PC 10-05-05 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
October 5, 2005
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) September 7, 2005 Minutes............................................................................................. (A)
2) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab)
3) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab)
PUBLIC HEARING
4) 5)Rezoning 415-05 of Leon Largent Estate, submitted by Triad Engineering, Inc., to
rezone 30.01 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to M1 (Light Industrial) District with
proffers. The property is located off Airport Road (Route 645), approximately 1.2 miles from
the intersection of Airport Road and Front Royal Pike (Route 522), directly southeast of the
Airport property, in the Shawnee Magisterial District, and is identified by Property
Identification Number 64-5-1.
Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (B)
PUBLIC MEETING
5) Rezoning 012-05 for Villages at Artrip, submitted by Dewberry, to rezone 169.924 acres from
RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District for the proposed
mixed use development of 905 Residential Units and Retail, Restaurant and Office Uses. The
property is located one mile west of Interstate 81, three quarters mile north of Tasker Road
(Route 649), 150 feet north of Fair Lawn Court (Route 1176), and west of Canter Estates Section
V, in the Shawnee Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number
(PIN) 75 -A -99A. (Public Hearing was held on August 3, 2005.)
Mr.Ruddy......................................................................................................................... (C)
6) Waiver Request for Robert and Sylvia Johnson, is to consider an entrance spacing waiver
permitted in Article IV Section 165-2913(1), of the Frederick County Zoning Code to allow a
commercial entrance less than 150' from an existing residential driveway and a state road.
The subject property is located at 3595 Valley Pike, and is identified by Property
Identification Number 63-A-83 in the S Magisterial District.
Ms. Perkins...................................................................................................................... (D)
FILE COPY
DISCUSSION
7) To consider a request submitted by Greenway Engineering to include approximately
59.09 acres of land into the Urban Development Area (UDA) and to modify the Route 50
East Corridor Land Use Plan. The Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan is a component of
the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The property is located north and adjacent to Millwood Pike
(Route 50), approximately 1,000 feet west of the intersection of Carpers Valley Road (Route
723), across from the Westview Business Center. The subject parcel is identified by Property
Identification Number 65-A-116 in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
Mrs. Eddy......................................................................................................................... (E)
8) To consider a request submitted by Greenway Engineering to include approximately
79.41 acres of land into the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water
Service Area (SWSA). The properties are located south and adjacent to Fairfax Pike (Route
277), approximately 720 feet east of Double Church Road (Route 641). The subject parcels
are identified by Property Identification Numbers 86-A-78, 86-A-79, 86-A-80 and 86-A-81 in
the Opequon Magisterial District.
Mrs. Eddy......................................................................................................................... (F)
9) Other
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 September 7, 2005.
PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/
Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red
Bud District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Robert A. Morris,
Shawnee District; June M. Wilmot, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large; Gary Dove, Board
of Supervisors' Liaison; David Shore, City of Winchester Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Richard C. Ours,
Opequon District;
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R_ Lawrence, Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision
Administrator; 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 Planning
Commission minutes of July 20, 2005 were unanimously approved as presented.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning
Commission minutes of August 3, 2005 were unanimously approved as presented.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) — 08/25/05 Mtg.
Commissioner Thomas reported that the DRRS met and generally discussed possible future
amendments and various items in the ordinance that need attention.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1597
Minutes of September 7, 2005 F T
-2 -
Transportation Committee — 09/06/05 Mtg.
Commissioner Kriz reported that the Transportation Committee held a discussion regarding
possible updates to Frederick County's Eastern Road Plan.
PUBLIC HEARING
Proposed Amendments to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article V, RA (Rural Areas)
District, Section 50; Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 48.10; and Article XXII,
Definitions, Section 156. These amendments would permit and establish supplemental design criteria and
define government services offices in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District.
Action — Recommended Approval
Planning Director Eric R Lawrence reported that the proposed amendment would introduce
"government services offices" to the Rural Areas Zoning District and would establish design and performance
standards to help guide where these government offices would be located. Mr. Lawrence explained that the
recent process of identifying locations for the County's future public safety building and National Guard armory
has made this proposed amendment both important and timely. He said that by establishing performance
standards within the supplemental regulations section of the ordinance, the County could accommodate these
governmental uses and direct their location within the SWSA, which has established criteria for road conditions.
He said the performance standards specify that these uses shall follow the B2 Zoning District regulations,
specifically dealing with parking, landscaping, buffers, and setbacks.
A member of the Commission commented that a government operation may not always be a B2
use; for example, the use could be engineering or construction, which is not an allowed use in a B2 Zoning
District. Mr. Lawrence replied that the government agency will be viewed as a government use, regardless of the
activity taking place. He explained that the government agency will not be categorized as a "health service" or as
"engineering services," but will be categorized as a "government use."
Another Commissioner raised a scenario where a leased building is filled with government
employees; if the lease expires and the workers leave, what happens to the building? Mr. Lawrence replied that
another government use would be allowed by -right; however, if the building is to be used for some other use, it
would not be appropriate, and a rezoning would be required.
A member of the Commission inquired if there was anything in the proposed amendment that
would preclude a police substation outside of the UDA in an area not served by public water and sewer. In
addition, would there be an allowance for a government agency to sublet to a non-governmental agency. Mr.
Lawrence replied that the use would have to be located within the SWSA, which is the County's urban growth
area. He said that it would capture anything in the Stephens City and Brucetown communities; however, it would
not capture something in the west part of the County, such as the Gore or Gainesboro communities. Mr.
La,ATence added that a government agency could not sublet to a non-governmental agency.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1598
Minutes of September 7, 2005 0
@
-3 -
Commissioners asked about various scenarios where a government agency might subcontract
work to a non-governmental agency or to non-governmental employees. They commented that there is an ever-
increasing amount of out -sourcing taking place and this should be considered.
There were no public comments.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Knz,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of the proposed amendments to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article V, RA (Rural
Areas) District, Section 50; Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 48.10; and Article XXII,
Definitions, Section 156 to permit and establish supplemental design criteria and define government services
offices in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District.
(Note: Commissioners Watt, Unger, and Ours were absent from the meeting.)
PUBLIC MEETING
Request for Waiver and Approval of Subdivision 917-05 of GreyWolfe, Inc., on behalf of David Shore,
applicant, and Anthony Cook, property owner. The applicant is seeking a landscaping easement waiver
of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Article VI, RP (Residential Performance) District, Section
165-63.C, Open Space Requirements. A waiver is also sought for curb, gutter, sidewalk, and streetlight
requirements under the Frederick County Code, Article V, Design Standards, Section 144.17.L, Streets,
Section 144-18, Sidewalks and Pedestrian Walkways, and Section 144-19, Streetlights. The subject
property is located on Meadowbrook Drive (Rt. 1021), 300 feet south from the intersection with
Highlander. The property is also identified with P.I.N. 8513-1-12A in the Opequon Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Approval
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported that the Board of Supervisors
approved The Meadows subdivision on August 9, 1972. The proposed subdivision of 1.717 acres will create five
single-family detached traditional lots with public water and sewer, ranging in size from 12,422 to 19,805 square
feet. He said this subdivision appears to meet the requirements for a waiver of the MDP requirement and the
applicant has been granted such; however, the ordinance requires that lots with less than 15,000 square feet
provide curb, gutter, sidewalks, street lights, and open space. In addition, these lots must abut a public street.
Mr. Cheran said the applicant is seeking exemption from these requirements because the adjacent properties in
The Meadows subdivision are of similar size and do not have the identified improvements.
Mr. Cheran stated that when considering the waiver requests, the Planning Commission should
consider the surrounding properties and their existing improvements. He said that staff is seeking administrative
approval authority for this subdivision. He recapped the actions needed by the Commission, as follows:
Frederick County Planning Commission
Page 1599
Minutes of September 7, 2005
Z�
The applicant is seeking a waiver from the open space requirements, enabled by Section 165-63C. (This
open space waiver is at the discretion of the Planning Commission.)
o The applicant is seeking an exception from the following requirements: streets (144-17); curb and gutter
(Section 144-17L); sidewalks (Section 144-18(1)); and streetlights (Section 144-13). (T:ieseexceptions
may be granted by the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation from the Planning Commission.)
• The staff is seeking administrative authority to approve the requested subdivision. (This authority may
be granted by the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation from the Planning Commission.)
Mr. Gary R. Oates, Land Surveyor with GreyWolfe, Inc., was acting as the representative for this
application. In response to questions from the Commission on what has legally occurred to allow the applicant to
cross Ewings Lane, Mr. Oates explained that information has been provided to the County's attorney, Mr.
Lawrence R. Ambrogi. Mr. Oates stated that the public right-of-way strip, between the proposed lots and
Ridgefield Avenue does not have clear ownership, but the properties adjoining this strip have right of use. He
said that the applicant will need a waiver to go across this public right-of-way to access the state -maintained
right-of-way, which is Ridgefield Avenue. Mr. Oates explained that when the Ridgefield subdivision was created,
a state -maintained road, Ridgefield Avenue, was built adjacent to Ewings Lane. He said that instead of taking
both roads side-by-side all the way out to Rt. 277, the curve on Ewings Lane was created to tie into Ridgefield
Avenue in order to give everyone quicker access to a paved road. Mr. Oates added that the existing right-of-way
out to Route 277 still remains. He noted that driveways coming off of these new lots will not obstruct anyone's
use of Ewings Lane and, if someone wants to take Ewings Lane all the way to Route 277, they could do so.
Mr. Oates next proceeded to answer questions from the Commission about drainage and storm
water management. Mr. Oates stated that a drainage and grading plan was submitted to the County and
approved. He said that flooding in this area is partially caused by a large Swale on the property which is both
overgrown and full of ruts. He said their plan was to clean the swale and install a large culvert and piping in order
to move the water away quicker.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak:
Mrs. Margie Gray, an adjoining property owner, spoke about the flooding problems she and her
neighbors have experienced over the years. Mrs. Gray was afraid the water problems would get worse, if this
property was developed. She wanted to know who was going to be responsible, if the applicant's drainage plan
didn't work and the run-off got worse. Mrs. Gray said this particular area was left vacant to handle the run-off
and that is why it was designated as a park area.
Mr. David Shore, a partner with Mr. Anthony Lee Cook in this property, believed the storm
water management and grading work they plan to do on this property will alleviate the drainage problems the
neighbors have been experiencing. Mr. Shore said that he and his partner would be legally liable, if the
development of this propertywould create additional problems. He believed the proposed homes would have a
positive affect on property values in the neighborhood.
Mr. Oates returned to the podium to answer additional questions from the Commission.
Conunissioner Thomas commented that proposed Lot 1 would need substantial grading; he also believed an
improved layout would result, if there were only four lots instead of five, eliminating one of the lots on
Meadowbrooke Drive. Commissioner Thomas was also concerned about the wording of a note placed on the site
Frederick County Planning Commission A Page 1600
0 V T
Minutes of September 7, 2005 0 �
-5—
plan indicating that no grading will take place except for utility installation. Mr. Oates said that he would be
willing to revise the language and resubmit to the Planning Department. Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence
added that the County's Public Works Department is requiring site plans for each individual lot at the time of
building permit application.
Mr. Lawrence R Ambrogi, the County's attorney, stated that he had reviewed all of the legal
documents and spoke with prior owners' attorneys and there is no one else who owns the property. He said that in
his opinion, Mr. Cook had followed all the necessary procedures to legally acquire the property.
members.
Issues regarding the storm water management remained unresolved for some of the Commission
Upon motion made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Kriz,
BE IT RESOLVED, by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby grant a waiver
from the open space requirements, enabled by Section 165-63C; and does hereby recommend approval of an
exception from the requirements for: streets (Section 144-17), curb and gutter (Section 144-17L), sidewalks
(Section 144-18(1)), and streetlights (Section 144-19); and does hereby reconunend that staff be granted
administrative authority to approve the requested subdivision.
The vote was as follows:
YES (TO APPROVE): Straub, Morris, Light, Kriz, Triplett, Manuel, Wilmot, DeHaven
NO: Gochenour, Thomas
(Commissioners Watt, Unger, and Ours were absent from the meeting.)
Subdivision Request 925-05 of Stuart and Laurie Putnam to subdivide a 4.802 -acre parcel in the R5
(Residential Recreational Community) District. The property is located at 320 Shawnee Trail and is
identified with P.I.N. 49A02-3-20 in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Approval
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator Mark R- Cheran reported that this request is for the
subdivision of a 4.802 -acre lot into two lots consisting of 2.9452 acres and 1.8553 acres. Mr. Cheran explained
that this property had been zoned R5 (Residential Recreational Community) District when Frederick County
adopted zoning in 1967; he said that the subdivision ordinance requires that land divisions within the R5 District,
without an approved master development plan, be presented to the Board of Supervisors for final approval. He
said that the original subdivision where this tract of land is located is known as Shawneeland and has no approved
master development plan. He said the proposed subdivision of land is in keeping with the general lot sizes
located in Shawneeland; no VDOT comments were needed, as the road system in Shawneeland is private.
Commissioners inquired about the locations for the drainfields for the existing and proposed new
lot. Mr. Cheran commented that both lots have received Health Department approval as buildable lots.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Page 1601
Minutes of September 7, 2005
0(�ti
Mr. Stuart Putnam, the property owner and applicant, came forward and pointed out the
drainfield areas for the two lots.
There were no public comments.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Straub and seconded by Commissioner Kriz,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Subdivision Request #25-05 of Stuart and Laurie Putnam to subdivide a 4.802 -acre parcel, located at
320 Shawnee Trial in Shawneeland, into two lots consisting of 2.9452 acres and 1.8553 acres.
(Note: Commissioners Watt, Unger, and Ours were absent from the meeting.)
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1602
Minutes of September 7, 2005 po; I
r �
��
�J
REZONING APPLICATION #15-05
LEON LARGENT ESTATE
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: September 19, 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: 10/05/05 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 10/26/05 Pending
PROPOSAL: To rezone 30.01 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to M1 (Light Industrial) District
with proffers.
LOCATION: The property is located off Airport Road (Route 645), approximately 1.2 miles from the
intersection of Airport Road and Front Royal Pike (Route 522), directly southeast of the Airport
property.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 64-5-1
PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District.
PRESENT USE: Vacant
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
North:
RA (Rural Area)
Use:
Winchester Regional Airport
South:
RA (Rural Area)
Use:
Residential
East:
M1 (Light Industrial)
Use:
Vacant
West:
M1 (Light Industrial)
Use:
Light Industrial / Vacant
PROPOSED USE: M1 (Light Industrial) Industrial warehouse
Rezoning # 15-05 — Leon Largent Estate
September 19, 2005
Page 2
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property
appears to have a measurable impact on Routes 645 and 728. These routes are the VDOT roadways
which have been considered as the access to this property. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation
proffers offered in the Largent Property rezoning application dated June 22, 2005 addresses
transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a
complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data
from the I.T.E Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to
comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site
roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered
under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety
bond coverage.
Fire Marshal: Extension of municipal water supplies for firefighting. The Proffer model indicates an
impact of $94,166 for Fire & Rescue services. The tax credit potential goes directly into the General
Fund and is not distributed to the impacted agency. Plan approval recommended.
Millwood Station Volunteer Fire & Rescue: Ensure proper hydrant space. 24 hour access to facility
by way of KNOX Box system. Donation check would be nice!
Public Works Department: Please see letter dated May 9, 2005, from Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr.,
P.E., Director of Public Works
Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: Wastewater treated at Opequon Water Reclamation
Facility capacity demand = 3,000 gallons/day
Sanitation Authority: No comment.
Frederick -Winchester Health Department: Health Department has no objection to the request as
stated as long as public water and sewer are utilized.
Department of Parks & Recreation: No comment.
Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided that states no residential units
will be part of the rezoning, there will be no impact to the school population upon build -out
Winchester Regional Airport: The proposed rezoning request for the Largent Property is in
conformance with the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan and the proposed zoning is
compatible with airport operations. It appears that this rezoning will not impact business operations of
the Winchester Regional Airport.
Frederick County Attorney: Comment to be provided.
Rezoning #15-05 — Leon Largent Estate
September 19, 2005
Page 2
Historic Resources Advisory Board: Upon review of the proposed rezoning, it appears that the
proposal does not significantly impact historic properties and it is not necessary to schedule a formal
review of the rezoning application by the HRAB. The National Park Service Civil Ware Sites Study,
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.
Planning & Zonina:
1) Site History
The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies this
property as being zoned R-1 (Residential Limited). The parcels were re -mapped from R-1 to A-
2 (Agricultural General) pursuant to the County's comprehensive downzoning initiative (Zoning
Amendment Petition #011-80), which was adopted on October 8, 1980. The County's
agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District
upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989.
The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property
and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District.
2) Comprehensive Policy Plan
The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as
the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public
facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to
protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a
composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County.
[Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1]
Land Use
The parcel for which this rezoning is being requested is located within the County's Urban
Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Urban
Development Area and Sewer and Water Service Area define the general area in which more
intensive forms of planned commercial and industrial development will occur. In addition, the
Largent property is located within the area encompassed by the Route 50 East Corridor Land
Use Plan and is located within the Airport Support Area.
The Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan envisions office and industrial land uses on the
property and recognizes the potential for additional commercial growth in the vicinity of the
Winchester Regional Airport and Interstate 81. The Airport Support Area discourages further
residential rezoning and seeks to ensure the feasibility of continued airport use and future airport
expansion. Business and industrial uses should be the primary uses in the airport support area.
The Largent property application proposes a rezoning of light industrial uses. The addition of
the approximately thirty acres of light industrial land is consistent with the land use plan and
would further the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
Rezoning # 15-05 — Leon Largent Estate
September 19, 2005
Page 4
3) Site Suitability/Environment
The Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan recognizes the need to address stormwater
management and protect the environmental features associated with drainage ways, steep slopes,
and existing woodlands. The site is located south of the recently relocated Airport Road, Route
645, and north. of Buffalo Lick Run. A portion of the property actually crosses Buffalo Lick
Run. The site contains areas of steep slopes and drainage associated with Buffalo Lick Run. The
applicant has made efforts with this rezoning application to address the environmental feature
associated with Buffalo Lick Run by designating and proffering a conservation area on the
southern portion of the property. This has been done in a manner consistent with the
environmental easement that presently exists on the property to the west which contains a
similar environmental corridor easement provided with the development of the Airport Business
Park.
The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey does not identify any potentially significant
historical resources or historic district on, or within, the proximity of this acreage.
4) Potential Impacts
A. Transportation
The applicant has evaluated the transportation impacts associated with the development of the
property. In conjunction with the Virginia Department of Transportation it was determined that
the level of analysis provided by the applicant in evaluating the transportation elements of this
rezoning was appropriate. The applicant has estimated that the project could result in 1378
vehicle trips per day. As the applicant has not proffered any specific uses with this rezoning
application, the potential exists for a greater trip generation which the applicant has addressed in
the form of a proffer described below.
The Virginia Department of Transportation recently completed the Airport Road, Route 645,
relocation project which realigned and improved Airport Road in the vicinity of the Largent
Property. In addition, the intersection of Airport Road, Route 645, and Victory Lane, Route 728,
was improved significantly with the provision of a roundabout to effectively and safely move
traffic at that location. In looking beyond the transportation enhancements in the immediate
vicinity of the project, the applicant considered the intersection of Airport Road, Route 645, and
Route 522 and the intersection of Victory Lane, Route 728, and Route 50. The applicant has
proffered a $20,000 contribution for signalization construction and road improvements that may
be utilized at the aforementioned intersections and roadways in the vicinity of the project. The
applicant has further committed to providing additional traffic analysis should the traffic volume
from the project exceed 1500 vehicle trips and to implementing any improvements identified in
the future TIA. This proffer addresses the potential for a user that would generate additional
trips by ensuring any additional impacts could be mitigated.
Rezoning # 15-05 — Leon Largent Estate
September 19, 2005
Page 5
Presently, access to the Largent property is provided over property currently owned by the
Airport Authority. This property was obtained to facilitate the Airport Road, Route 645,
relocation project and is partially encumbered with a stormwater management facility. It is
anticipated by VDOT that the ownership of this portion of land will be deeded to VDOT as part
of the completion of the road project and as surplus to the needs of the Airport Authority. At
such time that this occurs the applicant will have direct access to Airport Road and will have the
ability to construct the required commercial entrance to facilitate the development of the
Largent rezoning. The proffered commitment to provide the commercial entrance that meets
VDOT standards ensures that the appropriate access to the site would be secured prior to the
development of the site. The provision of this access will likely include the modification of the
stormwater management facility adjacent to Airport Road.
B. Sewer and Water
It is anticipated that the thirty acre site would generate approximately 15,000 gallons per day of
sewage flow and 30,000 gallons per day of water usage. Water would be provided by the
Frederick County Sanitation Authority and wastewater generated by the development of this site
would be treated at the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility.
C. Community Facilities
The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model is a tool that is used to identify the capital costs
associated with various types of development proposals presented to the County. The projected
costs to Fire and Rescue, Public Schools, Parks and Recreation, Library, Sheriff s Office and for
the Administration Building are calculated and provided to the applicant for their consideration.
The Fiscal impact model was run based upon the development of the thirty acre parcel in its
entirety to provide the County and the applicant with an overall understanding of the impact of
the project. The Fiscal Impact Model output for this project indicates a net positive fiscal
impact. However, in recognition of the impacts that may be realized by the community to the
Fire and Rescue services, the applicant has proffered a contribution in the amount of $0.015 per
square foot of structural development on the property.
5) Proffer Statement — (Dated 09/02/05)
The Applicant has not provided a generalized development plan as no new road improvements
are to be provided. The Applicant has provided an exhibit that identifies the site and the
Conservation Area described in the Proffer Statement.
A) Transportation.
The applicant has proffered a monetary contribution in the amount of $20,000 for signalization
construction and road improvements in the vicinity of this project. The applicant has proffered
an additional TIA, and the construction of improvements necessary to implement the TIA,
should the initial site development plan for the property include a land use that would generate
Rezoning 915-05 — Leon Largent Estate
September 19, 2005
Page 6
more than 1500 vehicle trips per day. Finally, the applicant has proffered the construction of a
commercial entrance to the property which ensures that any access issues pertaining to the land
located between Airport Road and the Largent property are addressed.
B) Conservation Area
The applicant has proffered that a strip of land that contains a portion of Buffalo Lick Run and
its associated floodplain will be preserved as a conservation area providing a continuation of the
environmental stream corridor established with the Airport Business Park. The conservation
area is identified on the map attached to the Proffer Statement.
C) Monetary Contribution.
The applicant has proffered a monetary contribution in the amount of $0.015 per building
square foot to Frederick County to offset the impacts generated on Frederick County's Fire and
Rescue Services.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 10/05/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The Largent Property rezoning application is generally consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive
Plan as described in the staff report. The Planning Commission should ensure that the impacts
associated with this rezoning request have been fully addressed by the applicant.
Followin,a the required public hearing, a recommendation regarding this rezoning
application to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should
be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Plannink Commission.
OUTPUT MODULE
APPL CAN1 * Lafgerit
LAND Ll,: Er 1)'I'T N'l Industrial
REAL EST VAL 0.891.301
F r KE & P E 5C 7E = 6
Fire and Rig, rue Depditinent
10;r16 e scnc 01-s
High
i auld RL�crvaliujl
Jbr_,iry
ShetJf'..a I') If 1 ":1,1;
Adrrti*.tr,-ilJo • Bu.lding
SUBT'L:TAL
L EirT FISC, A'L 4 MPACT
F I C F A'.'l I. 1 -11 L S I NIFAC T
Net Fiscal Impact
Costs of Im oa ot C re d;,,:
Required (onlerpl in
ga tg�w Fzkg4sies cot sum only)
_ �
S94.1613.
so
� Ij
so
so
so
SO
SG
594.166
$1.501.4913
Credits lobe Taken for Future I axis I laidJUPVJ
Totalfttentlaf
Adjustment For
Cur, Budget
Czar. Budget Cap.
Future CIPI
Tax Credits
Revenue-
Net Capital
Net Cost Per
Quer Cap Equip
Expenofflebt S.
_Qttier
(Unadju tQd
Cost Balatice
Facilities L'jV'_qCt
C7tiue11inp Unit
so
$0
$94'168
#DIV101
$0
S0
so
so
#DIVA11
so
$0
$0
$0
4D IVM'
$0
$0
$0
so
#DIV/Ql
$5,141
SO
so
$5,141
$5.141
so
#MV10!
so
$0
so
$0
#DIVM!
$12:32H
$13,1310
$25,938
$25,9311
so
#DIM!
S17,4f;9
$13.610
$10
$31,079
531,079
553,087
#DIVID!
$1,501,498
51,5501,498
jajfif)' 1.49 8)
#DIV101
"to I RIM -7107
INDEX. MY If Cap. Equip Included 1.0
INUFY: 1.0" if Rev -Cost Bal. -0.0" if Ratio to Co Avg: 13,13 Rev -Cast Bal
PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Cc Avg
-- ------------------ I - -- --------------- .. ..... --- ----- -------------------- - ------------------------------ _ _ -------------------- --------------- --- -----------
ME7i()[r,'_)I JGY 1. Capital facilities reqvirerrients are input to (lie first column as calculated in the model,
2. Not Fiscal In -,pact NPV from operatiuns calculations is input in (ow total of second co4imn
(zero if negative). included are the one -lime taxesffees for one year only at full value
2 tsIPV of future aper cap eqidp taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts,
4 Nf'Vof future capital expenditum taxes paid in fourth cot as calculated in fiscal impacts.
5. WV of future taxes paid to bring ouri-crit county up to standard for new facilities, as
calculated for each new facility.
Columns three through live are added as potential credits against the calculated capital
facilities fequiternerils. These afe adjusted for percent of costs covered by the tevenucs
from the protect {actual, or as ratO to avg. for all residential nevelopment)-
l7mi-ot ca.culations do r.at include include they are L;Lish payniF,.nls up front- Credits doinclude* interest if the projects are debt financed
------------ ------------- - - ------------------------- ------...----------• ------------------- ------------ ------------------------ ----- -- -------------- --------------------- ------
"IC I L Mn�^el Run Date I V15104 MTR
1�osrrirriior,: f1S;-LW1P_-S 108,000 square feet of M.1 Iiijustria' (manufaLturing) on 30.01 icres zoned MI District
I CLIO LCHICIFIVis assoniatc!d,-vith deveoprnent in the County, the results of this
Module may r,rpt be- v8vid beyo„d a period of 90 days from the model run date.
1.342
-------------- -- ------ - - ------
I OUTPUT MODULE
I AVIPI ICAN V: ',,Indent npor It
Not
Fiscal impact
LAND 'J,7iL -,-YPE M.1 AILIUS1114,U]
COStS of
IrTlp� elediV
tqt Q
Ci edits to be Taki-n tor F Uture Taxes Paid (NPV)
Total Potential
Adjustment For
i Ri, - Aj- I- - L -'-I W' -'L 13,420,979
Required
fentered in
Cur Budget
Cur- budget Cap.
Future DIP!
Tax Credits
Revenue-
Net Capital
Net Cost Per
F llL & iiE'LXJ'J- = 6
('a 'tal Fadltijes
Pi -
COI SUM Only)
Qp±--r —C —aE Ugilip
t2S��
Taxis_ Other
wo
(UnadiusteO)
Cost Balance
F a
Dwelling Unit
I ve. �inccl Re. ,ic DEparinient
$94.160
so
so
$94,1613
#DIVICI
Hefripw.,;ary. -lic.tcols
so
....
----
rv'iidoi'e &,hool!�'
so,
Sk)
$0
Si5
so
$0
#DIVIO!
I I i 9 11 S z two Is
$0
----
I Par,„ and
$0
$
$0
so
so
#1731VIol
pu�'Ik- t lbaaiy
$ 0
$0
so
$0
$G
#DIVIa!
S I lr:r II' C" fil ce s
$0
$3.085
$0
ZM
$3,055
53-085
$0
#DIV0
1 Anwin s'vatirm Builo11
.4t}
S a
$0
IS 0
$0
#DiVlof
OUICJ Mli-S::H'ILWILGLJI I n C I i I I e 5
SO
$7,397
$8, 1 ob
$155133
515,563
so
;UDIVIO!
S U 310 T AL
S 44 1 (iji
S10,48-1
$8,166
so
518,648
$18.648
$75,5113
#Dlviol
NIF I (SEAL IMI-'.Ai',1
$1.251,878
$1,281,878
$1.281.878
JL1 881 PUS
41DI—VID!
CAP, FACI I-ITI ES IMPACT
SG I
#DIV/01
iNLIEK '1.0" If Cap Equip Inniuded 1.0
INDEX: 1.0" if Rev -Cost ]}al, "0.0" if Ralin to Co Avg, 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal
PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 110 Ratio to Go Avg
........ ------------- - - - ------------ ------------------ I ------ ------
I
----- ---------------- -------------- ------------------------ --- I ------------------ --------------------- -------
TO IF I H C0 0 L 0 -3 Y 1, Capita; taw litres requirements are input to the first colunir. as calculated in th° model.
2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV frorn operations calculations m input in raw total of second rolurnti
(zero if negative), included are We one-time taxesift-as for one year only at full value.
3. NPV Of future opor cap equip taxes paid in third C0IWMn as calculated in fiscal imp Ict,
4. NPV Of future cap1al experid7lure taxes pair] in fourth, call as calculated in fiscal impacts.
5. NPV of future taxes said to bring current county up ID standard for new facilities, as
rLilculated for each ne,.01acility-
E. Cuit Prilris Inree through fivo are added as potential Grediis against the calculated capital
I facilities req tire+dents. Thcse arc adjusted for percent of costs covered by Me reventues
tram Oic project (actuall, or as ratio to avq- for all residential developmont).
NDFL. P'rvIc-.r cal-Eula4 --ni do nor indude u1clude interest be.moso they arQ cash payments up front Credits do inzIude interest if the projects are deb', finances
------------ --- ------ ------------------ ------------------------- -------------- — I - -------------------------------- - ,.-•---------------- --------------------- - ------------------ - ------
�NC:TES tVcdv-I Run Date 11.1"L,.'04 MTR
I acres zoned toil District
me. to chang ng canjilion-s associated with devOopmwit in the County, the results of this
jciule nwFy not Le valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date.
--------------- ------------- - ------- --------- ----------- -- --------- ---------- ---- ---------------
1.1700 I
1.342
--------- --------- ------ ---------- - ------ ----
OUTPUT MODULE
}
Apt'l Atv t L;igent
t�«et Fiscal Impact
I't PL t tr Injustrial
i F' LAL VA- � 13,257,E J }
Costs of Impact Credit Credits to be Ta%en for Future Taxes Paid(NPV 1
Total Potential
Adjustment For
}
{ F R ', R E S C U E _ ti
Required tentelLd it,, Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap_ Future CIf'1
Capital F a..i`tiies col: Burn ontyj C per Can Eouin Exoend(Qebt
Tax Credits
Revenue-
Net Capital
Not Cost Per !
}
S_ Taxes, 1hher
[Unadjusted}
t`,r5st Hatance
f acilities trTao2ct
�7 r etlinq Unit {
I I -in I'i:t ii a Tt+firirlr*rent.
594 1_aG
}
} !�rt'�nter} h•_.&s
�t
SQ
$0
594,165
#DIVIDt 9
I Mijdle S;-hc;nl;
SObD SC}
{
I N;,: h
$0
$0
S4
t f
#Di\ l0.. {
I Fruit:, and Kf--cieatlon
{ Ylal li Lia it it :
r, ��
$�
"�
S3
So
11DIVIO! {
} ill Ilrt -. {f ill t':•
SG
$ :54,242 $0
$o
Sd
£o
#piV Ol {
I AJ , istrutiun Buildl rldi
so
$4,242
$4.242
$0
#DIV/4I {
il
r nc#cru: F ., liti,=a
('p
bti' $10,170 $11.223
$(]
yQ
$(]
#DI4rlo! }
I
$21,399
$21,:1;33
$0
#DIV101.
NI t ! , A:`u'1PAC T
$ x4,412 $11,229 $0
$25,640
S25,644
�68,825
0C)MG! {
i tit. I :-',AP -?,t.:-iLil L... irdil :-:,�1
;i:i.;r.Y?t ;ii(i
53,228,665
$3,228,686
f�; .22�t,6UG'�
DMO!
!
llIDEii ' 1.0" If yap. Equip InGtuveU 1.0
i
!,NPEit-"1.0" if Rev -Cosi B@,,,, ' o.0" if Ratio to Co Avg. G,O
Rev -rust Bat =
1.000
!
. .,
PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCE: 1,9 1.0
Ratio to Co Avg
1.342
F
}
t.IL 1.
------ ----------- ------ .---.... _ ..,-.._..-._ .,- .._._.,-..------- ........
Czip3al facilities 1'egUireMent5 are Input t,G tete 61st column as calculated in the ti iodel,
I 2'
Not f li.ai Impact NI IV from operations calculalions is rnp Ur In row toted of second column
!
!
Elul`[; If negative): included are the One-time taxes.ffees for one year only )I fill valet'
j
MPV of fu"Ire opvr cao equip. taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts.
I.
4.
NPV of futtire capital exp unditure taxes paid in fourth cot as calculated in fiscal impacts..
I5
NPV of fiiturre te]Xes paid to lJ.imig curront county up to stundard for new facll!tos., as
�
I
calculated for each new fae:litg.
! S.
Columns three through] five are added as polential credits against tine calculated capital
l
fa iiitios rr9uiremenAs. f heat~ are adjusted for pttrcent of costs covered by the revenues
{
!
i
from the Prriec9 tnctu l`9, Oras retro to;31-19 for III rcrtdential developmenl).
t
a
"o fel r -alr—ul apions do not include
i
ir-irludt interest tjn '3crsa they are cash payments up front. Credits do include interest if the projeCs are debt financed
( •!'vTE: hvftldel Run Date 111'! '.,204 t'AM
I
I
(' i�. L' ,.cripatrari Assumes 19fS,t�oO S[lursrr_. ftrct af;u11 tn;stl ;hist' {ill x =t9.frC[7 t2cl.aiffl4g,SJQ bh+airetsCusrj err 30.Ui �crts ztrraeci M i Garstrict.
}
1
}
a
}
I
I` rr„ isin�inn r i;;,ditrn , ass_iciated,.vilh devo pl.nifint in the County, the rt; sults rf this
I
I
! OW UI Felk-r-Itilo mpg ani hip w)tid beyond a period of W days from 0-e model run date,
t
A
1
I
!
t
d
}
!
I
I
May 9, 2005
Triad Engineering, Inc.
200 Aviation Drive
Winchester, Virginia 22602
RE: Largent Rezoning
Frederick County, Virginia
Dear Sirs:
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Public Works
540/665-5643
FAA: 540/678-0682
We have completed our review of the proposed Largent rezoning and offer the following
comments:
Refer to Location and Site Background/Surrounding Properties: The 30.01 ± acres
proposed for rezoning is located southeast of a parcel owned by the regional airport. This
parcel contains a stormwater management basin and a limited access drive 12 feet wide
from Airport Road to the property under consideration. Indicate how the applicant plans
to construct an acceptable access road from Airport Road to the proposed property.
2. Refer to Site Suitability - Wetlands: The statement indicates that no wetlands have been
identified on the site. However, previous wetland delineation studies performed for
adjacent properties have identified wetlands within the Buffalo Lick Run Flood Plain.
Indicate if a wetland study has been performed or if a wetland study will be performed
prior to submittal of a master development plan.
Refer to Site Suitability - Steep Slopes: The narrative indicates that steep slopes have
been identified on the site. Provide a topographic map delineating these areas.
4. Refer to Water Supply: Provide an estimate of water usage based on the anticipated
development highlighted in the proffer model (198,000 square feet).
Refer to Drainage: The discussion of stormwater design indicates that the proposed
stormwater facility will be designed and engineered to meet available quality and quantity
standards. Based on this statement, we will expect the stormwater facility to be designed
using a BMP approach. This design approach should be highlighted in the master
development plan.
107 North Kent Street a Vi"mchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Largent Rezoning Comments
Page 2
May 9, 2005
6. Refer to Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: The narrative states that "no additional solid
waste disposal facilities will be required for the proposed development". However, the
discussion does not indicate an estimate of the solid waste generated by the project nor a
comparison with the available capacity of the regional landfill. These issues should be
included in the revised rezoning analysis and based on the maximum anticipated
development. The rezoning model indicated that 198,000 square feet of development will
occur on the approximate 30 acre parcel.
I can be reached at 722-8214 if you have any questions regarding the above comments.
Sincerely,
Harvey E. trawsnyder, Jr., P.E.
Director of Public Works
HES/rls
cc: Planning and Development
File
A:\Lar�enfrezcom.�� pd
LARGENT 50�
I 64 5 1 pec, 0 O
Zoning
RP A
0 0,
ft.� j- yoysr
ANDERSON
Tais a—CO
64 5 D4
/ ti
'19-
h
/ \ RUSSELL or
^ 64 A 37A
�A- SMITH
64 A 378
F �p ♦ ♦
Map Features
Zoning
��P1ica4on
N Bridge=
culverts
61 (Business, Neighborhood District
) B
MS (Medical
® Support District)
(
REZ # 15
-05
Lakes/Ponds^V
Dams
(Business, District)
)
C R4 (Residential, Planned Community District)
Retaining Walls
B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District)
+ R5 (Residential Recreational Community District)
Leon Lar g e
n t Est.
Buildings
Road. Centerlines®
',ep, EM (Extractive Manufacturing District)
Q RA (Rural Areas District)
Tanks
*V
+yr HE (Higher Education District
Q RP (Residential Performance District)
(64-5-1)
Parcels
"V
M1 (Industrial, Light District)
N
..,, ., Trolls
Q M2 (Industrial, General District)
0 SWSA
MH1 (Mobile Home Community District)
WE
0 100 200
400
S
Feet
� BERMfL
64 A 401
A - rq- Ftp y
j �KONVS PT STORES ve
'- r64t'DEAS40E
rr
A 37A
1r4 �4`� X1144
a'• _'
1F-
Map Features
Zoning
Application
/\,Bridg-
/�/ Cumerts
(Business, Neighborhood District )
� MS (Medical Support District)
REZ # 15
-05
LakB7
^� Dams
District)
B2(Business,Gdustri
Q R4 (Residential, Planned Community District)
StieslPonds
Streams
l
/�� Retaining walls � 63 (Business, Industrial Transition District)
� RS (Residential Recreational Community District)
Leon Largent
Est.
Buildings
Road Centerlines
+i EM (Extractive Manufacturing District)
Q RA (Rural Areas District)
Tanks
A
41 HE (Higher Education District)
Q RP (Residential Performance District)
/
(64-5-1
64 — 5
1
parcels
^V
T
+ Mt (Industrial, Light District)
N
1
` V
��
a .—A
,, Trails
JDA
V M2 (Industrial, General District)
+ MH1
0�40
(Mobile Home Community District)
W*
0 100 200
400
S
Feet
64
PROFFER STATEMENT
REZONING: RZ# 15 e%5
Rural Areas District (RA) to General Industrial (M1) with Proffers
PROPERTY: 30.01+/- acres
Tax Parcel #64-((5))-1
APPLICANT: Robert Largent, Max Largent, & Romona Largent Hines
Preliminary Matters
Pursuant to Section 15.2296 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 #/sPC for the rezoning
of 30.01+/- acres from the Rural Areas District (RA) to the General Industrial District
(M1) with Proffers, 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 this Applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns.
Transportation
A. The Applicant hereby proffers a contribution of $20,000 for signalization
construction and road improvements to be paid at the time of the first issuance of
a building permit.
B. The Applicant hereby proffers to provide a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
meeting all requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT),
should the initial site plan provide for a land use(s) with traffic generation
projections exceeding 1500 vehicles per day (VPD). Any road improvements
deemed necessary by the TIA to maintain acceptable levels of service will be
determined between the Applicant, VDOT, and Frederick County prior to site
plan approval.
C. The Applicant hereby proffers to coordinate with VDOT to determine the best
design for the construction of a commercial entrance to the property. The
Applicant hereby proffers to construct a 30 ft. wide (minimum) commercial
entrance as part of the development of this property. This entrance will be a part
of the site plan for this property. The entrance will be constructed to all VDOT
design standards.
Stormwater Management
The Applicant hereby proffers to preserve the overall retention volumes of the
stormwater management basin as designed for VDOT for the designated drainage area.
Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development
The Applicant hereby proffers that in the event rezoning application #l_-0.5'is approved,
the Applicant or his legal successor, heir, or assign, will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick
County, Virginia the following amount:
$.015/building square foot
This payment, potentially totaling $2,970 is intended to offset the additional cost to
Frederick County, and more specifically the Frederick County Department of Fire and
Rescue.
Conservation Area
The Applicant hereby proffers that in the event rezoning application #� is approved,
the southwest strip of land that contains a portion of Buffalo Lick Run and its floodplain
will be preserved as a conservation area and an environmental stream corridor. This area
of land is labeled on Conservation Area Map #8 (see attached) as the "Conservation
Area" and is approximately 1.369 acres.
Signaturese
The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators,
assigns and successors in the interest of the Applicant and owner. In the event the
Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions,
the proffered conditions shall apply to land rezoned in addition to other requirements set
forth in the Frederick County Code.
By:
i C Date: e)
Max Largent 61/
Commonwealth of Virginia,
etgfCounty of IJfA To Wit: ,p
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this d y of
20 jq$ y
NoI@ Public
My Commission Expires lc;�-3/ — 0 5
Respectfully Submitted:
Date:
ARobgLarggen
Commonwealth of Virginia,
Goy/County of�AxdXAAk To Wit:
nom%
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thisc2 day of
20 o6by
aV_Aob�
Notldypublic
My Commission Expires
By. -�-- /
Dat
Ro ona Largent Hin <
State of Florida,
City/County of1�/te3 d�� ftp' ' To Wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 7 day of
20 �by
My Commission Expires 696 /66
Notary Public
pQa AL DEBORAH L. HIMMELRICH
Notary Public, State of Florida
My comm. expires June 23, 2009
N0. DD 432080
r^rn c or%:n+*i ter, A wto% v% - - PmrL . T — -- — — -- r
0
d2
The Largent Property
Conservation Area
Streams
E771 Parcel lines
SCALES
0 100 200 400 600 800 1,000
Feet
1:4800 1" = 400'
07 April 2005
Triad Engineering, Inc.
www.triad-vAnc.com
Map 8
IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
Largent Property Impact Analysis Statement September 2005
A. Location and Site Background
The following Impact Analysis Statement is provided in summary form for the proposed
development of the property referred to as the "Largent Property". The property is
located in the Shawnee Magisterial District. The property is situated along Airport Road
(VA Sec. Rt. 645), approximately 1.2 miles from the intersection of US Route 522 and
Airport Road. The property does not front Airport Road. The property is directly
southeast (behind) of the Winchester Regional Airport property that fronts Airport Road
(see Maps 1, 2 & 3). The parcel to be rezoned totals 30.01+/- acres. The parcel is
currently zoned Rural Areas (RA).
The requested rezoning is to change the current 30.01+/- acres from Rural Areas (RA) to
Light Industry (M-1).
There are no residential units proposed as part of this rezoning. A site development plan
for the proposed use will be prepared in accord with all local and state regulations.
The property proposed for rezoning is located within the Urban Development Area
(UDA) and inside the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Currently, the Frederick
County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) maintains a 12" water main and a 6" sewer force
main along Airport Road (VA Sec. Rt. 645) to serve this area.
Comprehensive Plan, Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan
The Land Use Plan for this area is contained within the Frederick County Comprehensive
Plan. This document is the most important tool that guides development in Frederick
County and specifically, in the area of this requested rezoning. The Comprehensive Plan
designates this area as a "Proposed Office/Industrial" area. The Comprehensive Plan
refers to this area's proximity to the Winchester Regional Airport as well as its easy
access to Interstate 81.
Triad Engineering, Inc.
Largent Property Impact Analysis Statement September 2005
B. Site Suitability
The site is well suited for the intended development. It is estimated that 60% of the
property is suitable for actual construction and development due to steep slope areas.
These areas will be specifically addressed at the time of a site plan submission.
Access
On 22 March 2005 representatives from Triad Engineering, Inc. met with representatives
from VDOT and Frederick County Planning at the VDOT facility in Edinburg, VA. It
was agreed by all parties that a reconfiguration of the existing detention basin would be
required in order to provide an adequate area for the drive entrance in the Largent
property. In essence, the drive entrance will be created by an area swap that will be
addressed at the time of site plan submission.
100 Year Flood Plain
A portion of the parcel is within the designated areas of the 100 -year flood. This area is
located along Buffalo Lick Run. No structures are planned within the flood area. A
portion of the area contained within the floodplain will be put placed in a conservation
area/stream preservation corridor (see proffer statement and Map 8).
Wetlands
No wetlands have been identified on the site. The area contained of the property through
which Buffalo Lick Run flows will be preserved as a `Conservation Area' (see proffer
statement and Map 8). On the remaining portion of the property there is no evidence of
soils or plants in significant quantity to warrant delineation of wetlands.
Steep Slopes
The property generally slopes to the south and east. Steep slopes areas have been
identified on the site (see Map 6). These steep slope areas are generally the areas of
natural drainage into Buffalo Lick Run.
Mature Woodlands
The site contains no known mature woodlands.
Soils
There are no known critical soil areas on the site (see Map 7).
Comprehensive Planning
In the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, the site is identified as part of a proposed
area of office and industrial growth.
VVIAD
Triad Engineering, Inc.
Largent Property Impact Analysis Statement September 2005
C. Surrounding Properties
The site to be rezoned is bordered by Rural Areas (RA) zoning and Light Industrial (M-1)
Zoning. The adjoining properties to the west are all zoned Light Industrial (M-1). The
property to the east is shown on the zoning map as being zoned Light Industrial (M-1),
however, the parcel information for this parcel (64-((5))-3) states that it is currently zoned
RA/M-1. The property to the south is zoned Rural Areas (RA) (see Maps 3 & 4).
The property to the northeast is owned by the Winchester Regional Airport and is the site
of the recent relocation of Airport Road (Rt. 645). This property now contains a
stormwater management basin (please see the Transportation section for more
information).
VVIAa
Triad Engineering, Inc.
Largent Property Impact Analysis Statement September 2005
D. Transportation
Traffic
A Summary of Trip Generation Rates was calculated using the ITE Trip
Generation Manual, 7th Edition. The results show an average weekday 24 hour 2 -
Way volume of approximately 1378 trips. The full summary of these rates is
shown in APPENDIX A. A summary of the average peak hour trips breaks down
as follows:
7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter: 137.0
60 % from US Route 522: 82.2
40% from US Route 50: 54.8
7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit: 30.0
60% exit to US Route 522: 18.0
40% exit to US Route 50: 12.0
4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter: 36.0
60% from US Route 522: 21.6
40% from US Route 50: 14.4
4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit: 135.0
60% exit to US Route 522: 81.0
40% exit to US Route 50: 54.0
Entrance
There are two main challenges to the planned construction of a commercial
entrance to the Largent property: 1) acquiring the necessary land to construct the
entrance on and 2) ensuring that the volume of the stormwater management pond
remains the same.
With the relocation of Airport Rd. (Rt. 645), the Winchester Regional Airport
Authority acquired a 5+/- acre parcel from the Largent property. The new section
of Airport Rd. and a stormwater management pond were created on this 5+1- acre
parcel. To provide access to the Largent property, VDOT constructed an
approximately 12 ft. wide gravel entrance across the Airport property. An
easement was not created. According to VDOT, it is the intention of the
Winchester Regional Airport Authority to deed to VDOT the surplus property on
the parcel adjacent to the Largent property. Once this is completed, VDOT will
be in a position to sell the property or a portion of the property for the
construction of a commercial entrance (see Map 9). As of 16 June 2005, VDOT's
rough estimate is that they will be in a position to sell within six months to a year.
LIIAD
Triad Engineering, Inc.
Largent Property Impact Analysis Statement September 2005
In order to construct a commercial entrance to this property, a larger allocation of
land will be needed. VDOT has stated that there are several options to explore in
order to provide enough land for a commercial entrance:
1) A permanent easement for the entrance
2) Partial sale of the entrance area
3) Sale of the entire parcel but preserving a VDOT maintenance easement
for the stormwater management pond
4) Other options
With regard to the stormwater management pond, VDOT has stated that it would
"...generally not have an objection to the applicant modifying the pond to install
the entrance, provided the stage/storage/discharge relationships are preserved
and road safety not affected "
It is the sincere intention of the property owner to work with VDOT to determine
the best course of action for both parties regarding the construction of a
commercial entrance and preserving the overall retention volumes of stormwater
from Airport Rd.
VVIAD
Triad Engineering, Inc.
Largent Property Impact Analysis Statement September 2005
E. Sewage Treatment
There are no known limiting factors for the conveyance of sewage and sewage treatment
from this property. Capacity and daily usage will be addressed at the time of site plan
submission.
The site is located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). A 6" sewer force
main exists along Airport Road and can service the site with an extension to the site of
approximately 350'.
VHAD
Triad Engineering, Inc.
Largent Property Impact Analysis Statement September 2005
F. Water Supply
There axe nn known limiting factors for supplying this site with water. Capacity and
daily usage will be addressed at the time of site plan submission.
The site is located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). A 12" water main
exists along Airport Road and can service the site with an extension to the site of
approximately 300'.
LVAD
Triad Engineering, Inc.
Largent Property Impact Analysis Statement September 2005
G. Drainage
The site has no identified drainage problems. There are no streams or ponds located on
the site, except Buffalo Lick Run that briefly crosses the southern property line. Due to
the on-site slopes, drainage can be expected to flow south and east and enter into Buffalo
Lick Run.
An increase in storm water runoff can be expected with any development on the property.
Storm water management will be provided in accordance with the Frederick County
Code, Chapter 165. Further, the stormwater facility will be designed and engineered
using a Best Management Practice (BMP) approach so that the quali and quanti of
stormwater retained and discharged will meet all applicable environmental and
development standards.
LVAD
Triad Engineering, Inc.
Largent Property Impact Analysis Statement September 2005
H. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
No additional solid waste disposal facilities will be required for the proposed
development. Tipping fees are $38.00 per ton. A private solid waste hauler will handle
collection.
LUA1D
Triad Engineering, Inc.
Largent Property Impact Analysis Statement September 2005
I. Historic Sites and Structures
The site contains no known historic sites or structures as listed on the National Register
or according to Frederick County GIS data.
VVAD
Triad Engineering, Inc.
Largent Property Impact Analysis Statement September 2005
J. Community Facilities
Education
A positive fiscal impact to education facilities is anticipated.
Emergency Services
The Frederick County Sheriff's Department provides police protection. The fire and
rescue facility designated to serve this site is the Millwood Fire and Rescue Company
located north of the site on Costello Drive. No additional fire and rescue facilities will be
required for the area proposed to be rezoned.
Parks and Recreation
A positive fiscal impact to parks and recreation facilities is anticipated.
CRUD
Triad Engineering, Inc.
Zoomed Locational Map
Largent Property
SCALES
0 0.050.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Mi l� s
1:12,000 1"=1,000'
07 April 2005
Map 3
Triad Engineering, Inc.
www.triad-winc.com
r....Urreni: Zoning �- The Largent Property
The Largent Property
PIN# 64-((5)-1
Currently zoned: RA
: M1
The
The Largent Property SCALES
Parcel lines
0 105 210 420 630 840 1,050
M1 (Industrial, Light District) Feet
RA (Rural Areas District) 1:4800 1" = 400'
RP (Residential Performance District) 07 April 2005
v
.0 -
i9s
Triad Engineering, Inc.
www.triad-winc.com
Map 4
Floodplain �- The Largent Prone
- The Largent Property
f�
The Largent Property Streams
Parcel lines Floodplain
IV Conservation Area 5' Contours
Please note that the floodplain depicted on this
map is an approximation of the extents of the actual
Map 5 floodplain.
10
I
0
0
,Z
0
3
cD
0
7-QlAn�%
SCALES
0 100 200 400 600 800 1,000
Feet
1:4800 1" = 400'
07 April 2005
afs
Triad Engineering, Inc.
www.triad-winc.com
Slope Mai -�- The Largent Prove
The Largent Property G Parcel lines
Slopes
0.00 - 5.00% 15.01 - 20.00%
- 5.01 - 10.00% 20.01 - 25.00%
10.01 - 15.00% 25.01 - 90.00%
Contours
SCALES
0 105 210 420 630
Feet
1:3600 1" = 300'
07 April 2005
C
a
R
0
ir
als
Triad Engineering, Inc.
www.triad-winc.com Map 6
Formation
9B Clearbrook
9C Clearbrook
41 E Weikert-Berks
Slope
2-7%
7-15%
25-65%
Shrink/Swell
Moderate
Moderate
Low
PermeabilityRIA
Moderately Slow SSS
Moderately Slow 0 105 210 420 630
Moderately High
ESoil
/J
840 1,050 (/
Feet Triad Engineering, Inc.
Map 7
1:4800 1"
= 400' www.triad-winc.com
16 November 2004
r"Q0
REZONING APPLICATION FORM
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
To be completed by Planning Staff
Zoning Amendment Number
PC Hearing Date jC",
Fee Amount Paid $
Date Received MUG
BOS Hearing Date—,
The following information shall be provided by the applicant:
All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the
Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester.
1. Applicant:
Name: The Estate of Leon Largent Telephone: (540) 667-2424
c/o Robert Largent, Max Largent & Ramona Hines (Adams -Nelson)
Address: 141 Westwood r)dvP
Winchester, VA 22602
2. Property Owner (if different than above)
Name:
Address:
3. Contact person if other than above
Name: Triad Engineering Inc.
200 Aviation Drive
Winchester. VA 22602
Telephone:
Telephone: (540) 667-9300
4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application.
Location map ✓0 Agency Comments
Plat Fees
Deed to property ✓ Impact Analysis Statement
Verification of taxes paid F-71 i Proffer Statement
11
5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to
rezoning applications.
Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned:
Leon W. Largent - Estate Max Largent
Robert Largent
Lillian Ramona Hines
6. A) Current Use of the Property: Vacant
B) Proposed Use of the Property: M-1 Zoning; industrial warehouse
7. Adjoining Property:
PARCEL ID NUMBER
64-((1))-4
64F-((1))-5
64F -((1))-5A
64F -((1))-6A
64-((5))-1 A
64-((5))-3
USE
vacant
industrial
industrial
industrial
vacant
vacant
ZONING
M-1
M-1
M-1
M-1
RA
RA/M-1
8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance
from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers):
The property is located off Airport Road (Rt. 645), approximately 1.2 miles
from the intersection of Airport Road and Front Royal Pike (US Route 522).
The property does not front Airport Road; it is located directly southeast of the
Winc. Reg. Airport property that fronts the eastbound lane of Airport Road.
12
Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model
In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to
provide information conceniing the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staffwill use the
maximum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9
of the application package.
9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 64-((5))-1
Magisterial: Shawnee
Fire Service: Millwood
Rescue Service: Millwood
Districts
High School: Millbrook
Middle School: James Wood
Elementary School: Armel
10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested.
Acres
I Current Zoning
I Zoning Requested
30.01
RA Rural Areas
M-1 Light Industrial
Total acreage to be rezoned
11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed:
Single Family homes: 0
Non -Residential Lots: 1
Office: 0
Retail: 0
Restaurant: 0
Number of Units Proposed
Townhome: 0 Multi -Family: 0
Mobile Home: 0 Hotel Rooms: 0
Sauare Footage of Proposed Uses
_ Service Station: 0
Manufacturing: 0
_ Warehouse: 198000
Other: 0
13
12. Signature:
I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the
Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the
zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to
enter the property for site inspection purposes.
I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed
at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public
hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible
from the road right-of-way until the hearing.
I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and
accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge.
Applicants & Owners:
Date:gZ X o
ert I argen
Max Largent
lian Ramona
Date: ✓`✓' y- o�
Date:�� �—
Adjoining Property Owners
Rezoning
Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting
the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way,
a private right-of-way, or a watercourse fromthe 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, 107North Kent Street.
Name and Property Identification Number
I Address
Name Herman & Elizabeth Rubenstein
PO Box 257
Clarksville, MD 21029
Property# 64-((1))-4
Name Roger J. Chavez
PO Box 343
Millwood, VA 22646
Property # 64F-((1))-5
Name Roger J. Chavez
PO Box 343
Millwood, VA 22646
Property # 64F -((1))-5A
Name see note --»
This property is identified as an individual
property on the tax maps, but no owner is
identified.
Pro e # 64F -((1))-6A
Name Winchester Regional Airport
491 Airport Road
Winchester, VA 22602
Pro e # 64-((5))-1A
Name Dove Family Company, LLC
209 Sunset Circle
Cross Junction, VA 22625
property # 64-((5))-3
Name Winchester Regional Airport
491 Airport Road
Winchester, VA 22602
Property # 64-((5))-3A
Name Daryl R. & Christopher B. Russell et als
211 Laurelwood Drive
Winchester, VA 22602
Property # 64 -((A)) -37A
Name Mark D. & Arlene D. Smith
540 Laurelwood Drive
Winchester, VA 22602
Property # 64 -((A)) -37B
Name Wilson Property LLC
3076E Shawnee Drive
Winchester, VA 22601
Property # 64-((A))-39
15
Name and Property Identification Number I
Address
Name Ray L. Fadley
18442 Senedo Rd.
Edinburg, VA 22824
Property # 64-((A))-39C
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
16
Locational Map --- Largent Property
;� •. fiFa«ibr uah `� `i r� � � f{.".1 ..'r.�. �`.o�" �.1,,
-'�+iy '' / � �ryrt1r Il o��@■_ �Lo, ��7•'�.\7, n_r c� '�\`. 7`•; ~� r l _, f � �` _.
• ,y �.:' i' Exit 313
' � . • � � .� .:�/ f .%� � � - , Lim • l-��J
f
ice., f � .� e ; v •. �._ t ,'�h � K._ -i -_..S 1 �' (\ ! j{j //^^. .� —
�.� 1 .-r% � ri.'� :fir .•,�. Nr +� _�' \� � �!'. 2 .'; ( -,�.
••` •y „��`. - • ti J _ ' f 1. �.r, t
• �• v \: SITE
Vj
do
SCALES _
0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 --/
Miles
1:24,000 1"=1,200'V Triad Engineering, Inc.
07 April 2005 www.t.riad-winc.com
Map 1
Surroundin
64 -((A)) -37A
Daryl R. & Christopher B Russell
Et al Trustees
12.59 Acres - RA
64F -((1))-6A
Owner unknown
Acres - M1
64 -((A)) -37B
Mark D. & Arlene D. Smith
40 Acres - RA
PrODerties,� iLar ui it Prope
64-((l))-4 T
�
Herman & Elizabeth Rubenstein
& J. Thomas & Christine Beaumont
2.86 Acres - M1
64F -((1))-5A 64F-((1})-5 64F-((1))-5 64F -((A))-39
Roger J. Chavez Roger J. Chavez Roger J. Chavez Wilson Property, LLC
4.2 Acres - M1 3.08 Acres - M1 3.08 Acres - M1 2.05 Acres - M1
The Largent property
PIN# 64-((5)-1
64-((5))-3
Dove Family Company, LLC
15.98 Acres - RA/M1
N
64-((5))-3A
Winchester Regional Airport
3.25 Acres - RA
64-((5))-lA
Winchester Regional Airport
5.07 Acres - RA
SCALES
0 105 210 420 630 840 1,050 Note: Parcel 64-((5))-3 is recorded as being zoned vvs
Feet RA/M 1 in the property information listing. However,
1:4800 1" = 400' its zoning classification according to the zoning map Triad Engineering, Inc.
designates it as being zoned M1.
Map 2 07 April 2005 www.triad-winc.com
SURVEY PLAN'
Na2S�s:lb,S('TiCL
�►s.7-Wr rwh
MR)RRE
(Wr irsa
OLD rfncl
fa:o (uS£n
FW LNE)
U U .I
LidP C MTA Now [+£iiiiM
h�J av, r0u, iT CE 0072 J7 t 5 6039 49" C
BLOWN !?OW
JUSRS J. RUSSELL, JR.
ROSA L. RUSSELL
U.U. 271 PG. J71
PARCEL ONE
TAX PARCEL 64 (A) J7
h
FEid�r
POST
ON ME
0 412•
REMAINING LANDS Or
= I LEON W. LARCENT
VIRGINIA R_ LARGENT
j 0.6. 508 PG. 280
-1 TAX PARCEL 64(5) 1 do 2
�i
REiEr NC fP,EA = .117.018 AC {
= 1307554.08 SO.FT. r 1
WE
RAMUS tFM�-rn
16455.111 107,64
uoffs�
1. JW FLAT G UE RMTT OF A FIRD SW1J-y
aas7 cmvwlf<D Ur Ah`lUUON N 45" L4fa w w Ahu
FWNE7 �ILR.Y 199£4
FQ4 Lo E 2 n E f'Rt NRTY R7 Wr ALM= 8r 17C KveC ' su
REGPC" AgWRF WE5 HOT 11E LY A 100 rfkR PLooi7
IUNL AS 90M ON FLIP,! Id+'.P TZ1UUUAI1Y PMa / I
5!€k7G.7 Of 15 a
5. 0 m PW SET
4. SH400 AREA IV BE f MMM By RE HW(9+y''4, 7r}i
REPONk Alf1fC1RT. j
5. RUVQCM FNE"C.X CT}U141Y TAX PARCEL 64
(5) 1 & 2. aa 5tN3 PG. 260. WU PfPWT PREPARED
BuURARCr Ctb?FO:2417m IM-u0h1), 41+7GM
6. TM PROPERTY MAY GE YJaXrT TO F4St11ENT5 OR
Rous OF mAr CUPm►'E)£D TD: (A) G # P TEt tPm*E'
COUFANY RECM00 W Q.E..t 7 M 5.74 ANN (6)
hS7PrIMM 4=Mk POKY C13UPAW RECi RC7 KI7 RH VA
104 PSG. 155
7. Rvil tr wAr (ifTiiC o to Dir CL'ittvr4rATH Gf
Y.RC W.A ON aa 567 PC. 58
& AR r'ERTY AOa%m, 73o AtR?ORT RD. Wfhukrr--sTm
N.RC.1PltA ..�
LOT 5
H
VO4,11 ` w
f
r 1.ss �
Roo
FGdl:m
1a'
CQ
LOT 4 �Qt� L
SENT Pyr 4a LEON R. TREUT E - � +
5"5aJJ* w
rCjTI:D (USED' 41�6J FVC 4o. M72
PUUh[7
AREA = 5.078 AC
221197.68 SQ.FT. THOMAS A GROVE, SR.
HELEN S. GROVE
:vr N iemd{� L4` 0.6. 535 PG. 348
SEE PLAT D.R. 808 PG. 557
TAX PARCEL 64 (5) 33
EXEIBI n
PLAT OF SURVEY OF —_
r Rao 5.078 ACRE PARCEL
FOPfNO� r0 BE ACQUIF?E0 BY
50 R THE WINCHESFER REGIONAL AIRPORT
t ata • to txs`srmA a? FREDERICK
d4AGISTE'RK DIS+`RICT
vimFREDERICK COUNW ORCINE4 SPICET 2 OF 7
REWSION DATF. 06 OCT96 OJ DEC 96, 10 JUN 98
1�02E
7�Od� 114 ='= m =MJEl
l_E GATEDOCUMENT N0ASSOCIATES, Inc.I.r-ca�.• 30(7 5E{�i 9 7 3'8 t—iJC32
7-32BIP44 i 5rilo lJo2a ERN'M
`LRC;I;,jA. rREPERICK CCIUNTY, SCT.
Thb, In<_Icumcnt of-611ng was PtOduc:r* Iu me nn
itl
p 55�Sh t11Eic¢IC of ackaDw'1=dgcment theecm anntncd
u 9Vbdinhtcd 10 Word. TRI II PNOd LY SCC. 01402 Cir r
3 ! F .�x'd 59.I Ij=Le ``'d, If .msm"Hu,
Ccrk
C)��s*�51
q 6 ami C�1
FENCE
v [r
�t17[L]4
CORNER
caX
,4
ti
h
FEid�r
POST
ON ME
0 412•
REMAINING LANDS Or
= I LEON W. LARCENT
VIRGINIA R_ LARGENT
j 0.6. 508 PG. 280
-1 TAX PARCEL 64(5) 1 do 2
�i
REiEr NC fP,EA = .117.018 AC {
= 1307554.08 SO.FT. r 1
WE
RAMUS tFM�-rn
16455.111 107,64
uoffs�
1. JW FLAT G UE RMTT OF A FIRD SW1J-y
aas7 cmvwlf<D Ur Ah`lUUON N 45" L4fa w w Ahu
FWNE7 �ILR.Y 199£4
FQ4 Lo E 2 n E f'Rt NRTY R7 Wr ALM= 8r 17C KveC ' su
REGPC" AgWRF WE5 HOT 11E LY A 100 rfkR PLooi7
IUNL AS 90M ON FLIP,! Id+'.P TZ1UUUAI1Y PMa / I
5!€k7G.7 Of 15 a
5. 0 m PW SET
4. SH400 AREA IV BE f MMM By RE HW(9+y''4, 7r}i
REPONk Alf1fC1RT. j
5. RUVQCM FNE"C.X CT}U141Y TAX PARCEL 64
(5) 1 & 2. aa 5tN3 PG. 260. WU PfPWT PREPARED
BuURARCr Ctb?FO:2417m IM-u0h1), 41+7GM
6. TM PROPERTY MAY GE YJaXrT TO F4St11ENT5 OR
Rous OF mAr CUPm►'E)£D TD: (A) G # P TEt tPm*E'
COUFANY RECM00 W Q.E..t 7 M 5.74 ANN (6)
hS7PrIMM 4=Mk POKY C13UPAW RECi RC7 KI7 RH VA
104 PSG. 155
7. Rvil tr wAr (ifTiiC o to Dir CL'ittvr4rATH Gf
Y.RC W.A ON aa 567 PC. 58
& AR r'ERTY AOa%m, 73o AtR?ORT RD. Wfhukrr--sTm
N.RC.1PltA ..�
LOT 5
H
VO4,11 ` w
f
r 1.ss �
Roo
FGdl:m
1a'
CQ
LOT 4 �Qt� L
SENT Pyr 4a LEON R. TREUT E - � +
5"5aJJ* w
rCjTI:D (USED' 41�6J FVC 4o. M72
PUUh[7
AREA = 5.078 AC
221197.68 SQ.FT. THOMAS A GROVE, SR.
HELEN S. GROVE
:vr N iemd{� L4` 0.6. 535 PG. 348
SEE PLAT D.R. 808 PG. 557
TAX PARCEL 64 (5) 33
EXEIBI n
PLAT OF SURVEY OF —_
r Rao 5.078 ACRE PARCEL
FOPfNO� r0 BE ACQUIF?E0 BY
50 R THE WINCHESFER REGIONAL AIRPORT
t ata • to txs`srmA a? FREDERICK
d4AGISTE'RK DIS+`RICT
vimFREDERICK COUNW ORCINE4 SPICET 2 OF 7
REWSION DATF. 06 OCT96 OJ DEC 96, 10 JUN 98
1�02E
7�Od� 114 ='= m =MJEl
l_E GATEDOCUMENT N0ASSOCIATES, Inc.I.r-ca�.• 30(7 5E{�i 9 7 3'8 t—iJC32
7-32BIP44 i 5rilo lJo2a ERN'M
`LRC;I;,jA. rREPERICK CCIUNTY, SCT.
Thb, In<_Icumcnt of-611ng was PtOduc:r* Iu me nn
itl
p 55�Sh t11Eic¢IC of ackaDw'1=dgcment theecm anntncd
u 9Vbdinhtcd 10 Word. TRI II PNOd LY SCC. 01402 Cir r
3 ! F .�x'd 59.I Ij=Le ``'d, If .msm"Hu,
Ccrk
REZONING APPLICATION #12-05 AND
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #09-05
VILLAGES AT ARTRIP
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: September 21, 2005
Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this
application. It may also he useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues
concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report.
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission: 08/03/05 Tabled 60 days
10/05/05 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 10/26/05 Pending
PROPOSAL: To rezone 169.924 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned
Community) District for the proposed mixed use development of 905 Residential Units and Retail,
Restaurant and Office Uses.
LOCATION: The property is located one mile west of Interstate 81, three quarters mile north of
Tasker Road (Route 649),150 feet north of Fair Lawn Court (Route 1176) and west of Canter Estates
Section V.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 75 -A -99A
PROPERTY ZONING & USE:
Zoned: (Rural Areas) District Use: Unimproved
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
North: B2 (Business General)
RA (Rural Area)
South: RP (Residential Performance)
East: RP (Residential Performance)
West: RP (Residential Performance)
RA (Rural Area)
Use: Unimproved
Agricultural
Use: Residential/FCSA
Use: Residential
Use: Residential/Vacant
Residential
PROPOSED USES: 905 Residential Units, Retail, Restaurants and Office Uses (a maximum of
118,550 square feet and a minimum of 10,000 square feet of commercial use has been proffered).
Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip
September 21, 2005
Page 2
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property
appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 719. This route is the VDOT roadway which
has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation
proffers offered in the Villages at Artrip rezoning application dated May 20, 2005 addresses
transportation concerns associated with this request. The developer will be required to enter into a
signalization agreement with VDOT at the time the roadway is requested to be accepted into the
State's Secondary System. The developer will be liable for the cost of the signal. Before
development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs,
drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for
review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way
dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work
performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued
by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage.
Fire Marshal: Where the desire of the developer to provide proffers is appreciated, the development of
this project will have an overwhelming impact on fire and rescue services. Water supplies for
firefighting and access shall be addressed during the Subdivision Plan Review. Plan approval
recommended.
Stephens City Volunteer fire Dept.: No comments offered.
Public Works Department: Your letter dated June 13, 2005 has adequately addressed our previous
review comments related to the rezoning application and master development plan associated with the
proposed Villages at Artrip.
Frederick County Dept. of Inspections: No comment required.
Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments regarding submitted. Application
recognizes that expansion of Parkins Mills is necessary to accommodate project build -out.
Sanitation Authority: No comment.
Health Department: No objection or comment, so long as municipal sewer and water services are
provided to entire project.
Department of Parks & Recreation: The area identified as a school site and open space for use by the
Parks and Recreation Department does not appear to be adequate to accommodate both uses. The
typical section on page three of five of the Master Development Plan indicates trails to be between five
and ten feet in width. The Parks and Recreations Department recommends all trail to be a minimum of
ten feet in width. The revised proffer statement has modified proffer 5.1 to reflect ten foot bike trails.
The Proffer Statement should include language which indicates the bridge design (The proffer
statement, Section 14.2.1.1) will accommodate bicycle lanes. The proposed monetary proffer for Parks
Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip
September 21, 2005
Page 3
and Recreation appears to be less than what the impact model would indicate is needed to offset the
impact of this development.
Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the
proposed 155 single-family homes, 180 town houses and 570 multi -family units will yield 49 high
school students, 47 middle school students and 131 elementary school students for a total of 227 new
students upon build -out. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools
serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school.
The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of
approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new school
facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. The resubmitting of this rezoning application
with its proffer statement provides approximately 11 acres to be dedicated for a future elementary
school site (minimum acreage needed for an elementary site would be 15 acres). It is imperative with
the above number of units included with this project that an elementary school be located in this area.
With current building trends, future considerations need to be given to additional middle and high
school facilities. Also because of the continued growth in Frederick County, the replacement of certain
administrative facilities such as the transportation and administration, which currently have exceeded
their capacity, will need to be replaced or expanded. This proffer helps to address the impact of a future
elementary school; however, the impact of this type of application on other current and future school
needs should be considered during the approval process.
Winchester Regional Airport: We have reviewed the above referenced rezoning application/master
plan and it appears that the proposed site plan will not have an impact on operations at the Winchester
Regional Airport as the majority of the subdivision falls outside of the Airport's Part 77 surface. No
special requirements or conditions are requested on behalf of the Winchester Regional Airport
Authority.
Frederick County Attorney: Comments to be provided by Mr. Bob Mitchell, Jr.
Historic Resources Advisory Board: Upon review of the property rezoning, it appears that the
proposal does not significantly impact historic properties and it is not necessary to schedule a formal
review of the rezoning application by the HRAB. The Rural Landmarks Survey and the Comprehensive
Policy Plan do not identify any significant historic structures or battlefield located on or adjacent to the
property.
Geographic Information Systems: Warrior Drive and Lakeside Drive are continuations of existing
roadways and names. Parkins Mill Road will not be accepted as a road name. It conflicts with
roadways and names already in the system, and is not considered an extension of an existing roadway
name. The potential for up to 21 road names has been noted. Any "Private Road" that is the primary
entrance for four or more properties must be named before numbering/addressing can be completed.
This MDP is presented as a suburban setting and not a rural setting. Therefore, future road names with
such suffixes as Road, Lane, Loop, Trail, Bypass, Grade, Highway, Interstate, Overlook, Pike and
Turnpike will not be accepted into the system. Acceptable road name suffixes for this development
include Alley, Avenue, Boulevard, Circle, Court, Drive, Place, Plaza, Square, Street, Terrace and Way.
Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip
September 21, 2005
Page 4
Town of Middletown: None.
Town of Stephens City: Traffic concerns as always.
City of Winchester: From a regional transportation standpoint, the inability to provide connectivity to
Warrior Drive where the bridge is needed at the south end raises concerns in terms of traffic impacts.
Planning & Zoning:
1) Site History
The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies the
subject parcels as being zoned R-2 (Residential Limited). The parcels were re -mapped from R-
2 to A-2 (Agricultural General) pursuant to the County's comprehensive downzoning initiative
(Zoning Amendment Petition #011-80), which was adopted on October 8, 1980. The County's
agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District
upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989.
The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property
and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District.
2) Intended Use
The applicant proposes the development of a mixed use project; a residential planned
community with an arrangement of residential villages containing a mixture of housing types
focused around core area which incorporates a neighborhood commercial center. Also proposed
is the dedication of areas for public use including an eleven acre site for an elementary school.
The project is proposed to be developed in three phases. Through the proffer statement, the
project would be limited to 905 residential units. The proposed gross residential density for the
Villages at Artrip is 5.40 units per acre. The applicant has not committed to construct any more
than 10,000 square feet of commercial uses. However, the ability has been provided to enable
up to 118,550 square feet of commercial uses. The construction of Warrior Drive as a four lane
section throughout the limits of this property to connect with Warrior Drive in the Wakeland
Manor and Crosspointe developments is a key component of the project.
3) Master Development Plan Requirement
In order to have land rezoned to the R4 District, a master development plan, meeting all
requirements of Article XVIII of the Zoning Ordinance shall be submitted with the rezoning
application. In adopting the rezoning, the master development plan submitted will be accepted
as a condition proffered for the rezoning. The master development plan review procedures
described in Article XVIII must also be completed concurrently with or following the
consideration of the rezoning.
The purpose of the master development plan requirement is to ensure that the intent of the
residential planned community is met. The intention of the R4 District is too provided for a
mixture of housing types and uses within a carefully planned setting. Special care should be
Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip
September 21, 2005
Page 5
taken in the approval of the master development plan to ensure that the uses on the land are
arranged to provide for compatibility of uses, to provide environmental protection, and to avoid
adverse impacts on surrounding properties and facilities. The R4 District is intended to create
new neighborhoods with an appropriate balance between residential, employment, and service
uses. hlnovative design is encouraged. Special care is taken in the approval of R4 developments
to ensure the necessary facilities, roads, and improvements are available or provided to support
the R4 development. Residential planned community developments shall only be approved in
conformance with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan.
3) Comprehensive Policy Plan
The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as
the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public
facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to
protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a
composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County.
[Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1]
T marl T ko
The parcels comprising this rezoning application are located within the County's Urban
Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Urban
Development Area defines the general area in which more intensive forms of residential
development will occur. In addition, The Villages at Artrip property is located within the
Southern Frederick Land Use Plan and is identified with a Mixed Use designation north and east
of Warrior Drive and a Residential designation south and east of Warrior Drive.
As noted in the Comprehensive Plan, the mixed use areas are envisioned to include residential
and commercial components, of which a maximum of 75 percent of the land area would be
residential. The mixed use concept is intended to promote land use patterns that allow for
internal service, employment and intermodal transportation opportunities with public open
space linkages between various developments. The concept is offered as a diversion from the
typical segregation of land uses into specific zoning districts that are often unrelated to each
other such as is presently evident in the County. The Villages at Artrip rezoning application
request is consistent with the land use designations identified in the Southern Frederick Land
Use Plan.
With the more urban densities envisioned for development in the UDA, the Comprehensive
Plan seeks to ensure that special effort is made to provide the infrastructure necessary to
accommodate the desired land uses and densities. Further, as land is developed in the Southern
Frederick Land Use Plan portion of the Urban Development Area, the Plan identifies the
preservation of the stream valleys as environmental open space is an important goal that
contributes to the protection of flood plains and water quality and provides a continuous system
of green open space.
Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip
September 21, 2005
Page 6
Transportation.
The Southern Frederick Land Use Plan and the Eastern Road Plan identify new road systems
which have been planned to effectively manage traffic generated from the various uses, to link
various land uses with arterial and collector road systems, and to provide for signalization
opportunities at critical intersections as areas develop. The most significant transportation
element in the Comprehensive Plan that relates to this application is Warrior Drive. Warrior
Drive is identified as a major collector road with a four lane urban section that traverses the
property in a south-east to north-westerly direction. Also identified are Parkins Mill Road and
an extension of Lakeside Drive into the project. Both are identified as collector roads with a two
lane section.
The new road systems within the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan are planned to mitigate
impacts to the environmental features and historic areas. The plan encourages public access and
the development of bicycle facilities and pedestrian walkway systems that serve residential,
mixed use and planned unit development areas. The plan also recommends limiting commercial
entrances, utilizing master planned boulevard entrances, and increased parking lot setbacks for
corridor design and appearance enhancements.
Pursuant to the general transportation policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, roads located
adjacent to and within new development are expected to operate at no less than a Level of
Service Category "C." (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 7-5)
4) Site Suitability/Environment
The Villages at Artrip property is located immediately south of the Opequon Creek. Areas of
100 Year Flood Plain, steep slopes, and mature woodlands associated with the Opequon Creek
frame the northern boundary of the project as these features run along the entire length of the
property. The majority of these environmental features will be protected in areas of open space.
Disturbance of areas of mature woodlands will occur in the northwestern portion of the
property. The limits of disturbance of the mature woodlands have been identified on the
proffered master development plan. Further, the applicant has made efforts in the design of the
MDP and within the proffer statement to minimize the disturbance of the mature woodlands and
ensure the protection of these areas. Internal to the project the applicant has made further
attempt to preserve areas of existing woodlands or specimen trees by ensuring their location in
open space areas. This is evidenced with the location of a village green around the identified
specimen Delaware Pine and the dedicated tree save area in Landbay F.
A second significant stream, an unnamed tributary to the Opequon Creek, traverses the southern
portion of this property. Once again this feature and its associated flood plain, steep slopes, and
mature woodlands have been located within areas of open space. A small amount of disturbance
of the environmental features associated with the unnamed tributary will occur due to the
construction of Warrior Drive. The master development plan prepared for this project ensures
and demonstrates that any disturbance of identified environmental features will be done in
accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal requirements.
Rezoning # 12-05 — Villages at Artrip
September 21, 2005
Page 7
The majority of the Villages at Artrip site are generally more suitable for development as it
relatively level and open. Historically, the site was used for agricultural purposes. Located
internal to the site are smaller areas of wetlands and waters of the U.S. which have been
incorporated into the design of the master development plan. Of particular note is the farm pond
located central to the project that the applicant has proffered to preserve as a focal point or
visual amenity to the project. This village pond and its associated wetlands may be enhanced for
stormwater management function however its environmental integrity and aesthetic quality will
be maintained with its proffered preservation.
5) Potential Impacts
A. Transportation
Traffic Impact Analysis.
The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for this application projects that the development of
820 residential units, 60,000 square feet of office use, 150,000 square feet of retail use, and two
6,000 square foot restaurants would ultimately generate 15,623 vehicle trips per day. The actual
proffered mix of land uses, identified in the introduction to this application, should be
considered in comparison to this assumption when evaluating the TIA. The report was
developed with primary access to the project being via the proposed Warrior Drive, a future
roadway. The report was separated into three phases generally consistent with the proffered
phasing of the development. Phase 1 assumes 297 residential units along with the completion of
Warrior Drive from south of Tasker Road to the northern property extents of the Villages at
Artrip; Phase 2 assumes 577 residential units and 10,000 square feet. of retail along with the
completion Warrior Drive from south of Tasker Road to the northern property extents of the
Villages at Artrip; and Phase 3 assumes the build out of the entire Villages at Artrip
development along with the completion of Warrior Drive from south of Tasker Road to north of
Crosspointe Boulevard a future roadway within the planned Crosspointe development.
The TIA concludes that the traffic impacts associated with the Villages at Artrip application are
acceptable and manageable. The conclusion of the TIA further identifies suggested
improvements that are assumed to be implemented to achieve an acceptable level of service at
intersections throughout the study area network and to achieve an acceptable and manageable
conclusion. It should be noted that many of the improvements identified relate to intersections
beyond the boundaries of this project and that some of the identified improvements may be
accomplished with other development projects.
The Villages at Artrip project has not proffered to address any of the identified off-site
improvements that are identified in Figure 21a of the TIA (Phase 3: 2012 build out lane
geometry and levels of service) which would accommodate this and other adjacent background
projects and traffic. The assumption of the Villages at Artrip project is that these improvements
will be put in place by others and that ultimate connection to the study area network will occur
Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip
September 21, 2005
Page 8
in a timely fashion. The transportation proffers provided by the Villages at Artrip project relate
directly to on-site transportation improvements with one exception - the connection of Warrior
Drive to its currently planned terminus on the Wakeland Manor project.
Staff Comment:
A scenario could be envisioned where the Phase 3 build out of the Villages at Artrip project
would occur, including the construction of the road network through the limits of the Villages at
Artrip property, prior to any development in the adjacent portion of the Crosspointe
development. This scenario would be problematic when considering the structure of the
Villages TIA, as this key connection to an off-site transportation network is the main
assumption of the third phase of the TIA. With no connection to Warrior Drive internal to the
Crosspointe project, and subsequently the other transportation improvements that are part of
the Crosspointe project, the assumptions of the third phase of the Villages TIA should be
carefully considered.
With the above scenario in mind, and with the sole access to the property being via Warrior
Drive south to Tasker Road, it has not been demonstrated by the applicant that a Level of
Service C will be achieved at the Warrior Drive/Tasker Road (south) intersection, and at other
locations throughout the study, with the full build out of the Villages project as permitted by
proffer.
Any effort to advance the ultimate construction of Warrior Drive from Tasker Road through to
Crosspointe Boulevard as depicted in the TIA would be beneficial to the Villages at Artrip
project.
Transportation Approach.
The Villages at Artrip application addresses the transportation improvements identified in the
Comprehensive Plan and necessary to accommodate the Villages development by proffering to
develop the ultimate four lane section of Warrior Drive within the limits of their property and
beyond to connect with the currently planned terminus of the road on the Wakeland Manor
property. The ultimate section of Warrior Drive is described in the impact statement and is
identified in the MDP. Also proffered is the construction of Parkins Mill Road from its
intersection with Warrior Drive to the limits of the property adjacent to the Canter Estates
Section V property. Parkins Mill Road will be constructed by the applicant to a point that
provides a connection to the existing road within Canter Estates Section V. The typical section
of Parkins Mill Road is also depicted on the MDP.
The applicant has proffered a three phased approach to the transportation improvements
identified above that is consistent with the phasing provided for the proposed land uses within
the project. In addition, the application has proposed an alternative three phased approach to the
transportation improvements in the event that access to the project from the north and the
Crosspointe development is advanced ahead of access to the south through the Wakeland Manor
proj ect.
Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip
September 21, 2005
Page 9
The completion of Warrior Drive entails the construction of the previously noted bridge over the
unnamed tributary of the Opequon Creek. This significant crossing will occur with the first
phase of the transportation improvements for the project. This crossing should accommodate the
trail that parallels the length of Warrior Drive as identified in the proffers and the MDP. One
roundabout intersection at Parkins Mill Road and two signalized intersections are identified in
the TIA as being provided with this project. Pedestrian accommodations have been proffered at
those locations where signalization is referenced in the TIA.
Staff Comment:
The Proffer Statement alludes to the provision of signalization consistent with the TIA;
however, the Proffer Statement does not specifically state that signalization will be provided at
the locations identified in the TIA. Clarity should be provided by the applicant and in the
Proffer Statement. This is particularly critical with the proffered location ofa school site atone
of these intersections.
The Proffer Statement provides for the connection of Warrior Drive to the existing section of
Warrior Drive in Wakeland Manor in Phase 1 of the road phasing program if Warrior Drive
construction and phasing is initiated from the south. However, the road phasing program, if
construction is initiated from Crosspointe, provides no commitment to making the connection to
the existing section of Warrior Drive in Wakeland Manor, only to Point A as identified on the
MDP. This critical omission should be clarified by the applicant and in the Proffer Statement.
Also, Proffer 14.7.3 should be revised to ensure that Warrior Drive is constructed to the
existing section of Warrior Drive in Wakeland Manor prior to the issuance of the 681"
residential building permit. All road construction triggers should refer to issuance of
residential building permits, not occupancy permits.
It is important to ensure that the Parkins Mill Road extension, and connection to Canter Estates
Section V, is in place in a timely fashion. It is staff's belief that this connection should be in
place in conjunction with Phase2 of this development if not sooner.
Bicycle and pedestrian access has been provided throughout the project. The locations and
details for these accommodations are clearly identified on the MDP. Staff has previously
requested that consideration be given to extending pedestrian access to the adjacent Lakewood
Manor subdivision. This would be extremely desirable and enhance access between the
developments and to and from the dedicated elementary school site. The applicants currently
own Lot 121 in the Lakewood Manor Subdivision. Pedestrian access at this location, via an
access easement into the Villages at Artrip sidewalk network, would be appropriate and should
be reconsidered by the applicant. The applicant should also consider extending a sidewalk along
the south side of Parkins Mill road to provide a connection between the apartments and the
adjacent Canter Estates Section V development.
Rezoning #12-05 Villages at Artrip
September 21, 2005
Page 10
B. Sewer and Water
The Villages at Artrip rezoning proposal is estimated to require approximately 204,710 gallons
per day of water usage and is expected to generate a similar amount of wastewater. The
Frederick County Sanitation Authority will serve the property and the wastewater flow from the
site will go to the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Plant. The initial review of the Frederick
County Sanitation Authority offered no comment and the review of the Frederick Winchester
Service Authority identifies that the application recognizes that the expansion of the Parkins
Mill facility is necessary to accommodate the projects build out.
Recent planning efforts have identified that evolving nutrient reduction regulations
promulgated by Virginia's Bay Program will have a significant impact on the permitted waste
water capabilities of Frederick County. Both the Frederick Winchester Service Authority and
the Frederick County Sanitation Authority are currently undertaking efforts to evaluate the
regulations and, in conjunction with the UDA Study Working Group, proactively plan to
address this issue. Requests for land use modifications should be evaluated very carefully in
light of the evolving nutrient loading regulations.
C. Historic Resources
While no significant historical resources were identified on the property pursuant to the
Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey and other identified sources, several sites of interest
were identified by the applicant. In particular, a family cemetery was identified that contained
three to five gravesites. The applicant has incorporated the gravesite area into the reserved open
space to ensure that it remains undisturbed.
D. Community Facilities
The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model is a tool that is used to identify the capital costs
associated with various types of development proposals presented to the County. The projected
costs to Fire and Rescue, Public Schools, Parks and Recreation, Library, Sheriff's Office and for
the Administration Building are calculated and provided to the applicant for their consideration.
The Fiscal Impact Model output for this project indicates a net negative fiscal impact at the
build out of the project. It should be recognized that the applicant has only proffered the
construction of 10,000 square feet of commercial use with the project. The ability remains to
provide up to 118,550 square feet of commercial. However, the applicant has stated that this is
dependent upon the ultimate completion of Warrior Drive from Crosspointe Boulevard to
Tasker Road. No time frame is offered for the completion of the road and, therefore, no credit is
provided for this potential commercial use. The R4 District requires that sufficient commercial
areas shall be provided to meet the needs of the planned community, to provide for an
appropriate balance of uses, and to lessen the overall impact of the planned cominunity on
Frederick County. The applicant has been encouraged to increase their commitment to the
Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip
September 21, 2005
Page 11
introduction of a greater amount of commercial square footage at an earlier stage of the
development phasing. A result of such a commitment would be to minimize the fiscal impact of
the project to the County. Obviously, the more commercial land that is developed prior to the
introduction of the residential components, the more the fiscal impacts of the residential units
will be mitigated.
In recognition of the fiscal impacts associated with this application, the applicant has proffered a
contribution in the amount of $337 per residential unit for the public school system. The
comment provided by the Frederick County Public Schools should be carefully considered when
evaluating the application:
The evaluation anticipated that the proposed 155 single-family homes, 180 town houses
and 570 multi family units will yield 49 high school students, 47 middle school students
and 131 elementary school students for a total of 227 new students upon build -out.
Further, that significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the
schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical
capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar
nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area,
will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate
increased student enrollments.
Following the initial review of this application, the applicant resubmitted the rezoning
application with a proffer statement that provides approximately 11 acres to be dedicated for a
future elementary school site. The schools provided the following comment:
The minimum acreage needed for an elementary site would be 15 acres. It is imperative
with the above number of units included with this project that an elementary school be
located in this area. With current building trends, future considerations need to be
given to additional middle and high school facilities. Also, because of the continued
growth in Frederick County, the replacement of certain administrative facilities such as
transportation and administration, which currently have exceeded their capacity, will
need to be replaced or expanded. This proffer helps to address the impact of a future
elementary school; however, the impact of this type of application on other current and
future school needs should be considered during the approval process.
The proposed dedication of land to facilitate the location of an elementary school in a location
central to the rapidly developing areas of the County appears to be desirable in conjunction with
this project. The availability of land from the properties adjacent to the proposed 11 acre
dedication would have to be pursued to ensure that sufficient area could be obtained to
accommodate an elementary school site. Alternately, sufficient area could be provided by the
applicant within their property. It would also appear as though other impacts recognized by the
public school system could be addressed to a greater extent.
Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip
September 21, 2005
Page 12
The applicant has also proffered a further dedication of five acres of public land identified as
Landbay F, adjacent to the 11 acres, and has proffered a financial contribution to offset the fiscal
impacts to the various County. entities consistent with the results of the Fiscal Impact Model.
E. Permitted Uses and R4 Modifications.
The Zoning Ordinance allows a variety of uses within the R4 District. In addition to this
flexibility, the Ordinance provides for the preparation of an alternative dimensional requirement
plan. The applicant may also request modifications to specific requirements of the Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinances. The applicant should justify that the requested modification is
necessary or justified and further advance the goals and intent of the R4 residential planned
community and particular project. The applicant's justification for the Villages at Artrip is
contained within the Executive Summary of the Impact Statement and generally revolves around
the desire to develop a neo -traditional development within the context of the residential planned
community district concept.
Modification #1 (Section 165-72.B.(2))
The Villages at Artrip application proposes modifications to the housing types permitted with
this project. Appendix A proposes an alternative dimensional requirement plan which is
incorporated into the Proffer Statement. This appendix provides additional development
standards that shall apply to the Villages at Artrip project. Appendix A introduces several new
housing types, including rear loading single family detached cluster housing types, single family
attached stacked flats, and single family attached back to back units. This proffered Appendix
constitutes an extension to the permitted uses within this district that are specifically applicable
to this project.
Modification #2 (Section 165-71 Mixture of Housing Types Required)
The applicant is requesting that more than 40 percent of the total residential land area may be
used for multifamily housing products. The master development plan identifies the general
layout of the permitted uses and provides a clear picture of how the proposed uses relate to each
other. The approval of this modification would enable the master development plan be
developed as presented.
Modification #3 (Section 165-62.1))
The applicant is requesting an increase in the overall gross density of the project from 4 units
per acre to 5.4 units per acre. The gross density of any development with an approved master
development plan which contains more than 100 acres shall not exceed four dwellings per acre.
This requirement is contained within the RP (Residential Performance) District. It is the
applicant's belief that an increase in density is warranted in order to achieve the desired neo-
traditional residential planned community and facilitate the proposed public improvements and
proffered land dedication commitments.
Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip
September 21, 2005
Page 13
6) Proffer Statement — Dated June 2005, revised June 17, 2005
The Villages at Artrip Proffer Statement is substantial in size and content and includes an
appendix containing an alternative dimensional requirement plan. However, probably the most
significant element of the Proffer Statement is the master development plan that has been
prepared for this project. This master development plan identifies the layout, design, and details
of the project and seeks to create an innovative and unique neighborhood that is representative
of the intent of the R4 Residential Planned Community District. The master development plan
identifies a core area that is designed to establish the tone and character for the development.
The master development plan has been reviewed for conformance with the master plan
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (see section 7). The provision of the master development
plan provides additional security as to the development of the property. Future modifications to
the master development plan would necessitate this project going through a new rezoning
process and a thorough public evaluation.
The following is a summary of some of the other key elements of the proffer statement.
1) A maximum of 905 residential units.
2) A gross residential density of 5.40 units per acre.
3) An allowance for a 10 percent reduction in the required number of parking spaces.
4) The phasing of the development as follows: Phase 1— 300 units, Phase II — 380 units for a total
of 680 units and 10,000 square feet of commercial, Phase III — 225 units for a total of 905 units.
5) The construction of community facilities and improvements within the second phase of
development.
6) Architectural, signage and landscaping standards. In particular, adjacent to Warrior Drive.
7) A pedestrian and bicycle trail system.
8) Financial contributions to offset the fiscal impacts of the development on County resources.
9) The dedication of 11 acres of land as depicted on the MDP for use as a future elementary school
site and an adjacent five acres for public use.
10) The preservation of the Village Pond within the core area as a visual amenity. This should be
guaranteed within the context of its present state and may be improved or enhanced for
stormwater management purposes.
11) Transportation improvements previously discussed in greater detail in this report.
7) Master Development Plan Conformance Review
This preliminary Master Development Plan for the Villages at Artrip is generally consistent with
the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance, with the
exception of some issues that still remain. These issues are as follows:
Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip
September 21, 2005
Page 14
Sidewalks are only shown on one side of some of the residential streets. In accordance with
§144-18 of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, sidewalks are required along both
sides of the roads. The plan needs to be revised to show all of the required sidewalks, or a
notation needs to be provided to that effect.
• A note should be provided on the MDP that the sidewalks on the eastern side of the property
will connect with the Canter Estates Section V Subdivision.
* A trail should be shown through the existing Lakewood Manor Subdivision, lot 121, to give
them access through the Villages project to the proposed school site.
o Details for the road efficiency buffer and residential separation buffer have not been provided.
A cross section of these buffers showing the required trees and opaque element needs to be
provided on sheet 4 of the MDP.
All of the issues identified by staff should be appropriately addressed prior to a recommendation
to the Board of Supervisors on the Master Development Plan. Any accommodations or waivers
endorsed by the Planning Commission that address the above issues should be incorporated into
the MDP through this rezoning process.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 08/03/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The Villages at Artrip rezoning, an application to rezone 169 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to R4
(Residential Planned Community), is generally consistent with the goals of the Frederick County
Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report. Elements of the rezoning application have been
identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure that they fully address specific components of the
Comprehensive Plan, in particular the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. The Planning Commission
should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been fully addressed by the
applicant.
In addition, the preliminary Master Development Plan for the Villages at Artrip, MDP# 09-05 is
generally consistent with the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning
Ordinance, with the exception of some issues that still remain. The Planning Commission should ensure
that the applicant fully addresses the outstanding issues on the master development plan.
Confirmation of the issues identified in the staff report, and any issues raised by the Planning
Commission, should be addressed prior to the decision of the Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 08/03/05 MEETING:
Numerous issues, such as transportation, schools, and water, were discussed by the Commission.
Commission members believed the completion of Warrior Drive out to Rt. 37/1-81 was critical for this
project to be successful. They also expressed concern that the applicant would only commit to construct
10,000 square feet of commercial area until Warrior Drive's completion through the limits of the
property.
Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip
September 21, 2005
Page 15
Questions were raised on the results of the applicant's supplemental traffic analysis which concluded
that the Tasker Road/Warrior Drive intersection would continue to function at a LOS C, even if the
Crosspointe development's section of Warrior was not built soon and the Villages of Artrip was at full
build -out. Commissioners believed that future Artrip residents wanting to commute to work in
Northern Virginia would have problems accessing I-66 and I-81. The possibility of forming a CDA
(Community Development Authority) with surrounding developers was suggested to the applicant as a
possible solution to ensure the timely completion of Warrior Drive.
Regarding the transportation issues, the applicant responded that two-thirds of Warrior Drive would be
completed in sections by the end of Phase 2. The applicant commented that their transportation needs
could be met with only one lane of Warrior Drive in each direction; however, they have agreed to
construct two lanes in both directions. He noted that because ofthe economics associated with fulfilling
that request, a critical mass of housing needed to go along with the road improvements, resulting in the
housing construction and the length of Warrior Drive going hand-in-hand.
VDOT's representative, Mr. Lloyd Ingram, anticipated signalization at Warrior Drive and Tasker Road
before the applicant begins Phase 3. Mr. Ingram said that analysis of the initial plans suggested the
four -lane paved section could not be justified with the commercial anticipated; however, once the
connection was made into Crosspointe, the vehicle trips increased by an additional 8,000. He said the
applicant provided the entire four -lane section because multiple lanes are needed over 8,000 trips and
the balance of the commercial could be justified with the additional trips from Crosspointe.
Since the size of the designated 11 acre school site was determined to be less than optimal by the
School Board, other options were discussed, such as use of some of the open space area or use of a
portion of the Sanitation Authority's property to the south. Issues were discussed regarding the waste
water capabilities of Frederick County, if the pending regulations regarding nutrient reduction by the
Virginia's Bay Program were enacted; in addition, the upgrade to the Parkins Mill treatment plant was
discussed.
A member of the Commission suggested that the wording within the transportation proffer reflect that
roads will be "designed and constructed" to VDOT standards. The applicant agreed to revise the
wording, but noted that areas within the development will be served by both public and private streets.
Questions were raised regarding the establishment and jurisdiction of homeowners' associations for the
various neighborhoods and responsibilities for maintenance of the common areas and structures.
Two adjoining property owners spoke in favor of the proposed development, but with some
reservations. One had concerns about increased traffic through his quiet neighborhood in Lakewood
Manor, if Warrior Drive was not constructed early on; he also had concerns about the costs associated
with funding a new school and providing sewer and water. The other citizen commented about the
considerable wildlife on this property and he requested that a beautiful, old evergreen tree be left
undisturbed because of its age, possibly dating back to the Civil War.
Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip
September 21, 2005
Page 16
The applicants said they would be willing to work on the issues raised at the meeting. In order to
provide the applicants the additional time to work on the issues, the Planning Commission unanimously
agreed to table the rezoning and master plan for 60 days.
STAFF UPDATE FOR 10/05/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The applicant provided the County with a revised rezoning application package on September 9, 2005.
The revised materials contained an updated Executive Summary, a revised Proffer Statement, and a
revised Master Development Plan. Staff met with the applicants regarding the revised package on
September 19, 2005. The following is a summary of staff's review of the revised materials.
Summary of outstandinIZ items (09/19/05):
Master Development Plan:
• Sidewalks are only shown on one side of some of the residential streets. In accordance with
§144-18 of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, sidewalks are required along both
sides of the roads. The plan needs to be revised to show all of the required sidewalks, or a
notation needs to be provided to that effect. The applicant has requested a modification to this
requirement through the proffer statement. This request for modification is also on the
Master Development Plan. Staff is of the opinion that at a minimum, sidewalks should be
provided along both sides of the collector streets. This would include Parkins Mill Road and
Warrior Drive (with the exception of the eastern side of Warrior Drive south of the
Elementary School access).
• A note should be provided on the MDP that the sidewalks on the eastern side of the property
will connect with the Canter Estates Section V Subdivision. A sidewalk has not been added to
the East side of Parkins Mill Road to Canter Estates Section V.
• A trail should be shown through the existing Lakewood Manor Subdivision, lot 121, to give
them access through the Villages project to the proposed school site. This comment remains
un -addressed by the applicant.
• Details for the road efficiency buffer and residential separation buffer have not been provided.
A cross section of these buffers showing the required trees and opaque element needs to be
provided on sheet 4 of the MDP. The applicant has addressed the buffer details. However, a
buffer detail has been added to the area adjacent to Canter Estates Section V that would
necessitate the removal of existing trees. As existing woodlands exist adjacent to Canter
Estates, a 50' Woodland Strip, as allowed by ordinance, should be utilized for the residential
separation buffer adjacent to Canter V.
Rezoning Application:
• The applicant has added a section to the Proffer Statement, Section 3.1.3.1. which provides that
the applicant shall not construct any of the residential units otherwise permitted in Phase 3 until
such time as Warrior Drive has been constructed, so that access is available to the property from
Interstate 81 and through Wakeland Manor. Additional clarity should be provided to Section
3.1.3.1 to specify that access would be provided from Interstate 81 through the Crosspointe
Development and through Wakeland Manor to Tasker Road as identified in the TIA.
Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip
September 21, 2005
Page 17
® The applicant has proffered that 20,000 square feet of commercial development would occur by
the end of Phase 2 of the development. Previously, the applicant had committed to providing
10,000 square feet of the enabled 118,550 square feet of commercial within the first two phases.
• The comprehensive sign plan should be reinstated as an appendix to the Proffer Statement.
Section 4.5 has been modified to remove this commitment.
Section 7 of the Proffer Statement addresses schools. Three additional proffers have been added
to this section. It may be more desirable to the County for the applicant to designate the area to
be dedicated for a more general public use, as opposed to a specific public use. This would
provide the County with a greater amount of flexibility in the utilization of the land. In
addition, Section 7.4, which contains a sunset and reversionary clause, should be carefully
evaluated. This may not be desirable and is not consistent with past county actions regarding
acceptance of proffers for public use. Finally, the applicant has maintained a $337 contribution
for schools. This amount does not fully address the capital facility needs of the school system as
identified in the Fiscal Impact Model.
e With regards to Section 14, Transportation, Warrior Drive is identified as an Urban Section
(Curb and Gutter) and should be referenced as such in the Proffer Statement and detailed as
such on the MDP. Section 14.3.1.1. is an important section that should also be added to Section
14.4, which addresses the Alternative approach for the Phase 1 (Parkins Mill) construction of
the road. Presently there is no mention of the Wakeland Manor connection beyond point A in
this section.
• Staff has identified one minor modification to the Proffer Statement, the final sentence of
Section 14.3.1.1., which, when considered in connection with the deletion of language
within Section 14.10, is significantly problematic to the transportation program and
overall rezoning application submission. The addition of "... and the said bridge shall be
completed no later than the end Phase I " is not acceptable. Previously, the applicant had
committed to ensuring the road connection would be in place prior to the issuance of the first
building permit in Phase I and had committed to making no connection of Parkins Mill Drive
extended to Canter Estates Section V, for construction or other purposes until such time as
Warrior Drive has been constructed to permit traffic access through Wakeland Manor to Tasker
Road. The combination of the two modifications to the Proffer Statement would result in the
development of the entire first phase, and potentially more, with sole access being provided via
Canter Estates. As noted, this would be unacceptable.
• The above scenario is not one which was previously presented to or contemplated by the
Planning Commission. Nor was the consideration of this transportation scenario extended to the
general public during the public hearing and the adjacent property owners. It should be clearly
noted that the TIA prepared by the applicant for this application in no way considers the use of
the adjacent subdivision as the primary means of access. The inclusion of this modification to
the Proffer Statement appears to invalidate the conclusions of the Traffic Impact Analysis which
identifies Warrior Drive as the means of access for all phases of the development.
Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip
September 21, 2005
Page 18
o The Planning Commission should evaluate the scope and impact of the modifications to
the Villages at Artrip application and determine the appropriate recommendation. Based
upon the modifications as submitted, at a minimum, consideration should be given to
affording the general public the opportunity to further evaluate the rezoning application.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 10/05/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The Villages at Artrip rezoning application to rezone 169 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to R4
(Residential Planned Community) remains generally consistent with the goals of the Frederick County
Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report and proposes creativity in the application of the
County's R4 (Residential Planned Community) District. However, elements of the rezoning application
have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure that they fully address specific
components of the Comprehensive Plan. In particular, the applicants modified commitment to the
construction of Warrior Drive, a key component of the Comprehensive Plan and the County's
transportation planning efforts should be considered. The applicant has not demonstrated that the
resulting impacts to the County's transportation network have been addressed. Further, the failure to
ensure the timely completion of Warrior Drive, a major element of the County's road network, does not
appear to justify the additional density modifications requested in the application, contrary to the intent
stated in the applicant's executive summary. The Planning Commission should ensure that the impacts
associated with this rezoning request have been fully addressed by the applicant.
In addition, the preliminary Master Development Plan for the Villages at Artrip, MDP# 09-05 is
generally consistent with the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning
Ordinance, with the exception of some issues that still remain and that have been identified in the
updated staff report. The Planning Commission should ensure that the applicant fully addresses the
outstanding issues on the master development plan.
Confirmation of the issues identified in the staff report, and any issues raised by the Planning
Commission, should be addressed prior to the decision of the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission has already held the public hearing for this application.
_Following the public meeting, a recommendation regarding this rezoning
application to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should
be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission.
FREDERICK COUNTY
SANITATION AUTHORITY 1
P.O. Box 187,7.
Winchester, VA 22604-8377
JAMES T. ANDERSON, Chairman Wellington H. Jones P.E.
DARWIN S. BRADEN, Tice -chairman Engineer -Director
ROBERT R NIOWERY, C.P.A., .Sec -treasurer
Ph. - (540) 868-1061
JOHN STEVENS
RICHARD A. RUCii.'VIAN, P.E. Fax. - (540) 868-1429
September 19, 2005
Mr. John H. Foote
Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley, Emrich, & Terpak, PC
4310 Prince William Parkway — Suite 300
Prince William VA 22192
REFERENCE: Artrip Property
Dear Mr. Foote:
This will confirm the points set forth in your letter of August 18, 2005. It is agreeable to the Authority for
agents of Tower Companies or their successors to access the referenced property through the Authority's
property at the end of Lakeside Drive. This access is for purposes of construction.
Additionally, I will recommend the Authority dedicate five acres of our Lakeside Detention Facility for a
new elementary school. This is provided it is agreeable with the parties that dedicated that facility to the
Authority with a reversion clause.
Should you need further information, please call me.
/ths
cf:: Michael Rudy
Sincerely yours,
i
W. H. Jones, P. E.
Engineer -Director
WATER AT YOUR SERVICE
Application /N/ Bridges
N Cu verts
LakesiPonds ^V Dams
V— Stearns ^/ Retaining Walls
Buildings Road Centerlines
iL-1 Parcels
Agrlculturat & Foreatral Distrlets
- QH1b4e Church
Refuge Church
FjSouth Frederick
Villages At Artrip
( 75 - A - 99A)
0 250 500 1,000
Feet
Parcels
Agricultural 8 Forestral Districts
-D
s0`
Villages At Artrip
( 75 - A - 99A)
0 250 500 1,000
Feet
��1
IMPACT ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
VILLAGES AT ARTRIP
September 9, 2005
Introduction 1
The Winchester Artrip Limited Liability Company, a Virginia corporation, has submitted
its application for consideration of the Frederick County Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors to rezone the Winchester Artrip Limited Partnership Property ("the
Property" hereinafter) located in Frederick County, Virginia from Rural Areas (RA) to
Residential Planned Community District (R4). The Property is identified in detail
submissions that have been filed with the Planning Department.
The Property is currently vacant and was formerly used for farming activities for at least
the past 40 years. It is within the County's 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan (CPP)
South Frederick Planning Area. In addition, the entire Property lies within the County's
designated Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer & Water Service Area
(SWSA) and is adjacent to several prominent developments either under construction or
approved, including Crosspointe Center to the west, Canter Estates V to the east, and
Lakewood Manor and Wakeland Manor to the south.
The applicant believes this request is timely and will assure the County significant tax
revenue, and more importantly, will provide an orderly development of this Property that
provides a diverse mix of uses and products in accordance with the spirit, intent and goals
of the CPP.
Development Proposal
The proposed project is aptly named for the various small villages contemplated for this
mixed-use residential and commercial development. These villages include five (5) land
bays that include single-family and multi -family residential uses, a neighborhood
commercial center, a central "Core Area" integrating the commercial center, interior and
perimeter "greens" or "commons" as depicted on the MDP, and a comprehensive road
network to connect the villages and reflect master -planned roads designated on the CPP.
A significant portion of the project is laid out on a grid pattern and is oriented with "true"
north, similar to traditional development planning, both of which are characteristics of
neo -traditional design.
I This Executive Summary expands upon and describes certain details of the proposed
project that have developed in detail during the Applicant's discussions with the various
review agencies.
This revised Executive Summary is substituted for previous versions, and the Exhibits
heretofore filed are incorporated herein by reference.
(00013264.DOC / 2 IAS Narrative 090905.doc 000419 0000041
The proposed gross residential density is 5.40 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC), with
densities within the various land bays ranging from 2.59 to 21.08 DU/AC. The
residential land uses will include a mix of single-family and multifamily products that are
specified on the MDP and in the associated proffers.
We note that two proposed residential products will be new to the Frederick County
market, as well as product types not specifically listed within the Zoning Ordinance.
These are the "stacked -flats" units, and apartments over retail. These multifamily
product types have been successful in other areas within the region, and meet the need for
variety and various price points of housing, which we believe is a key element to a
successful mixed-use development.
With the inclusion of the variety of housing types, the applicant has requested
modifications to the bulk and dimensional standards to achieve the mixed-use and
neotraditional design concepts that are important to achieving the correct land use
balance. Moreover, the Applicant has committed to a residential phasing plan that is
linked to the phasing of construction of proffered road improvements, including the
extension of Warrior Drive referenced herein.
The Applicant also requests a modification of the requirements of § 165-71 of the R4
District which provides that no more than 40% of the area of those portions of the
planned community designated for residential uses shall be used, among other housing
types, for townhouses or garden apartments or any combination of those types. The
current layout of the Core Area and those elements of the associated Land Bays that
provide higher density for single family attached units and multifamily units, are critical
to the creation of that Core Area, and to the development of an integrated and "walkable"
community. It permits the integration of the several linked communities in a far more
attractive and functional manner than larger lot development would permit. Limitation of
the area that may be devoted to such homes would actually produce more suburban
sprawl than the County likely either anticipates or desires for this portion of the County.
Given the residential densities approved in Wakeland Manor, and the densities to be
developed in Crosspointe, most particularly the large amount of commercial space, a
higher density of development serves not only this project, but the Warrior
Drive/Crosspointe Boulevard corridor.
The approval of this rezoning, as it has developed during consultation with the staff, will
produce a unified and coherent series of communities that are unlike any other in
Frederick County, both in the mix of uses, the innovative and attractive design of the
Core Area and its supporting Land Bays, and the provision of much-needed public lands
and roads as further detailed herein. These design elements, together with the
Applicant's commitment to the provision of land for a school site, and construction of
major elements of the County's road network, justify the additional density that is
proposed.
This project will include commercial/retail uses, though on a materially smaller scale
than Crosspointe. Initially, the Applicant can only commit to construction of 20,000
square feet of commercial development before Warrior Drive is completed from
{00013264.DOC/2 IAS Narrative090905.doc 000419 000004}2
Interstate 81 through to Route 340/522 creating a through road that will alleviate traffic
on Tasker, and provide a well-designed and completed connection from one major
County transportation corridor to another. Once that connection is made, however, the
Applicant anticipates that the project will readily sustain the total commitment of 118,550
square feet of retail, office and restaurant space. Because of the integration of walking
paths from adjoining residential areas to the retail, restaurant and office uses, as well as
different time periods of the uses within these elements, and because the applicant is very
sensitive to the appearance of providing a "sea of parking" for this area of the project,
and strives to reduce total impervious areas for environmentally friendly design
principles, shared parking for the retail, office and restaurant uses may be justified.
Because of concern that the Property could develop almost entirely residentially without
a northern connection to the Crosspointe property having yet been effected (thus limiting
the amount of commercial development that can reasonably be expected to occur prior to
the through -connection of Warrior all the way to Interstate 81 and properties to the south)
the Applicant proposes to cap development at the end of Phase 2 until such connection is
made. At the same time it would double the amount of commercial space to which
commitment is made by the end of that Phase.
In order to assure the County that the Core Area will develop consistently with the MDP,
and in a timely manner, the Applicant has committed to certain aspects of the
development of that Area. This includes specific commitment to commercial, residential
and community uses within the Core Area, which is to conform to a grid lot layout, and
to the street layout and unit types shown. Not fewer than two housing types will be
provided in that Core Area. The Applicant shall commence development of the Core
Area at the outset and not fewer than 30 residential units shall be built there as part of
Phase I of the development.
Development within the Landbays on the Property outside the Core Area will also
conform to the street layouts, points of connection to Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill
Road, and to the limits of development as are depicted on the MDP.
In addition to the MDP, the Applicant has proffered a Concept Development Plan as a
separate attachment to the MDP, which gives specific guidance on the layout of the
residential and other elements of the Core Area. Development of other Land Bays
outside of the Core Area will occur within a defined road layout and limits of
development, and the housing styles that are permitted within each Land Bay have been
identified on the MDP.
There are also specific project proposals that materially advance the County's planning
needs, beyond the development of, and commitment to, an innovative and detailed land
development plan.
Warrior Drive
(00013264.DOC / 2 IAS Narrative 090905.doc 000419 000004)3
The 2003 CPP's Eastern Road Plan area designates this road as a "New Major Collector".
Additional research in the CPP implies this road to be closed section/urban in character.
The adjacent development plans of record for Crosspointe Center and Wakeland Manor
.show this road in various functional classifications. The Applicant has committed to the
phased construction of all of Warrior Drive on its Property, from its future connection
with Crosspointe Boulevard through to Wakeland Manor. This will include the costly
construction of a bridge crossing of a tributary of the Opequon, in the South and
construction of full four lane sections of Warrior throughout. The Applicant has
conservatively estimated the cost to construct Warrior Drive to a four -lane section
through the project (approximately 3,700 feet), including the bridge crossing at
approximately $6,000,000.
Parkins Mill Road Extended
The 2003 CPP's Eastern Road Plan area designates this road as a "New Minor
Collector". Additional research in the CPP implies this road to be open section/rural in
character. The adjacent development plans of record for Canter Estates § V show this
road as an 80' wide reservation, with no listed functional classification. The Applicant
has committed to the construction of Parkins Mill Extended and connecting to Canter
Estates.
Dedication of Land for an Elementary School Site and Other Purposes
As an integral part of its revised application, the Applicant will dedicate 11 acres of
property to be used in conjunction with adjacent properties for the location of an
elementary school site. The Applicant also proposes to offer to the County additional
useable land adjacent to the school site, for addition to the elementary school site. Such
dedication would be subject only to the preservation of a lovely tree area on a knoll on
that property.
Fiscal Impact
The Applicant has also proffered to contribute funds to the County consistently with
fiscal impact modeling provided by the Planning Department, and the proffers that are
associated with this rezoning application.
Summary
Because of the unique nature of this proposal, and its inclusion of design elements that
have not heretofore been accomplished in Frederick County, but which are desired
elements of the County's CPP and which employ the County's amended R4 zoning
classification to maximum benefit, the applicant also herewith requests an increase in the
permitted density cap of 4 DU/AC per County Code, Article IV, § 165-72.C, an increase
in the maximum permitted land use area of 40% of the total residential area for
{ 00013264.DOC / 2 IAS Narrative 090905.doe 000419 00000414
multifamily products, and modification of the previously -mentioned dimensional
standards to accomplish the Frederick County's outlined objectives.
The justification for the modifications sought is essentially that a neotraditional
development cannot be accomplished using the traditional Euclidian patterns of
development, and standard public and private road and lot designs. Jurisdictions in
which such developments have been approved have recognized the need for such
modifications, and the County is aware that the recent revisions to the VDOT Secondary
Road Standards now contains provisions for neotraditional street designs that
accommodate the evolving development of such street patterns.
The justification for the increased density beyond the 4 units to the acre contemplated for
the R4 district can be found in the need for such increased density to finance the private
construction of one of the County's principal arterial routes and the advancement of its
transportation plans for this area of the County, and the dedication of a school site to
service the already approved population in the area.
Moreover, the use of neotraditional designs advances
• The intent of the 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan; and
• Unification of architectural styles; and
• A truly walkable community; and
• Integration of residential villages and neighborhood commercial uses within one
"community"; and
• A balanced design of preserving environmental features, while meeting the intent
of a mixed-use community for a variety of land uses, efficient layout of the
transportation system and Land Bays, and providing a community that will not
create a burden on the tax payers; and
• Provision for multiple housing types to attract the largest variety of residential
housing consumers; and
• Completion of major CPP road links
The Applicant respectfully requests approval of this Rezoning Application.
Exhibits:
Exhibit 1
Vicinity Map
Exhibit 2
Aerial Photograph
Exhibit 3
Boundary Verification
Exhibit 4
Topographic Survey
Exhibit 5
Zoning Map
Exhibit 6
2003 Comprehensive Plan
Exhibit 7
Urban Development Areas and Sewer and Water Service Area
Exhibit 8
Illustrative Plan Housing Types
t00013264.DOC/2 JAS Nanative090905.doe 000419 000004}5
JA00\00419 Tower\004\Application Submittals\IAS Narrative 061605.doc
100013264.DOC / 2 IAS Narrative 090905.doc 000419 000004}6
PROFFF R STATEMENT
REZONING: RZ # 12-05 and MDP #09-05
RA to R4
PROPERTY: 169.924 acres +/-;
Tax Map & Parcel 75-A- 99A (the "Property"
RECORD OWNER: Winchester-Artrip Limited Liability Company, a Virginia
Corporation
APPLICANT: Winchester-Artrip Limited Liability Company
PROJECT NAME: Villages at Artrip
ORIGINAL DATE
OF PROFFERS: June 2004
REVISION DATA: May 20, 2005
June 17, 2005 _
September 9, 2005Deleted:
The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property
("Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following
conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In
the event that the above referenced rezoning is not granted as applied for by the Applicant
("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further,
these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "Final Rezoning"
defined as that rezoning hat is in effect on the day upon which the Frederick County Board Deleted: which
of County Supervisors (the `Board") grants the rezoning.
The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or
reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of
any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the
time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the improvement
or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. The term "Applicant" as
referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners, assigns, and successors
in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Master Development Plan" shall refer to the
plan. entitled "Master Development Plan, The Villages at Artrip" prepared by Dewberry (the _
"MDP") dated Seutcmb r 9.2005, sheets 1-4; provided further that sheet 5 thereof, entitled Deleted: June 17,2005
General Development Plan ("GDP"), shall not be deemed a part of the MDP submittal but is (Deleted; {oo013039.Doc i 1
otherwise proffered as set forth herein. PROFFERS 9.04.05.DOc
1000419 000004)
1. LAND USE r Deleted: (00009846.DOC/2
PROFFERS.doc 000419
1.1 The project shall be designed so as to establish interconnected mixed- i 0000041
use villages in conformance with the MDP and the GDP, and as is Deleted: 100009846.DOC 1
PROFFERS.doc 000419
specifically set forth in these proffers. 000004)
Formatted: Font: 8 pt
'0001 0=2DOC - PROFFERS 9.09.05 -DOC 000419 000001
1.2 Except as modified herein, areas of commercial development on the
Property shall be developed in conformance with the regulations of the
Residential Planned Community ("R4") zoning district, as set forth in
the Frederick County Code Article VII, §165-67 through §165-72, as
cross-referenced to Article X, §165-82, Sections A through D inclusive,
and § 165-83. All commercial development on the Property shall comply
with the aforesaid regulations, or as may be otherwise approved by
Frederick County.
1.2.1 Commercial, retail, restaurant and office development on
the Property shall not exceed a maximum of 118,550
square feet, and shall be provided within the Core Area.
1.3 Except as modified herein, areas of residential development on the
Property shall be developed in conformance with the regulations of the
Planned Community ("R4") zoning district, including permissible
housing types, including those set forth in the Frederick County Code
Article VII, §165-67 through §165-72, as cross-referenced to Article VI,
§ 165-58, through § 165-66, including as set forth in Appendix A. In the
event that the Applicant elects to construct any of the unit types that are
set forth on Appendix A attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference, such units shall conform to the development standards
established therein. Unit types and lot layouts within these Landbays
may comprise any of the permitted unit types identified for those
Landbays as set forth on the MDP or as are otherwise authorized for the
RP district as it is incorporated by reference into the R4 district;
provided further that no more intensive unit type may be constructed in
any Landbay than is identified as a unit type permitted therein on the
MDP.
1.3.1 Residential development on the Property shall not exceed a
maximum of 905 dwelling units, with a mix of housing
types permitted in the R4 district, subject to the
modifications as set forth in Appendix A, and dwelling
types shall be constructed in the locations generally
depicted on the MDP and as further set forth herein.
1.3.2 For the purposes of these proffers, single-family attached
and detached and multi -family units shall include those
housing types identified on the MDP and set forth in the
applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance including
detached cluster housing, small lot singles, single-family
urban, zero lot line singles, and village rear load singles.
Multi -family units shall include apartments and duplex
units.
1.4 Development of commercial, residential and community uses within the
area identified on the MDP as the "Core Area" shall generally conform
to a grid lot layout, and the street layout and unit types depicted therein
on the MDP. Not fewer than two housing types shall be provided in the Formatted: Font: s pt
000 �o�>.00c rizo'=rras �.ozo .noc o00419 00000-12
Core Area. The layout of the Core Area shall be constructed in general
conformance with the GDP, provided that reasonable adjustments may
be made to the locations thereof upon final engineering.
1.4.1 The Applicant shall construct not fewer than 30 residential
units in the Core Area in Phase I of the development as
otherwise set out herein.
1.5 Development within the Landbays on the Property outside the Core Area
shall generally conform to the street layouts, points of connection to
Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road, and the limits of development as
are depicted on the MDP; provided that minor adjustments may be made
to the locations thereof upon final engineering. Unit types and lot
layouts within these Landbays may comprise any of the permitted unit
types identified for those Landbays on the MDP and authorized herein or
subsequently approved by the Frederick County Planning Office;
provided further that no more intensive unit type may be constructed in
any such Landbay than is identified as a unit type permitted therein on
the MDP.
1.6 Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, rental apartments,
condominium units and rental apartments over retail and office uses
shall be permitted.
1.7 The gross density of residential units shall not exceed 5.40 units per
acre.
1.8 Shared parking shall be provided for retail, restaurant and office uses
within Landbay "A" such that a 10% reduction or increase of the
required parking spaces shall be permitted.
1.9 The Applicant shall make reasonable attempts to preserve the specimen
Delaware Pine on the general vicinity of the cemetery on the property
within the Village Green area to be preserved.
2. CONSTRUCTION OF A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT
2.1 The Property shall be developed as one single and unified development
in accordance with applicable ordinances and regulations for the R-4
zoning district, the MDP, and this Proffer Statement as it may be
accepted by the Board.
3. PHASING OF THE DEVELOPMENT
3.1 The residential portions of the Property are proposed to be developed in
three phases, with the commercial portions of the Property to be
developed in Phases II and III. The three phases shall be authorized as
follows:
Formatted: Font: 8 pt
:-
!000!3()31).D0('? - - ROFFFRS9.090.DOC oo0-119 0000043
3.1.1 Phase I. Residential development shall not exceed 300
dwelling units.
3.1.2 Phase Il. Residential development shall not exceed an
additional 380 dwelling units, for a total of 680 dwelling
units. Commercial development shall include a minimum
of,?0.0010 square feet of commercial/retail/restaurant gross ( Deleted: m000 _ --
leaseable floor space.
3.1.3 Phase M. Residential development in Phase 111 shall not
exceed the remaining permitted dwelling units. Because
the Applicant cannot anticipate either market conditions, or
the timing of the completion of a through connection of
Warrior Drive from Interstate 81, through Crosspointe
Boulevard (as presently named) and Wakeland Manor to
Tasker Road and Route 340/522, the Applicant cannot
commit to the construction of additional commercial at any
fixed point in time. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and
except to the extent set forth in the proceeding proffer, the
Applicant may construct all or any portion of the
commercial development authorized in these proffers at
any time.
1.3.1 i lots ithstanding any tithe;t,rovisi_)n of tlzcse
troffers to the contrarv. the Applicant shall not
construct any of the residcntiai cants othcrtivise
permitted in Phase III until Warrior Drive has
been consti- icted such that access is available to
the Property from Interstate 81 and throna11
Wakeland Manor.
3.1.4 Community improvements. Community -serving
improvements such as playing fields, community center,
tennis courts and similar improvements as shown on the
MDP shall be constructed in conjunction with the Landbay
with which such improvements are associated; provided
that the community center and pool to be constructed in the
Core Area shall be designed and bonded at the beginning of
Phase II, and constructed prior to the initiation of Phase III.
4. ARCHITECTURE, SIGNAGE, AND LANDSCAPING:
4.1 The following building materials may be used for construction within
the Property, and no others:
4.1.1 Pavements / Curbing shall consist of cast in place concrete,
natural and colored; aggregate concrete; precast concrete,
natural and colored; concrete pavers; brick pavers; stone
pavers; asphalt pavers; granite; ceramic tile; asphalt.
Formatted: Font: 8 pt
000I3032DOC '_
PROF FERS-9-09-05. DOC 0004 19 00oo0 1;4
4.1.2 House sidings shall consist of EFIS; stucco; brick;
cementious siding; cedar siding; stone veneer; painted
wood; vinyl siding; stained wood; aluminum; hardy plank;
PVC trim.
4.1.3 Decking and fencing shall consist of pressure treated wood;
stained wood; painted wood; PVC fencing; IPE decking;
cedar decking; TREX decking or similar recycled product.
4.1.4 Miscellaneous materials that may be used shall consist of
standing seam metal roofing, colored; slate roofing; asphalt
roofing; powder coated steel, colored; galvanized steel;
aluminum brushed; anodized aluminum, colored; 304
stainless steel; chrome; canvass; neon.
4.2 Vinyl siding shall not be used on the front elevation of residential
structures facing Warrior Drive or on the fronts of residences located
on corner lots that intersect with Warrior Drive. The side of a
residential structure that faces Warrior Drive located on a corner lot on
a road that intersects Warrior Drive is not permitted to have vinyl
siding on that elevation.
4.3 Notwithstanding the foregoing, materials used for exterior facades of
the commercial buildings shall include but not be limited to concrete
masonry units (CMU) split -faced block, architectural block, dryvit, or
other simulated stucco (EFIS), real or simulated wood and/or glass.
Standard concrete masonry block shall not be used for the front
facades of any buildings_
4.4 All buildings within the development on the property shall be
constructed using compatible architectural styles. The Applicant shall
establish one or more Architectural Review Boards to enforce and
administer a unified development plan.
4.5 All signage within the project shall be in substantial conformity with _
the comprehensive sign plan incorporated herein as an elemcnt of the (Deleted: pan
MDP; provided that the Director of Planning may authorize alternative Deleted: Rezoning and
signage that is substantially consistent with the aforesaid sign plan.
4.6 The major collector roadways (Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road
Extended) in the Villages at Artrip shall be constructed with a
minimum 20' width buffers adjacent to dedicated rights-of-way and,
except at entrance locations, shall be improved with landscape features
and lighting to create a "boulevard" appearance. Illustrative details of
such buffers are as set forth on the MDP.
5. PEDESTRIAN TRAIL SYSTEM AND RECREATION AREAS
Formatted: Font: 8 pt
wo01_-,papo( PPROFFERS5
5.1 The Applicant shall design and build a public pedestrian -bicycle trail
system to Department of Parks and Recreation standards that links
residential and commercial areas within the development and provides
additional connectivity to adjacent properties. Said trails shall be in
general conformance with the South Frederick Land Use Map and
shall be in the locations generally depicted on the MDP. Five foot
sidewalks shall be constructed on all public streets and a minimum of
four foot sidewalks shall be constructed on private streets. The
pedestrian/bicycling trail constructed along Warrior Drive shall be 10
feet wide, and shall have an asphalt surface.
6. FIRE & RESCUE:
6.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $537 per
dwelling unit for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the issuance
of a building permit for each such unit.
7. SCHOOLS:
7.1 Within one hundred and eighty days of written request therefor, the
Applicant shall dedicate to the Board of Supervisors approximately
eleven (11) acres of land as depicted on the MDP for use as a future
elementary school site in conjunction with the adjacent property of
others.
7.2 The Applicant shall, upon written request therefor, dedicate to the-- —. Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Board of Supervisors approximately five (5) additional acres of
property adjacent to and on the southerly side of Warrior Drive,
otherwise depicted on the MDP as preservation area, for use as part of
the aforesaid elementary school.
7.3 The Applicant shall be permitted to retain an easement on any such
dedicated property for the construction of permanent stonnwater
management facilities as well as temporary easements for the
construction of utilities and structures for the Villages at Artrip. The
Applicant shall coordinate any such facilities with the County to assure
that such facilities do not materially impede the use of the property for
an elementary school, and that, to the extent possible, such facilities
may serve both the Applicant and any school constructed thereon. The
Applicant shall be permitted to retain the right to constrict stonmwater
management facilities for both quality and quantity purposes, on the
dedicated property.
7.4 __In the event that the Board of Supervisors, or School Board, -
determines not to use the said property for an elementary school site,
and to declare the property surplus, the Applicant shall have a right of
first refusal to purchase the same at its then fair market value.
0001'039.DOC '_ PROFFERS 9.09.05.DOC 000419 00000.1'6
J
Deleted: t
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Formatted: Font: 8 pt
;,.-_^,,_The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $337 per
dwelling unit for educational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a
building permit for each such unit.
7.6 The timefor z1�y dedication hereunder shall be extended by such me
as ma,r be required to process a subdivision ag})lication necessary to
create the parcel of property to be dedicated. and the Applicant shall
file and ditiaently pursue an - such, apclication M order to cffecivate
said dedication.
8. PARKS & OPEN SPACE:
8.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $847 per
dwelling unit for recreational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a
building permit for each such unit.
9. LIBRARIES:
9.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $137 per
dwelling unit for library purposes, payable upon the issuance of a
building permit for each such unit.
10. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING:
10.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $144 to be used
for construction of a general governmental administration building
upon issuance of a building permit for each such unit.
11. CREATION OF HOMEOWNERS' AND PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION:
11.1 The residential portion of the development shall be made subject to
one or more homeowners' association(s) (hereinafter "HOA") that
shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of all
common areas, including any conservation areas that may be
established in accordance herewith not dedicated to the County or
others, and stormwater management facilities not dedicated to public
use, for each area subject to their jurisdiction, and shall be provided
such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for
such associations or as may be required for such HOA herein. If there
is more than one such association, the Applicant shall create an
umbrella HOA with respect to the entire development that shall,
among other things, have responsibility for assuring compliance with
design guidelines and standards, signage requirements, at,_ road
and open space maintenance, and similar matters common to the
development of the Property.
11.2 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be
assigned, an HOA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all Formatted: Font: 8 pt
J000I3039 DO(', 2 PROFFERS 9.09.05.130C000419 00000�!7
common open space areas not otherwise dedicated to public use
specifically including the "Village Green" area as depicted on the
MDP, (ii) common buffer areas located outside of residential lots; (iii)
private streets serving the residents who are members of such
association; (iv) common solid waste disposal and recycling programs,
including curbside pick-up of refuse by a private refuse collection
company, , (v) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any
street, perimeter, or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be
located within easements to be granted to the HOA if platted within
residential or other lots, or otherwise granted to the HOA by
appropriate instrument NO stormwater management facilities
11.3 The commercial elements of the development shall be made subject to
one or more property owners' association(s) (hereinafter "POA") that
shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of all
common areas, including any conservation areas that may be
established in accordance herewith not dedicated to the County or
others, and stormwater management facilities not dedicated to public
use, for each area subject to their jurisdiction, and shall be provided
such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for
such associations or as may be required for such POA herein. If there
is more than one such association, the Applicant shall create an
umbrella POA with respect to the entire development that shall, among
other things, have responsibility for assuring compliance with design
guidelines and standards, signage requirements, and similar matters.
11.4 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be
assigned, a POA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all
common open space areas not otherwise dedicated to public use, (ii)
common buffer areas located outside of commercial lots; (iii) private
streets serving the businesses and/or residents who are members of
such association; (iv) common solid waste disposal and recycling
programs to include dumpster and contract carrier services provided
by a private refuse collection company, and (v) responsibility for the
perpetual maintenance of any street, perimeter, or road buffer areas, all
of which buffer areas shall be located within easements to be granted
to the POA if platted within commercial or other lots, or parcels, or
otherwise granted to the POA by appropriate instrument.
12. WATER & SEWER:
12.1 The Applicant shall be responsible for connecting the Property to
public water and sewer, and for constructing all facilities required for
such connection at the property boundary. All water and sewer
infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements
of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority.
10001_ 039 DOC 2 _ 1 ROFFGRS ? 09.0i.DOC 000.419 0000K8
Deleted: and
Deleted: .
Formatted: Font: 8 pt
13. ENVIRONMENT:
13.1 Stormwater management and Best Management Practices (BMP) for
the Property shall be provided in accordance with the Virginia
Stormwater Management Regulations, First Ed. 1999, Chapter 2,
Table 2-3 for the purpose of providing the highest order of stormwater
control in existing Virginia law at the time of construction of any such
facility.
13.2 Stream preservation buffers shall be constructed in general
conformance with the MDP, so as to create buffer requirements
established by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to protect
Opequon Creek and the unnamed tributary to Opequon Creek from
disturbance. No clearing or grading shall occur within those buffers,
except for the construction of road crossings, trails, water lines,
sanitary sewer, or other utilities.
13.3 During construction on the property, the limits of clearing and grading
shall be identified and field flagged in connection with the Applicant's
compliance with requirements of the Frederick County Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Ordinance, for the project as a whole, to
prevent unintended disturbance of areas to be preserved.
13.4 The Village Pond located within the Core Area shall be improved and
preserved as a visual amenity and may be used for storm water
management purposes for both quality and quantity.
13.5 In addition to the dedication of property for school purposes, the
Applicant shall separately dedicate Land Bay F as generally depicted
on the MDP, in phases, to such public entity as may be directed by the
Board of Supervisors, in its discretion.
13.5.1. In any event, and regardless whether such dedication is
requested or made, the Dedicated Tree Save Area in Land Bay
F as shown on the MDP shall be preserved undisturbed.
13.5.2. If the property is dedicated, the Applicant shall be permitted to
retain the rights to temporary and/or permanent grading
easements necessary for the construction of the Villages at
Artrip, including roads, bridges, utilities and stormwater
management facilities.
14. TRANSPORTATION:
14.1 Transportation improvements shall be constructed in conjunction with
each phase of the development as set forth below. Design of the
roadway system shall be phased as set forth in these Proffers and shall
be substantially consistent with the study entitled "A Phased Traffic Formatted: Font: s pt
�00017039.DOC, PROFFERS9.09.05.DOC 0004i9 000004!9
Impact Analysis of The Villages at Artrip," prepared by Patton, Harris,
Rust & Associates, dated May 6, 2004 (the "IW'). The exact location
and design of proffered improvements shall be subject to reasonable
adjustment upon final engineering thereof. The Applicant shall
construct at its cape. se pedestrian -actualized signalization at e c'; of _
those locations for which such signalization is .identified in the TIA, ted: referenced _I
upon issuance of warrants therefor.
14.2 Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for residential uses
on streets to be placed into the State System of Secondary Highways,
the Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Section 144-17
(A) of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance. For the purposes
of these Proffers, construction of any road or street referenced herein
shall mean construction consistent with the requirements of that
section.
14.3 Phase I road phasing for Warrior Drive if construction is initiated from
Wakeland Manor: The following traffic improvements shall be
designed and constructed during Phase I if construction thereof shall
begin at the southernmost portion of the Property.
14.3.1. Ewept as nnay be othenviseprovided ':crcir.. for to the cDeleted:P
issuance of the first residential building permit for the project, Deleted: occupancy
the Applicant shall construct an extension of Warrior Drive in a
northwesterly direction from Point A to Point C as depicted on
the MDP, as a full section of a four lane divided roadway,
including construction of a full section of a roundabout or
traffic signalized intersection, as may be approved by the
Virginia Department of Transportation, at the intersection of
Warrior and Parkins Mill Road.
14.3.1.1. In conjunction with such construction, the
Applicant shall connect Warrior Drive into the
adjacent property known as Wakeland Manor, so as
to match the pavement widths of that portion of
Warrior as constructed by others. The bridge
crossing of the unnamed tributary of the Opequon
on the southernmost edge of the Property at Point A
shall be constructed to accommodate the ultimate
design of Warrior Drive. The right-of-way for the
ultimate design of Warrior Drive shall be 100' in
width, and the said bridge shall becompleted not
later than the end of Phase 1,
14.4 Alternate road phasing for Phase I of Warrior Drive if constructed
from Wakeland Manor As an alternative to the foregoing phasing
schedule for Phase I of Warrior Drive, and at the sole discretion of the
Formatted: Font: 8 pt
00013039. DOC 2 PROFFERS 9 (9.OS.DOI 000419 000004-10
Applicant, the Applicant shall construct a full section of Warrior Drive
as a full four lane section roadway, including the bridge crossing of the
unnamed tributary of the Opequon from Point A to a full section of the
roundabout or signalized intersection at Point B, and shall further
construct a full two lane section of Parkins Mill Road from Point B to
Deleted: (or from Point B1 to B if
Point B 1, as depicted on the MDP.
Construction access is obtained through
Canter Estates),
14.5 Phase II road phasing for Warrior Drive if construction is initiated
from Wakeland Manor: The following traffic improvements shall be
constructed as part of Phase 11 if construction thereof shall begin at the
southernmost portion of the Property.
14.5.1. Prior to the issuance of the 301" residemia building permit, the (_Deleted: occupancy
Applicant shall construct Warrior Drive as a full four lane
divided roadway from Point C to Point D, as generally depicted
on the MDP or from Point B to Point C if not already
constructed.
14.5.2. At the Applicant's discretion, if the Applicant has not already
done so in accordance with the foregoing proffers, then prior to _
the issuance of the 301"_sider;ti_il building permit, the rDeleted: j
Applicant may construct a full two lane section of Parkins Mill (Deleted: occupancy
Road Extended, from its intersection with Warrior Drive at
Point B to Point B1, as generally depicted on the MDP, The
right-of-way for Parkins Mill Road shall be 80' in width.
14,6 Phase III road phasing for Warrior Drive if construction is initiated
from Wakeland Manor: The Applicant shall construct the following
traffic improvements prior to the issuance of the 681st residential _
buridin�� d: permit as Phase III of the said improvements if construction Deleteoccupancy
thereof shall begin at the southernmost portion of the Property.
14.6.1. The Applicant shall construct the remainder of Warrior Drive
to Point E as a full section of a four lane divided roadway.
14.6.2. If not already completed, the Applicant shall construct a full
two lane section of Parkins Mill Road Extended, from its
intersection with Warrior Drive at Point B to Point B1, as
generally depicted on the MDP. The right-of-way for Parkins
Mill road shall be 80' in width.
14.7 Road phasing if construction of Warrior Drive is initiated from
Crosspointe:
14.7.1. In the event that others have constructed Warrior Drive from
Crosspointe Center to the Property boundary, and Warrior is to
be constructed from that boundary to the south, then prior to (Deleted: occupancy
the issuance of the first residential _ili ding
_ _permit for the Formatted: Font: 8 pt
'0001303QQOC.'_ PROFFERS 9.09.0130C 000=114 000004' 11
project, the Applicant shall construct Warrior Drive in a
southeasterly direction from Point E to Point C as Phase I of its
road improvements, The Applicant will be allowed a minimum
of 300 residential building permits within this Phase.
14.7.2. In the event the Applicant has constructed Warrior Drive from
Points E to C as aforesaid, then prior to the issuance of the
301" residential briidlr: permit, the Applicant shall construct Deleted: occupancy
Warrior Drive from Point C to Point B as Phase II or its road
improvements. The Applicant will be allowed to build a
minimum of 380 additional residential units in this Phase.
14.7.3. In the event the Applicant has constructed Warrior Drive to
Point B as aforesaid, then prior to the issuance of the 681st
residential building permit, the Applicant shall construct
Warrior Drive from Point B to Points A (including its
extension to connect to Wan-ior Drive in Wakeland Manor as
provided for if Warrior is commenced from the south) and B1,
as Phase III of its road improvements. The Applicant will be
permitted to build out the remainder of the residential units and
commercial square footage in this Phase and prior to the
completion of Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road.
14.8 All left and right turn residential and commercial entrances to Warrior
Drive and Parkins Mill Road shall be limited to those locations as
generally depicted on the MDP.
14.9 Warrior Drive shall be constructed with a trail section throughout the
Property, and such trail shall be extended to Crosspointe and into
Wakeland Manor.
14.10 The Applicant shall connect_Parkins Mill Road Extended. [o include
sidewalk on one side of the road. to Canter Estates prior to the
completion of Phase III,
14.11 The Applicant shall construct its internal road network as public or
private roads as they are depicted on the MDP. In the event that the
Virginia Department of Transportation declines to accept neo-
traditional road designs for any such internal streets, the Applicant
may construct such streets as private roads.
14.12 All public right-of-ways shall be dedicated to Frederick County as part
of the subdivision approval process, consistently with applicable
Virginia law.
14.13 All public streets and roads shall be designed and constructed in
accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation
!0001 039.DOC 2 PROFFERS 9.09.05 DOC 00041 00000:; 12
Deleted: occupancy
Deleted: make no
Deleted: ion from
Deleted: u
Deleted: ,
Deleted: until such time as Warrior
Drive has been constructed to permit
traffic access through Wakeland Manor
except for construction purposes
Formatted: Font: 8 pt
specifications, and subject to review and approval by the Frederick
County and VDOT.
14.14 All private streets and roads shall be designed and constructed in
accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation standards
therefor as set out on Sheet 3 of the MDP, and as modified thereby,
and shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners or property
owners association served by such streets or roads.
14.15 No construction traffic shall be permitted through Lot 121 in the
adjacent Lakewood subdivision orthrough Canter Estates, Section V.
In no event shall a permanent interparcel connection be made through
said Lot.
14.16 The County shall permit the Applicant to construct a 2 -lane gravel
access road as identified on Sheet 3 of the MDP, for construction
access to the Villages at Artrip, including construction of roads,
bridges, utilities, and stormwater management facilities. In the event
the Frederick County Sanitation Authority does not retain ownership
of the property through which such road would run, it shall in any
conveyance retain rights for the use of such access road by the
Applicant until full build out of the Property. Upon such completion,
the Applicant shall terminate all rights thereto, but at the request of the
County or the Authority shall leave such access road in place to permit
maintenance access to the bridge between the Property and Wakeland
Manor.
15. CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATION AND PRESERVATION
15.1 The Applicant shall preserve the Artrip Family Cemetery. The
Applicant shall further create a 0.5 acre preservation park surrounding
the Cemetery, as generally depicted on the MDP.
16. ESCALATOR CLAUSE
16.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement
are paid to the Frederick County Board County Supervisors (`Board")
within 30 months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the
Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein.
Any monetary contributions set forth m the Proffer Statement which are
paid to the Board after 30 months following the approval of this
rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price
Index ("CPI -U") published by the United States Department of Labor,
such that at the time contributions are paid, they shall be adjusted by the
percentage change in the CPI -U from that date 30 months after the
approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI -U to the
date the contributions are paid, subject to a cap of 5% per year, non -
compounded.
Formatted: Font: 8 pt
100013039.DOC 2 PROFFERS9.09.05.DOC __. 000-119 000004'13
SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE
Formatted: Font: 8 pt
'0(,O1lu I° ror � r �tott�cRs 9 ua.o�.i�or _ 000a!v__ )00004
-- - - -
VVINCHESTER ARTRIP, Limited Liability Company
By:
Jeffrey Abramson
Title: Managing Member
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA;
CITY/COUNTY OF : to -wit
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
12005 , by
Notary Public
My Commission expires:
Formatted: Font: 8 pt
:00013039,DO(' 2 PROFFERS 9.09.05 -DOC 000419 000004' 15
APPENDIX A
The following development standards shall apply to development within each
Landbay for the following housing types listed below:
SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED CLUSTER
FROjYT L' OAD
1) IN A PROPOSED CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, THERE SHALL BE A
MINIMUM TOTAL AREA PER DWELLING UNIT OF 10,000 SF, NOT
INCLUDING LAND IN REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE AND ROAD
ROW. NO INDIVIDUAL LOT SHALL BE SMALLER THEN 8,000 SF. FOR
EACH LOT THAT IS LESS THAN 10,000 SF BY A GIVEN SQUARE
FOOTAGE, AN EQUIVALENT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LAND SHALL BE
ADDED TO THE REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE
EXISTING PROPOSED
2) MIN. TOTAL LOT AREA PER DWELLING 10,000 SF 10,000 SF
3) MIN. LOT AREA 8,000 SF 8,000 SF
4) MIN. YARDS:
- SETBACK FROM ROAD ROW 35' 20'
- SIDE YARDS 10' 5'
- REAR YARD 25' 25'
5)MIN. LOT WIDTH AT SETBACK 60' 60'
6)M1N. LOT WIDTH AT ROAD ROW 30' 30'
7)MIN. OFF STREET PARKING 2/ UNIT 2/ UNIT
SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED CLUSTER
REAR LOAD
1) IN A PROPOSED CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, THERE SHALL BE A
MINIMUM TOTAL AREA PER DWELLING UNIT OF 10,000 SF, NOT
INCLUDING LAND IN REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE AND ROAD
ROW. NO INDIVIDUAL LOT SHALL BE SMALLER THEN 8,000 SF. FOR
EACH LOT THAT IS LESS THAN 10,000 SF BY A GIVEN SQUARE
FOOTAGE, AN EQUIVALENT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LAND SHALL BE
ADDED TO THE REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE
EXISTING PROPOSED
2) MIN. TOTAL LOT AREA PER DWELLING 10,000 SF 10,000 SF
3) MIN. LOT AREA 8,000 SF 8,000 SF
0001 -0+9.DOC ; __PROFI ERS 9.09.0`.DOC 000419 000(10-{I 16
Formatted: Font: 8 pt
4) MIN. YARDS:
- SETBACK FROM ROAD ROW
35'
15'
- SIDE YARDS
10'
5'
- REAR YARD
25'
20'
5)MIN. LOT WIDTH AT SETBACK
60'
60'
6)MIN. LOT WIDTH AT ROAD ROW
30'
30'
7)MIN. OFF STREET PARKING
2/ UNIT
2/ UNIT
SINGLE FAMILY SMALL LOT
REAR LOAD
EXISTING PROPOSED
1) MIN. LOT SIZE 3,750 SF 3,750 SF
2) OFF STREET PARKING SPACES 2 2
3) SETBACK FROM STATE ROAD 25' 25'
4) SETBACK FROM PRIVATE ROAD 20' 15'
5) REAR YARD 15' 15'
6) SIDE YARD 5' 5'
SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED CLUSTER
REAR LOAD W/DETACHED GARAGE
1) IN A PROPOSED CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, THERE SHALL BE A
MINIMUM TOTAL AREA PER DWELLING UNIT OF 10,000 SF, NOT
INCLUDING LAND IN REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE AND ROAD
ROW. NO INDIVIDUAL LOT SHALL BE SMALLER THEN 8,000 SF. FOR
EACH LOT THAT IS LESS THAN 10,000 SF BY A GIVEN SQUARE
FOOTAGE, AN EQUIVALENT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LAND SHALL BE
ADDED TO THE REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE
EXISTING PROPOSED
2) MIN. TOTAL LOT AREA PER DWELLING 10,000 SF 10,000 SF
3) MIN. LOT AREA 8,000 SF 8,000 SF
4) MIN. YARDS:
Formatted: Font: 8 pt
0001 +0.,) DOC ? PROFFGRS 9 0) 0 .DOC 000419 000( 04; 17
- SETBACK FROM ROAD ROW
35'
15'
- SIDE YARDS
10'
5'
- REAR YARD
25'
15'
5)MIN. LOT WIDTH AT SETBACK
60'
60'
6)MIN. LOT WIDTH AT ROAD ROW
30'
30'
7)MIN. OFF STREET PARKING
2/ UNIT
2/ UNIT
MULTIPLEX
STACKED FLATS
EXISTING PROPOSED
1) SETBACK FROM ROAD ROW
N/A
35'
2) SETBACK FROM PARKING OR DRIVEWAY
N/A
25'
3) SIDE YARD FROM PERIMETER BOUNDARIES
N/A
15'
4) REAR YARD FROM PERIMETER BOUNDARIES
N/A
25'
5) MIN. BUILDING SPACING
N/A
30'
MULTIPLEX
BACK TO BACK UNITS
EXISTING
PROPOSED
1) SETBACK FROM ROAD ROW
N/A
35'
2) SETBACK FROM PARKING OR DRIVEWAY
N/A
25'
3) SIDE YARD FROM PERIMETER BOUNDARIES
N/A
15'
4) REAR YARD FROM PERIMETER BOUNDARIES
N/A
25'
5) MIN. BUILDING SPACING
N/A
30'
APARTMENTS/CONDOS
APARTMENTS/CONDOS
EXISTING
PROPOSED
1) FRONT SETBACKS
- FROM ROAD ROW 35'
35'
- FROM PARKING OR DRIVEWAY 20'
10'
2) SIDE YARD FROM PERIMETER
Formatted: Font: 8 pt
1 60130 IIDOC i t O}. FRS 9.01) 05 L 0 00(1411) o0ow 8
BOUNDARIES 50' 50'
3) REAR YARD FROM PERIMETER
BOUNDARIES 50' 50'
4) MIN. BUILDING SPACING 50' 50'
5) SETBACKS FOR OTHER USES NOT OTHERWISE
SPECIFIED
- FRONT 35' 35'
- SIDE 15' 15'
- REAR 50' 50'
(Formatted: Font: 8 pt
?0-") I)')(- 3 ._ PROFFERS _90)0005_DOC 000419 00000.4,'19
PROFFER STATEMENT
REZONING: RZ #12-05 and MDP #09-05
RA to R4
PROPERTY: 169.924 acres +/-;
Tax Map & Parcel 75-A- 99A (the "Property")
RECORD OWNER: Winchester-Artrip Limited Liability Company, a Virginia
Corporation
APPLICANT: Winchester-Artrip Limited Liability Company
PROJECT NAME: Villages at Artrip
ORIGINAL DATE
OF PROFFERS: June 2004
REVISION DATA: May 20, 2005
June 17, 2005
September 9, 2005
The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property
("Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following
conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In
the event that the above referenced rezoning is not granted as applied for by the Applicant
("Applicant'), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further,
these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "Final Rezoning"
defined as that rezoning that is in effect on the day upon which the Frederick County Board
of County Supervisors (the "Board") grants the rezoning.
The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or
reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of
any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the
time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the improvement
or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. The term "Applicant' as
referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners, assigns, and successors
in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Master Development Plan" shall refer to the
plan entitled "Master Development Plan, The Villages at Artrip" prepared by Dewberry (the
"MDP") dated September 9, 2005, sheets 1-4; provided further that sheet 5 thereof, entitled
General Development Plan ("GDP"), shall not be deemed a part of the MDP submittal but is
otherwise proffered as set forth herein.
1. LAND USE
1.1 The project shall be designed so as to establish interconnected mixed-
use villages in conformance with the MDP and the GDP, and as is
specifically set forth in these proffers.
(00013039.DOC / 2 PROFFERS 9.09.05.DOC 000419 0000041
1.2 Except as modified herein, areas of commercial development on the
Property shall be developed in conformance with the regulations of the
Residential Planned Community ("R4") zoning district, as set forth in
the Frederick County Code Article VII, §165-67 through §165-72, as
cross-referenced to Article X, §165-82, Sections A through D inclusive,
and § 165-83. All commercial development on the Property shall comply
with the aforesaid regulations, or as may be otherwise approved by
Frederick County.
1.2.1 Commercial, retail, restaurant and office development on
the Property shall not exceed a maximum of 118,550
square feet, and shall be provided within the Core Area.
1.3 Except as modified herein, areas of residential development on the
Property shall be developed in conformance with the regulations of the
Planned Community ("R4") zoning district, including permissible
housing types, including those set forth in the Frederick County Code
Article VII, § 165-67 through § 165-72, as cross-referenced to Article VI,
§165-58, through §165-66, including as set forth in Appendix A. In the
event that the Applicant elects to construct any of the unit types that are
set forth on Appendix A attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference, such units shall conform to the development standards
established therein. Unit types and lot layouts within these Landbays
may comprise any of the permitted unit types identified for those
Landbays as set forth on the MDP or as are otherwise authorized for the
RP district as it is incorporated by reference into the R4 district;
provided further that no more intensive unit type may be constructed in
any Landbay than is identified as a unit type permitted therein on the
MDP.
1.3.1 Residential development on the Property shall not exceed a
maximum of 905 dwelling units, with a mix of housing
types permitted in the R4 district, subject to the
modifications as set forth in Appendix A, and dwelling
types shall be constructed in the locations generally
depicted on the MDP and as further set forth herein.
1.3.2 For the purposes of these proffers, single-family attached
and detached and multi -family units shall include those
housing types identified on the MDP and set forth in the
applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance including
detached cluster housing, small lot singles, single-family
urban, zero lot line singles, and village rear load singles.
Multi -family units shall include apartments and duplex
units.
1.4 Development of commercial, residential and community uses within the
area identified on the MDP as the "Core Area" shall generally conform
to a grid lot layout, and the street layout and unit types depicted therein
on the MDP. Not fewer than two housing types shall be provided in the
100013039.DOC / 2 PROFFERS9.09.05.DOC 000419 000004}2
Core Area. The layout of the Core Area shall be constructed in general
conformance with the GDP, provided that reasonable adjustments may
be made to the locations thereof upon final engineering.
1.4.1 The Applicant shall construct not fewer than 30 residential
units in the Core Area in Phase I of the development as
otherwise set out herein.
1.5 Development within the Landbays on the Property outside the Core Area
shall generally conform to the street layouts, points of connection to
Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road, and the limits of development as
are depicted on the MDP; provided that minor adjustments may be made
to the locations thereof upon final engineering. Unit types and lot
layouts within these Landbays may comprise any of the permitted unit
types identified for those Landbays on the MDP and authorized herein or
subsequently approved by the Frederick County Planning Office;
provided further that no more intensive unit type may be constructed in
any such Landbay than is identified as a unit type permitted therein on
the MDP.
1.6 Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, rental apartments,
condominium units and rental apartments over retail and office uses
shall be permitted.
1.7 The gross density of residential units shall not exceed 5.40 units per
acre.
1.8 Shared parking shall be provided for retail, restaurant and office uses
within Landbay "A" such that a 10% reduction or increase of the
required parking spaces shall be permitted.
1.9 The Applicant shall make reasonable attempts to preserve the specimen
Delaware Pine on the general vicinity of the cemetery on the property
within the Village Green area to be preserved.
2. CONSTRUCTION OF A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT
2.1 The Property shall be developed as one single and unified development
in accordance with applicable ordinances and regulations for the R-4
zoning district, the MDP, and this Proffer Statement as it may be
accepted by the Board.
3. PHASING OF THE DEVELOPMENT
3.1 The residential portions of the Property are proposed to be developed in
three phases, with the commercial portions of the Property to be
developed in Phases II and III. The three phases shall be authorized as
follows:
10001 3039.DOC / 2 PROFFERS9.09.05.DOC 000419 000004}3
3. 1.1 Phase I. Residential development shall not exceed 300
dwelling units.
3.1.2 Phase H. Residential development shall not exceed an
additional 380 dwelling units, for a total of 580 dwelling
units. Commercial development shall include a minimum
of 20,000 square feet of commercial/retail/restaurant gross
leaseable floor space.
3.1.3 Phase III. Residential development in Phase III shall not
exceed the remaining permitted dwelling units. Because
the Applicant cannot anticipate either market conditions, or
the timing of the completion of a through connection of
Warrior Drive from Interstate 81, through Crosspointe
Boulevard (as presently named) and Wakeland Manor to
Tasker Road and Route 340/522, the Applicant cannot
commit to the construction of additional commercial at any
fixed point in time. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and
except to the extent set forth in the proceeding proffer, the
Applicant may construct all or any portion of the
commercial development authorized in these proffers at
any time.
3.1.3.1 Notwithstanding any other provision of these
proffers to the contrary, the Applicant shall not
construct any of the residential units otherwise
permitted in Phase III until Warrior Drive has
been constructed such that access is available to
the Property from Interstate 81 and through
Wakeland Manor.
3.1.4 Community improvements Community -serving
improvements such as playing fields, community center,
tennis courts and similar improvements as shown on the
MDP shall be constructed in conjunction with the Landbay
with which such improvements are associated; provided
that the community center and pool to be constructed in the
Core Area shall be designed and bonded at the beginning of
Phase II, and constructed prior to the initiation of Phase III.
4. ARCHITECTURE, SIGNAGE, AND LANDSCAPING:
4.1 The following building materials may be used for construction within
the Property, and no others:
4.1.1 Pavements/ Curbing shall consist of cast in place concrete,
natural and colored; aggregate concrete; precast concrete,
natural and colored; concrete pavers; brick pavers; stone
pavers; asphalt pavers; granite; ceramic tile; asphalt.
100013039.DOC / 2 PROFFERS 9.09.05.DOC 000419 000004}4
4.1.2 House sidings shall consist of EFIS; stucco; brick;
cementious siding; cedar siding; stone veneer; painted
wood; vinyl siding; stained wood; aluminum; hardy plank;
PVC trim.
4.1.3 Decking and fencing shall consist of pressure treated wood;
stained wood; painted wood; PVC fencing; IPE decking;
cedar decking; TREX decking or similar recycled product.
4.1.4 Miscellaneous materials that may be used shall consist of
standing seam metal roofing, colored; slate roofing; asphalt
roofing; powder coated steel, colored; galvanized steel;
aluminum brushed; anodized aluminum, colored; 304
stainless steel; chrome; canvass; neon.
4.2 Vinyl siding shall not be used on the front elevation of residential
structures facing Warrior Drive or on the fronts of residences located
on corner lots that intersect with Warrior Drive. The side of a
residential structure that faces Warrior Drive located on a corner lot on
a road that intersects Warrior Drive is not permitted to have vinyl
siding on that elevation.
4.3 Notwithstanding the foregoing, materials used for exterior facades of
the commercial buildings shall include but not be limited to concrete
masonry units (CMU) split -faced block, architectural block, dryvit, or
other simulated stucco (EFIS), real or simulated wood and/or glass.
Standard concrete masonry block shall not be used for the front
facades of any buildings.
4.4 All buildings within the development on the property shall be
constructed using compatible architectural styles. The Applicant shall
establish one or more Architectural Review Boards to enforce and
administer a unified development plan.
4.5 All signage within the project shall be in substantial conformity with
the comprehensive sign plan incorporated herein as an element of the
MDP; provided that the Director of Planning may authorize alternative
signage that is substantially consistent with the aforesaid sign plan.
4.6 The major collector roadways (Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road
Extended) in the Villages at Artrip shall be constructed with a
minimum 20' width buffers adjacent to dedicated rights-of-way and,
except at entrance locations, shall be improved with landscape features
and lighting to create a "boulevard" appearance. Illustrative details of
such buffers are as set forth on the MDP.
5. PEDESTRIAN TRAIL SYSTEM AND RECREATION AREAS
{00013039.DOC / 2 PROFFERS 9.09.05.DOC 000419 000004}5
5.1 The Applicant shall design and build a public pedestrian -bicycle trail
system to Department of Parks and Recreation standards that links
residential and commercial areas within the development and provides
additional connectivity to adjacent properties. Said trails shall be in
general conformance with the South Frederick Land Use Map and
shall be in the locations generally depicted on the MDP. Five foot
sidewalks shall be constructed on all public streets and a minimum of
four foot sidewalks shall be constructed on private streets. The
pedestrianibicycling trail constructed along Warrior Drive shall be 10
feet wide, and shall have an asphalt surface.
6. FIRE & RESCUE:
6.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $537 per
dwelling unit for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the issuance
of a building permit for each such unit.
7. SCHOOLS:
7.1 Within one hundred and eighty days of written request therefor, the
Applicant shall dedicate to the Board of Supervisors approximately
eleven (11) acres of land as depicted on the MDP for use as a future
elementary school site in conjunction with the adjacent property of
others.
7.2 The Applicant shall, upon written request therefor, dedicate to the
Board of Supervisors approximately five (5) additional acres of
property adjacent to and on the southerly side of Warrior Drive,
otherwise depicted on the MDP as preservation area, for use as part of
the aforesaid elementary school.
7.3 The Applicant shall be permitted to retain an easement on any such
dedicated property for the construction of permanent stormwater
management facilities as well as temporary easements for the
construction of utilities and structures for the Villages at Artrip. The
Applicant shall coordinate any such facilities with the County to assure
that such facilities do not materially impede the use of the property for
an elementary school, and that, to the extent possible, such facilities
may serve both the Applicant and any school constructed thereon. The
Applicant shall be permitted to retain the right to construct stormwater
management facilities for both quality and quantity purposes, on the
dedicated property.
7.4 In the event that the Board of Supervisors, or School Board,
determines not to use the said property for an elementary school site,
and to declare the property surplus, the Applicant shall have a right of
first refusal to purchase the same at its then fair market value.
100013039.DOC / 2 PROFFERS 9.09.05. DOC 000419 00000416
7.5 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $337 per
dwelling unit for educational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a
building permit for each such unit.
7.6 The time for any dedication hereunder shall be extended by such time
as may be required to process a subdivision application necessary to
create the parcel of property to be dedicated, and the Applicant shall
file and diligently pursue any such application in order to effectuate
said dedication.
8. PARKS & OPEN SPACE:
8.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $847 per
dwelling unit for recreational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a
building permit for each such unit.
9. LIBRARIES:
9.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $137 per
dwelling unit for library purposes, payable upon the issuance of a
building permit for each such unit.
10. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING:
10.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $144 to be used
for construction of a general governmental administration building
upon issuance of a building permit for each such unit.
11. CREATION OF HOMEOWNERS' AND PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION:
11.1 The residential portion of the development shall be made subject to
one or more homeowners' association(s) (hereinafter "HOA") that
shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of all
common areas, including any conservation areas that may be
established in accordance herewith not dedicated to the County or
others, and stormwater management facilities not dedicated to public
use, for each area subject to their jurisdiction, and shall be provided
such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for
such associations or as may be required for such HOA herein. If there
is more than one such association, the Applicant shall create an
umbrella HOA with respect to the entire development that shall,
among other things, have responsibility for assuring compliance with
design guidelines and standards, signage requirements, private road
and open space maintenance, and similar matters common to the
development of the Property.
11.2 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be
assigned, an HOA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all
{00013039.DOC / 2 PROFFERS 9.09.05.DOC 000419 000004)7
common open space areas not otherwise dedicated to public use
specifically including the "Village Green" area as depicted on the
MDP, (ii) common buffer areas located outside of residential lots; (iii)
private streets serving the residents who are members of such
association; (iv) common solid waste disposal and recycling programs,
including curbside pick-up of refuse by a private refuse collection
company, (v) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any
street, perimeter, or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be
located within easements to be granted to the HOA if platted within
residential or other lots, or otherwise granted to the HOA by
appropriate instrument, (vi) stormwater management facilities.
11.3 The commercial elements of the development shall be made subject to
one or more property owners' association(s) (hereinafter "POA") that
shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of all
common areas, including any conservation areas that may be
established in accordance herewith not dedicated to the County or
others, and stormwater management facilities not dedicated to public
use, for each area subject to their jurisdiction, and shall be provided
such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for
such associations or as may be required for such POA herein. If there
is more than one such association, the Applicant shall create an
umbrella POA with respect to the entire development that shall, among
other things, have responsibility for assuring compliance with design
guidelines and standards, signage requirements, and similar matters.
11.4 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be
assigned, a POA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all
common open space areas not otherwise dedicated to public use, (ii)
common buffer areas located outside of commercial lots; (iii) private
streets serving the businesses and/or residents who are members of
such association; (iv) common solid waste disposal and recycling
programs to include dumpster and contract carrier services provided
by a private refuse collection company, and (v) responsibility for the
perpetual maintenance of any street, perimeter, or road buffer areas, all
of which buffer areas shall be located within easements to be granted
to the POA if platted within commercial or other lots, or parcels, or
otherwise granted to the POA by appropriate instrument.
12. WATER & SEWER:
12.1 The Applicant shall be responsible for connecting the Property to
public water and sewer, and for constructing all facilities required for
such connection at the property boundary. All water and sewer
infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements
of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority.
{00013039BOC / 2 PROFFERS 9.09.05.DOC 000419 000004)8
13. ENVIRONMENT:
13.1 Stormwater management and Best Management Practices (BMP) for
the Property shall be provided in accordance with the Virginia
Stormwater Management Regulations, First Ed. 1999, Chapter 2,
Table 2-3 for the purpose of providing the highest order of stormwater
control in existing Virginia law at the time of construction of any such
facility.
13.2 Stream preservation buffers shall be constructed in general
conformance with the MDP, so as to create buffer requirements
established by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to protect
Opequon Creek and the unnamed tributary to Opequon Creek from
disturbance. No clearing or grading shall occur within those buffers,
except for the construction of road crossings, trails, water lines,
sanitary sewer, or other utilities.
13.3 During construction on the property, the limits of clearing and grading
shall be identified and field flagged in connection with the Applicant's
compliance with requirements of the Frederick County Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Ordinance, for the project as a whole, to
prevent unintended disturbance of areas to be preserved.
13.4 The Village Pond located within the Core Area shall be improved and
preserved as a visual amenity and may be used for storm water
management purposes for both quality and quantity.
13.5 In addition to the dedication of property for school purposes, the
Applicant shall separately dedicate Land Bay F as generally depicted
on the MDP, in phases, to such public entity as may be directed by the
Board of Supervisors, in its discretion.
13.5.1. In any event, and regardless whether such dedication is
requested or made, the Dedicated Tree Save Area in Land Bay
F as shown on the MDP shall be preserved undisturbed.
13.5.2. If the property is dedicated, the Applicant shall be permitted to
retain the rights to temporary and/or permanent grading
easements necessary for the construction of the Villages at
Artrip, including roads, bridges, utilities and stormwater
management facilities.
14. TRANSPORTATION:
14.1 Transportation improvements shall be constructed in conjunction with
each phase of the development as set forth below. Design of the
roadway system shall be phased as set forth in these Proffers and shall
be substantially consistent with the study entitled "A Phased Traffic
100013039.DOC / 2 PROFFERS 9.09.05.DOC 000419 00000419
Impact Analysis of The Villages at Artrip," prepared by Patton, Harris,
Rust & Associates, dated May 6, 2004 (the "TIA"). The exact location
and design of proffered improvements shall be subject to reasonable
adjustment upon final engineering thereof. The Applicant shall
construct at its expense pedestrian -actualized signalization at each of
those locations for which such signalization is identified in the TIA,
upon issuance of warrants therefor.
14.2 Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for residential uses
on streets to be placed into the State System of Secondary Highways,
the Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Section 144-17
(A) of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance. For the purposes
of these Proffers, construction of any road or street referenced herein
shall mean construction consistent with the requirements of that
section.
14.3 Phase I road phasing for Warrior Drive if construction is initiated from
Wakeland Manor: The following traffic improvements shall be
designed and constructed during Phase I if construction thereof shall
begin at the southernmost portion of the Property.
14.3.1. Except as may be otherwise provided herein, prior to the
issuance of the first residential building permit for the project,
the Applicant shall construct an extension of Warrior Drive in a
northwesterly direction from Point A to Point C as depicted on
the MDP, as a full section of a four lane divided roadway,
including construction of a full section of a roundabout or
traffic signalized intersection, as may be approved by the
Virginia Department of Transportation, at the intersection of
Warrior and Parkins Mill Road.
14.3.1.1. In conjunction with such construction, the
Applicant shall connect Warrior Drive into the
adjacent property known as Wakeland Manor, so as
to match the pavement widths of that portion of
Warrior as constructed by others. The bridge
crossing of the unnamed tributary of the Opequon
on the southernmost edge of the Property at Point A
shall be constructed to accommodate the ultimate
design of Warrior Drive. The right-of-way for the
ultimate design of Warrior Drive shall be 100' in
width, and the said bridge shall be completed not
later than the end of Phase 1.
14.4 Alternate road phasing for Phase I of Warrior Drive if constructed
from Wakeland Manor: As an alternative to the foregoing phasing
schedule for Phase I of Warrior Drive, and at the sole discretion of the
{00013039.DOC / 2 PROFFERS 9.09.05.DOC 000419 000004J] 0
Applicant, the Applicant shall construct a full section of Warrior Drive
as a full four lane section roadway, including the bridge crossing of the
unnamed tributary of the Opequon from Point A to a full section of the
roundabout or signalized intersection at Point B, and shall further
construct a full two lane section of Parkins Mill Road from Point B to
Point B1, as depicted on the MDP.
14.5 Phase II road phasing for Warrior Drive if construction is initiated
from Wakeland Manor: The following traffic improvements shall be
constructed as part of Phase II if construction thereof shall begin at the
southernmost portion of the Property.
14.5.1. Prior to the issuance of the 3015` residential building permit, the
Applicant shall construct Warrior Drive as a full four lane
divided roadway from Point C to Point D, as generally depicted
on the MDP or from Point B to Point C if not already
constructed.
14.5.2. At the Applicant's discretion, if the Applicant has not already
done so in accordance with the foregoing proffers, then prior to
the issuance of the 301" residential building permit, the
Applicant may construct a full two lane section of Parkins Mill
Road Extended, from its intersection with Warrior Drive at
Point B to Point B 1, as generally depicted on the MDP. The
right-of-way for Parkins Mill Road shall be 80' in width.
14.6 Phase III road phasing for Warrior Drive if construction is initiated
from Wakeland Manor: The Applicant shall construct the following
traffic improvements prior to the issuance of the 681St residential
building permit as Phase III of the said improvements if construction
thereof shall begin at the southernmost portion of the Property.
14.6.1. The Applicant shall construct the remainder of Warrior Drive
to Point E as a full section of a four lane divided roadway.
14.6.2. If not already completed, the Applicant shall construct a full
two lane section of Parkins Mill Road Extended, from its
intersection with Warrior Drive at Point B to Point B1, as
generally depicted on the MDP. The right-of-way for Parkins
Mill road shall be 80' in width.
14.7 Road phasing if construction of Warrior Drive is initiated from
Crosspointe:
14.7.1. In the event that others have constructed Warrior Drive from
Crosspointe Center to the Property boundary, and Warrior is to
be constructed from that boundary to the south, then prior to
the issuance of the first residential building permit for the
100013039.DOC / 2 PROFFERS 9.09.05.DOC 000419 000004} 1 1
project, the Applicant shall construct Warrior Drive in a
southeasterly direction from Point E to Point C as Phase I of its
road improvements. The Applicant will be allowed a minimum
of 300 residential building permits within this Phase.
14.7.2. In the event the Applicant has constructed Warrior Drive from
Points E to C as aforesaid, then prior to the issuance of the
301St residential building permit, the Applicant shall construct
Warrior Drive from Point C to Point B as Phase II or its road
improvements. The Applicant will be allowed to build a
minimum of 380 additional residential units in this Phase.
14.7.3. In the event the Applicant has constructed Warrior Drive to
Point B as aforesaid, then prior to the issuance of the 681st
residential building permit, the Applicant shall construct
Warrior Drive from Point B to Points A (including its
extension to connect to Warrior Drive in Wakeland Manor as
provided for if Warrior is commenced from the south) and B1,
as Phase III of its road improvements. The Applicant will be
permitted to build out the remainder of the residential units and
commercial square footage in this Phase and prior to the
completion of Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road.
14.8 All left and right turn residential and commercial entrances to Warrior
Drive and Parkins Mill Road shall be limited to those locations as
generally depicted on the MDP.
14.9 Warrior Drive shall be constructed with a trail section throughout the
Property, and such trail shall be extended to Crosspointe and into
Wakeland Manor.
14.10 The Applicant shall connect Parkins Mill Road Extended, to include
sidewalk on one side of the road, to Canter Estates, prior to the
completion of Phase III.
14.11 The Applicant shall construct its internal road network as public or
private roads as they are depicted on the MDP. In the event that the
Virginia Department of Transportation declines to accept neo-
traditional road designs for any such internal streets, the Applicant
may construct such streets as private roads.
14.12 All public right-of-ways shall be dedicated to Frederick County as part
of the subdivision approval process, consistently with applicable
Virginia law.
14.13 All public streets and roads shall be designed and constructed in
accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation
100013039.DOC l 2 PROFFERS 9.09.05.DOC 000419 000004112
specifications, and subject to review and approval by the Frederick
County and VDOT.
14.14 All private streets and roads shall be designed and constructed in
accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation standards
therefor as set out on Sheet 3 of the MDP, and as modified thereby,
and shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners or property
owners association served by such streets or roads.
14.15 No construction traffic shall be permitted through Lot 121 in the
adjacent Lakewood subdivision, or through Canter Estates, Section V.
In no event shall a permanent interparcel connection be made through
said Lot.
14.16 The County shall permit the Applicant to construct a 2 -lane gravel
access road as identified on Sheet 3 of the MDP, for construction
access to the Villages at Artrip, including construction of roads,
bridges, utilities, and stormwater management facilities. In the event
the Frederick County Sanitation Authority does not retain ownership
of the property through which such road would run, it shall in any
conveyance retain rights for the use of such access road by the
Applicant until full build out of the Property. Upon such completion,
the Applicant shall terminate all rights thereto, but at the request of the
County or the Authority shall leave such access road in place to permit
maintenance access to the bridge between the Property and Wakeland
Manor.
15. CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATION AND PRESERVATION
15.1 The Applicant shall preserve the Artrip Family Cemetery. The
Applicant shall further create a 0.5 acre preservation park surrounding
the Cemetery, as generally depicted on the MDP.
16. ESCALATOR CLAUSE
16.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement
are paid to the Frederick County Board County Supervisors ("Board")
within 30 months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the
Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein.
Any monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are
paid to the Board after 30 months following the approval of this
rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price
Index ("CPI -U") published by the United States Department of Labor,
such that at the time contributions are paid, they shall be adjusted by the
percentage change in the CPI -U from that date 30 months after the
approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI -U to the
date the contributions are paid, subject to a cap of 5% per year, non -
compounded.
(00013039.DOC / 2 PROFFERS 9.09.05.DOC 000419 000004 )13
SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE
100013039.DOC / 2 PROFFERS 9.09.05.DOC 000419 000004)l 4
WINCHESTER ARTRIP, Limited Liability Company
M.
Jeffrey Abramson
Title: Managing Member
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA;
CITY/COUNTY OF : to -wit
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 2005 , by
Notary Public
My Commission expires:
100013039.DOC / 2 PROFFERS 9.09.05.DOC 000419 000004} 15
APPENDIX A
The following development standards shall apply to development within each
Landbay for the following housing types listed below:
SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED CLUSTER
FRONT LOAD
1) IN A PROPOSED CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, THERE SHALL BE A
MINIMUM TOTAL AREA PER DWELLING UNIT OF 10,000 SF, NOT
INCLUDING LAND IN REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE AND ROAD
ROW. NO INDIVIDUAL LOT SHALL BE SMALLER THEN 8,000 SF. FOR
EACH LOT THAT IS LESS THAN 10,000 SF BY A GIVEN SQUARE
FOOTAGE, AN EQUIVALENT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LAND SHALL BE
ADDED TO THE REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE
2) MIN. TOTAL LOT AREA PER DWELLING
3) MIN. LOT AREA
4) MIN. YARDS:
- SETBACK FROM ROAD ROW
- SIDE YARDS
- REAR YARD
5)MIN. LOT WIDTH AT SETBACK
6)MIN. LOT WIDTH AT ROAD ROW
7)MIN. OFF STREET PARKING
EXISTING PROPOSED
10,000 SF 10,000 SF
8,000 SF 8,000 SF
35'
20'
10'
5
25'
25'
60' 60'
30' 30'
2/ UNIT 2/ UNIT
SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED CLUSTER
REAR LOAD
1) IN A PROPOSED CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, THERE SHALL BE A
MINIMUM TOTAL AREA PER DWELLING UNIT OF 10,000 SF, NOT
INCLUDING LAND IN REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE AND ROAD
ROW. NO INDIVIDUAL LOT SHALL BE SMALLER THEN 8,000 SE FOR
EACH LOT THAT IS LESS THAN 10,000 SF BY A GIVEN SQUARE
FOOTAGE, AN EQUIVALENT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LAND SHALL BE
ADDED TO THE REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE
2) MIN. TOTAL LOT AREA PER DWELLING
3) MIN. LOT AREA
t00013039.DOC / 2 PROFFERS 9.09.05.DOC
EXISTING PROPOSED
10,000 SF 10,000 SF
8,000 SF 8,000 SF
000419 000004116
4) MIN. YARDS:
- SETBACK FROM ROAD ROW 35' 15'
- SIDE YARDS 10' 5'
- REAR YARD 25' 20'
5)MIN. LOT WIDTH AT SETBACK 60' 60'
6)MIN. LOT WIDTH AT ROAD ROW 30' 30'
7)MIN. OFF STREET PARKING 2/ UNIT 2/ UNIT
SINGLE FAMILY SMALL LOT
REAR LOAD
EXISTING PROPOSED
1) MIN. LOT SIZE 3,750 SF 3,750 SF
2) OFF STREET PARKING SPACES 2 2
3) SETBACK FROM STATE ROAD 25' 25'
4) SETBACK FROM PRIVATE ROAD 20' 15'
5) REAR YARD 15' 15'
6) SIDE YARD 5' 5'
SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED CLUSTER
REAR LOAD W/DETACHED GARAGE
1) IN A PROPOSED CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, THERE SHALL BE A
MINIMUM TOTAL AREA PER DWELLING UNIT OF 10,000 SF, NOT
INCLUDING LAND IN REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE AND ROAD
ROW. NO INDIVIDUAL LOT SHALL BE SMALLER THEN 8,000 SF. FOR
EACH LOT THAT IS LESS THAN 10,000 SF BY A GIVEN SQUARE
FOOTAGE, AN EQUIVALENT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LAND SHALL BE
ADDED TO THE REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE
EXISTING PROPOSED
2) MIN. TOTAL LOT AREA PER DWELLING 10,000 SF 10,000 SF
3) MIN. LOT AREA 8,000 SF 8,000 SF
4) MIN. YARDS:
{00013039.DOC / 2 PROFFERS 9.09.05.DOC 000419 000004117
- SETBACK FROM ROAD ROW
35'
1) SETBACK FROM ROAD ROW
15'
- SIDE YARDS
10,
N/A
5,
- REAR YARD
25'
15'
15'
5)1\41N. LOT WIDTH AT SETBACK
60'
5) MIN. BUILDING SPACING
60'
6)MIN. LOT WIDTH AT ROAD ROW
30'
30'
7)MIN. OFF STREET PARKING
2/ UNIT
2/ UNIT
MULTIPLEX
PROPOSED
1) FRONT SETBACKS
STACKED FLATS
- FROM ROAD ROW 35'
35'
- FROM PARKING OR DRIVEWAY 20'
EXISTING
PROPOSED
1) SETBACK FROM ROAD ROW
N/A
35'
2) SETBACK FROM PARKING OR DRIVEWAY
N/A
25'
3) SIDE YARD FROM PERIMETER BOUNDARIES
N/A
15'
4) REAR YARD FROM PERIMETER BOUNDARIES
N/A
25'
5) MIN. BUILDING SPACING
N/A
30'
MULTIPLEX
BACK TO BACK UNITS
EXISTING
PROPOSED
1) SETBACK FROM ROAD ROW
N/A
35'
2) SETBACK FROM PARKING OR DRIVEWAY
N/A
25'
3) SIDE YARD FROM PERIMETER BOUNDARIES
N/A
15'
4) REAR YARD FROM PERIMETER BOUNDARIES
N/A
25'
5) MIN. BUILDING SPACING
N/A
30'
APARTMENTS/CONDOS
APARTMENTS/CONDOS
EXISTING
PROPOSED
1) FRONT SETBACKS
- FROM ROAD ROW 35'
35'
- FROM PARKING OR DRIVEWAY 20'
10'
2) SIDE YARD FROM PERIMETER
{00013039.DOC/2 PROFFERS9.09.05.DOC 000419 000004}18
BOUNDARIES 50' 50'
3) REAR YARD FROM PERIMETER
BOUNDARIES
50'
50'
4) MIN. BUILDING SPACING
50'
50'
5) SETBACKS FOR OTHER USES NOT
OTHERWISE
SPECIFIED
- FRONT
35'
35'
- SIDE
15'
15'
- REAR
50'
50'
{00013039.DOC / 2 PROFFERS 9.09.05.DOC 000419 000004119
The Villages at Artrip
Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan
APPENDIX E
COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PACKAGE
Tie Villages
THE, 1� WCOM
Novo r"br:, 2004
Comprehensive Signr_q
The Villages at Artrip
CONTENTS
P1 : Gateway Identity Sign
p : Primary Directional Sign
133 : Secondary Directional Sign (option A)
p"4 : Secondary [directional Sign (option B)
P5 : Tertiary Directional Sign
p6 : Location Identity Sign
p7 : Secondary Location Identity Sign (caption )
P8 : econdary Location Identity Sign option B)
P9 : Primary 'pillage Identity Sign
pl o: Secondary Village Identity Sign
P11 : Retail Tenant Signs
p1 : Multi -tenant Sign
p13: Proposed Informational Sign
11
fW' is s vvin yacr^age are const e.q�qa: alusfr `ivel o
ifl
NImgn � r � h to . � of �r ie ods "' o f C },
t
-
a
5 o�> � � G mrd 5 3✓ �.+� o >e ywood, metal, a .n -F le , 4- 1 ya !
aiuminum, stone,
Ss y e ,-acs o glass,
s;lass w° l af �'��a a
� � A
P.1
WAI[RkA�
P . 2
SECONDARY
ll:RECTIUNAa,
SIGN
o
Artri n,
JPP 'd
A Tovvn'c�nticr
Opti3OAA
P-3
NJ
TERTIARY
DIRECTIONAL
SIGN
SOMMOM
OPTION
.7
POST
Option B
TA
RetaiiTenant Signs
Vinvi Si' hit de'.
Projecting' -'Sign.
Fr d
on. v
sia ft ae
my
flils page are.., IRmstrah aMd, �nleflld to, coiinvey
Ve
P.1'1
I_- ell
ULTI-"T.uNA-.'Lqi
N
3r(
-t
mi
on
am
PROI JSED
SIGN
a=