 recommend that the above improvements be expanded to include a sufficient overlay to accommodate the additional traffic loading. The improvements may also require additional ditching and piping to accommodate storm drainage. The narrative should indicate who will be responsible for obtaining the necessary right - of ways if the existing right-of-ways are not sufficient to accommodate the proposed improvements to Eddys Lane and Valley Mill Road. 4) Figure 10 indicates a suggested interconnection between Channing Drive and Eddys Lane. We realize that this connection is conceptual in nature especially with the proposed cul-de-sac closure of Valley Mill Road to the west of the one way bridge at Abrams Creek. If this connection is adopted, it will be necessary to upgrade Eddys Lane beyond the improvements highlighted in the proffer statement. Indicate if the applicant will implement these additional improvements at the time of the construction of the interconnection roadway. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the above comments. Sincerely, F. Harvey E. trawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works HES/rls cc: Frederick County Planning and Development file A:\hagger1yrezcom.wpd Rezoning Comments HAGGERTY REZONING Mail to: Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road Winchester, VA 22602 (540) 662-2422 Winchester Regional Airport Hand deliver to: Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road Winchester, VA Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the 'Winchester Regiorial . rport with their re lview. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, inipaet analysis, and any other pertinent infol,111ation. Applicant's Name: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc. Phone: (540)667-2139 Mailing Address: c/o C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. VP 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: Approx. 3 miles East of Winchester and south of Route 7. Bounded on the north by the Opequon WWTP and East of Eddy's Lane (Route 820). Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 111.56 Ac Winchester Regional Airport's Comments Winchester Regional Airport Signature & Date: Notice to Winchester Regional Airport — Please Return This Form to the Applicant 17 ' p WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT SERVING THE 491 AIRPORT ROAD TOP OF VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 (540) 662.2422 May 13, 2004 G. W. Clifford & Associates % Charles E. Maddox 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Master Development Plan Warrior Center Opequon Magisterial District Dear Mr. Maddox: The above referenced Master Plan has been reviewed and it appears that it should not impede operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. The proposed site does lie within the airport's air space, however it falls outside of the airport's Part 77 surface. Thank you for your cooperation and allowing us the opportunity to review these plans to ensure the safe operations of the Winchester Regional Airport. Sincerely, Serena R. Manuel Executive Director Rezoning Comments HAGGERTY REZONING Frederick County Department of Inspections Rh LVLJ Mail to: Hand deliver to:: `k" I j 2004 Frederick Co. Dept. of Inspections Frederick Co. Dept. of Inspections Attn: Director of Inspections Attn: Director of Inspections AEDERiCtiwumn, 107 North Kent Street Co. Administration Bldg., 4th WDRK&INSPEC ONs Winchester, VA 22601 107 North Kent Street (540) 665-5650 Winchester, VA 22601 EApplica:nt-Please fill out the information a accurately .as possible in order to. assist thef Public Works with their review. Attach a copy of your application. form, location.statement. impact anafysirts and any other ; ertine"t infoiT-M ition., j Applicant's Name: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc. Phone: (540)667-2139 Mailing Address Location of Property: c/o C. E. Maddox, Jr. P.E. VP 117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Approx. 3 miles East of Winchester and south of Route 7. Bounded on the north by the Onequon WWTP and East of Eddy's Lane (Route 820). Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 111.56 Ac Department of Inspections Comments: /✓D Gomlj -XC PT TfIA Ezom Pi -,4N FL FVAT1Q1Y 5g4t4 13r- Inspections 3E Inspections Signature & Date: Notice to Dept. of I coons -Please Return Th' orm to the App 'cant C"j,3oP(� C1:^� NA A /t �� I COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 5401665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 April 27, 2004 Mr. Chuck Maddox Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Request for Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) Comments Haggerty Property Rezoning Dear Mr. Maddox:: Upon review ofthe proposed rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic resources and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by the HR.AB. As you have indicated in your impact statement, the Rural Landmarks Survey and the Comprehensive Policy Plan do not identify any significant historic structures or battlefields located on or adj acent to the property. Thank you for the chance to comment on this application. Please call if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Candice E. Mills Planner I CEM/bad 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Rezoning Comments HAGGERTY REZONING Frederick -Winchester Service Authority Mail to: Fred -Wine Service Authority Attn: Jesse W. Moffett, Executive Director P.O. Box 43 Winchester, VA 22604 (540) 722-3579 Hand deliver to: Fred -Wine Service Authority Attn: Jesse W. Moffett 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Applicant: Please fill gut the information as accurately as passible in order td assist the Department. of Public Works with their review. Attach a copy of your'aPplication form, location map, pr cftf� r 5tateraient., impact -analysis, and any other Pertinent information.. Applicant's Name: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc. Inc. Mailing Address: c/o C. E. Maddox, Jr. P.E. VP 117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: Phone: (540)667-2139 Current Zoning: _ ' Zoning Requested: _ Acreage: Fred -Wine Sgrvice Authority's Comments: Fred -Wine Service FWSA Signature & Date: Notice to Fred -Wine S }f �� '%',,-17' ,' FEZ AP 1 3 2004 Authority — Please Return This Form to the Applicant 19 77/t/ . 55 —A —a/a, oz/ ­?A Rezoninjj Comments HAGGERTY REZONING Frederick — Winchester Health Department Mail to: Frederick -Winchester Health Dept. Attn: Sanitation Engineer 107 North Kent Street `_ Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 722-3480 Hand deliver to: Frederick -Winchester Health Dept. z_ Attn: Sanitation Engineer 107 North Kent St., Suite 201 Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 722-3480 f Applicant: Pleas : fill out the info nnation as accurately as possible in order 1c� assist the Fxc ,ICI% WTinchest r EiaiOl3 l op: rtment with their review- Aitarix a copy calFyo�xr application farm, location map, proffer statemvm4 impact analysis, and any other pertinent information, Applicant's Name: Mailing Address: Location of Property: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc. c/o C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., VP 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Phone: (540)667-2139 Approx. 3 miles East of Winchester and south of Route 7. Bounded on the north by the Opequon WWTP and East of Eddy's Lane (Route 820). Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 111.56 Ac Frederick — Winchester Health Department's Comments: s (,—,s t C -le (E C,5+4 Health Signature & Date: Notice to Health Department — Please Return This Form to the Applicant v 9-1 Rezoning Comments HAGGERTY REZONING Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation Mail to: Frederick County Dept. of Parks & Recreation 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5678 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation Co. Administration Bldg., 2nd Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Applicant: Please fillout the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Department of Parks & Recreation with their review. ,Attach a copy of your application farm, location mop, proffer statement, impact analysis,, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Mailing Address: Location of Property: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc. c/o C. E. Maddox Jr. P.E. VP 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester VA 22601 Phone: (540)667-2139 Approx. 3 miles East of Winchester and south of Route 7. Bounded on the north by the e uon WWTP and East of Eddy's Lane (Route 820). Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 111.56 Ac Dept. of Parks & Recreation Comments: See Attached Parks Signature & Date: Notice to Dept. of Parks & Recreation — Please Return This Form to the Applicant 13 Request for Rezoning Comments - Haggerty Property Department of Parks and Recreation's Comments: Plan appears to offer an appropriate proffer to offset the impact this development will have on the parks and recreational services provided by the county. Plan also indicates adequate open space and recreational units will be provided. However, detailed information regarding open space and proposed recreational units (including trails) will be required later in the review process. Signature and Date: Rezoning Comments HAGGERTY REZONING Mail to: Frederick Co. Fire Marshal 107 N. Kent St. Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-6350 Frederick County Fire Marshal i 4 ( L• Hand deliver to: Frederick Co. Fire & Rescue Dept. Attn: Fire Marshal Co. Administration Bldg., 1 'r Floor 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Applicant: Please Fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Frederick County Fire Marshal with his review. ,Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis; and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Mailing Address Location of Property: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc. c/o C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. VP 117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester VA 22601 Phone: (540)667-2139 Approx. 3 miles East of Winchester and south of Route 7. Bounded on the north by the e uon WWTP and East of Eddy's Lane (Route 820). Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 111.56 Ac Fire Marshal's Comments: r Fire Marshal's Signature &Date Notice to Fire Marshal — Please R' rn This Form to the Applicant 12 e Control number RZ04-0007 Project Name Haggerty Rezoning Address 117 E.Piccadilly Street Type Application Rezoning Current Zoning RA Automatic Sprinkler System No Other recommendation Emergency Vehicle Access Not Identified Siamese Location Not Identified Frederick County Fire and -Rescue Department Office of the Fire Marshal Pian Review and Comments Date received 4/13/2004 City Winchester Tax ID Number 55-A-212 & 212A Date reviewed 4/15/2004 Applicant G.W.Clifford & Associates State Zip VA 22601 Fire District 18 Recommendations Automatic Fire Alarm System No Requirements Hydrant Location Not Identified Roadway/Aisleway Width Not Identified Date Revised Applicant Phone 540-667-2139 Rescue District 18 Election District Red Bud Residential Sprinkler System Yes Fire Lane Required No Special Hazards No Emergency Vehicle Access Comments An emergency vehicle access should be diligently pursued which will allow a separate access to the site during construction. Access Comments Additional Comments Extension of municipal water supplies for firefighting shali meet the requirements of Frederick County Code section 99-4. Plan Approval Recommended N,,s 3� Reviewed By Signature �'�" Yes „ _._� ��1 Timothy L. Welsh �* -- Title — SAPP ' 1- VII SURVEYPZAT(:� DEED 040014715 Prepared By. Walsh, Colucci. Lubeley, Emrich & Tcrpak, P,C, 4310 Prince William Parkway, Sunc 300 Prime William, Va.21'91 Gmnlec'sAddress: PO BOX 32763 Winchester, VA 22604 Conmdcnaon. sl, 400�I, 000.00 TmMapN.• S�-A' 212 - SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED is made this A 7 *4 * day of 70:2 , 2004, by and between Edward D. Haggerty and John S. Haggerty, as Trustee of the John S. Haggerty Revocable Trust and in his individual capacity, hereinafter, GRANTORS; and The Canyon, LC, a Virginia limited liability company, hereinafter, GRANTEE; WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the said Grantors do hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey, with Special Warranty of Title, unto the Grantee as all that certain lot or parcel of land situate, lying and being in Frederick County, Virginia, and more particularly described as follows: See Exhibit "A" AND BEING part of the property conveyed to John J. Haggerty and Alice S. Haggerty, his wife, as tenants by the entirety, by Deed from Leonard C. Ellis and Esther P. Ellis, his wife, dated November 23, 1966, recorded February 26, 1968, in Deed Book 328, at page 16; John S. Haggerty died as evidenced by recital in Deed recorded in Deed Book 448, at page 131, leaving Alice S. Haggerty as the surviving tenant; Alice S. Haggerty conveyed an undivided one -forth (1/4) interest to John S. Haggerty and an undivided one -forth (114) interest to Edward D. Haggerty by Deed dated August 15, 1975, recorded August 18, 1975 in Deed Book 448, at page 131; Alice S. Haggerty died testate on January 5, 1993 and devised her interest in the subject property to John S. Haggerty and Edward D. Haggerty by her Last Will and Testament recorded in Will Book 1:05, at page 463; John S. Haggerty conveyed his interest in the subject property to John S. Haggerty, 0 co O Cn Trustee of the John S. Haggerty Revocable Trust by Deed dated J December 8, 2003, recorded January 13, 2004 in Instrument No. 04000543, all among the land records of Frederick County, Virginia. (AS TO PARCELS 1 AND 2) AND BEING the a portion of same property conveyed to Alice S. Haggerty, widow, as to a one-half (1/2) undivided interest, Edward D. Haggerty, as to a one -forth (1/4) undivided interest and John S. Haggerty, as to a one -forth (1/4) undivided interest; Alice S. Haggerty died testate on January 5, 1993 and devised her interest in the subject property to John S. Haggerty and Edward D. Haggerty by her bast Will and Testament recorded in Will Book 105, at page 463; John S. Haggerty conveyed his interest in the subject property to John S. Haggerty, Trustee of the John S. Haggerty Revocable Trust by Deed dated December 8, 2003, recorded January 13, 2004 in Instrument No. 04000543, all among the land records of Frederick County, Virginia. (AS TO PARCEL 3) AND BEING the same property conveyed to Alice S. Haggerty, John H. Haggerty and Edward D. Haggerty, as tenants in common, each as to a one-third (1/3) undivided interest, by Deed dated October 3, 1979, recorded October 3, 1979 in Deed Book 514, at page 601; Alice S. Haggerty died testate on January 5,1993 and devised her interest in the subject property to John S. Haggerty and Edward D. Haggerty by her Last Will and Testament recorded in Will Book 105, at page 463; John S. Haggerty conveyed his interest in the subject property to John S. Haggerty, Trustee of the John S. Haggerty Revocable Trust by Deed dated December 8, 2003, recorded January 13, 2004 in Instrument No. 04000543, all among the land records of Frederick County, Virginia. (AS TO PARCEL 4) . Grantors do hereby reserve unto themselves and their successors in interest an ingress/egress easement across the said property hereby conveyed ("Property") serving all of that remaining property in Clarke County, ownership of which is being retained by the Grantors. Such easement shall be an easement in gross across the Property until such time as a specific access, is provided by the Grantee, as set forth herein, below. Such easement shall be sufficient to allow for vehicular access to the property in Clarke County retained by Grantors from any CD Cn Co public street serving the Property, provided, however, that the inability of the Grantors to obtain o permission to cross Opequon Creek shall in no way affect the conveyance made herein. In the event that Grantee develops the Property, Grantee shall provide public access easement over the Property from the property retained by Grantor in Clarke County, Virginia, to the street network, as the network may be approved by the appropriate governmental authority, and then over said streets to a public street or road serving the Property. If possible, such access shall not be located within any floodplain associated with Opequon Creek or within any wetland that may be subject to state or federal regulation. The exact location of such connection shall be mutually agreeable to both Grantors and Grantee, or their successors in title, and neither party's consent thereto will be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. In no event shall Grantee be required to construct any crossing of Opequon Creek or any public improvements on the Property in Clarke County retained by the Grantors. The Grantors shall bear the cost of constructing any access road over the easement hereby granted up to the point where it joins the street network of the Grantee mentioned herein. The reservations set forth above shall be construed as covenants running with the land, and shall continue in force and effect until access satisfying the conditions set forth above have been fully and completely satisfied. Upon full and complete satisfaction of the conditions set forth herein, Grantor or its successors in title shall execute such documents as are necessary to evidence the satisfaction of the covenants set forth herein. The above-described Property is conveyed subject to all rights of ways, easements and restrictions of record that legally affect the title to said Property. The Grantors covenant that it has the right to convey the property described herein and that the Grantors will execute such further assurances of the said land as may be requisite. CD cn CO Witness the following signatures and seals: Edward D. Haggerty Commonwealth of Vifgiitia r"+sS+cti V s4 tfS County/C-t of_/h oW Iosex , to -wit: The foregoing Deed was acknowledged before me in my aforesaid jurisdiction b Haggerty, Grantor, this A71tay of _TUI" .2004. 01 My Commission expires: 1817/"' . Notary Public L.Ac,"-ri 37 _Sao John S. Haggerty, as Trustee of the John S. Haggerty Revocable Trust and in his individual capacity Commonwealth of -Virginia 014"AehvS45 County/Eily of _ h+ +'aiol jpS?rc , to -wit: The foregoing Deed was acknowledged before me in my aforesaid jurisdiction by John S. Haggerty as Trustee of the John S. Haggerty Revocable Trust and in his individt Grantor, this 2 7f*day of _ 7 vl'Z , 2004. My Commission expires: h/7 / h NotaryPublic 4 EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL 1: All of that certain tract or parcel of land, together with the improvements thereon and appurtenances thereunto belonging, containing 111.505 acres, more or less, lying and being situate in Redbud (formerly Shawnee) Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia and being more particularly des—,;bed ..n that cv +�,,„ plat and survey made by Thomas A. Shockey,' dated October 20, 1978 and recorded in the Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 505 at Page 280. LESS AND EXCEPT that 5.000 acres, more or less as shown on plat attached to confirmation of plat and survey recorded in Deed Book 754, at page 1101, among the land records of Frederick County, Virginia. PARCEL 2: All that certain tract or parcel of land, together with the improvements thereon and appurtenance thereunto belonging, containing 5.000 acres, more or less as shown on plat attached to Confirmation of Plat and Survey recorded in Deed Book 754, at page 1101, among the land records of Frederick County, Virginia. PARCEL 3: All of that certain lot of parcel of land, together with the improvements thereon and the appurtenances thereunto belonging, containing 1,813 square feet, more or less, lying and being situate in Redbud (formerly Shawnee) Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, and more particularly described as Parcel 'B" on that certain plat of survey drawn by Thomas A. Shockey, C.L.C., dated January 11, 1979, and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of that Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 506 at page 376. PARCEL 4: All of that certain lot or parcel of land, together with all rights, rights of way, Privileges, improvements thereon and appurtenances thereunto belonging, lying and being situate on the eastern side of Route 820 in Redbud (formerly Shawnee) Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia containing 1,974 square feet, as shown on the plat and survey of Thomas A. Shockey, C.L.S., dated October 1, 1979, and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book 514, at page 601, VIRUNIA: FREDERICX CO(INTy, SCT. }� Ibis instrument vl wiling wa.c prudu:cd to me on 1:14741796\002\Special Warranty Deed.doc ant[ tvi[h ttrlifi.�t. „1 ,,; F ptntl:,9�cm, n[ t6 w:i/.r adMitted to record. 'I unl,u,; J Mx�_ 5�_1-riu? .�f $1i `OO 0 0, and 5S.1 -Sol have been ihud, it assessable Clerk O U7 CD N • \ \ 55((14))1 -- /((4))4A Frederick—Winchester Alicia F. Lowls at ala \ \ Service Authority DB 510 Pg. 512 \ .DB 800 Pg. 89 — — — Zoning: RA � \ Zoe nln � Aubrey T. )2 \\\v' \ Aubrey T. Chadwell C0 V n DB 823 P 171 (( )) 9 58 A 1 N45'39 04 E S 9. /,5a ;p Frederick—Wincher Zoning: RA Service Authority 64.54' 3' \ DB 584 Pg. 414 "- % SCJ •\ Zoning: RA N22'43'26"W F 55((4))3 �'� r I Michael E. McKee 71.78 \`3:33• DB 691 Zoning: gRA27 55((A))210 M Linden D. & Goldie L Adams DB 230 Pg. 458 r\ / /i4�� / Zoning: RA N70'03'58"E 79.64 o / PROPOSED J N56'28'47" / aq ROUTE 37 2 251.68' IN R/W SO N80'59 45" E \ 2 12.4888 Ac. / 233.11' \ / N1 9'38'38"E ` -89.0112"E 185.98' N09'30'54"E 5 U((Vep / z 55((A))212A • / 272.17' inn Partnership :L/ John S. " D Q Haggerty & N29'18 41 E 789 Pg. 1022 it Edward D. 00 Zoning: RA Haggeyrty / 81.76 ()a D9 15 5 PPg�01 00 r � Zoning: RRRAAA O N74*5110"E N OD � / ,0 316.84' 2 m / ' N23'04'27"E - - 5.0000 Q 138.09' A/C>W 0'j RES o 106.5573 Ac. G N12'26'25"W 55((A))212 O OTHER LANDS OF HAGGERTY John S. Z 349.23 CLARKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA d. ^ �� Haggerty & S9'01'1 W Edward o. Haggerty l ' DB 754 Py. 1101 ' " ZN X6179` ry 300. W8Z1o0ngr g�481 �� N 316.29 W :� S S2 SF.P-4209 Farm PorttnePship DB 789 Pg. RA ,A /V �` . 0 N56'21'55"W Zoning: •v/v / AREA TABULATION �• �, 132.63 cn (( )) - SIQi /\ � / 55 A 212 106.5573 Ac. � e,3 rq 55((A))212A - 5.0000 Ac. �• .[1 DB otgQo / TOTAL - 111.5573 Ac. �� R�. ,y O S3.61 JV04. 60 W �i S6' 48�. °ate BN88* Ianygp9�,?1lgg�emon 26`3 90 � \ O 85'2 "� v Cb 12((A))2 \ N Wilbur M. & Helen B. Feltner DB 112 Pg. 348 II Zoning: RA Q3 HAGGERTY PROPERTY gilbert w. difford do associates, im. Qi Engineers — Surveyors — Land Planners — Water Quality PRELIMINARY PLAT a division of Patton, Hams, Rust & Associates, pc Qj FREDER/CK COUNTY VIRGINIA E. PicadiPy SL Wndhester, Virginia 22601 VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (5401 665-0493 VIII TAYTICICET T A X' R E C E I P T - Y E A R 2 0 0 3 Ticket #:00127190002 WW FREDE, -K COUNTY 106.60 Jate : 11/12/2003 C. WILLIAM ORNDOFF, JR 65.43 Land: 17926 Register: LBX/JK P.O. BOX 225 -00 Trans- #: 38764 .00 HAGGERTY, JOHN'S & EDWARDD Dept # RE200302 WINCHESTER VA 22604-0225 ACCT# 34941 2003 REAL ESTATE TAXES as of 11/12/2003$ Previous LINCOLN, MA 5.00 ACRES 55 A -212A Balance $ 343.46 Check 65.43 Acres: 5.00 ANY BALANCE DUE Principal Being Paid,* 343.46 Land: 47000 Imp: 47100 Penalty $ .00 Interest $ .00 HAGGERTY, JOHN S & EDWARD D Amount Paid $ 343.46 *Balance Due 5 PARTRIDGE LN as of 11/12/2003$ .00 LINCOLN, MA 01773 1803 Check 343.46 # 011000138237 Pd by ANY BALANCE DUE DOES NOT INCLUDE PENALTY AND INTEREST• T A X." R E C E I P T - Y E A R 2 0 0 3 FREDEK_-K COUNTY C. WILLIAM ORNDOFF, JR P.O. BOX 225 WINCHESTER VA 22604-0225 2003 REAL ESTATE TAXES (DUPLICATE) "icket #:00127180002 @@ gate : 11/12/2003 Register: LBX/JK Trans. #: 38765 Dept # RE200302 ACCT# 15931 Previous 106.60 ACRES 55 A 212 Balance $ 65.43 Acres: 106.60 Principal Being Paid $ 65.43 Land: 17926 Imp: 0 Penalty $ -00 Interest $ .00 HAGGERTY, JOHN'S & EDWARDD Amount Paid $ 65.43 *Balance Due 5 PARTRIDGE LN as of 11/12/2003$ .00 LINCOLN, MA 01773 1803 Check 65.43 # 011000138239 Pd by ANY BALANCE DUE DOES NOT INCLUDE PENALTY AND INTEREST• (DUPLICATE) s