Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
PC 11-19-03 Meeting Agenda
AGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia November19, 2003 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) October 15, 2003 Minutes ................................................ (A) 2) Committee Reports ................................................. (no tab) 3) Citizen Comments ................................................. (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 4) 2003 Comprehensive Plan Update, Amendment Updates to the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. These amendments have occurred from September 27, 2000 through October 1, 2003. (Mrs. Kennedy)........................................................ (B) 5) Rezoning #11-03 of For My Kids, LLC - Shenandoah Honda, submitted by John Ross, to rezone 2.020 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business, General) District. This property is located on Berryville Pike (Route 7), approximately 185 feet southeast of the intersection of Greenwood Road (Route 656) and Berryville Pike (Route 7), and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 55-A-80 and 55-A-81 in the Red Bud Magisterial District. (Mrs. Kennedy)........................................................ (C) 6) Rezoning 414-03 of Hampton Inn, submitted by Greenway Engineering to rezone a parcel consisting of .20 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B3 (Business General) District. This property is located on the east side of Ross Street (Route 712) approximately 500 feet north of Berryville Avenue and is identified with Property Identification Number 54G -1-13A in the Stonewall Magisterial District. A small portion of the parcel is within the City of Winchester boundary. (Mr. Camp) ........................................................... (D) 7) Rezoning #13-03 of Crosspointe Center, submitted by Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., to rezone 574.37 acres from RA (Rural Areas) and B2 (Business General) to RP (Residential Performance) and B2 (Business General). Specifically, this application requests the rezoning of the subject acreage as follows: 175.62 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General), 381.80 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance), and 16.95 acres from B2 (Business General) without proffers to B2 (Business General) with proffers. The subject site is located in the Kernstown area, east of the southern terminus of Route 37, north and adjacent to Lakeside Subdivision, and east and adjacent to Tasker Road (Route 642), and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 75-A-89, 75 -A -89A, 75- A-90, 75-A-91, 75 -A -92,75 -A -94,75-A-95 and 75-A-96 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. (Mr. Mohn)........................................................... (E) 8) Conditional Use Permit #09-03 of Milams Landscape, LLC, for a Landscape Contracting and Retail Nursery business. This property is located at 1331 Cedar Creek Grade and is identified with Property Identification Number 63-A-11) in the Shawnee Magisterial District. (Mr.Cheran).......................................................... (F) 9) Request To Expand the Urban Development Area (UDA), by approximately 350 acres, submitted by M. Willis White and others. The site includes six parcels of land currently zoned RA (Rural Areas) District. The subject site is located adjacent to and west of the City of Winchester, east of Route 37, and adjacent to and south of Merriman's Lane (Route 621). The proposed expansion area is connected to Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622) by one parcel. The subject properties are identified by Property Identification Numbers 53-A-91, 63-2A, 53-A-92, 53 -A -92A, 53 -A -92B, 53 -A -90,53-A-94, 53-3-A1 and 53-A-95, and are located in the Shawnee Magisterial District. (Mrs. Kennedy)........................................................ (G) PUBLIC MEETING 10) Master Development Plan #07-03 for Hiatt Run Condominiums, submitted by Painter - Lewis, P.L.C., for multi -family residential condominiums. The property is located at the intersection of Route 11 and Route 838, near Stephenson, Virginia, and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 44-A-17, in the Stonewall Magisterial District. (Mr. Camp) ........................................................... (H) DISCUSSION 11) Review of site plan for the New Frederick County Middle School. The site is located on the eastern side of Front Royal Pike (Route 522), south of its intersection with Papermill Road (Route 644). (Mr. Camp) ............................................................ �) 12) Other Interested citizens may appear before the Commission to speak on the above items. A copy of the agenda will be available at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library approximately one week before the meeting. Further information may be obtained at the Department of Planning and Development, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us/PlaTmingAndDevelopment/PlanningAndDev.htm. • • C MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on October 15, 2003. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; Richard C. Shickle, Board of Supervisors Liaison; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District and Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Christopher M. Mohn, Deputy Planning Director; Patrick T. Davenport, Zoning Administrator; Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner; Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II; and, Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 2003 Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours, the minutes of August 20, 2003 were unanimously approved as presented. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of October 15, 2003 Page 1162 -2 - COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) - 10/13/03 Mtg. Commissioner Light reported that the CPPS is discussing how to proceed on updating the rural areas district. Transportation Committee - 10/07/03 Mtg. Commissioner Kriz reported that the Transportation Committee considered the I-81 Improvements, which is in the Commission's agenda for consideration this evening. Commissioner Kriz stated that the Transportation Committee passed a resolution to leave all options open, but, in particular, to make sure that local traffic has good on/off access, no matter which plan is chosen. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. James (Jim) Giraytys came forward to speak concerning the I-81 Improvements discussion, which was on the Commission's agenda for this evening. Chairman DeHaven stated that the Commission could receive Mr. Giraytys comments during the discussion of that item or under citizens comments, whichever he would prefer. Mr. Giraytys chose to deliver his comments during the Commission's discussion of the I-81 Improvements. AMENDMENT OF THE AGENDA Chairman DeHaven announced that the first item on the Commission's agenda, Rezoning # 11- 03 of For My Kids, LLC / Shenandoah Honda, submitted by John Ross, to rezone 2.020 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District has been removed from this evening's agenda because the property was not posted with the required public hearing sign. Chairman DeHaven asked if anyone in the audience had attended for this particular item, however, no one came forward. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of October 15, 2003 Page 1163 1991E PUBLIC HEARING Proposed Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP) amendment to relocate a planned major collector road and to propose business land use in the vicinity of the intersection of Route 11 and Rest Church Road. This request has been submitted by G.W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., on behalf of property owner, Mr. George Sempeles, to facilitate preparation of a business and industrial development proposal for approximately 104 acres. The properties are identified with P.I.N.s 34-A-2 and 34-A-4 and are located in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Commissioner Light said that he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this item, due to a possible conflict of interest. Senior Planner, Abbe S. Kennedy, provided the background information and review. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. with G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., the engineering firm representing the applicant, Mr. George Sempeles, stated that their initial traffic impact analysis determined an issue with truck traffic crossing into this area. Subsequently, they submitted an addendum to the transportation plan suggesting that all incoming truck traffic make a continuous right turn to the south on Rt. 11, turn left on Woodbine Road, and enter an industrial access into the site. He said that all traffic generated from the industrial site would leave by the Rt. 11 intersections. He said the only issue, essentially, is with in -bound truck traffic; all automobile and employee traffic would pass straight through the intersection and would not be routed to the Woodbine Road connection. Mr. Maddox noted that they have discussed this alternative in committees, as well as with the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. He believed this site would be a valuable addition to the economic development plan for Frederick County, describing its 100 acres of ideally -sloped property adjacent to rail and an upgraded I-81 intersection with Rt. 11. Mr. Maddox said that VDOT suggested this alternative after reviewing the trip numbers. Further traffic impact analysis would be looked at it in depth during the rezoning phase. Connnissioner Unger inquired if Woodbine Road would need to be improved. Mr. Maddox replied that Woodbine Road was previously improved with industrial access funding; however, if additional work is required, it would be identified and worked out during the rezoning petition, master plan, and construction drawing phase. Commissioner Straub commented that the major collector road terminates at Woodside Road, which doesn't have the ability to handle truck traffic. She also noted that the front of this property was being proposed to be business zoning and she was concerned that trucks and autos coming together in the business area would cause problems. She also inquired about a traffic signal. Mr. Maddox said the area would be designed for free-flowing traffic with a LOS C. He described the proposed four lanes plus an area to allow the lanes to line up with the Rest Church Road improvements. Mr. Maddox said the numbers do not indicate a traffic signal will be warranted. Commissioner Gochenour expressed concern with truck traffic turning right and stacking on Rt. 11 before entering Woodbine, especially with no traffic signal. Commissioner Gochenour was also concerned about the mixing of truck traffic turning left, trucks entering the industrial area, and vehicles entering Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of October 15, 2003 Page 1164 -4 - the commercial area. Mr. Maddox said that in his opinion, based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, the amount oftruck traffic turning left would not justify a traffic signal; however, he believed this issue would have to be decided in another forum. Mr. Maddox suggested that the decision that needs to be made this evening is if this is an acceptable alternative in the County's Transportation Plan for the Northeast Corridor. Mr. Maddox said that if it is, then he will proceed with the rezoning accordingly; however, if the Commission does not believe this alternative is appropriate and he proceeds with the rezoning, it would be over the objection of VDOT, as they consider this to be a better plan than the one currently shown in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lloyd Ingram of VDOT came forward to answer questions from the Commission regarding VDOT's possible future plans for the intersection at 1-81. Mr. Ingram said it will be difficult to increase the distance between Rt. 11 and the interchanges and that is why VDOT recommended moving down to Woodbine Road, which would provide 1,000' of movement away from the intersection. He said VDOT viewed it not only to provide for the Sempeles property, but also for any future development that may occur on the other side of the railroad tracks. He said that as far as the traffic signal is concerned, VDOT will more than likely request an agreement at rezoning to monitor the traffic and if warrants are met, VDOT could request that a signal be installed. Mr. Ingram stated that from a transportation point of view, this seems to be the best way to clear the interchange and maintain a reasonable LOS. Conunissioner Rosenberry commented that the proposal seemed to be a quick fix, however, in his opinion, there was a systemic issue there. Mr. Ingram agreed that it was quick fix and also the least expensive fix without physically moving Rt. 11 to the east. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Lester (Mack) B. McDonald, an adjoining property owner, stated that his family has owned a trucking company in Winchester for 77 years and he has concerns about the families that live alongside this road, especially with the stacking trucks which could present a problem. Mr. James (Jim) Giraytys, a resident of the Back Creek District and a member of the Air Improvement Task Force for Winchester -Frederick County, pointed out on a map the location of the ozone monitoring gauge for Frederick County which was directly within the area under discussion. Mr. Giraytys said that Frederick County is out of compliance with the eight-hour standard for ozone protection. He said the temptation might be to move the gauge, unfortunately, the rules for where it is located are governed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the gauge is physically owned by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Mr. Giraytys explained that his task force has been struggling to come up with strategies to bring this area back into compliance and the readings off this one single gauge will determine this area's compliance. He said that any type of development generating truck traffic will, without a doubt, raise the measurements for ozone. He made two points: first, if intense development occurs here, the gauge will not be representative of the entire county; and second, the planning process is flawed because the Commission does not have the capability to integrate science with land use planning. In conclusion, Mr. Giraytys remarked that this gauge is the only determining factor for whether the mitigation strategies developed for Winchester - Frederick County have brought this area into compliance with EPA in 2007. He said that whatever development occurs in this location will have an impact on what happens and how people will have to deal with mitigation for ozone throughout the entire county. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of October 15, 2003 Page 1165 -5 - Ms. Kathy Eland, a resident on Woodbine Road, said there are eight houses in this area. Ms. Eland was concerned about the impact of the tnick traffic, she expressed concern for the safety of her children and the neighborhood children, and she was also concerned about environmental impacts. Since everyone who wished to speak had been given an opportunity to do so, Chairman DeHaven closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Mr. Maddox returned to the podium and noted that most of the issues raised were zoning issues and he assured the Commission they would be addressed at the appropriate time. Mr. Maddox did address a concern about traffic impacts on Rt. 671, near the interchange; he said the Comprehensive Plan calls for an additional access to the industrial area, thereby allowing Rt. 671 to remain a rural road. In addition, Mr. Maddox brought the Commission's attention to the fact that there have been numerous transportation improvements made at this intersection; he said this intersection was ideally suited and designed specifically for the County's Comprehensive Plan. He assured the Commission that the applicant had the ability to mitigate any traffic issues here. Commissioner Morris stated that the issue before the Commission was whether or not this proposal was a better transportation alternative than what is currently in the Comprehensive Plan. He said that if this alternative will better accommodate the traffic, and VDOT has testified that it will, then it should be approved. On the other hand, he said that if the original Comprehensive Plan for that collector road is better than this, then it should be recommended for denial. Commissioner Morns believed the proposed alternative was better than the original Comprehensive Plan proposal. Commissioner Rosenberry believed the proposed alternative was probably a better proposal than what is currently in the Comprehensive Plan, however, he believed both alternatives were insufficient and this entire area had a developing traffic problem. He was also concerned about the EPA's monitoring station and the possibility that this gauge may be unrepresentative of the County as a whole. Chairman DeHaven said he appreciated Mr. Giraytys' comments concerning the ozone compliance issue, however, he did not believe the ozone gauge should be the sole issue that is considered for a Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment. Chairman DeHaven believed the issue to focus on was whether this proposal was better than the adopted plan. Commissioner Gochenour next moved to recommend denial ofthe amendment to the Northeast Land Use Plan to relocate a planned major collector road. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Straub. The motion failed, however, by the following majority vote: YES (TO DENY): Rosenberry, Gochenour, Straub NO: Fisher, Kriz, Ours, Morris, Unger, Watt, DeHaven ABSTAIN: Light (Please Note: Conunissioners Thomas and Triplett were absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of October 15, 2003 Page 1166 Commissioner Morris next moved to recommend approval of the proposed Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP) amendment to relocate a planned major collector road and to propose business land use in the vicinity of the intersection of Route 11 and Rest Church Road. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Fisher and passed by the following majority vote: YES (TO APPROVE): Fisher, Kriz, Ours, Morris, Unger, Watt, DeHaven NO: Rosenberry, Gochenour, Straub ABSTAIN: Light (Please Note: Commissioner Thomas and Triplett were absent from the meeting.) PUBLIC MEETING Subdivision Waiver Request of Walter Gallahan for exceptions to the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, §165-54A , §165-56A, and §165-56B, regarding minimum lot size, state road frontage, and an exception to lot depth -to -width ratios. The properties are identified with Property Identification Numbers 45-A-52 and 45-10-4 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Denial Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Patrick T. Davenport, stated that Mr. Walter Gallahan is requesting a waiver of several subdivision ordinance requirements to enable approval of a boundary line adjustment between his property and an adjoining property, owned by Ms. Mary K. Heirommus. Administrator Davenport stated that both of the properties are zoned RA (Rural Areas) and are located on Brucetown Road (Rt. 672). He said that the proposed boundary line adjustment would transfer approximately 0.59 acres from the Heironimus property (currently consisting of 1.77 acres) to the Gallahan property (currently consisting of 10.03 acres). Administrator Davenport said that Mr. Gallahan is requesting the following exceptions: 1) enable a boundary line adjustment of a parcel of land which is less than five acres in area to become smaller in area (§ 165-54A); 2) allow an exception for both parcels to have less than the 250 feet of State road frontage (§ 165-56A); and 3) allow an exception to the 4:1 depth -to -width ratio on Mr. Gallahan's parcel (§ 165-56B). Administrator Davenport also pointed out the possibility that the Gallahan property could be further subdivided or consolidated with an adjoining parcel to create a major rural subdivision with an access using a newly created state road frontage. Commissioner Morris inquired how the Gallahan property is currently accessed and Administrator Davenport pointed out the platted access on a map. Commissioner Morris inquired if the right- of-way was on the Miller property and Administrator Davenport replied that it was. Mr. Michael M. Artz, L.S. of Artz & Associates, P.L.C., land surveyor, introduced Mr. Walter L. Gallahan, the applicant. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of October 15, 2003 Page 1167 -7 - Mr. Walter L. Gallahan, the applicant, said that his sole purpose for pursuing the purchase of this property is to create a safe access from his home out to the highway. Mr. Gallahan stated that his right- of-way goes up hill with a steep bank on either side; he said the bank is even with the roof of the car, so it's extremely dangerous to try and get out on the highway. Mr. Gallahan said that his objective was not to obtain more land, however, by purchasing this property from Ms. Heironimus, which she has agreed to, he would be able to shift his driveway down approximately 15-75 feet, thereby putting it on a level in line with the highway. Mr. Gallahan commented that he couldn't say how many times they have almost gotten struck by an oncoming vehicle as they tried to get onto the highway. In addition, he mentioned that the hill on his driveway is so steep, in bad weather the fuel trucks have problems getting in. Chairman DeHaven asked Mr. Gallahan if, in his conversations with Ms. Heironimus, he had discussed purchasing simply a right-of-way to relocate the driveway as opposed to purchasing the land and Mr. Gallahan replied that Ms. Heironimus would rather go along with him purchasing the land. Commissioner Straub inquired of Mr. Gallahan if he would vacate the existing 50' right-of- way on the Miller property and Mr. Gallahan replied yes. Commissioner Gochenour asked Mr. Gallahan if his request was strictly for a safe access to his property or whether he had future intentions of subdividing his property. Mr. Gallahan said he had no intentions whatsoever of subdividing his property and his sole objective was to create a safe egress to the highway because it was a dangerous situation in its current condition. Mr. Michael Artz returned to the podium and stated that Mr. Gallahan's parcel could not be further subdivided without a state road being built into his parcel. Therefore, even though this may be adding a small portion of land to his parcel, in order for Mr. Gallahan to further subdivide his parcel, he would need to have state road frontage and he would have to actually build a state road into his property. Mr. Artz said that Mr. Gallahan's primary goal is to relocate his right-of-way to a place that is safer. Chairman DeHaven called for public continents, but no one came forward to speak. Commissioner Rosenberry inquired if a future subdivision would need to be considered by the Planning Commission, if this exception was granted, or was it simply the applicant's choice later whether or not to subdivide. Achninistrator Davenport replied that the applicant could make the choice to subdivide later, however, he was just bringing that future possibility to the Commission's attention; he said it was certainly not a part of Mr. Gallahan's request to enable a subdivision at this time. Chairman DeHaven understood Mr. Gallahan's concern for creating a safe access, however, he believed it was possible to relocate the driveway without the land transfer. Chairman DeHaven stated that if the Commission grants the waivers, it would allow the possibility of additional lots being created in the future by simply constructing a state road into the parcel. A motion was made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Ours to approve the request for exceptions to the subdivision ordinance requirements. This motion failed, however, by the following majority vote: Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of October 15, 2003 Page 1168 -8 - YES (TO APPROVE): Ours, Light, Morris, Unger, Watt, NO: Rosenberry, Fisher, Kriz, Gochenour, Straub, DeHaven Chairman DeHaven called for a new motion. A motion was made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Fisher to deny the request for exceptions to the subdivision ordinance requirements. This motion passed by the following majority vote: YES (TO DENY): Straub, Gochenour, Kriz, Fisher, Rosenberry, DeHaven NO: Watt, Unger, Morris, Light, Ours (Please note: Commissioners Thomas and Triplett were absent from the meeting.) DISCUSSIONS DISCUSSION OF I-81 IMPROVEMENTS Planner Jeremy F. Camp stated that VDOT is currently deliberating with two separate business consortiums, Star Solutions and Fluor Virginia, Inc. about their proposals to improve I-81. Planner Camp said that both companies submitted their proposals to VDOT under the authority of the Public Private Transportation Act of 1995 (PPTA) which allows agencies of the Commonwealth of Virginia to procure services of private companies. He explained that under requirements of the PPTA, all local jurisdictions that are affected by such proposals have the opportunity to review and comment on the proposals within a 60 -day period starting when the proposals are received by VDOT. Planner Camp said that both the proposals were received by VDOT on September 5, 2003; therefore, Frederick County has until November 4, 2003 to provide VDOT with comments. Planner Camp continued, stating that the Transportation Committee expressed great concern, but also general optimism, about both proposals during their October 7, 2003 meeting. He said the members did not discuss which of the two proposals they thought was best; instead, acknowledgment was given that both proposals have their advantages and disadvantages. Planner Camp said the Transportation Committee recognized, however, that both proposals could do more to address local transportation needs and improve rail infrastructure along I-81. The Planning Commission agreed with the Transportation Committee that more needs to be done to adequately address local transportation needs. This included fully considering the possibility of collector/distributor lanes, better addressing local transportation plans, and making more improvements to interchanges. Despite the safety benefits of the improvements, the Planning Commission was disheartened with the fact that both proposals are only designed to give a few years of adequate level of service after completion. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of October 15, 2003 Page 1169 Some of the other key concerns discussed by the Planning Commission included the impact that the road improvements would have on the environment; the effects on local businesses and homes; and how tolls would apply to local traffic. The Commission also believed that additional consideration of rail improvements in the I-81 corridor was warranted. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. James (Jim) Giraytys provided the Commission with some analysis, facts, and figures that he derived from attending presentations made by Star Solutions and Fluor. Mr. Giraytys stated that the primary issue is the truck traffic and VDOT has estimated that truck capacity would be exceeded by the time the improvements to I-81 are completed. He also provided some evidence suggesting the benefits of utilizing rail in conjunction with the 1-81 improvements. He said that although the rail up and down 81 is totally unsuitable, the right-of-way exists for reconstruction. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, a resident of Red Bud District, believed the most critical element to serve the community was the typical section design. He believed that new interchange locations, as well as relocating existing interchanges, were two very important issues. He suggested that VDOT be advised to consider including within the proposals new interchanges, the relocation of existing interchanges if appropriate, the use of collector/distributor lanes, and if a PPTA proposal is ultimately accepted, would there be any flexibility available after the contract is awarded. The staff stated that they would forward all of the comments received to the Board of Supervisors for their meeting on October 22, 2003. DISCUSSION OF PIPESTEM LOTS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Planner Jeremy F. Camp stated that the DRRS (Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee) has been evaluating a request from Greenway Engineering to allow pipestem lots as an alternative lot design in Frederick County. He said that pipestem lots are desired by the development community because they would allow greater flexibility during subdivision design. Planner Camp said that the ordinance recommended by the DRRS incorporates several key design standards; specifically, limiting the total number of pipestem lots in a development to no more than 5% of all lots, and restricting all pipestem lots except those with single -lot driveways. Planner Camp continued, suggesting that the proposed draft ordinance could be improved upon with a couple additional design standards to address setback and design issues, as follows: 1) A 20 -foot setback from other residential lots may be inadequate, because the house on the pipestem lot will be facing the side and/or rear of the house on the adjoining lot. This may limit the potential use of adjoining residential yard space. Staff recommends a 35 -foot front setback against all property lines which adjoin a residential lot; and 2) There is some concern that the current ordinance will allow two pipestem lots to adjoin each other. This would allow two driveways paralleling each other and a housing layout which is inconsistent with traditional subdivision design. Staff recommends restricting_ pipestem lots that adjoin other pipestem lots. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of October 15, 2003 Page 1170 -10 - Chairman DeHaven, a member of the DRRS, commented that the definition of pipestem lots proposed by the DRRS was intended to discourage pipestems; however, if there was any question of interpretation of the definition in the staff's mind, it was certainly worth clarifying. In addition, he noted that concern was expressed at the DRRS level about pushing the pipestem building envelope too far back with the 20' and 35' setback distance, however, it was pointed out that if 15' made the difference whether the lot would be useable or not, then perhaps the project design was poor to begin with. Chairman Dellaven stated that committee members were not opposed to giving the design community some flexibility because it can be an avenue for creative and constructive design work, but they did not want to see pipe stem lots become standard procedure. In addition, regarding the question of increased density, Chairman DeHaven noted that this construction is intended to be within the UDA and if all the other open space requirements of the ordinance are met, despite having the environmentally -sensitive areas in open space, it may be viewed as helping to fulfill the intent of the UDA, as opposed to working against it. He believed that if the opportunity to do some creative design was offered, it should not be too heavily restricted and there was definitely room for compromise. Overall, the pipestem lots ordinance amendment, along with the additional design standards offered by the staff, were well-received during the Planning Commission's discussion. The Commission advised the staff to proceed with the proposed ordinance as presented. DISCUSSION REGARDING AN UPDATE OF REFERENCES IN THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES Planner Camp presented the proposed updates to the state code and other code references found in the Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. Planner Camp said that the state code references were out of date since Chapter 15.1 was updated to 15.2 a few years ago. During the Plamiing Commission's discussion, one commissioner remarked that staffhas done an excellent job keeping the ordinances updated over the years; however, a comprehensive revision of the entire zoning and subdivision ordinances remains long overdue. The commission recognized that staff may not have the time to undertake this project because of other project priorities and suggested that the county may need to seek contractual support. No other issues were raised and the Commission recommended that the staff proceed with updating the code references as presented. Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of October 15, 2003 Page 1171 ADJOURNMENT unanimous vol - -11 - No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. by a Respectfully submitted, Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Draft Minutes of October 15, 2003 Page 1172 • C7 • STEPHENS CITY /FREDERICK COUNTY JOINT LAND USE PLAN STEPHENS CITY/ FREDERICK COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE FOR PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREAS The attached map depicts a conceptual plan for future land uses within the proposed annexation area around the Town of Stephens City. The map was developed by county staff working with the Stephens City town manager. The foundation of the map is both the county's Route 11 Corridor Plan contained with in the county's Comprehensive Policy Plan and the town's 2001-2021 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed annexation area is made up of two phases. Phase I consists of a northern and southern portion comprising a total of approximately 360 acres. Both the Phase I areas are shown in green hatching on the accompanying map. The northern area of Phase I is adjacent to the town's northern boundary and extends west from I-81, across the railroad. The southern portion of this phase is situated at the town's southwestern boundary, surrounding the Lime Kiln. Phase H of the proposed annexation area is also located south of the town. It comprises an area of roughly 350 acres lying between I-81 and the rail road and extending south to Family Drive. The Phase II area is bounded by a black dashed line on the map. Overall the general concept of the land use plan is to allow for growth around the existing town which is compatible with the existing scale and style of Stephens City. Industrial areas are sited to make use of the rail lines while being buffered from view of Route I I and existing or proposed residential areas. A major collector road is shown running west of town that would function as a bypass, drawing through traffic from Route 11 and thereby out of the center of town. The "bypass" is intended to assist in reducing congestion at the Route 11 Fairfax Pike intersection. The collector road ties in with a relocated Route 277/Interstate 81 interchange, to the south of the present location, and to a new overpass of I-81 at an extended Tasker Road to the north. This major collector road would be fed by other new, minor collector roads as well as the existing street system. General categories of future land uses are depicted within the proposed annexation areas by colored "bubbles." These general land use categories are described as follows: Light Industrial/Manufacturin: This category is shown in lavender and accounts for roughly 290 acres of the proposed annexation area. Anticipated land uses within these areas would be consistent with the county's current M-1 zoning including light manufacturing, wholesale establishments, and warehousing. Conservation/Open Space: These areas are shown in green and account for roughly 200 acres. The areas are located 1) along the Route 1I corridor north of town (depicting an area to be buffered), 2) an area west of the railroad around the northern quarry, and 3) a low lying area south of town and Page 1 of 2 west of Route 11. The intend of these areas would be to allow little or no development for environmental and/or aesthetic reasons. Medium Density Residential: These areas are depicted in yellow and are shown both north and south of town around the Route 11 corridor. The areas total roughly 100 acres. The intent to provide for residential development at a density of roughly two to four unit per acre. Commercial/Office: This area of approximately 50 acres is shown in red and is located at the southern limit of the Phase H annexation area. This area is intended to provide typical highway commercial uses such as retail, restaurants, and office uses. Mixed Use: This area is located north and adjacent to the town line, west of Route 11 and contains roughly 60 acres. This area would be a mix of commercial, business, and office uses with the possibility of some residential units. Page 2 of 2 NORTHEAST FREDERICK LAND USE PLAN ADOPTED AUGUST 13, 2003 Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan The northeastern portion of Frederick County has been studied on three occasions to ascertain the most appropriate land uses for its future. First in 1995, then in 1999. In 2002, the area was studied once again in an effort to discern if this portion of the County contained an excess of industrial land use designations. Through the adoption of the 2002 land use planning efforts, the amount of land designated industrial was significantly reduce, and the planned unit development (PUD) land use designation was introduced. 1995 Land Use Study In 1995, the Board of Supervisors and the Economic Development Commission identified a shortage of available industrial sites with rail access, a vital element in recruiting potential industries. As a result, the County initiated a search for potential locations for such uses. Numerous areas were identified within the northeastern portion of the County along the Route 11 North corridor that could be attractive sites for industrial development with rail access. As a result, the Board of Supervisors directed the County's Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) to develop a land use plan for the Route 11 North corridor from Interstate 81 Exit 317 to Exit 321. In 1996, a land use plan for the Route 11 North corridor from Interstate 81 Exit 317 to Exit 321 was adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Approximately 3,200 acres of land was included within the adopted study area boundary of the Route 11 North corridor which extended from Interstate 81 to the west and the Hot Run, Hiatt Run, and Redbud Run drainage basins to the east. Portions of the Stephenson Rural Community Center and the Clearbrook Rural Community Center were included within the study area boundary. The Route 11 North Land Use Plan recommended industrial and commercial development as the predominant land use within the study area boundary. New large- scale residential development was not proposed as a component of the land use plan. Finally, a Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) designation was established to preserve and protect existing residential land uses, historic features, and significant open space areas. The DSA was recommended along the Route 11 North corridor, the Milburn Road corridor, and along the western segment of the Old Charles Town Road corridor. 1999 Land Use Study Development activity and land use speculation has occurred along the Route 11 corridor between Interstate 81, Exit 321 and Exit 323 since the adoption of the north of the Route 11 North Land Use Plan. Concerns expressed by county officials and citizens regarding various land use activities and excer pt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; amended to reflect adopted Plan 1 ADOPTED A UGUST 13, 2003 plans in this area led the Board of Supervisors to direct the CPPS to revisit the previously adopted land use plan. The Board of Supervisors directed the CPPS to develop a land use plan which expanded upon the Route 11 North Plan to incorporate all land east of Interstate 81 between Interstate 81 mile marker 316 and Interstate 81 Exit 323 to the Opequon Creek, as well as land on the west side of Interstate 81 at Exit 321 and Exit 323. Northeast Land Use Plan Objectives Policies ► Develop policies which provide for a balance of growth and preservation. ► Develop policies which prohibit higher density growth within defined portions of the study area. ► Ensure that public water and sewer service with adequate capacity accompanies future development proposals. ► Ensure that adequate Levels of Service for all road systems are maintained or are achieved as a result of future development proposals. ► Apply appropriate quality design standards for future development within the study area. Land Use ► Concentrate industrial uses near major road and railroad transportation systems. ► Encourage industrial uses to locate within master planned areas. ► Provide for interstate business development opportunities on the eastern and western sides of Interstate 81 interchanges. ► Concentrate business uses at strategic locations along the Route 11 North corridor. ► Discourage random business and industrial land uses along Route 11 that are incompatible with adjacent existing land uses. excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; amended to reflect adopted Plan 2 ADOPTED AUGUST 13, 2003 Transportation ► Identify appropriate locations for signalized intersections to maintain or improve Levels of Service. ► Encourage central access points to industrial areas, minimizing new driveways and intersections with Route 11 North, Route 761, Route 664, Route 669, and Route 671. ► Encourage the expansion of Route 1 I to a four -lane roadway. ► Determine appropriate locations for new connector roads within industrial and commercial areas to minimize traffic impacts on Route 11 North and existing secondary roads. ► Discourage new access points along the historic Milburn Road corridor (Route 662). Infrastructure ► Identify appropriate locations within the study area for inclusion in the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). ► Determine impacts of proposed future land uses on the Opequon Waste Water Treatment Plant. ► Determine appropriate types of water and sewer systems to serve existing and proposed land uses. Historical ► Ensure that recommendations of the Third Winchester Battlefield Preservation Plan are implemented to the extent possible. ► Determine appropriate methods to protect significant historic areas and corridors that are identified by the Battlefield Network Plan. ► Identify appropriate locations to implement Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) land use designations to protect potentially significant historic resources as identified by the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey. Ensure that the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) reviews all development proposals which impact identified DSA. excer pt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; amended to reflect adopted Plan 3 ADOPTED AUGUST 13, 2003 Environmental Identify environmentally sensitive areas such as flood plains and steep slopes, to ensure that future land use impacts to these areas are minimized or avoided. Identify areas for agricultural and open space preservation. Encourage land preservation programs such as conservation easements, agricultural and forestal districts, and public purchase of permanent easements. Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan The 2002 Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan is intended to expand upon and supercede elements of the 1995 and 1999 Land Use Plans which were adopted in 1996 and 2000, respectively. The 2002 Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan has been designed to provide for a balance of land uses which includes industrial and commercial growth along the major road and railroad corridors, the introduction of a planned unit development (PUD) land use, and the preservation of rural areas and significant historic features within the study area boundaries. Future land uses within the study area boundary should be sensitive to existing and planned land uses. The land use plan has been designed to provide the opportunity to develop industrial, business, and PUD uses in a well-planned, coordinated manner. Industrial land uses are proposed adjacent to the railroads in the southern and northern portions of the study area. Proposed industrial land uses should be developed within master planned areas which discourage individual lot access on the Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 North) corridor. Industrial land uses should be adequately screened from adjoining land uses to mitigate visual and noise impacts. Furthermore, industrial land uses should be planned to provide greater setbacks and buffers and screening along Martinsburg Pike to enhance the appearance of the corridor. Business and commercial land uses are proposed along the Martinsburg Pike corridor, on the east and west side of Interstate 81 Exits 317, 321, and 323 within the southeastern portion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). It is envisioned that commercial land uses which cater to the interstate traveler will be developed along the three Interstate 81 interchange areas, while retail, service, and office land uses will occur along the Martinsburg Pike corridor, and complement the planned unit development (PUD) land use designation in the southeastern portion of the S W SA. The development of business and commercial land uses is encouraged at designated signalized road intersections. All business and commercial uses are encouraged to provide inter -parcel connectors to enhance accessibility between uses and reduce disruptions to primary and secondary road systems. excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; amended to reflect adopted Plan 4 ADOPTED AUGUST 13, 2003 Additionally, business and commercial land uses which adjoin existing residential uses and significant historic resources should be adequately screened to mitigate impacts. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) land use is proposed in the southeastern portion of the study area, immediately south of the Stephenson Rural Community Center. The PUD is envisioned to include residential, commercial, and office components, of which a maximum of 50% of the land area would be non-residential. The PUD is proposed as an alternative land use from the typical suburban residential development patterns that have occurred in the past. The PUD 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. Public uses such as school, parks, and fire and rescue facilities should be provided for within the PUD. As with all development, it is vital that the PUD be provided with adequate transportation improvements that assure the transportation network serving the community function at a Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better. The planned unit development (PUD) land use concept would enable a large scale community. The associated residential aspect of a PUD would necessitate its inclusion within the County's Urban Development Area (UDA). Therefore, the UDA has been expanded to incorporate the land areas designated for the PUD. The preservation and protection of significant historic resources, environmentally -sensitive areas, and open space areas is encouraged by this land use plan. The majority of the acreage within the study area which comprises these features has been protected from industrial, commercial, and residential development through its exclusion from the SWSA and UDA expansion. This acreage includes the core area of the Opequon Battlefield (3`d Battle of Winchester); significant historic properties including Sulphur Spring Spa (34-110), Cleridge (34-111), and Hackwood (34-134); the majority of the steep slope and mature woodland areas; and all of the flood plain and wetland areas associated with Opequon Creek. Significant historic resources including the core area of Stephensons Depot (2nd Battle of Winchester), Kenilworth (34-113), the Branson House (34-137), Milburn (34-729), the Byers House (34-1124), and the Milburn Road corridor (Route 662), and minor areas of steep slope and mature woodlands fall within the expanded SWSA and UDA boundaries. The land use plan incorporates a Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) designation to ensure that these features, as well as existing residential clusters and public land uses are protected from future development proposals. The DSA is a community and historical preservation area; therefore, adjacent uses which may be incompatible should provide adequate buffers and screening. The DSA is intended to discourage any development along the Milburn Road corridor and to promote a higher standard of development along the Martinsburg Pike corridor where residential clusters and public land uses dominate. Development regulations should be reviewed to ensure that they protect and promote a cohesive excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; amended to reflect adopted Plan 5 ADOPTED A UGUST 13, 2003 community environment within the study area with special attention to the DSA, while providing flexibility to encourage high quality development. The land use plan recommends the allowance of residential land uses within the three Rural Community Centers (RCC). New residential land use should only occur in conjunction with public water and sewer service and should be compatible with existing residential densities and lot sizes within each community center. Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan Infrastructure Components The proposed industrial, commercial, and planned unit development (PUD) land uses identified in this land use plan are recommended to be developed with public water and sewer service. Therefore, it is the recommendation of this land use plan to prohibit package treatment plants unless they are of a scale and design that is feasible for them to be dedicated to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority for operation and maintenance. Furthermore, proposed industrial, commercial, and planned unit development should only occur if impacted road systems function at a Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better. The installation of public water and sewer infrastructure, the development of new road systems and new signalization, and improvements to existing road systems will be the responsibility ofprivate property owners and developers, unless the Board of Supervisors determines that public-private partnerships are appropriate. Transportation: Proposed industrial, commercial, and planned unit development within the land use plan boundary will necessitate improvements to existing road systems and the construction of new road systems. The land use plan provides for the general location of new collector roads and signalized intersections to channel vehicular traffic between key intersections throughout the study area. These collector roads are intended to promote efficient traffic movement between land uses, enhance safety by limiting individual commercial entrances and turning movements at random points, and preserve capacities on existing road systems to ensure adequate levels of service. The general location of new collector roads and new signalized intersections is depicted on the land use plan map. The development of these transportation improvements will be required as proposed industrial, commercial, and planned unit development projects are realized. Improvements to existing primary and secondary road systems will be required throughout the study area. To ensure that these road improvements occur, proposed developments should be expected to provide dedicated right- of-ways and construct all improvements deemed necessary by the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Board of Supervisors. Improvements excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; amended to reflect adopted Plan 6 ADOPTED AUGUST 13, 2003 to the existing primary and secondary road systems include improving Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 North) to a four -lane facility, and improving the width and geometrics of Rest Church Road (Route 669), Woodbine Road (Route 669), Branson Spring Road (Route 668), Woodside Road (Route 671), Brucetown Road (Route 672), Stephenson Road (Route 664), and Old Charles Town Road (Route 761). A corridor has been reserved along the proposed alignment of Route 37 - Alternative C; Phase IV, to reflect the proposed route included on the Commonwealth of Virginia's road program. This corridor is flanked on either side by proposed industrial, commercial, and planned unit development land uses. The proposed land uses may provide an opportunity for the development of a future interchange along the phase of the Route 37 corridor. Water and Sewer: Proposed industrial, commercial, and planned unit development within the land use plan boundary will be developed in conjunction with public water and sewer infrastructure. Public water infrastructure exists within the study area along Martinsburg Pike from the southern study area boundary to the intersection with Interstate 81 Exit 321. This infrastructure extends to the east, following portions of Stephensons Road (Route 664); Old Charles Town Road (Route 664); and Gun Club Road (Route 666). Public sewer infrastructure may be extended to serve properties within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Currently, the Opequon Waste Water Treatment Plant (OWWTP) is the closest treatment facility to the study area boundary. Utilization of the OWWTP would necessitate the development of pump stations and lift stations throughout the study area. The proposed land use acreages have been compiled to determine the potential impacts to the OWWTP capacities. The estimated development of these acreages demonstrates that capacities at the OWWTP will be exceeded prior to the buildout of these areas. The Board of Supervisors will need to work with the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) to determine appropriate methods for establishing public water and sewer infrastructure with adequate capacities. Appropriate methods may include partnerships and agreements with adjoining localities to utilize existing infrastructure, the development of new treatment facilities for water extraction and sewer treatment, or public/private partnerships to develop necessary infrastructure. excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; amended to reflect adopted Plan 7 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: MEMORANDUM Frederick County Planning Commission 4 - Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner COUNTY of FREDERICK )f Planning and Development Public Hearing - 2003 Update of the Comprehensive Policy Plan November 3, 2003 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 Included with this memorandum are several policy amendments that have been adopted by the Board of Supervisors from October 1, 2000 through October 1, 2003. Although individually approved as County policy, these amendments have yet to be incorporated as components of the Comprehensive Policy Plan via formal update. The last official update of the plan document occurred on September 27, 2000. The attached amendments are therefore presented collectively as the proposed 2003 update of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Attached please find the listed amendments and associated map revisions. Also included are text amendments approved with the 2003 adoption of the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP) and the 2003 Town of Stephens City - Frederick County Joint Land Use Plan. All of the attached policy amendments to be included in the 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan update have previously been adopted by the Board of Supervisors. This information was considered by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) during their meeting on October 13, 2003 and has been unanimously endorsed by this body. Staff requests that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for final resolution. Attachments UAC0MMTTTEES\CPPS\Projects\2003 Projects\Comp Plan Update12003 Update\2003 CP_updazeMemo.wpd 107 North Kent Street a Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 2003 AMENDMENT UPDATE FREDERICK COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN The following Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan amendments have occurred from October 1, 2000 through October 1, 2003. AMENDMENTS 1. DOROTHY CARBAUGH PROPERTY - URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA (UDA) EXPANSION Approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 10, 2000 Request to expand the Urban Development Area (UDA) to incorporate approximately 82 acres of an entire 105 -acre parcel. The subject site is identified as Parcel 85-A-138, and is located in the Opequon Magisterial district. A portion of the property was previously in the UDA. (See Attachment 1) 2. CLEARBROOK REST AREA - SWSA EXPANSION Approved by the Board of Supervisors on July 11, 2001 Request to extend public water and sewer to the Interstate 81 Clearbrook Rest Area, located on the west side of I-81 at mile marker 320. This request was from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and includes the extension of an 8 -inch water line form the Clearbrook Rest Area to the existing 10 -inch water main within the Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11) right-of-way. The 8 -inch water line would allow for fire hydrants to be located at the Clearbrook Rest Area, while the private sewer force main would allow for a private package plan to be taken off line. (See Attachment 2 ) 3. MCTIERNAN PROPERTY - URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA (UDA) EXPANSION Approved by the Board of Supervisors on December 12, 2001 Request to expand the Urban Development Area (UDA) to incorporate approximately 110 acres of land identified as Parcels 55-A-105, 106, 107, & 107A. This property is located on the north side of Berryville Pike (Route 7) and is intersected by Woods Mill Road (Route 660). A portion of these properties were previously in the UDA. (See Attachment 3) a ROUTE 277 AREA - SWSA EXPANSION Approved by the Board of Supervisors on February 27, 2002 Request to extend the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) south of Fairfax Pike (Route 277), in the vicinity of Hudson Hollow Road (Rt. 636). This expansion area includes approximately 199 acres of land. The expansion places the Sherando High School, Sherando Park, Pioneer Trailer Park, and the Fulton property into the SWSA. Additionally, the properties located along Hudson Hollow Road between Route 277 and the Pioneer Trailer Park are included. (See Attachment 4) 5. KATHRYN M. PERRY PROPERTY - SWSA EXPANSION Approved by the Board of Supervisors on April 22, 2002 Request to extend the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) to incorporate a 57.87 acre parcel of land. The property is located on Millwood Pike (US Route 50 East), north of Westview Business Center. A portion of the site was already within the SWSA. The subject site is identified by Parcel 65-A-116, and is located in the Shawnee Magisterial District. (See Attachment 5) 6. RUSSELL PROPERTY - UDA and SWSA EXPANSION Approved by the Board of Supervisors on February 12, 2003 Request to expand the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) to incorporate approximately seven acres of property referred to as the Russell Farm. The property is identified by property identification numbers 76-A-5 and 64-A-37, and is located in the Shawnee Magisterial District. (See Attachment 6) 7. WWW. LC - SWSA EXPANSION Approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 28, 2003 Request to extend the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) to include approximately 50 acres of an entire 71 -acre site. Approximately 21 acres of the site are presently located within the SWSA. The property is located north and adjacent to Route 50 West, approximately 1,700 feet west of the Route 50/Route 37 interchange. The subject site is identified by Parcels 53 -A -B and 53-A-79. The property is located in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. (See Attachment 7) 8. JOINT LAND USE PLAN - THE TOWN OF STEPHENS CITY, AND FREDERICK COUNTY Adopted by the Board of Supervisors on July 9, 2003 This Joint Land Use Plan includes aspects of the Route 11 South Land Use Plan. Developed in two phases, the Land Use Plan serves to facilitate an annexation agreement between the Town of Stephens City and the County. Phase I Annexation Area - 360 acres, adjacent to the town's northern boundary and extends west from I - 81, across the railroad. The southern portion of Phase 1 is situated at the Town's southwestern boundary, surrounding the Lime Kiln. Phase II Annexation Area- 350 acres south of the Town, lying between I-81 and the railroad, and extending south to Family Drive. (See Attachment 8) 9. NORTHEAST LAND USE PLAN Adopted by the Board of Supervisors on August 13, 2003 The northeastern portion of Frederick County has been studied on three occasions to ascertain the most appropriate land uses for its future. The area was studied first in 1995, then in 1999, and most recently in 2002. The area was studied in an effort to discern if this portion of the County contained an excess of industrial land use designations. On August 13, 2003 the Board of Supervisor's adopted a plan whereby designated industrial land use was significantly reduced and the planned unit development (PUD) land use designation was introduced. (See Attachment 9) U:\COMMITTEES\CPPS\Projects\2003 Projects\Comp Plan Update\2003 UpdateTisted Amendments.wpd - ..................mm LEGEND SWSA LIDA . parcels 06 -ads i6` primary Secondary Terciary IMCTIERNAN PROPERTY - UDA EXPANSION im 1*111TE 277 PERRY PROPERTY - SWSA EXPANSION lawlew [E all, 7 LEGEND 7- SWSA UDA Parcels k)"a'-ds Primary Secondary Terc iary w. 7 LEGEND 7- SWSA UDA Parcels k)"a'-ds Primary Secondary Terc iary �: *. �s 0 00 Y, L% WE 0 Ii �Wqiff N WE S 0 0.5 1 Miles LEGEND paFeatures study Area Boundary SWSA Urban Dawloprderd Area - Rural Community Ceders Mt. Features f\/Pareonial streams ` Historic Fastures Proposed Land Use Residential Business bid atrim Plamad UnR Develupmerd Rural Area D—lop—tally Senslove Areas Roads ^� Interstate Ri ov Primary Highways ^� Secondary Roads Railroads Proposed Route 37 Extension New Coledw Roads New Signar®don Zoning 8, (eualness, Nalghtushoad DLshl�fl R2 (Busts—, General Disoid) E (lnoudnatTYansilh `Dis" i ETA (Exhactive Man fed 9 Dlsbleq M1 QIMr6tiir, ugte Ohtdct) bt2 (IndustrlN. G rneralmmnd) Mit paobaa Home Co ur" ERA (Rural Area) RP (RastaerddPaRenanee l3kh" Frederick County Planning Department Northeast Land Use Plan Adopted by Board of Stiperyisors August 13, 2003 Attachment 9 C C REZONING APPLICATION ##11- 03 FOR MY KIDS, LLC.- SHENANDOAH HONDA UPDATED STAFF REPORT for Planning Commission Meeting Prepared: October 28, 2003 Staff Contact: Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. As this application proceeds through the legislative review process, the method(s) of resolution for each issue proposed by the applicants) and/or recommended by the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors will be stated in the text of this report. NOTE. • This application was originally scheduled for public hearing on October 15, 2003. However, due to the site not having been posted for public hearing, this item was postponed and rescheduled for the November 19, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. Planning Staff comments are UPDATED from the staff report published for the October 15, 2003 agenda to reflect the revised proffer statement submitted by the applicant on October 21, 2003. PROPOSAL: To rezone 2.020 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District. LOCATION: The property is on Route 7, approximately 185 feet southeast of the intersection of Greenwood Road and Route 7. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Red Bud PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 55-A-80 and 55-A-81 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: RA (Rural Areas) District, Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Red Bud Run Elementary and Millbrook High School South: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Grace Brethren Church Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 11/19/03 Pending Board of Supervisors: 12/10/03 Tentative NOTE. • This application was originally scheduled for public hearing on October 15, 2003. However, due to the site not having been posted for public hearing, this item was postponed and rescheduled for the November 19, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. Planning Staff comments are UPDATED from the staff report published for the October 15, 2003 agenda to reflect the revised proffer statement submitted by the applicant on October 21, 2003. PROPOSAL: To rezone 2.020 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District. LOCATION: The property is on Route 7, approximately 185 feet southeast of the intersection of Greenwood Road and Route 7. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Red Bud PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 55-A-80 and 55-A-81 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: RA (Rural Areas) District, Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Red Bud Run Elementary and Millbrook High School South: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Grace Brethren Church REZ #11-03, For My Kids, LLC Page 2 October 28, 2003 Last: RA (Rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Areas) PROPOSED USE: Retail/Business REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Use: Residential Use: Grace Brethren Church Virginia Dept. of Transportation: Please see attached letter dated 08/27/03 from Lloyd Ingram, Transportation Engineer. Fire Marshal: Frederick County Code section 90-4 requires afire hydrant be located within 300 feet of all portions of buildings in commercial development. The measurements are to be taken by the centerline of the roadway surfaces on the property. Additionally, buildings exceeding 12,000 square feet may be required to be fire sprinklered or provided with fire separation assemblies. An automatic fire sprinkler system will require an additional fire hydrant dedicated to the support of the sprinkler system, and shall be located within 50 feet of the Fire Department Connection. Proffering of buildings for fire department training must be addressed through comments with the Greenwood Volunteer Fire & Rescue Company and no guarantee is given or implied as to permitting for demolition by burning. State and local laws and ordinances require additional steps and precautions for open air burning. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments. County Engineer: Please see attached letter dated 08/05/03 from Harvey Strawsnyder, Jr., Director of Public Works. Sanitation Authority: The sewer line will be a private lateral. The owner will need to obtain the required easements and/or VDOT permits. The Authority has an existing 10' water line along the east side of Greenwood Road. Historic Resources Advisory Board: Please see attached letter from Rebecca Ragsdale, Planner I, dated 06/20/02. County Attorney: Proffers appear to be in proper form. Winchester Regional Airport: Please see attached letterfrom S. R. Manuel, Executive Director, dated 06/10/03. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Stephenson, VA/WVA Quadrangle) REZ 411-03, For My bids, LLC Page 3 October 28, 2003 identifies the subject parcels as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) district by the adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. This amendment resulted in the re -mapping of all properties zoned A-1 and A-2 land to the RA (Rural Areas) zoning district. 2) Location The property is located adjacent to eastbound Berryville Pike (Route 7), approximately 185 feet southeast of the intersection of Greenwood Road and Berryville Pike. Access to the property is currently via a small bridge over Ash Hollow Run. 3) Comprehensive Polia Plan The subject parcels lie within the Frederick County Urban Development Area (UDA), and are located within the study area of the Route 7 East Land Use Plan. The Route 7 East Land Use Plan does not indicate a particular land use for this property. The land use plan specifically designates business land uses west of the school site along the Route 7 corridor to the city limits. Despite the relative silence of the plan in the subject area, some business land uses may be appropriate in this section of the corridor. The Route 7 Corridor has the most limited study of the three corridors studied in terms of the potential for further commercial development. This does not mean that the corridor is not expected to change dramatically in the coming years, rather, the intensity of change is not expected to be as great as the Route 50 or Route 11 corridors. (Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 6, page 29) For the business corridors that do have area plans, a primary objective is to ensure that the development that does take place within the corridor is of a standard that reflects favorably on the area. (Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 6, page 13) Route 7 is classified as a major arterial road according to the VDOT functional classification of roads, and is a major east -west route connecting Frederick County with the Washington Metropolitan Area. Enhancement of the visual quality of the corridor as a business corridor is encouraged. The appearance of entrance gateways into the Winchester/Frederick County area is of concern to both the City of Winchester and Frederick County, as depicted in the report of the Chamber of Commerce's Corridor Appearance Task Force. Controls on signs along our primary highways play an important role in establishing the character of business corridors. Additionally, appropriate measures for buffers and screening are critical. (Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 6, page 10) The Route 7 Corridor in this vicinity is known as the Berryville Canyon, in the core area of the Third Battle of Winchester, as identified by the National Park Service (NPS) in its study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia and the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Nations REZ #11-03, For My Kids, LLC Page 4 October 28, 2003 Historic District Management Plan. Planning Staff Comment_ The absence of a land use designation for this site suggests that its conversion for commercial use is not the express objective of the land use plan, however some businesses may be appropriate along this portion of the corridor, if considered compatible. Careful consideration of business uses should be applied to this location, and other sites within the un -designated portions of the the Route 7 East Land Use Plan. Specific impacts of specific commercial uses need to be considered on a case by case basis, and rezoning of the land should be consistent with the concepts of corridor enhancement, and of a standard that reflects favorably on the area . Quality business, office, and industrial uses can enhance areas of economic development potential. The applicant, through the proffer statement, has attempted to address these issues through effective landscaping, stream protection measures, and the materials and size limitations of structures and sign features. These efforts can assist in visual enhancement of the corridor. The saving of mature trees whenever possible and providing buffers in the form of plants, walls or berms can assist in mitigating the visual impact of the proposed use on the Route 7 right-of-way and on the adjoining uses. 4) Site Suitabilit Impact Analysis Statement:_ There are no wetlands on the site. FEMA reports do not show a detailed flood study in this area. Specific soil types are Berks Channery silt loam and Weikert-Berks Channery silt loam, neither of which is considered prime agricultural soil. Approximately five acres of the site consists of slopes greater than 15%. There are no mature woodlands; however, there are mature trees on the adjacent Route 7 right-of-way east of the existing bridge. It is the applicant's intent to save the mature trees east of the existing bridge, however, some may be impacted by the entrance requirements. Planning Staff Comment; Ash Hollow Run borders the northeast end of the property, and through the VDOT right-of-way north of the remainder of the site. Currently, the site drains north via a natural swale along the center of the property directly to Ash Hollow Run. An existing 50"corrugated metal pipe/bridge that conveys the entrance to the property will be replaced with a new crossing. The applicant states that the existing general drainage pattern will be maintained, and onsite measures for stormwater management will be provided to reduce impacts to Ash Hollow Run. The applicant will be required to provide a 35' riparian buffer from the scar line of Ash Hollow Run, during the site planning of the subject property. REZ #11-03, For My Kids, LLC Page 5 October 28, 2003 5) Intended Use Impact Analysis Statement: The applicant's Impact Analysis states that Shenandoah Honda is proposing to relocate their operations to a new facility that will be constructed on this subject site, which is 2.02 acres comprised of two parcels. The proposed facility will consist of a building that has approximately 20,000 sq. ft. of floor space. The application breaks down the square footage to 2,000 sq. ft. of office area, 4,000 sq. ft, of retail, and 10,000 to 12,000 sq, ft. of warehouse space. Service area is proposed at approximately 2,000 sq. ft. PlanningStaff Comment Update: Staff would note that the approval of a B2 zoning district for this property could result in some other allowed use within the B2 district. There is no guarantee from the applicant that the relocation of Shenandoah Honda will be the use on the subject site should this rezoning request be approved. However, the applicant has proffered to prohibit several uses on the site, to include the following: Golf driving ranges and miniature golf courses; commercial batting cages; adult care and assisted living; and adult retail uses; food stores; restaurants; hotels and motels; organizational hotels and lodging; car washes; day-care facilities; advertising specialties; and commercial sport and recreation clubs. Uses that would remain allowable on the site include: automotive dealers, gasoline service stations, miscellaneous retail, and general merchandise stores. 6) Potential Imn acts. a) Transportation Im-pact Analysis Statement: The applicant states that there is not a land use description in the ITE Trip Generation Manual that closely matches the intended use. The closest match to the intended use of Shenandoah Honda would be "new car sales and automobile repair facility", which is included in the Major Group 55 of the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) manual. The applicant projects trip generation for the site based upon the existing Shenandoah Honda facility, which would yield 20 peak hour trips and 240 trips on average per weekday . The hours of operation will not include morning rush hour time when traffic is heaviest on eastbound Route 7. It is anticipated that one tractor -trailer will access the site every other day for deliveries. Therefore, a new entrance will be required to access the site to accommodate these trucks, and a pavement taper leading up to the entrance will be required. Agency Comment VDOT has stated in a letter dated August 27, 2003, that VDOT has determined that the applicant's entrance is allowable. VDOT notes that entrance design modifications may be required through the site plan review process. REZ 411-03, For My Kids, LLC Page 6 October 28, 2003 Planning Staff Comment Update: Based on VDOT data, the Average Annual Weekday Traffic Volume Estimate for this section of Berryville Pike (Route 7) is 24,000 vehicles per day. Therefore, based upon the applicant's projections, the proposed facility will result in an increase in Route 7 traffic of approximately I% daily. Staff notes that the transportation comments are based on the trip generations of the existing Shenandoah Honda facility, and that the impacts of other permitted uses in theB2 zoning district could exceed the impacts identified by the applicant's traffic analysis. However; in the proffer revision, the applicant attempted to address this contingency. The proffer statement notes that in the event the property is utilized for any use other than one included within SIC 55, a new traffic impact analysis will be performed and the necessary improvements warranted by the study and required by VDOT shall be made. Staff would note that a use such as Shenandoah Honda would be specifically classified under SIC 5571, and a number of other uses in the SIC 55 could have a greater traffic generation. It appears that VDOT's initial comments to the applicant were discussed and concerns addressed. VDOT was not satisfied that the transportation proffers in the rezoning application dated May 2003 addressed the transportation concerns associated with this request. In a letter dated August 5, 2003 from Mr. Tim Stowe of Anderson & Associates to Mr. Lloyd Ingram of VDOT, Mr. Stowe addresses topics of concern by VDOT. In a letter dated August 18, 2003, VDOT determined that the applicant's "Alternative I" entrance is allowable. As noted in the Business Corridor Conclusion section of the Comprehensive Plan, adequate traffic modeling studies and traffic patterns need to be analyzed to insure that new intersections and entrances are adequately designed and constructed. Adequate distances need to be provided when new entrances are established, and standards to insure that tum lanes allow for sufficient stacking of vehicles exists as well as adequate signage and pavement marking provided. (Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 6, page 43-44) b) Historic Resources Impact Analysis Statement: The applicant states in the final Impact Analysis Statement, that there are no historic sites that will be impacted by the rezoning of this property. HRAB Comment The Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) recognizes the Route 7 corridor, as an important historic route into the City of Winchester. The HRAB is interested in preserving and aesthetically improving the corridor, with an emphasis on increased landscaping. The HRAB had concerns regarding the loss of core battlefield areas, and the views associated with the Berryville Canyon. Specifically the potential impact of lighting, chain link fencing, parking and inappropriate architecture on the integrity of the historic Berryville Canyon were identified as concerns. The HRAB was not in favor of the proposed rezoning. REZ # 11-03, For My Kids, LLC Page 7 October 28, 2003 Planning Staff Comment: The applicant has proffered to create a three foot high berm to act as a visuai buffer from traffic proceeding along Route 7 East. In the revised proffer, the applicant offers to exceed the requirements of the zoning ordinance by planting 5% more ornamental trees or shrubs along the berm. The applicant has proffered that no chain link fence will be visible from outside the premises and that a board on board fence, not to exceed 10 feet in height shall border the adjoining RA zoned land. Staff would note that these efforts have been initiated by the applicant in an attempt to address the concerns of the HRAB and mitigate the visual impact of the site to the Route 7, "Berryville Canyon" corridor. C) Water & Sewer Impact Analysis Statement: The water usage is estimated at approximately 700 gpd, and it is anticipated that a tap will be made along the 10" water main that runs along the northern property line within the right of way of Route 7. It is estimated that the Shenandoah Honda facility will generate approximately 700 gpd of wastewater. It is projected that the wastewater will be pumped to the south along Greenwood Road and connect to the FCSA's system. A,e eenncy Comments: FCSA- The Frederick County Sanitation Authority notes that the sewer line will need to be a private lateral, and that there is an existing 10" water line along the east side of Greenwood Road. Frederick Winchester Health Department - The health department has no objection to this rezoning proposal as long as public water and sewer is provided. Public Works - The proposed design will incorporate a pump station to lift the sewage to a manhole located to the south off of Greenwood Road. The discussion should indicate if sufficient easements are available to construct the force main, especially within the Route 7 right of way. Planning Staff Comment: Business and industrial areas need to be served by public sewer and water. (Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 6, page 11-12) The applicant has proffered to use public water and sewer. The plan for sewage conveyance will be required through the site plan process. d) Drainage Impact Analysis Statement: Stormwater from the site drains north via a natural swale along the center of the property directly REZ 911-03, For My Kids, LLC Page 8 October 28, 2003 A,.,- u.�,,...., n,,l",, n„ site stormwater management will be provided for development to Lo t1J11 11V11V W 1%. . vu-1- reduce usawreduce impacts to Ash Hollow Run, and existing drainage patterns will be maintained. Agency Comment: Public Works: During the site plan stage it will be necessary to evaluate both the 10 -year and 100 -year storms on the proposed development. It may be that the existing conditions could preclude the construction of onsite stormwater management, and offsite improvements may be required to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development. Planning Staff Comment: A stormwater management plan will be required for the development at site plan. Best management practices should be considered in an effort to control the quality of the runoff to Ash Hollow Run. 7) Proffer Statement Planning Sta Comment: The applicant has submitted a proffer statement which is signed by the owner and notarized. The proposed proffers have been reviewed by the County Attorney, and are in proper form. The applicant's revised proffer statement addresses corridor enhancement through commitments to a monument style sign, a berm to act as visual buffer along Route 7, and decorative board -on board fencing on portions of the property. The proffer statement excludes any chain link fencing from visibility outside the premises. Staff would note that no generalized development plan showing the location of these structures has been submitted with this rezoning request. Corridor enhancement has been addressed by proffer as follows: • A berm is to be constructed at least three feet in height to act as a visual buffer from traffic proceeding east along Route 7. The berm shall be planned and planted to exceed the ordinance by 5% more ornamental planting along the berm as required. • Freestanding signage limited to one monument -style sign, not to exceed 10 feet in width andl5 feet in height which shall be constructed of stone, brick, wood and steel. (The B2 currently allows a 35'sign height with 100 to 150 sq. feet ofsign area) • Decorative board on board fencing, not to exceed ten feet in height, will be installed on portions of the property bordering on RA zoned land. No chain link fencing will be visible from outside the premises. 0 Ash Hollow Run will be cleared of debris and maintained so that the stream will be visibly REZ #11-03, For My Kids, LLC Page 9 October 28, 2003 pleasing with a grass embankment from the proffered berm down to the water's edge. Additionally the applicant has proffered the following: • A monetary contribution of $500.00 to Frederick County to address capital facilities impact on fire and rescue services which will be paid within 90 days following the approval of the rezoning by the Board of Supervisors. • The applicant will only utilize public water and wastewater facilities, and will not construct private septic systems to serve the property. • A number of B2 uses are prohibited on the site. These include golf driving ranges and miniature golf; commercial batting cages; adult care and assisted living; adult retail uses; food stores; restaurants; hotels and motels; organizational hotels and lodging; car washes; day-care facilities; advertising specialties; and commercial sport and recreation clubs. • If the main structure would exceed 25,000 square feet, and/or if the use is other than those included under Major Group 55 (SIC), the applicant will perform a traffic impact analysis and any necessary improvements warranted by said study and required by VDOT shall be constructed. Staff reiterates that should this rezoning be approved, any use within the B2 zoning district, other than those excluded in the proffer document, would be an allowable use. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 11/19/03 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The proposed rezoning is a request to rezone 2.02 acres comprised of two parcels, from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B2 (Business General) District, to accommodate a retail/business use intended by the applicant to be a Shenandoah Honda facility. The subject property is located within the Urban Development Area, and lies within the study area of the Route 7 East Land Use Plan. Staff would note that approval of this rezoning petition would permit the establishment of any B2 use other than those excluded in the proffer statement, and that the impact on the transportation system could be more significant than identified in the traffic impact analysis submitted with this application. The applicant has proffered to do a traffic impact analysis in the event the property is utilized for a use other than that within Major Group SIC 55. Any necessary improvements deemed necessary by that study and required by VDOT would be implemented. (See attached Major Group 55 Standard Industrial Classification) This is a public hearing, and staff is seeking a recommendation from the Planning Commission to forward to the Board of Supervisors, regarding this request to rezone 2.02 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District. O:\Agendas\COWENTS\REZONING\Staff Report\2003\For My Rids LLC Shenandoah Honda.wpd OUTPUT MODULE Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model. 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input in row total of second column (zero if negative); included are the one -ti me taxes/fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal Impacts. 4. APPLICANT: Shenandoah Honda Net Fiscal Impact NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues LAND USE TYPE B2 Costs of Impact Credit: NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments upfront. Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed. Credits to be Take Total Potential Adjustment For REAL EST VAL $1,627,210 Required (entered in Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Future CIP/ Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per FIRE & RESCUE 4 Capital Faciltiies col sum only) Oper Cap Equip Expend/Debt S Taxes. Other (Unadjusted) Cost Balance Facilities Impact Dwelling Unit Fire and Rescue Department $16,400 $0 $0 $16,400 ERR Elementary Schools $0 Middle Schools $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ERR High Schools $0 --- Parks and Recreation $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ERR Public Library $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ERR Sheriff's Offices $0 $78 $0 $0 $78 $78 $0 ERR Administration Building $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ERR Other Miscellaneous Facilities $0 $187 $206 $393 $393 $0 ERR SUBTOTAL $16,400 $265 $206 $0 $471 $471 $15,929 ERR LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT $948,154 $948,154 $948,154 948.154 ERR NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT 0 I ERR INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Included 1.0 INDEX: "1.0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "OA" if Ratio to Co Avg: 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = 1.000 PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Co Avg = 1.342 METHODOLOGY 1. Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model. 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input in row total of second column (zero if negative); included are the one -ti me taxes/fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal Impacts. 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated in fiscal impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments upfront. Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed. NOTES: Model Run Date 05/21/03 ASK Project Description: Assumes 25,000 sq.ft. retail use on 2.02 acres zoned B2 District. Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. 2002M ODEL lay Rezoning Comments MAY- 2 7 Virginia Depa mre t-uffransper-tation Mail to: Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 14031 -Old Valley Pike Edinburg,- Virginia 22824 (540) 984-5600 Hand deliver to: Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 2275 Northwestern Pike Winchester, Virginia 22603 Applicant's Name: John Ross Telephone: 540-678-8500 Mailing Address: For My Kids ILC 122 Walls Circle Winchester, Virginia 22603 Location of property: Approximately. 185: feet southeast of.:the intersectionof Greenwood Road and Vir - 'iiia Route 7 on Route 7. Current zoning: .RA Zoning requested: B-2 Acreage:, 2.020 Virginia Department of Transportation Comments: See attached comrnents:f b VDOTdate d Jury- 1F1,.2003 - _ VDOT Signature &-Date Engineer.. -_ 06/18/03. Notice. to, VDOT - Please Return Formto_ Applicant 20 Sep RS 03 04:qup Ph -slip A Shuck COMMISSIONER August 27, 2003 tzjUr k e ms. e . COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE JERRY A A. CBPP EDINBURG, VA 22624 RESIDENT ENGINEER �tsao?9s4ssoo FAX(5Q)984,% 7 Ms. Amy Feathers CIO Anderson & Associates 7722 Main Street Middletown, VA 22645 Ref For My Kids, LLC / Shenandoah Ronda Route 7 Frederick County Dear Ms. Feathers: After review of your letter dated August 5, 2003 for the referenced rezoning, it has been determined that Alternative "1" entrance is allowable. • If a right-of-way dedication (item #1 of your 08105/03 letter) is required, it will be dctermined when the detailed site plan is submitted. Entrance design modifications may be required once the site plan has been submitted for review. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, -Lloyd A. In am Transportation Engineer LAVrf VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIAMOVING . � •. � - �d � Y9\� . a���p der.. -C{' �"I;�ty �- �g�; ,� } �rxsx ., r g:r F'� k rf ••r��R ,3R�+t 'y-ti�*�'Y+t� 7 .fix 77y..y. RezoninLy Comments Frederick County Department of Public Works Mail to: Frederick County Dept. of Public Works Attn: Director of Engineering 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540)665-5643 Band deliver to: Frederick County Dept. of Public Works Attn: Director of Engineering County Administration Bldg., 4th Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia pplicants Please fitl o the uformation as accurately as poss�b]e m order to aslst the Department of: ublc WmrksMtlbeireew Aitach a copy o;onr application form, location,map, proffer tatement_unpac# analysis and any other pertinent iiformahon _ Applicant's Name: John Ross Telephone: 540-678-8500 Mailing Address: For My Kids LLC 122 Walls Circle Winchester, Virginia, 22603 Location of property: Approximately 185 feet southeast of the intersection of Greenwood Road and Virginia Route 7, on Route 7. Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: B-2 Acreage: 2.020 Department of Public Work's Comments: Works Signature & Date: Notice to Dept. of Public Works - Please Return This Form to the Applicant 21 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 5401678-0682 August 5, 2003 i Mr. Tun Stowe, P.E. Anderson & Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers 7722 Main Street Middletown, Virginia 22645 RE: Rezoning - Proposed Shenandoah Honda Site Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mr Stowe: We have completed our review of the rezoning request for the proposed site of the Shenandoah Honda. The approximate two (2) acre site currently exists as two (2) separate RA parcels and is owned by James and Ardeyth Butcher. Based on our review of the rezoning application including the impact analysis statement, we offer the following comments 1) Revise the vicinity map to encompass the entire site shown on the survey plat. 2) Refer to paragraph C. Traffic. The discussion indicates a proposed taper leading up to the entrance off of Route 7. It will be necessary to evaluate the impact of this taper on the existing stream channel. It may be necessary to relocate Ash Hollow Run which will require a permit from the Department of Environmental Quality (D.E.Q.) A new bridge crossing will also require a permit from the D.E.Q. 3) Refer to paragraph D. Sewage Conveyance. The proposed design will incorporate a pump station to lift the sewage to a manhole located to the south off of Greenwood Road. The discussion should. indicate if sufficient easements are available to construct the force main especially within the Route 7 right-of-way. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Proposed Shenandoah Honda Site Comments Page 2 August 5, 2003 4) Refer to Paragraph E. Water Supply. Indicate if the proposed road taper will impact the existing water main. 5) Refer to paragraph F. Drainage. During the site plan design phase, it will be necessary to evaluate the impact of the ten (10) and 100 year storms on the proposed development. The existing topographic conditions coupled with the remaining buildable area may preclude the construction of onsite stormwater management. Offsite improvements may be required to mitigate the impact of the proposed development. I can be reached at 665-5643 if you should have any questions regarding the above comments. Sincerely, tey trawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works HESlrls cc: Frederick County Planning and Development file COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 June 20, 2003 Mr. Timothy S. Stowe. P.E., L.S. Anderson & Associates, Inc 7722 Main Street Middletown, VA 22645 RE: Shenandoah Honda Rezoning Proposal Dear Mr. Stowe: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the referenced proposal during their meeting of June 17, 2003. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey, the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley, and information provided by the John D. Hutchinson V, of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation. The HRAB also considered details you and the applicant, Mr. John -Ross, provided about the proposed rezoning. Historic Resources Advisory Board Comment: The parcels proposed to be rezoned from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General) are located within the limits of the Third Winchester (Opequon) Battlefield core area , as identified by the National Park Service, and along Route 7Benyville Pike. The HRAB recognizes the Route 7 corridor, Berryville Canyon, as an important historic route into the City of Winchester. The HRAB is interested in preserving and aesthetically improving the corridor, with an emphasis on increased landscaping. The HRAB expresses their concern for loss of core historic battlefield and loss of views of the Berryville Canyon. Specifically, the HRAB had concerns regarding the impact of lighting, chain-link fencing, parking, and inappropriate architecture on the historic Berryville Canyon. Based on the above concerns, the HRAB was not in favor of the proposed rezoning. Please contact me with any questions concerning these comments from the HRAB. Sincerely, ��(gyp°'"" " It Rebecca Ragsdale Planner I cc: Bessie Solenberger, HRAB Chairperson Johri Ross, 122 Walls Circle, Winchester, VA 22603 U:\COMN=ESgMAB\Comm=ts12003\ShmHondaRZ.wpd 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 7, Mail to: Frederick County Attorney Co. Administration Bldg., Suite 202 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540)665-6383 Applicant's Name: FORMYKIDS , LLC Mailing Address: FORMYKTDs LLC 122 Walls Circle Winchester, VA 22603 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Attorney Co. Administration Bldg., Suite 202 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Telephone: 540-678-8500 Location of property: Berryville Avenue, 0.2 miles east of Greenwood Road Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: B2 Acreage: 2.02 County Attorney's Comments: ,_ eP`f 4e -v bj)j-e Alp'Oeri" C V, p el - IAssistant County Attorney's Signature & Date: � f p . r f o 4 ® , l rat ¢i • • ' jntl°tE tea, dM2Wit �r � CA- f r r ! �r3 i.t+3+SII r•tyi " se t�r� t�►� •��T�1 •.G� ! r aEV0ttl 1• h �1:s�' i'1 . +n►aar Uil s Q�I� 0'•.4 • ® ■ t iii r i ! t AMENDED PROFFER STATEMENT FORMYKIDS, LLC REZONING Tax Parcel No. 55-A-80, 55-A-81 Stonewall Magisterial District, Frederick County; Virginia Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296, et seq., of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application No. 11-03 for the rezoning of 2.020 acres from RA, Rural Agriculture, to B2, Business General District, development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this applicant and its legal successors and assigns. The subject property, more particularly described as the land owned by FORMYKIDS, LLC being Tax Map Parcel No. 55-A-80; 55-A-81, and further described by boundary and topographic survey of the land of FORMYKIDS, LLC, drawn by Anderson and Associates, Inc., dated the 10' day of March, 2003, filed with the application for Rezoning and by this reference made a part hereof as if set out in full. 0 Land Consolidation The applicant hereby proffers that the lots shall be consolidated into one tract of land containing 2.020 acres. B. Land Use Restriction The applicant hereby proffers that the following land uses shall be prohibited on any portion of the subject site that is zoned B2, Business General District: SIC 7999 Golf driving ranges and miniature golf courses SIC 7999 Commercial batting cages (No SIC) Adult Care Residences and Assisted Living (No SIC) Adult retail uses SIC 054 Food Stores SIC 058 Restaurants SIC 701 Hotels and Motels SIC 704 Organization Hotels and Lodging SIC 7542 Car Washes SIC 8351 Child day-care facilities SIC 5199 Advertising specialties - wholesale (No SIC) Commercial sport and recreation clubs C. Transportation 1. Access The applicant hereby proffers that access to Berryville Pike (U.S. Route 7) shall be limited to one commercial entrance. The applicant further proffers that the location of the entrance shall be with the approval of the Virginia Department of Transportation. The design and construction of the new commercial entrance shall be provided in conjunction with the approved site plan for the 2.020 acre tract. If the footprint of the main structure exceeds 25,000 square feet, then the applicant will be required and does agree that a traffic impact analysis will be performed and any necessary improvements warranted by said study and required by VDOT shall be made. In addition to the above, in the event that the property is utilized for a use other than a Major Group 55 (SIC), then the applicant agrees that a traffic impact analysis will be performed and any necessary improvements warranted by said study and required by VDOT shall be made. D. Site Development Berm / Knoll The applicant hereby proffers to construct a berm or knoll parallel to Route 7 so that except for the entrance way, there will be the berm or knoll of at least 3 feet in height to act as a visual buffer from traffic proceeding along Route 7 in an easterly direction. In addition, a decorative board -on -board fence, not to exceed ten (10) feet in height, shall be constructed on the other portions of the property which borders on existing RA zoned land. No chain link fencing will be used which will be visible from outside the premises. 2. Signage The applicant hereby proffers to erect one monument sign, not exceeding ten (10) feet in width or fifteen (15) feet in height and which structure shall be constructed of stone, brick, wood and steel with sign facing as required by the franchisor. The appropriate design of the sign shall indicate the businesses located in the subject property and which sign shall be as set forth on the site plan to be submitted to Frederick County. A sign plan will be submitted to the Frederick County Building 2 official for review and approval prior to any use of the existing freestanding business sign. 3. The applicant proffers that it will clear the stream bed known as "Ash Hollow Run" of debris and will agree to maintain the creek bed located on the property so that the stream will be visibly pleasing with a grass embankment from the berm/knoll to be constructed down to the water's edge and a grass embankment between the stream and the property of Virginia Department of Transportation (Route 7 Right of Way). 4. Public Water and Wastewater The applicant hereby proffers that it will only utilize public water and will not construct private septic systems to serve the property, but rather will only use public wastewater facilities as its wastewater management. E. Buffer and Screening The applicant hereby proffers to maintain ornamental trees or bushes along the berm or knoll which parallels Route 7. The design and planting of the ornamental trees or bushes shall be provided in conjunction with the approved site plan for the 2.020 acre site. In addition, the applicant shall plant five percent (5%) more ornamentals along the berm or knoll as may be required by the County of Frederick's classification set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. F. Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The undersigned owner of the above described property hereby voluntarily proffers that in the event Rezoning Application No. 11-03 is approved, the undersigned will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia, the following amount: The sum of $500.00 to the Treasurer of Frederick County to be redistributed by Frederick County for capital facilities costs of fire and rescue services. ' This payment is intended to offset the additional cost to Frederick County due to an increased demand on public services and will be paid within ninety (90) days following the approval of the rezoning by the Board of Supervisors. FORMYK10S, LLC JcRoss, Manager 3 (SEAL) STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF WINCHESTER, TO -WIT I, , a Notary Public in and for the State and jurisdiction aforesaid, do herebi—cer-tiN that John Ross, Manager of FORMYKIDS. LLC, whose name is signed to the foregoing Amended Proffer Statement has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and jurisdiction aforesaid. Given under my hand this day of October, 2003. My Commission expires `�t�o1lilil i I f III���� " �''i�sS�oN 4p NOTARY PUBL C cc�dDTARJew. PUB0'12i _ '��%• •'•.x-31-��' 11 IM0 1176AMArnended Proffer Statement R3.wpd L, v REZONING IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT PROPOSED SHENANDOAH HONDA SITE ROUTE 7 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA May 20, 2003 Prepared for For MKids, LLC. 1221 alls Circle Winchester, VA 22601 Prepared by Anderson & Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers Middletown, Virginia JN 21328.00 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE 2 B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES 2 C. TRAFFIC 3 D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT 3 E. WATER SUPPLY 4 F. DRAINAGE 4 G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES 4 H. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES 4 I. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES 4 J. OTHER IMPACTS 5 APPENDIX A Maps A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE Shenandoah Honda is proposing to relocate their operations to a neer facility that will be constructed east of Greenwood Road and adjacent to Route 7 in Frederick County, VA. The subject site is a 2.02 acres comprised of two tax parcels, tax # 55-A-80 and 81, and is currently zoned Rural Agricultural (RA). It is requested that the property be rezoned to Business General District (B-2). The proposed facility will consist of a building that has approximately 20,000 sq. ft. floor space with associated parking and green space, thereby meeting the requirements of the proposed B-2 zoning. The site currently has two houses and a mobile home on it. Access to the property is from the eastbound lanes of Route 7, via a small bridge over Ash Hollow Run. The site is currently overgrown and in poor condition. Approximately 0.05 acres in the northeast corner of the site lies in the uppermost extents of the FEMA designated floodplain (zone A) for Ash Hollow Run. A records review revealed that FEMA has not performed a detailed flood study in this area. Approximately 0.5 acres of the site consists of slopes greater than 15%. There are no known wetlands on the site. There are also no mature woodlands on the site outside of the mature trees on the adjacent Route 7 right-of-way east of the existing bridge to the site. These trees will be preserved. The soils on this site are Berks channery silt loam and Weikert-Berks channery silt loam, neither of which is considered prime agricultural soil. Depth to bedrock and slope are the main factors that may create construction difficulties or hazards. See Figure 1 in Appendix A for a map showing features on the subject site. Overall this site is well suited to the proposed activity. The redevelopment of this rundown property provides a "brown fields" type of benefit to the county by renewing the property's role in the community. This redevelopment also dovetails nicely with the County's vision for the Route 7 corridor. With water and sewer service nearby for this project, there will be little additional demand on the County's resources to serve this project. Direct access to Route 7 provides a strong transportation link to the site, and with the low number of site trips will be more than adequate. B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES There are three properties adjacent to the subject site. • West and south — the property is owned by Grace Brethren Church and is zoned rural agriculture - RA. • East — The property is owned by Ronald E. and Alice M. Dehaven and is zoned rural agriculture - RA. • North - VDOT right-of-way for Route 7. Route 7 in this area is bifurcated, and the property on the north side of Route 7 is approximately 30 feet higher than the subject site and is owned by the Frederick County School Board. Figure 2 provides adjacent property information and distances to existing structures on adjacent properties. Rezoning and development of the property in question should not Shenandoah Honda Rezoning Impact Statement Page 2 have an adverse impact on adjacent properties in the way of noise, glare, fumes, pollution, odors or other nuisances. C. TRAFFIC It is projected that the rezoning of the property in question should have a minimal impact on surrounding roads and the County's adopted road improvement plan. The eastbound lane of Virginia Route 7 runs parallel to the north side of the subject site with existing access via a small bridge over Ash Hollow Run. The three homes on the site use this bridge for access. The Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual was reviewed to determine the number of vehicular trips that this site will generate. However, there is not a land use description that closely matches the intended use. The land use in the Trip Generation Manual that comes closest to matching the intended use is that of "new car sales" and "automobile repair facility." However there are not nearly the number of four -wheelers and motorcycles in the market places as there are automobiles, so it is believed that these ITE estimates grossly overstate the number of trips that will be generated by this site. Therefore, based on actual trips generated by the existing Shenandoah Honda facility, it is estimated that the rezoning and development of the subject property will result in an additional 20 peak hour trips and 240 trips on average per weekday to Route 7 traffic. Shenandoah Honda currently operates from 9:OOam to 6:OOpm on weekdays, with additional hours on weekends. By operating during these times, the facility will not be open during the morning rush hour when traffic is heaviest on eastbound Route 7. The developer anticipates that there will be one tractor -trailer accessing the property about every other day. This will require that a new entrance be constructed to access the site, which will be able to accommodate these trucks. Additionally, using VDOT design guidelines, a pavement taper will be leading up to the entrance. A field visit with VDOT officials has been previously conducted and basic entrance requirements discussed including the aforementioned taper and a new crossing over Ash Hollow Run that will be required. The existing bridge will be removed. Based on VDOT data, the Average Annual Weekday Traffic Volume Estimate for this section of Route 7 is 24,000 vehicles per day. Since any additional traffic resulting from the rezoning of this property will occur during an off-peak time, the anticipated impacts on traffic operations are expected to be minimal. D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT Based on Virginia Department of Health design values, it has been estimated that the proposed Shenandoah Honda facility will generate approximately 700 gpd of wastewater. This estimate is based on 15-35 gpd/person/8-hour shift. Currently, it is projected that the wastewater from this site will be pumped to the south along Greenwood Road connecting into the Frederick County Sanitation Authority's system. Shenandoah Honda Rezoning Impact Statement rage :J E. WATER SUPPLY Based on values provided by the Virginia Department of Health, it is estimated that water usage for the developed property will be approximately 700 gpd. Currently, there is a 10" water main that runs along the northern property line in the shoulder of Route 7. It is anticipated that a tap will be made on this line. F. DRAINAGE Storm water from the subject site drains north via a natural swale along the center of the property directly to Ash Hollow Run, which borders the northeast end of the property. The existing 50" corrugated metal pipe/bridge that conveys Ash Hollow Run under the entrance to the property will be replaced with a new crossing, and onsite storm water management will be provided for development to reduce impacts to Ash Hollow Run. Generally, existing drainage patterns will be maintained. G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES It is anticipated that the rezoning and development of the property will generate approximately 550 cubic yards of solid waste a year. The solid waste will be disposed of in a dumpster housed in a fenced area on the site, and will be picked up twice a week by a private solid waste contractor as hired by the owner. H. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES There are no historic sites or structures that will be impacted by the rezoning of this property. Additionally, a review of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Management Plan does not show any battlefields on this site. I. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES Local revenues that will be generated from rezoning and development of this site include both local sales taxes and real estate tax. The real estate taxes will increase significantly since the owner plans to make significant improvements to the property. It appears that solid waste is the only County service that may be affected by this rezoning. Education and Parks and Recreation will not be required services for the developed property. Police and Fire Protection will not need to be increased since the three existing homes on the property will be razed. Solid waste disposal may increase slightly from what is generated on the site currently, but not so significantly that it will affect County operations. Shenandoah Honda Rezoning Impact Statement Page 4 J. OTHER IMPACTS It is not anticipated that there will be any other impacts associated with the rezoning of the property in question. Shenandoah Honda Rezoning Impact Statement Page 5 APPENDIX A Maps • � "" r '`ass" � ' � `�.�,., iE e -� .'� ' .V �-S.,�y� � 'M ' �Fr+� .. ;fr• : s� 9' - �'` �'t4 x [ "_. :f ,+Ca. `i .�jq� [r . rr Q. IL r. K Yi 0 �F..:>d �,pC 4 . •dj�,` 'y: Sf 4 r '1 «`' M i •, _ .. s �.-at..I� :-�:r� C�, ., ��}� ��`k ;1' :_ � i ^ t ,�,� � a�: � �i�+..q. �_rHy. �.,r :'a.� d I�'s4 �� "-`�.gW�+it ,�" l r _ f. Fj� .; `c M s1 `-...r ;.+^'r�-. sYi���k- t•'� - �k «'.` ''`r�� #: _. � itf � '^r � si -', �• �� �_ d. t L �b�y��= ' "�:'R �` #��'F'.. 'w`sG F)� f A. � '� `�s ,«•r`�,; �#� k. �` '�' _.F �i* ,! -. �'w}s � tt,4�. �r "�,[� - .,�� �� l�.y � { � Y � j'< e _ .�.�a�;�"' „ -� � �. pyt • �.d _ + . ems# 1�� �� c. � Mf � �.._.. - i� rk I � f i t aifF# !k , � e�IG .: •^�. 7 S� Y - � _ ♦• ' �3 Sy, _ `u^' ""^.L,n,.F T� � �.i' jEi � fE' 1 �' � �!s. •��;� # "�! ��k .�j► 'F��. �i�. w:..:� . � f r. �. � F �lsf�r'� ,:ry �.�s..,.. 'E. '^ti-"-.. �� �° 4is,;; ol � °f+• f i { � � i r fi�� �_ #r. � } ` F � r:�• Yye dF t ` '!�! �r..: � ��,I�..r 4Yk; �z t" } j t. Fip �FF '�' # .1 [ _ t.. F is-�'Lw _ •. a7! .r{ �`}"`•- 11# Y �RO�ECT AREA 41 -TM - .. '`v. '',,-�a� i '�_''r „�yy's:'�F.` •a� 9 _ .r°r S'` "„'.w ` t! 4 rj 1 f,i+ _•qr • a r` .`""mss._ -..�.. � � � � `. � f � � ry:. 's..-�F �, •r 1 it .` `kr'`�•vm,. - ' .. f� 1R -s: �'..� :re°y. � ����"� e`�ifi`"�� , y�'�e' f.�:-.''' .._�.�-� � ( K}w : "t �"ati"4''4.�•3�� � , ;''s. 2'k.� Jr 77 „'TF ac+ a,M$ �. k a.E'_` k �: � , # . - Tr .. 4 ,... "'.� �F} . t F � r'• J�, .r. ,:ti y�•'k.. 0 1000 2000 SCALE IN FEET ANDERSON d © AND ASSOCIATES, Inc. VICINITY MAP SHENANDOAH HONDA FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA LEGEND • IRON PIN FOUND O IRON PIN SET 0 o CONCRETE MONUMENT FOUND 0� 0 G James E. & Ardeyth 0. Butcher D.B. 748 Pg. 1132 Tax j 55—A-80 �01 Area: 1.005 Acres Grace Brethren Church D.B. 310 Pg. 10 Tax 155—A-79 FLOODNOTE: A Portion of the Caption Property is Located In a Special Flood Hazard Area so designated by the Secretary of Housing & Urban Development The Caption Property is located in Flood Zones A and C and is referenced by FIRM Map # 510063 0120 B, Dated: July 17, 1978. Curve — C1 Central Angle: 3'14'06" Radius: 3844.72' �• Tangent: 108.57' Arc: 217.07' Chord: S61'39'46"E 217.04' OA yea 6 y n ,re �oneeQ ;�r:1ueU -A So n�, r James E. & Ardeyth 0. Butcher G D.B. 748 Pg. 1132 ' °.. Tax 55—A-81 0� P J O' Area: 1.015 Acres Zone C VL + Zone A Line Table Line Beorin Distance L1 S64'1 7'59"E 48.58' L2 S67*33'31 "E 69.55' L3 S6432'52"E 105.87' 14 S64'32'52"E 6.93' �ALTH 6 E D. AUy :NSE No. 1483 FEMA Designated 100 Year Flood Umit Ronald E. & Alice M. Dehaven W.B. 84 Pg. 118 Tax j 55—A-82 Survey Plat for Shenand^%a&h Honda Showing Property of James E. & Ardeyth 0. Butcher Deed Book 748, Page 1132 Shawnee Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia Scale: 1"= 80' Date: Mar. 10, 2003 t�� sv Ng�a¢ 0' 80' 160' SCALE 1 "=80' & ASSOCIATES, Inc. Inla 22465 JN 21328.00 c C Q C C O 3 Z W W at: 0 Ilc_GnIITP' 7 FACTRn11Nn 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. LAE www.andassoc.com Design Services www.andassoc.com 7722 Main Vael Virginia - North Carolina - Tennessee 540-6699-2501a 2zeas®5°° FIGURE 2. ADJACENT PROPERTY MAPPING SHENANDOAH HONDA FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DATE REVISIONS: DESIGNED: TS SHENANDOAN HONDA DRAWN : RSH CHECKED: FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINA QA/QC : TINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE e M. Dehaven RA 21328 ANDERSON BASSOCIATES,INC. a"re �"""°' "E "BONY ztazs—oat + 11-1—tonal Dea sand�a I ' I SHENANDOAH HONDA , www.andaeeoemn �rauww EXISTING PROPERTY swEr Bmi,...v. mucosoa c.ice FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Vaglnla-NoM Carolina-Tenne95ea wuwaaso REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SEP 1 8 2003 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: Mr. John Ross Address: For My Kids LLC 122 Walls Circle Winchester, Virginia 22603 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Telephone: 540-678-8500 Name: Telephone: Address: 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Telephone: 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deed to property X Impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X 11 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: John Ross For My Kids LLC, 122 Walls Circle, Winchester, Virginia 22603 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Zone RA. residential B) Proposed Use of the Property: Zone B-2, Commercial Motorcycle / ATV Sales 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER 55-A-79 55-A-82 USE Church Residential ZONING RA RA 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): Approximately_ 185 feet southeast of the intersection of Greenwood Road and Virginia Route 7, on Route 7. 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 concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff w=ill use the maximurn possible density or intensity scenario lir the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 55-A-80 & 55-A-81 Magisterial: Red Bud Run Fire Service: Greenwood Rescue Service: Greenwood Districts High School: Millbrook Middle School: James Wood Elementary School: Red Bud Run 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. IFAcres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 1.005 RA B-2 1.015 RA B-2 2.020 Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: 0 Townhome: 0 Multi -Family: 0 Non -Residential Lots: 0 Mobile Home: 0 Hotel Rooms: 0 Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office: 2,000 Service Station: Retail: 4,000 Manufacturing: Restaurant: Warehouse: 10,000 — 12,000 Other: (service) 2,000 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. Applicant(s): Date: Date: LOwner(s): Date: 03 Date: SEP 1 2003 5 I 14 JN 21328.00 SHENANDOAH HONDA PROPERTY GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN 0 10C? 200 ANDERSON FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE IN FEET QQ/�AND SEPTEMBER 17, 2003 LL1l ASSOCIATES, Inc. STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION .try ,up Industry s No. GASOLINE SERVICE STATIONS 5541 Gasoline Service Stations Gasoline service stations primarily engaged in selling gasoline and lubricat- ing oils. These establishments frequently sell other merchandise, such as tires, batteries, and other automobile parts, or perform minor repair work. Gasoline stations combined with other activities, such as grocery stores, convenience stores, or carwashes, are classified according to the primary activity. Automobile service stations—retail Marine service station—retail Filling station, gasoline—retail Service station, gasoline—retail Gasoline and oil—retail Truck stops—retail BOAT DEALERS 5551 Boat Dealers Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of new and used motor- boats and other watercraft, marine supplies, and outboard motors. Boat dealers—retail Motorboat dealers—retail Marine supply dealers—retail Outboard motor dealer—retail RECREATIONAL VEHICLE DEALERS 5561 Recreational Vehicle Dealers Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of new and used motor homes, recreational trailers, and campers (pickup coaches). Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of mobile homes are classified in Industry 5271, and those selling utility trailers are classified in Industry 6599. Campers (pickup coaches) for mounting Recreational vch)cle parte and aecesso- on trucks—retail rice—retail Motor home dealers—retail Travel trailers, automobile: new end Recreational vehicle dealers --retail used—retail MOTORCYCLE DEALERS 5571 Motorcycle Dealers Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of new and used motor- cycles, including motor scooters and mopeds, and all -terrain vehicles. AB -terrain vehicles—retail Motor sccotere—ntaB Bicycles, motorised—retail Motorcycle dealers—retail Mopeds—retail Motorcycle parts—retail AUTOMOTIVE DEALERS, NOT ELSEWHERE CLASSIFIED 5599 Automotive Dealers, Not Elsewhere Classified Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of new and used auto- motive vehicles, utility trailers, and automotive equipment and supplies, not elsewhere classified, such as snowmobiles, dunebuggies, and gocarts. Also in- cluded in this industry are establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of aircraft. Aircraft dealers—retail Snowmobiles—rstail Dunebuggies—retail Trailers, utility—retail Gocarts—retail Utility trailers—retail Zajor Group 55.—AUTOMOTIVE DEAL14;1Q3 AINIJ %xLxov7 SERVICE STATIONS The Major Group as a Whole This major group includes retail dealers selling new and used automobiles, boats, recre- ational vehicles, utility trailers, and motorcycles including mopeds; those selling new automo- bile parts and accessories; and gasoline service stations. Automobile repair shops maintained by establishments engaged in the sale of new automobiles are also included. Establishments primarily engaged in selling used automobile parts are classified in Wholesale Trade, Indus- try 5016. Industry Group Industry No. No. 551 MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS (NEW AND USED) 5511 Motor Vehicle Dealers (New and Used) Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of new automobiles or new and used automobiles. These establishments frequently maintain repair departments and carry stocks of replacement parts, tires, batteries, and auto - V motive accessories. These establishments also frequently sell pickups and vans at retail. Automobile agencies (dealer}—retail Motor vehicle dealers, new and used Automobiles, new and used—retail cera—retail Care, now and used—retail Pickups and van, now and wed—retail 552 MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS (USED ONLY) 5521 Motor Vehicle Dealers (Used Only) Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of used cars only, with no sales of new automobiles. These establishments also frequently sell used pickups and vans at retail. aPickups and vers, used only—retail Antique utue—retail Automobiles, need can only—retail Motor vehicle deal.-, used cars only— retail 553 AUTO AND HOME SUPPLY STORES 5531 Auto and Home Supply Stores Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of new automobile tires, batteries, and other automobile parts and accessories. Such establishments fre- quently sell a substantial amount of home appliances, radios, and television sets. Establishments dealing primarily in used parts are classified in Whole- sale Trade, Industry 5015. Establishments primarily engaged in both selling and installing such automotive parts as transmissions, mufflers, brake linings, and glass are classified in Services, Industry Group 763. Automobile accessory dealers—retail - Automobile air-conditioning equipment. sale and installation—retail Automobile parte dealers—retail Battery dealers, automobile—retail Speed shops—retail Tire dealers, automotive—retail Tire, battery, and accessory dealers— retail Adjoining Property Owners Rezoning Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name and Property Identification Number Address Name Winchester Grace Brethren Church 143 Greenwood Road Winchester, VA 22601 Property # 55-A-79 Name Ronald E. & Alice M. Dehaven 2142 Berryville Avenue Winchester, VA 22601 Property # 55-A-82 Name Frederick County School Board Property # 55-A-22 1415 Amherst Street Winchester, VA 22604-2546 Name Property # Name Property # Name Property # Name Property # Name Property # Name Property # lv R 0 S S — D Wdv �5ff q- t9 PPL 1 cA ti T- ia 15 VA a llboa 4 55-- 4 -g I (A B a Q M Q 0 �n O �n 00 C 0 LD ao N Q yr LO L0 C it o Q m — Co `m CC N G C X O iy U F— c 0 Y E m co c m y O L CD 0-1 030007994 DEED THIS DEED, made and dated this 15th day of April, 2003, by and between JAMES E. BUTCHER and ARDEYTH O. BUTCHER, husband and wife, parties of the first part, hereinafter called the Grantors, and FORMYKIDS, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, party of the second part, hereinafter called the Grantee. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00), cash in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of all of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantors do hereby grant and convey with General Warranty and English Covenants of Title, unto the Grantee in fee simple, the following described real estate, together with all rights, rights of way, privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging, the following described property: PARCEL ONE: That certain lot or parcel of land, lying and being situate in Red Bud Magisterial District (formerly in Shawnee Magisterial District), Frederick County, Virginia, fronting on U.S. Highway No. 7 a distance of 224 feet, more or less, and extending back Southward between parallel lines a distance of 200 feet, more or less, to the rear of the property; PARCEL TWO: That certain lot or parcel of land, lying and being situate in Red Bud Magisterial District (formerly in Shawnee Magisterial District), Frederick County, Virginia, fronting on U.S. Highway No. 7, a distance of 224 feet, more or less, and extending back Southward between parallel lines to the land of Barham, formerly Wells and Stump, in the rear; and being more recently and particularly described by Survey Plat drawn by Kyle D. Austin, Land Surveyor, dated.March 10, 2003, which said survey is attached hereto and by this reference hereby made a part hereof as if set forth in full; and being the same real property which the Grantors herein acquired by Deed dated July 26, 1990 from Ronald E. DeHaven and Alice M. DeHaven, husband and wife, which said Deed is of record in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 748, at Page 1132. Reference is hereby made to the aforesaid plat and survey and Deed, and to the references therein contained, for a further and more particular description of the property hereby conveyed. This conveyance is made subject to all legally enforceable restrictive covenants and easements of record affecting the aforesaid realty. WITNESS the followin signa nd seals: (SEAL) J ES E. BUTCHER STATE OF VIRGINIA, A�uv J/' x 'faL4, (SEAL) ARDEYTH 0/ UTCHER CD CITY OF WINCHESTER, to -wit: I, Susan R. Woodill, a Notary Public in and for the State and Jurisdiction aforesaid, do hereby certify that JAMES E. BUTCHER and ARDEYTH O. BUTCHER, husband and wife, whose names are signed to the foregoing DEED bearing date the 15th day of April, 2003, have personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in the City of Winchester, Virginia. Given under my hand this 15th day of April, 2003. My Commission expires: September 30, 2004. Notary Public HARRHOEEDS\Desd from MP to SMUTCHER TO ROSSAEED-0 j ll4iVLEGEND IRON PIN FOUND n IRON PIN SET a o CONCRETE MONUMENT FOUND O r 6'r �rn W. James E. & ` Ardeyth 0. Butcher D.B. 748 Pg. 1132 Tax # 55-A-80 i Area: 1.005 Acres FLOODNOTE: A Portion of the Caption Property is Located in a Special Flood Hazard Area so designated by the Secretary of Housing & Urban Development. The Caption Property is located in Flood Zones A and C and is referenced by FIRM Map # 510063 0120 B, Dated: July 17, 1978. Curve — C1 Central Angie: 3'14'06" Radius: 3844.72' iA Tangent: 108.57' a, Arc: 217.07' Chord: S61'39'46"E 217.04' Grca . '<J N�5585� JamesE. & Ardeyth 0. Butcher G D.B. 748 Pg. 1132 0 y Tax # 55-A-81 0 66, 6'� J s 4r_ Area: 1.015 Acres Grace Brethren Church Zone c D.B. 310 Pg. 10 Op op, 2 Tax # 55-A-79 "�' Zone A Line Table Line Bearing Distance L1 S64' 17'59"E 48.58' L2 S67'33'31 "E 69.55' L3 S6 '32'52"E 105.87' L4 S64'32'52"E 6.93' FEMA Designated 100 Year Flood Limit Ronald E. All M. Dehaven W.B. 84 Pg. 118 Tax # 55-A-82 Survey Plat for Shenandoah Honda TH 0ty, Showing Property of �wNL �/a3 James E. & Ardeyth 0. Butcher ;YLE D. AU Deed Book 748, Page 1132 �� Shawnee Magisterial District '"fic NSE No. Frederick County, Virginia 1483 Scale: 1"= 80' Date: Mar. 10, 2003 4 l9�?i SuVq 0 80' 160' ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, Inc. Middletown, Virginia 22465 Mid SCALE 1 "=80' Q��� Street (540) 869-2501 JN 21328.00 .ANDERSON AND Professional Design Services ASSOCIATES, INC. August b, 2003 Mr. Lloyd Ingram Virginia Department of Transportation 14031 Old valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 RE: Rezoning for Shenandoah Honda Route 7, Fredrick County, VA JN 21328 Dear Mr. Ingram: Thank you for taking time to meet with me last week to discuss your comments concerning the rezoning application for the proposed Shenandoah Honda facility on Route 7 in Frederick County. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with additional information pertaining to the preferred location of the entrance for the proposed site, and to request that the entrance location not be aligned with the existing crossover on Route 7. As we discussed, there are a number of factors that were considered when the location for the proposed entrance for this commercial development was sited. Among those considerations was safety of the traveling public, environmental impacts and flood plain impacts. The following sections provide additional information pertaining to these topics and those mentioned in your letter dated June 18, 2003.1 am including the text from your letter in italics for reference. To provide safe ingress/egress, additional right-of-way will be needed to allow the developer to move the existing guardrail farther off the edge of existing pavement to allow for a full width shoulder The impacts on the environments associated with aligning the proposed entrance with the existing cross-over ramp and widening the shoulder east of the proposed entrance will be severe and it is believed will have long term negative impacts on the environment without reciprocal improvements in safety for the traveling public. These impacts include the loss of numerous mature trees, impacts on aquatic and plant life in Ash Hollow Run that will result from relocating about 200 linear feet of the stream, and impacts on the FEMA designated flood plain. The following paragraphs provide more details about these important considerations: 1. our preliminary plans call for relocating the guardrail and constructing a 200' taper on the approach side of the proposed entrance. While it appears that this can be accomplished within the existing right-of-way, the developer is prepared to dedicate additional right-of-way as'required. To the east of the proposed entrance location, we propose to leave the existing shoulder and guardrail in place due to the significant An Employee -awned Company 7722 Main Street, Middletown, VA 22645 (540) 869-2501 (540) 869-2625 fax www.andassoc.com Blacksburg. Fredericksburg, Middletown & Richmond, Virginia • Greensboro, North Carolina • Tri -Cities, Tennessee yeP f�Zb U� U : ��� Mr. Ingram August 5, 2003 Page 2 environmental consequences that will result from widening the shoulder in this area. 2. We too desire safe ingresslegress for the patrons of the proposed facility and have reviewed the sight distance available at the proposed entrance location. As measured from the project map, there will be approximately 425' from the center of Greenwood Road to the center of the exiting lane of traffic at the proposed site. Since there are no visual obstructions between these two points, all of this is considered to be stopping sight distance. There is approximately 200 additional feet of sight distance east of the Greenwood Road signal, providing a total approximate sight distance at the exit from the site of 625'. For a 60 mph design speed, the VDOT Design Standards call for a minimum 525' sight distance and the AASHTO Green Book calls for 570'. The posted speed limit is 45mph east of the proposed entrance that requires about 400 feet of sight distance. 3. It is my understanding that the Department does not want ownership of the stream crossing that will be constructed to access the site. Specific right-of-way location information will need to be coordinated during the design and platting phase of the project to establish the line in the desired location. 4. Providing a full width shoulder to the east Of the proposed entrance location will necessitate relocating approximately 200 feet of Ash Hollow Run. The relocation of this section of natural stream will disrupt the natural habitat of the animal and plant life in and around the stream and will require years to reestablish it due to the additional loss of the mature trees in the path of the entrance at this location. 5. Providing a full width shoulder will necessitate revisions to the FEMA designated flood plain that exists along Ash Hollow Run east of the existing entrance. Affecting the flood plain at this location will have significant and detrimental effects on the adjoining property owner east of the proposed site. 6. The location of the eastern property line for the subject tract, and the live stream discharging from the culvert under Route 7, place limits on how far east the proposed entrance and the full width shoulder can be shifted. The entrance cannot be shifted to the point where it will align with the crossover, and shoulder width improvements will be limited by property .Ownership as well as environmental impacts. 7. Aligning the proposed entrance with the Morgan Mill crossover will necessitate removal of a large portion, if not all, of the mature trees on the site. Ms. Abbe Kennedy of the Frederick County Planning Department has asked us to preserve the mature trees on the site in order to mitigate the Mr. Ingram August 5, 2003 Page 3 Visual impacts of the development. Since the mature trees along the front of the project east of the proposed entrance location are behind the existing guardrail, it is believed that they are not currently a safety problem. The commercial entrance to the property should be aligned across from the Morgan Mill crossover deceleration ramp. This would reduce a dangerous weave situation by customers trying to utilize the Morgan Mill crossover. It should be noted there is a proffer in the Red Bud Run Subdivision for closing this crossover if deemed prudent by either VDOT or Frederick County_ Prior to submitting the request for rezoning comments I met on site with Mr. Ben Lineberry and Mr. Dave Heironimous of VDOT to discuss the location of the proposed entrance for the development. Primary in our discussion was the safety of the traveling public and the patrons of the proposed facility. I left that meeting with an understanding that it will be acceptable to offset the proposed entrance from the crossover since aligning the two will create a more potentially unsafe condition. I would like to highlight the following factors for your consideration: 1. The entrance will connect to the eastbound lanes of Route 7 and will have no impact on the westbound traffic or roadway. Therefore drivers exiting the site will only need to look for traffic to their left (driver's side). 2. The existing Morgan Mill crossover is a V shaped crossover, with a steep grade between the eastbound lanes and the westbound lanes. There is a very short taper provided at the lower end of the ramps, and the ramp movements from and to the eastbound lanes are for one-way traffic. 3. While aligning the entrances will eliminate a brief merge movement for exiting drivers, the more than adequate sight distance will enable exiting motorists to clearly see oncoming traffic and thus avoid pulling into the path of approaching vehicles. Aligning the entrance with the crossover will encourage exiting motorist to dart across the roadway ahead of approaching vehicles rather than wait for a clear opening. 4. Alignment of the proposed entrance with the crossover will create an attractive nuisance, and will tempt some drivers to take a shortcut by traveling down the one-way ramp in the wrong direction to enter the proposed site. Since motorists on eastbound Route 7 will not be expecting a vehicle to be approaching them almost head-on from the left hand side of the road, the shock factor as well as the potential for collisions is very real. It is reported that some accidents of this type have already occurred at this location. Mr. Ingram August 5, 2403 Page 4 5. While the ramps in the subject crossover are signed for one-way traffic, drivers attempting to take the aforementioned shortcut will cause a vehicular conflict on the ramp itself where the pavement width is inadequate for two vehicles to pass. 6. The upstream traffic signal at the intersection of Route 7 and Greenwood Road creates platooning of vehicles on Route 7 each time the traffic light cycles through a red -green cycle. This platooning action will provide gaps in the traffic flow on Route 7 which will give motorist exiting the proposed development a clear window of opportunity to merge into traffic on Route 7 and continue eastward or use the crossover ramp. 7. As stated in your correspondence, VDOT and Frederick County are considering closing this cross-over as part of a proffer associated with a development project. This raises significant questions about the benefits associated with aligning the proposed entrance with the subject crossover. Should this crossover be closed, significant environmental impacts will have occurred without the purported safety benefits being realized. In closing, based on the information presented herein it is believed that the negative impacts associated with relocating Ash Hollow Run, affecting the flood plain and cutting the mature trees are far greater than the benefits that will be gained by aligning the entrance with the crossover and widening the shoulder east of the proposed entrance. I respectfully request that you review this information and allow this project to move forward with a new commercial entrance constructed as shown in the attached diagram. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Timothy S. Stowe, PE, LS Executive Vice President CC: Mr. John Ross • C REZONING APPLICATION #14-03 HAMPTON INN Staff Report for the Planning Commission Meeting Prepared: October 30, 2003 Staff Contact: Jeremy F. Camp 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 rezoning 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. As this application proceeds through the legislative review process, the method(s) of resolution for each issue proposed by the applicant(s) and/or recommended by the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors will be stated in the text of this report, as appropriate. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 11/19/03 Pending Board of Supervisors: 12/10/03 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone a parcel consisting of .20 acres from the RP (Residential Performance) District to the B2 (Business General) District. LOCATION: The property is located adjacent to the Hampton Inn, on the east side of Ross Street (Route 712), approximately 500 feet north of Berryville Avenue. The majority of the subject parcel is within Frederick County, however, a small portion of the parcel lies within the City of Winchester. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 54G -1-13A PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RP (Rural Performance) ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING AND PRESENT USE: North: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District South (City): Zoned B2 (Highway Commercial) East: Zoned B2 (Business General) District West (City): Zoned B2 (Highway Commercial) PROPOSED USE: Parking lot (approximately 20 parking spaces) Use: Residential Use: Residential Use: Hotel Use: Hotel (parking only) Use: Residential Ross Street (Route 712) REZ Hampton inn Page 2 October 30, 2003 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: No comments. Fire Marshal: No comments. County Engineer: We offer no comments at this time. Therefore, we recommend approval of the subject site plan. A land disturbance permit will not be required for this project. Sanitation Authori : No comments. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments. Winchester Regional Airport: No comments. Ci of Winchester: No comments. Counly Attorney: Once owner signs, proffers appear to be in proper form. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History: The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) depicts the zoning for the subject parcel as R-2 (Residential Limited) District. The zoning changed to RP (Residential General) District on September 28, 1983 when the R1, R2, R3, and R6 zoning districts were reclassified. 2) Location: The property is located adjacent to the Hampton Inn, on the east side of Ross Street (Route 712), approximately 500 feet north of Berryville Avenue. The majority of the subject parcel is within Frederick County, however, a small portion of the parcel lies within the City of Winchester. 3) Comprehensive Polic Plan: The area comprising this rezoning is not part of a small area land use study. The property is located within the UDA (Urban Development Area). REZ Hampton Inn Page 3 October 30, 2003 4) Site_SuitabiW Land Use Compatibility: The site of the proposed development is located between residential uses to the north and commercial uses to the south. The surrounding residences are ofthe single family detached type. A stormwater drainage channel exists along the northern boundary of the parcel. This may be a logical border between the residential and commercial land uses. Historic Resources: The existing house on the subject parcel is not identified as a historical resource by the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey. The property is within the Opequon core battlefield area (Third Winchester), as identified in the National Park Service Civil War Battlefield study. However, the site is described as an area of lost historical integrity. Transportation This rezoning would not directly generate any additional traffic. Sewer and Water Due to the removal of the existing house, this rezoning is anticipated to reduce solid waste and water usage. 5) Proffer Statement The applicant has submitted a proffer statement which has been signed by the property owner, notarized, and reviewed by the County Attorney's office. The following list is a summary of the conditions voluntarily proffered by the applicant: Proffers to redevelop the parcel as a parking lot only. Proffers to eliminate the existing residential entrance off of Ross Street and only be accessed through the Hampton Inn parking lot. Proffers to develop the parking lot with a minimum setback of 10 feet from Ross Street. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 11/19/03 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The proposed rezoning is a request to rezone a parcel consisting of .20 acres from the RP (Residential Performance) District to the B2 (Business General) District to accommodate a parking lot expansion of the existing Hampton Inn hotel use. No significant issues have been identified by planning staff, or any other review agency. The subject property is located within the Urban Development Area, and the request conforms with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. 0:\Agendas\COMMENTS\REZONING\Staff Report\2003\Hampton Inn.wpd Greenway Engineering September 29, 2003 Hampton Inn Rezoning HAMPTON INN - ROUTE 7 REZONING Tax Parcel 54G -((1))-13A Stonewall Magisterial District Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # /4-03 for the rezoning of 0.20± acres from the RP, Residential Performance District to establish 0.20± acres of RP, Residential Performance District, development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The subject property, more particularly described as the land owned by Aikens & Allen L.P., L.L.P. being all of Tax Map Parcel 54G -((1))-13A, and further described by Deed Book 942, Page 580 recorded July 16, 1999 in the Frederick County Clerk of the Court Office. The applicants hereby proffer the following: A.) Land Use Restrictions The applicants hereby proffer to redevelop the existing residential parcel as a parking lot only. B.) Access The applicants hereby proffer to eliminate the existing access to Ross Street (Route 712), and to provide access to the 0.20± acre parcel through an internal connection to the existing Hampton Inn parking lot that is served by an existing entrance on Ross Street. File #W-218/EAW 1 Greenway Engineering September 29, 2003 Hampton Inn Rezoning C.) Design Standards T he applicants hereby proffer to develop the parking lot Nvith a minimum setback of ten (10) feet from Ross Street and further proffer to develop the parking lot in conformance with the parking lot design standards specified in the City of Winchester Zoning Ordinance to ensure continuity with the existing parking lot serving the Hampton Inn. D.) Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: By: Aikens &Allen L.P., L.L.P. Date Commonwealth of Virgini4 Ci County fTo Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2-4 `day of Oc4vbw 200 by WGL1few" H - A'1 kerns rYtClulct ? C( A 1 kens t Atle-y) U P - L, L, P J Notary Public My Commission Expiresb ZR 7�G4" was coti�lrniss�c►pec . eo+C"j as Dong L. S�ep►ne�-,s File #W-218/EAW IMPACT STATEMENT HAMPTON INN - ROUTE 7 REZONING Stonewall District Frederick County, Virginia TM 54G -((1))-13A 0.20-+ Acres September 29, 2003 Current Owners: Aikens & Allen, L.P., L.L.P. Contact Person: Evan Wyatt, AICP Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Bill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 540-662-4185 Greenway Engineering SHEPARD REZONING INTRODUCTION September 29, 2003 Hampton Inn Rezoning This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Fredrick County and the City of Winchester by the proffered rezoning of parcel 54G -((1))-13A, owned by Aikens & Allen, L.P., L.L.P. totaling 0.20± acres. The subject parcel is located on the east side of Ross Street (Route 712), approximately 500 feet from Berryville Pike (U.S. Route 7). The current zoning is RP, Residential Performance District. The applicants propose to rezone the 0.201 acres to B2, Business General District to allow for the expansion of the parking lot serving the Hampton Inn. Please see the attached Site Plan entitled Proposed Parking Lot Expansion for Hampton Inn — Route 7 prepared by Greenway Engineering dated July 23, 2003. Basic information Location: Magisterial District: Property ID Numbers: Current Zoning: Current Use: Proposed Use: Proposed Zoning: Total rezoning area: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN East side of Route 712 Stonewall 54-((1))-13A RP District Residential Parking Lot B2 District 0.20± acres The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan does not have a future land use plan for this area of the County. The City of Winchester Comprehensive Plan identifies future land use for this area as major commercial. 1. Urban Development Area Expansion of the Urban Development Area (UDA) beyond its existing boundary is not required by this application. 2. Sewer and Water Service Area Expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) beyond its existing boundary is not required by this application. It should be noted that the City of Winchester Public Utilities Department is responsible for providing public water and sewer service to the Hampton Inn. 2 Greenway Engineering September 29, 2003 Hampton Inn Rezoning A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE Access The subject site, tax parcel 54G -((1))-13A has approximately 100 feet of frontage along Ross Street. Ross Street is identified as a local street according to the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan and is identified as a Category One street for the portion within the City of Winchester. The development of this property as a parking lot will allow for the elimination of an existing private residential access drive serving the existing residence on the subject parcel. Flood Plains The subject site is located on the FEMA NFIP map #510063-0115-B. The site is located as "Zone C", area outside the 100 -year flood plain. Wetlands The National Wetlands Inventory Map indicates that there are no wetlands on the subject site. Soil Types The following soil types contained in this tract have been obtained from the Soil Survey of Fredrick County, published by the USDA Soil Conservation Service. The subject site is located on map sheet number 30, and contains the following soil type: 41C-WeikertBerks Channery Silt Loam 7-15% covers 100% of this site B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Adjoinirg property zoning and present use: North: Zoned RP District Residential South: Zoned B2 District Hampton Inn East: Zoned B2 District Hampton Inn West: Zoned B2 District Residential 3 Greenway Engineering September 29, 2003 Hampton Inn Rezoning C. TRANSPORTATION The proposal to rezone the 0.20± acre -parcel to B2 District to allow for the expansion of the Hampton Inn parking lot will allow for the elimination of an existing private access drive on Ross Street. The applicants nave proffered that access to this parcel will occur via an existing entrance to the Hampton Inn site. Therefore, the proposed rezoning will mitigate an existing impact to Ross Street, thus improving access management in this area. D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND WATER SUPPLY The Hampton Inn has public water and sewer service provided by the City of Winchester Public Utilities Department. No water or sewer service will be required to serve the 0.20± acre -parcel once it is rezoned and developed as a parking lot. Therefore, there is no impact to the water supply or for sewage conveyance. E. DRAINAGE The 0.20± acre -parcel naturally drains to the north. The development of this parcel as a parking lot will be designed to direct storm water to the north to an existing culvert pipe serving the Hampton Inn parking lot. F. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL The proposal to rezone the 0.20± acre -parcel to B2 District to allow for the expansion of the Hampton Inn parking lot will allow for the elimination of a single family dwelling Therefore, the proposed rezoning will mitigate an existing impact for solid waste di sposal. G. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey does not identify potentially significant structures or sites on the 0.20± acre -parcel or within proximity of the subject site. The National Park Service Civil War Battlefield study identifies this parcel as a component of the Opequon core battlefield area and describes the area as an area of lost integrity. M OTHER IMPACTS The proposal to rezone the 0.20± acre -parcel to B2 District to allow for the expansion of the Hampton Inn parking lot will not impact other services provided by Frederick County and the City of Winchester. M The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 2. Property Owner (if different from above) Name: Aikens & Allen LP., L.L.P. Address: P.O. Box 2468 Winchester, VA 22604 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Evan Wyatt Telephone: (540) 667-3752 Telephone: (540) 662-4185 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map X Agency Comments Plat X Fees Deed to Property X Impact Analysis Statement Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement a 0 FAS a 5. The Code of VirLyinia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please fist below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: Walter Aikens Joe Allen 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Residential B) Proposed Use of the Property: Parking Lot 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING 54G -((I)) -13B Hotel B2 54G-(1)-13 Residential RP 54G -((l))-10 Residential RP 176-((3))-32 Residential B2 176 -((I)) -28A Residential B2 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact located based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route number): East side of Ross Street (Route 712); approximately 500 feet north of BerrvvilleAvenue. Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identilication/Location: Parcel Identification Number 54G -((1))-13A Magisterial: Fire Service: Rescue Service 10. 11. Stonewall Greenwood Greenwood Districts High School: Middle School: Elementary School Millbrook James Wood Redbud Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 0.20± RP B2 0.20± Total Acrea e to be rezoned The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family hares: Townhome: Multi -Family Non -Residential Lots: _ _ Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms: Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office: Service Station: Retail : Manufacturing: Restaurant: Warehouse: Other Parking Lot 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the bet of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s): Date: Owner (s): �� ,- Date: 5406656395 FRED CO PLANNING DEP Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederack.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 PAGE 02/02 Know A.] Men By Those Present: That I (We) 'W (Name) AL,7 gyp. 0 - A 1 ".,j,5; MA JA&C-Z2 (Phone) 540— Wo-[— 3 -752 - (Address) -7 2.. (Address) }gyp l�X Z4,�--b VJ 1 N)CA C6 --Fc e VA `2.7 (o O4— the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Jnstrument No. C14-2- on Page SE0 and is described as Parcel: 54& Lot: Block: Section: r subdivision. (3A do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name)G12eE-N (Phone) �546 -6GZ 41 (Address) I UV I n1DY H t1k- Uy 1 11E5` -C17r'�k Z_Z(v®Z To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including: Rezoning (including proffers) ❑ Conditional Use Permits ❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision Site Plan My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows. This authorization shall expire one year from the'day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. VI In witness thereof., I have hereto --- (o nand seal this L� day of C-{0 C , 200 SiFnature(s) Spic of T,;rgi ia, Ci �/Counf -Foeder,,c,�,, J To -wit: L n/le115o a Notary Public in and .for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who sighed to the foregoing instrument personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the sante before me in, the jurisdiction aforesaid thisZ'��day of , 200,3 My Commission Expires: "fLLiL-L4 ZaI 7LCQ- !�otary Public W19MlSOW01 LIM41od POA."d �— _L UJ05 56 ic) ne[ (, cL kofa- t as 'b& rloo- L 5feph wl S i ROSS ST. (50' RAU) 24' �E�\� `g P ' 55 D5. 41 PCs. 513 (CITY) N 19'5_9'5_4" E 250.00' IRS 20' ACCESS ESMT I 5' D5.209 PCs. 400 D5.285 PG. 128 I HERESY VACATED \ 54Cs-fCU)-13A r— NOMAS L. COOKSON l e l PARCEL THREE MARY P. COOKSON / I W I W W (FRED. CO.)LO ' FORMER LOT UNEI J� °IRB L3 tRB° ---------------- ----HEREBY VACATED Z i Id i I I a U l Jim I s PARCEL FOUR Lu CONSOLIDATED i /\wig Id l TAX PARCEL AIKENS 4 ALLEN L.P., L.L.F1 20618 ACRES i °1110 L5 A 1 i�z a / l =3 L15 i PARCEL ONE I �_EX. 20' DRAINAGE EASEMENT D5. 598 PCs. 825 1204 / v54G-((W-135 cn % \ 0 i W i W �� m I I D5. 599 PCs. 361 BERRYNLLE AVE. / zip k �w � JI)CITY OF WINGHESTER� ~OI O �Q= B W D. 210 PCs. 101 / 00 J�> � 6 e_ 03-1- -------------L xf M 93- L16 20' EASEMENT CITY OF WINCHESTER U/c D5. 100 PCs. 511 U�/UO��C� INTERSTATE 81 \ (VARIABLE RAI) MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAT of the land of TH OF AIKENS & ALLEN L.P. , L.L.P. AND vj ROBERT W. CLAYTOR & ROBERT H. CLAYTOR Stonewall District, Frederick County & City of Winchester, VA v MARK D. SMITH � SCALE: V = DO' DATE: 6/10/98 REENWAY yyENGINEERING No.022837 nginedldiches er dVirHilnia a22602 o��ssl0�1 Surveybebephon • ()4q) 662-4185 NAL lunded in 1971 FAX: e(54 722-9528 E—mail: greenway@visuallink.co SHEET 4 OF 5 U 9 1; 2 'U'0580 l THIS DEED, mads and dated this 16th day of July, 1999, by and between MARY P. COOKSON and THOMAS L. COOKSON, parties of t the first part, hereafter called the Grantors, and AIKENS & ALLEN. L.P.. L.L.P.. a Virginia Limited Liability Partnership, party of the second part, hereafter called the Grantee. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten ; Dollars, ($10.00), cash in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantors do hereby grant and convey with general warranty of title unto the Grantees in fee simple absolute, all of that certain tract or parcel of land, lying and being situate along the East side of Ross Street, the majority of which lies in Stonewall Magisterial District, in the County of Frederick, Virginia and a small portion lying within the City of Winchester, Virginia and being the remaining portion of Lot 42 of Shannon Hills Addition to the City of Winchester, Virginia (the plat of said Subdivision being of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court for the City of Winchester, Virginia in Deed Book 41 at Page 519, et seq.;) said Lot 42 fronts one hundred feet (10(y), more or less, along the East side of Ross Street and extends back in an easternly direction a distance of ninety feet (90) (formerly Conway Street which is now abandoned), more or less, to Betty's Lane and which Lot is further shown on the plat of survey drawn by Greenway Engineering, dated June 10, 1999, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of Winchester, Virginia in Deed Book 290 at Page 43 and in the Clerk's Oiiice of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book 910 at Page 941, wherein the same is designated as "54G -((1))-13A, BIB It2PG0581 s Thomas L. Cookson, Mary P. Cookson, DB 869 PG 778 (Fred Co.)" and by this reference made a part hereof as if set out in full; and being the same property conveyed to Thomas L. Cookson and Mary P. Cookson by Deed dated November 8, 1996 of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book 869 at Page 778. Reference is made to aforesaid Deed for a more particular description of the property herein conveyed. This conveyance is made subject to all easements, rights of way and restrictions of record affecting the subject property. The Grantors do hereby covenant that they has the right to convey to the Grantees that the Grantees shall have quiet and peaceable possession of the said property, free from all liens and encumbrances, and that they will grant such further assurances of title as may be requisite. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: Thomas L. Cookson tp.Cookson 8K9142`0582 s STATE OF VIRGINIA j CITY/C-OUNP[- OF _Yr'�"� , TO -WIT: 1 I � � . �4fts. , a Notary Public in and for the State and jurisdiction aforesaid, do hereby certify that Thomas L. Cookson and Mary P. Cookson, whose names are signed to the foregoing Deed dated the 16th day of July, 1999, have personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and jurisdiction aforesaid. Given under my hand this _L6—day of July, 1999. My Commission expires:,�-�-+- _3_�_Z_ Notary Public .' 0 �a V OF Y 'LO' tit! �U Tq RY Pv�� "B-0059-AAC0KSN.RVS --h WGINW FAEDEAOCK COUNTY SM T!0 Instrument of writing wasffducd(o MG On tho days 18H�at--- and with eertilicata 6f acknowledgment thereto annexed was adrr Cad to record. Tax imposed by Sec. Se.t-802 of ECp , and 68.1-801 have been paid, if assessable. pp "IDeO'30f, im Il6-CC3))-32 ROBERT W. BAY 155 ZONE: 52 USE: RES. 09. 300 PG.' 1695 ................................................... ........ R05 ST. - RT 112 ....... 39 ................. 154G -((1))-13A 0.20+/- AC. OEx NU5E - @ T.B.R. @ _.i .................... I @ r ccNc F IJ N PGD z w �Il Q J( w u I N 146 .............i....._........_ q I a a I 9 W IN Q 545-!!1))-13 RICHARD W. d DIANE 5. PIFER ZONE: RP `n I USE: RES. DB. 121 PCs. 300 w _ �D0,2 II W o U I Z IK II ................ X 3 Y .................... U���Q� 'II D .................... .:::DI I - I ................. @ I co ;41KENS a ALLEN, LF. LLP ;. .....ZONE: 52 i USE: COMM. DB. 5131 P5. 1055 — ........................i........... .... .. L.I ....................... HAMPTON INN - ROUTE 7 DATE: 10/27/03 BOUNDARY EXHIBIT SCALE: 1"=30 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 WINDY HILL LANE Engineers WINCHESTER, VA. 22602 Surveyors TELEPHONE: (540) 662-4185 FAX: (540) 722-9528 Founded in 1971 www.greenwayeng.com REZONING APPLICATION #13-03 CROSSPOINTE CENTER Staff Report for the Planning Commission Public Meeting Prepared: November 5, 2003 Staff Contact: Christopher M. Mohn, AICP, Deputy 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. As this application proceeds through the legislative reviewprocess, the response or method of resolution for each issue offered by the applicant andlor recommended by the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors will be stated in the text of this report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 11/19/03 Pending Board of Supervisors: 12/10/03 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 574.37 acres from RA (Rural Areas) and B2 (Business General) to RP (Residential Performance) and B2 (Business General). Specifically, this application requests the rezoning of the subject acreage as follows: 175.62 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General), 381.80 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance), and 16.95 acres from B2 (Business General) without proffers to B2 (Business General) with proffers. LOCATION: The subject site is located in the Kernstown area, east of the southern terminus of Route 37, north and adjacent to Lakeside Subdivision, and east and adjacent to Tasker Road (Route 642). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PARCEL ID NUMBERS:75-A-89,75-A-89A,75-A-90,75-A-91,75-A-92, 75-A-94, 75-A-95, 75-A-96 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: ZONED: Rural Areas (RA), 557.42 acres Use: UndevelopedNacant Business General (132), 16.95 acres ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING AND PRESENT USE: NORTH: ZONED: RA (Rural Areas) Use(s): Residential and Agricultural SOUTH: ZONED: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential (Lakeside Subdivision) EAST: ZONED: RA (Rural Areas) Use(s): Residential and Agricultural WEST: ZONED: Ml (Light Industrial) Use(s): Commercial, Industrial & Utility B2 (Business General) B3 (Industrial Transition) REZ #13-03, Crosspointe Center Page 2 November 5, 2003 INTENDED USE: Mixed use development consisting of 1,578 dwelling units and 960,000 square feet of commercial land uses with nine acres dedicated for government services. The project is proffered to develop in three (3) phases, each of which will consist of both residential and commercial uses, with occupancy preceded by completion ofphased transportation improvements. The applicant has proposed to serve the development with a multi -modal transportation system oriented on the following principal road improvements: (1) the realignment and extension of Tasker Road (Route 622), (2) the construction of Warrior Drive from the southeast project boundary to the northern project limits, and (3) the construction of Crosspointe Boulevard, which will bisect the project from west to east, extending from the southern terminus of Route 37 to the eastern project boundary. A network of pedestrian and bicycle trails and a public trail along the Opequon Creek corridor are also proffered. The gross residential density proposed for Crosspointe Center at project build out is 2.75 dwelling units per acre. REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: Please see the attached letter dated October 24, 2003, signed by Jerry A. Copp, Transportation Resident Engineer. Fire Marshal: Please see the attached comment sheet dated September 22, 2003 from Timothy L. Welsh, Assistant Fire Marshal. Stephens City Fire Co., Inc.: Please see the attached comment sheet dated October 21, 2003 from Gregory L. Locke, Fire and Rescue Chief. County Engineer: Please seethe attached letter dated October 23, 2003 from Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E., County Engineer. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: Please see the attached memorandum dated September 25, 2003 from Jesse W. Moffett, Executive Director. Sanitation Authority: No comment. Historic Resources Advisory Board: Please see attached letter dated September 29, 2003 from Rebecca A. Ragsdale, Planner 1. Parks & Recreation: The proposed proffer for Parks and Recreation appears to be consistent with the proffer model and with the net impact this development will have on the demands for recreational activities created by the development. This department needs to see more information pertaining to the required recreational amenities, open space, and the pedestrian/bikeway discussed in the project summary. Frederick County Public Schools: Please see attached letter dated October 16, 2003 from Al REZ #13-03, Crosspointe Center Page 3 November 5, 2003 Orndorff, Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent. County Attorney: Proffers appear to be in proper form. Winchester Regional Airport: The proposed rezoning request has been reviewed and it appears that it will not impact operations at the Winchester Regional Airports. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Stephens City Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned R-2 (Residential, Limited) and R-3 (Residential, General). The subject parcels were remapped to the A-2 (Agricultural, General) District via the county -wide downzoning adopted on October 8, 1980. A portion of parcel 75-A-89 totaling approximately 17 acres was rezoned from A-2 to B2 (Business General) through approval of rezoning application # 003-88 of SHIHO, Inc. on March 9, 1988. No proffers were included with this rezoning. 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 properties and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan Land Use The parcels comprising this rezoning application are located within the boundaries of the South Frederick Land Use Plan (SFLUP) and are described as being within the SFLUP Central Area. The 574.37 acres subject to this rezoning petition are located wholly within the Urban Development Area (UDA). The SFLUP designates the project site for mixed use and residential land uses, respectively. The residential designation applies to the portion of the site adjacent and north of Lakeside Subdivision and extends northward to the planned path of Route 37 extended, as shown on the adopted SFLUP map. The residential designation is intended to complement and expand the suburban residential land use pattern already established south of the site. The mixed use designation applies to the remainder of the site located north of the planned path of Route 37 extended. The SFLUP describes the mixed use designation as consisting of both residential and commercial components, with the limitation that residential uses are not to exceed 75% of the mixed use land area. The SFLUP further identifies the mixed use concept as a means of promoting an alternative land use pattern that integrates land uses, allowing for internal service and employment uses accessible via inter -modal transportation systems, with public open space areas connecting various neighborhoods. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6- 42.3 - 6-42.4, 6-42.9) REZ 413-03, Crosspointe Center Page 4 November 5, 2003 Transportation The SFLUP articulates the major transportation improvements planned within the study area as envisioned by the Winchester Area Transportation Study (WATS) and the County's Eastern Road Plan. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-42.5, 6-42.9) Such improvements are essential to accommodating local and regional traffic at acceptable level of service (LOS) conditions throughout the study area. Several identified improvements are planned to occur within the project site, which may be described as follows: (1) Realignment and Extension of Tasker Road (Route 642) - planned to extend across site and intersect with Warrior Drive within project; (2) Extension of Route 37 - planned to extend from southern terminus at I-81 to eastern project boundary; (3) Extension of Warrior Drive - planned to extend through eastern portion of site following a general north - south alignment; ultimate location and design must enable connectivity with sections of road to be constructed via adjoining developments. The SFLUP further encourages the establishment of a multi -modal transportation system through the inclusion of extensive bicycle and pedestrian facilities within a mixed use development. Such facilities should connect the residential and commercial components of the community and enable pedestrian access to open space areas and other public amenities. Indeed, attainment of a truly "walkable" community is a principal objective and benefit of mixed use development. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-42.6) The infrastructure policies of the SFLUP identify design objectives for transportation improvements within the study area. Notably, major roads should be designed with boulevard - style treatments, such as raised and landscaped medians, open space buffers adjacent to rights- of-way that include ornamental landscaping, and boulevard entrances into commercial and residential land bays. Moreover, commercial entrances are expected to be limited along the rights-of-way of major collector and arterial roadways within the study area. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-42.6) 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) Planning Staff Analysis and Comment Comprehensive Plan Conformance: The rezoning proposal offered by the applicant is consistent with the applicable land use and transportation policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, and, in particular, the South Frederick Land Use Plan (SFLUP). REZ #13-03, Crosspointe Center Page 5 November 5, 2003 Land Use.- Although se:Although Crosspointe Center is considered to be a mixed use project that will develop in a unified manner, the configuration of land uses proffered by the applicant corresponds with the multiple planned land use designations applicable to the site. Indeed, the applicant has proposed that the commercially zoned areas of the project be limited to the portion of the site designated for mixed use, which would also include adjoining areas of residential zoning. The applicant has further proposed to focus residential uses in the southern portion of the project in accord with the residential designation. (See Generalized Development Plan, dated October 2003) The development program proffered by the applicant would enable a maximum of 1,578 dwelling units and 960,000 square feet of commercial floor area. To ensure that a variety of housing types are available within Crosspointe Center, the applicant has proffered that no more than 1,042 (66%) of the total permitted dwelling units will be developed as single family detached housing types. Pursuant to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, multi -family housing (defined as housing for two or more families, to include duplexes and townhomes) shall comprise a maximum of 40% of a given RP zoned development. Therefore, a minimum of 947 units will be developed as single family detached housing, with a maximum of 631 units possible as some form of multi -family housing. It is noted that the applicant has proffered to exclude rental garden apartments from Crosspointe Center. All other housing types permitted in the RP District, to include non -rental multi -family housing or garden apartments, will be allowed to develop within the project subject to applicable performance standards. Enforcement of the rental restriction will be the sole responsibility ofthe applicant and the homeowner's association(s) established for the residential components of Crosspointe Center. Indeed, the County is neither equipped nor empowered to control private real estate transactions. Crosspointe Center will develop in three phases defined by the Proposed Proffer Statement, each of which includes a minimum amount of commercial development to accompany a maximum number of residential units. This proffered phasing plan will ensure that commercial and residential land uses develop simultaneously throughout the development cycle of Crosspointe Center, which is a notable commitment by the applicant that has no precedent in Frederick County's development history. The proffered phasing program for land uses may be summarized as follows: Phase 1: Commercial: Minimum of 210,000 square feet of gross leaseable floor area. (shall be completed prior to commencement ofPhase 2 residential) Residential: Maximum of 616 dwelling units, to include 100 age restricted. Phase 2: Commercial: Minimum of 390,000 square feet total gross leaseable floor area. (additional 180,000 square feet developed during this phase; shall be completed prior to commencement of Phase 3 REZ #13-03, Crosspointe Center Page 6 November 5, 2003 residential) Residential: Maximum of 51 "s dwelling units, to include 100 age restricted. Phase 3: Commercial: Phase 2 minimum commercial development shall be completed, which, as noted above, will yield 390,000 square feet of total gross leaseable floor area. This minimum floor area shall be completed prior to commencement of Phase 3 residential development. Commercial development will continue until maximum proffered floor area of 960,000 square feet is reached. Residential: Remainder of residential program to be developed, consisting of a maximum of 449 dwelling units. It is noted that commercial development may proceed ahead of residential development into subsequent project phases. However, under no circumstance would residential development be permitted to proceed into subsequent phases without completion of the corresponding commercial floor area specified by proffer. The residential component of the development at build out will account for approximately 66% of the total project land area, which conforms to the SFLUP policy that calls for residential uses to comprise no more than 75% of a mixed use project. The phasing program proposed by the applicant maintains a land use balance consistent with this policy objective throughout the Crosspointe Center development cycle. Transportation: The transportation program proffered by the applicant includes improvements and design treatments that are generally consistent with the infrastructure policies of the SFLUP. The applicant has proffered to complete the transportation improvements for Crosspointe Center in three phases generally coincident with the land use phases described above. All improvements associated with a given transportation phase are proffered to be fully constructed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the corresponding land use phase. The proposed transportation phasing schedule therefore ensures that the infrastructure necessary to accommodate projected traffic demand willrep cede the commencement of planned uses in each phase of Crosspointe Center. The proffered transportation program for Crosspointe Center is oriented on three principal components involving construction of roads that are identified by the SFLUP as planned transportation improvements. In particular, the applicant has proffered to realign and extend Tasker Road (Route 642) across the project to form an intersection with Warrior Drive, which is also proffered to be constructed in a north - south direction within the eastern portion of the project. Both Tasker Road and Warrior Drive are planned to be constructed as major collector roads within the project boundaries. Commercial access will be limited on each road, with four entrances permitted from Tasker Road and only one entrance allowed from Warrior Drive. REZ #13-03, Crosspointe Center Page 7 November 5, 2003 The third principal component of the proffered transportation program is the construction of a roadway extending from the current terminus of Route 37 to the eastern project boundary. The SFLUP identifies this improvement as Route 37 Extended, consistent with the regional transportation program articulated by the WATS and Eastern Road Plan. Despite the absence of the extension of Route 37 from the VDOT Six Year Improvement Plan, it is recognized that the effective management of transportation impacts within the SFLUP study area is largely dependant upon the availability of this critical east - west route. The applicant has therefore included this improvement in the form of proposed Crosspointe Boulevard, which will be the cornerstone of the transportation program for Crosspointe Center. The applicant has proffered to construct Crosspointe Boulevard in the planned path of the Route 37 extension as a four -lane urban thoroughfare. The initial section of Crosspointe Boulevard will be constructed as a Phase 1 improvement, extending approximately 1,100 feet east from the current terminus of Route 37 to form an intersection with realigned Tasker Road. Prior to the occupancy of Phase 2 land uses, Crosspointe Boulevard will be extended east across the site as a two lane collector road to form an intersection with Warrior Drive. The road will ultimately be expanded to four lanes and continued to the eastern limits of the project during the final phase of development. The applicant has further proffered to dedicate the right-of-way necessary to expand Crosspointe Boulevard from a collector to a major arterial roadway in the event the Route 37 extension is returned to the six year plan in the future. The land located within this surplus right-of-way is proffered to be maintained as open space. In addition to the three major road improvements, the applicant's transportation program. includes additional facilities and design elements that implement policy objectives of the SFLUP. The applicant has proffered to develop a system of bicycle and pedestrian trails to provide multi -modal transportation opportunities throughout the project, the general location of which is depicted on the proffered Generalized Development Plan (GDP). The applicant has also proffered to design Tasker Road and Warrior Drive to achieve a boulevard style appearance. Specifically, these roadways will include raised landscaped medians as well as 35 - foot wide landscaped buffer areas adjacent to each side of their respective rights-of-way. The applicant has included an illustrative with the proffered GDP, titled the "Park, Trail and Buffer Exhibit" (dated October 20, 2003), to guide corridor design along Tasker Road and Warrior Drive. 3) Site Suitability/Environmental Features No conditions exist on the subject site that would preclude or significantly limit development. The following environmental features have been identified on the project site: A. Flood Plain: The project site contains approximately 69 acres in identified areas of flood plain, all of which is coincident with the Hoge Run and Opequon Creek corridors, respectively. Both Hoge Run and Opequon Creek are perennial streams. Disturbance of flood plains is strictly limited pursuant to the provisions of Article XV of the REZ #13-03, Crosspointe Center Page 8 November 5, 2003 Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, which will be administered during subsequent phases of the development review process. [Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, § 165-31.B.(1)] B. Wetlands/Water Impoundments: A wetland classified as a water impoundment area is located on the project site. The Zoning Ordinance prohibits the disturbance of lakes, ponds, and/or water impoundment areas. A property owner or developer may seek approval from the Zoning Administrator to disturb such water features if it is determined that the feature in question serves no useful "retention, environmental, or recreational purposes." The applicant is encouraged to incorporate any existing water features located on the site into the design plan for Crosspointe Center. [Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, § 165-31.8. (2)] C. Soils and Steep Slopes: The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Weikert- Berks-Blairton soil association, which is the predominant association on land located east of Interstate 81. It is noted that the Weikert-Berks-Blairton soil association presents some limitations to site development due to a seasonal high water table, depth to bedrock, and slope. The management of such characteristics must be demonstrated through the site engineering process associated with subsequent development applications for the proposed project. Steep slopes (land areas of 50% slope or greater) are located within the northern and southern portions of the site, generally coincident with the ravines and drainage ways associated with Hoge Run and Opequon Creek, respectively. The applicant has proffered the establishment of stream preservation buffers along both of these perennial water features, which are intended to minimize disturbance of steep slope areas located on the site and further protect stream resources. The applicant has acknowledged that some disturbance of steep slopes will be necessary to accommodate sanitary sewer facilities, public trail systems, and the proffered transportation program. The Zoning Ordinance stipulates that no more than 25% of steep slopes shall be disturbed or regraded. The management of steep slopes pursuant to this disturbance limitation will be addressed through subsequent site engineering activities. [Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, § 165-31.B.(6)] 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Impact Analysis Statement: The traffic impact analysis (TIA) prepared for this application calculated transportation impacts based upon the following development assumptions: REZ #13-03, Crosspointe Center Page 9 November 5, 2003 • Residential: 1,590 dwelling units • Retail: 750,000 square feet • Office: 190,000 square feet Using traffic generation figures from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 6" Edition, the applicant projects traffic impacts for the development in terms of three phases that correspond with years 2006, 2009, and 2012, respectively. For the purposes of the TIA, 2012 represents the year in which project build out will occur. The TIA indicates that at project build out, the planned uses will result in the generation of 27,502 new average daily trips (ADT). (See "A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center, " p. 7, 15, & 23) The total new ADT generated by the development is projected by phase as follows: • Phase I (Year 2006): 13,905 ADT • Phase II (Year 2009): 19,130 ADT • Phase III (Year 2012): 27,502 ADT The external road network projected to absorb the new trips generated by Crosspointe Center consists of Tasker Road (Route 642), Interstate 81, and Route 37. The TIA indicates that these roadways currently function at desirable level of service conditions. However, the intersection ofRoute 37 and the northbound Interstate 81 on and offramps are projected to function at Level of Service Category `B" and "F" conditions by year 2006 due to background traffic growth, indicating a failing intersection. Background traffic is that future traffic which is not generated by the proposed development. (See "A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center, " p. 3 & 6) The applicant has proffered a series of transportation improvements intended to enhance the existing system and ensure adequate accommodation of projected trips. The improvements proffered by the applicant are graphically depicted on the overall Generalized Development Plan (GDP) as well as on the accompanying phase specific GDP documents, with each improvement labeled to clearly correspond with the text of the Proposed Proffer Statement. The principal improvements proffered by the applicant may be summarized as follows: • Realignment and Extension of Tasker Road (Route 642) - Proffered to extend across site and intersect with Warrior Drive within project; Extension of Route 37 in the form of Crosspointe Boulevard - Proffered to extend from southern terminus at I-81 to eastern project boundary; • Extension of Warrior Drive - Proffered to be constructed through eastern portion of site following a general north - south alignment; ultimate location and design will facilitate connections REZ #13-03, Crosspointe Center Page 10 November 5, 2003 with sections of road to be constructed via adjoining developments. • Relocation of Northbound Ramps of Interstate 81 Interchange • Construction of an Additional Southbound Lane on Route 11 - Additional lane to be constructed at Route 37/Route 11 interchange between Route 11 ramps to improve access movements. The TIA identified certain improvements as necessary prior to the commencement of project development. The applicant has therefore proffered to complete the following improvements prior to the issuance of the first building permit for Crosspointe Center: • Crosspointe Boulevard will be constructed to extend east from the current terminus of Route 37 approximately 1,100 feet. • Tasker Road (Route 642) will be realigned to intersect with the terminus of the Crosspointe Boulevard extension and will be constructed beyond this intersection as depicted on the proffered Generalized Development Plan (GDP). • Hilandale Road will be realigned and extended. • Northbound Interstate 81 interchange ramps will be relocated. Prior to ramp relocation, the applicant shall secure necessary design approvals from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and obtain the funding necessary to complete the approved work plan. The applicant has proffered to phase implementation of the remainder of the transportation program pursuant to land use benchmarks. As noted in the preceding transportation policy analysis, each phase of transportation improvements corresponds with one of three proffered land use phases consisting of both residential and commercial components. All improvements associated with a given transportation phase will be completed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the corresponding land use phase. The TIA concludes that the improvements proffered by the applicant will ensure Level of Service (LOS) Category "C" conditions or better on study area roads throughout the development process. However, with the conclusion of Phase III, at project build out, several study area intersections are projected to function at LOS Category "D" during peak traffic conditions, most notably at the relocated intersection of Tasker Road and Crosspointe Boulevard and at the Interstate 81 northbound off ramp intersection. (See "A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center, " p. 11, 19, & 27). REZ #13-03, Crosspointe Center Page 1 I November 5, 2003 VDOT Comment The proposed rezoning will have a "significant measurable impact" on Interstate 81 and Routes 37 and 642, respectively. It is noted that certain intersections will experience a decline in Level of Service (LOS) conditions at project build -out, although Level of Service Category "C" will be maintained throughout the overall road network serving the site. The applicant is encouraged to strive to improve each intersection to the desirable Level of Service "C." However, VDOT is satisfied that the proffered transportation improvements appear to address all transportation impacts attributable to the proposed development. (See attached letter dated 10/24/03 from Jerry A. Copp, Transportation Resident Engineer, VDOT Edinburg Residency) Planning Staff Comment The transportation policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan stipulate that new development should only occur if impacted road systems will function at Level of Service (LOS) Category "C" or better. The transportation program proffered by the applicant achieves the functional standards established by policy until the latter stages of development, when the combined effect ofbackground traffic growth and new vehicle trips originating from the proposed project yield diminished levels of service at certain study area intersections. Despite these intersection -specific declines, the overall condition of the study area road system is projected to maintain LOS Category "C" as desired by policy. B. Historic Resources Impact Analysis Statement: The applicant accurately reports the presence of several resources on the subject site that are included in the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey. Of particular note is Hilandale House (#34-126), which is an architectural resource that was built in several stages beginning in the eighteenth century. It is noted that Hilandale House has been deemed eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Also located on the site are Carysbrook (#34-319) and the Carysbrook Redoubt (434-320). Hilandale House was occupied during the Civil War as part of Camp Russell, a union encampment constructed during the winter of 1864 as part of General Sheridan's Valley Campaign. A remnant of this encampment is a circular earthwork that is identified as the Hilandale Earthworks (#34-321) in the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey. This earthwork is recognized as a rare enduring example of a Civil War fortification in the Winchester area. During preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for Route 37, a thorough archeological investigation of the Camp Russell area was conducted due to the likelihood that the road would impact the site. The results of this study yielded a REZ 913-03, Crosspointe Center Page 12 November 5, 2003 recommendation to form a Camp Russell Historic District, of which both Hilandale House and the Hilandale Earthworks are deemed to be "contributing elements." Through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), it was agreed that FHWA would consult with VDOT to develop landscaping plans to reduce the visual impact of road construction on Hilandale House. Additionally, FHWA agreed to cooperate to develop and implement mitigation plans to address the potential impacts of road construction on the Hilandale Earthworks. Although the MOU contemplates only the impacts of road improvements on the subject resources, the applicant has suggested that they will comply with the provisions of the agreement to ensure mitigation of impacts that may result due to land use. The applicant has proffered to establish three preservation parks within Crosspointe Center around Hilandale House, the Camp Russell encampment area, and the Carysbrook Redoubt, respectively. The Hilandale House itself will be preserved within the proffered five -acre preservation park, and may be adaptively reused as deemed appropriate by the applicant. The Camp Russell preservation park will consist of ten acres and the Carysbrook Redoubt park will be comprised of two acres. The three preservation parks will be accessible to the public via the proffered pedestrian trail system. (See Generalized Development Plan - Park, Trail, and Buffer Exhibit, dated October 2003) It is noted that there are no core battlefield resources located on the subject site. C. Sewer and Water Impact Analysis Statement: At full build -out, the proposed development will consume approximately 634,550 gallons per day (GPD) of water and generate an average daily sewage flow of 494,000 GPD. The applicant is indicating that water service for the project will originate from the Diehl Water Plan via the 20 inch primary distribution main that traverses the site. Moreover, the applicant reports that additional supply is available through the one-half million gallon elevated water storage tank located adjacent to the site. All water infrastructure is proffered to be designed and implemented according to Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) requirements. Sewage will be conveyed to the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Plant via the existing 18 inch gravity interceptor line located in the Hoge Run watershed. This conveyance scheme will be used to accommodate the flow requirements of Phases 1 and 2 of Crosspointe Center. The applicant indicates that the Opequon trunk main planned for installation during Phase 2 will be designed to adequately manage the impacts of additional uses. All sewer infrastructure is proffered to be designed and implemented according to FCSA requirements. REZ #13-03, Crosspointe Center Page 13 November 5, 2003 7) Proffer Statement 1. Land Use: (Proposed Proffer Statement, p. 2) • The development program for Crosspointe Center is proffered to consist of no more than 960,000 square feet of commercial floor area and 1,578 dwelling units, of which 200 will be age -restricted. The applicant has further proffered that no rental garden apartments will be permitted in the project and the maximum number of single family detached units will not exceed 1,042. The rate of residential development is not specified by proffer. • Implementation Note: As noted previously in this staff report, implementation and enforcement of the restriction on rental garden apartments will be the sole responsibility of the applicant and/or the homeowner's association(s) established for the residential components of Crosspointe Center. 2. Conditions Precedent to the Issuance of Permits and Plan Approvals: (Proposed Proffer Statement, p. 2 - 3) • The development program for Crosspointe Center is proffered to occur in three phases, each of which includes a minimum amount of commercial development to accompany a maximum number of residential units. The residential program of the development will not be permitted to proceed into subsequent phases unless minimum commercial floor area thresholds have been reached. This proffered phasing plan will ensure that commercial and residential land uses develop simultaneously throughout the development cycle of Crosspointe Center. 3. Architecture, Signage, and Landscaping: (Proposed Proffer Statement, p. 3 - 4) • The applicant has proffered that standard concrete masonry block will not be permitted to be used in the front facade of any building. Moreover, the applicant has proffered that one or more architectural review boards will be established to enforce a unified development program for Crosspointe Center. As described by proffer, such a program will promote the use of compatible architectural styles and treatments for all buildings and signage within the project. • A comprehensive sign plan will be prepared for the project to accompany submission of the Master Development Plan. No minimum dimensional or design standards have been proffered by the applicant to guide future preparation of the comprehensive sign plan. • Tasker Road and Warrior Drive will include corridor buffer areas located adjacent to either side of their respective rights-of-way. The buffers are proffered to be 35 feet in width and will contain landscape and lighting features intended to create a "boulevard" style design. No such design treatments are proffered for Crosspointe Boulevard. REZ 413-03, Crosspointe Center Page 14 November 5, 2003 4. Pedestrian Trail System and Recreation Areas: (Proposed Proffer Statement, p. 4) • The applicant has proffered to design and build a public bicycle and pedestrian trail that will link residential and commercial areas throughout Crosspointe Center. The general location of the trail system is to be consistent with the "Park, Trail, and Buffer Exhibit" of the Generalized Development Plan. The proffer stipulates that the trail will be 10 feet in width and constructed to meet the standards of the Frederick CountyParks and Recreation Department. However, the surface treatment for the planned trail system is not specified. 5. Fire & Rescue: (Proposed Proffer Statement, p. 4) • The applicant has proffered to contribute $250.00 per dwelling unit to Frederick County for fire and rescue purposes. This contribution will be paid at issuance of the building permit for each said unit. • The applicant has proffered to contribute a total of $300,000.00 to the Stephens City Volunteer Fire Department. This contribution will be paid in three installments of $100,000.00 at issuance of the first building permit for each development phase. • Implementation Note: The direct contribution of funds to a volunteer fire company is not enforceable by Frederick County and will occur as a private transaction between the applicant and Stephens City Volunteer Fire Department. 6. Schools: (Proposed Proffer Statement, p. 4) • The applicant has proffered to contribute $3,000.00 per dwelling unit to Frederick County for public school purposes. This contribution will be paid at issuance of the building permit for each said unit. The public school contribution will not apply to age -restricted units. 7. Parks & Open Space: (Proposed Proffer Statement, p. 4) • The applicant has proffered to contribute $500.00 per dwelling unit to Frederick County for recreational purposes. This contribution will be paid at issuance of the building permit for each said unit. 8. Libraries: (Proposed Proffer Statement, p. 4) • The applicant has proffered to contribute $100.00 per dwelling unit to Frederick REZ #13-03, Crosspointe Center Page 15 November 5, 2003 County for library purposes. This contribution will be paid at issuance of the building permit for each said unit. 9. Sheriffs Office: (Proposed Proffer Statement, p. 4) • The applicant has proffered to contribute $5,000.00 to Frederick County for the Sheriff's Office. This contribution will be paid at issuance of the first building permit for the development. 10. Administration Building: (Proposed Proffer Statement, p. 5) • The applicant has proffered to contribute $5,000.00 to Frederick County to be used for construction of a general governmental administration building. This contribution will be paid at issuance of the first building permit for the development. 11. Creation of Homeowner's and Property Owner's Association: (Proposed Proffer Statement, p. 5 - 6) • The applicant has included language in the proffer statement outlining the responsibilities of the homeowner's and property owner's associations in Crosspointe Center. Such responsibilities include, but are not limited to, assuring compliance with design guidelines for building and signage, maintaining common open space and buffer areas, and coordinating private refuse collection. 12. Water & Sewer: (Proposed Proffer Statement, p. 6) • The applicant has proffered to connect the project to public water and sewer facilities and to construct all facilities necessary for such connection. Additionally, the applicant proffers to construct all water and sewer infrastructure in accordance with Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) requirements. 13. Environment: (Proposed Proffer Statement, p. 6) • The applicant has proffered to establish stream preservation buffers to enhance protection of Hoge Run and Opequon Creek from disturbance. The dimensions of these buffer areas are not specified by proffer, and are to be implemented according to their general depictions on the "Park, Trail, and Buffer Exhibit" of the Generalized Development Plan. REZ 913-03, Crosspointe Center Page 16 November 5, 2003 14. Transportation: (proposed Proffer Statement, p. 5 - 9) The applicant has proffered to complete the transportation improvements for Crosspointe Center in three phases generally coincident with the project's land use phases. All improvements associated with a given transportation phase are proffered to be fully constructed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the corresponding land use phase. The principal components of the proffered transportation program are three major roads that the applicant will construct through the project site. The improvements are described as follows: (1) realignment and extension of Tasker Road (Route 642), (2) construction of Crosspointe Boulevard from the terminus of Route 37 to the eastern project boundary, and (3) construction of Warrior Drive through the eastern portion of the site in a generally north -south alignment. Other improvements proffered by the applicant include the relocation of the Interstate 81 interchange northbound ramps (on and off), realignment of Hilandale Road, and the addition of a southbound lane on Route 11 within the Route 37/Route 1 I interchange area. 15. Cultural Resources Investigation and Preservation: (Proposed Proffer Statement, p. 9 - 10) • The applicant has proffered to preserve Hilandale House, which may be adaptively reused as deemed appropriate by the applicant. Moreover, a five acre preservation park will be established immediately surrounding the house. The general location of the preservation park is depicted on the "Park, Trail, and Buffer Exhibit" of the Generalized Development Plan. • The applicant has proffered to establish a ten acre preservation park immediately surrounding the Civil War encampment area known as Camp Russell. The general location of the preservation park is depicted on the "Park, Trail, and Buffer Exhibit" of the Generalized Development Plan. • The applicant has proffered to establish a two acre preservation park surrounding the Carysbrook Redoubt. The general location of the preservation park is depicted on the "Park, Trail, and Buffer Exhibit" of the Generalized Development Plan. • A Phase I Archaeological Study will be conducted on any portion of the project site not previously inventoried through the Route 37 Final Environmental Impact Study (FEIS). The applicant has further proffered that Virginia Department of Historic Resources guidelines will be utilized to further investigate any archaeological features identified on the site through the Phase I study. 16. Dedication of Area for Government Services: (Proposed Proffer Statement, p. 10) • The applicant has proffered to dedicate approximately nine acres to Frederick REZ #13-03, Crosspointe Center Page 17 November 5, 2003 County in a location depicted on the Generalized Development Plan (GDP) for the placement of government services. RL is noted that the location of this land dedication is not clearly delineated on the GDP. 17. Escalator Clause: (Proposed Proffer Statement, p. 10) Any proffered monetary contribution not paid to Frederick County within thirty (30) months of rezoning approval will be adjusted to reflect the Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI -U) published by the U.S. Department of Labor. At the time such contributions are paid, they will be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI -U measured from the date twenty four (24) months following rezoning approval to the date the contributions are paid. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 11/19/03 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: This application is a request to rezone 574.37 acres of land to the RP and B2 Districts to facilitate development of a mixed use community consisting of 1,578 dwelling units and 960,000 square feet of commercial uses. The Comprehensive Policy Plan articulates the planned land use of the subject parcels through the policies of the South Frederick Land Use Plan (SFLUP). The SFLUP designates the subject parcels for mixed use and residential development, respectively. As described in this staff report, the development program proposed through the requested rezoning is consistent with the adopted policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. A recommendation to the Board of Supervisors concerning this application would be appropriate. OUTPUT MODULE APPLICANT: Crosspointe Center - Build Out Net Fiscal Impact LAND USE TYPE RP/62 Costs of Impact Credit: Credits to be Taken for Future Taxes Paid (NPV) Total Potential Adjustment For REAL EST VAL $252,355,810 Required (entered in Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Future CIP/ Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per FIRE & RESCUE = 11 Capital Faciltiies col sum only) Oper Cap Equip Expend/Debt S. Taxes. Other (Unadiustedl Cost Balance Facilities Impact Dwelling Unit Fire and Rescue Department $1,673,559 $0 $0 $1,673,559 $1,061 Elementary Schools $6,470,448 Middle Schools $3,858,974 $1,053,174 $5,112,507 $6,165,681 $6,165,681 $9,559,971 $6,058 High Schools $5,396,231 _ Parks and Recreation $2,316,586 $522,082 $522,082 $522,082 $1,794,505 $1,137 Public Library $402,735 $112,635 $112,635 $112,635 $290,101 $184 Sheriffs Offices $238,356 $243,933 $0 $48,682 $292,616 $292,616$0 $0 $0 Administration Building $305,890 $0 $0 $0 $305,890 $1 Other Miscellaneous Facilities $390,248 $488,750 $539,610 $1,028,360 $1,028,360 $0 $0 $0 SUBTOTAL $21,053,027 $1,785,858 $5,652,117 $683,399 $8,121,374 $8,121,374 $12,931,653 $8,195 LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT $29,141,122 $29,141,122 $29,141,122($29.141,122 ($18,467 NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT0 0 INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Included 1.0 INDEX: "1.0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Co Avg: 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = 1.000 --------- PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 -------------------- ------------------ Ratio to Co Avg = 1.342 METHODOLOGY: 1. -- ----------------------------- ------------------------------------------- —– Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model. ----------------------------------------- ----------------------- ------------------- 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input in row total of second column (zero if negative); included are the one-time taxes/fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated in fiscal impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed. ------------------------------------ ------------ -------------------------------------------–------------------ --------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------- ------------- --------- -------------- ------ ----- NOTES: Model Run Date 10/15/03 CMM Project Description: Crosspointe Center Build -Out (comDletion of three phasespssumes 860,000 s.f. retail/general commercial, 100,000 s.f. office, 1,242 single family dwellings (mixed lot types; includes 200 SF small lot/age-restricted), and 336 townhouse units on 574.37 acres zoned RP (381.8 acres/66% project total; overall project density: 2.75 du/acre) and B2 (192.57 acres; B2 FAR: 0.11). Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. I l� 600 REZONING APPL ICA TION A-0' %"r + `' y� , 'fit 4�� K �� r ' ' r�e� �r /tJ� +e L {' :�,'.y�' .s � �` ° �• ;' � � _ _ �^� t • •�r+ i '� v-;� '� #':. '*+. \'"".r� �.'�. ..,yam ,,fr,','� y � �' ,�y�_ * 4� ��,. �� wo may, }.. dR ! }Awl+ w A... L # is i e ,�` #' 1iAn d y y S:`• f 'a 9 AS "art y Y A N ` 9 5j' �, ,(� '�i' ,� aha,. i � 'fit a2.`.��y�►�� � � * y `.k S $7 � �„a.k� �._}fro '.- �•,. } � 5 �e7 '„89y i `� � �, ”` •eFk4�� �a� s��• ,s msr �'�� x+Y 5��' ` ' �, 'h�vy t'+t i' "�I`� f^ .�L ' V '�'r Jwr' ..'"� �t. ,raA P x � �� �,R,� � ,f�.s%t'�Y ,tr �^ V "✓ � :� Mi �s 7 ,� `' { tc JF t CROSSPOINTE CENTER August, 200..3 Prepared By. gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc. Engkmm Lana PWmm rkts audft IG E F a ft SL Wd Veto 22601 MM (540) 667-2139 FAX (540) 665-M OW- 9WW&mmcAm • IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT AND REZONING APPLICATION MATERIALS FOR REZONING REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF CROSSPOINTE CENTER Shawnee Magisterial District August 20, 2003 Prepared by: Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone: 540-667-2131 Fax: 540-665-09493 E-mail: gwcaram@earthlink.net and Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley, Emrich & Terpak, PC 9324 West Street Suite 300 Manassas, VA 20110 Phone 703-330-7400 Fax: 703-330-7430 E-mail: ifootendmn.thelandlawyers.com ahaase@mn.thelandlawyers.com s • 40 Table of Contents I. Application H. Executive Summary III. Impact Analysis A. Project Background and History B. Location and Access C. Site Suitability D. Traffic E. Water Supply and Sewage Conveyance F. Site Drainage G. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities H. Historic Sites and Structures I. Impact on Community Facilities IV. Frederick County Impact Model V. Proffer Statement VI. Agency Comments VII. Survey Plat and Deed VIII. Tax Ticket IX. Appendix Crosspointe Center r sccticm I Application Impact Analysis Statement • • REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA The following information shall be provided by the applicant. All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office Of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates Inc. Telephone: 667-2139 Address: c/o Chuck Maddox 117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester. Virginia 22601 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Glaize Developments, Inc Telephone: 662-7980 Address: P.O. Box 888 Winchester, VA 22604 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Chuck Maddox Telephone: 667-2139 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location Map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deed of proper �y X Impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid - X Proffer Statement X 1 • 5. The Code of Vireinia 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: Fred L Glaize, III 6. A) Current Use of the Property: B) Proposed Use of the Property: 7. Adjoining Property: See Attached PARCEL ID NUMBER USE Vacant Commercial & Residential ZONING S. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers). Kernstown Area — East and adjacent to Tasker Road where VA Route 37 ends 2 • • 0 Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density of intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number Magisterial: Fire Service: Shawnee Stephens City Districts High School: Middle School: Rescue Service: Stephens City Elementary School Sherando James Wood & R.E. Aylor Armel 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 16.95 B2 No Change 175.62 RA B2 381.80 RA RP 574.37 Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family Home 1242 Townhome 336 Multi -Family Non -Residential Lots Mobile Home Hotel Rooms Office Retail Restaurant Square Footage of Proposed Uses 100,000 SF Service Station 750,000 SF Manufacturing Warehouse Other • 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we). understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of- way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s) GLAIZE .DEVELOPMENTS NC. Owner(s) -� — ` c 'j Fred L. Glaize, III, Vice President C� Date Date Date e 70 r� Date 4 Crossps Center ID# Name 75 -A -99A UJinc. Arfri UP Partnershi Address 75-A-93 11501 Huff Court, N. Bethesda, MD 20895 Use Zonn Paul M. Haldeman, Jr P.O. Box 2751, Winchester, VA 22604 A ricultural RA 76-A-13 W.F, Artrip Jr. 3-A-116 John C & Frances L Russell, Jr 285 Caldwe1726 Frontll Lane Pike,o al Winchester,Winchester, VA 22602 A ricultural RA RA 63-2-B Hammon Investment Co., Inc. 931 Pinto Circle, NokomiseFLr, VA 22602 Agricultural 63-2-C Commonwealth of VA 34275 A ricultural RA 75-4-1 P.O: Box 67, Richmond, VA 23218 Commercial Ml Brubaker Enterprises, LTD 3407 Cedar Creek Grade, Winchester, VA 22602 75-4-2 State Government RA Shiho; Inc. P.O, Box 3276, Winchester, VA 22604 Commercial 75 -A -8.7A Jose h & Judith Stossel B2 75-1-A 176 Pickett Lane, Ste hens Cit , VA 22655 Commercial B2 Fred. Co. Sanitation Authorit P.O. Box 1877, Winchester, VA 22604 Residential 75 -A -87B Ronald Norwood Heath RA 75-A-84 216 Pickett Lane, Ste hens Cit , VA 22655 Office/LTtilit B2 core Dail 244 Pickett Lane, Ste hens Cit , VA 22655 Residential 75-A-97 Steve Dubrueler RA 64-A-24 346 Saddleback Lane, Winchester, VA 22601 Residential RA Paul M Haldeman, Jr P.O. Box, 2751, Winchester, VA 22604 Residential 75G-7-6_194 Lakeside Homeowners Assoc,RA 75G -4-4B-59 Jeffre P.O. Box 746, Ste hens Cit , VA 22655 A ricultural RA 75G -4-4B-60 War 105 Jade Ct., Stephens Cit,, VA 22655 O en S ace RP Rodne &Suzanne Tor 102 Jade Ct., Ste hens Cit , VA 22655 Vacant RP Vacant I RP Crosspointe Center Section II Executive Summary Impact Analysis Statement Crosspointe Center Impact Analysis Statement Glaize Developments, Inc., a Virginia corporation, is the owner of property encompassing approximately 626.37 acres, located immediately east of the intersection at Tasker Road and Va. Route 37. The total area is composed of eight parcels, and is more particularly identified among the tax rolls of Frederick County as 75-A-89, 89A, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95 and 96 (the "Property"). With the exception of approximately 17 acres, zoned to the B-2 designation, the parcels in their entirety are currently zoned "RA." The Property lies mostly within the Urban Development Area ("UDA"), and is easily accessible from Interstate 81, Route 37, and Tasker Road. Fifty-two acres lie outside the UDA and this area is not a part of the petition for rezoning. The area which is subject to rezoning totals 557.42 acres. When the County's Eastern Road Plan is implemented, an extension from I-81 and Route 37, Tasker Road, and Warrior Drive will connect within the Property. Because of these locational attributes, the Property is uniquely poised for development as a significant retail and commercial center for the County and greater Shenandoah Valley region. Accordingly, Glaize Developments (the "Applicant") proposes to rezone the Property to Residential Performance ("RP") and Business General District ("B-2"). Upon full build -out, the mixed-use project, to be known as "Crosspointe Center," will consist of 960,000 square feet of commercial area, consisting of 110,000 SF, of general commercial that is available in the existing B-2 area, 750,000 SF of retail, and 100,000 SF of office uses as well as 1,578 residential dwelling units of which 200 will be age restricted dwellings and no more than 1,042 shall be single family detached dwelling units. The Historic Hilandale house will be preserved, and the surrounding property will be rezoned to the B-2 zoning designation. CROSSK".)INTE g L 0CA RON MAP o � PRO4CT ` 1Yl gilbert w. Clifford & associates, inc. r meers Land wlamers water oua6ly 117 E. Piccd4y SL V mchmter, Wgink 22601 VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (54D) 665-0493 EMAIL gwctiii@mnsinc.mm . FIGURE I 1� PROJECT SITE FP'- E;KICY COUNTY " ST I::R WATER SERVICE AREA FRE -D -13 -RICK COUNTY U t BANI DEV ET 0-I'' ENT BOUNDARY i'j CROSSPOINTE gilbert w. Clifford & associates, inc. SITE AREA DESCRIPTION ,sere LandPl�ra water �N 117 E. Fco St. Winchester, Ysginio 22601 FREDERICK COUNTY, MGM VOICE! (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 EMAIL: gwc6ti@mnsinc.com l-IUUNL 2 Crosspointe Center Section III Impact Analysis Impact Analysis Statement Crosspointe Center A. Project Background and History Impact Analysis Statement Crosspointe is an assemblage of eight different tracts acquired by the Applicant over the past thirty-five years. It includes the 303 -acre "Stiles" tract, the 250 -acre `Burleson" tract, and the 87 -acre "Carriebrooke" tract. The Property is located in central Frederick County, within the Urban Development Area. Historically the Property was utilized for agricultural purposes, however, no agricultural uses exist today except grazing lands. As is true throughout the Shenandoah region, the Property contains some features associated with the Civil War, and in particular, Camp Russell and the Hilandale House. "Camp Russell" is known as an encampment constructed in 1864 as part of the Union's Valley Campaign, Ied by General Sheridan. Hilandale House, initially constructed in the late 1700's, was occupied during that campaign by the Union forces. Although Hilandale is not listed on the State or National Register of Historic Places, it has been preliminarily reviewed by the Department of Historic Resources as a property possibly eligible for such listing. In a large measure, the Property was attractive for agricultural use due to the presence of two major streams that flow through the property - the Opequon Creek to the south and Hoge Run to the north. Today, however, the Property is extremely desirable for commercial and residential development because of its central location within the UDA and Frederick County, as well as its proximity to Stephens City and existing subdivisions such as Lakeside Estates, Mosby Station, The Camp, The Guards, Wakeland Manor, Frederick Woods and Cantor Estates, the availability of nearby water and sewer facilities, and major thoroughfares, including Interstate 81 and Va. State Route 37 (See "Figures 1 and 2"). Crosspointe Center Impact Analysis Statement The Comprehensive Plan for Frederick County envisions intensive development within the Urban Development Area. In keeping with that vision, the Applicant proposes a mixed-use rezoning to Residential Performance ("RP") and Business General Districts -("B-2") for the Property. The 25 -acre commercial area containing the historic Hilandale House is proposed for rezoning to the B-2 designation, but Hilandale House itself will be preserved. Because of the project's scale, the Applicant anticipates three phases of development over a period of 10 or so years. At full build -out, the proposed Crosspointe Center development will contain an approximate total of 960,000 square feet of commercial area, consisting of 110,000 square feet of existing B-2, 750,000 square feet of retail area and 100,000 square feet of office and other commercial use. The 1,578 proposed residential units will include a variety of those mixed housing dwelling units allowed under the RP zoning regulations. Truly a mixed-use development, during the first phase the Applicant anticipates construction of a 220,000 square foot community shopping center complex to be anchored by a grocery store, and approximately 260,000 square feet of general commercial use. During that initial phase the Applicant also proposes a mix of 616 dwellings, of which 100 shall be age -restricted units. Those portions of the intended residential development are to be located in two land bays to the north of the shopping center, bounded to the south by both Tasker Road and Hilandale Lane. Timing of the phases will depend upon many factors, and particularly, transportation improvements. Therefore, pending certain transportation improvements as described herein, the Applicant's proposal for Phase R consists of no less than another 70,000 square feet of retail area, and 513 mixed housing types, including another 100 age -restricted units. Once Phase H is completed, there would be 550,000 square feet of commercial area, with a minimum of 290,000 square feet dedicated to retail usage, and 90,000 dedicated to office uses. The remainder of the Crosspointe Center Impact Analysis Statement project would be constructed in Phase III and would include 310,000 square feet of retail and 100,000 square feet of office area. Residential development in that phase will include another 449 dwelling units. The project phasing and density is summarized on Table 1 and Table 2. Access to utilities is integral to Urban Development Area growth, and major utility access to the proposed project is plentiful_ Water is available from the 20" FCSA water transmission main, sewer service from the 18" FCSA sewer line to the HP Hood and the Kernstown areas, and gas from the Shenandoah Gas primary main that serves Frederick County_ Numerous electric and telephone service locations within and surrounding the site are likewise available_ Proposed realignments and extensions of existing roads will connect at Crosspointe to provide alternate travel routes in the area, and consequently mitigate traffic congestion. Interstate 81 and Route 37 from an interchange immediately west of the site, in fact, the existing Interstate 81 alignment bisected the former Burleson tract, resulting in residual parcels at all four quadrants of the interchange. Tasker Road (Va. State Route 642) traverses the western boundary of the Property and also provides access to the Shenandoah Gas and Verizon facilities to the north. (See Figure 3). When the County adopted the Eastern Road Plan, it selected the Stiles tract as the primary location for an interchange between Warrior Drive and the formerly proposed Route 37 extension. That selection laid the road network foundation necessary for the future development of a significant economic development hub in the County, similar to the commercial areas already established in the City of Winchester_ However, to date, Frederick County has continued to lag far behind the City of Winchester in the development of retail commercial facilities, thereby losing a generous and substantial source of tax base and revenue that typically Crosspointe Center Impact Analysis Statement accompanies such development. Moreover, even though residential development has proliferated from the south of the Property to Stephens City in the past few years, little, if any, commercial development has occurred within that same area. Because of its locational attributes, it is not surprising that County planners envision this site as a major shopping district to serve not only the planned urban and rural areas of Frederick County, but also the region. The potential widespread demographics of a regional customer base allows Crosspointe developers the opportunity to attract major anchors now lacking in the City and County, and to generate new and significant sources of desirable tax revenue. The rezoning petition contained within this document proposes a development composed of substantial retail and commercial segments, consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan The project, by virtue of its size alone, is necessarily a mixed-use development that is master planned for "Smart Growth" in Frederick County. In fact, the controlled and planned manner of the various land uses is an integral component of "Smart Growth." Other Smart Growth strategies implemented in this proposal include, but are not limited to, provision of various housing types, coordination and connectivity of existing transportation infrastructure, and perhaps most importantly, the concentration of jobs and homes within one cohesive community. Overall, upon completion the proposed Crosspointe development would meet many Comprehensive Plan goals: • Protect the historic resources in Frederick County. • Provide for a variety of housing types and locations to meet the varied needs and income levels of the County's present and future population Crosspointe Center Impact Analysis Statement • Support a business climate conducive to economic activity and orderly economic growth. • Provide support to travel and tourist related activities. • Provide for development according to the capacity of the natural environment to carry that development. Develop land according to the characteristics of the land and the facilities available. 0 Develop land in accordance with standards that provide for appropriate quality of development. • Confine urban forms of land development to the Urban Development Area. • Provide efficient and environmentally sensitive use of land in the Urban Development Area. • Provide sufficient land and a diversity of locations for a wide range of suburban housing types. • Provide for livable, high quality suburban residential neighborhoods. • Provide sufficient land and a diversity of locations for business and industrial uses. • Carefully locate and limit business and industrial areas to avoid conflicts with other uses and to avoid traffic impacts. • Provide for quality business and industrial areas. • Ensure that business corridors develop in a manner which is attractive, functional, and reflects positively on the community. • Ensure that corridors develop in a fashion that is sensitive to environmental, visual, and transportation impacts. Crosspointe Center Impact Analysis Statement • Ensure that a satisfactory level of service for turning movements is provided along business corridors. • Provide key economic development sites. o Allow large-scale new communities that are creatively and appropriately designed to provide the highest possible quality of development. • Provide a safe and efficient road system throughout the County. 0 Coordinate land use planning and decisions with transportation planning. • Provide for adequate and safe pedestrian and bicycle travel. • Provide appropriate services and facilities to serve planned land uses and development. • Ensure that appropriate open space and recreational facilities are provided in urban and rural areas. In summary, the Applicant has assembled the Property, and with the current increased population base within the area, now proposes a regional commercial center as well as new and varied housing opportunities for young and old citizens currently within and outside of Frederick County. Confronted with limited retail resources, County citizens are now forced to shop in the City of Winchester or other places outside of the County to fulfill their shopping needs. Those shopping patterns, combined with the normal and expected growth in the region, create excellent demographic and economic conditions for the development of Crosspointe, and thus, generation of tax r ev e -n e for the County. Approval of Crosspointe, with its commercial aser 6ces and Crosspointe Center Impact Analysts Statement attendant residential uses, will enable the County to implement many Comprehensive Plan goals by planning for and locating anticipated growth within the Urban Development Area. CROSSPOINTE CENTER Glaize 181 -Tasker Rezoning Area and Development Summary 8/12/2003 rev 10-22-03 Proposed Zone Phase Area Total Retail Commercial -SF B-2 Office Commercial -SF B-2 Ex. Commercial Zone(retail)-SF B-2 Mixed Housing Dwelling Units -Ac RP Age restricted Dwelling Units -Ac RP FAR Commercial DPA Residential Overall Residential Density (Note:Density include Road Dedication) PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 TOTALS FAR/DPA Acres Quantitv Acres Ouantity Anrac nnantity acrnc rlremnfifv 2.74 3.91 2.06 2.75 Total Residential DU 616 513 449 1578 Total Commercial Floor Space 480000 70000 410000 960000 Table 1 0.11 0.10 0.15 4.03 5.06 v.5.0 225.16 131.35 217.86 574.37 76.14 370000 14.62 70000 62.91 310000 153.67 750000 0.00 0 0.00 0 21.95 100000 21.95 100000 16.95 110000 0.00 0 0.00 0 16.95 110000 112.07 516 97.23 413 133.00 449 342.30 1378 20.00 100 19.50 100 0.00 0 39.50 200 225.16 131.35 217.86 574.37 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 4.66 4.39 3.38 4.13 2.74 3.91 2.06 2.75 Total Residential DU 616 513 449 1578 Total Commercial Floor Space 480000 70000 410000 960000 Table 1 0.11 0.10 0.15 4.03 5.06 v.5.0 Crosspointe Center Accumulated Data by Phase 18 -Aug rev 10-22-03 Phase Area Total Retail Commercial -SF Office Commercial -SF Ex. Commercial Zone(retail)-SF Mixed Single Family Res. lots -Ac SF Small Lot -age restricted -Ac FAR Commercial DPA Residential Overall Residential Density (Note:Density include Road Dedication) Percent Residential to Total Land Total Residential DU Total Commercial Floor Space B-2 B-2 B-2 RP RP PHASE 1 PHASES 1&2 PHASES 1,2&3 225.16 356.51 574.37 76.14 370000 90.76 440000 153.67 750000 0.00 0 0.00 0 21.95 100000 16.95 110000 16.95 110000 16.95 110000 112.07 516 209.30 929 342.30 1378 20.00 100 39.50 200 39.50 200 225.16 356.51 574.37 0.11 0.11 0.11 4.66 4.54 4.13 2.74 3.17 2.75 59% 70% 66% 616 1129 1578 480000 550000 960000 Table 2 v.5.0 Vill, LzI ; /^� 1 � W,Off vac I /� r\ q' C R O S S P O IN 3 E gilbert w. Clifford & associates, inc. Transportation Ehgkomv LwWPhrrmm WdWOUOV 117E Pim* SL tt Yir06 22601 6m. ` MEMEK COUNTY, VIRQ71d6A (540) 867-2139 FA (540) W-0493 SMI: g=WOwWNkcan Finure 3 CROSSPOINTE CENTER Glaize 181 -Tasker Rezoning Area and Development Summary 8/12/2003 Phase Area Total Retail Commercial -SF Office Commercial -SF Ex. Commercial Zone(retail)-SF Mixed 'Single Family Res. lots -Ac Townhouse Residential -Ac SF Small Lot -age restricted -Ac FAR Commercial DPA Residential Overall Residential Density (N'ote:Density include Road Dedication) 0 r Proposed PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 TOTALS FAR/DPA Zone Acres Oiianfity Arras nuantiiv en. n"--4:4.- e _ :... B-2 B-2 B-2 RP RP RP 2.74 3.91 2.06 2.75 Total Residential DU 616 513 449 1578 Total Commercial Floor Space 480000 70000 410000 960000 Table .l 0.11 0.10 0.15 3.49 7.72 5.06 V.5.0 225.16 131.35 217.86 574.37 76.14 370000 14.62 70000 62.91 310000 153.67 750000 0.00 0 0.00 0 21.95 100000 21.95 100000 16.95 110000 0.00 0 0.00 0 16.95 110000 95.57 384 85.23 323 118.00 335 298.80 1042 16.50 132 12.00 90 15.00 114 43.50 336 20.00 100 19.50 100 0.00 0 39.50 200 225.16 131.35 217.86 574.37 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 4.66 4.39 3.38 4.13 2.74 3.91 2.06 2.75 Total Residential DU 616 513 449 1578 Total Commercial Floor Space 480000 70000 410000 960000 Table .l 0.11 0.10 0.15 3.49 7.72 5.06 V.5.0 0 0 0 Crosspointe Center Accumulated Data by Phase 18 -Aug Phase Area Total Retail Commercial -SF B-2 Office Commercial -SF B-2 Ex. Commercial Zone(retail)-SF B-2 Mixed Single Family Res.lots-Ac RP Townhouse Residential -Ac RP SF Small Lot -age restricted -Ac RP FAR Commercial DPA Residential Overall Residential Density (Note:Density include Road Dedication) Percent Residential to Total Land Total Residential DU Total Commercial Floor Space PHASE 1 PHASES 182 PHASES 1,283 225.16 356.51 574.37 76.14 370000 90.76 440000 153.67 750000 0.00 0 0.00 0 21.95 100000 16.95 110000 16.95 110000 16.95 110000 95.57 384 180.80 707 298.80 1042 16.50 132 28.50 222 43.50 336 20.00 100 39.50 200 39.50 200 225.16 356.51 574.37 0.11 0.11 0.11 4.66 4.54 4.13 2.74 3.17 2.75 59% 70% 66% 616 1129 1578 480000 550000 960000 Table 2 v.5.0 Crosspointe Center 10 B. Location and Access Impact Analysis Statement As Figures 1, 2, and 3 depict, the Property is located in the central section of Frederick County, bounded to the west by 1.1-81 and Tasker Road. Initially, access to the project will be from the Route 37/1-81 interchange by way of a relocation of Tasker Road, as well as an extension of a collector roadway east of the interchange ("Crosspointe Boulevard"). The Applicant proposes to develop the project over three phases, and during each phase certain road improvements will occur. However, during the first two phases access will be provided from Tasker Road and Crosspointe Boulevard, site of the improved interchange connection. These improvements, shown on Figure 3, will be described in greater detail below and in the Traffic Impact Analysis ("TIN'), prepared by PHRA and contained in Appendix "B." I0 n order to alleviate the current deteriorating traffic conditions at the I-81 interchange, Route 37, and Tasker Road, the Applicant proposes a plan to enable the Virginia Department Of Transportation ("VDOT") and Frederick County to improve the access ramps from the existing Interstate 81 northbound -off and northbound -on ramps. This improvement would occur during Phase I development. During Phase I, the Applicant will extend Crosspointe Boulevard and Hilandale Lane, as well as realign Tasker Road in an easterly direction. In Phase 11, the Applicant will extend Tasker Road further to the east, construct a two-lane extension of Crosspointe Boulevard, and construct a section of Warrior Drive in the northern portion of the development. At the third and final phase, Warrior Drive will be extended to provide access to and from the south limits of the development, through the "Urban Development 4_rea." Additionally, Crosspointe Boulevard will be expanded to four lanes. 0 Crosspointe Center C. Site Suitability Impact Analysis Statement As previously stated, adequate water and sewer utilities are available to serve the site, and Interstate 81, Tasker Road, and Route 3 7 are easily accessed to and from the proposed development. The site primarily lies within the Martinsburg shale region of Frederick County. Additionally, the western portion of the site lies on the traditional boundary between shale and limestone, which is common to many sites in Frederick County_ (See Figure 6). The high elevation on the project is 758; the low is 642. The site is best characterized as a flat, level plain that extends to steeply eroded slopes near the stream channels. Typical of Frederick County, the stream channels in the Opequon and Hoge Run locations run in a west to east direction, and provide defined corridors or greenways that include floodways and steep slopes_ Vegetation is composed primarily of a mixture of mature hardwood trees and open pasture, replete with characteristic cedar and other varieties of native species, woodlands compose 51% of the total Property. A summary of the important physical characteristics of this site is included in the following table: Crosspointe Site Characteristics Total Project Area 574.37 Acres Area in Flood Plain 69 112% Area in Woodlands 294 5 Area in Steep Slopes 12 Area in UDA 57437 10Area in SWSA 574.37 10 Crosspointe Center Impact Analysis Statement Figure 4 delineates the areas listed above and Figure 5 depicts the current Frederick County Comprehensive Plan designation for this area, which is Planned Use Development and Mixed Use Development. The site has adequate water and sewer utilities, as well as adequate vehicular access. Moreover, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and in; fact, essentially tracks the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. For these reasons, this Property is ideally suited for the proposed rezoning and development. • • 0 4z 17 ri Ni" - - — -------- MMI Envimnmental Impacts Key: S—PSI.p- XIVcdan'l PI'M Aid—d ll,, Diked., Ip—,W C R 0 S S P 0 1 N T E IzRFDF.RJCK COUNTY, VIRGINIA ENVIRONNIENTAL IMPACTS �p LBGRND\ wwvfirw. rim., 1*43A lriduot—s i y "AT 41 8 i r t _ le r i I4 �•�:' ar*'.— fir. � ' _ �_ ' « 1 p r Z 1 t P P 4 as M SAN Et a - r � F '•,f<• - 14. sC� r l m'--- 9lbert w. clifford ` s asnociateso inc. II !ie0lo�y Flap �'' x MW �� MNwr a 113 E P138 I $ RM ) MS- Mr; WON 201 RG&AZ 6 Crosspointe Center D. Traffic ImpactAnalysis Statement The site is ideally situated to provide implementation of the County's UDA by using existing road networks but also by creating an improved traffic system. The plan proposed here implements the County's Pastern Road Plan, and initiates a portion of VDOT's primary road plan. There are two critical traffic issues in the general area of the proposed development that serve as starting points for the traffic analysis. The first is the interchange at I-81 and Va. Route 37, where there is an existing substandard level of service on the northbound off ramp, primarily during the a.m. peak hour. The second critical point is Tasker Road, which carries significantly more traffic each year due to the anticipated growth within the UDA as well as cut -through traffic from U.S. Route 522 to the south. A full traffic analysis of these conditions, including future background and build out conditions, is included in Appendix B of this application. Consultation with VDOT over the past two years has led to the conclusion that a solution to the existing substandard level of service can be realized by a realignment of Tasker Road to a point further east of the existing interchange, thus providing right of way for VDOT to pursue safety improvements to the I-81 ramp system. Phase One Imarovements Phase One Road Improvements are shown on Figure 7 and described below: A to B : An additional 12' travel lane will be constructed on the south bound lane of U. S. Route 11 between the two interchange intersections with US Route 11 which will allow a continuous travel lane for west -bound Route 37 traffic to re-enter east -bound Route 37. This improved traffic movement will allow the scheduled elimination of the west -bound Route 37 left Crosspointe Center Impact Analysis Statement turn movement at Point C, thereby improving fee flow of traffic west -bound across the Route 37 bridge over I-81. D: The existing ramps at the intersection of Route 37 and I-81 Northbound is scheduled for ultimate closure and relocation. The Applicant will prepare a design study for ramp improvements and assist VDOT in applying for design approvals from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Applicant will assist Frederick County and VDOT in an earnest search for highway financing for the approved improvements including any cost sharing arrangements required to implement the work. The ramp improvements decided by the design approval including signalization are to be scheduled for implementation prior to the issuance of the first commercial or residential building permit on the Crosspointe project. An alternative to be studied include interim ramp improvements at the existing ramp intersection location ("D") which is possible once Tasker Road and Hilandale Lane are relocated from their present intersection with Route 37 as the result of Crosspointe Proffer. Any ultimate plan will include the relocation of the ramps to coincide with the existing Tasker Road intersection with Route 37 at point "E." E to G: Crosspointe Boulevard will be extended from the terminus of Route 37 at Tasker Road approximately 1,100 feet, to a new intersection location with relocated Tasker Road_ This intersection will be signalized and will allow the future extension of Crosspointe Boulevard to the east of this intersection_ Crosspointe Boulevard will be constructed as a four -lane divided roadway with right and left turn lanes at Point "G". F to G: Tasker Road will be relocated at point "F" to point "G" in the location shown. This roadway location was planned years ago, and existing right-of-way reserved at point "F" to allows the horizontal curve enabling construction to this relocation. The existing Tasker Road Crosspointe Center Impact Analysis Statement right-of-way and improvements will be taken out of use during this phase, but will be used in the future to provide ramp improvements at "E" to occur. Tasker Road will transition at "F" into a four -lane undivided section between point "F" and "G" and with turn lanes as required added at planned intersections. G to H to J: Tasker Road from "G" to "J" will transition into a four -lane divided urban roadway with raised median. Turn lanes will be provided at intersections and planned commercial entrances. "If" will be an unsignalized intersection subject to final site planning traffic analysis. I to H: Hilandale Lane will be upgraded and relocated in order to eliminate its intersection with Route 37 and Tasker. The roadway will be two-lane from "I" to the curve, then transition into a three -lane urban section from the curve to "H". Right turn lanes shall be provided at commercial entrances. Phase One improvements will be scheduled in order to prevent inconvenience to the traveling public and to provide orderly traffic conditions. "F" to "G" to "H" to "I", and "E" to "G" will be designed and constructed off existing rights-of-way and completed prior to relocation of traffic. The roadway items required for the stoplight at "E" will be installed in order to facilitate finished installation when ramp relocation occurs. A complete stoplight facility will be installed at "G". Upon completion of these improvements traffic is to be relocated, and existing Tasker/Hilandale barricaded. When the new road system described above is in place and operational, approved ramp improvements will be implemented_ Improvements from "A" to `B" and closing the Ieft turn movement at "C" will occur in accord with VDOT directions during phase one. Crosspointe Center Impact Analysis Statement The developer has agreed by proffer to wait until construction is complete from "F" to "G" to "H" to "I" and from "E" to "G" to apply for the first building permit at Crosspointe. A schedule for improvement of the I-81 ramp systems will be determined by design study and approved by the FHWA. The possible phased improvements recommended will allow a LOS "C" to occur prior to the first building permit at Crosspointe being issued. Phase Two Improvements Phase Two road improvements are shown on Figure 8 and described below: "J" to "K": This segment of road construction shall be identical to the "G H -J" geometrics described in Phase One with turn lanes provided in accordance with Master Plan approval. "L" to "K" to "M": Warrior Drive will be constructed as a six -lane divided urban section with turn lanes at road and commercial entrance locations. "K" and "M" will be signalized intersections. "G" to "M": Crosspointe Boulevard will be extended from "G" to "M". It is anticipated that this roadway will be a two-lane road section during Phase Two with transitions at intersections "G" and "M". However, right-of-way dedication is to be provided for an ultimate four -lane divided urban section roadway. Phase Three Improvements Phase Three road improvements are shown on Figure 9 and described below: Crosspointe Center Impact Analysis Statement to "M": Two additional lanes on Crosspointe Blvd, including turn lanes at intersections, are to be constructed during Phase Three. Subject to VDOT approval an urban thoroughfare design section will be installed. "M" to "O": A complete four -lane divided urban thoroughfare sectional design roadway is to be installed to the Crosspointe property line (east). "M" to "N": Warrior Drive is to be extended as shown as an urban four -lane design. Collector road section with raised median, turn lanes right and left, will be constructed at all road and major commercial entrances. Additionally, a bridge structure shall be provided to cross Opequon Creek. Transportation Summary The previous road phasing and design narrative adequately described the major transportation improvements planned and proffered for Crosspointe. Design decisions will be in accord with VDOT requirements and regulations on a phase -by -phase basis. In addition, the Applicant proposes the following additional considerations: A. Because Crosspointe Boulevard may be extended to US Route 522, the function of this roadway may change from an urban thoroughfare to a major arterial road classification. It is believed that this classification can be supported by the alignment and structure of the roadway proposed in Phases One through Three of Crosspointe. Changes in function that are possible with this change of use include the following: 1. The signalized intersections at "G" and "M" may not be functionally adequate. In this event, pursuant to available funding, intersections Crosspointe Center Impact Analysis Statement "G" and "M" are to be designed by Crosspointe now to allow for the efficient and traffic -friendly implementation of grade separation. 2. Intersection "M" may become a limited access interchange in the event of grade separation of this intersection. 3. Tasker Road may pass under Crosspointe Boulevard and the intersection "G" will be eliminated. 4. In the event that grade separation of both Warrior Drive and Tasker Road at Crosspointe Boulevard are required, additional rights-of- way for Crosspointe Boulevard will be necessary, including for the interchange at "M". The developer will set aside open space for possible dedication of rights-of-way if required for implementation of the classification change. This right of way is anticipated to be 220' wide, with additional width at interchanges. 5. Right of way dedication without cost to VDOT will be made for the full 220' of right-of-way in the event State and Federal funding is made available for this upgraded classification. The developer will provide this right of way only in the event that the Warrior Drive intersection becomes a full service interchange, if the upgrade is a limited access type design. B. The Applicant believes that the ultimate design of the Route 37 and I-81 interchange cannot be adequately predicted at this time. Likewise, it is the developers strong position that this project is needed by Frederick County to proceed in an orderly way at this time. Good planning for Crosspointe has been prepared with this directive. Crosspointe Center Impact Analysis Statement The consumer needs for commercial services is vital to the urban development area concept. To that end, the proffers and impact analysis plan have been prepared to benefit Frederick County and implement VDCT's long-range plan for moving traffic through the Crosspointe project. The project transportation system implements the County Comprehensive Policy Plan. r i RESsGEPtQTI L - RP �^ � r � �4000 RESHfIAL-RFS � ;/ COMMERCIAL B-2 anr . PH-BE I r �. COMMERCIAL -- . T, 1, ACNESSION 4IAfi f V 7E } LiVS'IN[1 G'iL6Nl� \\\ rCt7MMERCial. ,..�, �� PHASE i C R 0 S S P 0 IN T E URLDERICK COUNTY, VIRGIXIa G£AIiRiL17, .:U RY:YI: LcI PSH t.'.V'1 Pi Ati on Mia PJl ......... x :�sE ONE: .. FIGURE ? '�i,» -4-5-A-31 r �_. r u i} i'O PUl�E)APER halt L ROAD WO �-- - RP RESIDENNIAL-RP ' L �9 f p r� er ncweS * i O P INA � vo •.A,n^ sz F ESI ENi'fAl 00 MI�ICRGAL 6-3 x1 CQ0MCIAL t„� mk , 1 >;,aeS-xz1K .J RE IDEW61AL \\ biNMstGfAL � Wa, acaEs ti t9 dg�vCMG F k w C R O S S P () 1 N 'r I:: hRi(1)6.RICF cm \.1.5'. \'IROI\1:1 PHP _ F11bn w AIkWd k o+s1Nn iye. ` 1t ,� �� 4pn iW tuv •a.r I.r1'11'R:\1.1Jk'.k>!'\'Y 1'1.Atiw._..- w - � ..! a TO PAPER MILL ROAD t " I RESIDHNI tAL RP ;. . at' }� ReSIDEW-IAt R4' P e �i00 I E5ID FNITI D"." N. R G.- RE' Mr4NTtAL RP HAW ro 'AEr 4 eti COMMERCIAL E-?_' „ a ca ACRz' C9MME4�CtAL l3 '4 �t TR BY M,i§L9 t E`t,�f � ' Ct3M1l7ERCIG�i:6-2 a e✓ I t.\ EOMM RCiAL 'SAO LAt�tE r �j 4 ..,t '"^r�.e•., Z/ tT� "A� �": 4n.' .�1{_-"'"�"�. �9aa n��iF.a 14 �� r RESIDENTIAL RP lawul \TO WARRIOR ROAD r a � RESft3ENii'tAl -{lWTpx6tl �IIt✓R iE f7s@�.CS2hE t t - OMMERCIAL� kESiDENiYAL \t . 1_ y, {�• ve 5 y ,�� �,yb ,} PHASE 3 f 10"m ow PHRA c;{'.ht{R.U.1%EI11 r,t:rt;t.c�r4u:�'r' ttt. -\N axo e r st .;r: rirtit..t: FIGURE Crosspointe Center I* E. Water Supply and Sewage Conveyance Impact Analysis Statement The existing water distribution, storage, and supply is adequate for service to this project. The 20" primary water distribution main from the Diehl Water Plant passes through this site en route to distribution service in both the Abrams Creek and Fort Collier/Stonewall Industrial Park areas of Frederick County. Additionally, a one-half million gallon elevated water storage tank is located immediately adjacent to the site on the south. Water mains within the development will be looped and extended by phase to meet Frederick County Sanitation Authority ("FCSA') design requirements. This combination of water supply service will provide adequate fire protection and domestic service for all phases of the proposed commercial and residential uses. Gravity sewer service for Phases 1 and 2 will be provided via an 18" gravity interceptor line in the Hoge Run watershed. This sewer line follows Hoge Run, continues to the (apequon Creek, and then onto the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Facility located at the corner of Route 522 and Parkins Mill Road. Design criteria for the facilities will be based on the flow generation provided in Table 3. The (apequon trunk main installed during Phase 2 would be siz-.d to handle future upstream uses in accordance with directions of the FCSA. Should other uses develop further east prior to phase 2, and if desired by the FCSA, the cost of the Phase 2 pump station could be applied to allow for gravity extension to the Parkins Mill interceptor. Figure 10 provides a schematic plan and improvements. Sewer generation from this site will be treated at the Larkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Plant (the "Parkins Mill plant"). Attached Tables 3.1 and 3.2 demonstrate that over the past year the Parkins Mill plant adequately met its discharge perm it requirements despite historic rainfall 0 levels that resulted in high flows at the plant. The FCSA, through reserve funding of the Table 3 CROSSPOINTE CENTER Glaize 181 -Tasker Rezoning Water Demand&Sewer Generation 4P 8/12/2003 Proposed PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 TOTALS Zone Quantity GPD Quantity GPD Quantity GPD Quantity GPD Retail Commercial -SF B-2 370000 74000 440000 88000 310000 62000 1120000 224000 Office Commercial -SF B-2 0 0 0 0 100000 20000 100000 20000 Ex. Commercial Zone(retail)-SF B-2 110000 22000 110000 22000 0 0 220000 44000 Mixed Single Family Res.lots-Ac RP 384 76800 707 141400 0 0 1091 218200 Townhouse Residential -Ac RP 132 19800 222 33300 235 35250 589.00 88350 SF Small Lot -age restricted -Ac RP 100 10000 200 20000 100 10000 400.00 40000 Total Demand per Phase 202,600 304,700 127,250 634,550 Accumulated Demand 202,600 507,300 634,550 LEGEND Commercial Demand/Flow 200 gal/1000sf Single Family Demand/Flow 200 g/d/du Townhouse Demand/Flow 150 g/d/du Age Restricted Demand/Flow 100 g/d/du v.5.0 ow� sF FoRc�� Npa O v 0 EX HOGE RUN SAN. SEWAGE LINE C3 r o" 0 L 4 a PMI I gilbert w. ciifford & associates, inc. DI o WATER AND SEWER PLAN ' Livid F' """j' 117 E st %dmdv, ft is 2=1 FWQE a( Ca ATK WRCM, V3M: 0" 667-2138 F& (540) M --04M E gKWftniiwm F/GURE 10 7108 'ARKINS MILLS WASTEWATER PLANT OPERATIONAL DATA FY-03 Permit Limit Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Average low (MGD) 2.000 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.7 2 2 1.7 1.9 2.5 2.1 2.1 2.2 1.850 :oncentration (MG/L) ,BOD Summer 7.50 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.3 Winter 23.00 7.2 5 5 5.3 4.4 4.471 Suspended 30.00 3 2 4 3 2 2 3 3 10 6 4.1 6.260 3 5 6 3.500 Lmmonia Summer 1.60 0.9 0.3 0.4 0.3 1.1 0.23 0.5 0.533 Winter 2.40 1.4 0.2 1.8 1.8 0.6 1.160 002 PH 6.50 007 DO 7.10 7.3 7.5 NIA 4.933 12 Phosph N/L 8.3 7.5 N/A 5.267 Nitrogen N/L 5.2 NIA N/A 1.733 8.8 N//A N/A 2.933 luantity (KG/D) CBOD Summer 57.00 21 21 22 29 36 41 33 29.000 Winter 174.00 55 32 36 89 33 49.000 Suspended 227.00 15 11 22 18 12 19 17 20 54 25 41 53 25.583 ammonia Summer 12.10 4 1.3 1.8 1.4 7.9 N/A N/A 2.343 Winter 18.20 7 1.2 18.2 17.9 11.075 ooliform 200.00 114.00 31.00 32.00 89.00 137.00 76.00 125.00 62.00 148.00 50.00 63.00 126.00 87.750 Fainfall (Inches-PM) 4.24 3.25 4.64 4.9 3.641 3.961 1.96 6.22 3.3 3.73 5.79 6.89 4.377 Fainfall (Inches-JHD) 4.68 3 4.2 4.42 3.32 3.39 2 DOWN DOWN DOWN DOWN 7.14 2.679 7108 Permit No. VA0075191 Part 1 40 A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Page 1 of 9 1. During the period beginning with the permit's effective date and lasting until the permit's expiration date, the permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall number 001. This discharge shall be limited and monitored as specified below: EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS Monthly Average Flow (MGD) a NL PH (standard units) NA CBODS c (May — November) 7.5 mg/L 57 kg/d CBOD5 ` (December—April) 23 mg/L 174 kg/d Suspended Solids ` 30 mg/L 227 kg/d Fecal Coliform (N/100 mL) b Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Ammonia -N (mg/L) ` (May — November) Ammonia -N (mg/L) ` (December — April) Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)(mg/L) b•c Total Nitrogen (mg/L) Total Phosphorus (mg/L) DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS Weekly Average Minimum NA NA NA 6.5 11.3 mg/L 86 kg/d NA 34.5 mg/L 261 kg/d NA 45 mg/L 341 kg/d NA 200 Geometric Mean NA NA Maximum NL 9.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7.1 NA 1.6 1.8 NA NA 2.4 2.9 NA NA 0.010 0.012 NA NA NL NA NA NA NL NA NA NA NL = No Limitation, monitoring required NA = Not Applicable T/I/R = Totalizing, Indicating, and Recording equipment 24HC = 24 Hour composite sample a. The design flow of this treatment facility is 2.0 MGD. b. See Part I.B. for alternative disinfection requirements. C. See Part I.C. for additional monitoring instructions. d. At least 85% removal for TSS must be attained for this discharge. e. There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Frequency Sample Type Continuous T/I/R 1/Day Grab 5 Days/Week 24HC 5 Days/Week 24HC 5 Days/Week 24HC 3 Days/Week @ 48 hour intervals Grab from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. 1/Day Grab 1/Month 24HC 1/Month 24HC 1/Day Grab 1/Quarter Grab 1/Quarter Grab Crosspointe Center Impact Analysis Statement I* Frederick -Winchester Service Authority ("FWSA"), has begun to study future expansion of hydraulic capacity at Parkins Mill, which will require expansion to meet the increasing flow requirements within the Opequon/Wrights Run Watersheds. • 0 Crosspointe Center Impact Analysis Statement is F. Site Drainage Site drainage is provided by the Hoge Run and Opequon Creek stream channels and their tributaries. A conceptual plan for site drainage is shown on Figure 11. There are no buiit-up residential or commercial areas downstream of this project that will be affected by the direct runoff from the site. Storm water will be conveyed by way of surface drainage and underground storm sewers, as shown in Figure 11, which also shows preliminary locations for storm water management facilities, subject to engineering adjustments at the time of the project design and master plan. Low Intensity Development ("LID") concepts are to be utilized in the site design wherever practical in order to protect water quality in the receiving streams of Hoge Run and Opequon Creek. Appropriate use of streamside buffers, grass channels, rain gardens, water quality swales and good erosion and sediment controls during construction are proposed. in summary, selective use of conventional and alternative stormwater management controls, both during and after construction will provide acceptable and manageable impacts on streams, and no identifiable impacts on existing community facilities • Crosspointe Center G. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Impact Analysis Statement There are ample private waste disposal companies available to assure safe and timely disposal of solid waste that will be produced over time. This project will have a measurable effect on County solid waste management resources, but will focus and direct normal and expected waste generation to the JDA in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. As such, the solid waste generation would align with that projected year to year increase at the landfill facility. Pursuant to the excellent Enterprise Plan set forth by landfill management, payment of tipping fees is expected to fund landfill improvements. The sheer size of Crosspointe would prohibit waste collection at a central disposal site, therefore, the Applicant has proffered to utilize curbside pick-up from a private refuse contract 40 carrier. Funding for refuse collection will be provided through the homeowners' and property owners' associations. (See Table 4 for estimated solid waste generation.) 0 • C7 Table 4 100 lbs/1000sf/day Single Family/Solid Waste 12 lbs/du/day Townhouse/Solid Waste 9 lbs/du/day Age Restricted/Solid Waste 6 lbs/du/day CROSSPOINTE CENTER Glaize 181 -Tasker Rezoning Solid Waste Generation 8/12/2003 rev10-22 Proposed PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 TOTALS Zone Quantity lbs/day Quantity lbs/day Quantity lbs/day Quantity lbs/day Retail Commercial -SF B-2 370000 37000 70000 7000 310000 31000 750000 75000 Office Commercial -SF Ex. Commercial Zone(retail)-SF B-2 B-2 0 110000 0 11000 0 0 100000 10000 100000 10000 Mixed Single Family Res. lots -Ac RP 384 4608 0 323 0 3876 0 335 0 4020 110000 1042 11000 12504 Townhouse Residential -Ac RP 132 1188 90 810 114 1026 336.00 3024 SF Small Lot -age restricted -Ac RP 100 600 100 600 0 0 200.00 1200 Total Waste per Phase-lbs/day 54,396 12,286 46,046 112,728 Accumulated Waste-lbs/day 54,396 66,682 112,728 Total Waste per Phase-Tons/day 27 6 23 Accumulated Waste-Tons/day 27 33 56 56 1 LEGEND Commercial /Solid Waste 100 lbs/1000sf/day Single Family/Solid Waste 12 lbs/du/day Townhouse/Solid Waste 9 lbs/du/day Age Restricted/Solid Waste 6 lbs/du/day v.5.0 Crosspointe Center IH. Historic Sites and Structures Impact Analysis Statement As previously mentioned, the County's Eastern Transportation Plan features an extension of the proposed Crosspointe Boulevard through the proposed Crosspointe development. Because of that nomination, the County engaged Michael Baker, Jr. to prepare a Final Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation for Route 37 ("FEIS"). By necessity, it included a large portion of the property within the proposed Crosspointe development. However, prior to the Baker study, in 1993, Gray & Pape, Inc. identified several archaeological resources based on work done earlier by James Madison University, which Baker incorporated into the FEIS. Accordingly, the area has already benefited from an extensive study to determine the extent of historic resources. Baker's study, completed in April of 2001, initially identified several features of note that were, with one exception even at that stage, deemed worthy of Phase II investigation.' The first of these features was an architectural resource identified by Maral Kalbian and known as Hilandale House, a stone farmhouse built in three stages beginning in the late 1700s. In 1864, this house and the surrounding property were occupied as part of Camp Russell. This feature of the Property has been given the standard identification number 34-126, and is depicted on the map of Route 37 Archaeological and Architectural Resources attached hereto for ease of reference. It has been deemed eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Piace ("NI -MID"). As previously stated, the Applicant intends to proffer the retention and preservation ' A Phase II evaluation is essentially a determination of whether a feature preliminarily identified is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. If such a determination is in the affirmative, then a Phase III data collection and recovery process may be undertaken. d his process is &taiied in standards promulgated by the Department of the Interior. See Secretary of the interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic 0 Preservation, 48 Fed. Reg. 44716, e"se . (1983) Crosspointe Center Impact Analysis Statement of the �Hilandale House as well as create ap reservation park, consisting of five acres, surrounding the house. Several other features were identified in association with "Camp Russell," an encampment constructed in the winter of 1864 as a part of General Sheridan's Valley Campaign. Among these is a large circular earthwork constructed during 1864 as part of the larger Union occupation of Frederick County, feature 34-321 (also identified as feature 44FK63), which is one of the few remaining Civil War fortifications associated with an area known as Camp Russell. That earthwork was determined eligible for listing on the NHRP as part of the Camp Russell Historic District. Following the previous studies detailed above, study determined the following results: 1. Initially Feature 44FK62 was identified as a site of possible ruins of a late 18th or 0 early 19th century "domestic occupation" (generally a house or a structure associated with a house). However, a Phase II investigation failed to locate any indication of the site and, therefore, it was not deemed eligible for the NHP. 2. Similarly, Feature 44FK72 was a supposed fortified picket associated with Camp Russell, but detailed investigation demonstrated that it was not, and it too was not determined eligible for the NHRP. 3. Although Features 44FK81 and 44FK82 were identified as possible encampment areas, detailed investigation determined that neither was eligible for listing on the TTHRP. 4. Feature 44FK539 was also identified as an area in which there was an encampment associated with ramp Russell and in which there were found store hearths and trenches, remnants of huts or tents typical of a military encampment. 0 Crosspointe Center Impact Analysis Statement 10 Although detailed investigation has concluded that only the Hilandale House and those features identified as numbers 34-321 and 44FK63 are eligible for listing on the National Register, Gray and Pape recommended creation of a "Camp Russell Historic District." Therefore, the Applicant has proffered the creation of two additional preservation parks, one 10 - acre park at the Camp Russell encampment site, and a two -acre park at the Carysbrook Redoubt area. Each of the parks will be connected by an internal pedestrian/bike trail system throughout the development. In conducting its § 4(f) evaluation,' the Federal Highway Administration concluded that because Congress created the unique Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District encompassing eight Virginia counties (including Frederick and its three Battlefield sites crucial to the creation of the District: Second Kernstown, Second Winchester and Third Winchester)', it 0 is impossible to avoid construction that traverses the District. Therefore, it pledged to work closely with the State Historic Preservation Officer (the "SHPO") to insure that planning for any road construction is done "to minimize any harm to the battlefields in the project area." Moreover, because of the extensive planning already undertaken by Frederick County, it was recognized that any other route for a proposed major roadway would more adversely impact valuable cultural resources. Significantly, the FEIS has already identified and evaluated "Avoidance Alternatives" to the use of land within the Camp Russell Historic District. A_iso, the 171rginia Department of ' This is reference to § 4(f) of the National Historic Preservation Act, which requires that federal agencies "take into account" the impact of federal undertakings on cultural resources. 3 The Di strict is subject to management by the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation. There are actually six battlefield sites in Atinchester and Frederick County. Crosspointe Center Impact Analysis Statement Historic Resources and the Department of the Interior have independently concluded that there are no prudent and feasible alternatives to the construction of a roadway through the Camp Russell area. Based on these conclusions, the Federal Highway Administration and the SHPO entered into & Memorandum of Agreement in 1999 (required under the National Historic Preservation Act), which was duly submitted to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (which coordinates federal review of projects that affect resources deemed eligible for listing on the National Register). That MOA recognizes that Hilandale House and the related Hilandale Earthworks, and feature 44FK539 where an encampment may have been located, are "contributing elements" to the Camp Russell Historic District. It is also recognized that the direct impact on the District will be occasioned by the development of the road that was the cause of the FEIS, and the FHWA agreed to develop landscaping plans, in consultation with VDOT, to reduce the visual impact of any construction on the Hilandale House, between the House and the roadway. The Virginia SHPO will be afforded an opportunity to comment on final landscaping plans. (See Appendix B, p. 2.) Moreover, with respect to the Hilandale Earthworks and the archaeological site of Camp Russell, the FHWA agreed to cooperate with VDOT in the development and implementation of a treatment plan to mitigate the effects of any road construction on those features, in consultation with the SHPO. Such a treatment plan will specify, among other things, the property or portions where data recovery is to be carried out, the research questions to be addressed, the methods to be used, the proposed disposition of recovered materials and records, methods by which the County and interested groups will be kept informed, and a proposed schedule for the submission_ 0 of progress reports. Crosspointe Center Impact Analysis Statement Each of the foregoing assumes, of course, that the impact on the Camp Russell Historic District and its contributing features will be caused by the construction of a roadway along the selected alternative. The study did not contemplate the potential disturbance of these resources by other land uses. In consequence, the Applicant would provide assurance of compliance with the requirements for mitigation of impact on those resources. This rezoning application has been expressly structured to accommodate the considerations already identified. First, the Applicant will not disturb any portion of Hilandale House itself. Second, the Applicant will create three preservation parks, one at Hilandale House, another at the Camp Russell encampment area, and a third at the Carysbrook Redoubt area. Third, to the extent that the Applicant will construct any roadway in the alignment contemplated by and studied in the FEIS, it has proffered that it will coordinate that construction with the 0 Federal Highway Administration, the SHPO, VDOT, and officials of Frederick County. The Applicant will also assure implementation of the MOA to the extent that any disturbance of those identified resources is required during the course of development. A portion of the site was not evaluated during the course of preparation of the FEIS, and the Applicant would conduct a Phase I investigation of those areas prior to any development thereof, and would undertake such preservation activities as that study might demonstrate to be required. 1-1 fIGUK� 72 Crosspointe Center I. Impact on Community Facilities Impact Analysis Statement The Frederick County impact model was run by County staff to reflect individual and collective fiscal impacts on community facilities on a phase -by -phase basis. Proffers have been offered which will mitigate the effects of these impacts on the County. However, the substantial commercial components of Crosspointe derive a net positive income flow in excess of revenue requirements, consistent with those goals for planned communities within the Urban Development Area. Nonetheless, the impact analysis identified some special needs for government services, particularly for satellite offices for the Sheriffs department, Treasurer's office, and possibly other emergency services. In consideration of the desirable central location of the proposed development, the Applicant has proffered nine acres of land to be used for placement of such emergency services. Additionally, monetary contributions for the Sheriff s Office, an Administration Building, and fire and rescue services at both the County and Stephens City Volunteer Fire Department are included within the Proffer Statement. The County models are attached and are followed by the proffer statement, which provides for monetary contributions and values in the amount of $7,585,300.00 for County resources over and above the net positive value created by the proposed rezoning. Table 5 provides a summary of the proffer values, positive and negative, by phase accumulated. Without consideration of transportation improvements and infrastructure additions Crosspointe will produce a net positive value of $23,784,769.00 to Frederick County at build out of the project. Additionally, staff was requested to run a "break point" analysis using the Frederick County proffer model which sought to determine the Phase 1 and Phase 2 commercial floor area necessary to produce a zero impact against residential impacts. The value of cash proffers made Crosspointe Center Impact Analysis Statement during this period were not considered in the analysis and can be considered to be additional to the case where the project income to Frederick County covers the net capital facilities impacts. The floor areas determined by this method have been used in the proffer statement as "phase triggers" indicating commitment by the Applicant to balanced approach to phased development, which is a goal of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. 0 0 i CROSSPOINTE CENTER Glaize 181 -Tasker Rezoning Community Facilities- Fiscal Support 8/12/2003 rev 10-22 Proposed PHASE 1 Zone Otv Model Impact Credit Net Cap Fac Impact Land Value -Central County Fac. 8-2 Fire & Rescue -St City Mixed Single Family Res. lots -Ac RP Townhouse Residential -Ac RP SF Small Lot -age restricted -Ac RP Sheriff & Admin PHASE TOTALS Accumulated Phase Totals PHASE 1&2 PHASE 1,2&3 vacua -.R Oft/ v.,1— Q ^A.. 111 LEGEND Notes - - " .Y v uluu-.p $17,256,736 $16,512,577 $29,141,122 ($5,035,651) ($9,258,015) ($12,931,653) $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 384 $1,478,400 707 $2,721,950 1042 $4,011,700 132 $508,200 222 $854,700 336 $1,293,600 100 $85,000 200 $170,000 200 $170,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $16,152,685 $13,011,212 $23,794,769 LEGEND Notes Fire Schools Parks Library Sheriff` Mixed Single Family Res. lots 250 3000 500 100 5000 5000 Townhouse Residential 250 3000 500 100 SF Small Lot -age restricted 250 0 500 100 Central Facility -land value ($200,00/Ac) 1,800,000 " Lump Sum v.4.0 Crosspointe Center 0 Section IV Frederick County Impact Model Impact Analysis Statement 0 OUTPUT MODULE APPLICANT: Crosspointe Center Ph, 1 Net Fiscal Impact I LAND USE TYPE RP/B2 Costs of Impact Credit: Credits to be Taken for Future Taxes Paid (NPV) Total Potential REAL EST VAL $103,948,024 Required Adjustment For (entered in Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Future CIP/ Tax Credits FIRE & RESCUE = 11 Capital Faciltiies col sum only) Oper Cap EQUIP Expend/Debt S. Taxes. Other Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per (Unadiustedl Cost Balance Facilities Impact Dwelling Unit Fire and Rescue Department $711,803 Elementary Schools $2,525,117 $0 $0 $711,803 $1,156 Middle Schools $1,506,117 $410,991 $1,995,106 High Schools $2,105,422 $2,406,097 $2,406,097 $3,730,559 $6,056 Parks and Recreation $904,057 Public Library $157,169 $203,744 $203,744 _ $203,744 I $700,33 13 $1,137 $43,956 $43,956 Sheriffs Offices $93,019 $98,411 $0 $18,999 $117,409 $43,956 $117,409 $113,213 $184 $0 Administration Building $119,375 $0 Other Miscellaneous Facilities$0 $0 $152,296 $198,434 $219,083 $417,517 $0 $417,517 $119,375 $194 $0 $0 SUBTOTAL $8,274,374 $707,835 $2,214,189 $266,699 $3,188,723 LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT $17,256,736 $3,188,723 $5,085,651 $8,256 $17,256,736 NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT $17,256,736 (117,256,736 ($28,014 0 0 INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Included 1.0 I INDEX: "1.0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Co Avg: 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = 1.000 PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Co Avg --------------------------- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------- 1.342 ---------------------------- ------------------ ------- ------------------------------------------- ---------------------- METHODOLOGY: 1. Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model. ------------------- --- -------------------- ----- 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input in row total of second column (zero if negative); included are the one-time taxes/fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated in fiscal impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- -------------------- __-------- ------------------------------------------ --------------------- --- NOTES: Model Run Date 10/15/03 CMM --____--- I I Project Description: Phase 1 of Crosspointe Center (first of three phases). Assumes 480,000 s.f. retail/general commercial, 484 single family dwelling units (includes 100 age -restricted units), and 132 townhou$e 225.16 units on acres zoned RP and B2 District (93.09 acres 132; 132.07 acres RP)NOTE: The fiscal impact model is intended to measure the cummulative build impacts of a given project; the model run dated 10/15/Q3 using proiect -out assumptionstherefore represents the official model output for this project. This phase specific projection should be used for informational purposes only. I Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. IBJ OUTPUT MODULE APPLICANT: Crosspointe Center Ph. 1 & 2 Net Fiscal Impact LAND USE TYPE RP/B2 Costs of Impact Credit: REAL EST VAL $170,268,511 Required (entered in FIRE & RESCUE = 11 Capital Faciltties col sum only) 0 10 Credits to be Taken for Future Taxes Paid (NPV) Total Potential Adjustment For Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Future CIP/ Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per Oper Cap Equip Expend/Debt S. Taxes. Other (Unadiustedl Cost Balance Facilities Impact Dwelling Unit Fire and Rescue Department $1,123,982 $0 $0 $1,123,982 $996 Elementary Schools $4,645,543 Middle Schools $2,767,580 $756,457 $3,672,127 $4,428,584 $4,428,584 $6,869,346 $6,084 High Schools $3,884,808 _-__ ---- Parks and Recreation $1,663,215 $374,833 $374,833 $374,833 $1,288,381 $1,141 Public Library $289,148 $80,867 $80,867 $80,867 $208,280 $184 Sheriffs Offices $171,130 $167,523 $0 $34,952 $202,475 $202,475 $0 $0 Administration Building $219,617 $0 $0 $0 $219,617 $195 Other Miscellaneous Facilities $280,182 $332,893 $367,535 $700,428 $700,428 $0 $0 13UBTOTAL $15,045,203 $1,256,873 $4,039,662 $490,653 $5,787,188 $5,787,188 $9,258,015 $8,200 LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT $16,512,577 $16,512,577 $16,512,577 ($16.512.577) ($14,626 NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT 0 0 INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Included 1.0 INDEX: "1.0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Co Avg: 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = 1.000 -------------------------------------------------- PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 --------------------------------------------- Ratio to Co Avg 1.342 METHODOLOGY: 1. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model. ------------------------------------------- ----------------------- -------------------- 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input in row total of second column (zero if negative); included are the one-time taxes/fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated in fiscal impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed. NOTES: Model Run Date 10/15/03 CMM Project Description: Phases 1 & 2 of Crosspointe Center (two of three phases). Assumes 550,000 s.f. retail/general commercial, 907 single family dwelling units (includes 200 age -restricted units), and 222 townhouse units on 356.51 acres zoned RP and B2 District (107.71 acres 132; 248.8 acres RP)NOTE: The fiscal impact model is intended to measure the cummulative impacts of a given project; the model run dated 10/15/03 usingproiect build -out assumptionstherefore represents the official model output for this project. This phase specific projection should be used for informational purposes only. Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. 0 OUTPUT MODULE APPLICANT: Crosspointe Center - Build Out Net Fiscal Impact LAND USE TYPE RR/132 Costs of Impact Credit: Credits to be Taken for Future Taxes Paid (NPV) Total Potential Adjustment For 1 REAL. EST VAL $252,355,810 FIRE &RESCUE = 11 Required (entered in Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Future CIP/ Capital Faciltiies col sum only) Oper Cap Equip Expend/Debt Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per 1 S. Taxes. Other (Unadiustedl Cost Balance Facilities Impact Dwelling Unit Fire and Rescue Department $1,673,559 $0 $0 I $1,673,559 $1,061 1 Elementary Schools $6,470,448 Middle Schools High Schools $3,858,974 $1,053,174 $5,112,507 $5,396,231 $6,165,681 _ $6,165,681 $9,559,971 $6,058 Park:. and Recreation Public Library $2,316,586 $522,082 $402,735 $522,082 $522,082 $1,794,505 $1,137 I Sheriffs Offices $112,635 $238,356 $243,933 $0 $48,682 $112,635 $292,616 $112,635 $292,616 $290,101 $184 I $0 $0 Administration Building $305,890 $0 $0 $0 $305,890 $194 1 Other Miscellaneous Facilities $390,248 $488,750 $539,610 $1,028,360 $1,028,360 $0 $0 1 $0 SUBTOTAL $21,053,027 $1,785,858 $5,652,117 $683,399 $8,121,374 $8,121,374 $12,931,653 $8,195 I LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT $29,141,122 $29,141,122 $29,141,122 ($29,141,122) ($18,4671 NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT0 0 I INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Included 1.0 I INDEX: "1.0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Co Avg: 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = 1.000 I 1 ---------------------------- ----------------------- PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 --------------------------------------------- Ratio to Co Avg = 1.342 1 METHODOLOGY: 1. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model. ---------------------- ---------------------- ------------------------------------------- --.. - I 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input in row total of second column (zero if negative); included are the one-time taxes/fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated in fiscal impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include --------------------------------------------------- include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed. -------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------ --------------------- NOTES: Model Run Date 10/15/03 CMM --------------------- --------------------- ----- ----------------- ------------------ ----- Project Description: Crosspointe Center Build Out (completion of three phase. #pssumes 860,000 s.f. retail/general commercial, 100,000 s.f. office, 1,242 single family dwellings (mixed lot types; includes 200 SF small lot/age-restricted), and 336 townhouse units on 574.37 acres zoned RP (381.8 acres/66% project total; RP density: 4.13 du/acre; Overall project density: 2.75 du/acre) and B2 (192.57 acres; B2 FAR: 0.11).1 I � I � I Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this I I Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. I --------------------------------------------------- -------------------- -------- 1 I I I I I I I I 0 OUTPUT MODULE APPLICANT -- LAND USE TYPE REAL EST VAL FIRE & RESCUE = Crosspointe Center Ph. 1 Net Fiscal Impact RP182 Costs of Impact Credit: $86,510.326 Requited (entered in 11 Capltaj FA9M!as Col sum only) L_J 0 I Credits to be Taken for Future Taxes Paid (NPV t Total Potential Adjustment For Cur. Budget Our -Budget rap. Future ClPi Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capitai Net Cosl Per 1 Ooer Cao EOUip EIRL2 0 bt S. Taxes. Other tUnadiusted} Cost B I - Fire Fire and Rescue Departmant $562,562 Elementary Schools $2,525,117 Middle Schools High Schools $1,506,117 3410,991 $562,562 $2,1105422 31,995,106 Parks and Recreation $904,057 $"2,406,097 Public Library $157,169 Sheriffs Offices Administration Building $93,019 $119,375 $87,976 Other Miscellaneous Facillt?es $152,296 $173.414 SUBTOTAL LESS_ NET FISCAL IMPACT $8,125,134 $4,9!39,498 $672.361 NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT 6184 I JWOEX: "l _tY' if Cap. Equip Included 1.0 INDEX: "i -OF* if Rev -Cost eal, *0-(r if Ratio to Co Avg: PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1,0 u9 1.342 I METHODOLOGY: 1 _ Capital facilities requirernerd3 are input to the first column as calculated In the model. 1 ` 2_ Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations Is Input in row total of second catumn. {zero if negative); included are the One-time taxes/fees for one year only at full vajue. j 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 1 4. Nin/ of future capilal expenditure taxes paid in teurth col as calculated in fiscal Impacts. S. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard far newfacJiltres, as calculated for each new facility. I 8. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the cakulated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for air residential development). 1 i NOTE: Proffer calculations do not incbude include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed. 1 NOTES: Madel Run Date 10117103 CMM — I I Project Description: 'Break Even" Analysis - Phase 1 of Crosspointe Center (first of three phases) Assumes 212,692 s.f. retaillgeneral commetctal ; 484 single tamily dwelling units (Includes 100 age- ) restricted units); and 132 townhouse units on 225.16 acres zoned RP and B2 District (90.09 acres 82; 132.07 acres RP). t4OTE: This output report is not the offtclal ftscal Impact analysis far Crosspointe Center.! Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this j Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. j j 1 —1 Post -it' Fax Nate 7671 Dare Ages I Tn� M1 Fro •,� Co.+Dept 1 ` Mohitli Phone 4 Ph r� 1 Faxfitll.. .r. s •t�.�� r, �._v �. I CD v N CD CD w cn A CD m Ln m m w �n Ln r D Z H Z 0 C7 M n m� N a ante acct Ues Impact Dtvefimo Unit j $0 $562,562 $913 I 31,995,106 $2,406,097 $"2,406,097 $3.730.559 $6.056 j $203,744 $203,744$203,744 $700,313 $1,137 I $o $43,956 $43,956 543,955 $113,213 6184 I $18,999 $106,974 $106,974 $0 $0 I $191,460 $0 Sd $364,873 $0 $364,873 $119,375 $194 j $6 $D j $2,186,565 $266,699 $3,125,645 $3.125,645 $4,999,489 $8,116 I 54,999,498 $4,999,498 99 498 116 I I 0.0 Rev -Cost Bel = 1.000 I j 1 1.0 Ratio W Co A 1 u9 1.342 I METHODOLOGY: 1 _ Capital facilities requirernerd3 are input to the first column as calculated In the model. 1 ` 2_ Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations Is Input in row total of second catumn. {zero if negative); included are the One-time taxes/fees for one year only at full vajue. j 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 1 4. Nin/ of future capilal expenditure taxes paid in teurth col as calculated in fiscal Impacts. S. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard far newfacJiltres, as calculated for each new facility. I 8. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the cakulated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for air residential development). 1 i NOTE: Proffer calculations do not incbude include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed. 1 NOTES: Madel Run Date 10117103 CMM — I I Project Description: 'Break Even" Analysis - Phase 1 of Crosspointe Center (first of three phases) Assumes 212,692 s.f. retaillgeneral commetctal ; 484 single tamily dwelling units (Includes 100 age- ) restricted units); and 132 townhouse units on 225.16 acres zoned RP and B2 District (90.09 acres 82; 132.07 acres RP). t4OTE: This output report is not the offtclal ftscal Impact analysis far Crosspointe Center.! Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this j Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. j j 1 —1 Post -it' Fax Nate 7671 Dare Ages I Tn� M1 Fro •,� Co.+Dept 1 ` Mohitli Phone 4 Ph r� 1 Faxfitll.. .r. s •t�.�� r, �._v �. I CD v N CD CD w cn A CD m Ln m m w �n Ln r D Z H Z 0 C7 M n m� N OUTPUT MODULE APPLICANT: Crosspointe Center Ph, 1 8 2 Net Fiscal impact USE TYPE RPtB2 Costs of Impact Credit Credits Lo he Taken for Future Taxes Paid NPV) Total Potential REAL EST VAL $159,875,523 Required {entered in Budget Cur. Budget Cap. FIRE & RESCUE = t 1 Adjustment For I I m \ Capitai Facilfiies col sum only)Cur. Future CIPr Tex Credit-. Oper C_ ap EauFn Exnendfpebt S. Taxes, fl1Aer tUnadiustad Re e,-,ue- Cost Atet Capital tvet Cost Per I r j Fire and Rescue Department __} $1.435,034 Balance Facilities Impact flwellina Unit J - m Elementary Schools $4.645,543 $0 $0 J W Muddle Schools 52,767,580 $1.035,034 $9t7 High Schools 53.884,808$T56,457 $3.6T?.127 $4.428,584 Parks and Recreation 5 $4.428,.584 $6.869.346 $6,084 J ' $1,663,215 Public Library $289,148 $374,833 $374,833 Sheriffs offices -'- $374,833 — $1,286.381 $1,141 $80,867 $80,867 3177,630 $161.304 s0 $34,952 Administration Building $219,617 $696,256 $80,867 $186,256 $208,280 $184 I Other Miscellaneous Facilities $280,182 '$0 3a 5317,981 $351,071 30 $0 .,5219,617 $195 a $669,052 SUBTOTAL $14,956,255 $669.052 1 $0 $0 I m $1,235,742 $4,023,198 LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT $9207,179 $490,653 $5,749.592 NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT $5,749,592 I $g,2fls,662 $8.155 I m m $9,207,179 $9,207,179 9 207179) t38J551 W a 1 $01 Ln INDEX: "1.0" V Cap_ Equip Induded 1.0 INDEX: '1.0' if Rev -Cost Bal, '10.0" tf Ratio to Co Avg; 0.0 PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES Rev -Cost Bat = 1.0 1400 1.0 Ratio to Co Avg METHODOLOGY:1, Capital facilities 1.342 J requirements are inpul to the first column as calcufated 41 the model. 2. Nei Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculiations - is input in row total of second column (Hero it negative); included are the J onetime taxesffees for one year only at full value. 3. MPV or future oper cap equip taxa, in third 1 paid cotumn as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated in fiscal I impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, I calculated for each new facility. as S. Columns three through fire are added as potential credits against the calculated capital I I m facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of casts covered by the revenues from the project {actual, or as ratio to I ty ava. for all residential developrnenl}. J o 40TE: Proffer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash I payments u front Credits do include interest if the - - � P P�r-ts are debt financed. 1 D VOTES: Model Run Dale 10)17103 CMM � —�- - I z z J 1 z � 'reject Description: "Break Even" Analysis -Phases 1 & 2 of Crosspointe Gender {two ad Three phases). Assumes 390,325 s.t. refafUgereeral commercial estricted units); arW 222 townhouse units on 356.51 acres zoned RP and 92 District (107.71 acres B2; I : 807 single family dwelling m units (includes 200 age 248.8 acres RP). NOTE This outputre port Is not the olficiet Sscej impact analysts for Crosspointe Center] )ue to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results this I of 7utput Module may not be valid beyond a period of go days from the model run date. I I I I -n ( I 0 m I m j N 1 m N Crosspointe Center 1�1 • • Section V Proffer Statement Impact Analysis Statement PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ. # RA -1 to RP and B-2 PROPERTY: 574.37 acres Tax Map Parcels 75-A-89, 89A, 91, 92, 95, 96 and a portion of 75-A-90 and 75-A-94 (the "Property") RECORD OWNER: Glaize Developments, Inc., a Virginia corporation. APPLICANT: Glaize Developments, Inc. PROJECT NAME: Crosspointe Center ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: August 27, 2003 REVISION DATA: October 22, 2003 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. If this application is denied by the Board, but in the event that an appeal is for any reason thereafter remanded to the Board for reconsideration by a court of competent jurisdiction, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn unless the Applicant shall affirmatively readopt all or any portion hereof in a writing specifically for that purpose. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, Crosspointe Center" dated August 12, 2003, as revised October 20, 2003 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following: Page 1 of 15 Crosspointe Center Proffer Statement 1. the "Overall GDP," dated August 12, 2003, as revised October 20, 2003; 2. the "GDP, Phase I," dated August 12, 2003, as revised October 20, 2003; 3. the "GDP, Phase II," dated August 12, 2003, as revised October 20, 2003; 4. the "GDP, Phase III," dated August 12, 2003, as revised October 20, 2003, and the "Parks, Trails & Buffer Exhibit," dated October 20, 2003. LAND USE: 1.1. Areas of commercial development on the Property shall be developed in conformance with the regulations of the Business General ("132") zoning district, as set forth in the Frederick County Code. All commercial development on the Property shall comply with the aforesaid regulations, or as may be approved by Frederick County. 1.2. Commercial development on the Property shall not exceed a maximum of 960,000 square feet, in the locations generally depicted on the GDP. 1.3. Areas of residential development on the Property shall be developed in conformance with the regulations of the Residential Performance ("RP") zoning district, as set forth in the Frederick County Code. All residential development on the Property shall comply with the aforesaid regulations, or as may be approved by Frederick County. 1.4. Residential development on the Property shall not exceed a maximum of 1,578 dwelling units, of which 200 shall be age -restricted housing units in the locations generally depicted on the GDP, and no more than 1,042 shall be single family detached units. No rental garden apartments shall be permitted. 1.5. Except to the extent otherwise prohibited by the Virginia Fair Housing Law, the Federal Fair Housing Law, and other applicable federal, state, or local legal requirements, any dwelling unit within the portions of the Property identified as "age -restricted" housing shall be restricted to "housing for older persons" as defined in Va. Code Ann. § 36-96.7, or a surviving spouse not so qualifying. No persons under 19 years of age shall be permitted to be regularly domiciled or to reside permanently therein. The restriction provided for herein shall also be in the form of a restrictive covenant with respect to the residential portion of the Property, and any Homeowners' Association created with respect thereto shall have assigned responsibility for the enforcement and administration of the said covenant. 2. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND PLAN APPROVALS: Page 2 of 15 Crosspointe Center Proffer Statement 2.1. The Property shall be developed as one single and unified development in accordance with applicable ordinances, regulations, and design standards, and this Crosspointe Proffer Statement as approved by the Board. However, the commercial portion Property shall be phased in accordance with the Frederick County Impact Statement, as stated below. 2.2. The Property shall be developed in three phases. The minimum commercial floor space proffered in this section is that predicted by the Frederick County Impact Model as that necessary to mitigate the phase residential fiscal impact without consideration of cash proffer contributions. The three phases shall be authorized as follows: 2.2.1 Phase I shall include not less than 210,000 SF of commercial /retail gross leaseable floor space. Residential development in Phase I shall not exceed 616 dwelling units, of which 100 units shall be single-family small lot dwelling units for age restricted users. 2.2.2 Phase II development shall not commence until the minimum commercial/retail gross leaseable floor space required in Phase I is constructed. Thereafter, residential development in Phase II shall not exceed 513 dwelling units, of which 100 units shall be single- family small lot dwelling units for age restricted users. 2.2.3 Phase III development shall not commence until a total of 390,000 square feet of commercial/retail gross leaseable floor space is constructed. Residential development in Phase III shall not exceed 449 dwelling units. 3. ARCHITECTURE, SIGNAGE, AND LANDSCAPING: 3.1. Materials utilized for all exterior facades of the commercial buildings shall include but not be limited to concrete masonry units (CMU) brick, 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. 3.2. All buildings within the development on the property shall be constructed using compatible architectural styles and materials, and signage for such buildings shall be of a similar style and materials in order to maintain a unified development plan. The Applicant shall establish one or more Architectural Review Board/s to enforce a unified development plan. 3.3. A comprehensive sign plan shall be presented as part of the Master Plan submission for approval by Frederick County. 3.4. The major collector roadways (Tasker Road and Warrior Drive) in Crosspointe shall have a minimum 35' width buffer adjacent to dedicated rights of way and, except at entrance locations, be improved with Page 3 of 15 Crosspointe Center Proffer Statement landscape features and lighting to create a quality "boulevard" appearance. Illustrative details of these improvements shall be presented for approval by Frederick County at Master Plan. 4. PEDESTRIAN TRAIL SYSTEM AND RECREATION AREAS 4.1. 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. Said trails shall be in general conformance with the Southern Frederick Land Use Map and as such, shall be in the locations generally depicted on the GDP. The trails shall be 10 feet wide and shall be approved by the Director of Parks and Recreation and the Planning Commission. 5. FIRE & RESCUE: 5.1. The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $250.00 per dwelling unit for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 5.2. The Applicant shall contribute a total of $300,000.00 to the Stephens City Volunteer Fire Department, payable in three equal installments of $100,000.00, upon issuance of the first building permit for each of the three phases as described herein. 6. SCHOOLS: 6.1. The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $3,000.00 per dwelling unit for school purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such unit with the exception of age -restricted units. PARKS & OPEN SPACE: 7.1. The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $500.00 per dwelling unit for recreational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 1 001 111#111,14 1 W3 8.1. The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $100.00 per dwelling unit for library purposes, payable upon the issuance of a. building permit for each such unit. 9. SHERIFF'S OFFICE: 9.1. The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $5,000.00 for the Sheriff's Office upon issuance of the first building permit for the development. Page 4 of 15 Crosspointe Center 10. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING: Proffer Statement 10.1. The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $5,000.00 to be used for construction of a general governmental administration building upon issuance of the first building permit for the development. 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, for each area subject to their jurisdiction, and shall be provided such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such associations or as may be required for such HOA herein. If there is more than one such association, the Applicant shall create an umbrella HOA with respect to the entire development that shall, among other things, have responsibility for assuring compliance with design guidelines and standards, signage requirements, and similar matters. 11.2. In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, an HOA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all common open space areas not otherwise dedicated to public use, (ii) common buffer areas located outside of residential lots; (iii) common solid waste disposal programs, including curbside pick-up of refuse by a private refuse collection company, and (iv) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any street, perimeter, or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be located within easements to be granted to the HOA if platted within residential or other lots, or otherwise granted to the HOA by appropriate instrument. 11.3. The commercial portion 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, 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. Page 5 of 15 Crosspointe Center Proffer Statement 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) common solid waste disposal programs to include dumpster and contract carrier services provided by a private refuse collection company, and (iv) 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 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. All water and sewer infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. 13. ENVIRONMENT: 13.1. Stormwater management and Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Property shall be provided in accordance with the Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations, First Ed. 1999, Chapter 2, Table 2-3 which results in 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 created in general conformance with the Parks, Trails & Buffer Exhibit so as to protect the Opequon and Hoge Run streams from disturbance. No clearing or grading shall occur within those buffers, except for the construction of road crossings, trails, sanitary sewer, or other utilities. 14. TRANSPORTATION: 14.1. Transportation improvements shall be associated with and initiated with each phase of the development as set forth below. It is the applicant's intent to utilize public road funding as it may be available for portions of this project, however, the responsibility for causing the construction to occur prior to issuance of building permits shall rest with the applicant. 14.2. The following traffic improvements shall be designed and constructed during Phase h The exact location and design of such improvements shall be subject to reasonable adjustment upon final engineering thereof. 14.2.1 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit the Applicant shall design and construct an extension of Crosspointe Boulevard in an easterly direction for 1,100 feet as generally depicted on the GDP. Page 6 of 15 Crosspointe Center Proffer Statement Such design shall be in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") specifications, and subject to review and approval by the Frederick County and VDOT. ("E" to "G" on GDP). 14.2.2 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the development the Applicant shall design and construct a realigned intersection of Tasker Road with the extension of Crosspointe Boulevard as generally depicted on the GDP. Such design shall be in accordance with VDOT specifications and subject to review and approval by Frederick County and VDOT. ("F" to "G" to "H" to "J" on GDP). 14.2.3 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit the Applicant shall design and construct an extension of Hilandale Road from Crosspointe Boulevard extended in an easterly direction between the Phase I commercial and residential developments as generally depicted on the GDP. Such design shall be in accordance with VDOT specifications and subject to review and approval by Frederick County and VDOT. ("P' to "H" on GDP). 14.2.4 At a time approved by VDOT the Applicant shall design and construct an additional lane on SBL U.S. Route 11 between the interchange ramp intersections with Route 37 as generally depicted on the GDP. Such design shall be in accordance with VDOT specifications and subject to review and approval by Frederick County and VDOT. ("A" to "B" on GDP). 14.2.5 The applicant shall perform design studies and secure approval of a ramp modification plan for the I-81 NBL off ramp and the I-81 NBL on ramp in order to meet LOS "C" conditions in accord with the TIA. VDOT and FHWA approvals and funding for the required improvements shall be secured to perform the work plan as approved prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase 1. ("D" and "E" as shown on GDP). 14.2.6 Full left and right turn commercial entrances to Warrior Drive shall be limited to one location approximately midway between "M" and "K". 14.2.7 Full left and right turn commercial entrances to Tasker Road shall be limited to four with two allowed between "F" and "G" and one each allowed at "H" and "J". 14.2.8 Road entrances to Crosspointe Blvd. Shall be limited to two at "G" and at "M" as shown on the GDP. Page 7 of 15 Crosspointe Center Proffer Statement 14.3. The following traffic improvements shall be designed and constructed during Phase H and shall be completed prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit in Phase II, unless noted otherwise herein. The exact location and design of such improvements shall be in substantial conformance with the GDP but subject to reasonable adjustment upon final engineering thereof. 14.3.1 The Applicant shall design and construct Tasker Road extended to Warrior Drive. ("J" to "K" on GDP). 14.3.2 The Applicant shall design and construct Warrior Drive from Crosspointe Boulevard to the north limits of the development. ("L" to "K" to "M" on GDP). 14.3.3 The Applicant shall design and construct a two-lane extension of Crosspointe Boulevard to Warrior Drive. ("G" to "M" on GDP). 14.4. The following traffic improvements shall be designed and constructed during Phase III and shall be completed prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit in Phase III, unless otherwise noted herein. The exact location and design of such improvements shall be subject to reasonable adjustment upon final engineering thereof: 14.4.1 The Applicant shall design and construct Warrior Drive from Crosspointe Boulevard to the south property boundary. ("M" to "N" on GDP). 14.4.2 The Applicant shall design and construct two additional lanes to Crosspointe Boulevard from the intersection with Tasker Road to Warrior Drive. ("G" to "M" on GDP). 14.4.3 The Applicant shall design and construct a four lane, divided roadway from Warrior Drive to the east limits of the development. ("M" to "O" on GDP). 14.4.4 No construction permits for commercial or residential uses in Phase III shall be applied for until one of the three following conditions exist: 1. Warrior Drive is extended from the south across offsite properties to intersection with Tasker Road (S.R. 642) (at "N") or with links provided to U.S. Route 522. (At "O"). 2. Warrior Drive is extended from the north across offsite properties to intersection with Paper Mill Road (S.R. 644). (At «L„ Page 8 of 15 Crosspointe Center Proffer Statement 3. A revised Transportation Impact Analysis is prepared, reviewed and approved by Frederick County and VDOT, which provides justification for Phase III transportation impacts. 14.5: The Applicant understands that the route of Crosspointe Boulevard may be used for an improved arterial road location in the future. The Applicant shall plan for a 220' wide corridor with additional right of way to allow for interchanges at the intersections of I-81 and Warrior Drive. The limits of the additional right of way shall be determined at the time of Master Plan approval. The area outside of the 90' to 110' right of way required for Crosspointe Boulevard shall be planned as open space, and in the event such a program is funded to provide for an upgraded roadway with a full transportation intersection at Warrior Drive, such right of way shall be dedicated at no cost to the County. ("E" to "G" to "M" to "O" on GDP). 15. CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATION AND PRESERVATION 15.1. The Applicant shall preserve Hilandale House for such uses as may be deemed appropriate by the Applicant. The Applicant shall further create a five -acre preservation park immediately surrounding the House, as generally depicted on the GDP. 15.2. The Applicant shall create a ten -acre preservation park immediately surrounding the encampment area associated with Camp Russell, as generally depicted on the GDP. 15.3. The Applicant shall create a two -acre preservation park surrounding the Carysbrook Redoubt area, as generally depicted on the GDP. 15.4. Prior to the commencement of any land disturbing activities on the Property, the Applicant shall perform a Phase I Archeological Study for investigation of those portions of the development outside the development area previously studied in the Route 37 Final Environmental Impact Statement/Section 4(f) Evaluation (the "FEIS"). In the event that the Phase I study indicates that further study is required, then the Applicant shall take such further preservation studies as may be indicated. 15.5. If the Applicant constructs the extension of Warrior Road in the alignment contemplated by and studied in the FEIS, the Applicant will coordinate that construction with the Federal Highway Administration ("FHA"), the Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer ("SHPO"), VDOT, and Frederick County, to assure implementation of the Memorandum of Agreement previously entered into between the County, the FHA and the SHPO, as submitted to and approved by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.6(a). 15.6. Any additional archeological features identified during the Phase I study will be evaluated in accordance with VDHR guidelines, and in the event Page 9 of 15 Crosspointe Center Proffer Statement that a National Register -eligible site is identified, the Applicant will work with VDHR and the County to mitigate any adverse effects that may result from the proposed development. 16. DEDICATION OF AREA FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICES 16.1. The Applicant shall dedicate approximately nine acres of land in a location shown on the GDP to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors or such entity as the Board may direct for the placement of government. services, to include satellite offices for the County Sheriff and Treasurer, and any other governmental emergency services as the Board may direct. The dedication shall occur within thirty (30) days of the Board's written request to the Applicant. 17. ESCALATOR CLAUSE 17.1. In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement are paid to the Frederick County Board County Supervisors ("Board") within 30 months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to the Board after 30 months following the approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index ("CPI -U") published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time contributions are paid, they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI -U from that date 24 months after the approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI -U to the date the contributions are paid, subject to a cap of 6% per year, non -compounded. SIGNATURES APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGES Page 10 of 15 Crosspointe Center Proffer Statement GLAIZE DEVELOPMENTS, INC. U Title: C=-, - C- S, ,e-/ ` y—. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, CITY/COUNTY OF ,U i; 1254er : to -wit The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2�' day of 2003, by _V Ce Notary Public My Commission expires: �- c , T_1431434610021 FMN—WGIPROFFERS\PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT 1 submitted.doc Page 11 of 15 r �' = • 'TO(FIlTPAP1..ER MILL ROAD 3RE) ■ �i' S F— '"'S REn IDENTIAL - RP }.. ' " �_•�� �, -- RFSIDF&4TFAL-RP f2FSkiEN!T �L+ � \'PpYi4�r �.� r �1 f� 1 NAG � P '`✓ COMMERCIAL 6.2 r , � ✓' A' � °°n C, MwEPCiAL U t �—OP.AM1 RC]A! B 2 GCi3r MUiCIAL r acs L rS� F ti� r ,..i COMMERCIAL B-2 i t `\ ""•�•.:a �` / �,. I+' }. 14 i4TE f RESIDENTIAL - RP � disk v v- 1 �� (L'hiE 1EMt�'/xL 5'e t SLI N r. `y -"E ` ".Z ! 71 \TO WARRIOR ROAD ER-,EAL- + _ r-� 1 I-RIAMkit: l; t:Ut \'t'1 \'ik{i1ti,tA � t�,�.�• _ _ $� A 1 "*`��. " Rpk+t x. aitfuN :,t` G +tY•:nxs lw. Pf .��{ 1-�9i lei �� t:oY+n .. tLj�� �...1 LL 1 _ lit 11.1 ot RU r } 2 RESIDENTIAL - RP I D rl VO 10* • qg,% I NA RE NTLAL 1 RP 'o". 11 H A s F, I wCROSSPO] N T F. in PREDI,RICK CoUNTY. A I RG IN I.% I, 17.1-:1] 171.1' 1%1. 0 P %I WS*l PI, A% am soon 1HASE FIGURE 7 4�-- iRl tA a ?0� wj� I RESORNTIAL-kP 4e PHASE 2 C R () S S P 0 1 N T I WIN~ t;l-.NERAl.lXVl) Dh% ELOPNIENT PLAN TO PAPER MILL ROAD (FUTURE) �As$` RESil)ENTIAL-RP -62 4 MMERCIALS-� RESIDENTIAL FIGURFS moRA a r 0 I 001 raw04A4W u. . RESIDENTIAL - RP *< _ �-- RT i� JJ CC7MME RCSAL-2' LU L A n4Rt.0 mrRC;I RESIbENfirAL tihiMi=RGIAL ' �� ? to 6SAC18;4 }� t,f 5V._ni ACHtb fRT, (71; lilf.h f'0UNTY, V) N(; IS I;S '-- �a YiRa•� 1W lifiiir GEMAAI.IALD DHV'1 1J.PV!1.NT PLAA yt rrr ptl �S1•. IIRI'11, I TO WARRIOR ROAD MAKE t', RESIDENTIAL ii. t9 a^,BES+ 99 // i y7)) tt �� 4M••re • 4w rwrvn er;3win I P�� ,1� �l - •. - t :+3` VYYJ:i1PE,._...�........_ ..,.,- _.. Mat Ai'f LA. f ��.Sj,,,,�� •�{ .....i,j0 R .0—,N�_A fiD LANDSt. Aft AREA.,. v P14L4E1 ,-AnJALTJJT CO,d61MIAL AC.+ACpffT RETffifiA.f RESIDENTIAL • RP !�# TYPICAL STREETSGAPE SECTION ' TASKER & WARRIOR ROADS NORTH OF GROSSP06NTE BLVD ,t fV - q +� logo RESIDENTIAL-RP il. 'RESIDENTIAL-RP PRAse+ RESIDENTIAL-R rwW ru COMMERCIAL B-2 PltlSE A $,OMMERCIAL B r _ .. i SALE +RNE °'� t COMMERCIAL 84 Al COMMERCIAL B-2 f' PHASI: MMERCIAL ' CD , Q1 _ iy ,:• •,. f : r RESIDENTIAL `s,�r;: 1 e,• � _ r „ CN 1 - f 3t Fi,.e •.112 A - . Q.: CROS3° INi+r � • REST L VfuRTE �YD4i+lt )r`pF COMAAERCIAL 8�2Lu PLAN xEY h.. ,gn RESIDENTIAL - RIP _ PROPOSED STREAM PRESERVATION SUPPER COMMERCIAL < PROPOSEC(POCKET PARK z RESIDENTIAL-RP - PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN TRAIL FRI:DI?RI('K CC1 is\TY, PiRGIII.\ ^-.• v. " - ,`•.•.r~ - � WEm. x. n1iM flay a afuc4ms. uv. nfYlla' lfaM Yd oy + '++vrw• wo.+p ' GE.NRRALIZED [)F•.YGIUIfKii\7' PLAN ' PrtItl''L, TRAIL, AND $iINFE.R li:Xf i'IAT'i r - _ Crosspointe Center section V1 Agency Conincients Impact Analysis Statement CI -W, ` l i ++ord ;540 GE,4 5607 # 1 ; Rezoning Comments Crassoointe Virginia Department of Transportation bail to- Virginia Dept. of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 14031 Old Valley Pipe Edinburg, VA 22824 Hand deliver to: Virginia Dent_ of Transportation Atte' Resident Engineer 14031 Old Valley Pike Winchester, VA 22601- 11.7 260T ApPlicant's Name: Gilbert W, Clifford & Assoc. Inc. Phone: (540)667-2139 -Mailing Address: c/o C. E- Maddox Jr..P,E, VP 11'7 E- Piccadilly streetSuite 200 Winchester VA 22601 Location ofPronerty: Kernstown Area - East and ad acent to Tasker Road where VA Route 37 ends Current Zoning-, RA Zoning Requested: RP & B2 Acreage: 626.37 V3-gi:nia Department of TrausnorEat;on Comments: See attached UE -Ci co-Nments dated y Notice to I G— P f, —t!7 - P:edse Return This Form to the A�plieant I t0 -?a-02.; 70:32•AI�-0. G.W. CI if ord ;540 _984 5607 # L! 2 VDOT rf%mme f s to C, osspointe Cerate: Rezoning October 24, 2po3 The documentation within the application to _rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes I-81, 37 and 642: These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as access to the. property referenced. 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. Trin Generation Manual Sixth Edition for review. VDOT reserves the -right to -comment -on all right-of-way needs, including -ri'ght-of way dedications, traffic 'signalization� and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. VD07" s review of the application and proffer- indicates the following: • Existing Level of Service of the 1-81 North Bound Off Ramp at Route 37 is Level of Service "D" in the PM Peak hour. All other intersecting routes,- including Tasker Road. at Route 37, have a Level of Service "C" or better. • With the Phase I build -out, the -proffers offered -would provide a Level -of Service "C"- or better at all intersections, including the I-81 North Bound Off Ramp at Route 37. • With the Phase II build=Out, the prWem offered would provide a Level of Service "C" or better at all 141, ramp intersections and the intersection of Hillandale and Tasker Road. However, the relocated intersection of Tasker Road -arid. Crosspointe Botifevard illrlstrates Level of Service "D" at three legs of intersection -in, either AM or PM Peak Hour. • With the Phase III buiid-out, the proffers offered would provide a Level of Service "C" at all I-81, Route 37 rare; . inters ions_ with the exception: of . t_he- Nor+h Bound _Lane Cuff R--mp . which tvould have a Level. of &ervice "Y' in the AM and PM Peak Hour, Again, the relocated intersection of Tasker Road and Grosspvinte , ^.r rlevard illustrates. Level of Service 'D' Cf .thr4'e. ig5 of. intarsection in eltllnr AM or PM Peak I•lCN3r. All . other intersections provide for a Level of Service "Cft or better. Furthermore, at Level of Service "l6" locations identified in the ITA, the developer should strive to improve each intersection to the desirable Level of Service -C,, • Traffic lights are mentioned at the foflowing intersections and as identified on the Generalized Development. Plan, but are not specifically included in the proffers: o Phase I at Intersection `E" which constitutes revamping the existing signal and at Intersection "G, Crosspointe Boulevard and Route 642, Tasker Road. o Phase II at Intersection "M" of Crosspointe Boulevard and proposed I arrior Road and at Intersection "K" of Route 642, Tasker Road and proposed Warrior Road In general, signalization should be provided at the appropriate locations established by warrants determined by VDOT: VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Crosspointe Center Rezoning Application dated August, 2003, revised October 22, 2003 addresses- transportation -concerns associated -with -this request Our,. review indicates a decline to a Level of Service "D'; at intersections only during AM and PM Peak Hours. An overall Level of Service "C" can be maintained ttrroughout the roadway network. Any work performed on the State's ri ht -of way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this YNe and requires InsPectm e and surety ,bond coverage, r -Cop ; Transportatiofr .Resident Engineer, JAC/rf • 0 0 Rezurtire2 CoM:nen:s _ _ Crosspointe Name of Fire & Rescue Co - Stephens City Fire Co., Inc. P_O, Box 253 Stephens City. VA 22655 869-457& Fire and Rescue Company :Address & Phone Stephens Cite Fire Co., Inc. P.O: Box 25-', Stephens City, VA 3?655 869-4576. Appliea.�t's ;dame: Qilbnrt W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc. Phone- (-540)667-21.39 2I39 Mailing Address. c/o C. E. Maddox, )r., _P. E,, V_� P 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester- VA 22601 Location of Property: Kernstow.n, :area — East and adjacent to Tasker Road where VA Route 3 7 ends, Current Zoning _RA _ T.onin_p Requecled RP & R7 Acreage 67h.37 Fire and Rescue Company's Cornments The Stephens Cih- Fire and Rescue Coinpanc arouid ` support the C:rosspointe proposed rezoning. prodded the fallowing: i. All recolnunezdations b=.- dic Frederick County Fire Marshal be satisfied. as requir:d by appheabic code 2, There: it ill be three (.3 ) donations of $ 100,000. each_ prow idea to the Stephen; City Fire and Rescue: Conlpane j of elhich- »-ill he made at. specific tune periods, to be determined by the rssuancc Ut count: biuldinp permits (T ese donations Hill not h. a e an effect on the proposed proffer unanies, design.ited lt�r Fine and Resa;: l It is further recounmeded that three (3) acres of land, suitable and zoned appropriately. he donated to the i Srephens Cin- Fire and Rescue Corripamy for riuure grow"-irc turd Rescue Service,, (TirefRescue station) Fire & Rescue Company's Signature &: Date: October zl_ ztto� CGrt_ernrL. act: girt an�rt�cnt C'tuct ----- Notice .to Fire & Researe Company -- Mease eturn This Form.. to the Applicnnt 23 p.2 a C1 Rezoning Comments Crossnointe Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation Mail to: Frederick County Dept. of Parks & Recreation 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5678 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation Co. Administration Bldg., 2nd Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Applicant's Name: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc. Inc. Phone: (540)667-2139 Mailing Address.- c/o C. E Maddox, Jr., P E , VP 117E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: Kernstown Area — East and adjacent to Tasker Road where VA Route 37 ends Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RP & B2 Acreage: 626.37 Dept. of Parks & Recreation Comments: The proposed proffer for Parks and Recreation appears to be consistent with the proffer model and with the net impact this development will have on the demands for recreational activities created by this development. This department needs tk see more information pertaining tothe required recreation amenities, open spac,, d -ie Re ' n/bikeway discussed in the project su Signature & Date: ° > ;rte : �-- 6 ,st 1,� .� .' ��'� .--�-----= .LOQ 7 / 0 3 Notice to Dept..vgf Parks & Recreation — Please Return This Form to the Applicant 14 iary. . • Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent October 16, 2003 C. E. Maddox, Jr. P.E., VP Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc. 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Crosspointe Center Rezoning Dear Mr. Maddox: Al Omdorff omdorfa@firedenck.k12.va.us This letter is in response to your request for comments concerning the rezoning application for the proposed Crosspointe Center project. Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 1310 single family homes, and 280 townhouses, will yield 254 high school students, 217 middle school students, and 598 elementary school students for a total of 1,069 new students upon build -out. The application is not clear on the scheduling of the three phases relative to a calendar timeline. It would be helpful for facility and staff planning to be able to project the number of possible students generated on an annual basis from this proposed project_ Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding their practical capacity. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Respectfully Yours, zi'fflell div Al OmdorfF Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent Copy: William C. Dean, Ph. D., Superintendent of Schools Robert W. Cleaver, Assistant Superintendent for Administration 1415 Amherst Street www.frederick.02 va.us 540-662-3889 ext. 112 P.O. Box 3508 540-545-2439 Winchester, Virginia 22604-2546 540-662-3890 fax County public Schools _- �: �'af i.i i�Lti"e ai3 �. �.; �,'� f�; .,�: e;<ce?te::e ti at_i t"a'y`ot t Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent October 16, 2003 C. E. Maddox, Jr. P.E., VP Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc. 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Crosspointe Center Rezoning Dear Mr. Maddox: Al Omdorff omdorfa@firedenck.k12.va.us This letter is in response to your request for comments concerning the rezoning application for the proposed Crosspointe Center project. Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 1310 single family homes, and 280 townhouses, will yield 254 high school students, 217 middle school students, and 598 elementary school students for a total of 1,069 new students upon build -out. The application is not clear on the scheduling of the three phases relative to a calendar timeline. It would be helpful for facility and staff planning to be able to project the number of possible students generated on an annual basis from this proposed project_ Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding their practical capacity. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Respectfully Yours, zi'fflell div Al OmdorfF Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent Copy: William C. Dean, Ph. D., Superintendent of Schools Robert W. Cleaver, Assistant Superintendent for Administration 1415 Amherst Street www.frederick.02 va.us 540-662-3889 ext. 112 P.O. Box 3508 540-545-2439 Winchester, Virginia 22604-2546 540-662-3890 fax WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT y SERVING THE 491 AIRPORT ROAD TOP OF VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 gU1 H0 �� (540) 662-2422 October 16, 2003 Charles E. Maddox, Jr. Vice -President Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Rezoning Comment Crosspointe Shawnee Magisterial District Dear Mr. Maddox: The proposed rezoning request has been reviewed and it appears that it will not impact operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. Thank you for the opportunity to review this request. Sincerely, <5R fy-6, S. R. Manuel Executive Director • • L -I 0 Rezoning Comments Crosspointe Mail to: Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road Winchester, VA 22602 (540) 662-2422 Winchester Regional Airport Hand deliver to: Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road Winchester, VA Applicant's Name: Mailing Address: Location of Property. Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc. Inc. C/o C. E. Maddox Jr., P.E. VP 117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester VA 22601 Phone: (540)667-2139 Kernstown Area — East and adjacent to Tasker Road where VA Route 37 ends Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RP & B2 Acreage. 626.37 Winchester Regional Airport's Comments Winchester Regional Airport Signature &Date: a io) J (o w 3 Notice to Winchester Regional Airport — Please Return This Form to the Applicant 21 October 15, 2003 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. RE, VP G.W. Clifford & Associates, Inco 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester.. VA 22601 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RE: Preliminary Comments - Crosspointe Center Rezoning Proposal Dear Chuck: This correspondence is intended to identify issues of concern regarding the preliminary application materials for the Crosspointe Center rezoning proposal, which were submitted on September 12, 0 2003. The preliminary application package consists of the following principal components: (1) Impact Analysis Statement, to include A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center, dated September 10, 2003, prepared by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, PC; (2) Proposed Proffer Statement dated August 27, 2003; and (3) Generalized Development Plan (GDP) dated August 12, 2003. It is anticipated that these issues will be fully addressed through revisions to the application prior to its consideration by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The following comments are offered for your records: A. Fact Analysis Statement 1. Please note that the non-residential floor area data provided on the application form does not correspond with the floor area stated in either the impact analysis statement or Proposed Proffer Statement. These figures should be reviewed for accuracy and consistently applied throughout all of the application materials. 2. As noted through previous conversations, the northernmost portion of the proposed rezoning area is located outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA). This acreage is located adjacent and north of Hoge Run and is proposed to be rezoned to the RP (Residential Performance) zoning district, as shown on the Generalized Development Plan (GDP). Pursuant to the land use policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, suburban and urban residential land uses are planned to develop within the UDA wherein the public facilities necessary to accommodate more intensive land uses are either available or planned to expand. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-1, 6-5, 6-6) 107 North Kent Street c Wincheste Virginia 22601-5000 Page 2 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.F. Re: Crosspointe Center Rezoning Proposal October 15, 2003 The RP zoning district allows suburban and urban residential land uses by right. As such, the proposed rezoning of land to the RP district outside of the UDA is inconsistent with the land use policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. To resolve this inconsistency, the applicant should either (1) revise the proposed rezoning boundary to follow the limits of the UDA, coincident with Hoge Run, or (2) pursue expansion of the UDA to incorporate the portion of the site located north of Hoge Run. If the rezoning area boundary is revised, please ensure that all data impacted by this adjustment is modified throughout the various components of the application package. B. Proposed Proffer Statement 1. Land Use 1.2 Residential It is noted that while the maximum number of dwelling units in Crosspointe Center is defined by this proffered condition, there is no limitation concerning the rate of residential development nor is the relationship between the development of residential and non- residential land uses enumerated. The impact analysis statement presents the development program for Crosspointe Center in three distinct phases comprised of both residential and commercial land uses. Implied by such phasing for the purposes of impact assessment is that commercial development will occur simultaneously with residential development, thereby ensuring an effective balance of land uses throughout the development cycle. However, the Proposed Proffer Statement does not provide assurance that the coordinated phasing of residential and commercial land uses will occur. In the absence of a defined phasing plan for the land uses in the Proposed Proffer Statement, it is possible that the residential component of Crosspointe Center could advance at a faster pace than the commercial component, potentially reaching residential build out prior to the commencement of commercial development. Should such a scenario occur, the advantages of the phasing program suggested in the Impact Analysis Statement and assumed by the Fiscal Impact Model would be negated. As described by the South Frederick Land Use Plan (SFLUP), a mixed use area is envisioned to develop with a balance of land uses consisting of both commercial and residential components. Attainment of the desired mix is promoted through control of the residential component, with policy stipulating that residential uses are planned to comprise no more than 75% of the land area of a given mixed use project. There is no policy limitation concerning the amount of commercial land uses in a mixed use project, except that such uses are clearly expected to develop with residential uses in an integrated environment. Page 3 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. Re: Crosspointe Center Rezoning Proposal October 15, 2003 (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-42.4) The majority of the proposed Crosspointe Center site is designated for mixed use development by the SFLUP. Overall, residential uses are proposed to comprise approximately 66% of the total project land area, which is consistent with the mixed use designation. To ensure that a balance of land uses is maintained throughout the development cycle, residential uses should be limited to no more than 75% of the project at any given time. If feasible, it would be appropriate to define the three phases of development delineated in the Impact Analysis Statement within the Proposed Proffer Statement, with the assurance that residential development would proceed incrementally according to the completion of specified thresholds of commercial floor area. The Proposed Proffer Statement specifies that 200 "elderly housing units" will be included in the residential development program of Crosspointe Center. It is recommended that this dwelling unit type be identified more precisely by the corresponding housing type of the RP zoning district, which is presumably single family small lot. The intent of the applicant to limit occupancy of these units to the elderly population may be conveyed by noting in the proffered condition that such housing will be designated to serve the active adult - age restricted market. Please note that Frederick County is not equipped to enforce a proffered condition precluding the development of garden apartment or condominium housing for rental purposes. If such housing is permitted in Crosspointe Center, it is assumed that some units may indeed be available for rent to address market demand. However, multi -family housing is not specified by the rezoning application as a planned housing type in Crosspointe Center and was therefore not included as an assumed land use in the Fiscal Impact Model analysis. Moreover, the proposed proffers expressly identify the residential land uses permitted in Crosspointe Center, which include single family detached dwelling units, townhouse units, and elderly housing units. Thus, multi -family units would not be permitted. It is therefore recommended that the reference to rental garden apartments be either removedom the proposed proffered condition or clarified to indicate that multi -family dwellings are prohibited in Crosspointe Center. 2. Architecture, Signage and Landscaping 3.1 and 3.2 Both of these proffered conditions stipulate that the development of Crosspointe Center _.,ill occur in "substantial conform- ance" with the requirements of the RP and B2 zoning districts, respectively. It is noted that conformance with ^rdinar:ve require�i�ents should not be Page 4 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. Re: Crosspointe Center Rezoning Proposal October 15, 2003 qualified to suggest that there is a particular level of compliance acceptable to Frederick County other than full and complete. 3.3 The effect of this proffered condition is to communicate that there is no limitation or minimum standard concerning exterior building materials proposed for Crosspointe Center. The proposed proffer language identifies a variety of possible exterior building materials for commercial buildings, but does not offer a commitment to the exclusive use of said materials. The value of this condition within the Proposed Proffer Statement as a means of influencing project design is therefore questionable. If the applicant is interested in ensuring building design that achieves a unified and distinctive theme, it is recommended that minimum architectural standards be contemplated as a component of this application. 3.5 The applicant has proffered that a comprehensive sign plan will be prepared for the entire Crosspointe Center development, but does not include any such plan with the Proposed Proffer Statement. As a comprehensive sign plan is intended to serve as an enforceable sign program that is unique to a given development, it is generally appropriate that the plan be included with the rezoning application and adopted with the proffer statement. In so doing, the comprehensive sign plan becomes the sign ordinance applicable to the development that will be enforced by the jurisdiction in perpetuity. Moreover, as such sign plans generally impose more stringent design standards than the Zoning Ordinance, the potential for successful implementation is substantially enhanced when the alternative standards are enforceable as conditions of a rezoning approval. To be most effective, a comprehensive sign plan should identify acceptable sign styles (i.e. monument type), specify dimensional standards for freestanding and building mounted signs, and stipulate minimum design elements (i.e. materials, lighting) so that a coordinated theme can be achieved and maintained throughout the development. 3. Pedestrian Trail System and Recreation Areas 4.1 The infrastructure policies of the SFLUP encourage development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities as a component of the transportation system for mixed use areas. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-42.6) The Proposed Proffer Statement states that a pedestrian trail system will be constructed within the development to link residential and commercial areas. The minimum design standards for this system are not specified by the applicant, thereby leaving 49 the ultimate width and surface treatment(s) of the proffered trails undefined. Without such information, it is difficult to determine whether the trail system proposed for Crosspointe Page 5 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V,P. Re: Crosspointe Center Rezoning Proposal October 15, 2003 Center will be adequate to accommodate both pedestrian and bicycle traffic as promoted by the SFLUP policies. Additionally, while precise trail location information will be determined during subsequent phases of development review, inclusion on the GDP of the general framework of the system that identifies its central components and linkages would be appropriate. The applicant is encouraged to consider establishing connections with pedestrian systems in adjoining developments in addition to the internal linkages proposed by proffer. 4. Monetary Contributions - CPI Adiustment Frederick County recently accepted a rezoning petition that included a provision for the periodic adjustment of monetary contributions to account for the impact of inflation on the value of said contributions. Specifically, this clause provided for the adjustment of all monetary contributions to reflect the Consumer Price Index (CPI), with such adjustments to occur every twenty four (24) months over the course of the project's development cycle. The employment of such an "escalator clause" is encouraged with all rezoning petitions as a means of ensuring that monetary contributions effectively address targeted impacts. This approach is particularly relevant to large projects that will follow a phased development schedule requiring several years for completion, such as proposed Crosspointe Center. 5. Schools 6.1 It is recommended that the language of this proffered condition clarify that the $3,000 contribution for school purposes is on a "per dwelling unit" basis. The current language implies that this monetary amount is intended as a per unit contribution, but would be more clear if written with the specificity of Proffered Condition 5.1 concerning Fire & Rescue contributions. Parks & Open Space 7.1 It is recommended that the language of this proffered condition clarify that the $500 contribution for recreational purposes is on a "per dwelling unit" basis. The current language implies that this monetary amount is intended as a per unit contribution, but would be more clear if written with the specificity of Proffered Condition 5.1 concerning Fire & Rescue contributions. Page 6 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. Re: Crosspointe Center Rezoning Proposal October 15, 2003 7. Libraries 8.1 It is recommended that the language of this proffered condition clarify that the $ l OC contribution for library purposes is on a "per dwelling unit" basis. The current language implies that this monetary amount is intended as a per unit contribution, but would be more clear if written with the specificity of Proffered Condition 5.1 concerning Fire & Rescue contributions. 8. Water & Sewer 12.1 It is recommended that this proffered condition specify that all water and sewer infrastructure provided by the applicant will be constructed pursuant to the requirements of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA). 9. Transportation Phasing of lm rovements As currently proposed, the transportation phasing program proffered by the applicant is not linked to the planned phases of residential and commercial development in quantifiable terms. During a discussion concerning this project with VDOT staff on October 3, 2003, it was generally agreed that a more distinct relationship between land use and transportation phasing would be advisable. It was noted that the most effective phasing method would involve the inclusion of specific development thresholds in the transportation proffers that represent the trigger for each phase of transportation improvements. If residential land uses are ultimately phased by the applicant so that they will not outpace commercial development, the appropriate threshold triggering commencement of a given transportation phase would arguably be commercial floor area. Regarding the completion of phased improvements, it may be appropriate to commit to the full completion of the transportation improvements for a given phase prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy (CO) for said phase, as opposed to the first building permit. This arrangement would enable the applicant to commence development activities while the road system is being developed, but preclude the initiation of land uses (commercial and/or residential activities) prior to the availability of necessary infrastructure to accommodate projected trips. Duri0 ng the October 3`d meeting with VDOT representatives, the proposed Phase One relocation of Tasker Road was identified as necessary prior to the commencement of site Page 7 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. Re: Crosspointe Center Rezoning Proposal October 15, 2003 development activities to ensure acceptable traffic conditions in the vicinity of the I-81/Rt. 37/Rt.I l interchange. The relocated segment of Tasker Road would serve as the initial means of access to the project for construction traffic and related activities and further provide alternative access to I-81, which would be necessary to enable the required relocation of the northbound interchange ramps. It was therefore recommended that the proposed transportation program provide assurance that the Phase One relocation of Tasker Road will be completed prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the project. As currently written, the proposed transportation program does not provide any assurance that this improvement will be completed prior to the commencement of development activity, Relocation of Northbound Interchange Ramps Along with the relocation of Tasker Road, the relocation of the northbound 1-81 interchange ramps is critical to the effective mitigation of the projected traffic impacts of Crosspointe Center. However, the proposed transportation program does not specifically reference the required relocation of the ramps and further, does not identify responsibility for this improvement. As a Phase One improvement, the relocation for the ramps is expected to be completed prior to the issuance of either the first building permit or certificate of occupancy 0 for the project, depending upon which permitting function is proposed as the enforcement mechanism for completion of each phase. It is recommended that the proposed transportation program expressly identify the relocation or the northbound interchange ramps as a Phase One improvement. It is noted that during the October 3rd meeting, VDOT representatives clarified that improvements to the interchange ramps would not occur as a VDOT project. Therefore, the proposed transportation program should not identify VDOT as a potential funding source for this critical improvement. Crosspointe Boulevard As currently depicted on the proposed GDP, the eastern terminus of proposed Crosspointe Boulevard is planned at its intersection with Warrior Drive, approximately 800 feet west of the project boundary. It is recommended that proposed Crosspointe Boulevard be extended to the eastern limits of the project site to enable its ultimate continuation toward Route 522 via subsequent development proposals. By constructing Crosspointe Boulevard to the project boundary, the applicant would ensure that all segments of this regional transportation improvement would be in place within the project to enable its uninterrupted extension. If amenable, the applicant should delineate this extension on the proffered GDP, and also specify the planned terminus within the proposed transportation program. It is noted that the construction of Crosspointe Boulevard to the eastern limits of the project is critical to ucilitating i���plementation of the regional transportation program envisioned by the Sr L UP. Design of Proposed Improvements It is recommended that the proposed transportation program include greater specification Page 8 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. Re: Crosspointe Center Rezoning Proposal October 15, 2003 concerning the design of planned transportation improvements. In addition to identifying right-of-way widths, the program should include technical specifications that are deemed appropriate by VDOT to ensure that the ultimate form and function of proposed improvements are appropriate. Specifically, the number of lanes to be constructed by phase for a given road segment should be specified, and are expected to be consistent with the configuration assumptions utilized in the Traffic Impact Analysis for Crosspointe prepared by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates. It is recognized that Crosspointe Boulevard, Tasker Road, and Warrior Drive will all serve as major transportation corridors within Frederick County, accommodating both regional and local traffic with diverse destinations. Special attention to the design of these corridor areas is essential to achieving the distinctiveness of appearance anticipated with a high visibility project such as Crosspointe Center. The applicant is therefore encouraged to consider including specific design treatments for these major improvements within the proposed transportation program. In particular, constructing each of the referenced roads as traditional boulevard sections with raised medians and enhanced landscaping would be desirable. Should such road design be used within Crosspointe Center, it is recommended that the transportation program reference VDOT minimiun standards for design of typical boulevard components (i.e. raised medians). It is noted that Warrior Drive is currently being designed as a divided boulevard section with median landscaping as it proceeds north through the Wakeland Manor development. Thus, it would be appropriate to continue this design standard as Warrior Drive extends through Crosspointe Center. The proposed transportation program does not specify any access limitations concerning the principal roadways planned for Crosspointe Center. The transportation policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan indicate that direct access to arterial and collector roads should be limited. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 7-4) It is recommended that the proposed transportation program expressly enumerate access limitations for Tasker Road, Warrior Drive, and Crosspointe Boulevard. The employment of corridor buffers adjacent to the principal roads within Crosspointe Center would also serve as an effective design enhancement. Such buffers may contain enhanced landscaping, structural features such a decorative walls, monument style entrance signs, and pedestrian or "hiker/biker" trails. Coupled with the recommended boulevard design of the major roads, corridor buffers would achieve a distinctive aesthetic quality for Crosspointe Center befitting its regional importance as a commercial destination. 11 Page 9 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. Re: Crosspointe Center Rezoning Proposal October 15, 2003 C. Generalized Development Plan 1. It is recommended that the proposed GDP include delineation of environmentally sensitive areas identified by the SFLUP that are to be conserved through the development of Crosspointe Center. The applicant is encouraged to precisely identify protected environmental areas both on the GDP and through the text of the final proffer statement. Moreover, the historic resources that are proffered to be preserved by the applicant should be identified on the GDP. 2. The proposed transportation program references that Crosspointe Boulevard will be expanded to a four lane section as a Phase Three improvement, yet the GDP depicts this proposed road only as a two lane section. Please ensure that proposed improvements are shown on the GDP as described in the Proposed Proffer Statement. 3. Please include depictions of any landscaped or buffer areas identified in the Proposed Proffer Statement on the GDP. If such areas are proposed, the depictions on the GDP should be referenced as guides for implementation via subsequent land development applications. 4. It is recommended that the GDP include a table specifying the residential and commercial development planned for Crosspointe Center by phase. Such a table should identify the specific housing types proffered to comprise the residential program for each phase and further delineate the planned use of the commercial floor area as either office or retail/general commercial. S. The planned land use for areas proposed for RP zoning should be identified as "residential" or "residential, mixed housing types" rather than "mixed use." D. Review Agency Comments Please ensure that review comments from the following agencies are obtained and submitted with the final application: Frederick County Attorney, VDOT, Historic Resources Advisory Board, Public Works, Fire Marshal, Fire and Rescue - First Responder, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, Frederick -Winchester Service Authority, Superintendent of Frederick County Public Schools, Winchester Regional Airport, and the Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation. The subject rezoning petition will be scheduled for the next available Planning Commission agenda upon receipt of the following: 1* (1) signed application form with all of the above referenced review agency comments; Page 10 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. Re: Crosspointe Center Rezoning Proposal October 15, 2003 (2) final proffer statement that is signed by the property owner and notarized; (3) final impact analysis statement; and, (4) completed Special Limited Power of Attorney form (attached). Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions or concerns regarding this correspondence. Sincerely, Christopher M. Mohn, AICP Deputy Planning Director CMM/bad Attachment cc: John Foote, Attorney at Law, Walsh Colucci Lubeley Emrich & Terpak PC Alice Haase, Attorney at Law, Walsh Colucci Lubeley Emrich & Terpak PC Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner Jerry Copp, Virginia Department of Transportation Ben Lineberry, Virginia Department of Transportation Lloyd Ingram, Virginia Department of Transportation UAChris\Common\Rezoning\Prelim Comments\Crossoointe-pd I* • Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Planning Office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) (Phone) (Address) the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. on Page , and is described as Parcel: Lot: Block: Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) (Phone) (Address) To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including: ❑ Rezoning (Including proffers) ❑ Conditional Use Permits ❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site Plan My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this day of , 200_, Signature(s) State of Virginia, City/County of To -wit: I, ___ , a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who is (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this day of , 200 Notary Public My Commission Expires: • • • Rezoning Comments Crosspointe Frederick County Department of Inspections Mail to: Frederick Co. Dept. of Inspections Attn.- Director of Inspections 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5643 Hand deliver to: Frederick Co. Dept_ of Inspections Attn: Director of Inspections Co. Administration Bldg., O' Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Applicant's Name: Mailing Address Location of Property: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc_ Inc. c/o C. E. Maddox Jr. P.E. VP 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester VA 22601 Phone: (540)667-2139 Kernstown Area — East and adjacent to Tasker Road where VA Route 37 ends Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RP & B2 Acreage: 626.37 Department of Inspections Comments: Public Works Signature & Date: Notice to Dept, of U JO�eik —Please Return This Form lie C - 0-3P_-� 10 I-] • L Rezonin2 Comments Crosspointe Frederick -Winchester Service Authority Mail to: Hand deliver to: Fred -Wine Service Authority Fred-Winc Service Authority Attn. Jesse W. Moffett, Executive Director Attn: Jesse W. Moffett P.O. Box 43 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22604 Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 722-3579 Applicant's Name Mailing Address Location of Property: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc. Inc. c/o C. E. Maddox Jr. P.E.VP 117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester VA 22601 Phone: (540)667-2139 Kernstown Area — East and adjacent to Tasker Road where VA Route 37 ends Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RP & B2 Acreage: 626.37 Fred-Wi nc Service Authority's Comments: Fred-Winc Service A h rity's Signature & Date: Notice to Fred-Winc Service Authority — Please Return This Form to the Applicant 24 • s Memo To: C.E. Maddox, Jr. P.E. — Gilbert W. Cliflfr& Associates, Inc. From: Jesse W. Moffett — Executive Director Date: September 25, 2003 Y^ Re: Crosspointe Rezoning In my review of the rezoning application I contacted the applicant regarding the omission of wastewater and water demands for the single family home units with the project area. A revised Table 2 was provided by FAX on 9/12/03. With the revised numbers build out of this project is projected to generate an average daily flow of 494,000 gal/day. The item raised in the application regarding the Parkins Mills facility and the initial evaluation of the capacity issues is worthy of note. Attached is a table showing the future cumulative flows from active development and approved master plans (479,180 gal/day) 0 Page 1 [Active Development (Developable lots & Master Plans) 479,000 gal/day Crosspointe Development 494,000 gal/day Parkins Mills Flow 1,850,000 gal/day Total 2,823,000 gal/day t a Active Development - Frederick County 70 ..— yUu 902 70 @260 gal/day - 2 5 peaking Master Development Plans L/6 71,760 179,40 13U 406 33,800 84,50e 1616 420,160 050,400 1039 270,140 675,350 " Total Developed Available Lots Devela!a= New Future Future Developments Abrams Pant Lots 230 Lots 0 May -C Jul -02 Lots 02PMWWTP (JWRF PMWWTP Coventry Courts 34 0 230 230 34 230 Fieldstone Heights 90 0 34 90 90 34 Bud Run 300 0 300 300 90Red Hills 225 0 225 225 300iouthem Manor 579 0 579 579 225Nakeland 1458 0 1458 1458 0 578 654 804 2270 1843 @ 260 gal — /day - - _ 170,040 209,040 2.5 peak ng ... :...; ._.".._:- 425,100 .. 52Z600 Average Daily Demand . 590,200 479,180 Peak Flow . - 1,475,50._" _ i 19,95b IJ September 29, 2003 Mr. C. E. Maddox, Jr., P. E., Vice President Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Crosspointe Rezoning Proposal Dear Chuck: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the referenced proposal during their meeting of September 16, 2003. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah VallgL the Frederick County Winchester BattlefieldNetwork Plan, Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey Report, and information provided by the -applicant from the Final Environmental Impact Analysis statement FEIS for Route 37. Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) Comment . The 626 acres proposed for rezoning from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the RP (Residential Performance) District and to the B2 (Business General) District are not located within core battlefield areas as identifiedin the Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley. Located on the property are several historic resources: Hillandalehouse, Hillandale earthworks, Carriebrooke, Carriebrooke redoubt. These resources have collectively been deemed the Camp Russell Historic District by the Rt. 37 FEIS. It was noted by the HRAB that the earthworks located on the subject property are very well preserved. The HRAB felt, given the historic resources, that the property is an asset that provides a unique educational opportunity to relay the story of Frederick County. In addition, the Battlefield Network Plan also identifies Camp Russell, referred to as the 1864 Winterline, as a contributing battlefield feature. The HRAB suggests that the applicant consider the following recomendations when finalizing the rezoning application: Preservation of additional land, more than one acre in sizearound Hillandale house to allow for preservation of outbuildings and the historic context of the structure. .. 107 North Rent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Page 2 C. E. Maddox, Jr., P. E., Vice President Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Re: Crosspointe Rezoning Proposal September 29, 2003 • Identify the minimum boundaries for the Hillandale house that would be included, if the property is listed on the State and National Registers • Acknowledge all four significant historic sites with listings on the State and National Registers • Consider preserving the entire Camp Russell historic district, as identified by the Route 37 FEIS . • Consider allowing the HRAB to review this project again, as treatment plans for the historic resources on the property are developed and more details regarding site development are available. Please contact me if you have questions regarding this comment from the HRAB. Sincerely, J1101mle.-Ka TIO L"b Rebecca A. Ragsdale Planner I RAR/bah cc: Bessie Solenberger, HRAB Chairperson John H. Foote, Walsh, Colucci, Lubely, Emtich, & Terpak, PC Fred Glaize, Glaize Developments, Inc. Christopher Mohn, Deputy Director, Frederick County Department of Planning U:`,CCA IMTTEESIHRAB\Comments\2003\CrosspointeRZ.wpd Rezonin2 Comments Crossi2ointe Frederick County Attorney Mail to: Frederick County Attorney Co. Administration Bldg., Suite 202 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-6383 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Attorney Co. Administration Bldg., Suite 202 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA Applicant's Name: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc. Inc. Mailing Address: c/o C. E. Maddox Jr. P.E. VP 117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester VA 22601 Phone: (540)667-2139 Location of Property: Kernstown Area — East and adjacent to Tasker Road where VA Route 37 ends Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RP & B2 Acreage: 626.37 County Attorney's Comments.- Assistant omments: Assistant County Attorney's SJI611 �LUre & Late: VA • • • Rezoning Comments Crosspointe Frederick County Sanitation Authority Mail to: Frederick Co. Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, VA 22604 (540)868-1061 Hand deliver to: Frederick Co. Sanitation Authority Attn. Engineer 315 Tasker Road Stephens City, VA Applicant's Name: Mailing Address Location of Property: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc. Inc. c/o C. E. Maddox Jr. P.E. VP 117 E_ Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester VA 22601 Phone: (540)667-2139 Kernstown Area — East and adjacent to Tasker Road where VA Route 37 ends Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RP & B2 Acreage: 626.37 Sanitation Authority Comments: Sanitation Authority Signature & Notice to Sanitation Autli� — please Return This Form to the Applicant t %J 0 16 I—] Rezoning Comments Crosspointe Mail to: Frederick Co. Fire Marshal 107 N. Kent St. Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-6350 Frederick County Fire Marshal Hand deliver to: Frederick Co. Fire & Rescue Dept, Attn: Fire Marshal Co. Administration Bldg., 1" Floor 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 AppIicant's Name Mailing Address: Location of Property: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc. Inc. c/o C. E. Maddox Jr. P.E. VP 117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester VA 22601 Phone: (540)667-2139 Kernstown Area — East and adjacent to Tasker Road where VA Route 37 ends Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RP & B2 Acreage: 626.37 Fire Marshal's Comments: Fire Marshal's Signature & Date _ Notice to Marshal — Please Return This Form to the Applicant 13 Control number RZ03-0011 Project Name Crosspointe Center Address 117 E.Piccadilly Street Type Application Rezoning Current Zoning RA Automatic Sprinkler System Yes Other recommendation Emergency Vehicle Access Not Identified Siamese Location Not Identified Emergency Vehicle Access Comments Frederick County Fire and Resc Ue . Department Office of the Fire Marshal Plan Review and Comments Date received 918/2003 City Winchester Tax ID Number 75 -A -89,89A,90,9 Date reviewed 9/22/2003 Applicant G.W.Clifford & Associates State Zip VA 22601 Fire District 11 Recommendations Automatic Fire Alarm System Yes PR a q u 1 ram a nt-s Hydrant Location Not Identified Roadway/Aisleway Width Not Identified Date Revised Applicant Phone 540-667-2139 Rescue District 11 Election District Shawnee Residential Sprinkler System Yes Fire Lane Required Yes Special Hazards No (P C i n : 1-r , A i1 " ",Otec—on :n Planined as a ininim—um i �ir g n, eed=� a:IC �-Cces� " or aha Curre7m' --MOJI ds, ;�s tine Mic-1, SL.MC-7 Access Comments F:pa i2il-- 11.12;'11-1'--�-� OH Additional Comments CC 1} 4 L' 1 Plan Approval Recommended1�11 10 Reviewed By Signature ' Yes Timothy L. Welsh Title 0 § 90-3 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 90-4 PRIVATE DWELLING — The same as a "dwelling." PRIVATE ROAD — The same as a private street. PRIVATE STREET — Any accessway normally intended for vehicular use in the movement between points within a building site area or between a building site and a street_ ROADWAY — Any street, private street or fire lane. STANDPIPE — A pipe and attendant hose valves and hose, (if provided) used for conveying water to various parts of a building for fire -fighting purposes. STORY — That portion of a building included between the upper surface of the floor and the upper surface of the floor or roof next above. STREET — A public thoroughfare (street, avenue or boulevard) which has been dedicated for vehicular use by the public and can be used for access by Fire Department vehicles. STRUCTURE — Any building, monument or other object that is constructed with the ground as its foundation or normal resting place. SUPERVISED AUTOMATIC FIRE -EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM — Any automatic fire -extinguishing system which is constantly monitored so as to determine its operating condition at all times. § 90-4. General requirements. The following requirements shall apply to all construction or land development activities in areas of the county served by public or private water distribution systems consisting of water mains and hydrants: A. Means of access for Fire Department apparatus. (1) The means of access for Fire Department apparatus shall consist of fire lanes, private streets, streets, parking lot lanes or a combination thereof. § 90-4 FIRE PREVENTION § 90-4 (2) Parking in any means of access shall not be permitted within twenty (20) feet of a fire hydrant, sprinkler or standpipe connection or in any other manner which will obstruct or interfere with the Fire Department's use of the hydrant or connection. (3) "No parking" signs or another designation indicating that parking is prohibited shall be provided at all normal and emergency access points to structures and within fifteen (15) feet of each fire hydrant, sprinkler or standpipe connection. B. Fire lanes_ (1) The Chief Building Official, in concert with the local volunteer fire company, may designate both public and private fire lanes as required for the efficient and effective use of fire apparatus. Said fire lanes shall be marked in a manner prescribed by the Chief Building Official and the local volunteer fire company. Parking in a designated fire lane shall be controlled by Chapter 158, Vehicles and Traffic, of the Frederick County Code. (2) Fire lanes shall be at least twenty (20) feet in width, with the road edge closest to - the structure at least ten (10) feet from the structure, be constructed of a hard all-weather surface adequately designed to support any fire apparatus likely to be operated in such fire lane or be of subsurface construction designed to support the same loads as the above surfaces and be covered with no more than three (3) inches of soil or sod, or both and be designed with radii of sufficient length to allow for safe turning by any fire apparatus likely to be operated on such fire lane, (3) Fire lanes connecting to public streets, roadways or private streets shall be provided with curb cuts extending at least two (2) feet beyond each edge of the fire lane. (4) Chains or other barriers may be provided at the entrance to fire_ lanes or private streets, provided that they are installed according to the requirements of the Fire Department having jurisdiction. C. Parking lot lanes. Parking lot lanes shall have a minimum of fifteen (15) feet clear width between rows of parked vehicles for vehicular access and movement. D. Location of structures. 9005 0 § 90-4 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 90-4 (1) At least three (3) perimeter walls of all industrial, commercial, public or semipublic or residential structures with three (3) or more dwelling units per structure shall be within two hundred (200) feet of an approved fire lane or street. (2) Structures exceeding 30 feet in height shall not be set back more than fifty (50) feet from a street, fire lane or private street. (3) When any combination of private fire protection taciliti es, including but not limited to fire -resistive roofs, fire separation walls, space separation and automatic fire -extinguishing systems, is provided and approved by the Chief Building Official as an acceptable alternative, Subsection D(2) shall not apply. (4) The Director of Planning and Development, in concert with the local volunteer fire company, may require at least two (2) means of access for fire apparatus to all commercial and industrial structures. Those accessways shall meet the requirements of Subsection B(3). (5) Landscaping or other obstructions_ shall not be placed around structures or hydrants in a manner so as to impair or impede accessibility for fire -fighting and rescue operations, E. Water supply. (1) Water supply systems shall be designed so as to be capable of supplying at least one thousand (1,000) gallons per minute at twenty (20) pounds per square inch_ (2) In areas developed with single-family detached or duplex dwelling units, there shall be a fire hydrant within four hundred (400) feet of all units. In areas developed with three (3) to five (5) dwelling units per structure, there shall be a hydrant within three hundred (300) feet of all units. In areas developed with six (6) or more dwelling units per structure, there shall be at least two (2) hydrants within three hundred (300) feet of all units. In areas developed with industrial or commercial development(s), there shall be a hydrant within three hundred (300) feet of all portions of any structure. Where one (1) hydrant is dedicated to the operation of a standpipe system, there shall be at least one (1) other hydrant meeting the distance requirements set forth above. A11111111k The hydrant dedicated to the operation of the standpipe system 9006 90-4 FIRE PREVENTION § 90-5 shall not be farther than fifty (50) feet from the standpipe. Distance measurements under this section shall be along center- line roadway surfaces or along surfaces meeting the requirements of a fire lane (designated or undesignated) where appropriate, but in all cases access to each hydrant shall be directly from a roadway and/or fire lane. (3) Fire hydrants shall be marked in accordance with the_ Frederick County Sanitation Authority policy. (4) Fire hydrants located in parking areas shall be protected by barriers that will prevent physical damage from vehicles. (5) Fire hydrants shall be located within three (3) feet of the curbline of fire lanes, streets or private streets when installed along such accessways. (6) Fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with the standards of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. (7) Threads on fire hydrant outlets shall conform to Frederick County Sanitation Authority policy. (8) Fire hydrants shall be supplied by not less than a six-inch diameter main_ F_ Fire protection during construction. Trash, debris and other combusti ble material shall be removed from the construction site as often as necessary to maintain a firesafe construction site. G. Plans. Complete as -built building floor plans, site plans and plans of fire suppression systems shall be submitted to the Chief Building Official for the use of the local volunteer fire company, prior to issuance of the final certificate of occupancy.' § 90-5. Violations and penalties_2 Any person, firm or corporation who shall violate any of the provisions of this Article shall, upon conviction, be punishable by a maximum fine of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2.500.) or by imprisonment for not more than twelve (12) months, or both such fine and imprisonment - 1 Editor's Note: Amended at time of adoption of Code: see Ch. 1, General Provisions, Art. II. 2 Editor's Note: Added at time of adoption of Code: see Ch. 1, General Provisions. Art. II. 9007 a • MEANS OF ACCESS Height. As applied to a building, the vertical distance from the adjacent ground elevation to the average elevation of the roof of the highest story. Jurisdiction. Any governmental unit or political division or subdivision including but not limited to township, village, bor- ough, parish, city, county, state, commonwealth, province, freehold, district, or territory over which the governmental unit exercises power and authority. Labeled. Equipment or materials to which has been attached a label, symbol, or other identifying mark of an orga- nization that is acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction and concerned with product evaluation, that maintains peri- odic inspection of production of labeled equipment or mate- rials, and by whose labeling the manufacturer indicates compliance with appropriate standards or performance in a specified manner. Lasted.* Equipment, materials, or services included in a list published by an organization that is acceptable to the author- ity having jurisdiction and concerned with evaluation of prod- ucts or services, that maintains periodic inspection of production of listed equipment or materials or periodic eval- uation of services, and whose listing states that either the equipment, material, or service meets identified standards or has been tested and found suitable for a specified purpose. Means of Access. The method by which entry or approach is made by emergency apparatus to, for example, roadways, fire lanes, and parking lots. Municipal -Type Water Systems. A system having water pipes servicing hydrants and designed to furnish, over and above domestic consumption, a minimum of 250 gpm (950 L/min) at 20 psi (137.9 kPa) residual pressure for a 2 -hour duration. Planned Building Groups. Multiple structures constructed on it parcel of land. excluding farmland, under the ownership, control, or development by an individual, a corporation, a partnership, or a firm_ Private Street. Any accessway normalh• intended for vehic- ular use not dedicated its a public street. Public Street. A thoroughfare that has been dedicated for vehicular use by the public. Roadway. Any public or private street, including bridges. Shall. Indicates a mandatory requirement. Should. Indicates a recommendation or that which is advised but not required. Standpipe.* A, pipe and attendant hose valves and hose (if provided) used for conveying water to various parts of a build- ing tier fire -fighting purposes. Storv. That portion of a building between the upper sur- face of the floor and the upper surface of the newt floor or roof above. Stricture. That which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite man - net". 1141-5 . - . Chapter 3 Plans 3-1* Plans. As a minimum, the authority having jurisdiction shall require anyone proposing to develop a planned building group to submit preliminary, working, and as -built plans. 3-1.1* Preliminary Plans. All preliminary plans, when sub- mitted, shall contain a site plan showing proposed water sup- ply, roadway access, fire department access, and other items pertinent to the specific project. The authority having jurisdic- tion shall make recommendations to the submitter based on the preliminary plans to assist in developing the working plans, which shall then be submitted to the authority having jurisdiction for approval. 3-1.2 Working Plans. Working plans, drawn to scale and signed by a licensed architect or engineer, shall be accurate and shall illustrate the final design of items required by this standard. 3-1.3 As -Built Plans. Drawings showing items listed in 3-1.1, building floor plans, and fire protection systems, as built, shall be submitted to the fire department having jurisdiction upon completion of the project. Chapter 4 Means of Access 4-1 * General. 4-1.1 Means of access for fire department apparatus shall con- sist of roadways, fire lanes, parking lot lanes, or a combination thereof, and shall be provided to all structures. 4-1.2 Access to the property of the planned building group shall be provided by a minimum of two distinctly separate routes of ingress and egress, each located as remotely from the other as possible. 4-2 Roadways. 4-2.1 Roadways shall be constructed of a hard, all-weather sur- face designed to support adequately the heaviest piece of fire apparatus likely to be operated on the roadway. 4-2.2 Every dead-end roadway more than 300 ft (92 m) in length shall be provided at the closed end with a turnaround having not less than a 120 -ft (37-m) outside diameter of trav- eled way. 4-2.3* Roadways shall have a minimum clearance of 12 ft (3.7 m) for each lane of travel, excluding shoulders and parking. Provisions shall be made for factors that could impinge on the minimum width, for example, drainage, snow removal, parking, and utilities. 4-2.4 Grades shall be not more than 10 percent. Exception: Steeper grades shall be permitted by the authority having jurisdiction where mitigation measures can be agreed upon jointly by the fire and road engineering deparintents. 4-2.5 Grades shall be not less than 0.5 percent in order to pre- vent pooling of water in a traveied way. 4-2.6* Landscaping or other obstructions placed around structures shall be maintained in a manner that does not impair or impede accessibility for fire department operations. 1998 Edition 1141-6 FIRE PROTECTION IN PLANNED BUILDING GROUPS 42.7 Any secondary road intersecting with another road shall be sloped 1 to 3 percent down and away from the intersection for a distance of 100 ft (30 m) from the intersection. 4-2.8* At least 13 ft 6 in. (4.4 m) nominal vertical clearance shall be provided and maintained over the full ividth of all means of access. 4-2.9 Turns in roadways shall maintain the minimum road width. 4-2.10* Turns in publicly owned or privately owned major feed roadways shall be constructed with a minimum radius of 100 ft (30 m) to the centerline. 4-3 Parking Lots. 4-3.1 The minimum lengths of parking lot stalls as measured from the end of the stall and the minimum aisle widths shall be as shown in Table 4-3.1. Table 4-3.1 Parking Lot Stall Dimensions Minimum Minimum Aisle Width Aisle Width Minimum (one-way (two-way Stall Lengths traffic flow) traffic flow) 27.5 ft (8.2 m) for 45 degree parking 16 ft (4.9 m) 24 ft (7.4 m) 23.7 ft (6.6 m) for 60 degree parking 16 ft (4.9 m) 24 ft (7.4 m) 20.9 ft (6.2 m) for 75 degree parking 23 ft (7.0 m) 24 ft (7.4 m) 18.5 ft (5.6 m) for 90 degree parking 26 ft (8.0 m) 26 ft (8.0 m) 43.2 Parking lot lanes adjacent to any building shall provide a travel lane with 16 ft (4.9 m) clear width if traffic flow is one- way and 24 ft (7.4 m) clear width if traffic flow is two-way. 4-3.3 The minimum turning radius for parking lot lanes nec- essary for fire department apparatus access shall be deter- mined by the authority having jurisdiction. 44* Fire Lanes. 4-4.1 Fire lanes shall be provided as required by the fire department having jurisdiction and in keeping with the requirements of this section. 44.2 Fire lanes prodding one-way travel shall be a minimum of 16 ft (4.9 m) in ~width. Fire lanes with two-way travel shall be a minimum of 24 ft (7.4 m) in «zdth. 4-4.3 Turns in fire lanes shall be constructed with a minimum radius of 25 ft (7.6 m) at the inside curb line and a minimum radius of 50 ft (15.2 m) at the outside curb line. 4-4.4 Fire lanes connecting to roadways shall be provided with curb cuts extending at least 2 ft (0.61 m) beyond each edge of the Fre lane. 4-4.5 The designation. design, and maintenance of fire lanes on private property shall be approved by the authority having jurisdiction. 1998 Edition 44.6 The clear opening provided through gates shall be 2 ft (0.61 m) wider than the traveled way. 44.7 All gates shall be located a minimum of 30 ft (9.2 m) from the public right-of-way and shall not open outward. 4-4.8 Fire department personnel shall have ready access to locking mechanisms on any gate restricting access to a fire lane. 44.9* Appropriate no parking signs shall be posted in accor- dance with the instructions of the fire department having jurisdiction, and a method of enforcing such provisions shall be provided. 4-4.10 At least 13 ft 6 in. (4.1 m) nominal vertical clearance shall be provided and maintained over the full width of a fire lane. Chapter 5 Location of Structures 5-1 Means of Access. 5-1.1 At least one approved means of access shall be provided to each structure or other nonstructural fire hazard within the planned building group. For structures or other nonstructural fire hazards exceeding two stories or 30 ft (9.2 m) in height above average adjacent ground level, not less than two approved separate means of access shall be provided. 5-1.2 Structures exceeding 1000 ft2 (102.5 m2) gross floor area shall be required to be within 50 ft (15.4 m) of an approved means of access. Exception No. 1: Structures shall be within 200 ft (60 m) of an ap- proved means of access where the structure is less than 30 jt (9.2 m) in height and protected by an automatic sprinkler system installed in ac- cordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems; NPA 13D, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Sys- tems in One- and Two -Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes; or N PA 13A Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Residential Occupancies up to and Including Four Stories in Height. Exception No. 2: Where any combination of private fire protection sys- tems, including but not limited to fire -resistive roofs, fire separation walls, space separation, and automatic fire -extinguishing n•stems, is provided and approved by the authority having jurisdiction as an ac- ceptable alternative, waivers to the provisions of 5-1.2 shall be permit- ted. 5-1.3* Structures exceeding two stories or 30 ft (9.2 m) in height above average adjacent ground level shall have at least 25 percent of one side not more than 30 ft (9.2 m) from an approved means of access. At least 25 percent of one other side shall be not more than 50 ft (15.4 m) from an approved means of access. Both of these sides shall have a means of entry into the structure adjacent to the means of access. 5-2 Structure Separation. If two structures are part of the same planned building group and either of them exceeds two stories or 30 ft (9.2 m) in height above average adjacent ground level, they shall be separated from each other by at least 50 ft (15.4 m) and shall be at least 25 ft ( 7.6 m) from a property line. All other structures shall be separated b.• at least 20 ft (6.1 m) from another structure and shall be at least 10 ft (3.0 m) from a property line. • r. • • WATER SUPPLY Chapter 6 Fire Protection 6-1 Automatic Fire Protection. 6-1.1 Automatic fire extinguishing systems shall be required as set forth in the applicable NFPA code or standard for the intended occupancy of the structures or as otherwise required by the authority having jurisdiction. All such systems shall be installed in accordance with the applicable NFPA standard or code for the type of fire extinguishing system installed. (See Appendix B.) 6-1.2 Any residential building containing more than two resi- dential living units shall have an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with NFPA 13, Standard for the Installa- tion of Sprinkler Systems, or NFPA 13R, Standard for the Installa- tion of Sprinkler Systems in Residential Occupancies up to and Including Four Stories in Height, whichever is appropriate. 6-1.3* If mounted on the building they serve, fire depart- ment connections for sprinkler systems shall be located not less than 100 ft (30.8 m) nor more than 200 R (61.6 m) from a fire hydrant. If such connections are located at least 100 ft (30.8 m) from the building they serve, they shall be located not more than 50 ft (15.4 m) from a fire hydrant. The location of the fire department connection shall be determined by the authority having jurisdiction. 6-2 Manual Fire Protection. 6-2.1 * All structures four or more stories or over 50 ft (15.4m) in height above adjacent ground elevation with intermediate stories or balconies shall be equipped with a standpipe system in accordance with the provisions of NFPA 14, Standard for the Installation. of Standpipe and Hose Systems. If mourit'ed on the side of the building they serve, fire department connections for standpipe systems shall be located not less than 100 ft (30.8 m) nor more than 200 ft ( 61.6 m) from a fire hydrant. If such con- nections are located at least 100 ft (30.8 m) from the building they serve, thev shall be located not more than 50 ft (15.4 m) from a fire hvdrant. The location of the fire department stand- pipe connection shall be determined by the authority having jurisdiction. Exception: This section shall not apply to industrial process structures where the life or property of others is not imperiled lq-fire or explosion. 6-2.2* Portable fire extinguishers shall be installed in accor- dance with `'FPA 10, Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers. In addition, in buildings containing more than two dwelling units, a portable fire extinguisher, accessible from an exit and having a minimum rating of 2-A:10-B:C, shall be provided in each dwelling unit. 6-3 Automatic Fire Warning Systems. 6-3.1 For residential structures containing fencer than six liv- ing units, an approved single -station smoke detector(s) or an approved automatic detection system shall be installed in each dwelling unit in accordance with the applicable provisions of NFPA 72, .National Fire Alarm Codeo. 6-3.2 For all other structures exceeding 1000 1t2 (102.5 m2) gross Moor area, an approved fire warning or alarm system shall be installed in accordance with the applicable NFPA code or standard for the intended occupancy of the structure. Such systems shall retransmit an alarm. Alarms or warning sys- tems shall he tested and maintained in accordance with the 1141-7 applicable NFPA code or standard or as required by the authority having jurisdiction. Chapter 7 Water Supply 7-1 General. 7-1.1 Water supply systems not publicly owned and installed shall meet the minimum requirements of NFPA 24, Standard for the Installation of Private Fire Service Mains and Their Appurte- nances, where no recognized water supply distribution exists. 7-1.2 Private fire service mains and hydrants shall be installed to meet the requirements of NFPA 24, Standard for the Installa- tion of Private Fire Service Mains and Their Appurtenances. 7-1.3 Where other fire -fighting water supply systems are estab- lished by the authority having jurisdiction, they shall not be less than the requirements of NFPA 1231, Standard an Water Supplies for Suburban and Rural Fire Fighting 7-1.4 Fire hydrants shall be marked in a uniform manner, as designated by the authority having jurisdiction. 7-1.5 Fire hydrants located in parking areas shall be protected by barriers that will prevent physical damage from vehicles without obstructing hydrant operation. 7-1.6 Fire hvdrants shall be located within 3 ft (0.9 m) of the curb line of the means of access unless the authority having jurisdiction determines another location is more acceptable for fire department use. 7-1.7* Threads on fire hydrant outlets shall be American National Fire Hose Connection Screw Threads and shall be equipped with thread adapters where local fire department thread is different.. . 7-1.8* Water sources shall be located such that the high- est required fire flow, but in no case less than 250 gpm (950 L/min), can be established and maintained within a time period approved by the authority having jurisdiction. 7-2 During Construction Phase. 7-2.1 When the infrastructure is being installed, and prior to the location and construction of buildings or portions thereof, the water supply for fire protection, either temporary or per- manent and acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction, shall be made available prior to delivery of combustible mate- rials. 7-2.2 When the infrastructure is being installed, and prior to the location and construction of buildings or portions thereof, fire hydrants shall be installed at a spacing not to exceed 660 ft (200 m) of vehicle travel distance. Where build- ings are proposed, the authority having jurisdiction shall require additional hydrants and closer spacing where build- ing size, use, construction, and lack of built-in fire protection mandate. 7-2.3 Prior to the construction of buildings or portions thereof, all site plans shall be reviewed. At this time the author- ity having jurisdiction shall review the fire flow required and designate spacing of hydrants according to the following schedule: (a) There shall be at least one hydrant within 300 ft (92 in) of any building at a location acceptable to the authority hav- ing jurisdiction. 1998 Edition 1141-8 FIRE PROTECTION IN PLANNED BUILDING GROUPS (b) No portion of the exterior walls of the building shall be more than 200 ft (61.6 m) from a hydrant, where vehicu- lar access is provided. (c) Additional hydrants shall be provided to meet the remaining fire flow, if necessary. (d) In areas of one- and two-family dwellings, hydrants shall be located a maximum of 660 ft (200 m) vehicle travel dis- tance apart. Exception: Where conditions are such that items (a) through (d) are impractical to achieve, the authority having jurisdiction shall consider reasonable substitutions meeting the intent of this section, provided ad- equate fire protection is maintained. 7-3 Areas with Municipal -Type Water Systems. 7-3.1 For a required fire flow exceeding 1500 gpm (5700 L/min), the water supply system shall be capable of deliver- ing that fire flow for at least 2 hours at 20 psi (137.9 kPa). For all other required fire flows, the water supply system shall be capable of delivering the required fire flow for at least 1 hour at 20 psi (137.9 kPa). 7-3.2 Fire hydrants shall be supplied by not less than a 6 -in. (15 -cm) diameter main installed on a looped system or by not less than an 8 -in. (20 -cm) diameter main if the system is not looped or the fire hydrant is installed on a dead-end main exceeding 300 ft (92 m) in length. 7-3.3 Dead-end mains shall not exceed 600 ft (184 m) in length for main sizes under 10 in. (25 cm) in diameter. 7-4 Acceptance. The contractor or installer of water supply systems in planned building groups shall demonstrate by actual test that the capacity of the water supply system,will meet fire protection design requirements. Such tests shall be certified by the fire department and other authorities having jurisdiction. Chapter 8 Structural Requirements 8-1* Building Code. Construction of each structure shall comply with the building code requirements of the jurisdic- tion. 8-2 Planned Building Groups Adjacent to Wildland Fuels. 8-2.1 Vents. Vents shall be screened with a corrosion -resis- tant. noncombustible wire mesh not more than 1/4 in. (0.64 cm) nominal in size. 8-2.2 Overhanging Projections. Porches, decks, patios, balco- nies, and similar undersides of overhangs shall be constructed of heavy timber, as defined by local building codes, 1 -hour lire -resistive material, or noncombustible construction. 8-2.3 Overhanging Buildings. The underside of overhanging buildings shall be constructed with material of heavy timber, as defined by local building codes, 1 -hour fire -resistive mate- rial, or noncombustible construction. 8-2.4 Exterior Vertical Walls. Exterior vertical wall coverings shall be constructed of at least 1/2 -in. (1.3 -cm) nominal sheathing or equivalent material. 8-3 Common Walls. Common walls between dwelling or commercial units shall be constructed to provide a fire resis- tance rating of not less than. 1 hour. 1998 Edition 8-4 Vehicle Storage. Vehicle storage areas shall be separated from living areas by walls and ceilings constructed to provide a fire resistance rating of not less than 1 hour. . 8-5 Roof Coverings. 8-5.1* Only listed fire -retardant roof covering assemblies shall be used. 8-5.2 Roof coverings shall be a Class C listed or better fire - retardant roofing assembly. Chapter 9 Fire Protection During Construction 9-1 * General Requirements. 9-1.1 Protection shall not be less than that required by the fire department having jurisdiction. 9-1.2 Fire department vehicular access to all structures under construction shall be provided at all times. In areas where ground surfaces are soft or likely to become soft, hard all- weather surface access roads shall be provided. 9-1.3 Trash and debris shall be removed from the construc- tion site as often as necessary to maintain the site in a fire -safe manner. 9-1.4 Flammable or combustible liquids shall be stored, han- dled, or used on the construction site in accordance with the applicable provisions of NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible , Liquids Code; NFPA 58, Liquefied Petroleum Gases Code, and NFPA 395, Standard for the Storage of Flammable and Combustible Liquids at Farms and Isolated Sites. 9-1.5 At least one portable fire extinguisher having a rating of at least 4A:30-B:C shall be within a travel distance of 75 ft (23 m) or less to any point of a structure under construc- tion. Personnel normally on the construction site shall be instructed in the use of the fire extinguishers provided. Chapter 10 Referenced Publications 10-1 The following documents or portions thereof are refer- enced within this standard as mandatory requirements and shall be considered part of the requirements of this standard. The edition indicated for each referenced mandatory docu- ment is the current edition as of the date of the NFPA issuance of this standard. Some of these mandatory documents might also be referenced in this standard for specific informational purposes and, therefore, are also listed in Appendices B and C. 10-1.1 NFPA Publications. National Fire Protection Associa- tion, 1 Battetymarch Park, P.O. Box 9 10 1, Quincy, MA 02269- 9101. NFPA 10, Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers, 1998 edi- tion. NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, 1996 edition. NEPA 13D, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One- and Two -Family Dwellings and Manufactured Hames, 1996 edition. NFPA 13R, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Residential Occupancies up to and Including Four Stories in Height, 1996 edition. NFPA 14, Standard for the Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems, 1996 edition. f • • • • Rezoning Comments Crosspointe Frederick — Winchester Health Department Mail to: Frederick -Winchester Health Dept Attn: Sanitation Engineer 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 722-3480 Hand deliver to: Frederick -Winchester Health Dept. Attn: Sanitation Engineer 107 North Kent St., Suite 201 Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 722-3480 Applicant's Name: Mailing Address: Location of Property: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc. Inc. c/o C. E. Maddox Jr. P.E. VP 117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester VA 22601 Phone: (540)667-2139 Kernstown Area — East and adjacent to Tasker Road where VA Route 37 ends Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested- RP & B2 Acreage: 626.37 Frederick — Winchester Health Department's Comments: Signature & Date:_ 1 A C, C, 16103 Notice to Health Department — Please Return This Form to the Applicant 17 5 k CI CCCif ie-+c.t c�S �% h[iti. 4j 0 �/ q 11rcc�. CU_ h-�4� n 11 -t ✓ L Signature & Date:_ 1 A C, C, 16103 Notice to Health Department — Please Return This Form to the Applicant 17 October 23, 2003 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. Vice President Gilbert W. Clifford and Associates, Inc. 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Crosspointe Rezoning Frederick County, Virginia Dear Chuck: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/678-0682 We have completed our review of the proposed Crosspointe rezoning and offer the following comments: 1) Refer to Site Suitability: Add a wetlands category to the site characteristics table unless the flood plain reference is inclusive of this feature. 2) Refer to Traffic: The discussion of the traffic improvements refers to a full traffic analysis included in Appendix B of the application. However, Appendix B was omitted from our application package. Therefore, we are requesting a copy of the traffic analysis for our records. We applaud the proposed phasing of the project which includes future improvements to the Tasker Road/Route 37 (Crosspointe Boulevard) interchange and the extension and development of Warrior Road within the project limits. We also commend the planning foresight highlighted in the proffer statement paragraph 14.4. which defers the development of Phase III until the Warrior Road connection is completed to the south or links completed to U.S. Route 522. 3) Refer to Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: We concur with your conclusion that the project will have a measurable effect on county solid waste management resources and that the size of the Crosspointe development would prohibit waste collection at a central disposal site. We also applaud the applicant's willingness to proffer a 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 s � 0 • Crosspointe Rezoning Comments Letter Page 2 October 23, 2003 curbside pick-up program utilizing a private refuse contract. However, the proffer statement indicates that this program will be accomplished through the creation of a Homeowners' Association. Please indicate how the applicant can guarantee that this curbside program will be implemented without the future involvement of Frederick County. I am available to answer any questions regarding the above comments. HES/rls cc: Frederick County Planning and Development file C:\Corcl\WordPerfect\Rhonda\crosspointerezcom.wpd Sincerely, Harvey. _ . Strawsnyder, Jr., RE. Director of Public Works Crosspointe Center s C Section VII Survey Plat and Deed Impact Analysis Statement m 0 OUL A DETAIL 0 POOL 0 DETAIL D 0 tilbett W. clifforl�ItsSoclatesi. Ino, EBslAWj - 4md Phm*grs "d", • HMO erm PmPi'V -.W Ot".1 4 - Ner �l 7; ofw-w", MP" NW, 1. M eenM F—V. b IF nYery; Ml ran —,n- M'oi IM. h. "M . dw Mad'* R'mr, M— .w N*.f ft. ow a— .1 radars O -Al, J" C. RUSSELL, JR., ET, UX. DA 832 P0.289 AREA TA131 It ATION PARCEL 92.0.9230 ACRES PARCEL 04-903.9845 ACRES TGITAL AlRA.304.PD78 A111E9 "—' E d by uct etc i3[ 8ilbert w. cli[CordY(-{`& associates, Inc. _._....._.»..._ dn,n, 1,L Its eesm«.r-Lcn�a7n<�nn<rs ..__,._.._._._....'..__.-.__—___. ...__.__ a, r3rcd L: r+no• n3c �«m.mnlm mH. LEGM IRF.'RON RCD FOUND INS.IRON ROD SET 1. THE PROPERTY DELINEATED SY THIS PLAT IS SHOMCN FREOERCK COUNTY TA%MAP 7E AND IS IDENTIFIED AS PARCELS 82 AND 94. 2. NOTRLEREPORTFUFNIStED. 3. EASFAENT30TNERTHANSNCWNMAYEX49T. SUR9EYDRS rsRTmr.ArF I H''JIESY CERTIFY THAT THE SCU NOM1AY INFORMARON 9! 10 W N NERF.ON IS SASE. UPC- AN ACTUAL FIELD SUflYEV MADE t1NDER MY 6UPEHVISICN ANO THERE ARE NO_or,. CtRAENT3 OR VI6IBLE EASEMENTS UNLE59 SHXY11 JDCI�X`V 5 VA CERTIFICATE NO. 1107 DOUNDART SURYSY 3RIP OF THE LAND OF I,l'L; 00' OLAIZE DEVELOPMENTS, INC. sbeet SRAWNOR MAOISTDNIAL DISTRICT t DARDRRICA COUNTY, VIROINIA UI NDVEMD2R 29, 1909 1 • • r Crosspointe Center • 17J • Section VIII Tax Ticket Impact Analysis Statement TAX R ._E C E -I P T - Y E A R 2-0 0 3 Ticket #001153600.01 a9W FREDERICK COUNTY Date - 5/30/2003 C. WILLIAM ORNDOFF; JR Register: LBX/CK P.O. BOX 225 Trans- #: 22379 Dept # RE200301 WINCHESTER VA 22604-0225 ACCT# - 24151 2003 REAL ESTATE TAXES Previous . 74-73 ACRES 75 A 89 Balance $ 2046.19 -Acres: 74-73 Principal Being Paid $ 2046.19 Land: 56060❑ Imp: ❑ Penalty $ .00 - Interest $ .00 GLAIZE DEVELOPMENTS, INC Amount.Paid $ 2046.19 *Balance Due PO BOX 888 as of 5/30/2003$ -00 WINCHESTER, VA 22604 0888 Check 2046.19 # WACH 11673 Pd by ANY BALANCE DUE DOES NOT INCLUDE PENALTY AND INTEREST- (DUPLICATE) T A X. R E C.E I P T - Y E A R 2 0 0 3 Ticket #:001153701101 nib FREDERICK COUNTY Date 5/30/2003 C. WILLIAM ORNDOFF, JR Register: LBX/CK P -O- BOX 225 Trans- #:. 22379 Dept # RE200301 WINCHESTER VA 22604-0225 ACCT# - 32012 2003 REAL ESTATE TAXES Previous 13.25 ACRES 75 A 89A Balance -$ 120-82 Acres= 13-25. Principal Being -Paid $ 120-82 Land: 33100 Imp: 0 Penalty $ -00 Interest $ .00 GLAIZE DEVELOPMENTS, INC Amount Paid $ 120-82 *Balance Due PO BOX 888 as of 5/30/2003$ -00 WINCHESTER, VA 22604 0888 Check 120.82 # WACH11673 Pd by ANY BALANCE DUE DOES NOT INCLUDE PENALTY AND INTEREST- (DUPLICATE) T A X R E C' E I P T - Y E A R 2 0 0 3 Ticket #:0011538000-1 '@@ FREDERICK COUNTY Date - 5/30/2003 C. WILLIAM ORNDOFF, JR Register:. LBX/CK P.O. BOX 225 Trans. #: 22379 Dept # RE200301 WINCHESTER VA 22604-0225 ACCT# 24152 2003.REAL ESTATE TAXES- Previous 135-16 ACRES 75 A- 90 Balance $ 946.81 - Acres: 135-16 Principal Being Paid $ 946.81 Land- L-5898 Imp' 193500 Penalty $ _nn Interest $ -00 GLAIZE DEVELOPMENTS, INC Amount Paid $ 946.81 r.. *Balance Due PO BOX 888 as of 5/30/2003$ •00 WINCHESTER, VA 22604 0888 Check 946.81 # WACH 11673 Pd by ANY BALANCE DUE DOES NOT INCLUDE PENALTY AND INTEREST. (DUPLICATE) T A X- R E C E I P T = Y E A R 2 0 0 3 FREDERICK COUNTY C. WILLIAM ORNDOFF, JR P.O. BOX 225 WINCHESTER VA 22604-0225 2003 REAL ESTATE TAXES 3.95 ACRES 75, A Acres: Ticket #:001153906-01 and Date - 5/30/.2003 Register: LBX/CK Trans- #: 22379 Dept # RE200301 ACCT# 24154 Previous 91 Balance $ 3.95 Principal Being Paid $ Lands 39500 Imp: 0 Penalty $ Interest $ GLAIZE DEVELOPMENTS, INC Amount Paid $ *Balance Due PO BOX 8.88 as of 5/30/2003$ WINCHESTER, VA 22604 0888 Check 144.18 # WACH Pd by ANY BALANCE DUE DOES NOT INCLUDE PENALTY AND INTEREST. T A X R.E C E I P T - Y E A R2'0 0 3 FREDERICK COUNTY C. WILLIAM ORNDOFF, JR P-0. BOX 225 WINCHESTER VA 22604-0225 200.3 REAL ESTATE TAXES .92 ACRE 75 A Acres: 144-18 144-18 .00 -0O 144.18 -❑❑ 11673 (DUPLICATE) - Ticket #:0011517.0001 a"l"ai Date " - 5/30/2003 Register: LBX/CK Trans. #: 22379 Dept # - RE200301 ACCT# - 24155 Previous 92 Balance $ 33.58 •92 Principal Being Paid $_ 33-58 Land: 9200" Imp: ❑ Penalty $ .❑❑ Interest.$ .00 GLAIZE DEVELOPMENT CORP Amount Paid $ 33.58 *Balance Due PO BOX 888 as of 5/30/2003$ --00 WINCHESTER, VA 22604 0888 Check 33-58 "# WACH 11673 Pd by ANY BALANCE DUE DOES NOT INCLUDE PENALTY AND INTEREST. (DUPLICATE) T, A X R E C E I P T - Y E A R 2 0 0 3 FREDERICK -COUNTY C. WILLIAM ORNDOFF, JR P.O. BOX 225 WINCHESTER VA 22604-0225 2003 REAL ESTATE TAXES 318-00 ACRES 75 A Acres: Ticket #:00115340001 .Wa9 Date - 5/30/2003 Register: LBX/CK Trans. #: 22379 Dept # RE200301. ACCT# - 24157 Previous 94 Balance $ 3118.93 318-00 Principal Being'Paid $ 3118.93 Land: 8545u"0 '--' 0 =❑ 1111 jJ- �cnc�ity r ❑ Interest $ -00 GLAIZE DEVELOPMENT, INC Amount Paid $ 3118.93 *Balance Due PO BOX 888 as of 5/30/2003$ .00 Y WINCHESTER, VA 22604 0888 Check 3118-93 # WACH 11673 Pd by ANY BALANCE DUE DOES NOT INCLUDE PENALTY AND INTEREST. (DUPLICATE) T A X R E C -E I P T - Y E A R 2 0 0 3 Ticket #:00115400001 -Ba FREDERICK COUNTY Date 5/30/20:03 C. WILLIAM ORNDOFF, JR Register:- LBX/CK P.O. BOX 225 Trans. #:- 22379 Dept # - RE200301' WINCHESTER VA 22604-0225 ACCT# - 24158 2003 REAL ESTATE TAXES Previdus 3.00 ACRES 75 A 95 Balance $ 87.60 Acres: 3.00 Principal Being-'.Paid $ 87-60. Land: 24000 Imp: 0 Penalty * -.00 Interest $ ;.❑❑ GLAIZE DEVELOPMENTS-, INC Amount Paid .$ 87.60 *Balance Due PO BOX 888 as of 5/30/2003$ .00 WINCHESTER, VA 22604 0888 Check 87.60 # WA(H 111.73 Pd by _ ANY BALANCE DUE DOES NOT INCLUDE PENALTY AND INTEREST. (DUPLICATE) T A X .R.E C. E1 I P T - Y E A R 2-. ❑❑ 3 Ticket #:00115410001a961 FREDERICK COUNTY Date : 5/30/2003 C. WILLIAM ORNDOFF, JR Register: LBX/CK P.O. BOX 225 Trans. #: 22379 Dept # RE2❑0301HESTER WINCVA 22604-Q�25 ACCT# 24159 2003 REAL ESTATE TAXES _ Previous 104.-00,- ACRES 75 -A •96 Balance $ 94.90 Acres: 104-00 Principal Being Paid $ 94.90 Land.: 26❑❑0 Imp: ❑ Penalty $ .00 Interest - $ .❑p GLARE DEVELOPMENTS, INC Amount Paid :$ . 94.90 *Balance Due PO SOX 888 as of- 5/30/2003$ .00 WINCHESTER, VA 22604 088.8 Check 94.90 # WACH 11673 Pd.by ANY BALANCE DUE DOES NOT INCLUDE PENALTY AND INTEREST• (DUPLICATE) a • Crosspointe Center 10 • • Appendix Impact Analysis Statement • A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: Glaize Developments, Inc. 112 E. Piccadilly Street Winchester, VA 22601 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. ,. p R�A Leesburg, Virginia 20175 H703.777 F F 703.777.372.372 5 September W, 200: 0 • • OVERVIEW Report Summary This study considers the traffic impacts associated with the build -out of the Crosspointe Center to be located along Tasker Road, east of the Route 37/Tasker Road intersection, in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed project is to include 1,590 units of residential, 750,000 square feet of retail and 190,000 square feet of office. Future site - access is to be provided along Tasker Road (to be realigned), Route 37 (to be extended) and Warrior Drive (to be constructed), respectively. The proposed development will be built -out in three (3) phases by the year 2012. Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying the Crosspointe_ Center development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: • Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of impact, • Calculation of trip generation for Crosspointe Center, • Distribution and assignment of Crosspointe Center generated trips onto the study area road network, • Analysis of capacity and level of service using the newest version of the highway capacity software, HCS -2000, for existing and future conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS Patton Hams Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersections of Route 37/I-81 southbound ramps, Route 37/1-81 northbound ramps, Route 37/Tasker Road as well as at the northern Route 11 southbound on-ramp and the southern Route 11 southbound off -ramp. Additionally, 24-hour automatic "tube" counts were conducted along the I-81 northbound and southbound ramps. PHR+A established the ADT (Average Daily Traffic) along each of the study area roadway links using an average "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 9%. Figure 1 shows the existing ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 2 shows the respective existing lane geometry and ANLTM peak hour levels of service. Ail traffic count data and HCS -2000 -levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center P{ + \ September 10, 2003 H_�` 11 Page 1 • 0 Figure 1 P+ H AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Existing Traffic Conditions A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center September 10, 2003 Page 2 • XT_ Figure 2 P-R+A � Denotes Free -Flow Lane AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Existing Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center September 10, 2003 Page 3 • • • 2006 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Existing traffic volumes were increased along study area roadways using an historic growth rate of 5% per year (compounded annually) through Year 2006. Figure 3 shows the 2006 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 4 shows the respective 2006 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are provided in the Appendix section of this report. PHASE 1 TRAFFIC ANALYSES The following describes the infrastructure improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed project: • The westbound left -turn lane is to be removed at the intersection of Route 37/I-81 southbound ramps. All vehicles traveling westbound along Route 37 are to be rerouted to the eastbound I-81 southbound ramp via the Route 37/Route 11 interchange; • In order to facilitate a -turns, a southbound lane is to be constructed at the Route 37/Route 11 interchange between the northern and southern Route 11 ramps; • The intersection of Route 37/I-81 northbound ramps is to be realigned to the east at the approximate location of the existing Tasker Road; • Hillandale Lane and Tasker Road are to be realigned through the proposed site; • Crosspointe Boulevard is to be constructed as a four -lane facility between the 1-81 northbound ramps and the realigned Tasker Road. TRIP GENERATION The total trips produced by and attracted to the Crosspointe Center site were established using the 6`b Edition of ITE's Trip Generation' Report. These trips were reduced to account for internal trip interaction (20%) and retail pass -by trips (15%). Table 1 summarizes the trip generation results, along with internal pass -by trip reductions, for the proposed Crosspointe Center development. A detailed description of internal trip interaction is provided in the Appendix section of this report. A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center September 10, 2003 Page 4 9 0 • AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) U. Figure 3 2006 Background Traffic Conditions PH- ARn Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center September 10, 2003 Page 5 9 � Denotes Free -Flow Lane AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 4 2006 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center + September 10, 2003 H Page 6 Table 1 Phase 1: Crosspointe Center Development Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total PM Peak Hour In Out Total ADT Percentage of Total 210 Single -Family Detached 415 units 75 225 300 248 139 387 4,150 230 Townhouse/Condo 100 units 9 43 51 41 20 61 870 253 Elderly Housing - Attach 100 units 4 3 7 6 4 10 348 820 Retail 370,000 SF 213 136 348 715 774 1,489 15,810 Total Trips 301 406 707 1,009 938 1,948 21,178 100% Total Internal 54 54 108 231 231 462 4,901 20% Total Pass -by 26 26 52 112 112 223 2,371 10% Total "New Trips" 221 326 546 667 596 1,263 13,905 70% TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT (PHASE 1) The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the road network surrounding the proposed site. PHR+A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in 10 Figure 5 to assign the Phase 1 Crosspointe Center trips (Table 1) throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 6 shows the development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments at key locations throughout the study area. 2006 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS (PHASE 1) The 2006 background traffic conditions shown in Figure 3 were modified to reflect the removal of the westbound left -turn lane at the intersection of Route 37/I-81 southbound ramps. The Phase 1 Crosspointe Center assigned trips (Figure 6) were then added to the revised background volumes to obtain 2006 Phase 1 build -out conditions. Figure 7 shows 2006 Phase 1 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 8 shows the respective 2006 Phase 1 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. CONCLUSION (PHASE 1) The traffic impacts associated with the Phase 1 Crosspointe Center development are acceptable and manageable. All study area intersections maintain acceptable levels of service "C" or better for 2006 Phase 1 build -out conditions. A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center P� September 10, 2003 H Page 7 11 P. -IL y N—1 Figure 5 Phase 1 Trip Distribution Percentages A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center PH September 10, 2003 Page 8 a L-1 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) ** Volume includes pass -by trips M Figure 6 Phase 1 Development -Generated Trip Assignments A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center P"SeptemberR+A" 10, 2003 Page 9 r] L 0 0 Figure 7 2006 Phase I Build -out Traffic Conditions A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center PH0, 2003 R+A September 1Page 10 K, SP 0', ra 190 No Scale 0(09 0 B Off-kamp 11 37 SITE 0, ss "Oad SITE pp nq 10 r �0 % 37 19 4%.* 49 NQ *%,* lqh -b plh AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Avera,(YeDailyTrivs _R -,,P+A Figure 7 2006 Phase I Build -out Traffic Conditions A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center PH0, 2003 R+A September 1Page 10 9 E • � Denotes Free -Flow Lane T * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement _P_ � Q+ / A \ AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 8 2006 Phase 1 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center R+A September 10, 2003 Page 11 PH • 2009 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Existing traffic volumes were increased along study area roadways using an historic growth rate of 5% per year (compounded annually) through Year 2009. Figure 9 shows the 2009 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 10 shows the respective 2009 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are provided in the Appendix section of this report. PHASE 2 TRAFFIC ANALYSES The following describes the infrastructure improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed project: • The westbound left -turn lane is to be removed at the intersection of Route 37/I-81 southbound ramps. All vehicles traveling westbound along Route 37 are to be rerouted to the eastbound I-81 southbound ramp via the Route 37/Route 11 interchange; • In order to facilitate u -turns, a southbound lane is to be constructed at the Route 37/Route 11 interchange between the northern and southern Route 11 ramps; • The intersection of Route 37/I-81 northbound ramps is to be realigned to the east at the approximate location of the existing Tasker Road; • Hillandale Lane and Tasker Road are to be realigned through the proposed site, • Crosspointe Boulevard is to be constructed as a four -lane facility between the 1-81 northbound ramps and the realigned Tasker Road; • Crosspointe Boulevard is to be constructed as a two-lane half -section between Tasker Road and the partially constructed Warrior Drive; • Warrior Drive is to be constructed north of Crosspointe Boulevard. TRIP GENERATION The total trips produced by and attracted to the Crosspointe Center site were established using the 6`h Edition of ITE's Trip Generation Report. These trips were reduced to account for internal trip interaction (20%) and retail pass -by trips (15%). Table 2 summarizes the trip generation results, along with internal/pass-by trip reductions, for the proposed Crosspointe Center development. A detailed description of internal trip interaction is provided in the Appendix section of this report. A Phased Trak Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center P HR September 10, 2003 u Page 12 F --I IL—j Figure 9 PR+A H AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) 2009 Background Traffic Conditions A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center September 10, 2003 Page 13 0 • 4- -i M � Denotes Free -Flaw Lane AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 10 2009 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center P '�_ 14 n September 10, 20 HL l Page 14 Table 2 Phase 2: Crosspointe Center Development Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total PM Peak Hour In Out Total ADT Percentage of Total 210 Single -Family Detached 775 units 138 414 552 435 245 679 7,750 230 Townhouse/Condo 200 units 15 74 89 73 36 109 1,740 253 Elderly Housing - Attach 100 units 4 3 7 6 4 10 348 710 Office 90,000 SF 151 21 171 31 150 180 1,224 820 Retail 440,000 SF 236 151 386 801 868 1,669 17,673 Y Total Trips 544 661 1,205 1,346 1,302 2,648 28,735 100% Total Internal 80 80 159 330 330 660 6,954 20% Total Pass -by 29 29 58 125 125 250 2,651 7% Total "New Trips" 435 553 988 890 847 1,737 19,130 73% TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT (PHASE 2) The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the road network surrounding the proposed site. PHR+A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 11 to assign the Phase 2 Crosspointe Center trips (Table 2) throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 12 shows the development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments at key locations throughout the study area. 2009 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS (PHASE 2) The 2009 background traffic conditions shown in Figure 9 were modified to reflect the removal of the westbound left -turn lane at the intersection of Route 37/I-81 southbound ramps. The Phase 2 Crosspointe Center assigned trips (Figure 12) were then added to the revised background volumes to obtain 2009 Phase 2 build -out conditions. Figure 13 shows 2009 Phase 2 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 14 shows the respective 2009 Phase 2 build- out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. CONCLUSION (PHASE 2) The traffic impacts associated with the Phase 2 Crosspointe Center development are acceptable and manageable. All study area intersections maintain acceptable levels of service "C" or better for 2009 Phase 2 build -out conditions. PHR+A A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center September 10, 2003 Page 15 9 a s is Figure 11 Phase 2 Trip Distribution Percentages A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center PHR+A September 10, 2003 Page 16 • 0 • SIR (i6g � pdi f )rrr ra8� P�,°i No Scale Jf'0�ti~ r1~i O� as 6g(11) O?� B Off $IMP O, �A 11 37 Q 4b, ^,ti (y ao° � �, 91;, i o SITE n rr ti o oe a Tasker A Rid 1 � ti� C 1~ B o�< �drhp � Tgsk�ROad CrosspOuite elv d SITE tip's, _ 4 J'tel t f49spOjdi �I (S 37 .. �3��OS��d� ��9(i?1r) rosy � X86 (L39) OR 37 rrr�r l AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Volume includes pass -by trips Figure 12 Phase 2 Development -Generated Trip Assignments A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center P R+A 17September 10, 20H Page 17 a 0 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) 1 Figure 13 2009 Phase 2 Build -out Traffic Conditions A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center P R+A 18 September 10, 20T - T Page 18 E 0 No Scale Signalized Intersection LOS = C(B) IP4 Oil, 0 - Signalized Intersection 37 LOS = B(C) SITE 4C R'd Task�R 0-d ss Blvd SITE Signalized ignalized Intersection Intersection LOS — QQ LOS = QQ ro., �� � jJ �rcJ 37 Denotes Free -Flow Lane Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement LR JQ+A AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 14 2009 Phase 2 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center 0, 2003 R+A Page 19 pH September 1 • 2012 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Existing traffic volumes were increased along study area roadways using an historic growth rate of 5% per year (compounded annually) through Year 2012. Figure 15 shows the 2012 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 16 shows the respective 2012 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are provided in the Appendix section of this report. PHASE 3 TRAFFIC ANALYSES The following describes the infrastructure improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed project: • The westbound left -turn lane is to be removed at the intersection of Route 37/I-81 southbound ramps. All vehicles traveling westbound along Route 37 are to be rerouted to the eastbound I-81 southbound ramp via the Route 37/Route 11 interchange; • In order to facilitate a -turns, a southbound lane is to be constructed at the Route 37/Route 11 interchange between the northern and southern Route 11 ramps; • The intersection of Route 37/I-81 northbound ramps is to be realigned to the east at the approximate location of the existing Tasker Road; • Hillandale Lane and Tasker Road are to be realigned through the proposed site, • Crosspointe Boulevard is to be constructed as a four -lane facility between the I-81 northbound ramps and Warrior Drive; • Warrior Drive is to be constructed to provide site -access to/from the south. TRIP GENERATION The total trips produced by and attracted to the Crosspointe Center site were established using the 6`b Edition of ITE's Trip Generation Report. These trips were reduced to account for internal trip interaction (20%) and retail pass -by trips (15%). Table 3 summarizes the trip generation results, along with internal/pass-by trip reductions, for the proposed Crosspointe Center development. A detailed description of internal trip interaction is provided in the Appendix section of this report. A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center PHR+A September 10, 2003 Page 20 • • AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) 4 - Figure 15 2012 Background Traffic Conditions A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center PHR+A September 10, 2003 Page 21 • �v Denotes Free -Flow Lane AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) r: Figure 16 2012 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center P0,03 TTR 1 September 1 22 F --Ill � Pagee 22 r� r 11 • Table 3 Phase 3: Crosspointe Center Development Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total PM Peak Hour In Out Total ADT Percentage of Total 210 Single -Family Detached 1,110 units 197 590 786 601 338 939 11,100 230 Townhouse/Condo 280 units 20 96 116 96 47 144 2,436 253 Elderly Housing - Attach 200 units 9 5 14 12 8 20 696 710 Office 190,000 SF 274 37 311 50 243 292 2,173 820 Retail 750,000 SF 324 207 531 1,139 1,234 2,374 24,902 Total Trips 823 935 1,758 1,898 1,871 3,769 41,307 100% Total Internal 114 114 228 482 482 964 10,069 20% Total Pass -by 40 40 80 178 178 356 3,735 7% Total "New Trips" 669 782 1,450 1,238 1,211 2,449 27,502 73% TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT (PHASE 3) The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the road network surrounding the proposed site. PHR+A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 17 to assign the Phase 3 Crosspointe Center trips (Table 3) throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 18 shows the development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments at key locations throughout the study area. 2012 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS (PHASE 3) The 2012 background conditions shown in Figure 15 were modified to reflect the removal of the westbound left -turn lane at the intersection of Route 37/I-81 southbound ramps and the completion of Warrior Drive to the south. It was assumed that the completion of Warrior Drive will result in a diversion of 20% of the background traffic from Tasker Road (south of Crosspointe Boulevard) as well as attract an additional 1000 daily trips from Route 277. The 2012 Phase 3 build -out conditions were obtained by adding the Phase 3 Crosspointe Center assigned trips (Figure 18) to the revised 2012 background traffic volumes. Figure 19 shows 2012 Phase 3 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 20 shows the respective 2012 Phase 3 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. CONCLUSION (PHASE 3) The traffic impacts associated with the Phase 3 Crosspointe Center development are acceptable and manageable. All study area intersections maintain acceptable levels of service "C" or better for 2012 Phase 3 build -out conditions. PHR+A A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center September 10, 2003 Page 23 9 0 Figure 17 Phase 3 Trip Distribution Percentages PHR+A A Phased Trak Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center September 10, 2003 Page 24 ,i Cl • Figure 18 Phase 3 Development -Generated Trip Assignments A Phased Trak Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center PSeptemberjl� 10, 2003 I-1 Page 25 SBZR�P rZj�Jl33 `�a�e?��'` grZgJ )156 No Scale � 1 T�kerRoad I� (I6 (42)I6—A i h T d' O O a O B Off Ra np Q a0 A 1, 37 �4 (SITE 4,)zJls6`� �39 3 Z(6�J a/e Task�R nad ry afia Np ti 4 0 las Blvd SITE _ i 4 O 37 r6,g c •f9rgJJ1/SQ J98`� ?gJ ✓1� z �8a(a8 Cr ) °�P°rote `Jgl�ZgZ mS�L �6,� 5h 9(vd r ]8(38 r66 J e L b,, jr► SJ (199)60-� l `ny L AM Peak Hoos(PM Peak Hoary DailyAverage P_, T1Q+A ** Volume includes pass -by trips 1 Figure 18 Phase 3 Development -Generated Trip Assignments A Phased Trak Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center PSeptemberjl� 10, 2003 I-1 Page 25 n AM Peak Hour(PM Peak dour) Figure 19 2012 Phase 3 Build -out Traffic Conditions A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center P"R+A September 10, Pagee 26 26 • Denotes 11 CG -1'1V YY Lnni. * Denotes 'Unsignalized Critical Movement -Y-% Y-% A AM Peal: Hour (PM Peak Hour) :9 Figure 20 2012 Phase 3 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center P0, TTR , ASeptember 1 2003 1--11 Page 27 9 APPENDIX a 1-1 • Tahle A: Phase 1 Internal/Pass-bv TriD Interaction AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Percentage Trips Going to/from Reduced Land Us( In Out Total In Out Total ADT Residential Retail 33 21 54 111 120 231 2,451 15.5% Total Percentages 16% 16% 1601. 1691. 16016 1616 16516 15.5% Pass -by Retail 26 26 52 112 112 223 2,371 15.0% Total Percentages 12% 19% 15% 16916 14% 15% 15% 15.2% Office/Retail Residential 21 33 54 120 111 231 2,451 Reciprocal Total Percentages 25% 12% 15% 42% 69.9 51% 49'0 37.7% Total Retail Internal Trips 33 21 54 111 120 231 2,451 16% Total Retail Pass -by Trips 26 26 52 112 112 223 2,371 15% Total Retail "New" Trips 153 89 242 492 543 1,035 10,988 70% Total Office Internal Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Total Office "New" Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100% Total Residential Internal Trips 21 33 54 120 l l l 231 2,451 38% Total Residential "New" Trips 67 237 304 175 53 228 2,917 62% Total Internal 54 54 108 231 231 462 4,9111 Total Percentages 18% 13% 15% 23% 25% 24% 23% 20% Total Pass -by 26 26 52 112 112 223 2,371 Total Percentages 9% 6% 7% 11% 12% 11% 11% 10% Total "New Trips" 221 326 546 667 596 1,263 13,905 Total Percentages 73% 80% 77% 66% 63% 65% 6601. 70% Total Trips 301 406 707 1,009 938 1,948 21,178 Total Percentages 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 9 Tahle R- Phase 2 Internal/Pass-hv Trin Interaction AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Percentage Trips Going to/from Reduced Land Use In Out Total In Out Total ADT Residential Retail 41 26 68 140 152 292 3,093 17.5% Office Retail 5 3 8 16 17 33 353 2.0% Total Percentages 20% 20% 20•� 2010a 20•010 20% 20% 19.5% Pass -by Retail 29 29 58 125 125 250 2,651 15.0% Total Percentages 12% 19'0 15% 16% 1491. 15% 15% 15.1% Residential Office 4 1 4 1 4 5 31 2.5% Retail Office 3 5 8 17 16 33 353 Reciprocal Total Percentages 4% 25% 7% 59•, 13% 21% 31% 23.1% Office/Retail Residential 27 45 72 156 141 297 3,123 Reciprocal Total Percentages 18% 9•o 11% 31% 50.0 38% 33% 27.1% Total Retail Internal Trips 46 29 75 156 169 326 3,446 20% Total Retail Pass -by Trips 29 29 58 125 125 250 2,651 15% Total Retail "New" Trips 161 92 253 520 574 1,094 11,576 66% Total Office Internal Trips 7 5 12 18 20 38 384 23% Total Office "New" Trips 144 15 159 13 130 142 840 77% Total Residential Intemal Trips 27 45 72 156 141 297 3,123 27% Total Residential 'New" Trips 131 445 576 358 144 502 6,715 73% Total Internal 80 80 159 330 330 660 6,954 Total Percentages 15% 12% 13% 25% 25% 25% 24% 20% Total Pass -by 29 29 58 125 125 250 2,651 Total Percentages 5% 4% 5% 9% 10% 9% 9% 7% Total "New Trips" 435 553 988 890 847 1,737 19,130 Total Percentages 80% 84% 82% 66% 65% 66% 67% 73% Total Trips 544 661 1,205 1,346 1,302 2,648 28,735 Total Percentages 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% C] Table C: Phase 3 Internal/Pass-by Trip Interaction AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Percentage Trips Going to/from Reduced Land Us4 In Out Total In Out Total ADT Residential Retail 58 37 96 205 222 427 4,482 18.0% Office Retail 6 4 11 23 25 47 498 2.0% Total Percentages 2091. 20% 20.1. 20.0 20% 20'0 20% 20.0% Pass -by Retail 40 40 80 178 178 356 3,735 15.0% Total Percentages 12% 19•� 15% 1616 14% 15% 15% 15.2% Residential Office 7 1 8 1 6 7 54 2.5% Retail Office 4 6 11 25 23 47 498 Reciprocal Total Percentages 4% 20% 6% 52% 12% 19•* 25% 19.7% Office/Retail Residential 38 65 103 228 206 435 4,537 Reciprocal Total Percentages 18% 9'o 11% 33% 54% 40'0 34% 28.4% Total Retail Internal Trips 65 41 106 228 247 475 4,980 20% Total Retail Pass -by Trips 40 40 80 178 178 356 3,735 15% Total Retail "New" Trips 219 126 345 734 809 1,543 16,186 65% Total Office Internal Trips 11 7 18 26 29 55 552 20% Total Office "New" Trips 263 30 293 24 214 238 1,620 80% Total Residential Internal Trips 38 65 103 228 206 435 4,537 28% Total Residential "New" Trips 187 626 813 481 187 668 9,695 72% Total Internal 114 114 228 482 482 964 10,069 Total Percentages 14% 12% 13% 15% 26% 26% 24% 20% Total Pass -by 40 40 80 178 178 356 3,735 Total Percentages 5% 4% 5% 9% 10% 9% 9% 7% Total"New Trips" 669 782 1,450 1,238 1,211 2,449 27,502 Total Percentages 81% 84% 83% 65% 65% 65% 67% 73% Total Trips 823 935 1,758 1,898 1,871 3,769 41,307 Total Percentages 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% C� • C, COG CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #09-03 Ww �� MILAMS LANDSCAPE, LLC Staff Report for the Planning Commission Meetinq w ® Prepared: October 29, 2003 Staff Contact: Mark Cheran 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 request. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Planning Commission: Board of Supervisors: Reviewed Action 11/19/03 Pending 12/10/03 Pending LOCATION: This property is located at 1331 Cedar Creek Grade. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 63-A-1 D PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Vacant and Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Vacant and Residential PROPOSED USE: Landscape contracting and Retail Nursery REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The application for a conditional use permit for this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 622, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. Prior to operation of the business, a commercial entrance must be constructed to our minimum standards to allow for safe egress and ingress of the property. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. The permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. CUP 4 09-03 November 4, 2003 Page 2 Inspections Department: No comment required provided compliance with Section 101.7.7(a) exemptions of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code 2000. Fire Marshal: Recommend portable fire extinguishers, maintain adequate lane widths for emergency vehicle access. No significant factors affect proposed use. Health Department: Health Department has required Mr. Milan to obtain approval of drainfield on his property for public and employee use. Planning and Zoning: This proposed Conditional Use Permit is for a landscape contracting and retail nursery. This proposed use will take place on 2.50 acres of a 63.88 acre of tract of land located in the RA (Rural Areas District) Zoning District. The Frederick Zoning Ordinance allows for landscaping contracting and retail nurseries in the RA Zoning District with an approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP). This proposed use will have 29,250 square feet of outdoor storage areas for nursery stock and products. This outdoor storage will consist of topsoil piles, mulch piles, trees and flowers located in front and side yards of this 2.50 acres. This proposed use will have 3,600 square feet of indoor storage located in three (3) greenhouses located in the front and rear of the property. The rear property of this proposed use will contain outdoor storage of equipment and nursery stock for off site landscaping contracting. Staff would recommend an opaque fence of six (6) feet in height to screen this area of the property. This proposed use will be adjacent to active orchard use and will have 200 foot setbacks from any adjoining properties. Staff would note that there is a dwelling on this property that the applicant will be using as an office. Prior to operation of this landscape contracting and garden center an approved engineered site plan will be required. This site plan will address all of the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Staff would recommend that signage to be limited to one (1) non- illuminating freestanding business sign no higher than six (6) feet. This freestanding business sign shall only be twenty-five (25) square feet. This requirement is in keeping with the rural nature of this area and preventing a typical commercial strip along Cedar Creek Grade (Rt. 622). STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 11-19-03 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, staff would recommend the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. An engineered site plan shall be submitted to, and approved by Frederick County; prior to using the site for the landscape contracting and retail nursery use. All improvements identified on the improved site shall be completed prior operating the business from this site. CUP # 09-03 November 4, 2003 Page 3 3. vile (i) nonIII .Iiiiinated lie%83LUudiiig busIlless ISsign shall b% allow ,d along Cedar Creek grade (Rt.622); sign shall be limited to twenty-five (25) square feet in area. The sign shall not exceed six (6) feet in height. 4. Any expansion or change of use will require a new Conditional Use Permit. 0:\Agendas\COMIv1ENTS\CUP's\2003\Mlams Landscape.wpd Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1. Applicant (The applicant if the owner other) NAME: 1�� (i I PIS ' n 1 + �f�� Si` 5 G( - ADDRESS: P l i'n 0Cu P'!! to, (u 1uyl-o C 'tP z . TELEPHONE A -z/ -- 9:17 y- ce G FF .moo - 7 Via-` 300y 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and include the route number of your road or street) 13 3 ! r edIA C rr C'PY -� C/ G- �rC�A- %a- Ips k r, 67o 04 rind p ir (-rr-,- L K"rc,Ac 1,ern,=0 o �w P, - f% -la Uzo fdS 021 3 7 . 1 a ranch, j s azty 7i4 4. The property has a road frontage of L o feet and a depth of 3-5-0 feet and consists of acres. (Please be exact) 5. The property is owned by Jpr,n01�e S oj-5Sr f;ks„ as evidenced by deed fromP�/ ��irFjt.4Z recorded (previousowner) in deed book no. on page 9,_ , as recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of Frederick. 6. Tax(Parcel)Identification (I.D.)No. - A,- Magisterial ,_Magisterial District C" Prr r9 ,'n_/ Current Zoning R 7. Adjoining Property: USE ZONING Northr R East South West 84 3 7 d4i h u- r�, 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) 9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: Q 'i i f say A— lY X 3 a,,i , l k- 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property where the requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: 5C - e- NAME ADDRESS /'S-� P5-e5 PROPERTY ID# NAME �J(c? J��' vS �'eL. �. �J�i�' i S,� S �� ADDRE S S �S � 5 � �l�A � C•�'�t:E'•r 026 /I > PROPERTY ID# NAME 104 ADDRESS PROPERTY ID#� NAME / ?I VS OADDRES S PROPERTY ID# ,,,2✓5i�,�'S a� NAME ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# �- ��/c�lzzo��� 1/�4 23z/ y1/iNvz'si,Eiz Y'A 2��W NAME—Ie /,�i3�v�; ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# a-,4 "fes NAME Ga<4GI_.�rZ �C �"�c Z ADDRESS 2 0460 PROPERTY ID# NAME .1f�r 1� �S A/3-c"e ADDRESS PROPERTY ID# 11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines. ��"�- �q �V�IA�'j 12. Additional comments, if any: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed use will be conducted. /I .11 14 Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner Owners' Mailing Address d2SJ O h r—v V I— %-� -A ♦ I-- I- a -r (, i ,CGaS /P 0 L (Dc` ;rx (03 Owners' Telephone No. rW - 7 - ,30C ' .— q 7 y -,3-5-;L-3 TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: USE CODE: RENEWAL DATE: Pc 6,a,4 SG/&,: h Pt -,se iA - © 6o)c d-3 68 &ca-- ;0-60Y rya 7�a-- 3 Te CO�ti Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia r Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We) (Name) htr1�L i�� �t�NS ��keP�c s Hss�crA�s (Phone) (Address) P664- 93LC 2 v A- -zzAE the owners) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk, s Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. on Page , and is described as �.. Parcel: E,� � Lot: �_ Block: Section: _ Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) �< (GE FAIz At i c /t ar (Phone)6--�,(_, -,7� cg (Address) aV lUu66 ( To act as my true and lawf7ul attorney-in-fact for andin my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including: ❑ Rezoning (including proffers) [r'—_ Conditional Use Permits ❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site Plan My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this 3a day of &cfivi g—) , 200 3 , Signature(s) a( S S QsSOGta�c State of Virginia, City/County of F t_(�o- 21cL , To -wit: 1 / a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesai , certi that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personally app eared before me a d ha cknowl the sam efore me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this�,� day of 3200d. mmission Expires 4 My Commission VIA? Notary Public / UABcv\Special Limited POA.wpd COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner A�—,— RE: Public Hearing - Request for expansion of the Urban Development Area (UDA) DATE: November 5, 2003 On May 12, 2003, staff received a request from the owners of Willow Grove LC, 740 LLC, 750 LLC, 227 Orchard Lane and Kenneth F. Marshall, owner of Pembroke Cove Properties LLC, to consider a request to expand the Urban Development Area (UDA) to include approximately 350 acres currently zoned RA (Rural Areas). The subject parcels are not under common ownership. The property owners contend that the subject parcels are better suited for the suburban development enabled by inclusion within the UDA as opposed to remaining in agricultural land use. The proposed expansion area is bounded by residential development to the east and north, respectively. The area comprised by the parcels is located adjacent to and west of the City of Winchester, east of Route 37, and adjacent to and south of Merriman's Lane (Route 621). The proposed expansion area is connected to Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622) by the southernmost parcel included with the request. The UDA expansion request did not specify a land use designation for the expansion area, and the proposed expansion area is not subject to any of the small area land use plans included in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The expansion area is located wholly outside of both the UDA and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Three of the subject parcels adjoin an approximate 190 -acre tract of the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. Moreover, a small portion of the site is identified as core battlefield area of the First Battle of Winchester. The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) met on July 14, 2003 to consider this request. Following discussion, the committee decided to vote on the request as submitted by the property owners, and forward the request to the Planning Commission for discussion. The property owners commented that at the time the UDA location was first designated in the Comprehensive Plan, it was desirable for them to keep their land in agricultural use. The owners stated that their properties are no longer viable for agricultural land use and are now surrounded by residential development, both in the City of Winchester and the County. 107 North Kent Street o Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 At the Planning Commission discussion of September 3, 2003, concern was expressed regarding the addition of such a large amount of land into the UDA, because of the number of existing number UDA lots available. Indeed, the current UDA boundary is estimated to consist of enough land to accommodate approximately 16,000 dwelling units. Other commissioners believed that this area was a logical location for UDA_-style development. It was suggested that a small area land use study be prepared for the land east of Route 37. Concerns regarding transportation, utilities, impacts on schools and impacts on environmental features were also discussed. Additionally, concerns regarding setting a precedent for future UDA expansion requests arose. No action was formally taken. On September 10, 2003, the Board of Supervisors discussed this request. Greenway Engineering stated that their firm would be representing the applicant, and was willing to prepare a land use plan for the UDA expansion area requested by the landowners. The Board directed planning staff to collaborate with the owner's representatives to draft a small area land use plan, and then proceed with scheduling this item for public hearing. Per the Board's directive, staff, and the property owner's representative, Greenway Engineering, have developed a draft land use plan map and draft policy text for this area. The land use plan is currently titled the Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan (WJELUP). While staff is generally supportive of the draft land use plan map, and in favor of a north -south major collector road system connecting Cedar Creek Grade and Jubal Early Drive, the ultimate location of this north south connection must be designed without traversing or otherwise impacting the adjoining South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. It is a clear objective of the state agricultural and forestal districts to prevent the encroachment of homes, commerce, and infrastructure into prime agricultural areas. The predominant land uses envisioned within the plan are urban and suburban residential uses. The proposed residential land use is intended to be compatible with, and continue, the existing residential use patterns in the vicinity of the site. The existing patterns of development are those such as the adjoining Morlyn Hills and Meadow Branch subdivisions. The draft plan, therefore, calls for single family detached units as the primary housing type within the WJELUP area, the development of which will not exceed a gross density of four dwelling units per acre. The proposed expansion of the UDA incorporates the extension of Jubal Early Drive, from it's terminus in the City of Winchester to the Route 37 western bypass, as identified in the Winchester Area Transportation Study (WATS). Jubal Early Drive is the principal transportation element of the WJELUP. There is a need to provide a variety of development options adjoining this road, in order to accommodate a competitive land market and provide for consumer choice. Mixed residential and commercial land uses are therefore envisioned along the Jubal Early Drive extension. Specific to the Abrams Creek corridor, the WJELUP envisions the preservation of designated environmental resources. A conservation oriented approach to the design of residential and mixed use projects within the WJELUP is encouraged to maximize the preservation of these Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA). Please see attached draft policy language for the Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan (WJELUP) and the attached land use area map for reference. Planning staff is seeking your comments and a recommendation to forward to the Board of Supervisors regarding this proposed UDA expansion request. ASK/bad Attachments PUBLIC HEARING - UDA EXPANSION REQUEST WHITE / MARSHALL Request WESTERN JUBAL EARLY LAND USE PLAN Staff Report for Planning Commission Prepared: November 49 2003 Stau Contact: Abbe 'Kennedy, Senior Planner This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in the discussion of this request. It may also be useful to others interested in this comprehensive planning matter. CPPS: Planning Commission: Board of Supervisors: Planning Commission: Board of Supervisors: PROPOSAL: Reviewed 05/12/03 09/03/03 (Discussion) 09/10/03 (Discussion) 11/19/03 (Public Hearing) 12/10/03 (Public Hearing) Action Recommended for discussion Comments offered to Board Directed scheduling of Public Hearing Pending Pending To expand the Urban Development Area (UDA) by approximately 350 acres PLANNED USE: Residential and Mixed Use LOCATION: The property is located adjacent to and west of the City of Winchester, east of Route 37, and adjacent to and south of Merriman's Lane (Route 621). The proposed expansion area is connected to Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622) by the southernmost parcel. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 53-A-91, 63 -A -2A, 53-A-92, 53 -A -92A, 53 -A -92B, 53-A-90, 53-3- A1, 53 -A -94,53-A-95 PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION: Existing Conditions Suburban residential development (Meadow Branch, Morlyn Hills, Meadow Branch South, and Orchard Hill) is located in the City of Winchester adjacent to the northern and eastern boundaries of the subject properties. Merriman's Chase in Frederick County adjoins the subject properties in the northwestern corner (zoned RP), and The Village at Harvest Ridge (zoned RP) adjoins the southeastern tip of the subject properties. Three of the subject parcels adjoin an approximate 190 -acre tract of the South Frederick Agricultural District. The subject site, as well as the properties adjoining to the east and south, are presently zoned RA, and are in agricultural uses. Comprehensive Policy Plan Land Use Ulan The subject properties are not included in any of the small study area land use plans included in the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The properties were generally identified for agricultural use. There is no plan for the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) to serve that area with public water and sewer. There is a 183 -acre tract of the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District adjoining a large portion of the southern boundary of the site. The Urban Development Area (UDA) boundary is presently located immediately northwest of the subject site; none of the subject parcels are in the UDA or SWSA. The UDA boundary lies immediately west of Merriman's Lane which adjoins the property line along the site's western edge. Merriman's Chase subdivision, within the UDA, adjoins the subject site on west. No portion of the 320 acre expansion area is presently in the UDA. Transportation The Winchester Area Transportation Study (WATS) Plan identifies a planned Major Collector Road, Jubal Early Drive extending from Meadow Branch Drive to Route 37. The City of Winchester supports this road, as it is consistent with the WATS Plan. The planned WATS collector road would transverse the subject properties. The area of the proposed request is not in a specific study area of the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; however, staff would contend that a minor collector road extending from Cedar Creek Grade through the site and connecting to a western portion of the Jubal Early Drive would be appropriate. This connection would be necessary for serving the proposed development of the property as well as for emergency service vehicles to access the site through the county road system. Community Facilities and Service The FCSA does not serve this area. For the area to be served by the City, the FCSA must state their willingness to allow City service. The City of Winchester believes that water and sewer services would be available to this development; however, the availability may depend upon where the proposed facilities would ultimately connect to the City's facilities. The City of Winchester notes that where connecting facilities (water , sewer, transportation or other) are deemed to be inadequate due to the development's needs, it may be necessary for the developers to make modifications and improvements to existing facilities to minimize the impact. COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND PROGRAMS SUBCOMMITTEE (CPPS) SUMMARY & ACTION OF 07/14/03 MEETING: (summary of applicable discussions) The CPPS was generally supportive in concept to the proposal of the UDA expansion request. Infrastructure concerns regarding water and sewer service and transportation were expressed. Consideration of a land use study for the area west of the city and east of Route 3 7 was addressed. Staff would note that Charles DeHaven, Robert Morris, Roger Thomas and Sue Ann Teal were absent from the July 14 CPPS meeting at such time this request was considered. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF 09/03/03 MEETING: Some commissioners expressed concern for adding such a large amount of land into the UDA because of the number of existing lots available for development currently within the UDA. Other commissioners believed this area was a logical location for UDA-style development, due to the surrounding development within the City of Winchester and its location inside Route 3 7. Consideration of this area as a transitional zone, utilizing one to two -acre lot sizes, was suggested as a way of making the development more compatible with the adjacent low density, up -scale area. The idea of placing only a portion of the proposed acreage into the UDA, and not all of it, was also raised. Concerns regarding the site's infrastructure, particularly transportation issues and the availability of sewer and water prevailed however, and the need for a land use study for the area east of Route 3 7 was suggested. Also suggested was the possibility of postponing the request until the CPPS completed its Rural Areas Policy Study, which would take into consideration densities in rural areas. Other developmental concerns raised were the impacts to schools; impacts to and preservation of environmental features, such as the wetlands and flood plains; impacts to the taxpayers; and precedent setting for future UDA expansion requests. No action was formally taken by the Commission. Commissioners Ours and Fisher were absent from the meeting. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISCUSSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF 09/10/03 MEETING: Chairman Shickle asked if the acreage involved in the expansion request included the parcel to the right, the Bridgeforth Family. Staff stated that there had been no other requests for inclusion from landowners adjoining the original subject area. It was noted by Planning Director Eric Lawrence that an additional public hearing would need to be scheduled, should the remaining landowners make a similar request for UDA inclusion. Several of the Board members felt that this was a good location to provide housing. Additionally, the Board was mindful of the beautiful wetlands on the site, and of the City of Winchester's stance on Jubal Early Drive. It was advised that a general plan be presented for the Board to review. The Board of Supervisors voted to send this item to public hearing, pending the development of a general land use plan. YES (TO SCHEDULE FOR PUBLIC HEARING): Shickle, Sager, Reyes, Smith, Douglas, Tyler ABSTAIN: Forrester PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING & ACTION OF 11/19/03 MEETING: Pending U:\C0MMITTEES\CPPS\Proiects\2003 Proiects\White-Marshall LOMphWesdubal Eerly.wpd WESTERN JUBAL EARLY LAND USE PLAN DRAFT - 1113103 A request to expand the Urban Development Area (UDA) to incorporate parcels owned by the White and Marshall families was endorsed by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) in July 2003. These parcels, totaling approximately 350 acres, are located in a quadrant of land bound by Route 37 to the west, Merriman's Lane (Route 62 1) to the north, Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622) to the south, and the City of Winchester to the east. The proposed expansion of the UDA does not incorporate all properties within this quadrant, as much of the acreage in the southern portion of the quadrant is reserved for agricultural use within the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. The Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan (WJELUP) is intended to guide future land use planning and development for property within the quadrant that is captured by the UDA expansion. Land Use Residential The land included within the WJELUP represents a transitional area between the City of Winchester and the rural areas of western Frederick County. The WJELUP area is distinguished by its pristine environmental resources and prime farmland soils and has therefore historically supported both agricultural and low density residential land uses. Adjoining land within the City of Winchester has developed extensively with urban and suburban residential uses, most notably within the Meadow Branch, Morlyn Hills, Meadow Branch South, and Orchard Hill subdivisions. Additionally, suburban residential land use has been established within the UDA adjacent and north of the WJELUP area through the Merriman's Chase subdivision. The predominant land uses envisioned within the WJELUP area are urban and suburban residential uses. The residential designation is intended to continue the established land use pattern in the vicinity of the WJELUP area. As such, new residential development within the WJELUP area is expected to consist primarily of single family detached and single family small lot units, and be compatible with the design of existing residential uses on adjoining property. The gross residential density for residential developments within the WJELUP area should not exceed four dwelling units per acre. Mixed Use Areas of mixed residential and commercial land use are designated along the planned route of the Jubal Early Drive extension. The mixed use development pattern is intended to provide commercial and employment opportunities that are accessible for residents within the WJELUP area via alternative modes of transportation, such as pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Enhanced accessibility is anticipated through the integration of land uses within the mixed use areas and the connection of such areas to the surrounding residential neighborhoods by a network of multi-purpose trails and sidewalks. It is further expected that residential and commercial uses will be designed and configured in a complementary and unified manner to ensure development of a visually distinctive and functionally efficient community. The residential component of areas designated for mixed use development is not to exceed 75% of the gross project land area, with the remaining acreage reserved and planned for commercial use. Gross residential densities within mixed use areas should be consistent with those of the surrounding residential neighborhoods and therefore not exceed four dwelling units per acre. Residential densities are envisioned to be achieved through a mixture of housing types. The commercial component of a mixed use area is envisioned to consist of neighborhood scale commercial uses and high-end office uses, consistent with the commercial development that has occurred along Jubal Early Drive west of its intersection with Valley Avenue. Strip commercial development is strongly discouraged. Transportation The Winchester Area Transportation Study (WATS) identifies Jubal Early Drive extending in an east -west direction from its terminus in the City of Winchester to the Route 37 western by-pass. The proposed expansion of the Urban Development Area (UDA) should incorporate the extension of Jubal Early Drive as the principal transportation component of the WJELUP. The extension of Jubal Early Drive through this portion of the UDA is envisioned as an urban divided four -lane cross section that includes landscaped medians as well as pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The final location and alignment of Jubal Early Drive should remain flexible to ensure that the development of the future extension conforms to final transportation studies and engineering. Additionally, a major collector road system should be planned to facilitate traffic movement in a north -south direction to provide a linkage between Jubal Early Drive and Cedar Creek Grade. Although the location of the north -south collector road should also remain flexible, the ultimate alignment of this roadway must be designed to intersect with Cedar Creek Grade without traversing or otherwise impacting the adjoining South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. Environment The WJELUP designates environmental resources associated with the Abrams Creek corridor as Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA). These areas should be preserved through the development process with improvements limited to required road crossings and passive recreational amenities. A conservation oriented approach to the design of residential and mixed use projects within the WJELUP area is encouraged to maximize DSA preservation. As such, the precise study and identification of DSA designated resources should occur as a critical first step in the design process for all development in the WJELUP area. Completion of this resource inventory and the delineation of preservation areas is to be followed and accommodated by layouts and engineering for building sites, lots, drainage and infrastructure. Full density credit will be provided for DSA designated land conserved through the development process. A portion of the Green Circle Trail, as developed by the City of Winchester, has been constructed on the north side of the Winchester-Western Railroad. The WJELUP envisions completion of this portion of the trail to Merriman's Lane. Additionally, a connector trail should be developed that extends from the existing trail along the railroad right-of-way to Cedar Creek Grade as an enhancement to the Green Circle Trail. The connecting trail should be located to enhance the interaction of the user with any environmental features or view sheds that are conserved through implementation of the WJELUP. CITY OF -�VINCHESTER 11 ♦ an— OPOSED .4-0 ;*01111 .111. 1" too. gnomon man ---- AREA RETAINE BY WHIT wr IIXED USE USE , A I RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED UDA & SWSA 4,1 h, 4 V'r '\ // RESIDENTIAL /' --------------- ... . . ......... . . ._.. ..... .. . -A 0, _w . .. ...... . . - - --- ---- -- ="' - - ----- - --- MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA (DSA) MAJOR COLLECTORS PROPOSED TRAIL N PROPOSED UDA & SWSA EXPANSION URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA (1��A) qVW. WFR/WATP RFWJTrW ARRA . .. .. .... . f WESTERN JUBAL EARLY LAND USE PLAN SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA . .... . . . . [DATA COMPILATION AND MAPPING FURNISHED BY: —0,al GREENWAY ENGINEERING Pbun&d in sa?,y ''yrRill Lane inIMe . . . ....... .. Telephone 540-662-4186 zn Sua.ine r yore FAX 540-722-9628 - ------------ - . . . ..... . 21 CITY OF -�VINCHESTER 11 ♦ an— OPOSED .4-0 ;*01111 .111. 1" too. gnomon man ---- AREA RETAINE BY WHIT wr IIXED USE USE , A I RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED UDA & SWSA 4,1 h, 4 V'r '\ // RESIDENTIAL /' --------------- ... . . ......... . . ._.. ..... .. . -A 0, _w . .. ...... . . - - --- ---- -- ="' - - ----- - --- MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA (DSA) MAJOR COLLECTORS PROPOSED TRAIL N PROPOSED UDA & SWSA EXPANSION URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA (1��A) qVW. WFR/WATP RFWJTrW ARRA . .. .. .... . f WESTERN JUBAL EARLY LAND USE PLAN SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA . .... . . . . [DATA COMPILATION AND MAPPING FURNISHED BY: —0,al GREENWAY ENGINEERING Pbun&d in sa?,y ''yrRill Lane inIMe , Virginia 22602 Telephone 540-662-4186 zn Sua.ine r yore FAX 540-722-9628 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #07-03 HIATT RUN CONDOMINIUMS Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: October 29, 2003 Staff Contact: Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in reviewing this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 11/19/03 Pending Board of Supervisors: 12/10/03 Pending LOCATION: This property is located at the corner of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and McCanns Road (Route 838), south of the Stephenson area. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 44-A-17 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RP (Residential Performance) Land Use: Unimproved ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: Zoned RP District South: Zoned RP District East: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District West: Zoned RP District Zoned M1 District Use: S.F. Residential Use: S.F. Residential McCann Road (Route 838) Use: Agricultural & Public Facility Use: S.F. Residential & Church Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) Industrial PROPOSED USE: Multi -family residential condominium complex (96 dwelling units) MDP #07-03, HIATT RUN CONDOMINIUMS Page 2 October 29, 2003 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The preliminary master plan for this property appears to have a measurable impact on Route 11, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property. The overall concept is acceptable, but the following items will need to be addressed on the site plan for approval: Relocation of the proposed force main from under the roadway to the right-of-way or as close as possible; Possible maintenance easement for the proposed 96 foot leg of 15 inch storm water pipe carrying the runoff from Route 11; Due to the increase traffic maneuvers generated by this development, it is expected the developer will overly Route 11 along the front of this proposed project to prevent further deterioration of the roadway. Before making any final comments, this office will require a complete set of site plans and drainage calculations for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization and all -site road improvements and drainage. Prior to construction on the State's right- of-way, the developer will need to apply to this office for issuance of appropriate permits to cover said work. Fire Marshal: Emergency Vehicle Access Comments: Fire lane markings and signage at all fire hydrants and fire department connections. Access Comments: Frederick County Code required two fire hydrants within 300 feet of all units in structures with six or more dwelling units per structure. These shall be identified during the site plan process. Additional Comments: These structures may require residential fire sprinkler systems. Access to FDC will be required. Sanitation Authority: 2nd review - approved. County Inspections: Dwelling shall comply with The Virginia Uniform statewide Building Code and section 310, use group R (Residential) of the BOCA National Building Code/1996 and the CABO One and Two Family Dwelling Code/1995. Note: The International Building and Residential 2000 Codes can be utilized through modification until adoption. Public Works: A comprehensive review of the site shall be performed at the time of site plan submission. Geographic Information Systems: The following road names are APPROVED as new road names and reserved for use by the Hiatt Run Condominiums subdivision in the Frederick County Road Naming System: Hays Meadow Circle. Parks & Recreation: Staff recommends that the proposed linear park trail be ten feet in width and meet the minimum hard surface standards used by this department for trail construction. This recommendation is based on the Federal Highway Administration and American Association of State Transportation Officials guidelines which state that two directional linear walkingibike trails should be a minimum of ten feet in width. This trail should also be designed in a manner which provides MDP #07-03, HIATT RUN CONDOMINIUMS Page 3 October 29, 2003 the opportunity to connect to trails that may by constructed on adjacent property that is currently undeveloped. Winchester Regional Airport: The above referenced master plan has been reviewed and it appears that it should not have an impact on operations at the Winchester Regional Airport as the proposed site falls outside of the airport's Part 77 surface. However, the site does lie within the airport's airspace and residents could experience fly -over noise from aircraft within that area.. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration in continuing safe operations of the Winchester Regional Airport. Frederick County Public Schools: No additional comments at this time. HRAB: See attached letter from Rebecca Ragsdale, dated September 17, 2003. This letter describes the HRAB's recommendations for this development. Planning & Zoning: Site History: The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Stephenson Quadrangle) depicts the zoning for the subiect parcel as R-3 (Residential Limited) District. The zoning changed to RP (Residential General) District on September 28, 1983 when the R1, R2, R3, and R6 zoning districts were reclassified. Site Suitability: Land Use Compatibility: The site of the proposed development is located in an area with a mixture of land uses. The dominant land use in the area is single-family residential. However, manufactured housing, agriculture and business uses can be found within close proximity of the subject property. The proposed master development plan is a multifamily development with a higher than average density of dwelling units per acre (9.6 per acre) for the area. While this density is permitted by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, care should be taken when a higher density development is proposed in an area with lower densities (Comprehensive Policy Plan, 6-69). Historic Resources: The Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley, published by the National Park Service, identifies the site as being part of the Second and Third Battles of Winchester core battlefield. Specifically, the site is part of the area of Stephenson's Depot. The Frederick MDP #07-03, HIATT RUN CONDOMINIUMS Page 4 October 29, 2003 County Battlefield Network Plan encourages the strategy of working with developers and landowners to preserve key areas of historical significance. The Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) reviewed the proposed application on September 16, 2003. The HRAB had great concern over the loss of core battlefield, and did not believe that the proposed use was compatible with the surrounding land uses. However, the HRAB understood that the parcel is zoned appropriately for the proposed development. Therefore, they recommended various measures that could be taken to reduce the potential impact the development would have on the surrounding properties and historical resources. These recommendations included: changing the building layout to minimize visibility from Stephenson's Depot; reducing the height of all buildings; committing to an architectural design complementary to the area; increasing landscaping along Martinsburg Pike (Route 11); preserving the stone wall that currently exists along McCann Lane; adding a farm fence along Martinsburg Pike (Route 11); and allowing for the possibility of linking the proposed trail with a future trail leading to the battlefield property to the south. The applicant has revised the plan to address the HRAB's suggestion regarding the linking of trails. The proposed preliminary master development plan has not been revised to address the other suggestions of the HRAB. Environment: Hiatt Run, a tributary to Opequon Creek, flows through the southern portion of the 10 -acre parcel. Part of the recently adopted ordinance to replace the woodlands ordinance, established the requirement for a riparian buffer along all natural waterways in Frederick County. No development or land disturbance is permitted in a riparian buffer, other than for public facilities, roads, and utilities. Thus, a riparian buffer is required as part of this development. Floodplains also exist on the property and will be surveyed by the applicant prior to approval of the site plan or subdivision design plan. No disturbance of the floodway is proposed by this development. No lakes, ponds, steep slopes, or other environmental features exist on the parcel. Transportation: The site has road frontage along Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and McCanns Road (Route 838). Martinsburg Pike is a major collector road (CPP, 7-9). The Frederick County Primary Road Improvement Plan (priority 2b) depicts this segment of Martinsburg Pike to be improved to an urban four lane system in the future. Furthermore, the Comprehensive Policy Plan delineates Martinsburg Pike as a possible location for a future bicycle trail (CPP, 7-16). McCanns Road is a local road, without plans for improvement at this time. Access to the 10 - acre site is proposed via two new entrances off of Martinsburg Pike. These entrances meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, and have been preliminarily approved by VDOT. MDP #07-03, HIATT RUN CONDOMINIUMS Page 5 October 29, 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan: The Frederick County Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP) identifies the area of the subject parcel as "developmentally sensitive". The Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSAS) were recommended along Martinsburg Pike with the aim of protecting existing residential land uses, historical features, and maintaining open space (CPP, 6-33). The 10 -acre site is within the County's Urban Development Area (UDA). Project Scope The preliminary master development plan for Hiatt Run Condominiums consists of 96 garden apartments (condominiums) on 10.0 acres. This calculates to a gross density of 9.6 dwelling units per acre. The zoning ordinance permits a gross density of 10.0 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is proposing a recreational area, which would integrate open space, riparian buffers, and the recreational units that are required for this development. A 10' wide trail will be provided in this recreational area. The trail will be open to the public, but maintained by the future homeowners association of the development. To avoid disturbance of the vegetation around Hiatt Run, the proposed trail will cross the creek within the VDOT right- of-way. The applicant has stated that the developer intends to utilize the ornamental landscaping option of the recently adopted landscaping ordinance. Landscaping is also required for the proposed parking areas, and as necessary for the required residential separation and road efficiency buffers. The applicant has proposed an alternative landscape screen for the south residential separation buffer than what is required by the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance requires a landscape screen consisting of 3 trees per 10 linear feet. The south property line is 477.60 feet long. Therefore, approximately 144 trees are required. The applicant only proposes to plant 22 trees, but would like to utilize the existing vegetation on the property in lieu of the other required trees. The Planning Commission may grant such a waiver request when natural barriers, topography or other features achieve the functions of the landscape screen (Zoning Ordinance, pg. 16559, Section 165-37 B (1)). Issues: Below is a list of concerns which should be considered in more detail during the review process with the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors: 1) Historical Resources. The proposed plan meets or exceeds the Zoning Ordinance's requirements for environmental preservation; however, little is offered to preserve MDP #07-03, HIATT RUN CONDOMINIUMS Page 6 October 295 2003 the historical integrity of the property. While this can not be required, because it is not an ordinance requirement, staff strongly encourages the applicant to consider the suggestions of the HRAB. 2) Screening Waiver. It would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to determine if the applicant's request to substitute existing vegetation for required trees along the south property line is appropriate. As discussed in the above staff report, the required landscaping screen is a component of the required residential separation buffer between the proposed development and the single-family homes across McCann Road. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 10/01/03 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The overall concept of this Master Development Plan is consistent with the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance. All of the issues identified by staff, as well as those issues brought forth by the Planning Commission, should be appropriately addressed prior to a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. The applicant is seeking a recommendation for administrative approval authority during the Planning Commission meeting on November l9, 2003. The applicant is also seeking a decision regarding the requested screening waiver mentioned above. 8 FIE (CIFY COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 September 18, 2003 Ms. Sara Beth Saurino Painter -Lewis, P.L.C. 302 South Braddock Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Hiatt Run Condominium Complex Master Development Plan Martinsburg Pike and McCann Lane; Zoning District: RP (Residential Performance) Dear Ms. Saurino: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the referenced proposal during their meeting of September 16, 2003. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley, and information contained in the Frederick County Battlefield Network Plan. The F RAB also considered details you provided about the proposed development and comments from the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation. Historic Resources Advisory Board Concerns The vacant parcel proposed to be developed with eight condominium buildings is located within the limits of the Second Battle of Winchester and the Third Battle of Winchester (Opequon) core battlefield areas, as delineated by the National Park Service. In particular, the site proposed for development is adjacent to Stephenson Depot. Therefore, the HRAB has expressed concern for loss of core historic battlefields and believes the proposed use is incompatible with surrounding land uses. Specifically, the HRAB has concerns about loss of battlefield viewsheds, the proposed density of the development and its impacts on Stephenson's Depot. Based on the above concerns, the HRAB was not in favor of the proposed development. However, the HRAB recognizes that the property is already zoned for residential uses and should the property develop, suggests the following be considered to mitigate impacts on historic resources: Building layout: Given the topography of the property and the adjoining battlefields, consider an alternate grouping of buildings to minimize visibility from Stephenson's Depot. Height of buildings: Consider a building height that is more compatible with surrounding land uses, such as one story instead of three. This would also address concerns regarding battlefield viewsheds. 107 North Kent Street ■ Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Ms. Sara Beth Saurino Re: Hiatt Run Condominium Complex Master Development Plan September 18, 2003 Page 2 Architecture of buildings: Consider building materials and architectural features more inkeeping with the character of the surrounding properties. Landscaping along Martinsburg Pike: Provide additional landscaping along Martinsburg Pike to minimize visibility of parking areas. Include a fence as part of landscaping features along the roadway that is reminiscent of fencing historically found along Old Valley Pike. Stonewall along McCann Lane: The HRAB suggests preservation of the existing stonewall along the property line adjacent to McCann Lane. Connections to other Battlefield Resources: Provide trail linkages to adjacent battlefield resources, as trail systems occur on these properties. The HRAB discourages use of asphalt or similar surface materials on any trails constructed. Please contact me with any questions concerning these comments from the HRAB. Sincerely, Rebecca Ragsdale Planner I cc�ssie Solenberger, HRAB Chairperson yynfla Tyler, Stonewall District Supervisor ..Jeremy Camp, Planner II U.\COMM TEES\FIRAB\Com ents\2003\HiattRunMDP.wpd 838 r/,//gRP Al. ryd` RA 'S'a RA o� J T MDP ##07-03 Hiatt Run Condominiums PIN: 44-A- 17 N W+ s D 100 20D Fee 837 RP 11 44 A 12A CHARLES ' L'y 7r RjD F� ZUC ERMAN & SON INC RP M1 Oq 44 A 1 Rp BF r LORD " S,o 'Sr�q 'QY RP 44 A 18 Q�& 4' WESLEYAN o� ,. METHODIST A 17 HOLLIDAY 44 A 40 RP SLAUGHTER RA Rp " �tigiN ?O \ Rp 838 r/,//gRP Al. ryd` RA 'S'a RA o� J T MDP ##07-03 Hiatt Run Condominiums PIN: 44-A- 17 N W+ s D 100 20D Fee July 15, 2003 Mr. Timothy G. Painter, P.E. Painter - Lewis, P.L.C. 302 South Braddock Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 H FIE COPY COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development RE: Preliminary Review Comments for Hiatt Run Condominiums Property Identification Number (PIN) 44-A-17 Dear Tim: 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 Thank you for giving me the opportunity to provide you with preliminary review comments for the proposed development referred to as Hiatt Run Condominiums, received by staff on July 9, 2003. My review comments are shown below for your consideration. Preliminary Review Comments: 1) Road Efficiency Buffer Waiver. The Zoning Ordinance requires a six foot tall berm and a single row of evergreen trees for a reduced distance road efficiency buffer. The Planning Commission must specifically approve your alternative design which has a double row of evergreen trees without a berm. Please request a waiver as part of your master development plan application or modify the plan to conform with the Zoning Ordinance'. 2) Residential Separation Buffer & Landscape Screen Waiver. Please show the required residential separation buffer along McCann Road. Furthermore, you should also request a waiver as part of your master development plan, because a landscape screen is not provided as required in the Zoning Ordinance 2. 3) Riparian Buffer. Please consider the following concerns regarding the proposed riparian buffer. a) Please demonstrate how the riparian buffer will be protected from disturbance from the proposed residential development. The close proximity of building one is a concern. b) Please provide information regarding the intended future ownership, use, and maintenance of this area. C) Only public utilities, public facilities, and roads may disturb riparian buffers. Therefore, the proposed trail and pavilion must be public facilities. 1 Section 165-37E. (3) Z Section 165-37B. (1) 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Page 2 Mr. Timothy G. Painter, P.E. Re: Preliminary Comments for Hiatt Run Condominiums July 15, 2003 d) Staff suggests that an easement be provided from the proposed trail system to the parcel identified by PIN 44 -A -17A. This could allow the trail system to be tied into a regional trail system in the future. 4) Recreational Units. Please account for the required recreational units. The Zoning Ordinance requires four recreational units for 96 dwelling units (1 per 30 units). 5) Agricultural / Historical Setback "Recommendation." Staff suggests that you provide a more substantial buffer and/or screen between the proposed development and the agricultural/ historically significant parcel located to the east. The current layout may have an impact on the future agricultural use of the adjoining parcel, as well as its potential historical interpretation. 6) Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) Future Improvements. The Frederick County Primary Road Improvement Plan calls for Martinsburg Pike to become an Urban Four Lane System in the future. Additional right-of-way along Route 11 may be necessary. Please work with VDOT to determine what is necessary to accommodate this future road project. The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan calls for a future bicycle path along Martinsburg Pike 3. 7) Agency Comments. Please provide agency/department comments from the following agencies: HRAB (Historic Resources Advisory Board), Fire Marshal, Inspections, Public Works, VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation), Dept. of GIS, Sanitation Authority and Parks & Recreation. You should contact Rebecca Ragsdale, Frederick County Planner I, to schedule a meeting with the HRAB for their review of the proposed development. Please adequately address the above comments prior to your formal submission of master development plan. For acceptance, you will need to submit a complete MDP application, which includes review agency comments and review fee, to this department. Once this information is received, and all review comments addressed, staff will schedule the application for review by the Planning Commission. Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Jeremy F. Camp - Planner II JFC/bah 3 CPP pg. 7-15 U: UeremyWaster Development PlansUliatt Run CondominiumsIPreliminaryReviewComments.wpd Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package APPLICIATION MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. Project Title: 41a-�-�- 2. Owner's Name: (Please list the names of all owners or parties in intrest) 3. Applicant: Address: zod W,cs,�� Jt� 2zco�1 Phone Number: 4. Design Company:��ur�n Address: ��c. S• �oo�� sr. rtld- zz(gUi - Phone Number: 6=-,4 o-) "z- -571z__. Contact Name: Mme. `T; Lr. Page 11 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package APPLICATION cont'd MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 5. Location of Property: -n eF= O's. RFU 1l A.uc� V0.. SZ rE 83 441t_ tete- TowrL O �p►l�uScn1 �)Ar 6. Total Acreage: 10• 4,CZ Q:4, 7. Property Information: a) Property Identification Number (PIN): 4 An b) Current Zoning: �-►r' c) Present Use: S d) Proposed Proposed Uses: M��/n - �aM« �, gp-,,o�� e) Adjoining Property Information: Property Identification Numbers Property Uses North V,.o.w. South 4 -ICC A•)) 40 East -44 ((A.» I D S.F. 4c-;� � pe�lt-n c West 2ocao o. f) Magisterial District: S. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan? Original - -X_ Amended I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. I also understand that the master development plan shall include all contiguous land under single or common ownership. All required material will be complete prior to the submission of my master development plan application. Signature: ✓' �--� Date: 3 _ Page 12 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package Adjoining Property Owners MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 1st floor of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street. NAME ADDRESS / PROPERTY NUMBER Name Ji s� i <✓ . 2 L-A LA'- —T lx�e-D Address Z 3 I Q A2Tl NS �J2 (r Plc Pr°i"� # 4.4 C 4» to �wDir,�- Nj�LauN � Ii0 14-4- a) -►o VT► koe.-1� -4 17 k- �� c��1-4�� D, �i.'� . B•tg�P �I�ETQc "� . LA 4AI �► ES I O Z C'M`G &WVAS o�fl llJ�s�c�(,�.�.t, ►`��r�-r�fl,s-r-- X81 �.�s,- c�tU� �t�.� 44 (� A» ►a TJ j?-L_cx. V4 Page 18 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package Name r NA "Cl L,—c-7 51 2 Address ZZ�/ AeiltlSel c Property # � N,L E . 5��5► �.�. Z Val A� ((A� 14 �EFroN �. sum 7-Z.-1 M �Q� ►Js rrc c� t c -4.4�C��) +3 ��-��►a�,� 4,4 ,,/o L, cPAy (o w Ar p �N-��e—L-jF k/IS Pic_ LAPPi-ie-A Al—i Page 19 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II ;'-�L- DATE: October 20, 2003 RE: Discussion - New Frederick County Middle School Site Plan FAX: 540/665-6395 At the November 19, 2003 Planning Commission meeting, staff will present the site plan for the New Frederick County Middle School to the Planning Commission for review. Customarily, projects involving public facilities are brought before the Planning Commission prior to site plan approval. A representative of the Frederick County Schools will be present during the Planning Commission meeting. The site of the New Frederick County Middle School is located on the eastern side of Front Royal Pike (Route 522 S), south of its intersection with Papermill Road (Route 644). Access will be provided to Front Royal Pike via a new major collector road and school access road. As you probably are already aware, the site for the New Frederick County Middle School is currently being prepped for construction. Land disturbance and construction of the road to the site is underway. Construction of the school itself is anticipated to begin before the year is over. A smaller version of the site plan is attached for your information. Please contact me if you would like to see the full version, or if you need any additional information. JFC/bad U. VeremyUire Plan Review13003 Middle SchooAPC_DiscussionMemo—yul 107 North rent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II ;'-�L- DATE: October 20, 2003 RE: Discussion - New Frederick County Middle School Site Plan FAX: 540/665-6395 At the November 19, 2003 Planning Commission meeting, staff will present the site plan for the New Frederick County Middle School to the Planning Commission for review. Customarily, projects involving public facilities are brought before the Planning Commission prior to site plan approval. A representative of the Frederick County Schools will be present during the Planning Commission meeting. The site of the New Frederick County Middle School is located on the eastern side of Front Royal Pike (Route 522 S), south of its intersection with Papermill Road (Route 644). Access will be provided to Front Royal Pike via a new major collector road and school access road. As you probably are already aware, the site for the New Frederick County Middle School is currently being prepped for construction. Land disturbance and construction of the road to the site is underway. Construction of the school itself is anticipated to begin before the year is over. A smaller version of the site plan is attached for your information. Please contact me if you would like to see the full version, or if you need any additional information. JFC/bad U. VeremyUire Plan Review13003 Middle SchooAPC_DiscussionMemo—yul 107 North rent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 PARKING TABULATIONS GENERAL PARKING = 140 SPACES SPECIAL EVENT PARKING = 103 SPACES AND TOTAL PARKING = 243 SPACES BUS LOOP SERVES 20 BUSES OVERNIGHT BUS PARKING = 26 BUSES PROPOSED MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE 30.53 ACRES NEW MIDDLE SCHOOL FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SITE PLAN ao �yi`pj`i BUS LOOP —u, Veal" Af / FIRE - 0 Oliver, Webb, Pappas & Rhudy, Inc.