Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout012-05 Rezoning - Villages at Artrip - Shawnee RA to R4 169.924 Acres - BackfileII CY.i flan C� Al DATE RECEIVEDFROM��_[��`+-�aS'1�---���v---- LI, l l �i�1S0.1Y\�--__I1al� ti1 >}�i 1 l�lT- — DOLLARS QFOR REN FOR l` �,Y\ `Q � 9 �, A ACCOUNT CASH 4,,G — - - ----- -- - -TO- ROM - ---- -- - - - PAYMENT CHEC BAL. DUE - - MONEY BY � - $— 1182 OREZONING TRACKING SH4EET 0 Check List: Application Form Proffer Statement Impact Analysis Adjoiner List DATE S o� Fee & Sign Deposit Deed Il" Plat/Survey Taxes Paid Statement Impact Model Run Application received/file opened Reference manual updated/number assigned D-base updated Copy of adjoiner list given to staff member for verification Four sets of adjoiner labels ordered from data processing -o`er-����location map ordered from Mapping �% • /'o� • O File given to office manager to pdate Application Action Summary -WCa'—'public heann date A INN: 66 BOS public hearing date ACTION: for amendment -of ordinance, with conditions proffered Signe&copy of resolution [if applicable], received from County Administrator's office and given to office manager for placement in the Proffers Notebook. (Note: If rezoning has no proffers, resolution goes in Amendments Without Proffers Notebook.) U Action letter mailed to applicant 0 Reference manual and D-base updated (e given to office manager to update Application Action Summary (final action) "! File given to Mapping/GIS to update zoning map Zoning map amended v U CarohCommonWacking. rez Revised 05/09/02 1 E CK CO o I Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 November 15, 2006 Mr. David Frank Dewberry 611 W. Jubal Early Dr., Bldg. B, Ste. C Winchester, VA 22601 RE: APPROVAL OF REZONING 1412-05, VILLAGES AT ARTRIP, AND MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 409-05 Dear David: This letter serves to confirm action taken by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their meeting of November 8, 2006. The above -referenced rezoning application was approved to rezone 169.924 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District for the proposed mixed use development of 793 residential units and retail, restaurant, office and public uses, with proffers dated October 25, 2006. The property is located one mile west of Interstate 81, three quarters mile north of Tasker Road (Route 649), 150 feet north of Fair Lawn Court (Route l l 76) and west of Canter Estates Section V, Falabella Drive, and is identified with Property Identification Number 75-A-99A in the Shawnee Magisterial District. The October 25, 2006 proffer statement that was approved as a part of this rezoning application is unique to this property and is binding regardless of ownership. Master Development Plan 409-05, a proffered condition of the rezoning application, was also approved. This Master Development Plan identifies the layout, design, and details of the project. The rezoning application and Master Development Plan 909-05 were approved with three modifications as enabled by the R4 zoning classification; Modification 41 (Section 165-72.B.(2)) provided for modifications to the housing types permitted with this project. Appendix A of the Proffer Statement identifies the alternative dimensional requirement plan which is approved for this project. Modification 92 (Section 165-71 Mixture of Housing Types Required) provided that more than 40 percent of the total residential land area may be used for multifamily housing products. Modification #3 (Section 165-62.D) provided for an increase in the overall gross density of the project from 4 units per acre to 4.7 units per acre. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 • David Frank Re: Rezoning and Master Development Plan, Villages at Artrip November 15, 2006 Page 2 Enclosed is a copy of the adopted proffer statement for your records. Also enclosed is the final Master Development Plan for the Villages at Artrip (MDP #09-05). Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any questions regarding the approval of this rezoning application or the approval of Master Development Plan #09-05. We look forward to working with you and the Villages at Artrip team as the project moves forward. Sincerely, —� ✓ Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director MTR/bad Attachment cc: Gene Fisher, Shawnee Magisterial District Supervisor June Wilmot and Robert A. Morris, Shawnee Magisterial District Commissioners Jane Anderson, Real Estate Commissioner of Revenue Jim Doran, Parks and Recreation Al Orndoff, Frederick County Public Schools John H. Foote, Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley, Emrich & Walsh, PC, 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300, Prince William, Virginia 22192 Winchester-Artrip Limited Partnership, 11501 Huff Ct., North Bethesda Court, MD 20895 0 0 REZONING APPLICATION #12-05 AND MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 909-05 VILLAGES AT ARTRIP Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors Prepared: October 24, 2005 (Revised October 30, 2006) Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 08/03/05 Tabled 60 days w/consent of Applicant 10/05/05 Tabled 60 days w/consent of Applicant 12/07/05 Applicant requested delay to 12/21/05 12/21/05 Tabled 60 days w/consent of Applicant 02/15/06 Recommended Approved with Caveat Board of Supervisors: 10/11/06 Tabled 30 days w/consent of Applicant 11/08/06 Pending(**See update on Page 28**) PROPOSAL: To rezone 169.924 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Plarmed Community) District for the proposed mixed use development of 793 (Previously 905) Residential Units and Retail, Restaurant, Office and Public Uses. LOCATION: The property is located one mile west of Interstate 81, three quarters mile north of Tasker Road (Route 649),150 feet north of Fair Lawn Court (Route 1176) and west of Canter Estates Section V, Falabella Drive. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 75-A-99A ROPERTY ZONING & U Zoned: (Rural Areas) District Use: Unimproved ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: B2 (Business General) RA (Rural Area) South: RP (Residential Performance) East: RP (Residential Perfoiniance) West: RP (Residential Performance) RA (Rural Area) PROPOSED USES Use: Unimproved Agricultural Use: Residential/FCSA Use: Residential Use: Residential/Vacant Residential 793 Residential Units, Retail, Restaurants, Office and Public Uses (a maximum of 128,550 square feet and a minimum of 20, 000 square feet of commercial use has been proffered). • 0 Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 30, 2006 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 719. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Villages at Artrip rezoning application dated May 20, 2005 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. The developer will be required to enter into a signalization agreement with VDOT at the time the roadway is requested to be accepted into the State's Secondary System. The developer will be liable for the cost of the signal. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use penuit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. BOS Update: Please see attached correspondence dated September 29, 2006from Mr. Lloyd Ingram, VDOT. Fire Marshal: Where the desire of the developer to provide proffers is appreciated, the development of this project will have an overwhelming impact on fire and rescue services. Water supplies for firefighting and access shall be addressed during the Subdivision Plan Review. Plan approval recominended. Stephens City Volunteer fire Dept.: No comments offered. Public Works Department: Your letter dated June 13, 2005 has adequately addressed our previous review conunents related to the rezoning application and master development plan associated with the proposed Villages at Artrip. Frederick County Dept. of Inspections: No comment required. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No connnents regarding infonnation submitted. Application recognizes that expansion of Parkins Mills is necessary to accommodate project build -out. Sanitation Authority: No comment. Health Department: No objection or continent, so long as municipal sewer and water services are provided to entire project. Department of Parks & Recreation: The area identified as a school site and open space for use by the Parks and Recreation Department does not appear to be adequate to accormnodate both uses. The typical section on page three of five of the Master Development Plan indicates trails to be between five and ten feet in width. The Parks and Recreations Department reconunends all trail to be a minimum of ten feet in width. The revised proffer statement has modified proffer 5.1 to reflect ten foot bike trails. Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 30, 2006 Page 3 The Proffer Statement should include language which indicates the bridge design (The proffer statement, Section 14.2.1.1) will accommodate bicycle lanes. The proposed monetary proffer for Parks and Recreation appears to be less than what the impact model would indicate is needed to offset the impact of this development. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 155 single-family homes, 180 town houses and 570 multi -family units will yield 49 high school students, 47 middle school students and 131 elementary school students for a total of 227 new students upon build -out. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. The resubmitting of this rezoning application with its proffer statement provides approximately 11 acres to be dedicated for a future elementary school site (minimum acreage needed for an elerentary site would be 15 acres). It is imperative with the above number of units included with this project that an elementary school be located in this area. With current building trends, future considerations need to be given to additional middle and high school facilities. Also because of the continued growth in Frederick County, the replacement of certain administrative facilities such as the transportation and administration, which currently have exceeded their capacity, will need to be replaced or expanded. This proffer helps to address the impact of a future elementary school; however, the impact of this type of application on other current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Winchester Regional Airport: We have reviewed the above referenced rezoning application/master plan and it appears that the proposed site plan will not have an impact on operations at the Winchester Regional Airport as the majority of the subdivision falls outside of the Airport's Part 77 surface. No special requirements or conditions are requested on behalf of the Winchester Regional Airport Authority. Frederick County Attorney: See attached letter from Mr. Bob Mitchell, Jr., dated August 3, 2005. Historic Resources Advisory Board: Upon review of the property rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic properties and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by the HRAB. The Rural Landmarks Survey and the Comprehensive Policy Plan do not identify any significant historic structures or battlefield located on or adjacent to the property. Geographic Information Systems: Warrior Drive and Lakeside Drive are continuations of existing roadways and names. Parkins Mill Road will not be accepted as a road name. It conflicts with roadways and names already in the system, and is not considered an extension of an existing roadway name. The potential for up to 21 road names has been noted. Any "Private Road" that is the primary entrance for four or more properties must be named before numbering/addressing can be completed. This MDP is presented as a suburban setting and not a rural setting. Therefore, future road names with such suffixes as Road, Lane, Loop, Trail, Bypass, Grade, Highway, Interstate, Overlook, Pike and Turnpike will not be accepted into the system. Acceptable road name suffixes for this development Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 30, 2006 Page 4 include Alley, Avenue, Boulevard, Circle, Court, Drive, Place, Plaza, Square, Street, Terrace and Way. Town of Middletown: None. Town of Stephens City: Traffic concerns as always. City of Winchester: From a regional transportation standpoint, the inability to provide connectivity to Warrior Drive where the bridge is needed at the south end raises concerns in terms of traffic impacts. Planning & ZoninjZ: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned R-2 (Residential Limited). The parcels were re -mapped from R- 2 to A-2 (Agricultural General) pursuant to the County's comprehensive downzoning initiative (Zoning Amendment Petition #011-80), which was adopted on October 8, 1980. The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. 2) Intended Use The applicant proposes the development of a mixed use project; a residential planned community with an arrangement of residential villages containing a mixture of housing types focused around core area which incorporates a neighborhood conunercial center. Also proposed is the dedication of areas for public use including an eleven acre site for an elementary school. The project is proposed to be developed in three phases. Through the proffer statement, the project would be limited to 905 residential units. The proposed gross residential density for the Villages at Artrip is 5.40 units per acre. The applicant has not committed to construct any more than 10,000 square feet of commercial uses. However, the ability has been provided to enable up to 118,550 square feet of conunercial uses. The construction of Warrior Drive as a four lane section throughout the limits of this property to connect with Warrior Drive in the Wakeland Manor and Crosspointe developments is a key component of the project. BOS Update: The project would be limited to 793 residential units. The proposed gross residential density for the project is 4.7 units per acre. The Applicant has tine ability to construct up to 128,500 feet of commercial uses. However, only 20,000 square feet has been committed to be constructed, corresponding with the second phase of the development. Also proposed is the dedication of an eighteen acre site for an elementary school and an additional five acres for public use adjacent to the property owned by the FCSA. 3) Master Development Plan Requirement In order to have land rezoned to the R4 District, a master development plan, meeting all requirements of Article XVIII of the Zoning Ordinance shall be submitted with the rezoning application. In adopting the rezoning, the master development plan submitted will be accepted Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 30, 2006 Page 5 as a condition proffered for the rezoning. The master development plan review procedures described in Article XVIII must also be completed concurrently with or following the consideration of the rezoning. The purpose of the master development plan requirement is to ensure that the intent of the residential planned community is met. The intention of the R4 District is too provided for a mixture of housing types and uses within a carefully planned setting. Special care should be taken in the approval of the master development plan to ensure that the uses on the land are arranged to provide for compatibility of uses, to provide environmental protection, and to avoid adverse impacts on surrounding properties and facilities. The R4 District is intended to create new neighborhoods with an appropriate balance between residential, employment, and service uses. Innovative design is encouraged. Special care is taken in the approval of R4 developments to ensure the necessary facilities, roads, and improvements are available or provided to support the R4 development. Residential planned community developments shall only be approved in conformance with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan. 3) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1] Land Use The parcels comprising this rezoning application are located within the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Urban Development Area defines the general area in which more intensive forms of residential development will occur. In addition, The Villages at Artrip property is located within the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan and is identified with a Mixed Use designation north and east of Warrior Drive and a Residential designation south and east of Warrior Drive. As noted in the Comprehensive Plan, the mixed use areas are envisioned to include residential and commercial components, of which a maximum of 75 percent of the land area would be residential. The mixed use concept is intended to promote land use patterns that allow for internal service, employment and intermodal transportation opportunities with public open space linkages between various developments. The concept is offered as a diversion from the typical segregation of land uses into specific zoning districts that are often unrelated to each other such as is presently evident in the County. The Villages at Artrip rezoning application request is consistent with the land use designations identified in the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. With the more urban densities envisioned for development in the UDA, the Comprehensive Plan seeks to ensure that special effort is made to provide the infrastructure necessary to accommodate the desired land uses and densities. Further, as land is developed in the Southern Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 30, 2006 Page 6 Frederick Land Use Plan portion of the Urban Development Area, the Plan identifies the preservation of the stream valleys as environmental open space is an important goal that contributes to the protection of flood plains and water quality and provides a continuous system of green open space. Transportation. The Southern Frederick Land Use Plan and the Eastern Road Plan identify new road systems which have been planned to effectively manage traffic generated from the various uses, to link various land uses with arterial and collector road systems, and to provide for signalization opportunities at critical intersections as areas develop. The most significant transportation element in the Comprehensive Plan that relates to this application is Warrior Drive. Warrior Drive is identified as a major collector road with a four lane urban section that traverses the property in a south-east to north-westerly direction. Also identified are Parkins Mill Road and an extension of Lakeside Drive into the project. Both are identified as collector roads with a two lane section. The new road systems within the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan are planned to mitigate impacts to the environmental features and historic areas. The plan encourages public access and the development of bicycle facilities and pedestrian walkway systems that serve residential, mixed use and planned unit development areas. The plan also reconnmends limiting connmercial entrances, utilizing master planned boulevard entrances, and increased parking lot setbacks for corridor design and appearance enhancements. Pursuant to the general transportation policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, roads located adjacent to and within new development are expected to operate at no less than a Level of Service Category "C." (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 7-5) 4) Site Suitability/Environment The Villages at Artrip property is located inunediately south of the Opequon Creek. Areas of 100 Year Flood Plain, steep slopes, and mature woodlands associated with the Opequon Creek frame the northern boundary of the project as these features run along the entire length of the property. The majority of these environmental features will be protected in areas of open space. Disturbance of areas of mature woodlands will occur in the northwestern portion of the property. The limits of disturbance of the mature woodlands have been identified on the proffered master development plan. Further, the applicant has made efforts in the design of the MDP and within the proffer statement to minimize the disturbance of the mature woodlands and ensure the protection of these areas. Internal to the project the applicant has made further attempt to preserve areas of existing woodlands or specimen trees by ensuring their location in open space areas. This is evidenced with the location of a village green around the identified specimen Delaware Pine and the dedicated tree save area in Landbay F. A second significant stream, an untamed tributary to the Opequon Creek, traverses the southern portion of this property. Once again this feature and its associated flood plain, steep slopes, and mature woodlands have been located within areas of open space. A small amount of disturbance Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 30, 2006 Page 7 of the environmental features associated with the unnamed tributary will occur due to the construction of Warrior Drive. The master development plan prepared for this project ensures and demonstrates that any disturbance of identified enviromnental features will be done in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal requirements. The majority of the Villages at Artrip site are generally more suitable for development as it relatively level and open. Historically, the site was used for agricultural purposes. Located internal to the site are smaller areas of wetlands and waters of the U.S. which have been incorporated into the design of the master development plan. Of particular note is the farm pond located central to the project that the applicant has proffered to preserve as a focal point or visual amenity to the project. This village pond and its associated wetlands maybe erihanced for stormwater management function however its enviromnental integrity and aesthetic quality will be maintained with its proffered preservation. 5) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for this application projects that the development of 820 residential units, 60,000 square feet of office use, 150,000 square feet of retail use, and two 6,000 square foot restaurants would ultimately generate 15,623 vehicle trips per day. The actual proffered mix of land uses, identified in the introduction to this application, should be considered in comparison to this assumption when evaluating the TIA. The report was developed with primary access to the project being via the proposed Warrior Drive, a future roadway. The report was separated into three phases generally consistent with the proffered phasing of the development. Phase 1 assumes 297 residential units along with the completion of Warrior Drive from south of Tasker Road to the northern property extents of the Villages at Artrip; Phase 2 assumes 577 residential units and 10,000 square feet of retail along with the completion Warrior Drive from south of Tasker Road to the northern property extents of the Villages at Artrip; and Phase 3 assumes the build out of the entire Villages at Artrip development along with the completion of Warrior Drive from south of Tasker Road to north of Crosspointe Boulevard a future roadway within the planned Crosspointe development. The TIA concludes that the traffic impacts associated with the Villages at Artrip application are acceptable and manageable. The conclusion of the TIA further identifies suggested improvements that are assumed to be implemented to achieve an acceptable level of service at intersections throughout the study area network and to achieve an acceptable and manageable conclusion. It should be noted that many of the improvements identified relate to intersections beyond the boundaries of this project and that some of the identified improvements may be accomplished with other development projects. The Villages at Artrip project has not proffered to address any of the identified off -site improvements that are identified in Figure 21 a of the TIA (Phase 3: 2012 build out lane Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 30, 2006 Page 8 geometry and levels of service) which would accommodate this and other adjacent background projects and traffic. The assumption of the Villages at Artrip project is that these improvements will be put in place by others and that ultimate connection to the study area network will occur in a timely fashion. The transportation proffers provided by the Villages at Artrip project relate directly to on -site transportation improvements with one exception - the connection of Warrior Drive to its currently planned terminus on the Wakeland Manor project. Staff Comment: A scenario could be envisioned ivhere the Phase 3 build out of the Villages at Aririp project would occur, including the construction of the road nehvork through the limits of the Villages at Artrrip property, prior to any development in the adjacent portion of the Crosspointe development. This scenario mould be problematic tir,hen considering the structure of the Villages TIA, as this key connection to an off -site transportation nehv07-k is the main assumption of the third phase of the TIA. With no connection to Warrior Drive internal to the Crosspointe project, and subsequently the other transportation improvements that are part of the Crosspointe project, the assumptions of the third phase of the Villages TIA should be carefully considered. With the above scenario in mind, and with the sole access to the property being via Warrior Drive south to Tasker Road, it has not been demonstrated by the applicant that a Level of Service C will be achieved at the Warrior Drive/Tasker Road (south) intersection, and at other locations throughout the study, ivilh the full build out of the Villages project as permitted by 1»'offer. BOS Update: The applicant provided a supplement to the TIA to the Planning Commission which demonstrated that an acceptable level of service would be achieved at the above mentioned intersection with the suggested improvements identified in the TIA in place. Any effort to advance the ultimate construction of Warrior Drive from Tasker Road through to Crosspointe Boulevard as depicted in the TIA ii)ould be beneficial to the Villages at Artrip project. Transportation Approach. The Villages at Artrip application addresses the transportation improvements identified in the Comprehensive Plan and necessary to accommodate the Villages development by proffering to develop the ultimate four lane section of Warrior Drive within the limits of their property and beyond to connect with the currently planned terminus of the road on the Wakeland Manor property. The ultimate section of Warrior Drive is described in the impact statement and is identified in the MDP. Also proffered is the construction of Parkins Mill Road from its intersection with Warrior Drive to the limits of the property adjacent to the Canter Estates Section V property. Parkins Mill Road will be constructed by the applicant to a point that provides a connection to the existing road within Canter Estates Section V. The typical section of Parkins Mill Road is also depicted on the MDP. Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 30, 2006 Page 9 The applicant has proffered a three phased approach to the transportation improvements identified above that is consistent with the phasing provided for the proposed land uses within the project. In addition, the application has proposed an alternative three phased approach to the transportation improvements in the event that access to the project from the north and the Crosspointe development is advanced ahead of access to the south through the Wakeland Manor proj ect. BOS Update: The applicant's latest Proffer Statement dated September 8, 2006, maintains the three phased approach. However, the language addressing the construction of Phase III, from Point D to Point E has been modified to guarantee the bonding of the remainder of Warrior Drive ftom Point D to Point E rather than the completion by the Applicant. The construction by theApplicant of Warrior Drive throughout the project is a critical element of the rezoning application and should be secured This modification was made following the Planning Commission's recommendation. The completion of Warrior Drive entails the construction of the previously noted bridge over the unnamed tributary of the Opequon Creek. This significant crossing will occur with the first phase of the transportation improvements for the project. This crossing should accommodate the tail that parallels the length of Warrior Drive as identified in the proffers and the MDP. One roundabout intersection at Parkins Mill Road and two signalized intersections are identified in the TIA as being provided with this project. Pedestrian accommodations have been proffered at those locations where signalization is referenced in the TIA. Staff Comment: The Proffer Statement alludes to the provision of signalization consistent with the TIA; hoivever, the Proffer Statement does not specifically state that signalization ivill be provided at the locations identified in the TIA. Clarity should be provided by the applicant and in the Proffer Statement. This is particularly critical With the proffered location of a school site at one of these intersections. The Proffer Statement provides for the connection of Warrior Drive to the existing section of Warrior Drive in Wakeland Manor in Phase I of the road phasing program if Warrior Drive construction and phasing is initiated from the south. However, the road phasing program, if construction is initiated from Crosspointe, provides no commitment to making the connection to the existing section of Warrior Drive in Wakeland Manor, only to PointA as identified on the MDP. This critical omission should be clarified by the applicant and in the Proffer Statement. Also, Proffer 14.7.3 should be revised to ensure that Warrior Drive is constructed to the existing section of Warrior Drive in Wakeland Manor prior to the issuance of the 681 s' residential building permit. All road construction triggers should refer to issuance of residential building permits, not occupancy permits. It is important to ensure that the Parkins Mill Road extension, and connection to Canter Estates Section V, is in place in a timely fashion. It is staffs belief that this connection should be in place in conjunction with Phase2 of this development if not sooner. Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 30, 2006 Page 10 BOS Update: The applicant addressed the above comments in the Proffer Statement that was presented to the Planning Commission. Bicycle and pedestrian access has been provided throughout the project. The locations and details for these accommodations are clearly identified on the MDP. Staff has previously requested that consideration be given to extending pedestrian access to the adjacent Lakewood Manor subdivision. This would be extremely desirable and enhance access between the developments and to and from the dedicated elementary school site. The applicants currently own Lot 121 in the Lakewood Manor Subdivision. Pedestrian access at this location, via an access easement into the Villages at Artrip sidewalk network, would be appropriate and should be reconsidered by the applicant. The applicant should also consider extending a sidewalk along the south side of Parkins Mill road to provide a connection between the apartments and the adjacent Canter Estates Section V development. B. Sewer and Water The Villages at Artrip rezoning proposal is estimated to require approximately 204,710 gallons per day of water usage and is expected to generate a similar amount of wastewater. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority will serve the property and the wastewater flow from the site will go to the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Plant. The initial review of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority offered no comment and the review of the Frederick Winchester Service Authority identifies that the application recognizes that the expansion of the Parkins Mill facility is necessary to accommodate the projects build out. Recent planning efforts have identified that evolving nutrient reduction regulations promulgated by Virginia's Bay Program will have a significant impact on the permitted waste water capabilities of Frederick County. Both the Frederick Winchester Service Authority and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority are currently undertaking efforts to evaluate the regulations and proactively plan to address this issue. Requests for land use modifications should be evaluated very carefully in light of the evolving nutrient loading regulations. C. Historic Resources While no significant historical resources were identified on the property pursuant to the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey and other identified sources, several sites of interest were identified by the applicant. In particular, a family cemetery was identified that contained three to five gravesites. The applicant has incorporated the gravesite area into the reserved open space to ensure that it remains undisturbed. D. Community Facilities The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model is a tool that is used to identify the capital costs associated with various types of development proposals presented to the County. The projected Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 30, 2006 Page 11 costs to Fire and Rescue, Public Schools, Parks and Recreation, Library, Sheriff's Office and for the Administration Building are calculated and provided to the applicant for their consideration. The Fiscal Impact Model output for this project indicates a net negative fiscal impact at the build out of the project. It should be recognized that the applicant has only proffered the construction of 10,000 square feet of commercial use with the project. The ability remains to provide up to 118,550 square feet of commercial. However, the applicant has stated that this is dependent upon the ultimate completion of Warrior Drive from Crosspointe Boulevard to Tasker Road. No time frame is offered for the completion of the road and, therefore, no credit is provided for this potential commercial use. The R4 District requires that sufficient commercial areas shall be provided to meet the needs of the planned community, to provide for an appropriate balance of uses, and to lessen the overall impact of the plamzed conununity on Frederick County. The applicant has been encouraged to increase their comm-nitment to the introduction of a greater amount of commercial square footage at an earlier stage of the development phasing. A result of such a commitment would be to minimize the fiscal impact of the project to the County. Obviously, the more commercial land that is developed prior to the introduction of the residential components, the more the fiscal impacts of the residential units will be mitigated. In recognition of the fiscal impacts associated with this application, the applicant has proffered a contribution in the amount of $337 per residential unit for the public school system. The comment provided by the Frederick County Public Schools should be carefully considered when evaluating the application: The evaluation anticipated that the proposed 155 single-family homes, 180 town houses and 570 multi family units will yield 49 high school students, 47 middle school students and 131 elementary school students for a total of 227 new students upon build -out. Further, that significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrolbnents nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. BOS Update: At the time this rezoning application was submitted for review by the Planning Commission, the old Fiscal Impact Model was in effect. The initial review was based upon this model. Subsequently, the County adopted the Development Impact Model (DIM) which projected a higher dollar value impact on community facilities. The Proffer Statement submitted for the Board of Supervisors approval seeks to address the dollar values identified in the DIM by providing for approximately 75 percent of the projected DIM value for schools. All other community facility impact dollar values are based on the old fiscal impact model. Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 30, 2006 Page 12 Following the initial review of this application, the applicant resubmitted the rezoning application with a proffer statement that provides approximately 11 acres to be dedicated for a future elementary school site. The schools provided the following comment: The minimum acreage needed for an elementary site would be 15 acres. It is imperative with the above numbe7• of units included with this project that an elementary school be located in this area. With current building trends, future considerations need to be given to additional middle and high school facilities. Also, because of the continued growth in Frederick County, the replacement of certain administrative facilities such as transportation and administration, which currently have exceeded their capacity, will need to be replaced or expanded. This proffer helps to address the impact of a future elementary school; however, the impact of this type of application on other current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. The proposed dedication of land to facilitate the location of an elementary school in a location central to the rapidly developing areas of the County appears to be desirable in conjunction with this project. The availability of land from the properties adjacent to the proposed 11 acre dedication would have to be pursued to ensure that sufficient area could be obtained to accommodate an elementary school site. Alternately, sufficient area could be provided by the applicant within their property. It would also appear as though other impacts recognized by the public school system could be addressed to a greater extent. The applicant has also proffered a further dedication of five acres of public land identified as Landbay F, adjacent to the 11 acres, and has proffered a financial contribution to offset the fiscal impacts to the various County entities consistent with the results of the Fiscal Impact Model. BOS Update: As endorsed by the Planning Commission, the application provides for the dedication of an eighteen acre site for an Elementary School in the northeast corner of the site. Frederick County Public Schools has evaluated the proposal and determined that the proffered school site will accommodate an Elementary School at 750 program capacity with the required outside physical education and play areas (please see the letterfrom Frederick County Public Schools dated January 27, 2006). E. Permitted Uses and R4 Modifications. The Zoning Ordinance allows a variety of uses within the R4 District. In addition to this flexibility, the Ordinance provides for the preparation of an alternative dimensional requirement plan. The applicant may also request modifications to specific requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The applicant should justify that the requested modification is necessary or justified and further advance the goals and intent of the R4 residential planned community and particular project. The applicant's justification for the Villages at Artrip is contained within the Executive Summary of the Impact Statement and generally revolves around the desire to develop a neo-traditional development within the context of the residential planned community district concept. Rezoning 412-05 — Villages at Artrip October 30, 2006 Page 13 Modification #1 (Section 165-72.B.(2)) The Villages at Artrip application proposes modifications to the housing types permitted with this project. Appendix A proposes an alternative dimensional requirement plan which is incorporated into the Proffer Statement. This appendix provides additional development standards that shall apply to the Villages at Artrip project. Appendix A introduces several new housing types, including rear loading single family detached cluster housing types, single family attached stacked flats, and single family attached back to back units. This proffered Appendix constitutes an extension to the permitted uses within this district that are specifically applicable to this project. Modification #2 (Section 165-71. Mixture of Housing Types Required) The applicant is requesting that more than 40 percent of the total residential land area may be used for multifamily housing products. The master development plan identifies the general layout of the permitted uses and provides a clear picture of how the proposed uses relate to each other. The approval of this modification would enable the master development plan be developed as presented. Modification #3 (Section 165-62.D) The applicant is requesting an increase in the overall gross density of the project from 4 units per acre to 5.4 units per acre. The gross density of any development with an approved master development plan which contains more than 100 acres shall not exceed four dwellings per acre. This requirement is contained within the RP (Residential Performance) District. It is the applicant's belief that an increase in density is warranted in order to achieve the desired neo- traditional residential planned community and facilitate the proposed public improvements and proffered land dedication corninitments. BOS Update: Based upon the reduction in the number of residential units made prior to the Planning Commission's recommendation, the Applicant's request is for an increase in the overall gross density of the projectfrom 4 units per acre to 4.7 units per acre rather titan the 5.4 units per acre noted above. 6) Proffer Statement — Dated June 2005, revised through September 8, 2006 The Villages at Artrip Proffer Statement is substantial in size and content and includes an appendix containing an alternative dimensional requirement plan and an appendix containing a signage plan. However, probably the most significant element of the Proffer Statement is the master development plan that has been prepared for this project. This master development plan identifies the layout, design, and details of the project and seeks to create an imlovative and unique neighborhood that is representative of the intent of the R4 Residential Planned Community District. The master development plan identifies a core area that is designed to establish the tone and character for the development. Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Al trip October 30, 2006 Page 14 The master development plan has been reviewed for conformance with the master plan requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (see section 7). The provision of the master development plan provides additional security as to the development of the property. Future modifications to the master development plan would necessitate this project going through a new rezoning process and a thorough public evaluation. The following is a summary of some of the other key elements of the proffer statement. 1) A maximum of 793 residential units (previously 905). 2) A gross residential density of 4.7 units per acre (previously 5.4). 3) An allowance for a 10 percent reduction in the required number of parking spaces. 4) The phasing of the development as follows: Phase 1— 325 units, Phase Il — 275 units for a total of 600 units and 20,000 square feet of commercial, Phase III — 193 units for a total of 793 units (previously Phase 1- 300 units, Phase 11— 380 units for a total of 680 units and 10, 000 square feet of commercial, Phase III — 225 units for a total of 905 units). 5) The construction of community facilities and improvements within the third phase of development. BOS Update: The latest modification to the proffer statement reneges on the commitment to provide the community facilities in the second phase by postponing the construction of the community facilities to the third and final phase of the development. 6) Architectural, signage and landscaping standards. In particular, adjacent to Warrior Drive. 7) A pedestrian and bicycle trail system. 8) Financial contributions to offset the fiscal impacts of the development on County resources BOS Update: No Proffer has been made to address the fiscal impacts associated with Public Safety. 9) The dedication of 18 acres of land as depicted on the MDP for use as a future elementary school site (previously 11 acres of land in a different location) and five acres adjacent to the FCSA property for public use. 10) The preservation of the Village Pond within the core area as a visual amenity. This should be guaranteed within the context of its present state and may be improved or enhanced for stormwater management purposes. 11) Transportation improvements previously discussed in greater detail in this report. 7) Master Development Plan Conformance Review This preliminary Master Development Plan for the Villages at Artrip is generally consistent with the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of some issues that still remain. These issues are as follows: Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 30, 2006 Page 15 • Sidewalks are only shown on one side of some of the residential streets. In accordance with §144-18 of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, sidewalks are required along both sides of the roads. The plan needs to be revised to show all of the required sidewalks, or a notation needs to be provided to that effect. • A note should be provided on the MDP that the sidewalks on the eastern side of the property will connect with the Canter Estates Section V Subdivision. • A trail should be shown through the existing Lakewood Manor Subdivision, lot 121, to give them access through the Villages project to the proposed school site. • Details for the road efficiency buffer and residential separation buffer have not been provided. A cross section of these buffers showing the required trees and opaque element needs to be provided on sheet 4 of the MDP. All of the issues identified by staff should be appropriately addressed prior to a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the Master Development Plan. Any accommodations or waivers endorsed by the Planning Commission that address the above issues should be incorporated into the MDP through this rezoning process. BOS Update: The issues identified above have been addressed and were incorporated into the Master Development Plan prior to the endorsement of the Planning Commission. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 08/03/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Villages at Artrip rezoning, an application to rezone 169 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to R4 (Residential Planned Community), is generally consistent with the goals of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report. Elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure that they fully address specific components of the Comprehensive Plan, in particular the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. The Planning Conunission should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been fully addressed by the applicant. In addition, the preliminary Master Development Plan for the Villages at Artrip, MDP# 09-05 is generally consistent with the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of some issues that still remain. The Plamzing Commission should ensure that the applicant fully addresses the outstanding issues on the master development plan. Confirmation of the issues identified in the staff report, and any issues raised by the Planning Commission, should be addressed prior to the decision of the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 08/03/05 MEETING: Numerous issues, such as transportation, schools, and water, were discussed by the Commission. Commission members believed the completion of Warrior Drive out to Rt. 37/ I-81 was critical for this project to be successful. They also expressed concern that the applicant would only commit to construct Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 30, 2006 Page 16 10,000 square feet of commercial area until Warrior Drive's completion through the limits of the property. Questions were raised on the results of the applicant's supplemental traffic analysis which concluded that the Tasker Road/Warrior Drive intersection would continue to function at a LOS C, even if the Crosspointe development's section of Warrior was not built soon and the Villages of Artrip was at full build -out. Commissioners believed that future Artrip residents wanting to commute to work in Northern Virginia would have problems accessing I-66 and I-81. The possibility of forming a CDA (Community Development Authority) with surrounding developers was suggested to the applicant as a possible solution to ensure the timely completion of Warrior Drive. Regarding the transportation issues, the applicant responded that two-thirds of Warrior Drive would be completed in sections by the end of Phase 2. The applicant cormnented that their transportation needs could be met with only one lane of Warrior Drive in each direction; however, they have agreed to construct two lanes in both directions. He noted that because of the economics associated with fulfilling that request, a critical mass of housing needed to go along with the road improvements, resulting in the housing construction and the length of Warrior Drive going hand -in -hand. VDOT's representative, Mr. Lloyd Ingram, anticipated signalization at Warrior Drive and Tasker Road before the applicant begins Phase 3. Mr. Ingram said that analysis of the initial plans suggested the four -lane paved section could not be justified with the commercial anticipated; however, once the connection was made into Crosspointe, the vehicle trips increased by an additional 8,000. He said the applicant provided the entire four -lane section because multiple lanes are needed over 8,000 trips and the balance of the commercial could be justified with the additional trips from Crosspointe. Since the size of the designated 11 acre school site was determined to be less than optimal by the School Board, other options were discussed, such as use of some of the open space area or use of a portion of the Sanitation Authority's property to the south. Issues were discussed regarding the waste water capabilities of Frederick County, if the pending regulations regarding nutrient reduction by the Virginia's Bay Program were enacted; in addition, the upgrade to the Parkins Mill treatment plant was discussed. A member of the Commission suggested that the wording within the transportation proffer reflect that roads will be "designed and constructed" to VDOT standards. The applicant agreed to revise the wording, but noted that areas within the development will be served by both public and private streets. Questions were raised regarding the establishment and jurisdiction of homeowners' associations for the various neighborhoods and responsibilities for maintenance of the common areas and structures. Two adjoining property owners spoke in favor of the proposed development, but with some reservations. One had concerns about increased traffic through his quiet neighborhood in Lakewood Manor, if Warrior Drive was not constructed early on; he also had concerns about the costs associated with funding a new school and providing sewer and water. The other citizen cominented about the considerable wildlife on this property and he requested that a beautiful, old evergreen tree be left undisturbed because of its age, possibly dating back to the Civil War. Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 30, 2006 Page 17 The applicants said they would be willing to work on the issues raised at the meeting. In order to provide the applicants the additional time to work on the issues, the Planning Conunission unanimously agreed to table the rezoning and master plan for 60 days. STAFF UPDATE FOR 10/05/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The applicant provided the County with a revised rezoning application package on September 9, 2005. The revised materials contained an updated Executive Summary, a revised Proffer Statement, and a revised Master Development Plan. Staff met with the applicants regarding the revised package on September 19, 2005. The following is a summary of staff s review of the revised materials. Summary of outstandin14 items (09/19/05): Master Development Plan: • Sidewalks are only shown on one side of some of the residential streets. In accordance with §144-18 of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, sidewalks are required along both sides of the roads. The plan needs to be revised to show all of the required sidewalks, or a notation needs to be provided to that effect. The applicant has requested a modification to this requirement through the proffer statement. This requestfor modification is also on the Master Development Plan. Staff is of the opinion that at a minimum, sidewalks should be provided along both sides of the collector streets. This would include Parkins Mill Road and Warrior Drive (with the exception of the eastern side of Warrior Drive south of the Elementary School access). • A note should be provided on the MDP that the sidewalks on the eastern side of the property will connect with the Canter Estates Section V Subdivision. A sidela'alk has not been added to the East side of Parkins Mill Road to Canter Estates Section V. • A trail should be shown through the existing Lakewood Manor Subdivision, lot 121, to give them access through the Villages project to the proposed school site. This comment remains un- addressed by the applicant. • Details for the road efficiency buffer and residential separation buffer have not been provided. A cross section of these buffers showing the required trees and opaque element needs to be provided on sheet 4 of the MDP. The applicant has addressed the buffer details. However, a buffer detail has been added to the area adjacent to Canter Estates Section V that 14)ould necessitate the removal of existing trees. As existing woodlands exist adjacent to Canter Estates, a 50' Woodland Strip, as allowed by ordinance, should be utilized for the residential separation buffer adjacent to Canter V. Rezoning Application: • The applicant has added a section to the Proffer Statement, Section 3.1.3.1. which provides that the applicant shall not construct any of the residential units otherwise permitted in Phase 3 until such time as Warrior Drive has been constructed, so that access is available to the property from Interstate 81 and through Wakeland Manor. Additional clarity should be provided to Section 3.1.3.1 to specify that access would be provided from Interstate 81 through the Crosspointe Development and through Wakeland Manor to Tasker Road as identified in the TIA. Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 30, 2006 Page 18 • The applicant has proffered that 20,000 square feet of commercial development would occur by the end of Phase 2 of the development. Previously, the applicant had committed to providing 10,000 square feet of the enabled 118,550 square feet of coininercial within the first two phases. • The comprehensive sign plan should be reinstated as an appendix to the Proffer Statement. Section 4.5 has been modified to remove this conunitment. • Section 7 of the Proffer Statement addresses schools. Three additional proffers have been added to this section. It may be more desirable to the County for the applicant to designate the area to be dedicated for a more general public use, as opposed to a specific public use. This would provide the County with a greater amount of flexibility in the utilization of the land. In addition, Section 7.4, which contains a sunset and reversionary clause, should be carefully evaluated. This may not be desirable and is not consistent with past county actions regarding acceptance of proffers for public use. Finally, the applicant has maintained a $337 contribution for schools. This amount does not fully address the capital facility needs of the school system as identified in the Fiscal Impact Model. • With regards to Section 14, Transportation, Warrior Drive is identified as an Urban Section (Curb and Gutter) and should be referenced as such in the Proffer Statement and detailed as such on the MDP. Section 14.3.1.1. is an important section that should also be added to Section 14.4, which addresses the Alternative approach for the Phase 1 (Parkins Mill) construction of the road. Presently there is no mention of the Wakeland Manor connection beyond point A in this section. • Staff has identified one minor modification to the Proffer Statement, the final sentence of Section 14.3.1.1., which, when considered in connection with the deletion of language within Section 14.10, is significantly problematic to the transportation program and overall rezoning application submission. The addition of "... and the said bridge shall be completed no later than the end Phase I " is not acceptable. Previously, the applicant had conunitted to ensuring the road connection would be in place prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase I and had conunitted to making no connection of Parkins Mill Drive extended to Canter Estates Section V, for construction or other purposes until such time as Warrior Drive has been constructed to permit traffic access through Wakeland Manor to Tasker Road. The combination of the two modifications to the Proffer Statement would result in the development of the entire first phase, and potentially more, with sole access being provided via Canter Estates. As noted, this would be unacceptable. • The above scenario is not one which was previously presented to or contemplated by the Planning Commission. Nor was the consideration of this transportation scenario extended to the general public during the public hearing and the adjacent property owners. It should be clearly noted that the TIA prepared by the applicant for this application in no way considers the use of the adjacent subdivision as the primary means of access. The inclusion of this modification to the Proffer Statement appears to invalidate the conclusions of the Traffic Impact Analysis which identifies Warrior Drive as the means of access for all phases of the development. The Planning Commission should evaluate the scope and impact of the modifications to the Villages at Artrip application and determine the appropriate recommendation. Based upon the modifications as submitted, at a minimum, consideration should be given to affording the general public the opportunity to further evaluate the rezoning application. 0 • Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 30, 2006 Page 19 STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 10/05/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Villages at Al -trip rezoning application to rezone 169 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to R4 (Residential Planned Conunlunity) remains generally consistent with the goals of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report and proposes creativity in the application of the County's R4 (Residential Planned Community) District. However, elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure that they fully address specific components of the Comprehensive Plan. In particular, the applicants modified commitment to the construction of Warrior Drive, a key component of the Comprehensive Plan and the County's transportation plarming efforts should be considered. The applicant has not demonstrated that the resulting impacts to the County's transportation network have been addressed. Further, the failure to ensure the timely completion of Warrior Drive, a major element of the County's road network, does not appear to justify the additional density modifications requested in the application, contrary to the intent stated in the applicant's executive summary. The Planning Commission should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been fully addressed by the applicant. In addition, the preliminary Master Development Plan for the Villages at Artrip, MDP# 09-05 is generally consistent with the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of some issues that still remain and that have been identified in the updated staff report. The Planning Commission should ensure that the applicant fully addresses the outstanding issues on the master development plan. Confirmation of the issues identified in the staff report, and any issues raised by the Planning Commission, should be addressed prior to the decision of the Planting Commission. The Planning Commission has already held the public hearing- for this application. Followin,a the public meeting, a recommendation re'aardirc'a this rezonin,- application to the Board of Supervisors would he appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF THE 10/05/05 MEETING: The staff infonned the Commission that after the most recent staff report was written, the applicant had provided another revised proffer statement. Staff noted that the revised proffer statement appears to be an improvement over what was submitted for the September 9, 2005 staff report; however, the Commission should carefully consider the timing of the receipt of the revised proffers and the content of the revisions. Numerous questions were raised by Commission members. They sought further clarification regarding the proposed school sites and whether the school board had provided comment on the proposed sites and layout. Concerns continued to be raised about the traffic impacts and specifically, the potential traffic that could be generated without the benefit of the Warrior Drive road connection completed. Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 30, 2006 Page 20 Commission members inquired if the plan could be revised to show the phasing for construction of the various housing types and which sections of the center core area would be constructed with each phase. Questions were raised about access into the project. Concern was raised for residents in Canter Estates who would be exposed to continuous traffic through their neighborhood by this project's new residents and tradesmen working at the site. In addition, there were questions about the modification request for reduced setbacks in the rear -loading and some front -loading areas; specifically, concerning parked vehicles blocking portions of the alley in the rear or blocking sidewalks in the front. The subject of development tracking along the Route 522 South and Route 50 East corridor was raised by a member of the Commission. A question was posed regarding the potential number of units, in projects currently underway and undeveloped, but rezoned and able to move forward, that were capable of impacting the Route 522 South corridor. The benefits of the Artrip project constructing a segment of the Warrior Drive connection was recognized; however, there was doubt that Warrior Drive alone would be capable of serving the potential 5-6,000 future units from various pending developments that could impact the traffic network in this area. The Commission requested that staff seek additional continents from the Sanitation Authority, the school system, and Public Works when the final submittals are received from the applicant. In view of the lateness in which the Commission members received the latest revisions from the applicant, the Connnission unanimously voted to table the rezoning for another 60 days to allow more time to study the revisions that were provided. The applicant's representatives, Mr. John Foote, attorney, Mr. Jim Brown, design engineer, and Mr. John Callow, traffic consultant, were available to answer questions from the Conunission. (Note: Commissioner Watt was absent from the meeting.) STAFF UPDATE FOR 12/21/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The applicant provided the County with a revised rezoning application package at a meeting that was held on November 28, 2005. The revised materials contained an updated Executive Summary, a revised Proffer Statement, and a revised Master Development Plan. The following is a summary of staff s review of the revised materials. ■ The most significant modification to the application involves the relocation of the proffered school site to an area internal to Land Bay A and adjacent to the Core Area of the Villages at Artrip. Previously, the proposed school site was located southeast of Warrior Drive adjacent to the property owned by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. The applicant has proffered a site of 15 acres. Previously, the site was 11 acres in size. The proposed school site is in a desirable location and is integral to the proposed community. It is noted that the proffered 15 acre school site does contain areas in the northern portion of the property, adjacent to the Opequon Creek, with topographical constraints. The applicant has been working with Frederick County Public Schools to ensure that the proposed school site is fully evaluated. The Schools Building and Grounds Committee, with the assistance of the Schools Architect, Oliver, Webb, Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Ai trip October 30, 2006 Page 21 Pappas & Rhudy, Inc. have reviewed the proposed site and have sited a 750 seat elementary school on the property. While no formal correspondence has been provided, discussions with Frederick County Public Schools indicate that the proposed school site meets the 777inimu777 standards established.for a 750 student elementary school. Hol4,ever, constraints on the site would compromise the function of the facility, particularly the outdoor equipment areas and play field areas. The Schools request that an additional two to three acres be made available in order to provide a school site that fully meets the needs of the school system and the community. As proffered, the proposed site would not accommodate an 850 student elementary school. ■ The revised application includes a reduction in the number of residential units and overall density for the Villages at Artrip. A maximum of 793 units is proffered which is 112 less than the previous amount of 905. The net result of this modification is a reduction in the gross residential density from 5.4 units per acre to 4.6 units per acre. This reduction in residential units is related to the relocation of the proffered school site. Pursuant to the procedure for modifications to the R4 requirements, the applicant had previously requested a modification to Section 165-62D to increase the overall gross density. This modification should reflect the proposed 4.6 units/acre density. ■ The applicant has increased the amount of conuriercial square footage that may be developed within the core area by 10,000 square feet to 128,550 square feet. However, the commitment to construct only 20,000 square feet prior to build out of the project remains in place. The applicant has increased their commitment to provide more residential units within the Core Area of the project within the first phase by increasing the minimum amount that shall be built to 100 residential units of three permitted unit types. ■ In an effort to simplify the mechanics of the application, the project is proposed to develop within two phases as opposed to three previously. Phase 1 shall not exceed 350 residential units and Phase II shall not exceed an additional 443 dwelling units for a total of 793 dwelling units. ■ The simplified development phasing program provides the basis for the transportation program which has been modified to ensure the timely completion of Warrior Drive as a four -lane section and to provide critical access to the proffered school site. As demonstrated, the applicant has made some relatively substantial modifications to the rezoning application. It is for this reason that an additional Public Hearing is being held at the Planning Cominission for this application. Staffs review of the revised application has identified other comments and points that are more minor and administrative in context. These can most likely be attributed to the many changes that have been made to the application. Staff will be working with the applicant to ensure that the minor comments are addressed by the applicant. Rezoning 412-05 — Villages at Artrip October 30, 2006 Page 22 STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 12/21/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Villages at Artrip rezoning, an application to rezone 169 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to R4 (Residential Planned Community), is generally consistent with the goals of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report. Elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure that they fully address specific components of the Comprehensive Plan, in particular the Community Facilities Impact to the school system. The Planning Conn-iission should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been fully addressed by the applicant. In addition, the preliminary Master Development Plan for the Villages at Artrip, MDP# 09-05 is generally consistent with the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance. Confirmation of the issues identified in the staff report, and any issues raised by the Planning Conunission, should be addressed prior to the decision of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has previously held the public hearing for this application. Followinga a second public hearink, a recommendation regardin,- this rezoning application to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning- Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF THE 12/21/05 MEETING: Commission members had questions regarding the long-term transportation plan; specifically, the tinning for connecting the Phase I construction to Front Royal Pike (Route 522) and the timing for the connection of Warrior Drive to the west, towards Crosspointe. There was concern about the LOS on Tasker Road until these other two access points were made. It did not appear to some Commissioners that all of the language was in place to insure that Warrior Drive is fully connected down to Wakeland Manor, if the development starts from the north. In addition, Commission members were concerned about giving the school system a site that may be less than optimal for their needs. The applicant had described a 12-acre flat area with, possibly, another one -and -a -half acre of recoverable area, which could be graded for soccer or softball fields. Commission members suggested the possibility of the applicant swapping housing types adjacent to the school site and squeezing them slightly to the east, thereby affording another acre or so of land to the schools, while still maintaining the same density. In addition, they suggested that the school system use a two -stony structure, which would provide an additional acre of useable land. If the developer could provide the additional acreage by relocating some of the units and the school system would build a two - stony structure, they concluded that the school system would have the acreage they needed. • Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 30, 2006 Page 23 One individual came forward to speak during the public comment portion of the meeting. Speaking for himself and a few of the local residents, he expressed concern about enviromnental issues, particularly the preservation of the hardwood tree areas; he said they provided a buffer as well as a wildlife corridor. He was concerned about the two streams that would be impacted and the affect on the Opequon watershed; he suggested the applicant be required to use low -impact stormwater development measures. He suggested the pond and wetland areas be maintained in their natural state and maintained by an outside agency, rather than a homeowners association. He also expressed concern about the impacts to County services, such as fire and rescue, sheriff, schools, and sewer and water. Some of the Commissioners viewed the offered school site as less than optimal and had issues with some elements of the project, particularly transportation. A motion was made and seconded for denial, but failed by a majority vote. Another motion was made to table the rezoning for 60 days to give the applicant the opportunity to work with the school system and to fine tune the transportation issues. This motion was seconded and passed by the following majority vote: YES (TABLE FOR 60 DAYS): Straub, Gochenour, Morris, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Triplett, Manuel, Wilmot NO: Watt, Unger, Light, DeHaven STAFF UPDATE FOR 02/15/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The applicant provided the County with a revised rezoning application package on January 30, 2006. The updated materials contained a revised Proffer Statement and a revised Master Development Plan. The following is a sun -unary of staff s review of the revised materials. The most significant modification to the application addresses the primary concerns expressed by the Planning Commission and involves the proffered school site internal to Land Bay A, adjacent to the Core Area of the Villages at Artrip. Previously, the applicant relocated the school site to this general location from a site located southeast of Warrior Drive, adjacent to the property owned by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. However, concerns were expressed by the Planning Commission and representatives of Frederick County Public Schools regarding the size of the proffered site and the usable area of the site when considering the topographical constraints in the northern portion of the property, adjacent to the Opequon Creek. The applicant has revised the location of the proffered school site slightly to the east of the previous site, increased the acreage of the proffered school site to 18 acres from 15 acres, and relocated the single family attached units from the eastern corner of Landbay A to areas internal to the project. As a result of this change the Frederick County Schools has evaluated the proposal and determined that the proffered school site will accommodate an elementary school at 750 program capacity with the required outside physical education and play areas (please see the letter from Frederick County Public Schools dated January 27, 2006).While the modified Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 30, 2006 Page 24 school site location does not address the Core Area and Main Street of the community as previously depicted by the applicant, the proposed school site is in a desirable location and remains integral to the proposed community. ■ The applicant has revised the phasing associated with the development of the project by reinstituting a three phased approach. Phase I shall not exceed 325 residential units, Phase Il shall not exceed an additional 275 residential units for a total of 600 units, and Phase III shall not exceed an additional 193 units for total of 793 units. The gross residential density of the project will be 4.6 units per acre. Previously, the two phased approach stated that Phase 1 shall not exceed 350 residential units and Phase I1 shall not exceed an additional 443 dwelling units for a total of 793 dwelling units ■ The development phasing program continues to provide the basis for the transportation program which has been modified to be consistent with the revised phasing. The transportation program will ensure the timely completion of Warrior Drive as a four -lane section and will provide critical access to the proffered school site. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 02/15/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Villages at Artrip rezoning, an application to rezone 169 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to R4 (Residential Planned Community), is generally consistent with the goals of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report. The applicant continues to enhance the application to address the concerns identified during the rezoning process. Elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure that they fully address specific components of the Comprehensive Plan, in particular the Connnunity Facilities Impact to the school system. The Planning Commission should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been fully addressed by the applicant. In addition, the preliminary Master Development Plan for the Villages at Artrip, MDP# 09-05 is generally consistent with the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance. Confirmation of the issues identified in the staff report, and any issues raised by the Planning Commission, should be addressed prior to the decision of the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF THE 02/15/06 MEETING: Only one citizen spoke at the Planning Commission's public hearing. He had walked the site with the developer and was appreciative of the enviromnental protections proposed by the developer for the woodlands, the ponds, and the wetlands areas. He was concerned, however, that the area designated for playing fields, behind the proposed school, would be difficult to grade because it was completely wooded and contained a number of ravines. His second concern was for the protection of the Opequon stream, located below the area designated for playing fields. Because of the amount of grading work that needed to be done in this area, and the location of Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 30, 2006 Page 25 stormwater management ponds, he was concerned about the nutrient and sediment load that could conceivably be added to the Opequon. He said the Opequon is already considered to be a polluted stream and guidelines must be maintained to meet the Chesapeake Bay requirements. Although almost every Commissioner considered this a well -designed project, they were not unified on their opinion of whether the rezoning should be recommended for approval. The issue of the fiscal impact difference between the County's old Fiscal Impact Model, which this application was submitted under, and the new, revised model was raised by some Commissioners; they were concerned about how the monetary difference would be made up. A Commissioner asked the applicant for an estimate of the value of both on -site and off -site proposed improvements, including the donation of the school site and bridge construction. The applicant calculated that the total dollar amount of transportation improvements, the land donation, road and bridge improvements, and cash proffer significantly exceeded the per residential unit impact amount projected under the model that was in effect when their application was submitted. Some Commissioners did not view the construction of Warrior Drive through this project as a benefit to the County, because it stopped at Crosspointe, which made it a "road to no where." Some did not think the value of the school site quoted by the applicant could be justified. On the other hand, there were Commissioners who believed that Warrior Drive was vital to the whole area and recognized the portion through this property as a crucial link towards completing the road. They also believed the school site was valuable because it was located within an area where the School Board said a school was needed, and it was a site the School Board said they could work with. Another issue raised concerned the language of the proffer dealing with the commercial area and phasing of the development. Commission members believed the language was somewhat vague and should be revised to include a guarantee by the developer to construct and complete the 20,000 square -foot commmercial portion prior to the issuance of the 601 building permit. The applicant agreed to this revision. A motion for approval of the rezoning was made and seconded, but failed by a six -to -six tie vote. A new motion was made and seconded for denial of the rezoning; this motion was defeated by a seven -to - five majority vote. Another new motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the rezoning and the master development plan with the caveat that by the issuance of the 300t" building permit, the developer must submit a site plan and start initial plamiing for the 20,000 square -feet of commercial area that is to be completed and ready for use prior to the 6001h residential pen -nit issuance. This motion passed by the following majority vote: YES (APPROVE REZONING W/ CAVEAT): Molm NO: Unger, Watt, Oates, Kriz, Triplett Manuel, Morris, Wilmot, Thomas, Ours, Kerr, (Please Note: Commissioner Light was absent from the meeting.) 0 0 Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 30, 2006 Page 26 STAFF UPDATE FOR 10/11/06 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING: BOS Summary of Rezoning and Proffer Statement. This rezoning application proposes to rezone 169.924 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District for the proposed mixed use development of 793 Residential Units and Retail, Restaurant, Office and Public Uses. The project is limited to 793 residential units. The proposed gross residential density for the project is 4.7 units per acre. The Applicant has the ability to construct up to 128,500 feet of conunercial uses. However, only 20,000 square feet has been connnitted to be constructed, corresponding with the second phase of the development. The phasing of the development as follows: Phase I — 325 units, Phase II — 275 units for a total of 600 units and 20,000 square feet of conunercial, Phase III — 193 units for a total of 793 units. The application proffers a three phased approach to the transportation improvements identified above that is generally consistent with the phasing provided for the proposed land uses within the project. The Applicant is proffering to develop the ultimate four lane section of Warrior Drive within the limits of their property and beyond to connect with the currently plamled terminus of the road on the Wakeland Manor property. Also proffered is the construction of Parkins Mill Road as a two lane section from its intersection with Warrior Drive to cormect to the adjacent Canter Estates Section V property at Falabella Drive. The application proposes the dedication of an eighteen acre site for an elementary school and an additional five acres for public use adjacent to the property owned by the FCSA. Also proffered is a complete pedestrian and bicycle trail system and the preservation of the Village Pond within the core area as a visual amenity and the preservation of significant areas of sensitive enviromnental features as open space. Since the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, the applicant has modified their proffer statement to address the dollar values identified in the DIM by providing for approximately 75 percent of the projected DIM value for schools. All other community facility impact dollar values are based on the old fiscal impact model. $14,437sfd/$9,985sfa/$3,2977nf for schools: $537 for fire and rescue; $847 for parks and recreation; $137 for library; $0 for public safety; and $144 for erggovernment, Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 30, 2006 Page 27 Also, since the Plaiuling Commission's reconuliendation of approval the applicant has modified their proffer statement in several other ways that should be carefully considered by the Board of Supervisors. Outstanding Rezoning Items from Proffer Statement dated September 8, 2006 1) The applicant's latest Proffer Statement dated September 8, 2006, maintains the three phased approach. However, the language addressing the construction of Phase III, from Point D to Point E has been modified to guarantee the bonding of the remainder of Warrior Drive from Point D to Point E rather than the completion by the Applicant. The construction by the Applicant of Warrior Drive throughout the project is a critical element of the rezoning application and should be secured. (Satisfactorily addressed ill final proffer statement dated October 25, 2006) 2) The latest modification to the proffer statement goes back on the conunitment to provide the community facilities in the second phase by postponing the construction of the community facilities to the third and final phase of the development (after the 600"' Building Permit is issued). This modification was made following the Planning Commission's recommendation. (Satisfactorily addressed ill final proffer statement dated October 25, 2006) 3) Minor changes regarding the details of serving the proposed school site with access and utilities should be endorsed by the Frederick County Public Schools to ensure their satisfaction along with the County's. (Satisfactorily addressed in final proffer statement dated October 25, 2006) 4) The applicant has proposed controlling the access between this project and the adjacent Canter Estates V project. Interconnectivity may be desirable in this location. (Addressed to the satisfaction of the Board) 5) Proffers 14.16 and 16 raise concerns about their appropriateness from a legal perspective. Confirmation of this item will be provided by the County's Attorney. (Satisfactorily addressed in final proffer statement dated October 25, 2006) BOS Summary of Master Development Plan The Master Development Plan that has been prepared for this project identifies the layout, design, and details of the project and seeks to create an innovative and unique neighborhood that is representative of the intent of the R4 Residential Planned Community District. The master development plan further identifies a core area that is designed to establish the tone and character for the development. This preliminary Master Development Plan for the Villages at Artrip (MDP #09-05) is generally consistent with the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance. No action on the MDP is required. In order to rezone the properly to the R4 Residential Planned District, the preparation of a Master Development Plan which will be accepted as a condition proffered for the rezoning is required. As the Rezoning provides for the MDP as a proffered condition, the approval of the Rezoning by the Board would constitute the approval of the MDP. 0 • Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip October 30, 2006 Page 28 OARD ACTION OF THE 10/11/06 MEETING: Upon a motion by Supervisor Fisher, seconded by Supervisor Lemieux, the Board postponed Rezoning #12-05 and MDP #09-05 until the November 8, 2006 meeting to allow the Applicant the time to appropriately address the requested modifications to the proffer statement which included the revision of proffer 14.7.1 to include the language in 14.3.3 regarding the blocking of the access to Canter Estates and the removal of proffer 16. Please see the draft minutes attached to this staff report which fully describe the discussion from the October 11°i Board meeting. STAFF UPDATE FOR 11/08/06 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING: At the October 11, 2006 meeting, the Board held a public hearing on this rezoning request, discussed the application in great detail, and ultimately tabled the rezoning request for 30 days to thoroughly review the most recent proffer statement and to enable the applicant to address concerns expressed by the Board regarding access to the adjacent subdivision. On October 27, 2006, Staff received a signed and notarized Proffer Statement from the Tower Companies. The proffer addresses the concerns expressed by the Board as follows: The original Proffer 16 was removed (Modification to monetary proffers in the event of alterations to County fiscal impact modeling). Proffer 14.7.3 was added to the alternative road phasing approach (blocking vehicular access to Falabella, Canter V; connection to be made at the direction of the County). In addition, the final proffer addresses the concern identified by Supervisor Fisher by committing to the construction of Parkins Mill to the school site, in addition to the construction of WaiTior Drive from Crosspointe to Parkins Mill, prior to the issuance of the first building permit (this is in the scenario in which Warrior Drive is initiated from Crosspointe). Attached with this updated agenda package is a scan of the transmittal letter from Tower and the revised proffer statement. It is Staff's belief that the final Proffer Statement dated October 25, 2006, addresses the concerns identified by the Board of Supervisors. Board Actions for Rezoning 912-05: 1. R4 Modifications: Modification #1 (Section 165-72.B.(2)) The Villages at Artrip application proposes modifications to the housing types permitted with this project. Appendix A of the Proffer Statement proposes an alternative dimensional requirement plan which is incorporated into the Proffer Statement. PC Recommended Approval. Rezoning #12-05 - Villages at Artrip October 30, 2006 Page 29 Modification 42 (Section 165-71. Mixture of Housing Types Required) The applicant is requesting that more than 40 percent of the total residential land area may be used for multifamily housing products. PC Recommended Approval. Modification #3 (Section 165-62.D) The applicant is requesting an increase in the overall gross density of the project from 4 units per acre to 4.7 units per acre rather than the 5.4 units per acre previously noted. PC Recommended ApprovaL 2. Rezoning Application R7-#12-05, with Proffers dated September 8, 2006 and including MDP 909-05. PC Reconunended Approval with Proffers dated Jcn umy 27, 2006 REZONING APPLICATION #12-05 AND MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #09-05 VILLAGES AT ARTRIP Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: September 21, 2005 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 08/03/05 Tabled 60 days 10/05/05 Pending Board of Supervisors: 10/26/05 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 169.924 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District for the proposed mixed use development of 905 Residential Units and Retail, Restaurant and Office Uses. LOCATION: The property is located one mile west of Interstate 81, three quarters mile north of Tasker Road (Route 649),150 feet north of Fair Lawn Court (Route 1176) and west of Canter Estates Section V. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 75-A-99A PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned: (Rural Areas) District Use: Unimproved ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: B2 (Business General) RA (Rural Area) South: RP (Residential Performance) East: RP (Residential Performance) West: RP (Residential Performance) RA (Rural Area) Use: Unimproved Agricultural Use: Residential/FCSA Use: Residential Use: Residential/Vacant Residential PROPOSED USES: 905 Residential Units, Retail, Restaurants and Office Uses (a maximum of 118,550 square feet and a minimum of 10,000 square feet of commercial use has been proffered). 0 0 0 • Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip September 21, 2005 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 719. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Villages at Artrip rezoning application dated May 20, 2005 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. The developer will be required to enter into a signalization agreement with VDOT at the time the roadway is requested to be accepted into the State's Secondary System. The developer will be liable for the cost of the signal Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshal: Where the desire of the developer to provide proffers is appreciated, the development of this project will have an overwhelming impact on fire and rescue services. Water supplies for firefighting and access shall be addressed during the Subdivision Plan Review. Plan approval recommended. Stephens City Volunteer fire Dept.: No comments offered. Public Works Department: Your letter dated June 13, 2005 has adequately addressed our previous review comments related to the rezoning application and master development plan associated with the proposed Villages at Artrip. Frederick County Dept. of Inspections: No comment required. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments regarding submitted. Application recognizes that expansion of Parkins Mills is necessary to accommodate project build -out. Sanitation Authority: No comment. Health Department: No objection or comment, so long as municipal sewer and water services are provided to entire project. Department of Parks & Recreation: The area identified as a school site and open space for use by the Parks and Recreation Department does not appear to be adequate to accommodate both uses. The typical section on page three of five of the Master Development Plan indicates trails to be between five and ten feet in width. The Parks and Recreations Department recommends all trail to be a minimum of ten feet in width. The revised proffer statement has modified proffer 5.1 to reflect ten foot bike trails. The Proffer Statement should include language which indicates the bridge design (The proffer statement, Section 14.2.1.1) will accommodate bicycle lanes. The proposed monetary proffer for Parks 0 M Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip September 21, 2005 Page 3 and Recreation appears to be less than what the impact model would indicate is needed to offset the impact of this development. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 155 single-family homes, 180 town houses and 570 multi -family units will yield 49 high school students, 47 middle school students and 131 elementary school students for a total of 227 new students upon build -out. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. The resubmitting of this rezoning application with its proffer statement provides approximately 11 acres to be dedicated for a future elementary school site (minimum acreage needed for an elementary site would be 15 acres). It is imperative with the above number of units included with this project that an elementary school be located in this area. With current building trends, future considerations need to be given to additional middle and high school facilities. Also because of the continued growth in Frederick County, the replacement of certain administrative facilities such as the transportation and administration, which currently have exceeded their capacity, will need to be replaced or expanded. This proffer helps to address the impact of a future elementary school; however, the impact of this type of application on other current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Winchester Regional Airport: We have reviewed the above referenced rezoning application/master plan and it appears that the proposed site plan will not have an impact on operations at the Winchester Regional Airport as the majority of the subdivision falls outside of the Airport's Part 77 surface. No special requirements or conditions are requested on behalf of the Winchester Regional Airport Authority. Frederick County Attorney: Comments to be provided by Mr. Bob Mitchell, Jr. Historic Resources Advisory Board: Upon review of the property rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic properties and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by the HRAB. The Rural Landmarks Survey and the Comprehensive Policy Plan do not identify any significant historic structures or battlefield located on or adjacent to the property. Geographic Information Systems: Warrior Drive and Lakeside Drive are continuations of existing roadways and names. Parkins Mill Road will not be accepted as a road name. It conflicts with roadways and names already in the system, and is not considered an extension of an existing roadway name. The potential for up to 21 road names has been noted. Any "Private Road" that is the primary entrance for four or more properties must be named before numbering/addressing can be completed. This MDP is presented as a suburban setting and not a rural setting. Therefore, future road names with such suffixes as Road, Lane, Loop, Trail, Bypass, Grade, Highway, Interstate, Overlook, Pike and Turnpike will not be accepted into the system. Acceptable road name suffixes for this development include Alley, Avenue, Boulevard, Circle, Court, Drive, Place, Plaza, Square, Street, Terrace and Way. Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip September 21, 2005 Page 4 Town of Middletown: None. Town of Stephens City: Traffic concerns as always. City of Winchester: From a regional transportation standpoint, the inability to provide connectivity to Warrior Drive where the bridge is needed at the south end raises concerns in terms of traffic impacts. PlanninjZ & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned R-2 (Residential Limited). The parcels were re -mapped from R- 2 to A-2 (Agricultural General) pursuant to the County's comprehensive downzoning initiative (Zoning Amendment Petition #011-80), which was adopted on October 8, 1980. The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. 2) Intended Use The applicant proposes the development of a mixed use project; a residential plamled community with an arrangement of residential villages containing a mixture of housing types focused around core area which incorporates a neighborhood conullercial center. Also proposed is the dedication of areas for public use including an eleven acre site for an elementary school. The project is proposed to be developed in three phases. Through the proffer statement, the project would be limited to 905 residential units. The proposed gross residential density forthe Villages at Artrip is 5.40 units per acre. The applicant has not committed to construct any more than 10,000 square feet of commercial uses. However, the ability has been provided to enable Lip to 118,550 square feet of commercial uses. The construction of Warrior Drive as a four lane section throughout the limits of this property to connect with Warrior Drive in the Wakeland Manor and Crosspointe developments is a key component of the project. 3) Master Development Plan Requirement In order to have land rezoned to the R4 District, a master development plan, meeting all requirements of Article XVIII of the Zoning Ordinance shall be submitted with the rezoning application. In adopting the rezoning, the master development plan submitted will be accepted as a condition proffered for the rezoning. The master development plan review procedures described in Article XVIII must also be completed concurrently with or following the consideration of the rezoning. The purpose of the master development plan requirement is to ensure that the intent of the residential planned community is met. The intention of the R4 District is too provided for a mixture of housing types and uses within a carefully planned setting. Special care should be Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip September 21, 2005 Page 5 taken in the approval of the master development plan to ensure that the uses on the land are arranged to provide for compatibility of uses, to provide environmental protection, and to avoid adverse impacts on surrounding properties and facilities. The R4 District is intended to create new neighborhoods with an appropriate balance between residential, employment, and service uses. Innovative design is encouraged. Special care is taken in the approval of R4 developments to ensure the necessary facilities, roads, and improvements are available or provided to support the R4 development. Residential planned community developments shall only be approved in conformance with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan. 3) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Coinprehensine Policy Plan, p. 1-1] Land Use The parcels comprising this rezoning application are located within the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Urban Development Area defines the general area in which more intensive forms of residential development will occur. h1 addition, The Villages at Artrip property is located within the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan and is identified with a Mixed Use designation north and east of Warrior Drive and a Residential designation south and east of Warrior Drive. As noted in the Comprehensive Plan, the mixed use areas are envisioned to include residential and commercial components, of which a maximum of 75 percent of the land area would be residential. The mixed use concept is intended to promote land use patterns that allow for internal service, employment and intermodal transportation opportunities with public open space linkages between various developments. The concept is offered as a diversion from the typical segregation of land uses into specific zoning districts that are often unrelated to each other such as is presently evident in the County. The Villages at Artrip rezoning application request is consistent with the land use designations identified in the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. With the more urban densities envisioned for development in the UDA, the Comprehensive Plan seeks to ensure that special effort is made to provide the infrastructure necessary to accommodate the desired land uses and densities. Further, as land is developed in the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan portion of the Urban Development Area, the Plan identifies the preservation of the stream valleys as environmental open space is an important goal that contributes to the protection of flood plains and water quality and provides a continuous system of green open space. Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip September 21, 2005 Page 6 Transporlalion. The Southern Frederick Land Use Plan and the Eastern Road Plan identify new road systems which have been planned to effectively manage traffic generated from the various uses, to link, various land uses with arterial and collector road systems, and to provide for signalization opportunities at critical intersections as areas develop. The most significant transportation element in the Comprehensive Plan that relates to this application is Warrior Drive. Warrior Drive is identified as a major collector road with a four lane urban section that traverses the property in a south-east to north-westerly direction. Also identified are Parkins Mill Road and an extension of Lakeside Drive into the project. Both are identified as collector roads with a two lane section. The new road systems within the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan are planned to mitigate impacts to the environmental features and historic areas. The plan encourages public access and the development of bicycle facilities and pedestrian walkway systems that serve residential, mixed use and planned unit development areas. The plan also recommends limiting commercial entrances, utilizing master planned boulevard entrances, and increased parking lot setbacks for corridor design and appearance enhancements. Pursuant to the general transportation policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, roads located adjacent to and within new development are expected to operate at no less than a Level of Service Category "C." (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 7-5) 4) Site Suitability/Envit•onment The Villages at Artrip property is located immediately south of the Opequon Creek. Areas of 100 Year Flood Plain, steep slopes, and mature woodlands associated with the Opequon Creek frame the northern boundary of the project as these features run along the entire length of the property. The majority of these environmental features will be protected in areas of open space. Disturbance of areas of mature woodlands will occur in the northwestern portion of the property. The limits of disturbance of the mature woodlands have been identified on the proffered master development plan. Further, the applicant has made efforts in the design of the MDP and within the proffer statement to minimize the disturbance of the mature woodlands and ensure the protection of these areas. Internal to the project the applicant has made further attempt to preserve areas of existing woodlands or specimen trees by ensuring their location in open space areas. This is evidenced with the location of a village green around the identified specimen Delaware Pine and the dedicated tree save area in Landbay F. A second significant stream, an unnamed tributary to the Opequon Creek, traverses the southern portion of this property. Once again this feature and its associated flood plain, steep slopes, and mature woodlands have been located within areas of open space. A small amount of disturbance of the environmental features associated with the unnamed tributary will occur due to the construction of Warrior Drive. The master development plan prepared for this project ensures and demonstrates that any disturbance of identified environmental features will be done in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal requirements. 0 0 Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip September 21, 2005 Page 7 The majority of the Villages at Artrip site are generally more suitable for development as it relatively level and open. Historically, the site was used for agricultural purposes. Located internal to the site are smaller areas of wetlands and waters of the U.S. which have been incorporated into the design of the master development plan. Of particular note is the farm pond located central to the project that the applicant has proffered to preserve as a focal point or visual amenity to the project. This village pond and its associated wetlands may be eiflianced for stormwater management function however its environmental integrity and aesthetic quality will be maintained with its proffered preservation. 5) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for this application projects that the development of 820 residential units, 60,000 square feet of office use, 150,000 square feet of retail use, and two 6,000 square foot restaurants would ultimately generate 15,623 vehicle trips per day. The actual proffered mix of land uses, identified in the introduction to this application, should be considered in comparison to this assumption when evaluating the TIA. The report was developed with primary access to the project being via the proposed Warrior Drive, a future roadway. The report was separated into three phases generally consistent with the proffered phasing of the development. Phase 1 assumes 297 residential units along with the completion of Warrior Drive from south of Tasker Road to the northern property extents of the Villages at Artrip; Phase 2 assumes 577 residential units and 10,000 square feet of retail along with the completion Warrior Drive from south of Tasker Road to the northern property extents of the Villages at Artrip; and Phase 3 assumes the build out of the entire Villages at Artrip development along with the completion of Warrior Drive from south of Tasker Road to north of Crosspointe Boulevard a future roadway within the planned Crosspointe development. The TIA concludes that the traffic impacts associated with the Villages at Artrip application are acceptable and manageable. The conclusion of the TIA further identifies suggested improvements that are assumed to be implemented to achieve an acceptable level of service at intersections throughout the study area network and to achieve an acceptable and manageable conclusion. It should be noted that many of the improvements identified relate to intersections beyond the boundaries of this project and that some of the identified improvements may be accomplished with other development projects. The Villages at Artrip project has not proffered to address any of the identified off -site improvements that are identified in Figure 21 a of the TIA (Phase 3: 2012 build out lane geometry and levels of service) which would accommodate this and other adjacent background projects and traffic. The assumption of the Villages at Artrip project is that these improvements will be put in place by others and that ultimate connection to the study area network will occur Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip September 21, 2005 Page 8 in a timely fashion. The transportation proffers provided by the Villages at Artrip project relate directly to on -site transportation improvements with one exception - the connection of Warrior Drive to its currently plamled terminus on the Wakeland Manor project. Staff Comment: A scenario could be envisioned ii,here the Phase 3 build out Of the Villages at Artrip project i-vould occur, including the construction Of the road netivork through the limits ofthe Villages at Artrip property, prior to cmy development in the adjacent portion Of the Crosspointe development. This scenario would be problematic when considering the structure Of the Villages TIA, as this Ivey connection to an off -site transportation network is the main assumption of the third phase of the TIA. YVith no connection to 111'arrior Drive internal to the Crosspointe project, and subsequently the other transportation improvements that are part of the Crosspointe project, the assumptions Of the third phase Of the Villages TIA should be carefully considered YVith the above scenario in mind, and ivith the sole access to the property being via Warrior Drive south to Tasker Road it has not been demonstrated by the applicant that a Level of Service C ivill be achieved at the Warrior Drive/Tasker Road (south) intersection, and at other locations throughout the sludy, ivith the full build out Of the Villages project as permitted by Pr'qffer. Any effOr't to advance the ullmrate construction Of Warrior Dr'ive./r'Orn Tasker Road through to Crosspointe Boulevard as depicted in the TIA would be beneficial to the Villages at Artrip project. Transportation Approach. The Villages at Artrip application addresses the transportation improvements identified in the Comprehensive Plan and necessary to accommodate the Villages development by proffering to develop the ultimate four lane section of Warrior Drive within the limits of their property and beyond to connect with the currently planned terminus of the road on the Wakeland Manor property. The ultimate section of Warrior Drive is described in the impact statement and is identified in the MDP. Also proffered is the construction of Parkins Mill Road from its intersection with Warrior Drive to the limits of the property adjacent to the Canter Estates Section V property. Parkins Mill Road will be constructed by the applicant to a point that provides a connection to the existing road within Canter Estates Section V. The typical section of Parkins Mill Road is also depicted on the MDP. The applicant has proffered a three phased approach to the transportation improvements identified above that is consistent with the phasing provided for the proposed land uses within the project. In addition, the application has proposed an alternative three phased approach to the transportation improvements in the event that access to the project from the north and the Crosspointe development is advanced ahead of access to the south through the Wakeland Manor project. 9 • Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip September 21, 2005 Page 9 The completion of Warrior Drive entails the construction of the previously noted bridge over the unnamed tributary of the Opequon Creek. This significant crossing will occur with the first phase of the transportation improvements for the project. This crossing should accommodate the trail that parallels the length of Warrior Drive as identified in the proffers and the MDP. One roundabout intersection at Parkins Mill Road and two signalized intersections are identified in the TIA as being provided with this project. Pedestrian accommodations have been proffered at those locations where signalization is referenced in the TIA. Slcrff Comment: The Proffer Statement alludes to the provision of signalization consistent i441h the TIA; hoi>>ever, the Proffer Statement does not specifically state that signalization 1>>ill be provided at the locations identified in the TIA. Clarily should be provided by the applicant and in the Proffer Statement. This isparticularly ly critical it,ith the proffered location of a school site at one of these intersections. The Proffer Statement provides.for the connection of R`arrior Drive to the existing section of iVarrior Drive in Walceland Manor in Phase I of the road phasing program if Warrior Drive construction and phasing is initiated from the south. Hoii)ever, the road phasing program, if construction is initiated from Crosspointe, provides no commitment to making the connection to the existing section of U'arrior Drive in YVakeland Manor, only to Point as identified on the MDP. This critical omission should be clarified by the applicant and in the Proffer Statement. Also, Proffer 14.7.3 should be revised to ensure that Warrior Drive is constructed to the existing section of Warrior Drive in Wakeland Manor prior to the issuance of the 681s' residential building permit. All road construction triggers should refer to issuance of residential building permits, not occupancy permits. It is important to ensure that the Parkins Mill Road extension, and connection to Canter Estates Section V, is in place in a timely fashion. It is staff's belief that this connection should be in place in conjunction ii,ilh Phase2 of this development if not sooner. Bicycle and pedestrian access has been provided throughout the project. The locations and details for these accommodations are clearly identified on the MDP. Staff has previously requested that consideration be given to extending pedestrian access to the adjacent Lakewood Manor subdivision. This would be extremely desirable and enhance access between the developments and to and from the dedicated elementary school site. The applicants currently own Lot 121 in the Lakewood Manor Subdivision. Pedestrian access at this location, via an access easement into the Villages at Artrip sidewalk network, would be appropriate and should be reconsidered by the applicant. The applicant should also consider extending a sidewalk along the south side of Parkins Mill road to provide a connection between the apartments and the adjacent Canter Estates Section V development. 0 . Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip September 21, 2005 Page 10 B. Sewer and Water The Villages at Artrip rezoning proposal is estimated to require approximately 204,710 gallons per day of water usage and is expected to generate a similar amount of wastewater. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority will serve the property and the wastewater flow from the site will go to the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Plant. The initial review of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority offered no comment and the review of the Frederick Winchester Service Authority identifies that the application recognizes that the expansion of the Parkins Mill facility is necessary to accommodate the projects build out. Recent planning efforts have identified that evolving nutrient reduction regulations promulgated by Virginia's Boy Program ivill have a significant impact on the permitted ivaste inciter capabililies of Frederick County. Both the Frederick Winchester Service Authority and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority are currently undertaking efforts to evaluate the regulations and, in conjunction with the UDA Study Working Group, proactively plan to address this issrte. Requests for land use modifrcalions should be evaluated very carefully in light of the evolving nutrient loading regulations. C. Historic Resources While no significant historical resources were identified on the property pursuant to the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey and other identified sources, several sites of interest were identified by the applicant. In particular, a family cemetery was identified that contained three to five gravesites. The applicant has incorporated the gravesite area into the reserved open space to ensure that it remains undisturbed. D. Community Facilities The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model is a tool that is used to identify the capital costs associated with various types of development proposals presented to the County. The projected costs to Fire and Rescue, Public Schools, Parks and Recreation, Library, Sheriff's Office and for the Administration Building are calculated and provided to the applicant for their consideration. The Fiscal Impact Model output for this project indicates a net negative fiscal impact at the build out of the project. It should be recognized that the applicant has only proffered the construction of 10,000 square feet of commercial use with the project. The ability remains to provide up to 118,550 square feet of commercial. However, the applicant has stated that this is dependent upon the ultimate completion of Warrior Drive from Crosspointe Boulevard to Tasker Road. No time frame is offered for the completion of the road and, therefore, no credit is provided for this potential commercial use. The R4 District requires that sufficient commercial areas shall be provided to meet the needs of the planned community, to provide for an appropriate balance of uses, and to lessen the overall impact of the planned community on Frederick County. The applicant has been encouraged to increase their commitment to the 0 • Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip September 21, 2005 Page 11 introduction of a greater amount of commercial square footage at an earlier stage of the development phasing. A result of such a commitment would be to minimize the fiscal impact of the project to the County. Obviously, the more commercial land that is developed prior to the introduction of the residential components, the more the fiscal impacts of the residential units will be mitigated. In recognition of the fiscal impacts associated with this application, the applicant has proffered a contribution in the amount of $337 per residential unit for the public school system. The comment provided by the Frederick County Public Schools should be carefully considered when evaluating the application: The evaluation anticipated that the proposed 155 single fcnnily homes, 180 toivn houses and 570 multi family units i-vill yield 49 high school students, 47 middle school students and 131 elementary school students for a total of 227 nei , students upon butild-out. Further, that significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this projecl and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future consiruclion of neiv school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. Following the initial review of this application, the applicant resubmitted the rezoning application with a proffer statement that provides approximately 11 acres to be dedicated for a fixture elementary school site. The schools provided the following comment: The urininnm acreage needed for an elementary site ivould be 15 acres. It is imperative ivith the above number of units included ivith this project that an elementary school be located in this area. With current building trends, future considerations need to be given to additional middle and high school facilities. Also, because of the continued grolvth in Frederick County, the replacement of certain administrative facilities such as transportation and administration, which currently have exceeded their capacity, will need to be replaced or expanded. This proffer helps to address the impact of a future elementary school; however, the impact of this type of application on other cuu•rent and furture school needs should be considered diming the approval process. The proposed dedication of land to facilitate the location of an elementary school in a location central to the rapidly developing areas of the County appears to be desirable in conjunction with this project. The availability of land from the properties adjacent to the proposed 11 acre dedication would have to be pursued to ensure that sufficient area could be obtained to accommodate an elementary school site. Alternately, sufficient area could be provided by the applicant within their property. It would also appear as though other impacts recognized by the public school system could be addressed to a greater extent. 0 • Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip September 21, 2005 Page 12 The applicant has also proffered a further dedication of five acres of public land identified as Landbay F, adjacent to the 11 acres, and has proffered a financial contribution to offset the fiscal impacts to the various County. entities consistent with the results of the Fiscal Impact Model. E. Permitted Uses and R4 Modifications. The Zoning Ordinance allows a variety of uses within the R4 District. In addition to this flexibility, the Ordinance provides for the preparation of an alternative dimensional requirement plan. The applicant may also request modifications to specific requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The applicant should justify that the requested modification is necessary or justified and further advance the goals and intent of the R4 residential planned community and particular project. The applicant's justification for the Villages at Artrip is contained within the Executive Summary of the Impact Statement and generally revolves around the desire to develop a neo-traditional development within the context of the residential plamled community district concept. Modification 41 (Section 165-72.B.(2)) The Villages at Artrip application proposes modifications to the housing types permitted with this project. Appendix A proposes an alternative dimensional requirement plan which is incorporated into the Proffer Statement. This appendix provides additional development standards that shall apply to the Villages at Artrip project. Appendix A introduces several new housing types, including rear loading single family detached cluster housing types, single family attached stacked flats, and single family attached back to back units. This proffered Appendix constitutes an extension to the permitted uses within this district that are specifically applicable to this project. Modification 92 (Section 165-71. Mixture of Housing Types Required) The applicant is requesting that more than 40 percent of the total residential land area may be used for multifamily housing products. The master development plan identifies the general layout of the permitted uses and provides a clear picture of how the proposed uses relate to each other. The approval of this modification would enable the master development plan be developed as presented. Modification 93 (Section 165-62.D) The applicant is requesting an increase in the overall gross density of the project from 4 units per acre to 5.4 units per acre. The gross density of any development with an approved master development plan which contains more than 100 acres shall not exceed four dwellings per acre. This requirement is contained within the RP (Residential Performance) District. It is the applicant's belief that an increase in density is warranted in order to achieve the desired neo- traditional residential planned community and facilitate the proposed public improvements and proffered land dedication commitments. 0 • Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip September 21, 2005 Page 13 6) Proffer Statement — Dated June 2005, revised June 17, 2005 The Villages at Artrip Proffer Statement is substantial in size and content and includes an appendix containing an alternative dimensional requirement plan. However, probably the most significant element of the Proffer Statement is the master development plan that has been prepared for this project. This master development plan identifies the layout, design, and details of the project and seeks to create an innovative and unique neighborhood that is representative of the intent of the R4 Residential Planned Community District. The master development plan identifies a core area that is designed to establish the tone and character for the development. The master development plan has been reviewed for conformance with the master plan requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (see section 7). The provision of the master development plan provides additional security as to the development of the property. Future modifications to the master development plan would necessitate this project going through a new rezoning process and a thorough public evaluation. The following is a summary of some of the other key elements of the proffer statement. 1) A maximum of 905 residential units. 2) A gross residential density of 5.40 units per acre. 3) An allowance for a 10 percent reduction in the required number of parking spaces. 4) The phasing of the development as follows: Phase I — 300 units, Phase II — 380 units for a total of 680 units and 10,000 square feet of commercial, Phase III — 225 units for a total of 905 units. 5) The construction of community facilities and improvements within the second phase of development. 6) Architectural, signage and landscaping standards. In particular, adjacent to Warrior Drive. 7) A pedestrian and bicycle trail system. 8) Financial contributions to offset the fiscal impacts of the development on County resources. 9) The dedication of 11 acres of land as depicted on the MDP for use as a fixture elementary school site and an adjacent five acres for public use. 10) The preservation of the Village Pond within the core area as a visual amenity. This should be guaranteed within the context of its present state and may be improved or enhanced for stormwater management purposes. 11) Transportation improvements previously discussed in greater detail in this report. 7) Master Development Plan Conformance Review This preliminary Master Development Plan for the Villages at Artrip is generally consistent with the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of some issues that still remain. These issues are as follows: Rezoning 912-05 — Villages at Artrip September 21, 2005 Page 14 • Sidewalks are only shown on one side of some of the residential streets. In accordance with §144-18 of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, sidewalks are required along both sides of the roads. The plan needs to be revised to show all of the required sidewalks, or a notation needs to be provided to that effect. • A note should be provided on the MDP that the sidewalks on the eastern side of the property will connect with the Canter Estates Section V Subdivision. • A trail should be shown through the existing Lakewood Manor Subdivision, lot 121, to give them access through the Villages project to the proposed school site. • Details for the road efficiency buffer and residential separation buffer have not been provided. A cross section of these buffers showing the required trees and opaque element needs to be provided on sheet 4 of the MDP. All of the issues identified by staff should be appropriately addressed prior to a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the Master Development Plan. Any accommodations or waivers endorsed by the Planning Commission that address the above issues should be incorporated into the MDP through this rezoning process. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 08/03/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Villages at Artrip rezoning, an application to rezone 169 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to R4 (Residential Planned Community), is generally consistent with the goals of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report. Elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure that they fully address specific components of the Comprehensive Plan, in particular the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. The Planning Commission should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been fully addressed by the applicant. In addition, the preliminary Master Development Plan for the Villages at Artrip, MDP# 09-05 is generally consistent with the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of some issues that still remain. The Planning Conunission should ensure that the applicant frilly addresses the outstanding issues on the master development plan. Confirmation of the issues identified in the staff report, and any issues raised by the Planning Commission, should be addressed prior to the decision of the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 08/03/05 MEETING: Numerous issues, such as transportation, schools, and water, were discussed by the Commission. Commission members believed the completion of Warrior Drive out to Rt. 37/ I-81 was critical for this project to be successful. They also expressed concern that the applicant would only commit to construct 10,000 square feet of commercial area until Warrior Drive's completion through the limits of the property. Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip September 21, 2005 Page 15 Questions were raised on the results of the applicant's supplemental traffic analysis which concluded that the Tasker Road/Warrior Drive intersection would continue to function at a LOS C, even if the Crosspointe development's section of Warrior was not built soon and the Villages of Artrip was at frill build -out. Commissioners believed that fixture Artrip residents wanting to commute to work in Northern Virginia would have problems accessing I-66 and I-81. The possibility of forming a CDA (Community Development Authority) with surrounding developers was suggested to the applicant as a possible solution to ensure the timely completion of Warrior Drive. Regarding the transportation issues, the applicant responded that two-thirds of Warrior Drive would be completed in sections by the end of Phase 2. The applicant commented that their transportation needs could be met with only one lane of Warrior Drive in each direction; however, they have agreed to construct two lanes in both directions. I Ie noted that because of the economics associated with fulfilling that request, a critical mass of housing needed to go along with the road improvements, resulting in the housing construction and the length of Warrior Drive going hand -in -hand. VDOT's representative, Mr. Lloyd Ingram, anticipated signalization at Warrior Drive and Tasker Road before the applicant begins Phase 3. Mr. hlgram said that analysis of the initial plans suggested the four -lane paved section could not be justified with the commercial anticipated; however, once the connection was made into Crosspointe, the vehicle trips increased by an additional 8,000. I-Ie said the applicant provided the entire four -lane section because multiple lanes are needed over 8,000 trips and the balance of the commercial could be justified with the additional trips from Crosspointe. Since the size of the designated 11 acre school site was determined to be less than optimal by the School Board, other options were discussed, such as use of some of the open space area or use of a portion of the Sanitation Authority's property to the south. Issues were discussed regarding the waste water capabilities of Frederick County, if the pending regulations regarding nutrient reduction by the Virginia's Bay Program were enacted; in addition, the upgrade to the Parkins Mill treatment plant was discussed. A member of the Commission suggested that the wording within the transportation proffer reflect that roads will be "designed and constructed" to VDOT standards. The applicant agreed to revise the wording, but noted that areas within the development will be served by both public and private streets. Questions were raised regarding the establishment and jurisdiction of homeowners' associations for the various neighborhoods and responsibilities for maintenance of the common areas and structures. Two adjoining property owners spoke in favor of the proposed development, but with some reservations. One had concerns about increased traffic through his quiet neighborhood in Lakewood Manor, if Warrior Drive was not constructed early on; he also had concerns about the costs associated with finding a new school and providing sewer and water. The other citizen commented about the considerable wildlife on this property and he requested that a beautiful, old evergreen tree be left undisturbed because of its age, possibly dating back to the Civil War. 9. M Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip September 21, 2005 Page 16 The applicants said they would be willing to work on the issues raised at the meeting. In order to provide the applicants the additional time to work on the issues, the Planning Commission unanimously agreed to table the rezoning and master plan for 60 days. STAFF UPDATE FOR 10/05/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MELTING: The applicant provided the County with a revised rezoning application package on September 9, 2005. The revised materials contained an updated Executive Summary, a revised Proffer Statement, and a revised Master Development Plan. Staff met with the applicants regarding the revised package on September 19, 2005. The following is a summary of staffs review of the revised materials. Summary of outstanding items (09/19/05): Master Development Plan: • Sidewalks are only shown on one side of some of the residential streets. In accordance with §144-18 of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, sidewalks are required along both sides of the roads. The plan needs to be revised to show all of the required sidewalks, or a notation needs to be provided to that effect. The applicant has requested a mortification to this requirement through the proffer statement. This request for modification is also on the Master Development Plan. Staff is of the opinion that at a minimum, sidewalks should be provided along both sides of the collector streets. This would include Parkins Mill Road and Warrior Drive (with the exception of the eastern side of Warrior Drive south of the Elementary School access). • A note should be provided on the MDP that the sidewalks on the eastern side of the property will connect with the Canter Estates Section V Subdivision. A sidewalk has not been added to the East side of Parkins Mill Road to Canter Estates Section V. • A trail should be shown through the existing Lakewood Manor Subdivision, lot 121, to give them access through the Villages project to the proposed school site. This comment remains un-addressed by the applicant. • Details for the road efficiency buffer and residential separation buffer have not been provided. A cross section of these buffers showing the required trees and opaque element needs to be provided on sheet 4 of the MDP. The applicant has addressed the buffer details. However, a buffer detail has been added to the area adjacent to Canter Estates Section V that would necessitate the removal of existing trees. As existing woodlands exist adjacent to Canter Estates, a 50' Woodland Strip, as allowed by ordinance, should be utilized for the residential separation buffer adjacent to Canter V. Rezoning Application: • The applicant has added a section to the Proffer Statement, Section 3.1.3.1. which provides that the applicant shall not construct any of the residential units otherwise permitted in Phase 3 until such time as Warrior Drive has been constructed, so that access is available to the property from Interstate 81 and through Wakeland Manor. Additional clarity should be provided to Section 3.1.3.1 to specify that access would be provided from Interstate 81 through the Crosspointe Development and through Wakeland Manor to Tasker Road as identified in the TIA. • Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip September 21, 2005 Page 17 • The applicant has proffered that 20,000 square feet of commercial development would occur by the end of Phase 2 of the development. Previously, the applicant had committed to providing 10,000 square feet of the enabled 118,550 square feet of commercial within the first two phases. • The comprehensive sign plan should be reinstated as an appendix to the Proffer Statement. Section 4.5 has been modified to remove this commitment. • Section 7 of the Proffer Statement addresses schools. Three additional proffers have been added to this section. It may be more desirable to the County for the applicant to designate the area to be dedicated for a more general public use, as opposed to a specific public use. This would provide the County with a greater amount of flexibility in the utilization of the land. In addition, Section 7.4, which contains a sunset and reversionary clause, should be carefully evaluated. This may not be desirable and is not consistent with past county actions regarding acceptance of proffers for public use. Finally, the applicant has maintained a $337 contribution for schools. This amount does not fully address the capital facility needs of the school system as identified in the Fiscal Impact Model. • With regards to Section 14, Transportation, Warrior Drive is identified as an Urban Section (Curb and Gutter) and should be referenced as such in the Proffer Statement and detailed as such on the MDP. Section 14.3.1.1. is an important section that should also be added to Section 14.4, which addresses the Alternative approach for the Phase 1 (Parkins Mill) construction of the road. Presently there is no mention of the Wakeland Manor connection beyond point A in this section. • Staff has identified one minor modification to the Proffer Statement, the final sentence of Section 14.3.1.1., which, when considered in connection with the deletion of language within Section 14.10, is significantly problematic to the transportation program and overall rezoning application submission. The addition of "... and the said bridge shall be completed no later than the end Phase I " is not acceptable. Previously, the applicant had committed to ensuring the road connection would be in place prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Phase I and had committed to making no connection of Parkins Mill Drive extended to Canter Estates Section V, for construction or other purposes until such time as Warrior Drive has been constructed to permit traffic access through Wakeland Manor to Tasker Road. The combination of the two modifications to the Proffer Statement would result in the development of the entire first phase, and potentially more, with sole access being provided via Canter Estates. As noted, this would be unacceptable. • The above scenario is not one which was previously presented to or contemplated by the Planning Commission. Nor was the consideration of this transportation scenario extended to the general public during the public hearing and the adjacent property owners. It should be clearly noted that the TIA prepared by the applicant for this application in no way considers the use of the adjacent subdivision as the primary means of access. The inclusion of this modification to the Proffer Statement appears to invalidate the conclusions of the Traffic Impact Analysis which identifies Warrior Drive as the means of access for all phases of the development. • 0 Rezoning #12-05 — Villages at Artrip September 21, 2005 Page 18 • The Planning Commission should evaluate the scope and impact of the modifications to the Villages at Artrip application and determine the appropriate recommendation. Based upon the modifications as submitted, at a minimum, consideration should be given to affording the general public the opportunity to further evaluate the rezoning application. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 10/05/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Villages at Artrip rezoning application to rezone 169 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to R4 (Residential Planned Community) remains generally consistent with the goals of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report and proposes creativity in the application of the County's R4 (Residential Planned Community) District. However, elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure that they fully address specific components of the Comprehensive Plan. In particular, the applicants modified commitment to the construction of Warrior Drive, a key component of the Comprehensive Plan and the County's transportation planning efforts should be considered. The applicant has not demonstrated that the resulting impacts to the County's transportation network have been addressed. Further, the failure to ensure the timely completion of Warrior Drive, a major element of the County's road network, does not appear to justify the additional density modifications requested in the application, contrary to the intent stated in the applicant's executive summary. The Planning Commission should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been hilly addressed by the applicant. hn addition, the preliminary Master Development Plan for the Villages at Artrip, MDP# 09-05 is generally consistent with the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance, with the exception of some issues that still remain and that have been identified in the updated staff report. The Planning Commission should ensure that the applicant hilly addresses the outstanding issues on the master development plan. Confirmation of the issues identified in the staff report, and any issues raised by the Planning Commission, should be addressed prior to the decision of the Planning Commission. The Planninga Commission has already held the public hearing for this application. Following the public meeting, a recommendation regarding this rezoning application to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised bV the Planning Commission. SM nr REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA �o be completed by Planning Staff. Fee Amount Paid $ , 'oning Amendment Number Date Received 7V 'C Hearing Date _ �19, 03 � 0 6 BOS Hearing Date_ �// � The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Sheet, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: Winchester Artri Telephone: 301-984-7000 Address: c/o The Tower Companies 11501 Huff Court, North Bethesda, MD 20895 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Winchester Artrip LLC Telephone: _301-984-7000 Address: 11501 Huff Court, North Bethesda, MD 20895 3. Contact person if other than above David L. Frank, CLA Name: Dewberry Telephone: 540-678-2700 611 West Jubal Early Drive, B1dg.B,•Suite C Winchester VA 22601 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deed to property X Impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X 11 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: Winchester Artrip, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Tower Real Estate Group, LLC, the managing members of which are: Albert, Jeffrey, Gary and Ronald Abramson. Other non —managing members consists of additional family individuals., 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Vacant Residential,: Retail, B) Proposed Use of the Property: Restaurants and Office. 7. Adjoining Property: See Table 3 following PARCEL ID NUMBER 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): South Frederick Land Use are Parcel 99A. One mile west of I-81, 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road (VA Route 649), and 150' north of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176). Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 75 - (A) - 99A Districts Magisterial: Shawnee High School: Sherando Fire Service: Stephens City Middle School: James Wood & R. E. Aylor Rescue Service: Stephens City Elementary School: Armel 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 169.924 RA R4 169.924 Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed : 905 Residental units - Single Family homes: Non -Residential Lots: Number of Units Proposed SFD/ Townhome% MULTI - Family Townhome: Multi -Family: Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms: Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office: Service Station: Retail: Manufacturing: Restaurant: Warehouse: 118,550 SF Commercial/retail/office/.Other: Residental 13 Resend 5-19-05; 2:31PM;DEWBERRY ;540 678 2703 tk 8/ 8 I 12. Signature: 1 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) understandthat the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s): Owner(s): 12 Date: Date: Date: 51141b.5 Date: REZ#15mO5/MDP#09mO5 49' i�w �; �, , � �' 34, m F �_7 IMP-i OIL Maw_, CID cz 49,gee - Z:D fm CM CZ CD 0 owl., co, ao MGM, 61 op 0 f % 4L 0.. JA 'AN*, 71.a. N F4 �ivK1L i Eric Lawrence From: Copp, Jerry [Jerry.Copp@VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:09 AM To: Eric Lawrence; John Bishop Subject: FW: Artrip - Payment Attachments: SCN_20090306080028_001.pdf; SCN_20090330125341_001.pdf Eric and John, Thanks for your good work and cooperation on this project. ,►Jerry" Jerry A. Copp Residency Administrator VDOT-Edinburg Residency (540)984-5604 Fax (540) 984-5607 Jerry. Copp@VDOT.Virginia.Gov From: Funkhouser, Rhonda Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 12:59 PM To: Carter, Edwin; Copp, Jerry; Grim, Jo Ann; 'jriley@co.frederick.va.us'; 'mcheran@co.frederick.va.us' Cc: Shuey, Donna Subject: Artrip - Payment The requested check in the amount of $106,199.80 was received today and has been forwarded to District Fiscal. Attached is a copy for your records. rzhooAp Fuvdzhotcser vErgi,v n Depnrtvv�evut of Trnvusportpt�ovu Ed%vuburU ReslGleVlcV� L,2ADeVeLopvVeAt :L 4032 C)W va 1leu Pt Ize EAAburn, ViKgU n R 22224 Fnx # (540)-924-5C 07 From: Funkhouser, Rhonda Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 8:04 AM To: 'Foote, John' Cc: 'jriley@co.frederick.va.us'; Copp, Jerry; Carter, Edwin; Grim, Jo Ann;'smarguIies@towercompan ies.com'; Hottle, Cathy Subject: FW: Tasker Rd./Warrior Dr. Fri 3/6/2009 8:04 AM Request for payment attached. Original is in the mail. 9 0 . Thank you. From: Stuart Margulies [mailto:smargulies@towercompanies.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 3:51 PM To: Foote, John Cc: David Borchardt; john.callow@phra.com; Jeffrey Abramson Subject: RE: Tasker Rd./Warrior Dr. John: can you have Edwin send us the invoice so I can process it. thanks From: Foote, John [mailto:jfoote@pw.thelandlawyers.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 3:41 PM To: Carter, Edwin Cc: David Borchardt; Foote, John; john.callow@phra.com; Jeffrey Abramson; Stuart Margulies Subject: RE: Tasker Rd./Warrior Dr. And thank you very much. This was very smooth. John H. Foote Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley, Emrich & Walsh, P.C. 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300 Glen Park I Prince William, Virginia 22192 o 703.680.4664 f 703.680.2161 c 703.801.5075 Confidentiality notice: Please be advised that this e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential attorney -client communication or may otherwise be privileged or confidential and are intended solely for the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or retransmit this communication but destroy it immediately. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. From: Carter, Edwin [mailto:Edwin.Carter@VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 2:31 PM To: Foote, John Subject: Tasker Rd./Warrior Dr. John, just a heads -up to let you know that the final invoice for the above is being mailed this week. All charges are in and the final cost totaled $292,174.80. The initial check was for $185,975, leaving a balance due of $106,199.80. I would like to thank you again for all of your help throughout the whole process. Everyone is very pleased with the end result. 15d Edwin Z. Carter • Ass't Residency Administrator VDOT-Edinburg Residency (540)984-5605 Fax (540) 984-5607 Edwin. Ca rterC-OVDOT.Virginia.Gov This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of the message. Thank you very much. This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of the message. Thank you very much. 3 • �J COMMONWEALTH ®f 1ViIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. Box 2249 Staunton, VA 24402-2249 www.VirginiaDOT.org DAVID S. EKERN, PE COMMISSIONER March 4, 2009 Mr. John H. Foote C/O Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley, Emrich Et Walsh, PC 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300 Glen Park 1 Prince William, VA 22192 Ref: Tasker Road/Warrior Road Project Dear John: All charges associated with the referenced project have now been received and populated through the system. The total cost for this project was $292,174.80. Pursuant to our agreement of October 2nd, 2008, we received a check to the amount of $185,975.00 on November 24th, 2008 with the balance due after January 15t, 2008. Please consider this letter an invoice for the balance and forward VDOT a check in the amount of $106,199.80. The check should be made payable to the "Treasurer of Virginia" and sent to the Edinburg Office. Thank you for your attention to this matter and your assistance during the entire process. We believe this project added tremendous value to the transportation network in Frederick County and is greatly appreciated by the public. Sincerely, r rry A. Copp, 4-Residency Administrator irginia Department of Transportation - Edinburg Residency 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 Phone #540.984.5600 / Fax #540.984.5607 EZC/JAC/rf Copy: Mr. Stuart Margulies , The Tower Companies WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING 0 0-8.17 8 INVOICE NO. •INVOICE DATE • REFERENCE GROSS DISCOUNT NETA670UNT TRAFFICWRK C�3/U4JcJ9 1��6,199.8t� .t�V 11�5,199.8t� TOTAL 106,199.80 C0 1106,199.80 THE Tc WER COMPANIES _ _ ^� WACHOWA 68-541514 0 08178 L� Wachovia Bank, N.A. 00164 Wachovia.com T H E T O NV E R C 0 NI P A N I F S VENDOR NO. CHECK NO. CHECK DATE 2000 TONER OAKS B LVD,, 9TH FLOOR T R E A V A 008178 ROCKVILLE, 01ARYLAND 20852 301.984.7000 :. $ 1 is 6 , 1 9 9 DOLLARS AND 80 CENTS h :A •A . J.• A• . . A• . A• . J: 'i.' '1: h• •R• A• A• A :l• A J.' A sl- AY.• :� A A• 'A 1: A A• •R 'h• A •1: 'k A A !r •A A• :t- •J: A• 'J.' 7::t• SUM OF $1�U,199.St� TREASURER OF VIRGINIA PAY TOTHE STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION ORDER OF P.O. BOX 1197 RICHMOND, VA 23209 n'008 L 78ii' 1:05 L400 S4R1. 20000 360 2440 111" 0 I !II1 e"q6 /0001P Aiem ope 0®0 ' /?/ John H. Foote (703) 680-4664 Ext. 114 jfoote@pw.thelandlawyers: com Fax: (703) 680-2161 oy -z(;A/ C.. 3� WALSH COLUCCI LUBELEY EMRICH & WALSH PC March 25, 2009 Mr. Jerry Copp Residency AdmLriswator Virginia Department of Transportation 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 Re: Artrip / VDOT / Frederick County Agreement Tasker Road/Warrior Road Project Dear Jerry: Pursuant to your letter dated March 4, 2008, enclosed please find a check payable to Treasurer of Virginia for the balance owed on the above -referenced project. The total amount paid from the Tower Companies is $292,174.80 and concludes that all requirements per the appropriate proffer and agreement have been met. We have forwarded a copy of the check to the Zoning Administrator as evidence of proffer compliance pursuant to the Agreement amongst the parties. matter. Thanks very much for your assistance and it was a pleasure working with you in this Sincerely yours, WAL H OAUCCI, LUBELEY, H 4 WALSH, P.C. Foote Enclosure" PHONE 7o3 680 4664 1 FAX 703 68o 6o6� I www.THELANDLAWYERS.COM 4310 PRINCE WILLIAM PARKWAY, SUITE 300 1 PRINCE WILLIAM, VA 22192 11RLINCTON OFFICE 703 528 4700 I LOUDOUN OFFICE 703 737 3633 ATTORNEYS AT LAW • 0 MT. Jerry Copp March 25, 2009 Page 2 of 2 cc: John Riley, County Administrator Rod Williams,: County Attorney Eric Lawrence Mark Cheran Jeffrey Abramson Stuart Margulies David Borchardt John Callow WALSH COLUCCI LUBELEY EMRXCH & 'WALSH PC John H. Foote (703) 680-4664 Ext. 114 jfoote@pw.thelandlawyers.com Fax: (703) 680-2161 March 24, 2009 Mark Cheran Zoning Administrator Frederick County 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Completion of Artrip Proffer Improvements Enclosed you will find a letter from VDOT requ ting payment from my client for the Tasker/Warrior Road project in the amount of $106,199. You will also find a copy of the check that my people have made payable to the Treasurer of Virginia as requested. With this payment, and pursuant to Paragraph 11 of the Agreement entered into between the parties with respect of payment of funds for this improvement, our client has complied with the requirements of the Agreement, and Proffer 14.3.2. I would appreciate it if you would put a copy of this in the project file, so that this matter may be deemed ended. Thank you for your assistance. Very truly yours, WALSH, COLUCCI, LUBELEY, EMRICU kWALSH, P.C. PUONk O 680 4664 1 FAX 703 68o 6067 I WWW.TIIELANDLAWYERS, COM 4310 PRINCE WILLIAM PARKWAY, SUITE 300 1 PRINCE WILLIAM, VA 22192 ARtINGTON ol:r;ICE 703 SZ8 4700 1 LOUDOUN OITICE 703 737 3633 Mark Cheran March 24, 2009 Page 2 of 2 Cc: Jeffrey Abrahamson David Borchardt Stuart Margulies Jerry Copp John Callow COMMONWEALTH of VIIRGIINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. Box 2249 Staunton, VA 24402-2249 www.VirginiaDOT.org DAVID S. EKERN, PE COMMISSIONER March 4, 2009 Mr. John H. Foote C/O Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley, Emrich It Walsh, PC 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300 Glen Park 1 Prince William, VA 22192 Ref: Tasker Road/Warrior Road Project Dear John: All charges associated with the referenced project have now been received and populated through the system. The total cost for this project was $292,174.80. Pursuant to our agreement of October 2nd, 2008, we received a check to the amount of $185,975.00 on November 24th, 2008 with the balance due after January 1st, 2008. Please consider this letter an invoice for the balance and forward VDOT a check in the amount of $106,199.80. The check should .be made payable to the "Treasurer of Virginia" and sent to the Edinburg Office. Thank you for your attention to this matter and your assistance during the entire process. We believe this project added tremendous value to the transportation network in Frederick County and is greatly appreciated by the public. Sincerely, 4irrry A. Copp, Residency Administrator ginia Department of Transportation - Edinburg Residency 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 Phone #540.984.5600 / Fax #540.984.5607 EZC/JAC/rf Copy: Mr. Stuart Margulies , The Tower Companies RE C E OW [Eb,� MAR 49 2009 WCLEW WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING 1 • 00-8.178 INVOICE NO. INVOICE DATE REFERENCE GROSS DISCOUNT NET AMOUNT TRP,FFICWRK 108/0/q/0-9 .00 106,199.80 t, THET..t WER COMPANIES TOTAL 106,193.80 .00, 106,199.80 . —W .CT�TOVL 8 54I514 6. P Wad,6v1a�Bank, N.A. 00164 - TtdCt' T..otv,1 n C,oirzkn. res. -wachovla.$Orsl VENDOk NO, CHECKNO.. CHEGK'nATE - 2000 To���x O�cs Bz,�n , 3ra Tzook . 12ocxvrz>i,ASuiWnzossi .. TRVr� •. ,- C81�;5I1 3Ol 9$d 7000 tD'�•41 V� liLlYTJAAA%J.`AA kA: RAA'AA' -.CA'l:•A.Y.•%Jl':l••X:t. �IAAA•l.A 1lAJ:..CAAR-.I t THE 1FSl}1�ER; QF . V1- 'G'INIA :sAY YOTH>TrrJt Q��rz� ;oi3oR013X 197''. r �•� y-!�' /1rt�77��tt �xtt t�•�y l f� ry' � . � ' q� 0 L�:�l, � ?.�'1�• x::0 � � RrQ � �:'�� q� a �� O O D'Q 3 �,� � 4 �,;D �,,}�" ' _. , ,,,, . 4' • -w 0 "I WALSH COLUCCI LUBELEY EMRICH & WALSH PC John H. Foote (703) 680-4664 Ext. 114 jfoote@pw.thelandlawyers.com Fax: (703) 680-2161 March 25, 2009 Mr. Jerry Copp Residency Administrator Virginia Department of Transportation 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 Re: Artrip / VDOT / Frederick County Agreement Tasker Road/Warrior Road Project Dear Jerry: APR Pursuant to your letter dated March 4, 2008, enclosed please find a check payable to Treasurer of Virginia for the balance owed on the above -referenced project. The total amount paid from the Tower Companies is $292,174.80 and concludes that all requirements per the appropriate proffer and agreement have been met. We have forwarded a copy of the check to the Zoning Administrator as evidence of proffer compliance pursuant to the Agreement amongst the parties. Thanks very much for your assistance and it was a pleasure working with you in this matter. JHF/tls Enclosure Sincerely yours, WALSHUCCI, LUBELEY, X-7VN1R H WALSH, P.C. Johh H. Foote PHONE 703 680 4664 1 FAX 703 680 6067 1 WWW.THELANDLAWYERS.COM 4310 PRINCE WILLIAM PARKWAY, SUITE 300 1 PRINCE WILLIAM, VA 22192 ARLINGTON OFFICE 703 528 4700 1 LOUDOUN OFFICE 703 737 3633 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mr. Jeri Copp PP March 25, 2009 Page 2 of 2 cc: John Riley, County Administrator Rod Williams, County Attorney Eric Lawrence Mark Cheran Jeffrey Abramson Stuart Margulies David Borchardt John Callow AMENDMENT Action: PLANNING COMMISSION: February 15, 2006 - Recommended Approval BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: November 8, 2006 ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP REZONING # 12-05 OF VILLAGES AT ARTRIP WHEREAS, Rezoning 912-05 of Villages at Artrip, submitted by Dewberry, to rezone 169.924 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Plamied Community) District with proffers, for the proposed mixed use development of 793 residential units and retail, restaurant, office and public uses was considered. The property is located one mile west of Interstate 81, three quarters mile north of Tasker Road (Route 649), 150 feet north of Fair Lawn Court (Route 1176), and west of Canter Estates Section V — Falabella Drive, in the Shawnee Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number (PIN) 75-A-99A. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning on August 3, 2005, and took action at a public meeting on February 15, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this rezoning on October 11, 2006, and tools action at a public meeting on November 8, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the approval of this rezoning to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, is amended to revise the Zoning District Map to change 169,924 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Plarmed Community) District with proffers, for the proposed mixed use development of 793 residential units and retail, restaurant, office and public uses, as described by the application and plat submitted, subject to the attached conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the applicant and the property owner. PDRes #33-06 • This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption. Passed this 8th day of November, 2006 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Gary Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Nay Gene E. Fisher Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Nay Philip A. Lemieux Aye A COPY ATTEST A � a"A Jo i . Riley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator PDRes #33-06 • PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ #12-05 and MDP #09-05 RA to R4 PROPERTY: 169.924 acres +/-; Tax Map & Parcel 75-A- 99A (the "Property") RECORD OWNER: Winchester-Artrip Limited Liability Company, a Virginia Corporation APPLICANT: Winchester-Artrip Limited Liability Company PROJECT NAME: Villages at Artrip ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: June 2004 REVISION DATA: May 20, 2005 June 17, 2005 September 9, 2005 September 26, 2005 November 28, 2005 January 27, 2006 September- 8, 2006 October 10, 2006 October 25, 2006 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced rezoning is not granted as applied for by the Applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "Final Rezoning" defined as that rezoning that is in effect on the day upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the `Board") grants the rezoning. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the irmprovernent or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners,. assigns, and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Master Development Plan" shall refer to the plan entitled "Master Development Plan, The Villages at Artrip" prepared by Dewberry (the "MDP") dated January 27, 2006 and revised September 8, 2006, sheets 1-4; provided further that sheet 5 thereof, entitled General Development Plan ("GDP"), shall not be deerned a part of the MDP submittal but is otherwise proffered as set forth herein. IP004785 ] .DOC / 1 Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000419 000004; 1. LAND USE 1.1 The project shall be designed so as to establish interconnected mixed - use villages in confonnance with the MDP and the GDP, and as is specifically set forth in these proffers. 1.2 Except as modified herein, areas of commercial development on the Property shall be developed in conformance with the regulations of the Residential Planned Community ("R4") zoning district, as set forth in the Frederick County Code Article VII, § 165-67 through § 165-72, as cross-referenced to Article X, § 165-82, Sections A through D inclusive, and § 165-83. All commercial development on the Property shall comply with the aforesaid regulations, or as may be otherwise approved by Frederick County. 1.2.1 Commercial, retail, restaurant and office development on the Property shall not exceed 128,550 net useable square feet of cornrnercial area, and shall be provided within the Core Area. 1.3 Except as modified herein, areas of residential development on the Property shall be developed in confonnance with the regulations of the Planned Community ("R4") zoning district, including pennissible housing types, including those set forth in the Frederick County Code Article VII, § 165-67 through § 165-72, as cross-referenced to Article VI, § 165-58, through § 165-66, including as set forth in Appendix A ("Housing Types"). In the event that the Applicant elects to construct any of the Housing Types that are set forth on Appendix A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, such units shall confonn to the development standards established therein. Housing Types and lot layouts within these Landbays may comprise any of the pennitted Housing Types identified for those Landbays as set forth on the MDP or as are otherwise authorized for the RP district as it is incorporated by reference into the R4 district; provided further that no more intensive Housing Type may be constructed in any Landbay than is identified as a Housing Type permitted therein on the MDP. 1.3.1 Residential development on the Property shall not exceed a maximum of 793 dwelling units, with a mix of Housing Types pennitted in the R4 district, subject , to the modifications as set forth in Appendix A, and dwelling types shall be constructed in the locations generally depicted on the MDP and as further set forth herein. 1.3.2 For the purposes of these proffers, single-family attached and. detached and multi -family units shall include those {P0047851.DOC / I Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000419 0000041y 2 Housing Types identified on the MDP and set forth in the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance including detached cluster housing, small lot singles, single-family urban, zero lot line singles, and village rear load singles. Multi -family units shall include apartments, fee simple condominiums, and duplex units. 1.4 Development of commercial, residential and community uses within the area identified on the MDP as the "Core Area" shall generally conform to a grid lot layout, and the street layout and Housing Types depicted therein on the MDP. Not fewer than three Housing Types shall be provided in the Core Area. The layout of the Core Area shall be constructed in general conformance with the GDP, provided that reasonable adjustments may be made to the locations thereof upon final engineering. 1.4.1 The Applicant shall construct not fewer than 100 residential units of three different pennitted Housing Types in the Core Area in Phase I of the development as otherwise set out herein. 1.5 Development within the Landbays on the Property outside the Core Area shall generally conforn to the street layouts, points of connection to Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road, and the limits of development as are depicted on the MDP; provided that minor adjustments may be made to the locations thereof upon final engineering. Housing Types and lot layouts within these Landbays' may comprise any of the pennitted Housing Types identified for those Landbays on the MDP and authorized herein or subsequently approved by the Frederick County Planning Office; provided further that no more intensive Housing Type may be constructed in any such Landbay than is identified as a Housing Type pennitted therein on the MDP. 1.6 Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, rental apartments, condominium units and rental apartments over retail and office uses shall be permitted. 1.7 The gross density of residential units shall not exceed 4.7 units per acre. 1.8 Shared parking shall be provided for retail, restaurant and office uses within Landbay "A" such that a 10% reduction or increase of the required parking spaces shall be pennitted. 1.9 The Applicant shall make reasonable attempts to preserve the specimen Delaware Pine in the general vicinity of the cemetery on the property identified on the MDP as Village Green B. Such Green shall be preserved for passive recreational use, provided that a tot lot may be located thereon. During construction the limits of clearing and grading in the vicinity of the specimen Pine shall be identified and field flagged in connection with the Applicant's compliance with requirements of the IP004785LDOC / 1 Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000419 000004) 3 Frederick County Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance to prevent unintended disturbance of areas to be preserved. 2. CONSTRUCTION OF A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT 2.1 The Property shall be developed as one single and unified development in accordance with applicable ordinances and regulations for the R-4 zoning district, the MDP, and this Proffer Statement as it may be accepted by the Board. 3. PHASING OF THE DEVELOPMENT 3.1 The Property shall be developed in three phases, with the. commercial portions of the Property to be developed in Phase II as set forth herein. The three phases shall be authorized as follows: 3.1.1 Phase I. Residential development shall not exceed 325 dwelling units and shall consist of not fewer than three permitted Housing Types. 3.1.2 Phase II. Residential development shall not exceed an additional 275 dwelling units, for a total of 600 dwelling units comprising not fewer than three pennitted Housing Types. 3.1.3 Commercial development shall include not less than 20,000 square feet of commercial/retail/restaurant gross leaseable floor space in the Core Area, whose shell has been constructed not later than the 600°i residential building permit. 3.1.3.1 Notwithstanding the foregoing, and except to the extent set forth herein, the Applicant may construct all or any portion of the conunercial development authorized in these proffers at any time. 3.1.3:2 The Applicant shall submit a site plan for the aforesaid conunercial development prior to the issuance of the 326th residential building permit. 3.1.4 Phase III. Residential development shall not exceed an additional 193 dwelling units, for a total of 793 dwelling units. 3.1.5 Communily. improvements. Community -serving improvements such as community center, tot lots, and similar improvements _as shown on the MDP shall be (P0047851.DOC / 1 Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000419 0000041 4 constructed in conjunction with the Landbay with which such improvements are associated; provided that the coinmunity civic center and pool to be constructed in the Core Area shall be designed and bonded at the beginning of Phase I, and constructed prior to the issuance of the 325"' building permit. 4. ARCHITECTURE, SIGNAGE, AND LANDSCAPING: 4.1 The following building materials may be used for construction within the Property, and no others: 4.1.1 Pavements / Curbing shall consist of cast in place concrete, natural and colored; aggregate concrete; precast concrete, natural and colored; concrete pavers; brick pavers; stone pavers; asphalt pavers; granite; ceramic tile; asphalt. 4.1.2 House sidings _ shall consist of EFIS; stucco; brick; cementious siding; cedar siding; stone veneer; painted wood; vinyl siding; stained wood; aluminum; aluminum wrapped trim; hardy plank; PVC trim. 4.1.3 Decking and fencing shall consist of pressure treated wood; stained wood; painted wood; PVC fencing; IPE decking; cedar decking; TREX decking or similar recycled product. 4.1.4 Miscellaneous materials that may be used for roofing shall consist of standing seam metal roofing, colored; slate roofing; asphalt roofing; powder coated steel, colored; galvanized steel; aluminum brushed; anodized aluminum, colored; 304 stainless steel. 4.1.5 Additional materials not listed herein may be submitted to the Director of Planning for approval, who shall determine whether those materials are of a type and quality substantially similar to those listed. 4.2 Vinyl siding shall not be used on the front elevation of residential structures facing Warrior Drive or on the fronts of residences located on corner lots that intersect with Warrior Drive. The side of a residential structure that faces Warrior Drive located on a corner lot on a road that intersects Warrior Drive is not permitted to have vinyl siding on that elevation. 4.3 Notwithstanding the foregoing, materials used for exterior facades of the commercial buildings shall include but not be limited to concrete masonry units (CMU) split -faced block, architectural block, dryvit, or other simulated stucco (EFIS), real or simulated wood and/or glass. {P004785 LDOC / 1 Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000419 000004) 5 Standard concrete masonry block shall not be used for the fi•ont facades of any buildings. 4.4 All buildings within the development on the property shall be constructed using compatible architectural styles. The Applicant shall establish under the jurisdiction of the HOA(s) to be established hereunder, one or more Architectural Review Boards to enforce and administer a unified development plan. 4.5 All signage within the project shall be in substantial conformity with the comprehensive sign plan incorporated herein as Appendix B to these Proffers; provided that the Director of Planning may authorize alternative signage that is substantially consistent with the aforesaid sign plan. 4.6 The major collector roadways (Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road Extended) in the Villages at Artrip shall be constructed with a minimum 20' width buffers adjacent to dedicated rights -of -way and, except at entrance locations, shall be improved with landscape features and lighting to create a "boulevard" appearance. Illustrative details of such buffers shall be as set forth on the MDP. 5. PEDESTRIAN TRAIL SYSTEM AND RECREATION AREAS 5.1 The Applicant shall design and build a public pedestrian -bicycle trail system to Department of Parks and Recreation standards that links residential and commercial areas within the development and provides additional connectivity to adjacent properties. Said trails shall be in general conformance with the South Frederick Land Use Map and shall be in the locations generally depicted on the MDP. Five-foot sidewalks shall be constructed on all public streets and a minimum of four foot sidewalks shall be constructed on private -streets in accordance with the requirements of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, except as may be otherwise depicted on the MDP. The pedestrian/bicycling trail constructed along Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Extended shall be 10 feet wide, and shall have an asphalt surface. 6. FIRE & RESCUE: 6.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the surn of $537 per dwelling unit for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building pen -nit for each such unit. 7. SCHOOLS: 7.1 Within one hundred and eighty days of written request therefor, the Applicant shall dedicate to the Board of Supervisors approximately 18 {P0047851.DOC / 1 Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000419 000004) - 6 0' • acres of land more or less as depicted on the MDP as Land Bay C, for use only as a future elementary school site. 7.2 The Applicant shall extend sewer and water lines to the boundary of the property to be dedicated for school purposes when sewer and water lines are constructed to the Core Area . 7.3 The Applicant shall, upon written request therefor, dedicate to the Board of Supervisors approximately five (5) additional acres of property adjacent to and on the southerly side of Warrior Drive, otherwise depicted on the MDP as preservation area, identified as Land Bay F, for public use that is compatible with residential character of the development of the Property and pennitted in the R4 District pursuant to the County Zoning Ordinance. 7.4 The Applicant ,shall be pennitted to retain an easement on any such dedicated property, and on any preservation, open space, or other property to be dedicated, for the construction of permanent stormwater management facilities and utilities, as well as temporary easements for the construction of utilities and structures, for the Villages at Artrip. The Applicant shall coordinate any such facilities with the County and the School Division. The Applicant shall be further pennitted to retain the right to construct stormwater management facilities for both quality and quantity purposes, on the property dedicated for school purposes. 7.5 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the following amounts for each dwelling unit constructed, for educational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building pen -nit for each such unit. 7.5.1. For each single family detached dwelling, the sum of $14,437.00. 7.5.2. For each single family attached dwelling, the sum of $9,985.00 7.5.3. For each multifamily dwelling, the sum of $3,297.00. 7.6 Without delay in the processing of other applications and issuance of pen -nits for development of the Property, the time for any dedication required hereunder shall be extended by the time required to process any application necessary to create the subdivided parcel of property to be dedicated to the County for school purposes, and the Applicant shall file and diligently pursue any subdivision application needed to effectuate said dedication. 8. PARKS & OPEN SPACE: {P0047851.DOC / 1 Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000419 0000041, 7 8.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $847 per dwelling unit for recreational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building pen -nit for each such unit. 9. LIBRARIES: 9.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $137 per dwelling unit for library purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building pen -nit for each such unit. 10. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING: 10.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $144 to be used for construction of a general governmental administration building upon issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 11. CREATION OF HOMEOWNERS' AND PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION: 11.1 The residential portion of the development shall be made subject to one or more homeowners' association(s) (hereinafter "HOA") that shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of all common areas, including any conservation areas that may be established in accordance herewith .not dedicated to the County or others, and stonnwater management facilities not dedicated to public use, for each area subject to their jurisdiction, and shall be provided such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such associations or as may be required for such HOA herein. If there is more than one such association, the Applicant shall create an umbrella HOA with respect to the entire development that shall, among other things, have responsibility for assuring compliance with design guidelines and standards, signage requirements, private road and open space maintenance, and similar matters common to the development of the . Property, and shall establish an architectural review board subject to its jurisdiction. 11.2 Upon formation of the first HOA, the Applicant shall commission a professional management company to prepare a study of the anticipated revenues and expenses of the HOA and POA as further set forth below, for the first two years of operation, or for such longer period as may be required until such associations become self- sufficient, and to establish an operating budget for each. The Applicant shall provide to the HOA and POA funds in an amount detennined by such study necessary to cover operating deficits that the associations may have during such initial operations. 11.3 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 {P0047851.DOC / 1 Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000419 000004; 8 0 0 specifically including the "Village Green" areas as depicted on the MDP, (ii) common buffer areas located outside of residential lots; (iii) private streets serving the residents who are members of such association; (iv) cominon solid waste disposal and recycling programs, including curbside pick-up of refuse by a private refuse collection company, (v) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any street, perimeter, or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be located within easements to be granted to the HOA if platted within residential or other lots, or otherwise granted to the HOA by appropriate instrument, (vi) stor nwater management facilities, and (vii) the swimming pool and associated civic center/clubhouse. 11.4 The commercial elements of the development shall be made subject to one or more property owners' association(s) (hereinafter "POA") that shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of all common areas, including any conservation .areas that may be established in accordance herewith not dedicated to the County or others, and stoiniwater management facilities not dedicated to public use, for each area subject to their jurisdiction, and shall be provided such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such associations or as may be required for such POA herein. If there is more than one such association, the Applicant shall create an umbrella POA with respect to the entire development that shall, among other things, have responsibility for assuring compliance with design guidelines and standards, signage requirements, and similar matters. 11.5 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, a POA shall have title to and responsibility for (1) all conunon open space areas not otherwise dedicated to public use, (ii) corm -non buffer areas located outside of commercial lots; (iii) private streets serving the businesses and/or residents who are members of such association; (iv) common solid waste disposal and recycling programs to include dumpster and contract carrier services provided by a private refuse collection company, and (v) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any street, perimeter, or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be located within easements to be granted to the POA if platted within commercial or other lots, or parcels, or otherwise granted to the POA by appropriate instrument. 12. WATER & SEWER: 12.1 The Applicant shall be responsible for connecting the Property to public water and sewer, and for constructing all facilities required for such connection at the property boundary. All water and sewer infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. {P0047851.DOC / 1 Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000419 0000041 9 0 0 13. ENVIRONMENT: 13.1 Stormwater imanagernent and Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Property shall be provided in accordance with the Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations, First Ed. 1999, Chapter 2, Table 2-3, or such requirements as may be applicable at the time of plan approval, for the purpose of providing the highest order of stornwater control in existing Virginia law at the time of construction of any such facility. 13.2 Stream preservation buffers shall be constructed in general confonnance with the MDP, so as to create buffer requirements established by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to protect Opequon Creek and the unnamed tributary to Opequon Creek from disturbance. No clearing or grading shall occur within those buffers, except for the construction of road crossings, trails, water lines, sanitary sewer, or other utilities. 13.3 During construction on the property, the limits of clearing and grading shall be identified and field flagged in connection with the Applicant's compliance with requirements of the Frederick County Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance, for the project as a whole, to prevent unintended disturbance of areas to be preserved. 13.4 The Village Pond located within the Core Area shall be improved and preserved as a visual amenity and may be used for storm water management purposes for both quality and quantity. 13.5 The fifty -foot woodland conservation area depicted in Land Bays D and E on the MDP, adjacent to Canter Estates, shall remain undisturbed; provided that the Applicant may provide for adequate stornwater management outfall within such conservation area. Any such outfall shall be designed so as to minimize the impact on such area. 14. TRANSPORTATION: 14.1 Transportation improvements shall be constructed in conjunction with each phase of the development as set forth below, specifically including, without limitation, the improvements identified for the intersection of Warrior Drive and Tasker Road. Design of the roadway system shall be phased as set forth in these Proffers and shall be substantially consistent with the study entitled "A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of The Villages at Artrip," prepared by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, dated December 15, 2004 (the "TIA"). The exact location and design of proffered improvements shall be subject to reasonable adjustment upon final engineering thereof. The Applicant IP0047851.DOC / 1 Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000419 00000413 10 • 9 shall construct at its expense pedestrian -actualized signalization at each of those locations for which such signalization is identified in the TIA, upon issuance of warrants therefor unless such signalization has been accomplished by others. 14.2 Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for residential uses on streets to be placed into the State System of Secondary Highways, the Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Section 144-17 (A) of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance. For the purposes of these Proffers, construction of any road or street referenced herein shall mean construction consistent with the requirements of that section. 14.3 The Applicant shall construct the following road improvements as its road phasing for Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road, if construction of that road is initiated from Wakeland Manor. 14.3.1. Prior to the issuance of the first residential building pen -nit for the project, the . Applicant shall construct an extension of Warrior Drive from Point A to Point B as depicted on the MDP as a full four -lane divided roadway, including construction of a full section of a roundabout or traffic signalized intersection, as may be approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation, at the intersection of Warrior and Parkins Mill Road. If a signal is not warranted at the time of the construction of the roadway, the Applicant shall bond the installation of that signal until warrants are satisfied. In conjunction with such construction, the Applicant shall further connect Warrior Drive into the adjacent property known as Wakeland Manor, so as to match the pavement widths of that portion of Warrior as constructed by others. The bridge crossing of the unnamed tributary of the Opequon on the southermnost edge of the Property at Point A shall be constructed to accommodate the ultimate design of Warrior Drive. 14.3.2. Prior to the issuance of the first residential building pen -nit for the project, the Applicant shall further construct a full two lane section of Parkins Mill Road Extended, from its intersection with Warrior Drive at Point B to Point B1, as generally depicted on the MDP and within existing dedicated right-of- way, and shall construct the improvements to the Tasker Road / Warrior Drive intersection as identified in the TIA. 14.3.3. The Applicant shall block all vehicular access from Parkins Mill Extended to Falabella Drive in Canter Estates Section V until the County directs that such connection be made; {P0047851.DOC / 1 Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000419 0000041) 11 provided, however, that the Applicant may construct a connection to Falabella prior to such direction as an emergency access to the Property, according to plans approved by the Director of Public Works the purpose of which shall be to snake vehicular access possible for emergency purposes and to impede all other access. 14.3.4. Warrior Drive shall be constructed as an urban section pursuant to applicable VDOT standards therefor with an ultimate right- of-way 100' in width. Parkins Mill Road shall be constructed as a rural section pursuant to applicable VDOT standards therefor with an ultimate right-of-way 80' in width. 14.3.5. Upon initiation of said construction, the Applicant may further undertake grading, infrastructure construction, roads, and similar pre -construction activities and preparatory work necessary for building commercial or residential structures, upon issuance of permits therefor. 14.4 Prior to the issuance of the 326th residential building pennit, the Applicant shall further construct Warrior Drive as a full four lane section roadway, from Points B to D as depicted on the MDP. 14.5 The Applicant may construct a model home or sales center on the Property concurrently with the construction of the bridge connection to Wakeland Manor, and consistently with applicable County ordinances and regulations. The Applicant shall be permitted to obtain an occupancy pen -nit therefor once the bridge is open to the public, bonded for final completion, but -not yet accepted into the State System of Secondary Roads. 14.6 In addition to the foregoing, the Applicant shall design and bond for completion the following improvements to Warrior Drive: 14.6.1.If the location of the connection of Warrior Drive into Crosspointe has been identified the Applicant shall complete the remainder of Warrior Drive from Point D to Point E as a full section of a four lane divided roadway to that point, by the issuance of the 601 st residential building pen -nit. 14.6.2. If the location of Warrior Drive into Crosspointe has not been adequately identified prior to the issuance of the 501St residential- building permit, the Applicant shall design and provide performance guarantees pursuant to applicable Virginia law regarding the posting of such guarantees for the construction of Warrior Drive from Point D to Point E as a full four -lane divided roadway to a location that is approved by the {P004785 ] .DOC / I Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000419 000004) 12 0 •. County, so as to assure the availability of funds sufficient to complete Warrior to a connection with Crosspointe. 14.7 Road phasing if construction of Warrior Drive is initiated from Crosspointe: 14.7.1. In the event that others have constructed Warrior Drive from Crosspointe Center to the Property boundary prior to the initiation of development of the Property and Warrior is to be constructed from that boundary to the south, then prior to the issuance of the first residential building pen -nit for the project, the Applicant shall bond and construct Warrior Drive as a full four -lane divided roadway from Point E to Point B and Parkins Mill Extended as a two-lane section from Point B to B 1 as depictedon the MDP, to comlect to the school site. 14.7.2. Prior to the issuance of the 3261h residential building permit, the Applicant shall bond and construct Warrior Drive from Point B to Point A as a full four -lane divided roadway (and make its connection to Warrior Drive in Wakeland Manor as provided for if Warrior is conunenced from the south), whereupon the Applicant will be pennitted to build out the remainder of the residential units and coirunercial square footage. 14.7.3. The Applicant shall block all vehicular access from Parkins Mill Extended to Falabella Drive in Canter Estates Section V until the County directs that such connection be made; provided, however, that the Applicant may construct a connection to Falabella prior to such direction as an emergency access to the Property, according to plans approved by the Director of Public Works the purpose of which shall be to make vehicular access possible for emergency purposes and to impede all other access. 14.8 All left and right turn residential and commercial entrances to Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road shall be limited to those locations as generally depicted on the MDP. 14.9 Warrior Drive shall be constructed with a trail section throughout the Property, and such trail shall be extended to the property boundaries of Crosspointe and into Wakeland Manor with the extension of Warrior thereto to connect with Warrior as constructed by others. 14.10 The Applicant shall extend Parkins Mill Road Extended to Falabella Drive in Canter Estates, including a pedestrian trail on the south side Parkins Mill Extended, excluding the site to be dedicated to school {P0047851.DOC / I Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000419 0000041f 13 purposes, when Parkins Mill Extended is constructed as otherwise provided in these proffers. 14.11 The Applicant shall design and shall construct its internal road network as public or private roads substantially as they are depicted on the MDP. In the event that the Virgina Department of Transportation declines to accept neo-traditional road designs for any such internal streets, the Applicant may construct such streets as private roads. 14.12 All public right-of-ways shall be dedicated to Frederick County as part of the subdivision approval process, consistently with applicable Virginia law. 14.13 All public streets and roads shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation specifications, and subject to review and approval by the Frederick County and VDOT. 14.14 All private streets and toads shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation standards therefor as set out on Sheet 3 of the MDP, and as modified thereby, and shall be owned and maintained by the HOA as defined herein that is served by such streets or roads. 14.15 No construction traffic shall be permitted through Lot 121 in the adjacent Lakewood subdivision, or through Canter Estates, Section V. In no event shall a permanent interparcel connection be made through Lot 121. Emergency access may be provided through such lot if approved by the Director of Plarming. 14.16 The County shall not object to the grant of permission to the Applicant to construct a 2-lane gravel access road as identified on Sheet 3 of the MDP, across the adjacent property owned by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, for construction access to the Villages at Artrip, including construction of roads, bridges, utilities, and stonnwater management facilities. The County will use its best good faith efforts to assure pennission to construct such access road, if such efforts are required. After completion of construction, the Applicant may employ such access road as an emergency access to the Property. 14.17 For purposes of these proffers, a road shall be deemed constructed or completed when it has been constructed to a point at which the road is open to the public, remains bonded for final completion, but has not yet been accepted into the State System of Secondary Roads. 15. CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATION AND PRESERVATION {P0047851.DOC / 1 Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000419 000004j! 14 0 9 15.1 The Applicant shall preserve the Artrip Family Cemetery. The Applicant shall further create a 0.5 acre preservation park surrounding the Cemetery, as generally depicted on the MDP. 16. ESCALATOR CLAUSE 16.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement are paid to the Frederick County Board County Supervisors (`Board") within 30 months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to the Board after 30 months following the approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index ("CPI-U") published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time contributions are paid, they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI-U from that date 30 months after the approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI-U to the date the contributions are paid, subject to a cap of 5% per year, non - compounded. SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE {P0047851.DOC / 1 Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000419 0000041 15 0 0 STATE OF MARYLAND; WINCHESTER AYTRIP, Limited Liaj�lity Company By: Gary Abr son Title: Mana�ii Member COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY: to -wit The foregoing instrument was acluiowledged before me this,' -day of 0C:X5,Z2_P_,— , 2006, by 6�n<-u2 /J/). GINA L. BECKMANN Notary Public NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MARYLAND My Commission e fammission Expires October 16, 2007 {P0047851.DOC / I Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000419 000004) 16 0 0 APPENDIX A The following development standards shall apply to development within each Landbay for the following Housing Types listed below: SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED CLUSTER FRONT LOAD 1) IN A PROPOSED CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM TOTAL AREA PER DWELLING UNIT OF 10,000 SF, NOT INCLUDING LAND IN REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE AND ROAD ROW. NO INDIVIDUAL LOT SHALL BE SMALLER THEN 8,000 SF. FOR EACH LOT THAT IS LESS THAN 10,000 SF BY A GIVEN SQUARE FOOTAGE, AN EQUIVALENT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LAND SHALL BE ADDED TO THE REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE 2) MIN. TOTAL LOT AREA PER DWELLING 3) MIN. LOT AREA 4) MIN. YARDS: - SETBACK FROM ROAD ROW - SIDE YARDS - REAR YARD 5)MIN. LOT WIDTH AT SETBACK 6)MIN. LOT WIDTH AT ROAD ROW 7)MIN. OFF STREET PARKING EXISTING PROPOSED 10,000 SF 10,000 SF 8,000 SF 8,000 SF 35' 20' 10, 5' 25' 25' 60' 60' 30' 30' 2/ UNIT 2/ UNIT SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED CLUSTER REAR LOAD 1) IN A PROPOSED CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM TOTAL AREA PER DWELLING UNIT OF 10,000 SF, NOT INCLUDING LAND IN REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE AND ROAD ROW. NO INDIVIDUAL LOT SHALL BE SMALLER THEN 8,000 SF. FOR EACH LOT THAT IS LESS THAN 10,000 SF BY A GIVEN SQUARE FOOTAGE, AN EQUIVALENT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LAND SHALL BE ADDED TO THE REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE 2) MIN. TOTAL LOT AREA PER DWELLING 3) MIN. LOT AREA EXISTING PROPOSED 10,000 SF 10,000 SF 8,000 SF 8,000 SF IP0047851.DOC / 1 Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000419 00000413 17 0 0 4) MIN. YARDS: - SETBACK FROM ROAD ROW 35' 15' - SIDE YARDS 10, 5' - REAR YARD 25' 20' 5)MIN. LOT WIDTH AT SETBACK 60' 60' 6)MIN. LOT WIDTH AT ROAD ROW 30' 30' 7)MIN. OFF STREET PARKING 2/ UNIT 2/ UNIT SINGLE FAMILY SMALL LOT REAR LOAD 1) MIN. LOT SIZE 2) OFF STREET PARKING SPACES 3) SETBACK FROM STATE ROAD 4) SETBACK FROM PRIVATE ROAD 5) REAR YARD 6) SIDE YARD EXISTING PROPOSED 3,750 SF 3,750 SF 2 2 25' 25' 20' 15' 15' 15' 5' 5' SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED CLUSTER REAR LOAD W/DETACHED GARAGE 1) IN A PROPOSED CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM TOTAL AREA PER DWELLING UNIT OF 10,000 SF, NOT INCLUDING LAND IN REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE AND ROAD ROW. NO INDIVIDUAL LOT SHALL BE SMALLER THEN 8,000 SF. FOR EACH LOT THAT IS LESS THAN 10,000 SF BY A GIVEN SQUARE FOOTAGE, AN EQUIVALENT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LAND SHALL BE ADDED TO THE REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE EXISTING PROPOSED 2) MIN. TOTAL LOT AREA PER DWELLING 10,000 SF 10,000 SF 3) MIN. LOT AREA 8,000 SF 8,000 SF 4) MIN. YARDS: IP0047851.DOC / 1 Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000419 00000413 18 0 0 - SETBACK FROM ROAD ROW 35' 15' - SIDE YARDS 10' 5' - REAR YARD 25' 15' 5)MIN. LOT WIDTH AT SETBACK 60' 60' 6)MIN. LOT WIDTH' AT ROAD ROW 30' 30' 7)MIN. OFF STREET PARKING 2/ UNIT 2/ UNIT MULTIPLEX STACKED FLATS 1=16,11112[�1l1�[Z�]1Z�3C7 1) SETBACK FROM ROAD ROW N/A 35' 2) SETBACK FROM PARKING OR DRIVEWAY N/A 25' 3) SIDE YARD FROM PERIMETER BOUNDARIES N/A 15' 4) REAR YARD FROM PERIMETER BOUNDARIES N/A 25' 5) MIN. BUILDING SPACING N/A 30' MULTIPLEX BACK TO BACK UNITS EXISTING PROPOSED 1) SETBACK FROM ROAD ROW N/A 35' 2) SETBACK FROM PARKING OR DRIVEWAY N/A 25' 3) SIDE YARD FROM PERIMETER BOUNDARIES N/A 15' 4) REAR YARD FROM PERIMETER BOUNDARIES N/A 25' 5) MIN. BUILDING SPACING N/A 30' APARTMENTS/CONDOS APARTMENTS/CONDOS EXISTING PROPOSED 1) FRONT SETBACKS - FROM ROAD ROW 35' 35' - FROM PARKING OR DRIVEWAY 20' 10' 2) SIDE YARD FROM PERIMETER {P0047851.DOC / 1 Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000419 000004; 19 • • BOUNDARIES 50' 50' 3) REAR YARD FROM PERIMETER BOUNDARIES 50' 50' 4) MIN. BUILDING SPACING 50' 50' 5) SETBACKS FOR OTHER USES NOT OTHERWISE SPECIFIED - FRONT 35' 35' - SIDE 15' 15' - REAR 50' 50' {P0047851.DOC / 1 Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000419 000004) 20 0 APPENDIX B Comprehensive Sign Plan {P0047851.DOC / I Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000419 0000041 21 VLLL�2 e) es 2t A�tnp Comprehensive Sign Concept Plan Prepared Winchester Artrip LLC November 5, 2004 0 0 Major Entry Materials: possibly brick, wood, precast concrete, stone, or metal. Text shown on this sign is for illustrative purposes only. Location: At Major entrances. Purpose: To provide a community identification. September 10, 2004 Sign Concept Plan Page 2 Major Directional Materials: Possibly brick, wood, precast concrete, wood, stone, or metal. Text shown on this sign is for illustrative purposes only. Location: On major arterial, and collector roadways. Near community facilities.. Purpose: To provide pedestrian and vehicular direction. 4i_0ii MAX. Option A Sign Concept Plan Option B September 10, 2004 Page 3 0 0 Neighborhood Identification Materials: possibly brick, wood, precast concrete, stone, or metal. Text shown on this sign is for illustrative purposes only. Location: At intersections of major arterial roads and neighborhood entrances. Size/Area: Not exceeding (50) square feet in area, and (6) feet in height Purpose: To provide neighborhood identification. Option B Sign Concept Plan September 10, 2004 Page 4 Materials: Possibly brick, wood, precast concrete, stone, or metal. Text shown on this sign is for illustrative purposes only. Location: Close proximity to park entrance and parking facilities. Size/Area: See illustrative drawings below. Purpose: To provide identification September 10, 2004 Sign Concept Plan Page 5 * To provide clear direction to various facilities throughout the park. Text shown on this sign is for illustrative To provide educational information for pedestrians about environmental interests with in the park or wetland area. September 10, 2004 Sign Concept Plan Community Center/Facility Materials: Possibly wood, metal, precast concrete, stone, or wood. Text shown on this sign is for illustrative purposes only. Location: Visible location for pedestrians and vehicles. Near or adjacent to front entrance of building. Purpose: To provide community center identification throughout the community. Text shown on this sign is for illustrative purposes only. Sign Concept Plan September 10, 2004 Page 7 Multifamily Community Materials: brick precast concrete, pin -mounted letters Text shown on this sign is for illustrative purposes only. Location: At intersections of major arterial roads and neighborhood entrances. Size/Area: Not exceeding (5) feet in height Purpose: To provide neighborhood identification throughout the community. Text shown on this sign is for illustrative purposes only. VARIES. PER SITE CONDITION September 10, 2004 Page 8 Sign Concept Plan Materials: Possibly brick, metal, precast concrete, stone, or wood. Design Character to be compatible with village center architecture. Location: Close proximity to parking areas, at circulation crossroads Purpose: To provide an information for visitors and community residents. September 10, 2004 Sign Concept Plan PLAN KEY SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED -� MULTI -FAMILY COMMERCW. I RFAIL OFFICE I RESTAURANTS PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY M COMMON OPEN SPACR Jrlim TrTmJr-._-3 T-I �- llll/r-J(/ !J11,1111JJJa I. 111 LLIl[I LIJ - _ ` GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ` — - I -- SHEET 5 OF 5 JnTrnllTl TKF. VYLAGESATARTRTI' _I rJ�II�i�I n w nEWMOOWA OFTRE TOWER O'IMPANfES PARKINS LPRFL CFM \t TU V I1 1I1 �J11.I.IJ_IJJJJ SBA WNBE MAGISTERIAL DUMrCF THE TOWER COMPANIES .ISO; BuRCnmf NeiiEAehoE4 Mvylmtl }p893 TEL�01.911�.F000 iAX 301.9M 6�+3 Ie IJR1 i095�m�SG1£ 1•-Sb 1i111Jnctti __ J- ,1u.utli�lililil i De n ,_ erry 0 • Identification Materials: Possibly brick, precast concrete, stone, wood, or metal. Text shown on this sign is for illustrative purposes only. Location: At major entrances off of arterial roads. Purpose: Identification and orientation within the community. September 10, 2004 Sign Concept Plan Page 10 Tenant Identification signs. Color: Tenant will be permitted to display their logo and color. Material: Possibly precast concrete, stone, brick, wood, or metal. Text shown on this sign is for illustrative purposes only. September 10, 004 Sign Concept Plan Page 11 0 • Directional Materials: Precast concrete, black metal pin -mounted letters. Text shown on this sign is for illustrative purposes only. Purpose_ To provide direction to office campus amenities. Location: Proximate to tenant identification sign. Along pedestrian an routes. September 10, 2004 Sign Concept Plan Page 12 v ADIACENT PROPERTY OWNER INFO. SUMMARY TABULATION _ \ iN>x-((ii))-ii0 ,u x-((il))-,z] ,u )x- iu, w.nR:pmmwu.seaiwa�tn u,nw Wxe nren.,xmw.wi*eaR {{TRIAL eF A YDWA Ibe N (I.e1N-cu x.-(I.el)-cz � �Y SMOLE Fnnm.Y DIRA!]w�C1ZATER ;8264602"E 381.34' \ sv»u a w.aia. w °¢i D n.R aq a a nw,ro a n _ ._ \ WEIR.) a0-0d/I!9 walr_ / W 00p— D0 0]]/40I 09S/�]iD�n'"wewaw"wyw A� _T '••�`S�j�'o .. - �Zo-R�i.G RP ♦. 05Cti '9D[ppM u0 =. R ftol"n, "Ian•« Runt wm �unem w.D,.mne vaa,muw .. 3p as«. m• mnmce.w•.,, mLGljTAnjATATrAt17[D Tu Zx.-(I ��1I-�10 ,u ,SFlf�o))-a] •tl xvtlnm wua.,aam �wavmae eoeanea,vmr .mo,un 69, a,-D:/a,)tl 09T9xry>i W 01/ear a n00-N�-i<m _ ® a�""M•�„� ` 11 �5[:aR[�OR�n4 usL R[90R+mnal "A. M57/.'aJ euY - -�` - Io-•uc Zan«. r ZRIi4 AP-ia.o-x"-r von ulue+re�e0ra.ertu,•era •,..�, ma t` �_ ,v,x-(1„»-,., ,., x_((„„-,:, ,� x_(�.a»-a. „a,ea••�.,awR,a�.,a„m., _ j -<y' !.•�_ "`re/� e'/een r Looses tix xmx�wc SCHOOL STE .wmn.mn".n ,, ]sE oaou�nne uc R[,mnue ssayawei:v �"'e �1O"°'e' CONNECAON70 PH -.SE I N II CANTER ESTATES TOTAL \.`s\,/O .� P,-S •, cRa�c(nc(7(�rna(oFtice)nerrnvani+rs_ �. .. T(TCALDR2LSINO11Nfi5___—_—_— n we OYOUILRP=IDMALDETl4'IY_ _------- uaveM c DPDIGTED I3MA@JTARY 3 01. y'tE_____--_ ,.•a- a• •� \ _ r� OPTIONAL ROAD PHASOiGPLAN PUBVCNmTf of a'nv SCALE: 1•-300�.•.R•n.ue..r iv.nv y *V/R11PAIA 1Aa65 um—o � � Gnea(ON OI'eN Brous 1lIWULAFNR \'C • < - � ENVD(OXMFNTALTPATUM 77 7- 51 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHEET 1 OF 5 THE VILLAGESATAR TRIP A DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOWER COMPANIES PARKINS I ML PRECINCT IN SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT THE TOWER COMPANIES 11501 Huff Court North Bethesda, Marylmd 20895 TEL 301.9E4.7000 FAX 301.994.6033 ww•w.t—cvmpaoimoaro 29 APRIL 2005 SCALE: I"- IW B gun GRAPHIC SCALE �� ff �� a i:' j �- -1• •� i ll` , } APPROI7!D DI' 771E COVA'n' AOAUNl=A7DR •(:. , J'6° Lfl FBA - F �\ rounn'AonRvrx.ma ar. 'z 5 ACRES DQ)ICATFDPUbLTC APPROI'£D D)' 771E DIRECTOR OF PUA'NZA'C AND DEI'FL0PAfENr C PEN a or raw. a anzc am •\ � �L.X� / �\� REI7SION BLOCK U6CR1/770N DA711 " P£R�cOUN7T',CO"NY£A7S." 10 0 d I OS _� . x a. .. s •. ,a.... a"i LANDBAY_C DEDICATI'D IMEM I.71'ARY SCHOOL S[LH 19.0 ACItES i � � I m LANDBAY E IAlA.T4FAMD.Y f v LANDBAY D MOLT -FAMILY 1 h \ T R / \ - - • jb0 YEAR F100DPIAIN � NvOT3 -w "• 4a3.66 r t — .+'a IDDiatAA F1.00DPLAIN -- I Ia�.6o• N89a33'00"W i,DE .JW —9DCWALY.'o, Ec". i0 SI9a48114"W'. `. 77.43' Fq / @yq ENE PLAN KEN' I� 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN o O PHASFIINE � 's U X 57P1'P SLOPES > 5o% 2 2CONTOURBJILRVAL EXISTING WOODLAND WOODLAND CLEARING WETLANDS WATERS OF THE, US HISTORIC GRAVE RESERVE AREA STORMwATERINANnGEMI.2JT - RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE ® CENTRAL CORE AREA TOTLOT/RECREA•DONALEQIBVALENT DEDICATED PUBLIC OPEN SPACE -�`'- 19 WIDE ASPHALT TRAIL -� S WIDE CONCRETE SIDEWALK OR ASPHALT TRAIL � � -.- OPEOUOd'rCRECK. 7H[ VILUGES-� a: ARIIIIP SCALE:I "'' `� Dewberry SCALE: 1 • � 7,D0f1 " c .w..s.... em. PUBLIC ROAD 50' ROW -�-5' PROPOSED I - TD raP i 'PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED CLUSTER REAR LOAD W/DETAC" GARAGE I)w A rROPOSm m.IS1PJl DE VF, nPA1CNT.TDeII➢ SOARnEASA TOFALMGPOIDWm.IJIVO UNFT OF IBpm SF.Si, NOF MCL3IDwt I.VlmM REQImIFD CDAMMON -D OPES ROAD ROW. NO MDIVmUALIAf SIGLL.nES� TI1EN SF U SF. FOR EACD 1[1rTDAT6111SnK L,Q SF➢YA QUAJ SpUMEFOnrA D EpvrvALExr spuAu FoorADEff3ANusaul.ne A➢DLD TO TIFF 0.EOUfRED CmdOV OPml aA[E aA'FSTAG . R SrRD 3)N➢:.TOTALIArMGPm DwmTAL 400Ba Ig6BDa 3)L urrARFA eama emoa 6) Amt YMIE: SEIRACKDIONROADROW fS Ir -SmEYMtE I➢ r -RFARYMD u Is r).\Int. LOr WmIllATSnmAO: 6e 6pIn:.LOf R'mrn ATEDADROW ]D l➢ ]y.ON. OFT STRFFrPARK3S 31CR UluT 2PG lAnT " TMI RLIi.DiNr PUDUC ROAD PUBLIC ROAD 50' ROW 50' ROW T--T-- T--- -T 35 I 'PROPOSED I IISPROPOSW PIWA7E ROAD D! o' 41 5' PROPOSED —J-5` PROPOSM - - I -_, 4' i y PRotrosm I ALLEY ALLBY 1 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED CLUSTER FRONTLOAD I)w APROPOSCD CLISImI DGVEIDn11Ni.NER➢ SllAll DE A NMAMA TOTALAAUPFR DW'm13NG UNIT OF IB,BBO SF. NOT MCLIaWfcLAtmw REQUIRED COAfMMON OrCNaACEAtm ROAD ROw. NO M'DNmUAL LDTSnM1➢ESM.WSA TIDM IAB6 SF. iOA FAN IDI'1nAT 61ESSnlAN IBpeB SF➢Y A GIVLN SQUAREfOorADEM DCD eQTO it SpUARE FOOrAOGOFUI.99 WL➢E ADDm TO n6 REpURFD � OP[IJaAa aTO _ IROPO>aD 17 AliN. TOTAL IAfMGImIDw'IISAL B.m6a 4mBa ))MM.IDFARU IPWa I.DWa �) Am. T_. .SMACK. ROADROw It 3B .SM— ID -RCM YARD 2S r • 2T 5)MM. I.QFwmIDATSEmAO: W l a 67Mw. LoTWmTli ATRWDROW SC )➢ ]SWII.OFF STRCCTrARAAC 31 TPm — e;s.➢flErFr OuLNDACY 20' FPoliYAiwlc- ^R DRRIEIV.AY — - - roEU1LDi I MULTIPLEX A4CK Y0R4CK UMTS Fes+ rRDrvmD I)SETDA=nm1ROADROw WA 1T 2) SET35ACKFROMrARK4SOI3RIM'w•AY WA 3T 173mE y'MnflIOM TRD6DiRBOIlaARQ3 WA Ir e)AFiV11 YAMD1m1 PCRD.�TF31➢OlRS3AR6'3 WA ZS S)MM.nUnDwOaACAG WA lB 6) MIN. on STRFLTPAR33S. WA IPER IRIIF MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHEET 2 OF 5 Yard Setbacks THE VYLAGESATARTR_R A DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOWER COMPANIES PARKINS MILL PRECINCT' IN SHAWN EE MAGISTERIAL DI IIISTRICT III J THE TOWER COMPANIES 11501 Huff Courl North Bethesda, Maryland 20895 TEL. 301984.7000 FAX 301.984.6033 W W W.IoWefLnmpanimoOm 17SFP7TMBFR2004 SCALE:NM SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED CLUSTER REAR LOAD I)M APxDPOS'lD C1LTmR DEVmDPMmtT.nSDIe SfIALL DE AAIMDAUM TOFALARF POIDx'LLLA'O UNIT Oi IB.BOB SF, NOF wCLlIDMELAND P: REQUIRED COAIMMON OPCNaAC➢AAmRWO xOw_ NOIISr. m.A CII SI TUX"..NAll.IA n aFDSF. FO0. ESQU Il)1`00T 6113STIUN I B1M0 SF➢V A GIVEN SQUMeiOorAtLM EpllrvAL[NT SpUMG i00TAGE0FLAN0S]LW.➢E AnDm ro Tm: upmxeD cmwa+nrm+aAa 6TTSF/MG IRDID.SIID 21 AIM.TO'FAL I.Or ARFAPU Dwm3S3: 0.me SP � lBmoa l7 AON.IDrMG IP64a �1611a A) AIDL YMDI .SACKFxmIxWDxOW 31 IS m zI¢rMSa ID -REM YMD 2S L 5}NM.IAr WmOlATSemAm: 60 6)M➢i. Lor Y/mDI ATROA➢AOW 3B RI nAfM.OFF STASFTARKAL 3P[R 2PER IlIJT UNIT SINGLE FAMILY SMALL LOT REAR LOAD svrrinc rxoronD I)A(M. LDr3�' 375Da 3756a 2)dTSFA PARIm,CSPACLR T 2 »sInACK FRml9TATEROM 3T 3S A)SDT➢ACK FROMlRP/ATERMD 1➢ IS S)RLMy— IS IS 6)SmE YARD s s NOTE: GREY DD ENSIONS REPRESENT R4 STANDARDS; BOLD DIMENSIONS REPRESENT REQUESTED WAIVERS OF STANDARDS; ALSO SEE CHARTS FOR INDIVIDUAL PRODUCT TYPES FOR LISTING OF DIIYIENSIONAL STANDARDS -eum .-_i -T() MULTIPLEX [Ir Drn�aur STA=FL4TS BS)S]DVn I)$<T➢ACADImi ROMROW WA PRDFOSSD lr 2) SMACK FROM PAAAIN M0A1VEWAY WA ^3 )ISmE YARD FRO]1 Pmin@TW OOJIV9AR� WA IS 6)R[M YAim n_ PERDILT➢1001MDM16 WA SS' 5)ADN.OUD.DMcaACPL WA 30 6) MIN. OFF STREETPAAKAL WA S TER UNT! i ;5' FRIIAt KOAD ROW -'n RIIILDINIi I �. - AD Front 1'ERl'.ILTPlc L Ip'PROPOSm _0'r1tDAf P.11,.l:t•f�: _ DR DP.It'=n'A, --O BL7LOIwi_—_ APARTMENTS 1)FAONT SCm AC13 BATrnAc IMlFO.SSD sxmuowxaR• 3r it FADAIPMKAGm IDtNCx'AY N IB 373mE 1'MDFROM Pt]UVmIHl1RRI 4M➢3 54 fP JI REMYM➢FROM rmn.lErmin0.➢II)MlE4 sP so 61AmV.➢tlnDw0 aA6C sB SB 5)S[TBAC13 Fm OImT USES NOI OT36JIW'� SPFLEIID .PR¢+r Sme 3r 3r Ir Is 50 Y . REM 6) AIM. OFF STRFYFrAR/1 D IB=Roo ­AMAc -T➢mROOMS 22.sa= S3 _.AC . f3 nEDR0m6 VAM iS SPACfS 25 rAC6 Dewberry � bJ 4rIV U �. BWICioe D Wlv C. RNeBmla� VA �841 TYPICAL SECTIO14 WARRIOR DRIVE FROM A TO B & C TO E RESIDENTIAL SID[ _ R/w « « C rc 5' 9' 13' s' 113' 'r' i`S 111y v -- w/ vnR10U5 PLnunNGS — T 10' Aclm BOrrER 1 e0INAe1M BurrER TYPICAL SECTION WARRIOR DRIVE FROM B TO C ;\� + so' aoAo RIcx1 w wnr 1� cOrwMRNE1MES VILLAGE STREET WITH PARKING BOTH SIDES TYPICAL PAVEMENT SECTION MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHEET 3 OF 5 Major Road Sections THE VILLAGESATAR TRTP A DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOWER COMPANIES PARKINS MILL PRECINCT' IN SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT THE TOWER COMPANIES 11501 Huff Court Norlb Belbecda, Maryland 20895 TBL.301.984.7000 FAX 301.984.6033 WW1V.IoWercDDmpa l=xxnT 17 SFPTE24BER 2004 SCATS: NM —"T —1 r Ixsu— AND —11"Ma ¢ ELECTRIC. WS, CARE[ .10 TELEP..l xe' RDnD ol1 a wA. s e' u' unun CDRROOR• �1 - CORDRrCOP• wlrs01'mus calw[r 2 WAY ALLEY TYPICAL PAVEMENT SECTION APPROI'ED BY ,01c M. AND — 10 14—m w1NE1 50' LAxDSC BU ,- �` uv+ Bwu — I 1RNl rl/ V RN}JS RANONDS/ RE—.— SIDE I 10' AcnK Burrw .o' RunlvE eusEe •NDrt: sE- n luc—, •11— SEE sR¢1 .R�rors�E D.E. mnu LDunMs •r.- PROP. OiAOC -11 llC r110 —E GRADE Al 1¢ a BE- OR :' 1-1 EDa Dr 10' 1Rnl "ICN CVFP IS dOSER ^' UIR BERM —�' V w/ RIMS P-11114CS lo' TRAIL RESIDENT- SIDE 40' 114ACIIW BUTTER So' LANDSCAPE BLMR TYPICAL SECTION PARKINS MILL PD. FROM B TO E1 GRAVp SHIN VM1.S�iYMN 9W RWDDaQ PROP. 1— — DC I.- W E Al TOC a BERu OR 2rROA a 10' — —1 — IS CLOSCR u E I B IFAYEI y�D R/w RFSIDCNIIAL ADC wi �a N1LH 1 AV ■1�U+aINErzs Y' o BFRY � AOIrt:[F w/ VNi1M5 PWIINGS ID' uxoscAPE Burrrn 50' LANDYAPC BIFTEP NOTE: D' uaxD .ARxIDx DID E A P D DxR xD xD.D 1/+• : / �' sronAu Alexc Au IrrtEAu9x slxecls - ALL OTHER ON -SITE ROAD SECTIONS TO BE PER VDOT STANDARDS - ALL INTERSECTIONS TO BE DESIGNED - - �;� WITH PEDESTRIAN ACCESS T)P/CAL S_L•CT/ON ASPHALT TRA1 rounn• ADuwvrn+mx D.Iw APPNOUP BY TOE DIRECTOR OF PUNNING AND DEITLOPNENf c, 4, _xor I-a- c . T-1)URu J I. lE1mpMRv ROADS S—D, 1K cm— Or lI[ ;pil To.. .11B-- E-11 PDS—Io SCOPES SnDLID ;. IT— PAMRII1 AREA SxQAD OnG°�A�D�q ec suT:xiuinrDAPRouD[ DiwuA¢ euT hr011o �ro1 Eirc¢o ] ALL N15 uq R35 9uLL B[ 21 OR rUT1IR To NE C%1CIli P05901L Sx LLnBC DCSIDxCO nIID CO+SIRDCRD II°i �[ DRDN14 M STDRuwnTER W1VEYur¢ pumCL STD. a ePCC ].1 T. S. iM ROADBED OR P—C SWrAa SHALL K CLEARED Of ALL vE¢1— R0— — DDICR ..ECTDIIABIE uAl[RIAL APPIED 1uuEdAIEL�i AfiO+ uIx rC1nIN` OR 1NE [o1PlxTDlr a< RCM Coll *1 mE®10 NE D02IOIDNSW,111 _,Wf —111DA— —DBC qSOT., u-Ioc Z ° A� clrcrsavc TEMPORARY ACCESS ROAD 1"X xcC L-CTEON lb GLD A °A00ciml �TiuT S.1 TIC N91TIAM DY NLL Dewberry N ILL' .w.Aewber� mrelY D �•rW Rrt2e...D'] idle E. rrnepener. YA 22Coi MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHEET 4 OF 5 Parks, Trails and Landscape Buffers Plan THE ► H-LAGESATARTMP A DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOWER COMPANIES PARKINS MILL PRECINCT' IN SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT � nr� THE TOWER COMPANIES 11501 Huff Court North Bethesda, Maryland 20895 TIT., 301.994.7000 FAX 301984.b033 WW A—emomponi—om 29 APRIL 2005 SCALE: I"- 100' ROAD EFFICOIiCY HIJFFFRSECDON SCALE:I"-Ia 0' CKRGREEN i EC ROW �.' PERN W/ vM-$ rin —Cl t0' ifGa 25' NnCPK B11RLR 25' MnK PUFRR ]D' ROnD EC44C11C1 mrrrR cvn'rrruxmu/Dr APPROVED DY T/fE D/RECTOR Of PLANAVVC AA'D DEIWWPIIENT aBBnw or rcur. r nnac D"r" / PER COVA7Y CVMATA7S P /5 0 P RUDDY AfELMWNC 5 /0 05 5 2O OD / o�vn J I RUDD)' /t77ER S J/ OS B l: 05 auA �,C I REI%S/ONS D/D/OS ' s etmnv Arrrnwr a/vn/n] /s_t/n3 wrrWmrY su[ r scwAvmr[ PREFERRED PIANTUST c� w,r, s�a� Nrr ca,.RRW Nero smw� wr r�AMe... veyr wlhrrrr ha G r n ocwt tw�r.ri �M �Yrs Orr.w Ywiru our,bpY hhysY ort o-W M1 ('�-inr MOun� 1Lr1�� ouu rr. y.en Mr 4R � ]rrirw Llurl4-A+u IMa.0 YATO..rtlm ]r.ygA� v WAY Iwf� r. yAr �re)W we *wrd t4 �uV• y.wau rru.r bYwgru .�u.� .tid Cr.r1Yy 0-r Mrr� Ce.rum uu pR-ry Mlu+in..rl hR UAuy 1Tw Mw uWYYn.efu A-IW-" Carr IwturN I--. — 0 CKRGRECN 9NU] D-0-5 iRE[ � ORNAwCViAE 11EC W4r Yurw w�-rM nw44MF rn w�-ArM F�BF� () V W 2 SINGLE FAMILY DE7ACBmDRBAN _ SINaFAMILY DETACHED CLUSTER StGLE FAMI.Y ATTACHED MMM MUL77-FAMB.Y -- COMMERCIAL. / APARTMENTS �--� OFFICE / RETAIL / RESTAURANTS C __� PUBL.ICLUGHTOFWAY o -- ® COMMON OPEN SPACE BUFFER PLANTINGS ® 11rWIDEASPHALTTRAIL T WIDE CONCRETE SIDEWALK ® TOTLOT .-, - EXISTING WOODIANDS WOODLAND CLEARBNG Dewberry :77u uc ]J vrb D =.c. DRS]1� 0. ]ulle C, rin<herter. vA ]iql PLAN KEY SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED -SVC-FAhULYATTACHEDTOW'S - SINGLE FMHLY AMER M- BACK TO BACK - SNGLEFMDLY ATTACHED STALKED ITATS -WEAK. TOWNHOUSE DUPLEK - MULTI -FAMILY W RH THE FOLIDWNG OMONS: - GARDEN APARTNDNISAYINCONLNTUAIS -S - M-FAMILYATTACHEDTOWNS -SNGLEFMSD.Y ATTACH D BACK TO BACK -SNGLEFM.HLY ATTACHEDSTAQUDMATS -ATRIUM HOUSE - WCAK.TDNK TOWNHOUSE -MULTI,= DUPLE( COMMERCIAL / RETAIL OFFICE/RESTAURANTS PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY -PAVED ROADWAY COMMON OPEN SPACE — ,-- -• I- I I I_--- I I � I 1 1 I IT ]---I iL1 FF I . t1Jll.Wlll11 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHEET 5 OF 5 THE Vff-LA GESA TAR TR-ZP A DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOWER COMPANIES PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT MPROKZ'D 81' T/f£ CDUA'n' ADI!/AYSTRI TDR [vUATI' IDYM/STFPNF �• MPROIZ'D DI' rvE THE TOWER COMPANIES D/REiCTOR OF PUNNING AA'D DEI'ELOPAI£AT 11501 IIuffODurt North Bdbmda, Maryland 20895 T'EL301994.7000 FAX301.984.6033 wwW,trnvcmmpeniccmm REMISIDA' BLOCA' r 4i 29 APRII. 2005 SCALE: 1"=50' $sue / PER CO2 /5 05 ' C—OMM-ENT9m- UCOMM'CDYY u'/4/Du' o�vn 7 RUDDI' UE£f/NC 5 /D 05 PD OS I 3 RUDD3' LETTER 6131105 R£I'LS/OAS 0 /l D5 9/9/D5 N wr S RUDD)' I/E£T/NG 9//9/D.5 9 29 OS a'GN'6T5 •r•r t S/G.'�NRb' .OTSRfS� YVARY �\ K l.OTSRE MATV/JtY-i Lo __JTfTm1TTl i , IJJJJ I K- Dewberry ..- ....�.r• .e r.. we.r.n� c n....r.� r. mop HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS WILBUR C. HALL (1892-1972) THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924-1999) SAMUEL D. ENGLE 0. LELAND MAHAN ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. JAMES A. KLENKAR STEVEN F. JACKSON DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR. HAND DELIVERED ATTORNEYS AT LAW I s 7 EAST MARKET STREET LEESBURG, VIRGINIA TELEPHONE 703.777-1050 9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA TELEPHONE 540-662-3200 FAX 540-662-4304 E-MAIL lawyers@hallmonahan.com August 3, 2005 Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 PLEASE REPLY TO: P. O. BOX 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-0848 Re: Winchester - Artrip, LLC (Villages at Artrip) Proffer Statement Dear Mike: I have reviewed the above -referenced Proposed Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the Proposed Proffer Statement is in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance- and the Code of Virginia, and is legally sufficient and enforceable as a Proffer Statement, subject to the following: 1. I have not been provided with a copy of the Master Development Plan (MDP) referenced in the Proffer Statement. As many of the proffers contained in the Proffer Statement are referenced to the MDP, this review does not include matters referenced to the MDP, and I assume that those matters will be reviewed by staff. 2. While implied, I believe it would be preferable to have it expressly stated in Proffer No. 1 that the property will be developed in substantial conformity with the MDP. lJ 0 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN be MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director August 3, 2005 Page 2 3. The second paragraph on the first page of the Proffer Statement makes reference to a General Development Plan (GDP), and states that the GDP "shall not be deemed a part of the MDP submittal but is otherwise proffered as set forth herein." It appears that the GDP is a sheet within the MDP, and I am not clear as to the significance of the statement that the GDP is deemed not a part of the MDP. 4. In subparagraph 1.2.1, it is provided that commercial development shall not exceed a maximum of 118,550 square feet. The area subject to this limitation should be identified (for example, 118,550 square feet of usable commercial floor area). 5. The description and limitations on residential development as set forth in Proffer No. 1 should be carefully reviewed by staff for conformity with County ordinances and for suitability. 6. Paragraph 1.6 states "not withstanding any provision of law to the contrary, rental apartment, condominium units, and rental apartments over retail and office uses shall be permitted." This does not seem to be a proffer, but rather seems to be calling upon the County to waive provisions of its ordinances, which the County cannot do unless the ordinances provide for a wai,-er. 7. Subparagraph 1.3.1 provides that residential development on the property shall not exceed a maximum of 905 dwelling units. Paragraph 1.7 states that the gross density of residential units shall not exceed 5.40 units per acre. Are these two statements consistent? If not, which controls? 8. It should be noted that in Section 3 (Phasing of the Development) there is no timing associated with the phases. Therefore, there is no control over when the residential units will come on line. It should also be noted that the residential limitations are cumulative, so that if any portion of the 300 dwelling units are not constructed in Phase I, there are added to the 380 dwelling units which may be HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director August 3, 2005 Page 3 constructed in Phase II. Also, it should be noted that the commercial portions of the property will be developed in Phases II and III. Therefore, there could be 300 dwelling units constructed in Phase I without any commercial development. However, in subparagraph 3.1.3 (Phase III), it is stated that "the Applicant may construct all or any portion of the commercial development authorized in this proffers at any time." Is this inconsistent with the previous statement in Proffer 3 that commercial portions will be developed in Phases II and III? 9. In subparagraph 3.1.4, it should be noted that the community center and pool to be constructed in the Core Area is not required to be constructed until the beginning of Phase III. Therefore, there could be 680 dwelling units on line before the community center and pool are constructed. 10. In paragraph 5.1, if it is intended that the provision on sidewalks is to require sidewalks on both sides of public and private streets, that fact should be expressly set forth in the third sentence of paragraph 5.1. 11. In paragraph 7.1, regarding dedication of 11 acres for a school site, I question why it should take 180 days after a written request for the Applicant to dedicate the identified 11 acres. Also, the proffer indicates that the land would be dedicated for use as a future elementary school site "in conjunction with the adjacent property of others". What is the significance of the quoted language? It also should be noted that in paragraph 7.1, the Applicant retains an easement on the 11 acres for the construction of storm water management facilities, and retains the right to construct storm water management facilities for both quality and quantity purposes on the 11 acres. While the paragraph says that the facilities will not materially impede the use of the property as an elementary school, it seems to give the Applicant the continuing ability to come on to the property to construct storm water management facilities. This would seem to raise a question as to whether there would be any assurance for the future that the storm water management facilities would not interfere • HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director August 3, 2005 Page 4 with the use of the property as a school site, and, further would seem to raise the question as to whether the proffered school site is suitable or whether it is merely "land left over after development." In any event, the proposed site should be reviewed by the school board, in addition to the County, for suitability. 12. Each of the various monetary proffers should be reviewed for suitability (the monetary proffer for schools would appear to be low, particularly in relation to the other monetary proffers). 13. In paragraph 12.1, the provisions for public water and sewer seem to presume that the Sanitary Authority lines are now at the property boundary, or will be brought to the property boundary by the Sanitary Authority. Further, the word "property" at the end of the first sentence should be capitalized, to make it clear that the "property boundary" being referred to is the external boundary of the entire development, and not interior property boundaries. 14. In paragraph 13.5, there is reference to the dedication of"Land Bay F". As I do not have an MDP, I cannot identify what is being referred to as "Land Bay F." It is noted that, for some reason, it may be, dedicated in phases. In any event, this proffer, if desired by the County, should have a timing cornrnitment as to when the property would be dedicated to the County, or its assignee, and a determination is made as to whether it is appropriate to have a dedication made in phases. 15. I assume that Proffer No. 14 (Transportation) will be carefully reviewed by staff. As I do not have the MDP or specific information about transportation plans in this area of the County, I am unable to substantively comment on this proffer. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director August 3, 2005 Page 5 As stated above, this review does not included items which are referenced to the MDP, which was not available to me in preparing this review. Further, in general, I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for this specific development, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. ly yours, Robert T. Mitchell/Jr. RTM/glh is -10 Virginia Department of Transportation Mail to: Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 (540) 984-5600 Applicant's Name: Winchester Artrip LLC Hand deliver to: Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 2275 Northwestern Pike Winchester, Virginia 22603 Telephone: 540-678-2700 Mailing Address: c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T. Wiley 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 Location of property: South Frederick Land Use area, Tax Map 75—((A)), Parcel 99A. One mile west of 1-81, 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road (VA Route 649), and 150' north of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176). Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: R4 Acreage: 169.924 Virginia Department of Transportation Comments: See attached letter from VDOT to Mr. Michael Wiley dated May 20, 2005. I VDOT Signature & Date: Notice to VDOT - Please Return Form to Applicant 20 �AAY -2 3 2005 - - ------ ---- 4 ,i COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY Philip A. Shucet 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE COMMISSIONER EDINBURG, VA 22824 May 20, 2005 Mr. Michael T. Wiley C/O Dewberry 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Building B, Suite 6 Winchester, VA 22601 Ref: Winchester Artrip, LLC Dear Mr. Wiley: MAY 2, 3 2005 1 JERRY A. COPP RESIDENT ENGINEER TEL (540) 984-5600 FAX (540) 984-5607 The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 719. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in The Villages at Artrip rezoning application dated May 20, 2005 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. The developer will be regrcired to enter into a signalization agreement with VDOT at the time the roadway is regrcested to be accepted into the State's Secondary System. The developer will be liable for the cost of the signal. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Lloyd A. Ingram, Transportation Engineer LAI/rf Enclosure — Comment Sheet VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING ,•••• Transmittal MAY Dewberry-��.. 611 West Jubal Early Dr. Bldg B Suite C, Winchester, VA 22601 Phone 540.678.2700 Fax 5401679.2703 " Atlanta, GA Fairfax, VA Gaithersburg, MD Manassas, VA ® Chicago, IL 0 Leesburg, VA Baltimore, MD Fredericksburg, VA ® Lanham, MD R Winchester, VA To: Frederick County Sanitation Authority ;Date: i 5/6/2005 jProject No: 11276014 P.O. Box 1877 Winchester VA 22604 Project Name: Reference: Villiages at Artrip Carbon Copy: Attention: John Whitacre j We Transmit: the following: for: ® as per your request Fv� prints ® your approval IN under separate cover ® specifications ® your review and comment FEN by mail CAchange order 0 your file/use by messenger ® shop drawings ® revision and submission by pick up ® reproducibles ® distribution 0 by overnight ® samples carrier product literature computations ❑- descriptions ® as requested by Fill as approved by ON as submitted for approval by ng please acknowledge receipt of enclosures ® return enclosures to us Copies: Date: Number: Description: 1 5/6/20051 Master Development Plan I 1 5/6/20051 Proffers Statement j 1 5/6/2005 Comment Response Letter t :nmmAnts. If enclosures are not as noted, please notify us at price Transmittal # 4509 ewberry & Davis LLC is an equal opportunity employer and, as such, complies with tion of Executive Order 11246 ,a amended by Executive Order 11357. Sent:: DdFrank_ nAl1� (?i ►.fit. -i, .;.':.1 •-:.:.,-•: • • 0 Rezoning Comments Frederick County Fire Marshal Mail- to: Frederick County Fire Marshal 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 665-6350 Applicant's Name: Winchester Artrip LLC Hand deliver to: Frederick County Fire & Rescue Dept. Attn: Fire Marshal County Administration Bldg., 1st Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Telephone: 540-678-2700 Mailing Address: c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T. Wiley 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 Location of property: South Frederick Land Use area, Tax Map 75—((A)) Parcel 99A. One mile west of I-81, 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road (VA Route 649), and 150' north of Fair Lawn Court Current zoning: RA I Fire Marshal's Comments: C Fire Marshal's Signature & Date: Nofice to Fire 1�Ciirsh Zoning requested: R4 A Route 1176 Acreage: 169.924 Elisael2'n T1tis Form ta'`the App 22 Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department Office of the Fire Marshal Flan Review and Comments Control number Date received Date reviewed Date Revised RZ04-0021 R 5/6/2005 5/17/2005 5/1 /2005 Project Name Applicant Winchester Artrip LLC Dewberry Address City State Zip Applicant Phone 611 West Jubal Early Drive Winchester VA 22601 540-678-2700 Type Application Tax ID Number Fire District Rescue District Rezoning 75-A-99A 11 11 Current Zoning Election District RA Recommendations Shawnee Automatic Sprinkler System Automatic Fire Alarm System Residential Sprinkler System No No No Other recommendation I0 Emergency Vehicle Access Siamese Location Emergency Vehicle Access Comments Access Comments Requirements Hydrant Location Roadway/Aisleway Width Fire Lane Required No Special Hazards No Additional Comments Where 'he desire of the develoE.)er to provide proffers is appreciated, the development of this project will have an overwheirning impact on fire and rescue services. Plan Approval Recommended Reviewed By Signature 0 Yes Timothy L. Welsh � Zs IKg8 iA 'P[ , ("')VFE D Title ..ant:)ram (A@ n c-- rc�ii-i, ;, it ,- r r ,, r - ., h• 4,11 Dewbearary Record of Communication Date Dec 21, 2004 Routing Talked With: Greg Lock Of. Chief of Stephens City Volunteer Fire Dept Phone No.540-869-4576 or Pager: 1-877-500-0967 Action Recorder ❑ Incoming ❑ Outgoing Reference Information Topic ARTRIP REZONING PACKET Greg said he would not sign off on the comments because no amount of funds for the Volunteer fire dept. was designated as a contribution. According to Greg: The VFD are volunteers and receive no compensation for their fire fighting, but they buy the equipment (engines, ambulances, etc) and house and maintain them while the Fire and Rescue get all the funds. The VFD have had no funds for 3 years while the F&R have had 3 raises and get the money in the proffers. They will have to refuse to cover the Artrip area, because without any funds they won't have the equipment needed to do so. They want an amount designated at a contribution for the VFD stated in the proffers. I spoke to Mike about this situation the next day and he said they could state their objections and what they want as their comments. I have called Greg on his pager and left a message. So far I have received no answer. updated 1/03 0 June 22, 2005 Mr. David L. Frank, CLA Dewberry & Davis LLC 611 West Juba] Early Drive, Suite C Winchester, Virginia 22601 COUNTY of FR]EDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/678-0682 RE: The Villages at Artrip - Comments related to Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mr. Frank: Your letter dated June 13, 2005, has adequately addressed our previous review comments related to the rezoning application and master development plan associated with the proposed Villages at Artrip. Sincerely, AI t /h�z-ku I, Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works HES/rls cc: Planning and Development File ✓- 107 North Kent Street m Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 0 0 'i" ,••••�� D ewbe;r�-y Transmittal 611 West Jubal Early Dr. Bldg B, Suite C, Winchester, Va 22601 Phone 540.678.2700 FAx 540.67a,2703 ❑ Atlanta, GA ❑ Fairfax, VA ❑ Gaithersburg, MD ❑ Manassas, VA ❑ Chicago, IL ❑ Leesburg, MD ❑ Baltimore, MD ❑ Fredericksburg, VA Lanham, ❑ LhhfD � Winchester, VA T0: Fred —Wine Service Authority --Dafe:j 08 NOV 04 Project No: 76030007 107 North Kent Street Project Name: The Villages at Artrip Winchester VA 22601 Reference: Carbon Copy: Charles A. Segerman, P.E. Attention: Jesse W. Moffett, Executive Director John H. Foote, Esq. We Transmit: the following: for: ❑ as per your request ❑ prints ❑ your approval ❑ as requested ❑ under separate cover El specifications by IX] your review and comment by mail change orders ❑ g ❑ your file/use ❑ as approved by ® by messenger ❑ shop drawings ❑ revisions and submission ❑ as submitted for ❑ by pick up re roducibLes ❑ p ❑ distribution approval by ❑ please acknowledge receipt ❑ by overnight carrier ❑ samples❑ of enclosures ❑ product literature ❑ return enclosures to us ❑ ❑ computations ❑ descriptions Copies: Date: Number: Description: 1 76030007 Rezoning Application, Impact Annalysis Statement and Master Development Plan for The Villages at Artrip Comments: ..._ .:.. Ao- e6ftftmt' ire sub #A;H4). UCAFo% re Krkxs; Ik�Its �y tAttcsSam-�a accawtn�►oc�t 8 cb'� b P° s u�lcl e losures are not as noted, please notify us at once. Sent by: Michael T. Wile Dewberry & Davis LLC is an equal opportunity employer and, as such, complies with Section of Executive Order 11246 as amended by Executive Order 11357. z -d FnT T 77l n4,c 1 I TNnLl 1 nw A>17c '1lITm rr--Ill-j A L •Lr, • • • Rezoning Comments ...S�n �.. . .. .. .. x.�'/..... ......aL.wY,.>....>. ....>. '.?K':�'.='S»�ni3:�Jni':`>4iv::i'r..'•:.!+ai'Y7i::>`l,Ni'/.,'i::iii'r:;J..,:. .v Frederick County Sanitation Authority Mail to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, Virginia 22604 (540) 868-1061 Applicant's Name: Winchester Artrip LLC Hand deliver to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer .315 Tasker Road Stephens City, Virginia Telephone: 540-678-2700 Mailing Address: c/o Dewberry Attention: David L. Frank 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 Location of property: South Frederick Land Use area, Tax Map 75—((A)), Parcel 99A. One mile west of I-81, 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road (VA Route 649), and 150' north of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176). Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: I Sanitation Authority Comments: Sanitation Authority Signature & Date: - & / 25 R4 Acreage: 169.924 -S(/P/ld9y • Dewberry p: Transmittal ' MAY (I r o ! ' -p- 1; 611 West 1ubal Early Dr. Bldg B Suite C. Winchester, VA 22601 Phone 540.678.2700 I Fax 540.678.'_703 '' Atlanta. GA 0 Fairfax, VA [A Gaithersburg, MD Manassas. VA Chicago, Q. � Leesburg, VA Baltimore, MD EN Fredericksburg, VA NO Lanharn, MD L7 Winchester, VA To: Frederick County Sanitation Authority ;Date: 5/6/2005 jProject No:11276014 P.O. Box 1877Project Name:IV illiages at Artrip Winchester VA 22604 Copy: Whitacre We Transmit: the following: for: nX as per your request 0 prints ® your approval no under separate cover ® specifications ® your review and comment AN by mail change order ® your filetuse ❑ by messenger ® shop drawings ❑ revision and submission ® by pick up ® reproducibles ® distribution by overnight ® samples 40 carrier ® product literature ,] ® computations Q descriptions ® as requested by as approved by ® as submitted for approval by please acknowledge receipt of enclosures return enclosures to us Copies: I Date: Number: Description: —� 1 5/6/20051 11VIaster Development Plan i 1 5/6/20051 Proffers Statement 1 5/6/2005 Comment Response Letter t -nmmantc- 0 Of r_ LP.�- If enclosures are not as noted, please notify us at price Transmittal # 4509 ,liewberry & Davis LLC is an equal opportunity employer and, as such, complies with ton of Executive Order 11246 as amended by Executive Order 11357. Sent yx —Davl dFrank • �7- 0 • • Rezoning Comments .tii;S�a.»Fd::•>:t. .. �.:• .. a�..•..,�>...�.>,,:>:Sc>.is..,•:.�r.�ov^n•7.aGai:ta•:t. S•.> 't?� r«•:a,�. a..k:�z�;!.v...:/a .�..�<.�'.• ..........X Frederick County Sanitation Authority Mail to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, Virginia 22604 (540) 868-1061 Applicant's Name: Winchester Artrip LLC Hand deliver to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer 315 Tasker Road Stephens City, Virginia Telephone: 540 — 678 — 270 0 Mailing Address: c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T. Wiley 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 Location of property: South Frederick Land Use area, Tax Map 75—((A)), Parcel 99A. One mile west of I-81, 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road (VA Route 649), and 150' north of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176). Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: Sanitation Authority Comments: R4 Acreage: 169.924 Sanitation Authority Signature & Date: r , �:,f z•2 ? /'�ynt�cay Satx::..:uhvr?....:Peasetur�;to pp00 lca o(o oyld 7/ • ­_F(/tf. 7 5. -- A - �') A Rezoning Comments 40 Frederick -Winchester Health Department • • Mail to: Frederick -Winchester Health Department Attn: Sanitation Engineer 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 722-3480 Applicant's Name: Winchester Artrip LLC jp Hand deliver to: Frederick -Winchester Health Department Attn: Sanitation Engineer 107 North Kent Street Suite 201 Winchester, Virginia Telephone: 540-678-2700 Mailing Address: c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T. Wiley 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 Location of property: South Frederick Land' Use area, Tax Map 75—((A)), Parcel 99A. One mile west of I-81, 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road (VA Route 649), and 150' north of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176) Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: R4 Acreage:169.924 Freder'ck-Winchest— health Department's Comments: / Lticr� e" < . L5f'%'c e_i> -1-61) t� IxC .2, L Health Dept. Signature & Date: Nois drm:to the Appli6h DEC 0 1 2004 Dewbeny-`JVinC' - 0 • .,�Ak SERVING THE TOP OF VIRGINIA May 20,2005 WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT 491 AIRPORT ROAD WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 (540) 662-2422 David L. Frank, CLA Project Manager Dewberry 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Building B, Suite C Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Rezoning Application & Master Plan Development Plan Comments The Villages at Artrip Shawnee Magisterial District Dear Mr. Frank: We have reviewed the above referenced Rezoning Application/Master Plan and it appears that the proposed site plan will not have an impact on operations at the Winchester Regional Airport as the majority of the subdivision falls outside of the Airport's Part 77 surface. No special requirements or conditions are requested on behalf of the Winchester Regional Airport Authority. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration in the continuing safe operations of the Winchester Regional Airport. Sincerely, Serena R. Manuel Executive Director li Rezoning Comments II II 9. 3 2004 i'1ANNC,:;3 9, C)FbrLgFh1A£NT Historic Resources Advisory Board .� Mail to. - Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 665-5651 )wand deliver to, Frederick County Department of Planning & Development Co. Administration Building, 4th Floor 107 North Kent Street- Winchester- V;TQ;n;, Applicant's Name: Winchester Artriv Limited Telephone: (301) 984-7nnn Partners hip Mailing Address: s /� Ti, P Tn n mnaniPG 11501 Huff,Court North Bethesda, " MD 2089-5 Location of ro Sduth Frederick Land Use Plan area east of I-81 p , west of U.S. 522 bn Tax Map 75 ((A) )., Parcel 99A Current zoning: RA Advisory Board Comments: ' Signature & Date: Zoning requested:. R4 Acreage: 169.924 19 9 August 5, 2004 Mr. Mike Wiley Dewberry & Davis LLC 611 West Jubal Early Drive Winchester, -VA 22601 • COUNT' of FREDERIC Department of Planning and Developme RE: Request for Historic Resources Advisory Board (IIRA.B) Comments Villages at Artrip; Rezoning Proposal; PIN# 75-A-99A Dear Mr. Wiley: 5401665-56 I FAX: 540/ 665-63 VtZL A UG 92004 Dewber►y-wi Chester Upon review of the proposed rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic resources and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by the HRAD. The Rural Landmarks Surrey and the Comprehensive Policy Plan do not identify any significant historic structures or battlefields located on or adjacent to the property. Thank you for the chance to comment on this application. Please call if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Candice E. Mills Planner I CEM/bad 107 North Trent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 0 ine Comments 0 ]Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation Mail to: Frederick County i Department of Parks & Recreation 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 665-5678 Applicant's Name: Winchester Artrip LLC Hand deliver to: Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation County Administration Bldg., 2nd Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Telephone: 540— 678 —2700 Mailing Address: c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T. Wiley 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 Location of property: South Frederick Land Use area, Tax Map 75—((A)) Parcel 99A. One mile west of I-81, 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road (VA Route 649), and '150' north of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176) Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: R4 Acreage: 169.924 Department of Parks & Recreation Comments: SEE ATTACHED Pks. & Rec. Signature & Date: 23 MAY�.9 2005 , S PRINTED D [®EC 0 8 2004 Dewberry -Winchester 5- REZONING COMMENTS ARTRIP Department of Parks and Recreation's Comments: • The area identified as a school site and open space for use by the Parks and Recreation Department does not appear to be adequate to accommodate both uses. • The typical section on page three of five of the Master Development Plan, indicates trails to be between five and ten feet in width. The Parks and Recreation Department recommends all trail to be a minimum of ten feet in width. The revised proffer statement has modified proffer 5.1 to reflect ten foot bike trails. • The Proffer Statement should include language which indicates the bridge design (the proffer statement, section 14.2.1.1) will accommodate bicycle lanes. • The proposed monetary proffer for Parks and Recreation appears to be less than what the impact model would indicate is needed to offset the impact of this development. Signature and Date: 311/C� 0 �ladents Au, c -`°o n w r FCPSj Frederick County Public Schools Administrative Assistant to Visit us at www.frederick.k12.va.us the Superintendent June14,2005 Winchester Artrip LLC c/o Dewberry Attention: David Franks 611 West Jubal Early Drive Building B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Franks: RE: Resubmitting of rezoning application for The Villages at Artrip Project e-mail: kapocsis@frederick.k12.va.us This letter is in response to your request for comments concerning the rezoning application for the proposed Villages at Artrip project. Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 155 single-family homes, 180 town houses, and 570 multi -family homes will yield 49 high school students, 47 middle school students, and 131 elementary school students for a total of 227 new students upon build -out. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. The resubmitting of this rezoning application with its proffer statement provides approximately 11 acres to be dedicated for a future elementary school site (minimum acreage needed for an elementary site would be 15 acres). It is imperative with the above number of units included with this project that an elementary school be located in this area. With current building trends, future considerations need to given to additional middle and high school facilities. Also because of the continued growth in Frederick County, the replacement of certain administrative facilities such as the transportation and administration, which currently have exceeded their capacity, will need to be replaced or expanded. This proffer helps to address the impact of a future elementary school; however, the impact of this type of application on other current and future school division needs should be considered during the approval process. Respectfully yours, Stephen �Kapocsi Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent SMK/dkr 40 cc: William C. Dean, Ph.D., Superintendent of Schools 540-662-3889 Ext 112 1415 Amherst Street, Post Office Box 3508, Winchester, VA 22604-2546 FAX 540-662-3890 • i • Rezoning Comments Town of Middletown Mail to: Town of Middletown Attn: Town Manager ' P.O. Box 96 Middletown, Virginia 22645 (540) 869-2226 i Hand deliver to: Town of Middletown Attn: Town Manger Middletown Town Hall 7875 Church Street Middletown, Virginia Applicant's Name: Winchester Artrip LLC Telephone: 540-678-2700 Mailing Address: c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T. Wiley 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 Location of property: South Frederick Land Use area, Tax Map 75—((A)) Parcel 99A. One mile west of I-81, 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road (VA Route 649), and 150' north of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176). Current zoning: RA Town of Middletown's Comments: Zoning requested: R4 e)A./i�7_ Town of Middletown's Signature & Date:,/�:.,� Acreage: 169.924 Noxc°v �C"T` rvn �rif'1IY`dilet�o uvii PXease R , tlt', r i ' + q �rni`Th�s Torm to the Apglic:rit 27 DEC ® 8 2004 Dewberry -Winchester • • 0 Rezoning Comments ,7ev?',a>4y. ;�+•":�+4 'bl. 1.9.�if!i4�'. a?'Y: .E+:-S3%:.,:' "?'W3`" .:y�:�:'.. aka �� .:f: �. I-. ii �1 .n lA �i,?C'Pr .U'!tfi:'?s:7, Town of Stephens City Mail to: Town of Stephens City Attn: Town Manager P.O. Box 250 Stephens City, Virginia 22655 (540) 869-3087 Hand deliver to: Town of Stephens City Attn: Town Manager Stephens City Town Hall 1033 Locust Street Stephens City, Virginia Applicant's Name: Winchester Artrip LLC Telephone: 540-678-2700 Mailing Address: c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T. Wiley 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 Location of property: South Frederick Land Use area, Tax Map 75-((A)), Parcel 99A. One mile west of I-81, 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road (VA Route 649), and 150' north of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176) Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: R4 . Acreage: 169.924 Town of Stephen City's Comments: j'i C C .i l L -621 /tt' i Town of Stephens-City's 7 .Signature & Date:%, .P >yy LL > -�� � 1'. I �'• :l Notico�h, :Qi►f Stephens,:City �-� 'lease Rturn_Form to-Apglican ff • • 0 Rezoning Comments City of Winchester Mail to: Winchester City Planning Department Attn: Planning Director 15 North Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 667-1815 Hand deliver to: Winchester City Planning Department Attn: Planning Director Rouss City Hall 15 North Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia Winchester Artrip LLC 540-678-2700 Applicant's Name: Telephone: Mailing Address: c/o Dewberry Attention: Michael T. Wiley 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Bldg B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 Location of property: South Frederick Land Use area, Tax Map 75—((A)), Parcel 99A. One mile west of I-81, 3/4 mile north of Tasker Road (VA Route 649), and 150' north of Fair Lawn Court (VA Route 1176). Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: R4 Acreage: 169.924 City of Winchester's Comments: Lii7 p n l' t�2 A h /i j-v Ji C�• r� �/ di rrio 'Ole et IL Sou Qq M let-rrs City of Winchester's Signature & Date: 5 0 Notice xo;'C� o,Wmche$er e' Return; This Form to the Applican# 29 0 The Villages atArtrip 0 Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan • SECTION 6 AGENCY COMMENTS r A • REZONING APPLICATION AGENCY REVIEW COMMENTS • 0 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 February 14, 2005 Mr. Mike Wiley Dewberry 611 W. Jubal Early Drive Building B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Additional Preliminary Comments — The Villages at Artrip Rezoning Application. Dear Mike: Thank you for forwarding to this office the Villages at Artrip Rezoning application and Master Development Plan application materials for our review. The opportunity to discuss this project with you over recent weeks has been most helpful. The following letter is offered to assist you as you continue to address the issues associated with this rezoning application. As customary, it is anticipated that these issues will be fully addressed through revisions to the application prior to its consideration by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. With regards to the Master Development Plan application, please refer to the accompanying letter from Candice Perkins of this office. I. General Comments, Application and Impact Statement. 1. The Comprehensive Plan provides two clearly stated goals that pertain to planned communities which seek to encourage large scale new communities that are creatively and appropriately designed to provide the highest possible quality of development and seek to ensure that new planned communities do not have adverse impacts on the community. 2. The mixed use concept is intended to promote land use patterns that allow for internal service, employment and intermodal transportation opportunities with public open space linkages between various developments. The concept is offered as a diversion from the typical segregation of land uses into specific zoning districts that are often unrelated to each other such as is presently evident in the County: The 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 approach offered with this application seeks to achieve this desirable concept and is supported by the Comprehensive Plan. 3. From a land use planning perspective the location and scale of this project may present a unique opportunity to implement a truly mixed use project into Frederick County. The property is centrally located to the developing areas of the County at the future confluence of Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road. The prominent visibility and strategic location that will ultimately be provided at this location should be advantageous to the success of this concept and project. Such a creative approach or concept would be more preferable and acceptable than a rezoning that would simply enable more of the existing pattern of development to occur. Recognizing the desirability of the concept, many of the following comments seek to ensure that the impacts associated with such a project are addressed to the greatest extent possible. 4. The narrative describing the development proposal of the project and the residential uses is extremely flexible. It states that the uses may include and are not limited to the noted housing types. Further, the description of the unit types depicted on the MDP is clear in that it is for illustrative purposes only. This lack of commitment or specificity with the housing units and the MDP would appear to leave the ultimate mix of units, and the overall design of the project open to significant modification that may ultimately frustrate the concept and design that has been presented to the County. The applicant should evaluate if it would be more appropriate to provide a greater level of specificity and commitment regarding the housing units and MDP. The more certainty that the Planning Commission and ultimately Board of Supervisors has regarding the ultimate outcome of the project may result in a greater comfort level in the disposition of the application. 5. Throughout the application there are requests to modify certain elements of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance as enabled by Section 1.65-72.0 of the Zoning Ordinance. As required, the applicant shall demonstrate that the requested modification is necessary or justified. It would be helpful for the applicant to consolidate all of the requested modifications in some form of justification statement or document. Further, an alternative dimensional requirement plan and alternate buffer and screening plan should be prepared that clearly identifies the modifications or alternatives that are being requested and the justification for such modification. Presently the various requests are located throughout the application and in the proffer statement. The above would provide clarity in the review and potential ultimate endorsement of modifications and would be most helpful to the rezoning and MDP administration. As we had previously discussed, please find enclosed with these comments a copy of a similar document that was accepted by the County with the Stephenson's Village rezoning application for your information. 6. A listing has been provided within the narrative that identifies the dimensional standards for which the applicant seeks modification. It is suggested that a separate document is created that would stand alone from the application and also have the ability to be attached by reference to the proffer statement. The justification for the modifications should be addressed in the application. 7. It would be desirable for the applicant to expand upon the brief justification offered for the modifications to the dimensional standards. Further, there does not appear to be a real nexus between the design standard modifications and the design and construction of a portion of Warrior Drive, a major collector road. It may be more appropriate and helpful to the application to recognize the Warrior Drive improvement in relation to other project benefits or modifications such as the overall project density. 8. The applicant has proposed a modification which would result in a reduction of the required parking for the commercial elements of the plan. It may be helpful to expand upon the rationale and justification for this modification request. Further, it is offered that the potential may exist for a further reduction in the visibility of the parking area in front of the core commercial structures. This could be achieved by relegating this parking to an area behind the core commercial buildings and moving the core commercial buildings in a southerly direction or slightly closer to Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road, further promoting the neo traditional concept. 9. With regards to the commercial uses in general, and on alternative Landbay D in particular, the application has not committed to the design and layout of the commercial uses and structures. Architectural design standards could be considered as a proffer that would ensure the character and integrity of the design program that has been represented with this application. The concepts and renditions presented would appear to be highly desirable in such a conununity. However, it should be recognized that as proposed there is no guarantee that the architecture and design would be achieved. The concept presented stands out above the typical suburban developments with unlimited access that is currently prevalent. It is the desire of the County to ensure that what is presented in support of this application is guaranteed with the mechanics of the rezoning application. Further, that the innovative approach offered by the application is ultimately fulfilled. 10. It may be appropriate to ask the applicant which scenario is their preferred option for Landbay D and why. The result of the implementation of the option would be a decrease of 80 units, from 900 to a total of 820, and an increase in the commercial square footage of 43,560, from 175,700 to 219,260 square feet. It should be pointed out that the MDP included with the application does not accommodate the commercial conversion of Landbay D. A mechanism to effectuate this should be provided in the proffers or as an alternative section of the MDP in anticipation of this being the preferred scenario. 11. An important request of the application is that which requests flexibility to change and/or relocate housing types, and as necessary, neighborhood alleys and streets, provided that the total number of residential units and densities set forth for each landbay shall not be exceeded, and that primary access points to proffered roads be • similarly maintained. The substantial flexibility that this request offers is extremely problematic when considering this application and its illustrated concept. An extreme result of this flexibility could be a completely different project with only the total number of units as the guiding element for the design. This issue needs to be resolved in favor of the ultimate implementation of the illustrated concept depicted in the Concept and Master Development Plans. The concept that has been presented to the County is in general terms positive and consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. However, the requested flexibility leaves open the opportunity to change the project beyond the design and context of the presented project. 12. An exhibit has been provided that shows conceptual building elevations of the various product types anticipated to be constructed within this development. This exhibit reflects a positive image for the project and would be desirable. However, no commitment has been made in the application to guarantee the successful inclusion of the various product types. It may be desirable for the applicant to proffer the various design elements illustrated in the exhibit. In particular, the urban core of Landbay A with its mix of cormnercial and residential uses in a well plamied and designed environment warrants consideration for such an approach. This focal element of the project is most critical to ensuring the character and function of the mixed use village concept that has been introduced with this application. II. Transportation. 1. It is imperative to call attention to the fact that the Concept Plan, the MDP and its associated road designs, or the proffered transportation improvement program do not address the need to connect the Warrior Drive improvements into the existing and/or approved off -site Warrior Drive improvement projects. The assumptions of the TIA provide for this connection to occur in one direction or another and ultimately in both directions. It is safe to say that the validity of the project and rezoning application depend on the connection of Warrior Drive to existing sections of Warrior Drive. Coordination should occur with adjacent development projects and satisfaction of this issue should be completely secured with future modifications to this application. I have provided a copy of the adjacent Wakeland Manor projects Warrior Drive design and commitments for your information. The following comments relate to the details of the proposed transportation improvements. 2. Consideration should be given to construction of the ultimate roadway cross section designed for the Warrior Drive improvement portion of this project in a similar manner to the Crosspointe project and the Warrior Drive -project south of Route 277 recently completed by the County and VDOT. It is recognized that the design of the typical sections provide for an initial and future typical section. While the initial section for Parkins Mill Road would suffice for a more significant length of time, the importance and location of Warrior Drive, and the projected traffic volumes, 0 • would suggest a need to implement the ultimate design of Warrior Drive within a shorter time frame. 3. The proposed typical sections indicate the provision of gravel shoulders with the interim and future sections of portions of both Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road. This approach is not conducive to bicycle travel. As you are aware, Warrior Drive is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as a Bicycle Route. Any accommodation that could be made to facilitate this designation should be considered. Additional paved width in the travel lane or the provision of a paved shoulder consistent with Virginia Department of Transportation guidelines could be introduced into the typical sections. 4. Based upon the existing location of the Warrior Drive hiker/biker trail and proposed expansions to the trail it would be appropriate to designate and design the trail along the east side of Warrior Drive through the limits of the property to a point where the transportation improvements connect into the existing or proposed road system. The typical road sections on the MDP should be modified accordingly and should reflect the appropriate width hiker/biker trail. 5. The responsibility of the design, dedication, and construction of Lakeside Drive should be further elaborated on with this application. The transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan recognizes this road connection and the application indicates a recreational use of adjacent Landbay C with access from this road. The ultimate use of the area south west of Warrior Drive in the vicinity of Lakeside Drive may evolve and the connection to existing Lakeside Drive may not be timely, however, access to this portion of the project should be addressed further. 6. Accommodations for the ultimate design of Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road should be provided throughout the limits of this property to a point where the roads connect with adjacent projects commitments. This should include accommodations for drainage and trails. 7. Consideration should be given to extending Parkins Mill Road to a more logical terminus beyond the access point of the final private driveway that is depicted on the MDP. The adjacent Canter Estates V project will provide for the necessary right-of- way dedication for the extension of Parkins Mill Road to accommodate this expansion. I have provided a copy of the adjacent Canter Estates V subdivision design plan for your information. 8. The opportunity exists to further address identified cominunity facility needs by anticipating potential locations that may be appropriate for future public uses. Such - locations would appear to be adjacent to existing publicly owned land and land proposed to be provided for recreational uses. • • III. Proffer Statement. 1. The initial and perhaps most significant proffer is Land Use Proffer I.I. The language contained within this proffer is extremely permissive and provides complete flexibility to modify the design, layout, and concept of the project from what is promoted with the rezoning application. As presented, the language opens up the core concept of the application to be frustrated. The County is in general support of the mixed use village concept proposed with the application and would seek to ensure its completion with a commitment to a project that is in conformance with the initially presented MDP. 2. The commercial development of the property should be in a style consistent with that presented in the application. The proffers do not ensure that this will occur. No architectural details and site design elements have been proffered and secured. It would appear as though the core commercial area is integral to the design of the project and the success of the concept. It may be appropriate for the applicant to consider this within the proffer statement. 3. It has been suggested that the alternative development standards included in the proffer statement be detached form the statement and stand alone. The proffer statement should then make specific reference to the stand alone document as an attachment to the proffers and would therefore be recognized as an integral part of the proffer package. 4. It would be helpful for the application to further describe the shared parking concept proposed for the commercial areas of this application. A reduction in the amount of 20 percent may be appropriate. However, no justification has been provided for this reduction as required. 5. A phased approach to the development of this project is desirable. The details of the phasing program offered warrants modifications to ensure that an increased amount of commercial comes on line earlier in the development process. Particular attention should be paid to providing for the inclusion of the core commercial area as early as possible in the projects lifecycle. This would provide for a key component of the overall concept of the project. Presently, 577 residential units could be in place prior to the inclusion of 10,000 square feet of commercial. The entire 900 units could be developed prior to the initiation of the remaining commercial product being introduced. In fact, there appears to be no guarantee that the commercial will be provided. Certainly, there is no assurance that the commercial will be provided in the preferable manner represented in the concept plan. 6. Please correct the reference in proffer 3.1.5 regarding the early construction of Warrior Drive and its connection to area roads. 7. Connection should be provided for the provision of necessary community facilities in relationship to the phasing program. A summary of the requirements of the Ordinance should be provided which would include consideration of the additional recreational units for the small lot single family housing alternative. It may be appropriate to further clarify the commitments regarding community facilities in the proffer statement. An elaborate arrangement of community facilities has been expressed in the Concept Plan. However, the flexibility proffered by the applicant may enable a substantially alternative approach to be provided. 8. The architectural, signage and landscaping proffers could be more illustrative and conunittal to achieving a certain design for the Villages project. The proffered buffering should be consistent with the alternative buffer and screening plan that is developed for this project. Also, please provide the comprehensive sign plan that is referenced in proffer 4.3. 9. It should be noted that the minimum acceptable standard for hiker biker trails is ten feet in width. Proffer 5.1 should reflect this requirement. 10. It would be appropriate for the application to address the full impacts on the Community Facilities of the proposed project. Presently, the values have been omitted from the proffer statement. A significant relationship exists between the phasing of the project, the inclusion of the commercial land uses, and the impacts to community facilities. The identified fiscal impacts of the project should be fully addressed with this application. A reevaluation of the phasing may assist in addressing the impacts of the residential components of the project. Alternately, it may be appropriate to offset the impacts of the residential components of the project by contributing a corresponding amount that represents the impact of only the residential components of the project. This may ease any concern regarding the timing of the inclusion of the commercial components of the project. 11. A fine example of a specimen Delaware Pine tree is identified in the application and exists on the property in the general location of the original home site and gravesite. Further consideration should be given to the preservation of this tree and the incorporation of the tree into the overall design of the project. 12. The character of the environmental areas adjacent to the steep slope areas and the mature woodlands that exist in this vicinity are dramatic examples that should be incorporated into the project. Serious consideration should be given to adjusting the limits of development to minimize the impacts on these resources. This appears to be a more critical concern adjacent to the Opequon Creek. Such modifications would appear to have a minimal impact on the overall development of the project and would result in enhanced areas of environmental protection. 13. The notations regarding the proffered transportation improvement should be modified to ensure that the road improvements related to a specific phase of the development are substantially completed prior to the issuance of the first building permit for that particular phase of the project. This is consistent with existing policy of the County Department of Public Works. The design, bonding, and platting of the 4� . I I 1 0 6 phases of the project will occur prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project consistent with customary land development practices and County policy. 14. Specific language should be included regarding the roundabout intersection improvement project at the intersection of Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road. In addition, accommodations should be provided for the connection of Lakeside Drive, or an alternative entrance to this area of the project, into the roundabout intersection. 15. It may be appropriate to consider advancing the substantial completion of the transportation improvement package for the entire project with the initial phase of the projects development. 16. Proffer 15.4.1 should be revised to reflect the correct number of units as the approach appears to be cumulative. Also, as previously mentioned, consideration should be given with this section to the completion of Warrior Drive and the extension of Parkins Mill Road to a more logical terminus. 17. It would be appropriate for the purpose of clarity to proffer the width of the right- of-way that is to be dedicated in conjunction with the transportation improvements for this project. Please feel free to contact me at any time regarding the above comments or the application in general. As I have identified in this letter, further coordination of the review with the Frederick County Director of Parks and Recreation and Frederick County Public Schools regarding the potential for additional public uses in association with this project may be worthwhile. I look forward to continuing our participation in the review of this application. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Planning Director MTR/bad IMPACT ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VILLAGES AT ARTRIP Introduction) The Winchester Artrip Limited Liability Company, a Virginia LLC, has submitted its application for consideration by the Frederick County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to rezone the Winchester Artrip LLC Property ("the Property" hereinafter) located in Frederick County, Virginia from Rural Areas (RA) to Residential Planned Community District (R4). The Property is identified in detailed submissions that have been filed with the Planning Department. The Property is currently vacant and was formerly used for farming activities for at least the past 40 years. It is within the County's 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan (CPP) South Frederick Planning Area. In addition, the entire Property lies within the County's designated Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer & Water Service Area (SWSA) and is adjacent to several prominent developments either under construction or approved, including Crosspointe Center to the west, Canter Estates V to the east, and Lakewood Manor and Wakeland Manor to the south. The applicant believes this request is timely and will assure the County significant tax revenue, transportation improvements, and more importantly, will provide an orderly development of this Property that provides a diverse mix of .uses and products in accordance with the spirit, intent and goals of the CPP. Development Proposal The proposed project is aptly named for the various small villages contemplated for this mixed -use residential and commercial development. These villages include six land bays that include single-family and multi -family residential uses, a neighborhood commercial center, a central "Core Area" integrating the commercial center, interior and perimeter "greens" or "commons" as depicted on the MDP, and a comprehensive road, bike path and sidewalk network to connect the villages and reflect master -planned roads designated on the CPP. A significant portion of the project is laid out on a grid pattern and is oriented with "true" north, similar to traditional development planning, both of which are characteristics of neo-traditional design. The proposed gross residential density is 5.40 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC), with densities within the various land bays ranging from 2.59 to 21.08 DU/AC. The residential land uses will include a mix of single-family and multifamily products that are specified on the MDP and in the associated proffers. 1 This Executive Surnmary expands upon and describes certain details of the proposed project that have developed in detail during the Applicant's discussions with the various review agencies. I We note that three proposed residential products will be new to the Frederick County market, as well as product types not specifically listed within the Zoning Ordinance. These are the "stacked -flats" units, apartments over retail, and back-to-back town homes. These multifamily product types have been successful in other areas within the region, and meet the need for variety and various price points of housing, which we believe is a key element to a successful mixed -use development. With the inclusion of the variety of housing types, the applicant has requested modifications to the bulk and dimensional standards to achieve the mixed -use and neotraditional design concepts that are important to achieving the correct land use balance. Moreover, the Applicant has committed to a residential phasing plan that is linked to the phasing of construction of proffered road improvements, including the extension of Warrior Drive referenced herein. The Applicant also requests a modification of the requirements of § 165-71 of the R4 District which provides that no more than 40% of the area of those portions of the planned community designated for residential uses shall be used, among other housing types, for townhouses or garden apartments or any combination of those types. The current layout of the Core Area and those elements of the associated Land Bays that provide higher density for single family attached units and multifamily units, are critical to the creation of that Core Area, and to the development of an integrated and "walkable" community. It permits the integration of the several linked communities in a far more attractive and functional manner than larger lot development would permit. Limitation of the area that may be devoted to such homes would actually produce more suburban sprawl than the County likely either anticipates or desires for this portion of the County. Given the residential densities approved in Wakeland Manor, and the densities to be developed in Crosspointe, most particularly the large amount of commercial space, a higher density development for this project is in keeping with the Warrior Drive/Crosspointe Boulevard corridor. The approval of this rezoning, as it has developed during consultation with the staff, will produce a unified and coherent series of communities that are unlike any other in Frederick County, both in the mix of uses, the innovative and attractive design of the Core Area and its supporting Land Bays, and the provision of much -needed public lands and roads as further detailed herein. These design elements, together with the Applicant's commitment to the provision of land for a school site, and construction of major elements of the County's road network, justify the additional density that is proposed. This project will include commercial/retail uses, though on a materially smaller scale than Crosspointe. Initially, the Applicant can only commit to construction of 10,000 square feet of commercial development before Warrior Drive is completed from Interstate 81 through to Route 340/522 creating a through road that will alleviate traffic on Tasker Road, and provide a well -designed and completed connection from one major County transportation corridor to another. Once that connection is made, however, the Applicant anticipates that the project will readily sustain the total conunitment of 118,550 2 • square feet of retail, office and restaurant space_ Because of the integration of walking paths from adjoining residential areas to the retail, restaurant and office uses, as well as different time periods of the uses within these elements, and because the applicant is very sensitive to the appearance of providing a "sea of parking" for this area of the project, and strives to reduce total impervious areas for environmentally friendly design principles, shared parking for the retail, office and restaurant uses may be justified. In order to assure the County that the Core Area will develop consistently with the MDP, and in a timely manner, the Applicant has committed to certain aspects of the development of that Area. This includes specific commitment to commercial, residential and community uses within the Core Area, which is to conform to a grid lot layout, and to the street layout and unit types shown. The Applicant shall commence development of the Core Area at the outset and not fewer than 30 residential units shall be built there as part of Phase I of the development. Not fewer than two housing types will be provided in that Core Area overall. Development within the Landbays on the Property outside the Core Area will also conform to the street layouts, points of connection to Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road, and to the limits of development as are depicted on the MDP subject to reasonable adjustment on final engineering. In addition to the MDP, the Applicant has proffered a Concept Development Plan as a separate attachment to the MDP, which gives specific guidance on the layout of the residential and other elements of the Core Area. Development of other Land Bays outside of the Core Area will occur within a defined road layout and limits of development subject to reasonable adjustment on final engineering, and the housing styles that are permitted within each Land Bay have been identified on the MDP. There are also specific project proposals that materially advance the County's planning needs, beyond the development of, and commitment to, an innovative and detailed land development plan. Warrior Drive The 2003 CPP's Eastern Road Plan area designates this road as a "New Major Collector". Additional research in the CPP implies this road to be closed section/urban in character. The adjacent development plans of record for Crosspointe Center and Wakeland Manor show this road in various functional classifications. The Applicant has committed to the phased construction of all of Warrior Drive on its Property, from its future connection with Crosspointe Boulevard through to Wakeland Manor. This will include the costly construction of a bridge crossing of a tributary of the Opequon, in the South and construction of full four lane sections of Warrior throughout. The Applicant has estimated the cost to construct Warrior Drive to a four -lane section through the project (approximately 3,700 feet), including the bridge crossing at approximately $5,000,000. 3 0 • Parkins Mill Road Extended The 2003 CPP's Eastern Road Plan area designates this road as a "New Minor Collector". Additional research in the CPP implies this road to be open section/rural in character. The adjacent development plans of record for Canter Estates § V show this road as an 80' wide reservation, with no listed functional classification. The Applicant has committed to the construction of Parkins Mill Extended to the edge of its property boundary, permitting an ultimate connection to Canter Estates. The proffered road section is indicated on the MDP. Dedication of Land for an Elementary School Site and Other Purposes As an integral part of its revised application, the Applicant will dedicate 11 acres of property to be used in conjunction with adjacent properties for the location of an elementary school site. The Applicant also proposes to offer to the County additional useable land adjacent to the school site, for public use. Such dedication is conditional upon the preservation of a superb tree area on a knoll on that property. Fiscal Impact The Applicant has also proffered to contribute funds to the County consistently with fiscal impact modeling provided by the Planning Department, and the proffers that are associated with this rezoning application. Summary Because of the unique nature of this proposal, and its inclusion of design elements that have not heretofore been accomplished in Frederick County, but which are desired elements of the County's CPP and which employ the County's amended R4 zoning classification to maximum benefit, the applicant also herewith requests an increase in the permitted density cap of 4 DU/AC per County Code, Article IV, §165-72.C, an increase in the maximum permitted land use area of 40% of the total residential area for multifamily products, and modification of the previously -mentioned dimensional standards to accomplish the Frederick County's outlined objectives. The justification for the modifications sought is essentially that a neotraditional development cannot be accomplished using the traditional Euclidian patterns of development, and standard public and private road and lot designs. Jurisdictions in which such developments have been approved have recognized the need for such modifications, and the County is aware that the recent revisions to the VDOT Secondary Road Standards now contains provisions for neotraditional street designs that accommodate the evolving development of such street patterns. The justification for the increased density beyond the 4 units to the acre contemplated for the R4 district can be found in the need for such increased density to finance the private construction of one of the County's principal arterial routes and the advancement of its 0 0 0 • transportation plans for this area of the County, and the dedication of a school site to service the already approved population in the area. Moreover, the use of neotraditional designs advances • The intent of the 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan; and • Unification of architectural styles; and • A truly walkable community; and • Integration of residential villages and neighborhood commercial uses within one "community"; and • A balanced design of preserving environmental features, while meeting the intent of a mixed -use community for a variety of land uses, efficient layout of the transportation system and Land Bays, and providing a community that will not create a burden on the tax payers; and • Provision for multiple housing types to attract the largest variety of residential housing consumers; and • Completion of major CPP road links The Applicant respectfully requests approval of this Rezoning Application. Exhibits: Exhibit 1 Vicinity Map Exhibit 2 Aerial Photograph Exhibit 3 Boundary Verification Exhibit 4 Topographic Survey Exhibit 5 Zoning Map Exhibit 6 2003 Comprehensive Plan Exhibit 7 Urban Development Areas and Sewer and Water Service Area Exhibit 8 Illustrative Plan Housing Types JA00\00419 Tower\004\Application Submittals\IAS Narrative 061905.doc 5 t �i. Dewberry =• Dewberry & Davis LLC 611 WEST JUBAL EARLY DRIVE BLDG B, SUITE C WINCHESTER, VA 22601 PHONE: 540.678.2700 FAX: 540.678.2703 www.dewberry.com VICINITY MAP THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC D.B. 713, PG. 417 PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 6 L M DRAFTED RJS DATE JUNE 2004 76030007 P CHECKED MTW SCALE 1"=4,000' EXHIBIT 1 i u { `�i � . a `? � ar,(jv�.�x�'w� yr �n d}�� � � .� # � ,�,tJ.Q� ✓q�����Y�'� `t '+ a , ; �.,. _`i • ,,}'� � ���^� � ', r � . <• ��. , i �� a .'�i µ� 4 4 t S L 4� ��.�: `*�t �l1 ���i" }ram `.., R r.. ��� F t--• ',� i ., `4r1�.y,1.. it � • •'tr.1. '"�. 11, . .. •`,y. i' ya f w,r"}}r, ! .� ^� V`� i, � t c l l y. 1 •1. .''•'� � �,a 'i `'art ,rF u t = ,�' x r * ,. � - "°T` �4�. of., "41 Liu Kil 14. VILLAGES dam ��t� .�'n` �'!t�� - �� - � ��•'� m «'s- � .dam � • . =r s�.� a tF'";..,: � _ _ _ � ; � `� y � 4: w . iti . �' s . , t • ��.�. ) �;. � s, 7�`3 i��?'a�A� � A r':r"��7'4 c'.. •t � ! „- rf �u s: ,:.;• - � -:� �46 h` •- � ' � '`�# a� a �� iM Y Yx it r. A h V} . ." >}'t t � ' 1 _ e.. �-•. �e � .A• a :ate. ,>+' . ) ' a \� ��+�� }•, sex t ` 4 - . � t � y � �.y3 �r ' c y -• y r AERIAL .. PHOTOGRAPH ••-.. .-. . CHECKED,. yr � � 1 , ■. I TM-75 ((A))-95 I N/F GLAIZE DEVEL. INC. • DB 896/1819 S66'30' Sg, "E 408.69 2�6�2� S$ .o$'N �h LEGEND • TM 76—((A))-13 N/F ARTRIP DB 281 /221 S60'2�1'07"E_, 1011.53' O IRON PIPE/REBAR FND. 0 TREE FND. (SIZE & SPECIES NOTED) 0 WOODEN FENCE POST FND. to � 2 TM 75—((A))-96 N/F GLAIZE DEVEL. INC. ` DB 896/1819 T TM 75—((A))-97 N/F LICHLITER INSTR. # 01-00-1165 60 162 Dewberry Dewberry & Davis LLC 611 West Juba] Early Drive Winchester, Virginia 22601 PHONE: 540.678.2700 FAX: 540.678.2703 Drawn By TRACT 2 915 ACRES FND. FND. DBL. 22" 16" ELM ' CHESTNUT OAK s62.55'38"E .00 N10'28'13"W S58'22'54"E ---106.83' 1005.22' J63'1408 W 116 937.09121 120 118117 64 85 123�122 O JM Plan Number 1276007 Designed By Date JUNE 2004 Checked By Scale KN 1 "=300' FND. 37„E� 10" WHITE s711OAK woojAAB.81 S36'19'46"W.174.84' ,,� TM 76—((A))-23 N/F DANFORD /o`�' RIDGE PROPERTIES, L.C. a /h DB 935/1533 S19'48'14"W 77.43' ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER INFO TM 75G—((11))-116 TM 75G-8-5-85 N/F N/F SANTORO & CHAGNON ADAMS INSTR. # 00-02/789 D.B.752, PG. 322 TM 75GN�F1))-117 TM 75GN� B))-60 _0 to V-� SWIGER do VITELA DAVIS Co O INSTR. # 00-02/6178 DB 673/402 TM 75 ((A))-99A T- TM 75GN((11))-118 TM 75G—((46))-62 ARTRIP v7 FOSTER N/F CLARK DB 713/417 DB 950/671 DB 879/1310 TRACT 1 — 169.009 ACRES TM 75G—((11))-120 75GN/FB))-63 NF TM169.924 ACS. TOTAL MILLER DB 707/861 BEARDSLEE TM 75GNF 1))-121 INSTR. 5 00-2/1481�7((B))-64 ARTRIP L.P. WIN/ARTRIP7 RODRIG BUEZ 8/ 68 t�-4 TM 75G—((11))-122 DB 960/812 ifT Cr)ELLIOTTTM 75—((A))-101 DB 981/266 WAKELAND MANOR TM 75G—((11))-123 LAND TRUST N/F DB 776/685 WINGFIELD TM 75—((A))-99 INSTR. # 00-00/1187 N/F FREDERICK CO. SANITATION AUTHORITY DB 583/320 O O i.C1 - -er N78'07'33"W 18.27' N89'33'00"W 145.60' N54'05'43"W TM 75— q —101 I��FND. MANOR ��6�6� WAKELAND 101 1760.52' 12 WHITE LAND TRUST 99 OAK DB 776/685 BOUNDARY VERIFICATION File Number PROPERTY OF THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC D.B. 713 PG. 417 EXHIBIT PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA �z ... ....... 10 M 0, Wff7- A M, z W I - ­ S ,?Ij It �\. 4U C, —Z R R �Js 17 4. 8 4' tv v TM — 7� x Rm • I'Mrr -1'6"'- ELM N F \\\\Q cc- N��RIFA_ �gm\g� �S, q Z ��77, A, �11 0 0 A MW A/ 'A? g A 9R i�, g�l N', 02- �_s PE-RTjES/, U. RE 671 R 171 if; Zzl' N/ f 3 C .5,3/ 10 _2 tO /10, A A, o 7 \'ST,� 3' Y.0 �4_ X" � - _��/ _ Q Z g•kn%_\ P; it 171 I'S6 /0, AP \� " _/ __ , — -/ — ADJOINING OWING E; ORERT)i INF6 i 5 /F \( )MA TIA 7A))-99AZ t N/F /�) j — " q, SANTOR(�&1WGN6N/ QAMS, i ARTRJF2/789 /DB. 7PQ! t Iff tb B 71 17 M ,4y 7 1-69 AbTA� - ,,, /F� r7N/, ­.DAYI� V 78 D M� 5�? 8 - - j �� I'll, 0®rl TM M IK7 A k< z R AR r /6�1 DB,09,/131 \\�j x it J oi -z\z� 171 '75G- (4�13)�-�i N N )k Ft _'E LLE V j 0 INS 00' tit J ?5,13- ),JiZol i I NC, /D -7, `­q, idivi" TM J tL-L A, 12 W�Izl____a��,_Fhfil .. S �M 7 04 A -6 5r A '8 §\ I it ),�,T/W/7 lilt /DB 896' ill 1TI\ _6` TM 75—((A )­96� lo ,4,/,F GL­AIZ� D VEL,_/A t 1 _PV ;N, X, . . . ....... zz /Ib. 0 o U V A 51 A))—,9- x )T 7 \\A` Y,31 o 7 N/F/L1 HLITER- V 'N' 4 V: 0 00 —_Ijl 6 5 1A ice N!�,TR :8 7 *33'00"W S �21 5 4'-'E-, W­ N N 10 05.2,\2 21 X a 145.60' TM 75—((A))-101 /j WAKELAND MANOR 6 WHITE LAND TRUST A OAK D13 776/685 to 0 1 Drawn By . 9 11 — - JLIVI 76030007 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY File Number Poo Dewberry Dewberry & Davis LLC Designed By Date JUNE 2004 THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP 611 West Jubal Early Drive WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC Winchester, Virginia 22601 Checked By Scale --- PHONE: 540.678.2700 D.B. 713 PG. 417 EXHIBIT FAX: 540.678.2703 KWN 1"=300' PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN www.dewberry.com SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 4 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 0 E 0 E 73 J ry) 7-1 jG 0 0 a, Rt 0 e -)0 0 0 0 CROSS 04NTE (P r'J 17 CE R t,3 0 Cn 0 91. 9- (D 0 (A -10 4� 0 0 . . ... West P ins X-- SQLt. • R 644 Road Post CANTER 0 ESTATES V ZONING MAP LEGEND WAKELAND s MANOR RA RURAL AREA DISTRICT NS CITY1 r Ro opd d RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE ISTEP. aske ROad R-4 RESMTIAL, PLANNED COMMUNITY R-5 RESIDENTIAL, RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY MH-11 MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY DISTRICT of B-1 BUSINESS, NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT B-2 BUSINESS, GENERAL DISTRICT 0 Rt B-3 INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION DISTRICT Ir M-1 INDUSTRIAL, LIGHT DISTRICT 0 �M-2 INDUSTRIAL, GENERAL DISTRICT EM EXTRACTIVE MANUFACTURING DISTRICT HE HIGHER EDUCATION DISTRICT CITY LIMITS q) S eard,,n URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAYS pa SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAYS SOU)T, 6¢6 PRIVATE ROADS "zo HILL 0 Q CURD + yRJS Dewberr Drawn By Project Number 76030007 CURRENT ZONING MAP File Number THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP Designed By RJS Date JUNE 2004 Dewberry & Davis LLIC WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC 611 West Jubal Early Drive Winchester, Virginia 22601 D.B. 713, PG. 417 Checked By Scale EXHIBIT PHONE: 540.678.2700 MTW 1 "=3,000 PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN 5 FAX: 540.678.2703 SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT www.dewberry.com I FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA • � 0 I * • 1 ry Dewberry Drawn By KLT Dewberry & Davis LLC Designed By KLT 611 West Jubal Early Drive Winchester, Virginia 22601 Checked By PHONE: 540.678.2700 MTW FAX: 540.678.2703 www.dewberry.com /'7 r _ 4r1 N, t i�•. �,� a �tr a� .IM < r_ � f< • f f• r Ad 14, S ' gf•' 4 S•a` ,•Y 41 _ X. RTRI Yj,-• �y� �r i t t�,� � f r \ A 1 oe <r +'fir �f f� ��,( '� - •`Y� —'ti \. 111111110 Plan Number 76030007 Date JUNE 2004 Scale As Shown LEGEND Study Area t37,050 acres i SwSA Boundary Arterial and Collector Raod Projects t W ATS Road lmprovenimis ItAdditional CuBectnr Roads Proposed Traffic Signal Zoning RA (Rural Area District) _ RP (Residential Performance District) R5 (Residential, Recreation Community) MHl (Mobile Home Community) 131 (Business, Neighborhood District) B2 (Business, General District) B3 (Industrial, Transition District) Mi (Industrial, Light District) M2 (Industrial, General District) EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) HE (Higher Education District) CPPS & Staff Recommendations ma Proposed Land Use i* is Agricultural Residential (� Business; [Musftw Institutional • Utility :J Recreation Historic Mixed -Use PUD ` Public Trail System Em•iromental Constraints 0 Ak n�t,r tti—ytN...�s:wr�q 2003 COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN SOUTH FREDERICK COUNTY LAND USE PLAN EXCERPT THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC D.B. 713, PG. 417 PARKINS MILL PRECINCT SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA File Number EXHIBIT 0 • r Urban Development Area & Sewer and Water Service Area Frederick County, Virginia I i , THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP Mulnr RorMs ,```� tic. ;' �_ r ounry Houndnry 1 ' /y� �5 Ifl (Mrrm¢.ra. rYrryhhn rhnnrl lhalnt(J EM/E. tir.v Mmru(Munny fhvrrrr./ Iry / �\ it .. \ ♦ - !IE (ll gl Ed, —dory 11W-1) MI (lruh.xrriw. cighlniarrirr) f a `I Mz 11nd.11n1. u —1 L1.1—/ 11'� �`' MH I (MnbRe Hnmr t'orvn —ly I)crr ) (RrrrArnriu/ Rer>vminnw r'ummunny ll�rrn T) % -1 RA (Rural Areas 0is j i RI' (Reaulrnriw PerJunruun a M, mr r) r a Q llrbwr P—Ibp—, Anm ` � a rvrnvr mrJ Wnlar .tivrvi�.4n�n �W'' D b Urban Development Area DRAFTED CHECKED e w e r r y & Sewer and Water Service Area KILT MTW DATE SCALE Dewberry & Davis LLC THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP • 611 WEST JUBAL EARLY DRIVE WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC JUNE 2004 As Shown BLDG B, SUITE C D.B. 713, PG. 417 WINCHESTER, VA22601 PHONE 540.678.2700 PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN PROD. NO. EXHIBIT FAX: 540.678.2703 SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT www rlawharry rnm FREDERICK COUNTY. VIRGINIA 1276014 7 fl u GARDEN APARTMENTS COMMERCIAL SPACE ON GROUND FLOOR, APARTMENTS/ OFFICE SPACE ABOVE THIS PLAN IS INTENDED TO SHOW POSSIBLE UNIT TYPES. ACTUAL ELEVATIO& MATERIALS WILL VARY. THIS EXHIBIT IS TO BE USED FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE RELIED UPON FOR ANY LEGAL OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. ACTUAL LOCATIONS OF STRUCTURES, ROADWAYS, LANDSCAPING, UNIT TYPES, ELEVATIONS AND MATERIALS MAY VARY AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. STACKED FLATS STACKED FLATS STACKED FLATS INTERIOR UNIT ENTRY • STACKED FLATS END UNIT ENTRY (RIGHT) TREE LINED = BOULEVARD ,rr r •��� _ (ABOVE) VILLAGE HOME, ALLEY -SERVED STREET FRONT TOWNHOME BACK TO BACK UNIT C'(� i •f _ — �. a .i_ L 4.1 f ­ 1 ALLEY -SERVED VILLAGE HOME 4. CLUSTER HOMES r. 1 ALLEY -SERVED UNITS FRONT LOADED DETACHED CLUSTER EL D x BOULEVARD PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION ROUTES men Dewberr Drawn By Plan Number ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN -HOUSING TYPES File Number ' y RJS 76030007 CONCEPTUAL BUILDING ELEVATION,, Dewber &Davis LLC Designed By Date THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP ry RJS JUNE 2004 611 West Juba[ Early Drive WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC EXHIBIT Winchester, Virginia 22601 Checked By Scale D.B.713, PG. 417 PHONE: 540.678.2700 1"=400' PARKINS MILL PRECINTINCT 8 FAX: 540.678.2703 MTW SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT www.dewberry.com FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA The Villages (it Artrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan • SECTION 2 IMPACT ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • • C The Villages atArtrip Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan • SECTION 3 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT • J THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP TABLE 3 Adjacent Property Owners PIN 75-A-101 Name Wakeland Manor Land Trust Address 300 Craig St. city Stephen City st: VA Zip 22655 Use Zonin 9 75-A-95 75-A-96 Glaize Development, Inc. Glaize Development, Inc. P.O. Box 888 P.O. Box 888 Winchester VA 22604 6 2 (Residential) RP RA 75-A-97 Steve Dubrueler . 346 Saddleback Lane Winchester Winchester VA VA 22604 22602 6 (Over 100 Ac.) 2 (Residential) RA RA 75-A-99 75G-11-8-116 Frederick County Ronald Santoro & Pamela Chagnon 107 N. Kent St. 106 Canaan Ct. Winchester VA 22601 73 (Exempt) RP 75G-11-8-117 James Swiger & Michelle Vitela 105 Canaan Ct. Stephens City Stephens City VA VA 22655 22655 2 (Residential) 2 (Residential) RP RP 75G-11-8-118 75G-11-8-120 David T.& Tammy M. Foster Robert & Mary E. McDonald 103 Canaan Ct. 109 Fair Lawn Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 75G-11-8-121 Winchester/Artrip LP 11501 Huff Ct. Stephens City N. Bethesda VA MD. 22655 20895 2 (Residential) 2 (Residential) RP RP 75G-11-8-122 75G-11-8-123 Timothy J. Elliot Sr. & Kathleen A. Elliott Timothy Wingfield 105 Fair Lawn Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 75G-4-4B-60 Rodney & Suzanne R. Torp 103 Fair Lawn Ct. 102 Jade Ct. Stephens City Stephens City VA VA 22655 22655 2 (Residential) -2 RP 75G-4-4B-62 John & Melissa Corder P.O. Box 90010 c/o Valerie Whit Richmond VA 23225 (Residential) 2 (Residential) RP RP 75G-4-4B-63 75G-4-4B-64 Patricia Gail Beardslee Cynthia D. Rodriguez 125 Bell Haven Cr. 127 Bell Haven Cr. Stephens City VA 22655 2 (Residential) RP 75G-8-5-85 Timothey J. & Karen E. Adams 129 Bell Haven Cr. Stephens City Stephens City VA VA 22655 22655 2 (Residential) 2 (Residential) RP RP 76-A-13 76-A-23 W.F. Artrip, Jr. Jasbo, Inc. 1726 Front Royal Pike P.O. Box 480 Winchester VA 22602 6— (Over 100 Ac.) RA Stephens City VA 22655 5 (20-100 AC.) RP • Note: 1. Information from SpecPrint Edition 13, 2004 2. Use Codes: 2- Single Family Residential (Suburban) 4- Commercial & Industrial 5- Agricultural / Undeveloped (100+ ac.) 6- Agricultural / Undeveloped (100+ ac.) 73- Regional / Local Government 11/8/2004 10:30 AM P:tProject176030007AdmnlRezoning Application Text Documents\REZONING TABLES.xls3 SI IRR MAIKIC❑e 7-18-05; 5:23PM;DEWBERRY 0 0 ;540 678 2703 # 2/ 2 ARTRIP ADJACENT OWNERS IN Name Address City St. Zip Use Zoning 75-A-101 r' Wakeland Manor Land Trust 300 Craig St. Stephen City VA 22655 6 RP 75-A-95 ✓ Glaize Developments. Inc. P.O, Box 888 Winchester VA 22604 Vacant RA 75-A-96 / Glalze Developments, Inc, P.O. Box 888 Winchester VA 22604 Vacant RA 75-A-97 /, Steve Dubrueler 346 Saddleback Lane Winchester VA 22B02 2 Residential RA 75-A-99 ✓ Frederick County 107 N. Kent St. Winchester VA 22601 73 (Exempt) RP 75-A-99A Winchester/Artri , c/o The Tower Co. 11501 Huff Cf. N. Bethesda MD. 20895 Vacant RA 75G-11-8-11 E Ronald Santoro & Pamela A. Cha no 106 Canaan Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 2 Residential RP 75G-11.8-11 Rene O. Lopez 105 Canaan Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 2 Residential RP 75G-11-8-11 E Jane A. Ellis 103 Canaan Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 2 Residential RP 75G-1 1 -8-1 2C Robert & Mary E. McDonald 109 Fair Lawn Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 2 Residential RP 75G-11-8-121 Winchester/Artrip LP 11501 Huff Ct, N. Bethesda MD. 20895 2 Residential RP 75G-11-B-12 Timothy J. Elliot Sr. & Kathleen A. Ellic 105 Fair Lawn Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 2 Residential RP 75vG-1 1 -8-12.2 Keith N. Wingfield 103 Fair Lawn Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 12 Residential RP 75G-4.4B-60 Rodney & Suzanne R. Torp 102 Jade Cf. Stephens City VA 22655 12 Residential RP 75G-4.413-62 John L. & Melissa L. Corder P.O. Box 90010 c/o Valerie Whit Richmond VA 23225 2 Residential RP 75G-4.4B-63 Patricia Gail Beardslee 125 Bell Haven Cr. Stephens City VA 22655 2 Residential RP 75G-4-4B-64 Cynthia D. Rodriguez 127 Bell Haven Cr. Stephens City VA 22655 2 Residential RP 75G-8-5.85 Timothe J. & Karen E. Adams 129 Bell Haven Cr. Stephens City VA 22655 2 Residential RP 76-A-13 W.F. Artri , Jr. 1726 Front Royal Pike Winchester VA 22602 6-- Over 100 Ac. RA 76-A-23 Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 4B0 Stephens City VA 22655 Vacant RP 76C-1-5-385 Canter Estates Homeowners Assoc., I P.O. Box 480 Stephens City VA 22655 Vacant RP 76C-1-5-358 Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 480 Stephens City VA 22655 Vacant RP 76C-1-5-359 Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 480 Stephens City VA 22655 Vacant RP 76C-1-5-360 Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 480 Stephens City VA 22655 Vacant RP 76C-1-5-361 Foreman Builders, Inc. 3202 Valley Pike Winchester VA 22601 Vacant RP 76C-1-5-362 Foreman Builders, Inc. 3202 Valley Pike Winchester VA 22601 Vacant RP 76C-1-5-363 Foreman Builders, Inc. 3202 Valley Pike Winchester VA 22601 Vacant RP 76C-1-5-3B4 Foreman Builders, Inc, 3202 Valley Pike Winchester VA 22601 Vacant RP 76C-1-5-365 H & H Builders, Inc. 301 Hartsell Lane Stephens City VA 22655 Vacant RP 76C-1-5-366 H & H Builders, Inc. 301 Hartsell Lane Stephens City VA 22655 Vacant RP 76C-1-5-367 H & H Builders, Inc. 301 Hartsell Lane Stephens City VA 22655 Vacant RP 76C-1-5-368 H & H Builders, Inc. 301 Hartsell Lane Stephens City VA 22655 Vacant RP 76C-1.5-369 Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 480 Stephens City VA 122655 Vacant RP Note: 1. Information from www.co.frederickma.us 2. Use Codes: 2- Single Family Residential Suburban 4- Commercial & Industrial 5- Agricultural / Undeveloped 100+ ac. 6- Agricultural / Undeveloped (100+ ac. 73- Regional / Local Government 7/14/2005 5:12 PM P:\Project\76030007\Cad\Civil\0307-ARTR-C\Docs\Adjacent Owners.xls F G c._ qy A. ex?' 3+G1 1 r THIS DBE21, made and dated this day of Hay, 1989, by ►nd between N C ARTRIP. JR. and FNXP RTRI , husband and ,ifa, parties of the first part, hereinafter celled the Crentors; aTp[ttE9TEt ARTRIP L•`NITED URTI;8MHIP. a Virginia limited paxtnarehip, party of the second part, herein after called the 3ranteei and DAVID @, U91jIDAY, homme sole, party of the third part. MITNBSsMi That for and in cor.sideration of the sum of Ten Dollars and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantors do grant and -convey, - With General Warranty and English covenants of title unto the Gzentes, in fee simple, all the following described real estates ?RACY OKBt All of that certain .rac t of lend together of way, with all rights, rights thereunto improvements and appurtenances a isterial belonging, situated in Shawnee Hcontaining District. Frederick a skdoscribed lby•inia, boundary survey 169.009 acres, C._.S., dated February drawn by Carl J. Rinker, 17, 2989, revised April 28, 1989, and nmad detea there as 'Tract 1", attached hereto and made part hereof by this reference; and being portion of the parcel conveyed to tho male Grantor herein by deed of Hugn G. Sloneker at ux dated e clerk's Auffia gust 20,ust tircuit6Court ofeFrederickcorJ in hCounty, Virginia in Deed Book 2e! at page 121. TZACT TWO: All of that certain tract off way, tagather with all rights, rights and appurtenancea thereunto belongiimproveng, hagiste.ial belonging, situated nt Virginim, containing District, Freaerics County, survey drawn 0.915 acres, as described by boundary by Carl J. Rinser. C•L•S., 1a"t'ed rebrUAry 27. 1989, and designated there ass 0 I • • r", I MPf�C"t' C (v C i— o 5 c D�vv �( rt right• Of is made aubJect to all easewents, as�strietsow of record, effecting the uua�.cc property. € �.^r hei tAees slue•, their• and hereby reserve unto than two DOA -exclusive easements of right—of- t sore R ki?{ which shall be more than sixty (60) Leet aide, 7a��tMs�of. for future utility installation ate to be used Il) ri Grantors' adjednt retained +'+ �seia conveyed property to aA,t `. two• said future ingress to and eOreas i�.rReQ (» for The + { psopett7 ever the herein conveyed property. GranCea's n +'� ^ detersinsd by the s -. �... j�gpf+,eaa+mepta •hall as i development plan fos the when the master be shorn on ``=.consultant k :��; } COX is p►vPared. and said oascsants shall W �awr.aDax for ftpproval by Predarick Coup=y. of and when Oubmitted � � 4-4—ino in _ 0 60d O.F Ate C C'4 fj ex 7 13 FG 4 2 9 (D--T-'q,20 J'OU40 0. vr000pArccocar IF dD 0 '4 p. �00 —4.Act J, 2 ao*A;: A45., POO- AZI 4 rsvis'la"I e-Irl711 ' .1", e. raif WA440444 v 165; ivtii��':- 'twr4o4jrx ♦vob" �svajccr A Y-hM A . of % .-o P. ric 4 of rn C. J'fa .q�r4ip.vf Pto#0 -044440co 4gr4j'o,jlv-'A r 4UJ(. V 6our-t- 4,oc4,rew Recur -0 X -JiA-C 6 CAAr ofVtc.cilr'r of y 4,,143 oj.,,..Xgcr. Aq4Aiarcei-14. Dior., Nk prtpartd by CARL J. RINKER AND ASSOC. nAnFA LAWYERS ROW VMOSTOM v PH 70345941E, Is 0,1 r- ()-- r Z7) ID SID r,f CART. Jv. _,:��R & ASS OC�Ac'TIS�Fc�12I land Sur+�wyon • E�VF+*ti-s • l ago Ytvirwt lawyrn' Rua; WooJdack, VA =14 k f i These (2) tracts of land are located about 4% miles goutheast of the City of Ylscheater, ghswnee Haglaterial District. Frederick Co=ty. Virginia and are deearibad by Rates r..: boasada as follows• T1 M-1 0eginaing at an iron rod found at a cotnar with Tract-2 and Vernon L. Lichliter, thence with the said Lichliter's line and comtimaing with ileanor Jackson Darleaoo. at. als. line• x 13' 11' Is" a 19954.93 feet to an iron rod sat; thence • 02' 46' 02" 0 3h1.34 feet to an iron rod sett thence 0 46' 30' 59" 3 400.69 feet to a 30" doubts blank o" tree f000d at a corner with V. F. Artr1F. Jr.'a other lands thence with the sai4 Artrip'a Besse g 60' 11' 07" i 1.011.33 feat to -a 220-double abostaut ask tree, thence 0 62' 55' M"'g 029.34 feat to a 16" aim t"ol thence 0 710 14' 37" t 1.110.01 feet to a 10" wblts oak t`so found at a corner with Jesse B. ttafford. Jr.] thence with the said ttafford's limes 0 36' 19' 46" V .174.g4 feot•to as iren rod lotsd at an angle in the old fanoal thsces • 0 56' 39' lgi' V 541`02 •fsat to a wood fence POOL feu"I thaata g 19' 49, 14" x 77.43 fast to as iron rod gat, thence 0 19' 00' 30" M 740.16 :Set to On iron rod set, thence 0 170 13' 22" Y 409.60 fast to a wood fend post fouodi thanes 0 16' 25' 16" V 443.66•toot to a 10" poise tree found at Is famcs corner. a corner with land cltiaOd by 0alp>r M. Vsk' aaa; tbaacs with the said Yaksoan'e lines 9 09' 33' W" V 145.60 feet to a 12" whita oak tree; thence 0 78' A7' i3" V 18.27 f"t a a.12" white Oak creel chance 0 06' 14' 31" V 363.71 toot to a fence post fcmd, thence with smother of the said Vaksman's limos and continuing with the Frederick County 0mitatian Aothority and saothar Of the sold Vakssan's lixa 0 54' 05' 43" V 1,760.64 foot te, as Liao ro4 found at a corner with Trarj-2; thence with a lie& of the said Zraet-2 • 50' 22' 34" ji 1,003.22 fast to the point 09 b"Luning mad .,atainiag 169.009 Acts• core or lsaa. RANDS litum" ftAum LAWYERS ROW OCK VA. 226V PH 703-459-4715 0 9 T A X R E C E I P T - Y E A R 2 0 0 4 Ticket ##:00372480001 @C FREDERICK COUNTY Date 5/24/2004 C. WILLIAM ORNDOFF, JR Register: JKM/JK P.O. BOX 225 Trans. #: 15163 Dept # RE200401 WINCHESTER VA 22604-0225 ACCT## 31977 . 2004 REAL ESTATE TAXES Previous 169.01 ACRES 75 A 99A Balance $ 2775.83 Acres: 169.01 Principal Being Paid $ 2775.83 Land: 760500 Imp: 0 Penalty $ .00 Interest $ 00 WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC Amount Paid $ 2775.83 C/O THE TOWER COMPANIES *Balance Due 11501 HUFF CT as of 5/24/2004$ .00 N BETHESDA, MD 20895 1043 Check 2879.86 # BK OF NY Pd by WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC ANY BALANCE DUE DOES NOT INCLUDE PENALTY AND INTEREST. (DUPLICATE) 0 0 The Villages atArtrip 0 Rezoning Application, Impact Analysis Statement and Master Development Plan • SECTION 7 PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT J "le- Ob era-o5 f WALSH COLUCCI LUBELEY EMRICH 1 & WALSH PC John H. Foote (703) 680-4664 Ext. 114 ifoote@pw.thelandlawyers.com Fax: (703) 680-2161 CERTIFIED MAIL / RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED November 20, 2008 Mr. Jerry Copp Residency Administrator Virginia Department of Transportation 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 Re: Artrip / VDOT / Frederick County Agreement Dear Jerry: I have received signatures from all of the parties to the above Agreement. The County forwarded me but one signature page each for Mr. Riley and Mr. Cheran, and I am electing to return the entire original of the Agreement to you for VDOT's safekeeping. I am sending copies of the completed package to all of the other parties trusting that this will be sufficient, since it would require yet another round of letters and emails to get additional original signatures. I am also enclosing with this a check from The Tower Companies in the amount of $185,975.00 in conformance with that Agreement. Thanks very much for your assistance. JHF/jhf Sincerely yours, WALSH, COLUCCI, LUBELEY, .\ EMRIPM& WALSH, P.C. Jahn H. Foote PRONE 703 680 4664 1 FAX 703 68o 6o67 I WWW.THELANDLAWYERS.COM 4310 PRINCE WILLIAM PARKWAY, SUITE 300 1 PRINCE WILLIAM, VA 22192 ARLINGTON OFFICE 703 528 4700 1 LOUDOUN OFFICE 703 737 3633 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mr. Jerry Copp November 20, 2008 Page 2 of 2 cc: John Riley, County Administrator w/attachments Rod Williams, County Attorney w/attachments Eric Lawrence Mark Cheran Jeffrey Abramson w/attachments Stuart Margulies David Borchardt John Callow w/attachments Mark Cheran u j THE TOWER COMPANIES 11501 Huff Court u North Bethesda, MD 20895 u Tel: 301.984.7000 u Fax: 301.984.6033 u www.towercompanies.com October 26, 2006 Michael Ruddy, AICP Frederick County, Maryland Dep't. of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street, 2nd Floor Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Arh-ip Property Dear Mr. Ruddy: Enclosed, please find a copy of the revised proffer statement dated October 25, 2006. This proffer reflects Gene Fisher's recent request to include the connection of Parkins Mill Road to the school site in phase I in the event Warrior Drive is constructed first fi-om Crosspointe. You will find that modification in paragraphs 14.7.1 and 14.7.2. Please don't hesitate to contact us, John Foote or David Frank for any questions you may have. We hope to see you at the Board Hearing on November 8th. Since -66 y, Y )�� Stuart Margulies Assistant Project Manager cc: Jeffrey Abramson, The Tower Companies David Borchardt, The Tower Companies John Foote, Walsh, Colucci 4310 Prince William Pkwy., Suite 300 Prince William, VA 22192 David Frank, Dewberry & Davis, Jim Brown, Dewberry & Davis, John Callow, Patton, Harris, Rust, 611 West Jubal Early Dr.,Building B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 602 North King Street, Suite 201 Leesburg, VA 20175 14532 Lee Rd. Chantilly, Virginia 20151 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director RE: Revised Proffer Statement — Villages at Artrip. DATE: October 16, 2006 Please find enclosed the revised Proffer Statement for the Villages at Artrip. This is the color comparison version which Mr. Foote has provided in advance of the frilly executed version. It appears to address the comments made by the Board at your meeting on October 11, 2006. Please let me know if you have any concerns or additional comments. This item will be back in front of the Board at your November 8, 2006 meeting. Attachment MTR/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 9 • PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ #12-05 and MDP 909-05 RA to R4 PROPERTY: 169.924 acres +/-; Tax Map & Parcel 75-A- 99A (the "Property") RECORD OWNER: Winchester-Artrip Limited Liability Company, a Virginia Corporation APPLICANT: Winchester-Artrip Limited Liability Company PROJECT NAME: Villages at Artrip ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: June 2004 REVISION DATA: May 20, 2005 June 17, 2005 September 9, 2005 September 26, 2005 November 28, 2005 January 27, 2006 September 8, 2006 October 10, 2006 ,October_16r 2006 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced rezoning is not granted as applied for by the Applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "Final Rezoning" defined as that rezoning that is in effect on the day upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the `Board") grants the rezoning. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners, assigns, and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Master Development Plan" shall refer to the plan entitled "Master Development Plan, The Villages at Artrip" prepared by Dewberry (the "MDP") dated January 27, 2006 and revised September 8, 2006, sheets 1-4; provided further that sheet 5 thereof, entitled General Development Plan ("GDP"), shall not be deemed a part of the MDP submittal but is otherwise proffered as set forth herein. Formatted: Font: 8 pt Deleted: October Deleted: \ {P0047851.DOC / I Proffers (BOs Revisions) 000419 0000041 1. LAND USE 1.1 The project shall be designed so as to establish interconnected mixed - use villages in conformance with the MDP and the GDP, and as is specifically set forth in these proffers. 1.2 Except as modified herein, areas of commercial development on the Property shall be developed in conformance with the regulations of the Residential Planned Community ("R4") zoning district, as set forth in the Frederick County Code Article VII, §165-67 through §165-72, as cross-referenced to Article X, § 165-82, Sections A through D inclusive, and § 165-83. All commercial development on the Property shall comply with the aforesaid regulations, or as may be otherwise approved by Frederick County. 1.2.1 Commercial, retail, restaurant and office development on the Property shall not exceed 128,550 net useable square feet of commercial area, and shall be provided within the Core Area. 1.3 Except as modified herein, areas of residential development on the Property shall be developed in conformance with the regulations of the Planned Community ("R4") zoning district, including permissible housing types, including those set forth in the Frederick County Code Article VII, §165-67 through §165-72, as cross-referenced to Article VI, § 165-58, through § 165-66, including as set forth in Appendix A ("Housing Types"). In the event that the Applicant elects to construct any of the Housing Types that are set forth on Appendix A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, such units shall conform to the development standards established therein. Housing Types and lot layouts within these Landbays may comprise any of the permitted Housing Types identified for those Landbays as set forth on the MDP or as are otherwise authorized for the RP district as it is incorporated by reference into the R4 district; provided further that no more intensive Housing Type may be constructed in any Landbay than is identified as a Housing Type permitted therein on the MDP. 1.3.1 Residential development on the Property shall not exceed a maximum of 793 dwelling units, with a mix of Housing Types permitted in the R4 district, subject to the modifications as set forth in Appendix A, and dwelling types shall be constructed in the locations generally depicted on the MDP and as further set forth herein. 1.3.2 For the purposes of these proffers, single-family attached and detached and multi -family units shall include those IP0047851.DOC / I Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000419 0000041 2 0 0 Housing Types identified on the MDP and set forth in the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance including detached cluster housing, small lot singles, single-family urban, zero lot line singles, and village rear load singles. Multi -family units shall include apartments, fee simple condominiums, and duplex units. 1.4 Development of commercial, residential and community uses within the area identified on the MDP as the "Core Area" shall generally conform to a grid lot layout, and the street layout and Housing Types depicted therein on the MDP. Not fewer than three Housing Types shall be provided in the Core Area. The layout of the Core Area shall be constructed in general conformance with the GDP, provided that reasonable adjustments may be made to the locations thereof upon final engineering. 1.4.1 The Applicant shall construct not fewer than 100 residential units of three different permitted Housing Types in the Core Area in Phase I of the development as otherwise set out herein. 1.5 Development within the Landbays on the Property outside the Core Area shall generally conform to the street layouts, points of connection to Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road, and the limits of development as are depicted on the MDP; provided that minor adjustments may be made to the locations thereof upon final engineering. Housing Types and lot layouts within these Landbays may comprise any of the permitted Housing Types identified for those Landbays on the MDP and authorized herein or subsequently approved by the Frederick County Planning Office; provided further that no more intensive Housing Type may be constructed in any such Landbay than is identified as a Housing Type permitted therein on the MDP. 1.6 Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, rental apartments, condominium units and rental apartments over retail and office uses shall be permitted. 1.7 The gross density of residential units shall not exceed 4.7 units per acre. 1.8 Shared parking shall be provided for retail, restaurant and office uses within Landbay "A" such that a 10% reduction or increase of the required parking spaces shall be permitted. 1.9 The Applicant shall make reasonable attempts to preserve the specimen Delaware Pine in the general vicinity of the cemetery on the property identified on the MDP as Village Green B. Such Green shall be preserved for passive recreational use, provided that a tot lot may be located thereon. During construction the limits of clearing and grading in the vicinity of the specimen Pine shall be identified and field flagged in connection with the Applicant's compliance with requirements of the (P004785I.DOC / I Proffers (HOS Revisions) 000419 00000,11 3 0 • Frederick County Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance to prevent unintended disturbance of areas to be preserved. 2. CONSTRUCTION OF A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT 2.1 The Property shall be developed as one single and unified development in accordance with applicable ordinances and regulations for the R-4 zoning district, the MDP, and this Proffer Statement as it may be accepted by the Board. 3. P1 ASING OF THE DEVELOPMENT 3.1 The Property shall be developed in three phases, with the commercial portions of the Property to be developed in Phase II as set forth herein. The three phases shall be authorized as follows: 3.1.1 Phase I. Residential development shall not exceed 325 dwelling units and shall consist of not fewer than three permitted Housing Types. 3.1.2 Phase II. Residential development shall not exceed an additional 275 dwelling units, for a total of 600 dwelling units comprising not fewer than three permitted Housing Types. 3.1.3 Commercial development shall include not less than 20,000 square feet of commercial/retail/restaurant gross leaseable floor space in the Core Area, whose shell has been constructed not later than the 600`f' residential building permit. 3.1.3.1 Notwithstanding the foregoing, and except to the extent set forth herein, the Applicant may construct all or any portion of the commercial development authorized in these proffers at any time. 3.1.3.2 The Applicant shall submit a site plan for the aforesaid commercial development prior to the issuance of the 326`I' residential building permit. 3.1.4 Phase III. Residential development shall not exceed an additional 193 dwelling units, for a total of 793 dwelling units. 3.1.5 Community improvements. Community -serving improvements such as community center, tot lots, and similar improvements as shown on the MDP shall be 1P0047851.DOC / I Proffers (I30S Revisions) 000419 00000,11 4 0 • constructed in conjunction with the Landbay with which such improvements are associated; provided that the community civic center and pool to be constructed in the Core Area shall be designed and bonded at the beginning of Phase I, and constructed prior to the issuance of the 325`I' building permit. 4. ARCHITECTURE, SIGNAGE, AND LANDSCAPING: 4.1 The following building materials may be used for construction within the Property, and no others: 4.1.1 Pavements / Curbing shall consist of cast in place concrete, natural and colored; aggregate concrete; precast concrete, natural and colored; concrete pavers; brick pavers; stone pavers; asphalt pavers; granite; ceramic tile; asphalt. 4.1.2 House sidings shall consist of EFIS; stucco; brick; cementious siding; cedar siding; stone veneer; painted wood; vinyl siding; stained wood; aluminum; aluminum wrapped trim; hardy plank; PVC trim. 4.1.3 Decking and fencing shall consist of pressure treated wood; stained wood; painted wood; PVC fencing; IPE decking; cedar decking; TREX decking or similar recycled product. 4.1.4 Miscellaneous materials that may be used for roofing shall consist of standing seam metal roofing, colored; slate roofing; asphalt roofing; powder coated steel, colored; galvanized steel; aluminum brushed; anodized aluminum, colored; 304 stainless steel. 4.1.5 Additional materials not listed herein may be submitted to the Director of Planning for approval, who shall determine whether those materials are of a type and quality substantially similar- to those listed. 4.2 Vinyl siding shall not be used on the front elevation of residential structures facing Warrior Drive or on the fronts of residences located on corner lots that intersect with Warrior Drive. The side of a residential structure that faces Warrior Drive located on a corner lot on a road that intersects Warrior Drive is not permitted to have vinyl siding on that elevation. 4.3 Notwithstanding the foregoing, materials used for exterior facades of the commercial buildings shall include but not be limited to concrete masonry units (CMU) split -faced block, architectural block, dryvit, or other simulated stucco (EFIS), real or simulated wood and/or glass. W004785I.DOC / I Proffers (QOS Revisions) 000419 0000041 5 Standard concrete masonry block shall not be used for the front facades of any buildings. 4.4 All buildings within the development on the property shall be constructed using compatible architectural styles. The Applicant shall establish under the jurisdiction of the HOA(s) to be established hereunder, one or more Architectural Review Boards to enforce and administer a unified development plan. 4.5 All signage within the project shall be in substantial conformity with the comprehensive sign plan incorporated herein as Appendix B to these Proffers; provided that the Director of Planning may authorize alternative signage that is substantially consistent with the aforesaid sign plan. 4.6 The major collector roadways (Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road Extended) in the Villages at Artrip shall be constructed with a minimum 20' width buffers adjacent to dedicated rights -of -way and, except at entrance locations, shall be improved with landscape features and lighting to create a "boulevard" appearance. Illustrative details of such buffers shall be as set forth on the MDP. 5. PEDESTRIAN TRAIL SYSTEM AND RECREATION AREAS 5.1 The Applicant shall design and build a public pedestrian -bicycle trail system to Department of Parks and Recreation standards that links residential and commercial areas within the development and provides additional connectivity to adjacent properties. Said trails shall be in general conformance with the South Frederick Land Use Map and shall be in the locations generally depicted on the MDP. Five-foot sidewalks shall be constructed on all public sheets and a minimum of four foot sidewalks shall be constructed on private sheets in accordance with the requirements of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, except as may be otherwise depicted on the MDP. The pedestrian/bicycling trail constructed along Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Extended shall be 10 feet wide, and shall have an asphalt surface. 6. FIRE & RESCUE: 6.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $537 per dwelling unit for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 7. SCHOOLS: 7.1 Within one hundred and eighty days of written request therefor, the Applicant shall dedicate to the Board of Supervisors approximately 18 IP0047851.DOC / I Proffers (I30S Revisions) 000419 0000041 6 0 0 acres of land more or less as depicted on the MDP as Land Bay C, for use only as a future elementary school site. 7.2 The Applicant shall extend sewer and water lines to the boundary of the property to be dedicated for school purposes when sewer and water lines are constructed to the Core Area. 7.3 The Applicant shall, upon written request therefor, dedicate to the Board of Supervisors approximately five (5) additional acres of property adjacent to and on the southerly side of Warrior Drive, otherwise depicted on the MDP as preservation area, identified as Land Bay F, for public use that is compatible with residential character of the development of the Property and permitted in the R4 District pursuant to the County Zoning Ordinance. 7.4 The Applicant shall be permitted to retain an easement on any such dedicated property, and on any preservation, open space, or other property to be dedicated, for the construction of permanent stormwater management facilities and utilities, as well as temporary easements for the construction of utilities and structures, for the Villages at Artrip. The Applicant shall coordinate any such facilities with the County and the School Division. The Applicant shall be further permitted to retain the right to construct stormwater management facilities for both quality and quantity purposes, on the property dedicated for school purposes. 7.5 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the following amounts for each dwelling unit constructed, for educational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 7.5.1. For each single family detached dwelling, the sum of $14,437.00. 7.5.2. For each single family attached dwelling, the sum of $9,985.00 7.5.3. For each multifamily dwelling, the sum of $3,297.00. 7.6 Without delay in the processing of other applications and issuance of permits for development of the Property, the time for any dedication required hereunder shall be extended by the time required to process any application necessary to create the subdivided parcel of property to be dedicated to the County for school purposes, and the Applicant shall file and diligently pursue any subdivision application needed to effectuate said dedication. 8. PARKS & OPEN SPACE: (P004785I.DOC / I Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000419 000004j 7 0 0 8.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $847 per dwelling unit for recreational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 9. LIBRARIES: 9.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $137 per dwelling unit for library purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 10. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING: 10.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $144 to be used for construction of a general governmental administration building upon issuance of a building permit for each such unit. 11. CREATION OF HOMEOWNERS' AND PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION: 11.1 The residential portion of the development shall be made subject to one or more homeowners' association(s) (hereinafter "HOA") that shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of all common areas, including any conservation areas that may be established in accordance herewith not dedicated to the County or others, and stormwater management facilities not dedicated to public use, for each area subject to their jurisdiction, and shall be provided such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such associations or as may be required for such HOA herein. If there is more than one such association, the Applicant shall create an umbrella HOA with respect to the entire development that shall, among other things, have responsibility for assuring compliance with design guidelines and standards, signage requirements, private road and open space maintenance, and similar matters common to the development of the Property, and shall establish an architectural review board subject to its jurisdiction. 11.2 Upon formation of the first HOA, the Applicant shall commission a professional management company to prepare a study of the anticipated revenues and expenses of the HOA and POA as further set forth below, for the first two years of operation, or for such longer period as may be required until such associations become self- sufficient, and to establish an operating budget for each. The Applicant shall provide to the HOA and POA funds in an amount determined by such study necessary to cover operating deficits that the associations may have during such initial operations. 11.3 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 W004785I.DOC / I Proffers (EMS Revisions) 000419 0000041 8 specifically including the "Village Green" areas as depicted on the MDP, (ii) common buffer areas located outside of residential lots; (iii) private streets serving the residents who are members of such association; (iv) common solid waste disposal and recycling programs, including curbside pick-up of refuse by a private refuse collection company, (v) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any street, perimeter, or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be located within easements to be granted to the HOA if platted within residential or other lots, or otherwise granted to the HOA by appropriate instrument, (vi) stormwater management facilities, and (vii) the swimming pool and associated civic center/clubhouse. 11.4 The commercial elements of the development shall be made subject to one or more property owners' association(s) (hereinafter "POA") that shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of all common areas, including any conservation areas that may be established in accordance herewith not dedicated to the County or others, and stormwater- management facilities not dedicated to public use, for each area subject to their jurisdiction, and shall be provided such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such associations or as may be required for such POA herein. If there is more than one such association, the Applicant shall create an umbrella POA with respect to the entire development that shall, among other things, have responsibility for assuring compliance with design guidelines and standards, signage requirements, and similar matters. 11.5 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, a POA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all common open space areas not otherwise dedicated to public use, (ii) common buffer areas located outside of commercial lots; (iii) private streets serving the businesses and/or residents who are members of such association; (iv) common solid waste disposal and recycling programs to include dumpster and contract carrier services provided by a private refuse collection company, and (v) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any street, perimeter, or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be located within easements to be granted to the POA if platted within commercial or other lots, or parcels, or otherwise granted to the POA by appropriate instrument. 12. WATER & SEWER: 12.1 The Applicant shall be responsible for connecting the Property to public water and sewer, and for constructing all facilities required for such connection at the property boundary. All water and sewer infi-astructure shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. ( P0047851.DOC / I Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000419 0000041 9 0 0 13. ENVIRONMENT: 13.1 Stormwater management and Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Property shall be provided in accordance with the Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations, First Ed. 1999, Chapter 2, Table 2-3, or such requirements as may be applicable at the time of plan approval, for the purpose of providing the highest order of stormwater control in existing Virginia law at the time of construction of any such facility. 13.2 Stream preservation buffers shall be constructed in general conformance with the MDP, so as to create buffer requirements established by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to protect Opequon Creek and the unnamed tributary to Opequon Creek from disturbance. No clearing or grading shall occur within those buffers, except for the construction of road crossings, trails, water lines, sanitary sewer, or other utilities. 13.3 During construction on the property, the limits of clearing and grading shall be identified and field flagged in connection with the Applicant's compliance with requirements of the Frederick County Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance, for the project as a whole, to prevent unintended disturbance of areas to be preserved. 13.4 The Village Pond located within the Core Area shall be improved and preserved as a visual amenity and may be used for storm water management purposes for both quality and quantity. 13.5 The fifty -foot woodland conservation area depicted in Land Bays D and E on the MDP, adjacent to Canter Estates, shall remain undisturbed; provided that the Applicant may provide for adequate stormwater management outfall within such conservation area. Any such outfall shall be designed so as to minimize the impact on such area. 14. TRANSPORTATION: 14.1 Transportation improvements shall be constructed in conjunction with each phase of the development as set forth below, specifically including, without limitation, the improvements identified for the intersection of Warrior Drive and Tasker Road. Design of the roadway system shall be phased as set forth in these Proffers and shall be substantially consistent with the study entitled "A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of The Villages at Artrip," prepared by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, dated December 15, 2004 (the "TIA"). The exact location and design of proffered improvements shall be subject to reasonable adjustment upon final engineering thereof. The Applicant (P0047851.DOC / I Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000419 0000041 10 0 0 shall construct at its expense pedestrian -actualized signalization at each of those locations for which such signalization is identified in the TIA, upon issuance of warrants therefor unless such signalization has been accomplished by others. 14.2 Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for residential uses on streets to be placed into the State System of Secondary Highways, the Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Section 144-17 (A) of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance. For the purposes of these Proffers, construction of any road or street referenced herein shall mean construction consistent with the requirements of that section. 14.3 The Applicant shall construct the following road improvements as its road phasing for Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road, if construction of that road is initiated from Wakeland Manor. 14.3.1. Prior to the issuance of the first residential building permit for the project, the Applicant shall construct an extension of Warrior Drive from Point A to Point B as depicted on the MDP as a fall four -lane divided roadway, including construction of a firll section of a roundabout or traffic signalized intersection, as may be approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation, at the intersection of Warrior and Parkins Mill Road. If a signal is not warranted at the time of the construction of the roadway, the Applicant shall bond the installation of that signal until warrants are satisfied. In conjunction with such construction, the Applicant shall further connect Warrior Drive into the adjacent property known as Wakeland Manor, so as to match the pavement widths of that portion of Warrior as constructed by others. The bridge crossing of the unnamed tributary of the Opequon on the southernmost edge of the Property at Point A shall be constructed to accommodate the ultimate design of Warrior Drive. 14.3.2. Prior to the issuance of the fast residential building permit for the project, the Applicant shall further construct a full two lane section of Parkins Mill Road Extended, from its intersection with Warrior Drive at Point B to Point B1, as generally depicted on the MDP and within existing dedicated right-of- way, and shall construct the improvements to the Tasker Road / Warrior Drive intersection as identified in the TIA. 14.3.3. The Applicant shall block all vehicular access from Parkins Mill Extended to Falabella Drive in Canter Estates Section V until the County directs that such connection be made; {1`0047851.DOC / I Proffers (DOS Revisions) 000419 000004) 0 • provided, however, that the Applicant may construct a connection to Falabella prior to such direction as an emergency access to the Property, according to plans approved by the Director of Public Works the purpose of which shall be to make vehicular access possible for emergency purposes and to impede all other- access. 14.3.4. Warrior Drive shall be constructed as an urban section pursuant to applicable VDOT standards therefor with an ultimate right- of-way 100' in width. Parkins Mill Road shall be constructed as a rural section pursuant to applicable VDOT standards therefor with an ultimate right-of-way 80' in width. 14.3.5. Upon initiation of said construction, the Applicant may further undertake grading, infrastructure construction, roads, and similar pre -construction activities and preparatory work necessary for building commercial or residential structures, upon issuance of permits therefor. 14.4 Prior to the issuance of the 3261h residential building permit, the Applicant shall further construct Warrior Drive as a full four lane section roadway, from Points B to D as depicted on the MDP. 14.5 The Applicant may construct a model home or sales center- on the Property concurrently with the construction of the bridge connection to Wakeland Manor, and consistently with applicable County ordinances and regulations. The Applicant shall be permitted to obtain an occupancy permit therefor once the bridge is open to the public, bonded for final completion, but not yet accepted into the State System of Secondary Roads. 14.6 In addition to the foregoing, the Applicant shall design and bond for completion the following improvements to Warrior Drive: 14.6.1.If the location of the connection of Warrior Drive into Crosspointe has been identified the Applicant shall complete the remainder of Warrior Drive from Point D to Point E as a full section of a four lane divided roadway to that point, by the issuance of the 601 st residential building permit. 14.6.2. If the location of Warrior Drive into Crosspointe has not been adequately identified prior to the issuance of the 501" residential building permit, the Applicant shall design and provide performance guarantees pursuant to applicable Virginia law regarding the posting of such guarantees for the construction of Warrior Drive from Point D to Point E as a full four -lane divided roadway to a location that is approved by the {P0047851.DOC / I Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000419 0000041 12 0 • County, so as to assure the availability of funds sufficient to complete Warrior to a connection with Crosspointe. 14.7 Road phasing if construction of Warrior Drive is initiated from Crosspointe: 14.7.1. In the event that others have constructed Warrior Drive from Crosspointe Center to the Property boundary prior to the initiation of development of the Property and Warrior is to be constructed fi-om that boundary to the south, then prior to the issuance of the first residential building permit for the project, the Applicant shall bond and construct Warrior Drive as a full four -lane divided roadway from Point E to Point C� 14.7.2. Prior- to the issuance of the 326th residential building permit, the Applicant shall bond and construct Warrior Drive from Point C to Point A as a full four -lane divided roadway (and make its connection to Warrior Drive in Wakeland Manor as provided for if Warrior is commenced fi-om the south), and shall complete Parkins Mill to Point B1, whereupon the Applicant will be permitted to build out the remainder of the residential units and commercial square footage. 14.7.3. The Applicant shall block all vehicular access from Parkins - Mill Extended to Falabella Drive in Canter Estates Section V until the County directs that such connection be made; provided, however, that the Applicant may construct a connection to Falabella prior to such direction as an emergency access to the Property, according to plans approved by the Director of Public Works the purpose of which shall be to make vehicular access possible for emergency purposes and to impede all other access. 14.8 All left and right turn residential and commercial entrances to Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road shall be limited to those locations as generally depicted on the MDP. 14.9 Warrior Drive shall be constructed with a trail section throughout the Property, and such trail shall be extended to the property boundaries of Crosspointe and into Wakeland Manor with the extension of Warrior thereto to connect with Warrior as constructed by others. 14.10 The Applicant shall extend Parkins Mill Road Extended to Falabella Drive in Canter Estates, including a pedestrian trail on the south side Parkins Mill Extended, excluding the site to be dedicated to school purposes, when Parkins Mill Extended is constructed as otherwise provided in these proffers. I P0047851.DOC / I Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000,119 00000,11 13 Deleted: , and construct an entrance to the school site at Point B I connecting the entrance of Canter Estates to the school site -' Formatted: Bullets and Numbering 0 • 14.11 The Applicant shall design and shall construct its internal road network as public or private roads substantially as they are depicted on the MDP. In the event that the Virginia Department of Transportation declines to accept neo-traditional road designs for any such internal streets, the Applicant may construct such streets as private roads. 14.12 All public right-of-ways shall be dedicated to Frederick County as part of the subdivision approval process, consistently with applicable Virginia law. 14.13 All public streets and roads shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation specifications, and subject to review and approval by the Frederick County and VDOT. 14.14 All private streets and roads shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation standards therefor as set out on Sheet 3 of the MDP, and as modified thereby, and shall be owned and maintained by the HOA as deemed herein that is served by such sheets or roads. 14.15 No construction traffic shall be permitted through Lot 121 in the adjacent Lakewood subdivision, or through Canter Estates, Section V. In no event shall a permanent interparcel connection be made through Lot 121. Emergency access may be provided through such lot if approved by the Director of Planning. 14.16 The County not object to the grant of permission to the Applicant to construct a 2-lane gravel access road as identified on Sheet 3 of the MDP, across the adjacent property owned by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, for construction access to the Villages at Artrip, including construction of roads, bridges, utilities, and stormwater management facilities. The County will use its best good faith efforts to assure permission to construct such access road, if such efforts are required. After completion of construction, the Applicant may employ such access road as an emergency access to the Property. 14.17 For purposes of these proffers, a road shall be deemed constructed or completed when it has been constructed to a point at which the road is open to the public, remains bonded for final completion, but has not yet been accepted into the State System of Secondary Roads. 15. CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATION AND PRESERVATION 15.1 The Applicant shall preserve the Artrip Family Cemetery. The Applicant shall further create a 0.5 acre preservation park surrounding the Cemetery, as generally depicted on the MDP. W0047851.DOC / I Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000419 000004) 14 0 0 16. ,ESCALATOR CLAUSE -------------------------------- 16.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement are paid to the Frederick County Board County Supervisors ("Board") within 30 months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to the Board after 30 months following the approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index ("CPI-U") published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time contributions are paid, they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI-U from that date 30 months after the approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI-U to the date the contributions are paid, subject to a cap of 5% per year, non - compounded. SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE IP004785I.DOC / I Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000419 0000041 15 Deleted: <O>MODIFICATIONS TO MONETARY PROFFERS IN THE EVENT OF ALTERATIONS TO COUNTY FISCAL IMPACT MODELING¶ <#>Notwithstanding any provision of these proffers to the contrary, if Frederick County modifies its fiscal impact modeling policies regarding the calculation of monetary contributions for the mitigation of development impact, so as to provide credit for the economic benefits to the County derived from the development of commercial space within the Property, then the Applicant shall be entitled to receive such credit as may be provided in such policies; and provided further that if the County modifies such policies so as to provide credit for the dedication of real property for public uses, then the Applicant shall be further entitled to receive such credit for property so dedicated. ¶ Formatted: Bullets and Numbering • 0 WINCHESTER ARTRIP, Limited Liability Company By: Jeffrey Abramson Title: Managing Member STATE OF MARYLAND; COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY: to -wit The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2006, by Notary Public My Commission expires: (P004785 LDOC / I Proffers (BOS Revisions) 000419 0000041 16 John H. Foote (703) 680-4664 Ext. 114 jfoote@pw,thelandlawyers.com Fax: (703) 680-2161 Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Planning Director Frederick County 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 WALSH COLUCCI LUBBLEY RMRICH & TERPAIC PC September 8, 2006 Re: Resubmission of Artrip Rezoning Application Dear Michael: As we have discussed, attached you will find a resubmission of the Artrip rezoning application, based in material part on our meeting of May 18a'. This resubmission includes several items. 1. Dewberry has made modifications to Warrior Drive that are intended to smooth its functioning as a four -lane divided through carrier from north to south, as was suggested by Supervisor Shickel. Although Tower presently shows a roundabout at Point B on the MDP, as we have noted, this is discretionary with the Board of Supervisors as the proffers are presently written. It may be converted to a signalized intersection if that is deemed more appropriate. For aesthetic reasons, Tower prefers the roundabout, and believes that it functions more safely and more smoothly than does a signalized intersection, but the option remains. 2. Tower believes that this is a true neo-traditional development without parallel or precedent in Frederick. Attached to this resubmittal is a copy of the Matrix drawn from Andres Duany, the principal student of such developments, which identifies the elements of a neo- traditional community and demonstrates how this proposal satisfies those elements. When this community is completed, it will be a model for the County and for every other jurisdiction surrounding Frederick. While you are correct to observe that there are varying degrees of compliance with the Duany Matrix, we are comfortable that this is the only project in the County that remotely resembles it. 3. Tower intends that its commitments be accomplished by acceptable levels of development, and so the proffers reflect this. 4. With respect to the fiscal impact model, the discussions we have had with the County have revolved around the proffer for public schools. It should be reiterated that the County has PHONE 703 680 4664 1 FAx 7o3 68o 6o67 1 WWW.THELANDLAWYrRS.COM 4310 PRINCE WILLIAM PARKWAY, SUITE 300 1 PRINCE WILLIAM, VA 22192 ARLINGTON OFFICE 703 528 4700 1 LOUDOUN OFFICE 703 737 3633 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Michael T. Ruddy September 8, 2006 Page 2 told us from the initiation from the application that it would be processed under the old fiscal impact model, but we are aware of the County's interest in additional funds to offset the impact on schools, since those constitute the principal part of the locality's budget. In order to determine what is a reasonable and fair proffer for public school purposes, in the absence of better guidance, Artrip has analyzed the situation as follows. Based on the County's current Fiscal Impact Model as it relates to schools, a single- family detached dwelling should proffer $23,290, of which $19,189 (82%) is attributable to schools. There are similar percentages for each unit type. I believe, however, that it is or should be recognized that there is substantial public value in the contributions that Tower is making that are indeed voluntary. These include, at a minimum, the dedication of property for the new school, and the road to that site including the extension of utility services. This has a conservative value to the County of $2M. They also include the construction of Warrior through the property to a standard that would not be required for the development of the Artrip land alone, and do so in a manner that will not otherwise occur, at a cost of more than $4M above that which would be technically required to service the development. Both of these advance long term public needs that have been identified by County agencies. Warrior has been on the books since I first began working in Frederick in 1989. Frederick County does not have a transportation component in its proffer model, and yet Tower will be spending millions of dollars on the construction of a major segment of Warrior. Taking all contributions together, this project will provide approximately $6M for capital improvements beyond those that are required to service it alone. We note, too, that the current commercial credit in the existing FIM is approximately $8,600 per unit. Even if this credit is an inaccurate reflection of the actual value to the County of commercial development, owing to defects in the modeling process itself, Tower believes that it is entitled to a credit for that development since it will indisputably bring economic benefits to the County coffers, and to the neighborhood that such development will serve. Tower has therefore proposed a revision to the proffers that materially increases the amount of money proffered for schools, to reflect the impact of each household on the school system for each type of housing proposed. These calculations are based on the total number of students at each school level (339) that the Villages at Artrip is estimated to generate. Thus, each single-family detached dwelling would proffer the increased sum of $14,437 per home; single-family attached the sum of $9,985; and each multifamily home the sum of $3,297. This is approximately 75% of the current FIM suggestion for each unit type, and constitutes a very substantial increase from the $337 per unit previously proposed. We have been made aware that the County is considering modifications to the FIM process that would incorporate revised credits for the benefits of public land dedication and commercial development not now recognized. We have added a proffer that would permit this project to take advantage of those credits, should the Board choose to include them. Michael T. Ruddy September 8, 2006 Page 3 The total proffer amount proposed is now $7,324,148, when the proffers for fire, parks, libraries, and administration are included. When coupled with the value of the commercial property, the additional road improvements, and the school site, the proposed capital contribution to the County plainly exceeds the FIM currently in place. I am unaware of any County project that has proposed a similar contribution to offset its capital impacts. At present, the estimated number of each such unit type is 172 single-family attached, 246 single-family attached, and 375 multifamily units. Because Tower is not required to develop this specific numbers of those units, but is rather required to mix unit types and not exceed the proffered limit, this will likely result in additional funds depending on the unit type constructed. We trust that you will share this information with the Board, and we will be contacting you about further meetings and the scheduling of this case for Board consideration. Sincerely yours, WALSH, COLUCCI, LUBELEY, EMRICH & WALSH, P.C. John H. Foote JHF/ame cc: Jeffrey Abramson Stuart Margulies David Borchardt Arnold Kohn David Frank Jim Brown John Callow TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT (NEOTRADITIONAL COMMUNITIES) THE VILLAGES AT ARTRIP PLANNING MATRIX' September 8, 2006 THE REGIONAL STRUCTURE THE CURRENT PROPOSAL Is the TND location consistent with a Yes. The County has long plaimed this comprehensive regional plan that preserves area as part of its Urban Growth Area and open space and encourages public transit?* it is within the Sewer and Water Service Area with ample public facilities. Is the TND connected in as many locations Yes. The property is so located it cannot as feasible to adjacent developments and reasonably be accessed from across the thoroughfares?* Opequon, or from the property owned by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. The staff has requested that no connection be made to the adjacent subdivision on the south west property boundary. Connection will be made ultimately to Canter Estates. Does highway approaching the TND either There are no highways adjacent to or pass to its side or take on low -speed (25 approaching the Villages at Artrip. Design mph maximum) geometries when entering of Warrior Drive through the property the neighborhood proper?* accommodates pass -through and local traffic. It is this project that provides a portion of a long- and much -desired road improvement. In regional transportation planning, are any Yes. The traffic analysis for this project decisions to add new highway or new lanes does reflect that induced traffic was tempered by a frill understanding of the considered and has been accommodated. phenomenon of induced traffic?* Are plans for large sites divided into Yes. neighborhoods, each roughly a five-minute walk — a quarter — from edge to center? (Centers can be peripherally located in response to a site condition, such as a beach, major thoroughfare, or railroad station.)* THE NATURAL CONTEXT Are wetlands, lakes, streams, and other Yes. significant natural amenities retained and celebrated?-' 1 This matrix is taken from Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream, Duany, Plater-Zyberk, and Speck (North Point Press 2000). {00032114.DOC / 1 Artrip Planning Matrix 000419 000004} Are significant natural amenities at least Yes. partially fronted by public spaces and thoroughfares rather than privatized behind backyards?* Is the site developed in such a way to Yes. maximize the preservation of specimen trees and significant groups of trees, locating greens and parks at tree -save areas?* Does the plan accommodate itself to the Yes, the layout follows the contour, and site topography to minimize the amount of steps down with the slopes to minimize grading necessary to achieve a viable street grading. network? * Are significant hilltops celebrated with There are no such physical features on the public tracts and/or civic buildings, and are site. mountaintops and major ridge tops kept clear of private development? Are any large areas of open space Yes. There are significant natural buffers connected into continuous natural between Wakeland Manor, Canter Estates, corridors? Such corridors either shall be and Crosspointe. located between neighborhoods, or may pas through neighborhoods in the form of thin greenways.* LAND USE Does each neighborhood provide a Yes. The development is centered on the relatively balanced mix of housing, Core Area, which will include a workplace (home and office), shopping, commercial component and civic features recreation, and institutional uses?* such as a common, and a pool and clubhouse. Do commercial activity and housing Yes. The conmlercial component is in the density increase toward the neighborhood center of the development, and density centers?* feathers out from the Core Area. Is each neighborhood center the location of Yes. There is no "corner store" in each retail space? (A corner store — subsidized neighborhood, but the commercial if necessary — is required in all component is within easy walking distance neighborhoods containing at least 500 of every proposed home. residences and/or jobs.)* Is each neighborhood center the location of Yes. The commercial component office space, ideally located in mixed -use accommodates retail and office uses. buildings?* Is there a dry, dignified place to wait for No transit is available to this site. transit at each neighborhood center?* Are lots zoned not by use but by Yes. The County's R-4 Zone permits the compatibility of building type? flexibility necessary to mix housing types and to avoid "Euclidean" development (00032114.DOC / 1 Artrip Planning Matrix 000419 000004) 1CLLlll�1 L11C111 041 V1116 CO VV11 VliLVl 1VCLUJ VV1Lll no purpose other than handling traffic?* Are most street vistas terminated by a Yes. public tract, a view of a natural feature, a deflection in the street, or a carefully sited {00032114.DOC / 1 Artrip Planning Matrix 000419 000004) building? Do most streets that curve maintain Yes. roughly the same general cardinal orientation (except where steep grades dictate otherwise)? STREET DESIGN Is there a full range of streets, including Yes. most or all of the following:* - Main street, approximately 34 feet Yes wide, with marked parking on both sides; - Through avenue (optional), including a 10-to-20 foot treed median separating two one-way No. This feature is optional for TND. lanes, each approximately 18 feet wide, with marked parking on one side; - Through streets, approximately 27 Yes feet wide, with marked parking on one side; - Standard streets, approximately 24 Yes feet wide, with umnarked parking allowed to stagger from side to side; - Local streets, medium density, Yes approximately 26 feet wide, with unmarked parking on both sides; - Local streets, low density, approximately 20 feet wide, with No — not permitted in Virginia um -narked parking on one side; - Commercial rear alleys, approximately 24 feet wide within a No — not permitted in Virginia 24-foot right-of-way; - Residential rear lanes, approximately 12 feet wide within a Yes — Alleys will be a minimum of 18'. 24-foot right-of-way? Are sheet geometries based upon a design Yes speed no greater than 30 mph within the neighborhood, 20 mph on local streets?* Are unconventional (traditional) roadway Yes. geometries — such as forks, triangles, and staggered intersections — provided to calm traffic? Are curb radiuses at intersections a Yes, minimum curb radii will be 25' for maximum of 15 feet — 25 feet in rural areas public streets and 15' for private roadways. {00032114.DOC / 1 Artrip Planning Matrix 000419 000004) — with a typical measurement of 10 feet at local intersections? (Larger radii are allowed where required by the turning radiuses of emergency equipment, provided that such equipment is the appropriate size.)* Are one-way streets — and streets with Yes for streets with more than one lane in more than one lane in each direction — each direction. There are no one-way avoided in all but the most urban streets. circumstances, with densities of over 50 units per acre? (If four -lane streets cannot be avoided in low -density areas, such streets must skirt neighborhoods rather than passing through them.)* THE PUBLIC STREETSCAPE Do all streets other than alleys and lanes Yes. have a sidewalk on at least one side 4 to 5 feet in width, 12 to 20 feet wide on retail streets (both sides)? (Exemptions are possible in extremely low -traffic or slow - traffic conditions).* Does every non-commercial street include, Yes, VDOT recommends a minimum 6' between the road -bed and the sidewalk, a wide planting strip. tree strip 5 to 10 feet in width, of indigenous shade trees planted approximately 30 feet apart, 10-foot minimum height at planting?* Does every retail street include indigenous Yes shade trees planted at an average of 30 feet on center (10-foot minimum height at planting), located in sidewalk -level planters, typically paced in line with the party -walls between shops (optional in the presence of conflicting arcades or awnings)? Are street materials simple, with asphalt Yes cartpaths and trowel -finished concrete sidewalks? (Brick sidewalks are unnecessary, but commercial sidewalks should include a four -to -six foot brick strip connecting the planters, for root health.) Are all streetlights, mailboxes, trash Yes receptacles, and other pedestrian obstructions placed within the tree strip, except main street benches, which should {00032114.DOC / 1 Artrip Planning Matrix 000419 000004) back up to building fronts? Are all unsightly transformers, lift stations, Yes utility meters, HVAC equipment, and other machinery located not in the front streetscape but at the rear lane or alley? Are streetlights of low height and wattage, Yes and provided frequently toward neighborhood centers (approximately 30 feet on center) and less frequently toward rural edges (at intersections only)? For neighborhoods that are located adjacent Yes to nature, dos the streetscape become more rural as it approaches the neighborhood edge, with curbs becoming open swales and trees becoming less informal in their placement? THE PRIVATE STREETSCAPE Do all retail buildings front directly on the Yes. sidewalk, with no setback?* Are all shop entrances located directly at Yes. the public streetfront (no malls or galleries), with any rear entrances for employees only? Are storefront signs no greater than 24 Signage per ordinance requirements inches tall (or 24 inches wide if vertical), and blade signs no greater than 12 inches tall (or 12 inches wide if vertical), with translucent signs and sign awnings prohibited? Are residential buildings placed relatively Yes, except for the single-family lots which close to the street, such that houses are are specifically intended to be somewhat generally set back the equivalent of one- deeper and larger. quarter the width of the lot? (This results in shallower setbacks toward neighborhood centers.) Do all main entrances present a positive Yes. image, rather than being voids between buildings? Do the front setbacks permit the Yes encroachment of semipublic attachments, such as bay windows, balconies, stoops, open porches, awnings, and arcades? (Commercial awnings may overhang the public sidewalk, and arcades should cover all but two feed of the sidewalk width. (00032114.DOC / 1 Artrip Planning Matrix 000419 000004) 0 Both may place supports on the sidewalk.)* Are bay windows and balconies between 6 This is undetermined and depends upon the inches and 3 feet deep, stoops between 3 builder. and 6 fee deep porches between 6 and 12 feet deep, awnings between 6 and 10 feet deep, and arcades between 10 and 20 feet deep? Do buildings have relatively flat fronts and Yes simple roofs, with most wings and plan articulations at the rear? Are all buildings other than small homes at Yes least 2 stories tall, except in rural areas, where buildings taller than 3 stories are prohibited? Does each house on a corner lot have its Yes front door facing the larger street, the exceptions being end -unit row houses, which must always turn the corner, and houses against high-speed roadways? PARKING Do most residential lots smaller than 60 Yes feet wide (and apartment house lots) access their parking via a rear land (or alley), with front driveways prohibited?* Are all garages that are served from the Yes street front set back a minimum of 20 feet from the front of the house, or rotated so that the garage doors do not face adjacent streets? Are all parking lots located behind No buildings or street walls, such that only their access is visible from adjacent streets?* Are all surface parking lots planted with Tree planting per ordinance indigenous shade trees, at a minimum ratio of one tree per ten cars? Does the transition from rear parking to No main -street shopping take place in a pleasant pedestrian passage lined by shop windows? Are the on -site parking requirements Yes reduced to account for on -street parking availability, nearby public parking lots, mass transit, and the sharing of spaces due to complementary parking schedules?* {00032114.DOC 11 Artrip Planning Matrix 000419 000004) 0 J Are structured parking lots located No. There are no structured parking lots. strategically as "anchors" in order to generate pedestrian activity on sidewalks? (Parking lots should generally not lead directly into the buildings they serve, but instead deposit pedestrians onto sidewalks.) HOUSING Is there a diversity of housing types located Yes. within close proximity to each other? Ideally, there should be a 5% minimum representation of at least five of the following eight categories:* - Apartments above commercial space; - Multifamily apartment buildings; - Two and three-family houses; - Row houses; - Live/work buildings (row houses or houses with first -floor offices or shops at front); - Cottages on small lots (30 to 40 feet wide); - Houses on standard lots (40 to 70 feet wide); - Houses on large lots (over 70 feet wide) Do all commercial buildings have a second Yes story (or more) for housing or offices? Is each house lot permitted to contain a This is not permitted by the County's small ancillary dwelling unit in the rear zoning ordinance. yard, such as an apartment over the garage? Is subsidized housing stylistically The project does not contain a subsidized indistinguishable from market -rate housing component, and the Applicant housing, and provided in an increment of does not believe that Frederick County approximately one subsidized unit per ten wishes to have one in this development. market -rate units?* PRIVACY Do all houses served by alleys have a 3-to- Yes 6 foot tall privacy fence, wall, or shrub on the rear property line?* Do all row houses have 5-to-7 foot tall No. The inclusion of such fences or privacy walls or fences on shared side privacy walls is not consistent with the property lines?14 creation of a community feel, and walls neighbors from each other. (00032114.DOC / 1 Artrip Planning Matrix 000419 000004) Are all first -story apartments raised a This is undetermined, and depends upon minimum of 2 feet if located within 10 feet the builder. of the sidewalk, with windowsills above the eye level of passing pedestrians?* Are window muntins (wood strips that hold Yes the panes of glass in a glazed door or window) encouraged on residential buildings (for privacy), but discouraged on retail fronts? ARCHITECTURAL SYNTAX Is regional architectural syntax used as a Yes basis for ecologically responsible design? Are window proportions, roof pitches, Yes building materials, and colors limited to a harmonious range, as regionally determined? Is the ratio of fenestration to wall of This is undetermined at this time and will building facades kept below 35%, except at not be known until the unit mix and final retail frontages, which are a minimum of architecture is complete. 65% fenestration? Does each building fagade display no more Yes than two -wall materials, textures, or colors (plus trim)? (If two materials are used, the heavier [looking] material shall be located below the lighter. ** Items marked with an asterisk are identified by Duany as critical design elements. {00032114.DOC / 1 Artrip Planning Matrix 000419 0000041 0 • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director RE: Postponement of the Villages at Artrip Rezoning Application, RZ#12-05 DATE: March 2, 2006 The Villages at Artrip Rezoning Application, RZ12-05, and corresponding Master Development Plan, MDP#09-05, have been formally requested to be removed from the Board of Supervisors March 8, 2006 meeting by the applicant. This request for a postponement was received by staff via e- mail correspondence on Friday, February 24, 2006. No time frame for the consideration of this rezoning request has been provided by the applicant. At such time the applicant requests that the application be placed upon the Board's Agenda for consideration, staff will ensure that the Public Hearing is re -advertised and that the application materials are forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Please contact me if you have any further questions regarding this rezoning application. fU� t, T1 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Board hearing on Artrip Subject: Board hearing on Artrip Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 16:22:19 -0500 From: "Foote, John" <jfoote@pw.thelandlawyers.com> To: "Mike Ruddy" <Mruddy@co.frederick.va.us> CC: <dfrank@Dewberry.com> Please take this as a formal request that this matter not be placed on the Board's upcoming agenda. In discussions with Board members, I believe that there are additional issues that were not issues for the Commission that will require some time to address. John H. Foote Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley, Emrich & Terpak, P.C. 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300 Glen Park I Prince William, Virginia 22192 o 703.680.4664 f 703.680.2161 c 703.801.5075 Confidentiality notice: Please be advised that this e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential attorney -client communication or may otherwise be privileged or confidential and are intended solely for the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or retransmit this communication but destroy it immediately. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. This message contains information which may be confidential and addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may anyone the message or any information contained in the message. message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and message. Thank you very much. privileged. Unless you are the not use, copy or disclose to If you have received the delete all copies of the 1 of 1 2/24/2006 4:40 PM • 6 John H. Foote (703) 680-4664 ExL 114 jf6ote@Pw,the1andlawyemcom FW. (703) 680-2161 Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Planniug Director Frederick County 107 North Kent Street Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Arrrip RZ # 12-05 Dear Michael: WALSH COLUCCI LUBELEY XA4RICH & TERPAK PC November 16, 2005 As you know, the applicant in this case has proposed signi i :ant modifications to the rezoning proposal, to reduce density and to relocate a potential elea'Lentary school site, among other things. Inconsequence we would greatly appreciate it if the 1' tanning Commission would consider deferring further consideration of this case until its Decel Ober 21 st meeting. This would give us time to redraft the MDP and the associated proffers and di;cuss there again with you - Thank you very much for your attention to this. Sincerely yours, WALSH, COLUCCL LUBELEY, EMRICH & TERPAK, P.C. John)R. Foote JHFrjhf cc: Jeffrey Abramson Stuart Margulies David Frank Jim Brown John Callow PHONE 703 690 4664 1 FAX 703 68o 6o67 I WWW.THELAI,J�LAWYERS.COM 431.0 PRINCE WILLIAM PARKWAY, SUITE 300 1 PRINCE W1LI I lM, VA 22192 ARLINGTON OFFICE 703 528 4700 1 LOUDOVN OFFICE 701 737 3633 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Artrip RA proffers and MDP f% 0 Subject: Artrip RA proffers and MDP Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:43:54 -0500 From: "Frank, David" <dfrank@Dewberry.com> To: "Mike Ruddy" <Mruddy@co.frederick.va.us> Good afternoon Mike, After speaking with the team we have submitted the documents as you received them on Friday. It was not going to be possible with our schedules to make any changes to the MDP and get the prints into your agenda package. Even though there are no walks identified passing through the Landbay leading from the core area to the school site, it seems reasonable to suggest this as a development condition. It is the design intent of the layout to incorporate the school into the pedestrian friendly community, and could be agreed to during the planning commission hearing. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns. You should be receiving the 45 copies of the revised proffers and MDP this afternoon, as well as a newly signed and notarized set of the revised proffers. Thank you again for all your time and effort on this application. David L. Frank, CLA Project Manager Dewberry 611 West Jubal Early Drive Building B, Suite C Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 678-2700 (540) 678-2703 fax (540) 974-4393 mobile dfrank(ui)dewberrycom e-mail www dewbem.com website Visit Dewberry's website at www.dewberry.com This email transmission may contain confidential or privileged information. If you receive this email message in error, notify the sender by email and delete the email without reading, copying or disclosing the email contents. The unauthorized use or dissemination of any confidential or privileged information contained in this email is prohibited. 1 of 1 1/31/2006 9:14 AM John H. Foote (703) 680-4664 Ext. H4 jfoote@pw.thelandlawyers.com Fax: (703) 680-2161 Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Planning Director Frederick County 107 North Kent Street Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Artrip RZ # 12-05 Dear Michael: WALSH COLUCCI LUBELEY EMRICH & TERPAK PC September 26, 2005 As you requested, the Applicant in this case has revised the proffer statement based on our discussions and the results of the Planning Commission's last hearing. At your request, we are attaching a redlined and a clean version of the proffers (and will have a signed copy of the proffers for the Planning Commission meeting. The following is a bullet list of the significant changes to the proffers: ON. Perhaps most importantly, Tower has removed the language that would have permitted issuance of building permits and the use of roads in Canter Estates for Phase I before the completion of the bridge to Wakeland Manor.. You will find that this has been accomplished by the deletion of the language to the contrary in proffer 14.3.1.1. ► Tower has clarified proffer 3.1.3.1 to reflect the extent of completion of Warrior Drive from I-81 to the Tasker intersection. ► Tower has revised proffer 4.5 to make the sign package an Appendix to the Proffers. ► Tower has revised proffer 5.1 to clarify your issues regarding sidewalks. ► Tower has agreed that it will dedicate the additional five acres to the County pursuant to proffer 7.2, with the limitation that the use be compatible with the community. PHONE 703 680 4664 1 FAX 703 680 6067 1 WWW.THELANDLAWYERS.COM 4310 PRINCE. WILLIAM PARKWAY, SUITE 300 I PRINCE WILLIAM, VA 22192 ARLINGTON OFFICE 703 528 4700 1 LOUDOUN OFFICE 703 737 3633 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Michael T. Ruddy September 26, 2005 Page 2 of 3 ► Tower has removed the reversionary provision of former proffer 7.5 such that it will not possess a right of first refusal on the school site. ► Tower has clarified that there will be a 50-foot woodland conservation area adjacent to Wakeland Manor, in Land Bays D and E, as you have requested. ► In proffer 14.3.1 Tower has clarified that Warrior Drive is an urban section, and Parkins Mill is a rural section, road. It has also clarified its rights with respect to construction of a model home or sales center, but restricted that to a time when the bridge is useable by the public, in order to avoid reliance on Canter Estates, as you have requested. ► Tower has modified provisions of proffer 13 regarding Land Bay F because that dedication is now associated with the Schools proffer. These provisions are now found in the proffers with respect to the dedication of the additional five acres, now under the schools section. ► Tower has added the "missing link" on road construction requirements for Warrior Drive into Wakeland Manor on the alternative road phasing plan, as had been done previously with respect to the primary phasing, in proffer 14.4.1. ► Tower has revised proffer 14.5.2 to clarify the circumstances in which it may initiate development from Warrior or Parkins Mill. This does not alter its obligation to complete all the road work as otherwise phased, but it may prove easier to initiate construction one way or the other, as events prove out during final engineering and marketing. Tower has also related this more clearly to proffer 14.6.2. ► Tower has modified proffer 14.10 to reflect sidewalk or trail on both sides of Parkins Mill Road to connect to Canter. I believe that this responds to the requests that you made of us and we thank you for your kind assistance. It is our understanding that you will provide this letter, the revised MDP, and the revised proffer to the Planning Commission prior to its next meeting on this case. Sincerely yours, WALSH, COLUCCI, LUBELEY, EMRIPW & TERPAK, P.C. John �I. Foote JHF/jhf l Michael T. Ruddy September 26, 2005 Page 3 of 3 cc: Jeffrey Abramson Stuart Margulies David Frank Jim Brown John Callow Revisions on the way Subject: Revisions on the way Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 16:18:29 -0400 From: "Foote, John" <jfoote@pw.thelandlawyers.com> To: "Mike Ruddy" <Mruddy@co.frederick.va.us> CC: "Stuart Margulies"<smargulies@towercompanies.com>, "Frank, David" <dfrank@Dewberry.com>, "Brittingham, Rich" <RBrittingham@Dewberry.com>, <michael.glickman@phra.com> Michael -- We have been merrily working away on revisions, and I am finishing a revised proffer statement and IAS. The changes are not extensive, but they are substantively significant. The sum is that Tower proposes to halt development at Phase II until Warrior is completely built through, as Roger and Rick said bothered them, and as your staff report notes. Tower will also double its commitment to commercial prior to the end of Phase 2 to 20,000 SF because that is what can be done practically (and they worry about it) and what the intersection at Warrior and Tasker can handle and remain LOS C according to Glickman and Callow. The rest of the commercial has to await people and traffic. We will also add the five acres for the school site if it is desired. I have now had a chance to talk directly with several members of the Commission, to make sure we were not misreading what we heard. While Chairman Chuck has expressed concerns that he had not mentioned before that are unrelated to these changes, Rick and June at least appear to be comfortable with our ideas though I do not presume to speak for them. I am trying to get hold of Roger so I can check with him. I would also note that plotting 45 full size MDP's is very difficult at this stage. We can simplify this submission by printing only 11" x 17" copies of the MDP. There are only minor text changes to the plan, and based on what we are doing we can't imagine that it warrants additional agency reviews. We are only modifying to accommodate issues that have been expressed. We would appreciate your blessing to not print full scale MDP's. It will be very costly and time consuming for these print to be run in time for the submission. John H. Foote Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley, Emrich & Terpak, P.C. 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300 Glen Park I Prince William, Virginia 22192 o 703.680.4664 f 703.680.2161 c 703.801.5075 Confidentiality notice: Please be advised that this e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential attorney -client communication or may otherwise be privileged or confidential and are intended solely for the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or retransmit this communication but destroy it immediately. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of the 1 of 2 9/8/2005 9:20 AM Revisions Sn the way i message. Thank you very much. 201,2 9/8/2005 9:20 AM 09/07/05 17:28 FAX 7036802161 W C � J 2 001/003 119 WALSH COLUCCI LUBELEY EMRICH John H. Foote & T E R P A K PC (703) 680-4664 Ext. 114 jfoote@pw.thelandlawyers.com Fax: (703) 680-2161 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information transmitted in this facsimile message is sent by an attorney or his/her agent. It is intended to be confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity addressee. If the recipient is a client, this message may also be for the purpose of rendering legal advice and thereby privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copy of this telecopy is strictly prohibited. If you have received this facsimile in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the address below via the mail service. (We will reimburse postage.) Thank You! DATE: September 7, 2005 TO: Jeffrey Abramson, (301) 984-7601 Stuart Margulies, (301) 984-7601 David Frank, (540) 678-2703 Michael T. Ruddy, (540) 665-6395 FROM: John H. Foote RE: Attached letter TOTAL PAGES TRANSMITTED, INCLUDING COVER: If all pages were not received, call (703) 680-4664. COMMENTS: PHONE 703 680 4664 1 FAX 703 68o 6o67 1 WWW.THELANDLAWYERS.COM 4310 PRINCE WILLIAM PARKWAY, SUITE 300 1 PRINCE WILLIAM, VA 22192 ARLINGTON OFFICE 703 528 4700 I LOUDOUN OFFICE 703 737 3633 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 09/07/05 17:28 FAX 7036802161 WALSH COLUCCI • la)002/003 John R Foote (703) 680-4664 ExL 114 jfoote@pw.thdwdlawyerS-ootn Fax:(703) 680-2161 WALSH COLYICCI LIIBELEY EMRICH & TERPAX PC August 18, 2005 Mr. Wellington H. Jones Engineer -Director Frederick County Sanitation Authority P. O_ Box 1877 Winchester, Virginia 22604 RE: Artrip and the Adjacent Authority Property Dear Wendy: As David Frank and I discussed with you in your office a week or so past, the Tower Companies are seeking to rezone the Artrip property to the County's R-4 Zoning District. We have been to the Planning Commission once, and are scheduled to be heard again on October 5ei. Assuming that we are successful in obtaining the rezoning, one of the critical concerns that we face is access to the site for the purposes of initiating construction of the project. At present, the land is inaccessible by any reasonable means except across the Authority's adjacent property. It is our understanding that you have no obj ection to the Tower Companies to the benefit of Winchester Artrip LLC or their successors aini assigns obtaining access across that ground for use until there is a road connection to the north or south of the property, as Tower intends to construct. I also understand that the Authority would support a conveyance of approximately five acres of its property to the School Board to be joined to the approximately 11 acres that Tower would dedicate for building a new elementary school. The details of such a transaction would need to be worked out, and we are well aware of the existing of the reversionary clause in the deed by which the Authority acquired the property. I have spoken with Dave Holliday, and he advises me that while he cannot commit to executing a release of that clause, he, personally, would not be opposed. There may well be means of accomplishing this without significant difficulty, should the moment of need arise. I am coming to Winchester soon to have lunch with my old friend Dave, and can discuss it with him further. My folks would greatly appreciate it if you could confirm this for us, so that, among other things, the good Messrs. Ruddy and Lawrence will be well informed on this. Thanks for your courtesy and consideration. ltlONE 703 680 4664 1 FAX 703 680 6o67 1 WWW-THELANDLAWYERS.COM 4310 PRINCE WILLIAM PARKWAY, SUITE 300 1 PRINCE WILLIAM, VA 22192 ARLINGTON OFFICE 703 528 4700 1 LOUDOUN OFFICE 703 737 3633 (00013050.DOC I 1 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 09/07/05 17:28 FAX 7036802161 A WALSH COLUCCI Z 003/003 Mr. Wellington H. Jones September 4, 2005 Page 2 of 2 Sincerely yours, WALSH, COLUCCI, LUBELEY, EMRICH & TERPAK, P.C. Foote cc: Jeffrey Abramson Stuart Margulies David Frank Michael Ruddy (00013050.00C 11 Joncs Lzn= 000419 000004 j Artrip Proffers (August, 200 Page I of I Mike Ruddy From: Funkhouser, Rhonda [Rhonda.Funkhouser@VDOT.Virginia.gov] on behalf of Ingram, Lloyd [Lloyd.ingram@VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 &06 AM To: 'john.callow@phra.com' Cc: Copp, Jerry, 'Mike Ruddy', Ingram, Lloyd, Alexander, Scott Subject: Artrip Proffers (August, 2006) J ohn, After reviewing the proffers (dated August, 2006) proposed in the Villages at Artrip proffer statement I have the two following concerns: Under section 14.6.1- I believe that it is critical the "and complete" be reinstated into the text of the proffer. Bonding the completion of Warrior Drive from point "D" to point "E" (the property line at Crosspointe) has the potential to leave several loose ends a few years from now when the roadway is needed. Who will hold the Bond? Who will be charged with the responsibility of administration oversight and construction when this road needs to be built. It would be much cleaner for everyone if the work was completed by the developer while the contractor and equipment are on site. One item I did not find in the proffer statement was the improvements needed at the intersection of Tasker Road and Warrior Drive. While CVS has installed a traffic signal at that intersection additional signal heads and some turn lanes improvements will be required. During one of Mr. John Foote's presentations to Frederick County there was a verbal mention by him that these improvements would be addressed, but I cannot find this item be mentioned in the current document. If the issues mentioned above can be adequately addressed it appears that VDOT can support the remaining portions of the proffer statement of August, 2006. Thanks, Lloyd A. Ingram Transportation Engineer VDOT — Edinburg Residency Land Development 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 (540) 984-5611 (540) 984-5607 (fax) 10/2/2006 Artrip - Revised Proffers Subject: Artrip - Revised Proffer Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:41:25 -0500 From: "Ingram, Lloyd"<Lloyd.Ingram@VDOT.Virginia.gov> To: "'dfrank@dewberry.com"' <dfrank@dewberry.com> CC: 'Eric Lawrence' <elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us>, "Copp, Jerry" <Jerry.Copp@VDOT.Virginia. gov>, "Ingram, Lloyd"<Lloyd.Ingram@VDOT.Virginia. gov> David, I have tried to contact you several times today in response to your voicemail in regards to our thoughts on the revised Transportation Proffers. We have two issues of major concern. The first one being the intersection of Tasker Road and Warrior improvements. While CVS is signalizing the intersection, additional work will be required once the Artrip development generates traffic. This work will include additional signal heads as well as additional turn lanes. It is felt this will be the responsibility of the Artrip development. The second item of concern is under Section 14.3.1. It is not clear as to how many lanes of roadway is being built between the southern bridge approach and the existing Wakeland Manor end of pavement. I was under the impression from some of the comments made by Mr. Foote that he had been in contact with Centex Homes at Wakeland Manor and the full four -lane roadway was going to be built by Centex to meet Artrip's four -lane section. This isn't clear under this proffer section. Therefore, we request clarification. If you require additional information, please contact me. Lloyd A. Ingram Transportation Engineer VDOT — Edinburg Residency Land Development 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 (540)984-5611 (540) 984-5607 (fax) I of 1 12/20/2005 1:43 I'M PROFFERS 12 21 05.DOC (00020625-2).DOC �Subject: PROFFERS 12 21 05.DOC (00020625-2).DOC Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:36:34 -0500 From: "Foote, John" <jfoote@pw.thelandlawyers.com> To: "Mike Ruddy" <Mruddy@co.frederick.va.us>, <bsanker@towercompanies.com>, <ajkohn@towercompanies.com>, <simontito@aol.com>,<dborchardt@towercompanies.com>, <dfrank@Dewberry.com>, <RBrittingham@Dewberry.com>, "Foote, John" <jfoote@pw.thelandlawyers.com>, <gma@towercompanies.com>, <jsa@towercompanies.com>, <jbrown@dewberry.com>, <john.callow@phra.com>, <abramsonrd@bipc.com>, <smargulies@towercompanies.com> «PROFFERS 12 21 05.DOC (00020625-2).DOC>> Mike -- Herewith are the changes that we would make to the proffers, and to which we will verbally agree this evening, with the promise that these will be included in the proffers submitted to the Board. As to the three units in the Core Area, we believe that the proffers and MDP already accommodate them because of the unit type listing on the first page of the MDP. Tower has a number of unit types that correspond to the general types shown on the MDP, and a proffer commitment to do at least three different ones. Other changes are fine. We would like the language in 14.16 as I have rewritten it. We have an agreement from Wendy to access through there, but our guys are properly paranoid because it is construction access. John H. Foote Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley, Emrich & Terpak, P.C. 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300 Glen Park I Prince William, Virginia 22192 o 703.680.4664 f 703.680.2161 c 703.801.5075 Confidentiality notice: Please be advised that this e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential attorney -client communication or may otherwise be privileged or confidential and are intended solely for the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or retransmit this communication but destroy it immediately. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. This message contains information which may be confidential and addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may anyone the message or any information contained in the message. message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and message. Thank you very much. privileged. Unless you are the not use, copy or disclose to If you have received the delete all copies of the 1 of 2 12/21/2005 2:06 PM PROFFERS 12 21 05.DOC (00020625-2).DOC 11 PROFFERS 12 21 05.DOC (00020625-2).DOC Name: PROFFERS 12 21 05.DOC (00020625-2).DOC Type: WINWORD File (application/msword) Encoding: base64 Description: PROFFERS 12 21 05.DOC (00020625-2).DOC 2of2 12/21/2005 2:06 PM RE: Artrip 0 is Subject: RE: Artrip Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 14:10:22 -0500 From: "Foote, John" <jfoote@pw.thelandlawyers.com> To: "Mike Ruddy" <Mruddy@co.frederick.va.us> We are inclined to use the first and not the alternative. We would provide access to t -----Original Message ----- From: Mike Ruddy [mailto:Mruddy@co.frederick.va.us] Sent: Mon Nov 28 13:29:21 2005 To: Foote, John; Frank, David Subject: Artrip Gentleman: Thanks for your time this morning. Sorry I had to depart prior to fully concluding the effort. A couple of additional thoughts: The simpler, the better at this stage. Two phases would be preferable with the construction from A to D and B2 completed with/prior to the first phase. An alternative on our discussion this morning and to the above may be three phases with 200 and 400 breaks as follows: prior to first phase (0-200) A to B2, prior to 2nd phase (200-400) B to D, and prior to 3rd phase (400-793) D to E built or bonded. This may be a working compromise. 50 percent of the phase 1 units would be in the core area. Access to the proposed school would be provided. The change to include Landbay F makes the application much more complicated than it was previously, not simpler. Initial concerns include loss of five acres of previously dedicated open space, environmental issues, access, and most significantly Lakeside Drive. Reconsideration of this change at this stage would be preferable. Original concept appeared to be well received. Finally, any new application officially submitted after December 1, 2005 will be subject to the County's updated fiscal model. New residential applications should address the $23K fiscal impact per single family residence. While this does not include your project, the impacts of new residential units and the Boards policy should be recognized. Hope to hear more from you on any changes to the info submitted this morning soon. Tomorrow would be good. Thanks. Mike. This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you 1 01 1 11/28/2005 2:41 PM Artrip Rezoning - Important dates • Subject: Artrip Rezoning - Important dates Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:11:46 -0400 From: Mike Ruddy <Mruddy@co.frederick.va.us> To: "Foote, John" <jfoote@pw.thelandlawyers.com>, "Frank, David" <dfrank@Dewberry.com> Good Morning John and David: I'm touching base with you to make you aware of some important dates that relate to the resubmittal of the Artrip Rezoning for the Decemeber 7, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Due to the Veterans Day holiday on the llth of November, the applicant cut-off for the 12/7 Planning Commission meeting is Monday, November 14. Staff's cut-off for the agenda is Friday, November 18. This is slightly early due to the Thanksgiving Holiday the following week. This schedule leaves you with approximately two remaining weeks to provide the modified package to the reviewing agencies and receive their comments. This is very important at this stage of the review process (and the Chairman specifically requested at the PC meeting that this be done). Hopefully, you are progressing with the modifications. In particular, with the schools based on the correspondance I forwarded to you last week from FCPS. As always, I am available to meet with you. I would like to ensure that I am fully aware of any changes that are being made. Any advanced copy of proposed additional changes would be appreciated. Thanks and see you soon. Mike. I of 1 11/7/2005 10:51 AM FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, VA 22604-8377 JAINIES T. ANDERSON, Chairman Wellington H. Jones P.E. DARWIN S. BRADEN, Vice-chairman Engineer -Director ROBERT P. MOWERY, C.P.A., Sec -treasurer JOHN STEVENS Ph. - (540) 868.1061 RICH.ARD A. RUCii-11AN, P.E. Fax. - (540) 868-1429 September 19, 2005 Mr. John H. Foote Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley, Emrich, & Terpak, PC 4310 Prince William Parkway — Suite 300 Prince William VA 22192 REFERENCE: Artrip Property Dear Mr. Foote: This will confirm the points set forth in your letter of August 18, 2005. It is agreeable to the Authority for agents of Tower Companies or their successors to access the referenced property through the Authority's property at the end of Lakeside Drive. This access is for purposes of construction. Additionally, I will recommend the Authority dedicate five acres of our Lakeside Detention Facility for a new elementary school. This is provided it is agreeable with the parties that dedicated that facility to the Authority with a reversion clause. Should you need further information, please call me. /ths cf:: Michael Rudy Sincerely yours, W. H. Jones, P. E. Engineer -Director WATER AT YOUR SERVICE _; 4b L-7 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/678-0682 May 19, 2005 Mr. David L. Frank, CLA Dewberry & Davis LLC 611 West Jubal Early Drive, Suite C Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Rezoning Application for the Village at Artrip Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mr. Frank: We have reviewed your responses to our initial review comments dated December 20, 2004, and offer the following: Your response to our comment (#2) related to completion of the bridge over the unnamed Opequon tributary indicates that the project will provide four (4) paved lanes for the full length of Warrior Drive prior to the issuance of the 68151 residential permit in Phase III of the project. The actual revised proffer indicates that the applicant will design and bond the traffic improvements prior to the issuance of the 681" residential building permit. The proffer statements related to residential development should indicate that the infi-astructure associated with roads and drainage shall be constructed in accordance with Frederick County's current erosion and sediment control ordinance prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Your response to our conu»ent (# )) concerning the use of Lot 121, Section VIII in Lakewood Manor as temporary access is not satisfactory. As we had previously indicated, Frederick County will not approve the use of this lot as a permanent or temporary access to the proposed project site. This conclusion applies to any access including limited use by certain construction equipment. We will not grant a temporary construction access through this lot. In your response to our conu11ent (98), you have indicated that the HOA will be responsible for maintaining the BNIP facilities that will not be maintained by the county. First, Frederick County will not maintain any of the BMP facilities 107 North Dent Street o Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Village at Artrip Rezoning Comment's Page 2 May 19, 2005 proposed for this project. Secondly, this requirement should be indicated in the proffer statement. 4. Your response to our comment (#9) does not address the impact on solid waste disposal. It is suggested that you reference the impact on our local landfill as well as the requirement to provide curbside trash pickup as indicated in the proffer statement. We will grant our approval of the subject rezoning when the above issues have been satisfactorily addressed. Sincerely, Harvey E+ 'trawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works I-TES/rls cc: Planning and Development File A:Willageatarl ri pi-twomm-pd ' a F S Frederick County Public Schools Administrative Assistant to Visit us at www.frederick.k12.va.us the Superintendent To: Mr. John H. Foote Walsh, Colucei, Lubeley, Emrich & Terpak, PC FROM: Stephen M. Kapoesi Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent DATE: January 27, 2006 SUBJECT: Villages at Artrip e-mail: kapocsisOfrederic k.k1.2. va. us I would like to thank you and Mr. David Frank for meeting with Mr. Albert Orndorff, assistant superintendent for administration, and me to review a revised schematic site plan developed by Dewberry & Davis. The proposed proffer of a school site at the Villages of Artrip project (on the identified location discussed on January 13, 2006) will accommodate an elementary school at 750 program capacity with the required outside physical education and play areas. If I can be of further help to you with the project, please let the know. dkr 540-662-3889 Ext 1.12 141.5 Amherst Street, Post Office Box 3508, Winchester, VA 22604-2546 FAX 540-662-3890 9011ents M e� F C P Q c W q o E-+ OCT 1 9 2005 Frederick County Public Schools Administrative Assistant to Visit us at www.frederick.M.va.us the Superintendent October 17, 2005 Mr, Mike Ruddy, AICP Department of Planning and Development County of Frederick 107 North Kent St. Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Ruddy: e-mail: kapocsis@frederick.k12.va.us Thank you for meeting on October 12, 2005, with Mr. Al Orndorff and myself concerning questions that Frederick County Public Schools (FCPS) has relative to the Villages at Artrip project. It would be helpful for the FCPS if the following information was provided by the project applicant: An electronic file showing any topographical and boundary surveys of the proposed elementary school site. The files should be sent to Mr. William Shelton, P.E., Civil Engineer, Oliver Webb, Pappas & Ruudy, Inc., 200 Country Drive, Plaza One, Bldg. E, Blacksburg, VA 24060. Copies of any formal/legal agreements with adjacent landowners that are considered to be contributing land to the proposed school site. Files should be sent to my office. It is my understanding that the Villages at Artrip project will go back to the Planning Commission on December 7, 2005. Please have the applicant respond in a timely manner so that the school board can have appropriate professional consultation on the applicant's proposal relative to the elementary school site and a response from the school board's administration staff may be procured. Respectfully yours, Stephen M. Kapocsi� Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent SMK: dkr cc: Mr. Al Orndorff, Assistant Superintendent for Administration 540-662-3889 Ext 112 1415 Amherst Street, Post Office Box 3508, Winchester, VA 22604-2546 FAX 540-662-3890 0 { COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 e Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX:540/665-6395 FAX TRANSMISSION TO: kJ CO ANY: FAX #: Remarks: Fc- "O's, - Date: 70 a - 0 Number of Pages (includi g cover sheet) From the desk of: P. 1 Immediate TX Result Report ( Oct,20, 005 12:14PM ) i Fax Header) File Date Time Destination Mode TXtime Page Result User Name No. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oc t. 20. 12: 14PM 70368021 61 G3TES) 0' 21" P. 2 OK 2396 # Batch M Memory L Send later @ . Forwarding E ECM S Standard D Detail F Fine Reduction * LAN — Fax + Delivery Q RX Notice Req. A RX Notice 0 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Developmenr' 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-500G Telephone: 540/665-5651 FAX:540/665-639`: FAX TRANSMISSION TO: FAX #: � 7� '-'1), 763 Remarks: Date: Number of Pages (including cover sheet) — From the desk of: tee Immediate TX Result Report ( Oct. 20. 1005 11;53AM) m / Fax Header) File Date Time Destination Mode TXtime Page Result User Name No. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oct.20. 11:52AM 540 678 2703 G3TES 0"24" P. 2 OK 2394 # Batch M Memory L Send later @ . Forwarding E ECM S Standard D Detail F Fine ) Reduction LAN —Fax t Delivery O RX Notice Req. A RX Notice r e 0 • Subject: Artrip Project Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 18:04:50 -0500 From: "david worthington"<worthington.david@worldnet.att.net> To: <mruddy@co.frederick.va.us> Mr. Ruddy, yesterday I had the opportunity to walk the Artrip project with a representative from the developer and Kelly McDaniel of the Potomac Conservancy. While we were impressed by some of the actions the developer is taking, i.e., tree preservation areas, maintaining ponds, tree buffers we did notice that a large wooded area next to the Opequon was proposed to be graded into three ball fields. I am concerned about this action for the following reasons: 1. The area contains some steep slopes and these will have to be graded during construction to accommodate the ball fields. This construction action, even with proper sedimentation controls, will lead to significant erosion and potential siltation of the Opequon. 2. The trees that will be removed for the ball field will no longer provide slope support nor soil retention and erosion of this area will occur after the construction is complete. This will also lead to sediment into the Opequon. 3. The grassy fields that will replace the natural forest will have to be fertilized to maintain them and the resulting nitrogen and phosphorus runoff will end up in the Opequon causing further pollution problems. 4. All of this pollution will have a detrimental affect on our actions to reduce the amount of pollution in the Opequon watershed. 5. The cost to regrade the wooded area into ball fields will be quite expensive as the land is not conducive to flat areas and there will be a lot of tree stumps and roots to remove. 6. The wooded area is directly behind an elementary school and I can think of no better area for our children to learn about the environment and gain a respect and admiration for it. Ball fields, while used for a portion of the day, cannot replace the learning experience that a woodland can provide. 7. Does the school really need three ball fields for their students? I live across from an elementary school and while the playing field is used some during the day the rest of the time the fields sit idle. 8. Even on weekends the fields are normally idle, except for when people from outside our neighborhood use the fields for impromptu soccer tournaments. 9. Our local children usually play in their yards or ride bikes in the neighborhood rather than access the fields. Plus wooded areas are great places for children to play and learn about nature. I had one in my backyard as a kid and I remember many a day playing in the woods and exploring nature. 10. The wooded area would provide for a green corridor for the wildlife that will be displaced by this project. We must take wildlife into account during our planning actions. The developer by his design concept has though outside the box in order to provide an enhanced and community oriented project. It would be a shame if we stamped our standard requirements on this project and affected their approach. Instead, it is my opinion that we need to look outside the box as well and mold our requirements to fit the need of this community, this project and the environment. Therefore, I strongly urge the County to look at maintaining the wooded areas discussed above and for reducing the size and number of ball fields required at this location. In addition to the above, I have a few other concerns or issues as well: 1. The applicant has several storm water retention ponds. The City of Winchester has found that local homeowner associations do not maintain these and eventually the City is left with the responsibility to maintain them. These large, typically grassy areas require costly maintenance that could easily be replaced by more natural uses. I am taking a stormwater management pond adjacent to my property and with the help of the Potomac Conservancy and Ducks Unlimited and restoring it as a wetland. I strongly encourage County Staff to I of 2 2/15/2006 5:03 PM explore this possibilities with this project and all future others. The County can save money and provide a more naturalistic area if they take this step. 2. The applicant's plan calls for 10 foot asphalt trails. This wide of a paved trail in natural woodland area settings is improper unless the trail is also being used for emergency access. I encourage the County Staff to look at ways of reducing this width to limit the affect on the environment that we are trying to protect. 3. How do the green corridors provided by this project tie into the adjacent areas? Have we landlocked our wildlife into a boxed area?? 4. With the idea of this project to be a "walking community" can the parking areas for the school be reduced? This applicant is trying to encourage people to use other than motorized transportation to get around and again it would be a shame for us to stamp our standard responses and affect the approach of this project. I would be happy to address the above issues with you and I can be reached at (540) 665-3939 or (540) 722-2100. 1 and others would also like to meet with you to discuss possible revisions to the County Ordinances to make them more environmentally friendly. We are also interested in having the concepts proposed by this developer encouraged throughout the UDA. I appreciate your taking the time to read my e-mail and look forward to hearing from you. Take care, David Worthington 2 of 2 2/15/2006 5:03 PM Page 1 of 2 Mike Ruddy From: Mike Ruddy [mruddy@co.frederick.va.us] Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 10:28 AM To: Foote, John Subject: Artrip Proffer Statement Comparison .11I ITiT After reviewing the comparable proffer statement, I thought it would be helpful to forward to you some brief comments that would help clarify some points in the latest proffer statement. Please address them as appropriate I have also noted several very important points (***) that should be addressed fully. I have been advised that both the staff and applicant's presentation should be as brief as possible at the upcoming BOS meeting. Therefore, I want to make sure that as many outstanding points/issues as possible are taken care of. This will help the staff report and the overall presentation. The following proffers should be addressed: 1.2.1 Further define net leaseable to specifically state net leaseable square feet of building/structure floor area or usable commercial floor area as previously identified in Mr. Bob Mitchell's comments of 08/03/05. 3.1.5 Further clarification/definition minimum standard of community civic center and pool may be helpful. 3.1.5 *** Change in timing to 601 permit from that approved by the PC (325) would not appear to be acceptable. Should reinstate original phase II timing to ensure community facilities are timely with the development. 4.1.4 Is the "additional materials" addition supposed to be applicable to 4.1 as a whole or just to 4.1.4, roofing? Clarification may be needed if so. 7.2 *** Does not make sense as changed and is undesirable. Should reinstate original as approved by PC or advance for benefit of schools. 7.6 Appears to be a combination of two separate issues. Should reinstate original as this is a subdivision issue not a permitting issue. 14.3.3 Interconnectivity would be desirable. The connection will be made. Therefore, physical barriers blocking access between projects may not ultimately appropriate in this location. 14.6.1 *** D to E should be completed/constructed by the applicant. Bonding is not acceptable. Should reinstate original as approved by PC or modified to ensure who and when it would be constructed is clear. Suggest design and bond by 501 st BP and construction completion by 601 st BP, Phase III. Completion to Point E is critical. 14.6.2 Additional language suggests approach not endorsed by County Treasurer. Bonding approach preferable as in original. 14.9 Should reinstate original to provide for the trail into Wakeland Manor consistent with the road improvements to the 10/2/2006 .ti Page 2 of 2 C� intersection where the road and trail would connect to the pavement of that portion of Warrior constructed by others. Additional clarification on this road and trail connection to the portion of Warrior constructed by others may be helpful. 14.10 Should reinstate original as pedestrian accommodations are required with the road construction. 14.16 Not acceptable as the proffer commits the Board to permitting/guaranteeing access over a property owned by others. Should reinstate original 16 This proffer should be removed as it is confusing and speculative. Appendix B — Comprehensive Sign Package should be included in proffer. Pursuant to Lloyd's e-mail earlier this morning, additional clarification on improvements to signals and intersections identified in the TIA may be helpful. As always, thanks for your help and happy Friday! Mike. 10/2/2006 G ,+ TO: John Foote - Walsh, Colucci, Emrich & Terpak, P. C. David Frank - Dewberry FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director RE: Final Points — Villages at Artrip Rezoning DATE: December 19, 2005 The following points are offered as a final comment on the rezoning application for the Villages at Artrip. As you will see they are the more minor administrative points I referred to, but didn't specifically call out, in the staff report which need to be cleaned up. Please incorporate the changes into the Proffer Statement and on the MDP and provide them to me hopefully in advance of the Planning Commission meeting on the 21 st of December. The requested changes are quite straightforward. However, please call me if you have any questions. Proffer Statement. • 1.4 Not fewer than three housing types shall be provided in the core area. The MDP only shows two housing types in the core area. You may want to modify the geographic area of the core area on the MDP to include a portion of the small lot single family housing type area, thus providing three housing types in the core area consistent with this proffer. • 1.9 The applicant shall make reasonable attempts to preserve... Provide measure to ensure the protection as in proffer 13.3. Additional construction fencing may be appropriate to ensure the protection of this specific specimen Delaware Pine. I would like to make sure that reasonable attempts will indeed protect the tree. • 3.1.4 Please ensure that all the community improvements identified are shown on the MDP. Specifically, the Recreational Community Center and trails should be shown on all sheets of the MDP, especially Sheet 1. • 4.1.4 Miscellaneous materials that may be used * shall consist of... "For roofing" should be added to the first sentence in the location identified by the above. • 5.1 The Pedestrian/Bicycling trail constructed along Warrior Drive shall be... Please include "anti along Parkins Mill Road" to this sentence to clarify the trail location shown on the MDP. • 13.5 adjacent to Wakeland Manor should read "adjacent to Canter Estates". • 14.3.1 Please reinstate the "as a full section of a four lane divided roadway" language into the first sentence immediately after Warrior Drive. This provides needed clarity and certainty and avoids any ambiguity in the road construction program. • 14.3.2 Please add "Prior to the issuance of the first residential building permit" as the first part of the first sentence of this proffer to maintain consistency with the above proffered commitment (Proffer 14.3.1) and provides needed clarity and certainty. • 14.6.2 Please add "as a full section of a four lane divided roadway prior to the issuance of the 351s' residential building permit" language into the first sentence after `from Point D to Point E". • 14.7.1 Please add "as a full section of a four lane divided roadway" language into the first sentence after 'from Point E to Point C ". • 14.7.2 Please add "as a full section of a four lane divided roadway" language into the first sentence after `from Point C to Point A". Also, "and make its connection to Wakeland" should be substituted for "including" as this specific improvement is not part of, or included in, this section of the improvement from Point C to Point A. • 14.16 This proffer should be removed as it has no validity. The FCSA or their property is not a part of this application. Alternately, clean this proffer up to deal with only the portion of property proposed to be dedicated to the County that presently is owner by the Tower Companies and is apart of this application. Master Development Plan. • Please adjust the aligmnent of the access to the dedicated school site and adjacent Land Bay to intersect with Canter Estates (Falabella Drive) in a direct alignment, perpendicular to Parkins Mill Road, rather than the 45 degree angle currently depicted on the MDP. • Please clarify the approximately five (5) acres of area dedicated for public use identified as Landbay F and described in Proffer 7.3. Specifically, the land to be dedicated should extend entirely to the limits of the Villages at Artrip property, both to the southwest and southeast of the identified area. This would be consistent with the area depicted on the previous MDP. It is important to ensure that the land to be dedicated has the ability to be used in conjunction with adjacent properties and encompasses the tributary of the Opequon Creek. Presently, the MDP appears to show an area to be dedicated that could be interpreted to not extend to the southern property line of the project as the property to be dedicated appears to be surrounded entirely by open space. The MDP should be modified to show the dedicated area, Landbay F, extending to the southern property lines. • It may be desirable for you to reinstate the area identified as a tree save area within Landbay F should you feel that this element of the project is important. • Dewberry May 9, 2005 Michael T. Rudy, AICP Deputy Planning Director County of Frederick 107 North Kent Street Suite 202 Winchester VA 22601 611 West Juba[ Early Drive 540 678 2700 • Suite C 540 678 2703 fax Winchester, VA 22601 www.dewberry.com Re: Additional Preliminary Comments Villages at Artrip Rezoning Application Dear Mike: On behalf of Winchester-Artrip LLC, applicant, we are resubmitting for additional review and comment the revised the Rezoning Application Proffer Statement and Master Development Plan. Upon receiving a letter from your office dated 02/14/2005, the applicant has revised the Rezoning Application Proffer Statement and Master Development Plan and offers the following responses to you comments: • Comment: 1. The Comprehensive Plan provides two clearly stated goals that pertain to planned communities which seek to encourage large scale new communities that are creatively and appropriately designed to provide the highest possible quality of development and seek to ensure that new planned communities do not have adverse impacts on the community. • Response: The revised submission attempts to address the Planning Office comments made here and in our meetings, to increase the Applicant's level of commitment to specific design elements with respect to the critical "Core Area" of the proposal, to refine commitments to other Landbays outside the Core Area, and to refine the draft proffer statement to reflect construction requirements for significant roadways, and dedication of land to public use for an elementary school. Comment: 2. The mixed use concept is intended to promote land use patterns that allow for internal service, employment and intermodal transportation opportunities with public open space linkages between various developments. The concept is offered as a diversion from the typical segregation of land uses into specific zoning districts that are often unrelated to each other such as is presently evident in the County. The approach offered with this application seeks to achieve this desirable concept and is supported by the Comprehensive Plan. Response: No comment necessary. Dewberry & Davis LLC • • Comment: 3. From a land use planning perspective the location and scale of this project may present a unique opportunity to implement a truly mixed use project into Frederick County. The property is centrally located to the developing areas of the County at the future confluence of Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road. The prominent visibility and strategic location that will ultimately be provided at this location should be advantageous to the success of this concept and project. Such a creative approach or concept would be more preferable and acceptable than a rezoning that would simply enable more of the existing pattern of development to occur. Recognizing the desirability of the concept, many of the following comments seek to ensure that the impacts associated with such a project are addressed to the greatest extent possible. Response: The Applicant shares a desire to create a unique community in Frederick County, and to advance the County's long-term planning and transportation goals, and the plan and associated proffers have been developed with precisely this in mind. Comment: 4. The narrative describing the development proposal of the project and the residential uses is extremely flexible. It states that the uses may include and are not limited to the noted housing types. Further, the description of the unit types depicted on the MDP is clear in that it is for illustrative purposes only. This lack of commitment or specificity with the housing units and the MDP would appear to leave the ultimate mix of units and the overall design of the project open to significant modification that may ultimately frustrate the concept and design that has been presented to the County. The applicant should evaluate if it would be more appropriate to provide a greater level of specificity and commitment regarding the housing units and MDP. The more certainty that the Planning Commission and ultimately Board of Supervisors has regarding the ultimate outcome of the project may result in a greater comfort level in the disposition of the application. Response As noted, the revised Rezoning Application and Master Plan have refined the design concept for The Villages of Artrip community Core Area. The Core Area as depicted in the revised Master Development Plan dated May 20, 2005 will consist of a minimum of at least two different residential building types, commercial/retail/office/restaurant space ultimately totaling 118,550 square feet, and community open space areas integral to the ecological design concept for the Village Pond. Comment: 5. throughout the application there are requests to modify certain elements of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance as enabled by Section 1.65-72.0 of the Zoning Ordinance. As required, the applicant shall demonstrate that the requested modification is necessary or justified. It would be helpful for the applicant to consolidate all of the requested modifications in some form of justification statement or document. Further, an alternative dimensional requirement plan and alternate buffer and screening plan should be prepared that clearly identifies the modifications or alternatives that are being requested and the justification for such modification. Presently the various requests are located throughout the application and in the proffer statement. The above would provide clarity in the review and potential ultimate endorsement of modifications and would be most helpful to the rezoning and MIP administration. As we had previously discussed, please find enclosed with these comments a copy of a similar document that was accepted by the County with the Stephenson's Village rezoning application for your information. ``"" Dewberry Response: The revised Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan have consolidated residential design criteria in Appendix A of the draft proffer statement. This revised proffer statement requires all residential development to strictly adhere to the Frederick County ordinances, and where applicable to the design guidelines of Appendix A of the proffer statement where innovative housing alternatives are proposed in future Subdivision Design Plans presented for review and approval by Frederick County. These modifications to standard design guidelines are critical to the creation of a viable neo-traditional development. Detailed justification of each revision does not, under such circumstances, seem required but can be discussed further with the Planning staff. Comment: 6. A listing has been provided within the narrative that identities the dimensional standards for which the applicant seeks modification. It is suggested that a separate document is created that would stand alone from the application and also have the ability to be attached by reference to the proffer statement. The justification for the modifications should be addressed in the application. Response: See comment response #5. Comment: 7. It would be desirable for the applicant to expand upon the brief justify action offered for the modifications to the dimensional standards. Further, there does not appear to be a real nexus between the design standard modifications and the design and construction of a portion of Warrior • Drive, a major collector road. It may be more appropriate and helpful to the application to recognize the Warrior Drive improvement in relation to older project benefits or modifications such as the overall project density. Response: The revised Rezoning Application, Proffer Statement and Master Development Plan has committed to the full construction of the bridge for Warrior Drive from the Wakeland Manor subdivision, the full construction of Warrior Drive to the applicants property to meet with the section of Warrior Drive proffered with the Crosspointe Rezoning Application, and the dedication of an elementary school site. This application is therefore justified in proposing the residential densities requested in this application. Comment: 8. The applicant has proposed a modification which would result in a reduction of the required parking for the commercial elements of the plan. It may be helpful to expand upon the rationale and justification for this modification request. Further, it is offered that the potential may exist for a further reduction in the visibility of the parking area in front of the core commercial structures. This could be achieved by relegating this parking to an area behind the core commercial buildings and moving the core commercial buildings in a southerly direction or slightly closer to Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road, further promoting the neo traditional concept. Response: The revised Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan have modified the commercial component of the central core of the community. As a result of an extensive market study on the commercial viability of retail in this location, which accounted for already • approved retail nodes in immediate site vicinity, the revised Master Development Plan has reduced �;�' Dewberry the total square footage of retail/office space, and in turn reduced the total parking lot surface area supporting the non-residential component. The Rezoning Application currently proposes the development of a total of 118,550 square feet of retail/office space. The Applicant is also proffering to conduct a parking study at the time of final development plans, should it be required to demonstrate the propriety of parking reductions that may be sought. The applicant requests the modification to reduce or increase the parking requirements by 20% to better align with current or future market trends. Comment: 9. With regards to the commercial uses in general, and on alternative Landbay D in particular, the application has not committed to the design and layout of the commercial uses and structures. Architectural design standards could be considered as a proffer that would ensure the character and integrity of the design program that has been represented with this application. The concepts and renditions presented would appear to be highly desirable in such a community. However, it should be recognized that as proposed there is no guarantee that the architecture and design would be achieved. The concept presented stands out above the typical suburban developments with unlimited access that is currently prevalent. It is the desire of the County to ensure that what is presented in support of this application is guaranteed with the mechanics of the rezoning application. Further, that the innovative approach offered by the application is ultimately fulfilled. Response: The revised Rezoning Application proffer statement has added a list of building materials to be acceptable for the commercial and residential construction. Comment: 10. It may be appropriate to ask the applicant which scenario is their preferred • option for Landbay D and why. The result of the implementation of the option would be a decrease of 80 units, from 900 to a total of 820, and an increase in the commercial square footage of 43,560, from 175,700 to 219,260 square feet. It should be pointed out that the MDP included with the application does not accommodate the commercial conversion of Landbay D. A mechanism to effectuate this should be provided in the proffers or as an alternative section of the MDP in anticipation of this being the preferred scenario. Response: The revised Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan no longer has multiple versions planned for former Landbay D Comment: 11. An important request of the application is that which requests flexibility to change and/or relocate housing types, and as necessary, neighborhood alleys and streets, provided that the total number of residential units and densities set forth for each landbay shall not be exceeded, and that primary access points to proffered roads be similarly maintained. The substantial flexibility that this request offers is extremely problematic when considering this application and its illustrated concept. An extreme result of this flexibility could be a completely different project with only the total number of units as the guiding element for the design. This issue needs to be resolved in favor of the ultimate implementation of the illustrated concept depicted in the Concept and Master Development Plans. The concept that has been presented to the County is in general terms positive and consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. However, the requested flexibility leaves open the opportunity to change the project beyond the design and context of the presented project. 0 `'•' Dewberry • CJ Response: As noted in comment #4 response, the Rezoning Application is committing to the development concept for the Core Area. This area, as reflected graphically in the revised • Master Development Plan, will insure that the concept design remains intact in the community Core through the development process. Comment: 12. An exhibit has been provided that shows conceptual building elevations of the various product types anticipated to be constructed within this development. This exhibit reflects a positive image for the project and would be desirable. However, no commitment has been made in the application to guarantee the successful inclusion of the various product types. It may be desirable for the applicant to proffer the various design elements illustrated in the exhibit. In particular, the urban core of Landbay A with its mix of commercial and residential uses in a well planned and designed environment warrants consideration for such an approach. This focal element of the project is most critical to ensuring the character and function of the mixed use village concept that has been introduced with this application. Response: See response to comment #9. II. Transportation. Cofnfnent: 1. It is imperative to call attention to the fact that the Concept Plan, the MDP and its associated road designs, or the proffered transportation improvement program do not address the need to connect the Warrior Drive improvements into the existing and/or approved off -site Warrior Drive improvement projects. The assumptions of the TIA provide for this connection to occur in one direction or another and ultimately in both directions. It is safe to say that the validity of the project and rezoning application depend on the connection of Warrior Drive to existing sections of Warrior Drive. Coordination should occur with adjacent development projects and satisfaction of this issue should be completely secured with future modifications to this application. I have provided a copy of the adjacent Wakeland Manor projects Warrior Drive design and commitments for your information. Response: The revised Rezoning Application, proffer statement and Master Development Plan have added language and graphic typical sections indicating that the connections to the existing segments planned for Warrior Drive will occur as a result of this application. The following comments relate to the details of the proposed transportation improvements. Comment: 2. Consideration should be given to construction of the ultimate roadway cross section designed for the Warrior Drive improvement portion of this project in a similar manner to the Crosspointe project and the Warrior Drive project south of Route 277 recently completed by the County and VDOT. It is recognized that the design of the typical sections provide for an initial and future typical section. While the initial section for Parkins Mill Road would suffice for a more significant length of time, the importance and location of Warrior Drive, and the projected traffic volumes, would suggest a need to implement the ultimate design of Warrior Drive within a shorter `�'�" Dewberry time frame. Response: The revised Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan now indicate . that the full section of Warrior Drive will be completed as each phase progresses. The full pavement section will match the existing pavement section of Warrior Drive constructed through Wakeland Manor. Conversations have been had with representatives of Centex Homes, developer of Wakeland Manor, and Centex has indicated a willingness to assist in constructing the linkage of Warrior Drive to the south. Conversations with Glaize Development, the developer of Crosspointe are on -going and have been cordial. Comment: 3. The proposed typical sections indicate the provision of gravel shoulders with the interim and future sections of portions of both Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road. This approach is not conducive to bicycle travel. As you are aware, Warrior Drive is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as a Bicycle Route. Any accommodation that could be made to facilitate this designation should be considered. Additional paved width in the travel lane or the provision of a paved shoulder consistent with Virginia Department of Transportation guidelines could be introduced into the typical sections. Response: We are aware of the need for bicycle travel opportunities in Frederick County. It is the intent of this development to provide for bicycle travel in trails adjacent to but separated from the northern boundary of Warrior Drive. Comment: 4. Based upon the existing location of the Warrior Drive hikeribiker trail and proposed expansions to the trail it would be appropriate to designate and design the trail along the east side of Warrior Drive through the limits of the property to a point where the transportation improvements connect into the existing or proposed road system. The typical road sections on the MDP should be modified accordingly and should reflect the appropriate width hikeribiker trail. Response: In the process of revising the Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan in response to all agency comments, the Applicant will continue to provide for pedestrian and bicycle circulation separated from the proposed vehicular transportation improvements. Typical sections for proposed trails are included in the Master Development Plan. Comment: 5. The responsibility of the design, dedication, and construction of Lakeside Drive should be further elaborated on with this application. The transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan recognizes this road connection and the application indicates a recreational use of adjacent Landbay C with access from this road. The ultimate use of the area south west of Warrior Drive in the vicinity of Lakeside Drive may evolve and the connection to existing Lakeside Drive may not be timely, however, access to this portion of the project should be addressed further. Response: Upon further review, the applicant finds that it is appropriate to reserve a 50' the Right-of-way for a possible future connection of Lakeside Drive to Warrior Drive. However, the design and construction of this road does not appear appropriate at this time, when considering that the future access and environmental impacts from the south approaching the applicant's property raise a significant number of planning and design issues. Without adequate information, design and construction of this roadway is premature but the right-of-way will be reserved. is 111P Dewberry Comment: 6. Accommodations for the ultimate design of Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road should be provided throughout the limits of this property to a point where the roads connect with adjacent projects commitments. This should include accommodations for drainage and trails. Response: The revised Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan ccommodate for the ultimate design of Warrior Drive as detailed in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by PHRA and accepted by VDOT. This includes the construction of Warrior Drive so as to not leave any unconnected segments of this major collector from the terminus points proffered by the Wakeland Manor and Crosspointe Development Plan Applications. Parkins Mill Road will be constructed to the extent of the applicants property limits as depicted on the revised Master Development Plan. All final road designs, public and private, shall be in accordance with current VDOT design standards and engineering principles, to include accommodations for storm drainage and trail interconneGtivity where planned and appropriate, except to the extent modification of those standards for private streets is authorized. Comment 7. Consideration should he given to extending Parkins Mill Road to a more logical terminus beyond the access point of the final private driveway that is depicted on the MDII. The adjacent Canter Estates V project will provide for the necessary right-of-way dedication for the extension of Parkins Mill Road to accommodate this expansion. I have provided a copy of the adjacent Canter Estates V subdivision design plan for your information. Response: The applicant proposes to extend Parkins Mill Road to the limits of the • applicant's property. Comment: 8. The opportunity exists to further address identified community facility needs by anticipating potential locations that may be appropriate for future public uses. Such locations would appear to be adjacent to existing publicly owned land and land proposed to be provided for recreational uses. Response: The revised Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan have added the dedication of land for an elementary school site. This dedicated site would also serve as a community facility through the creation and use of soccer fields and playground equipment. Additional tot lots and a 25 meter outdoor pool and bath house are shown on the revised MDP. III. Proffer Statement. Comment: 1. The initial and perhaps most significant proffer is Land Use Proffer 1 .1. The language contained within this proffer is extremely permissive and provides complete flexibility to modify the design, layout, and concept of the project from what is promoted with the rezoning application. As presented, the language opens up the core concept of the application to be frustrated. • The County is in general support of the mixed use village concept proposed with the application and Dewberry • would seek to ensure its completion with a commitment to a project that is in conformance with the initially presented MDP. Response: Revisions to both the Proffer Statement and the Master Development Plan have • addressed the staff's expressed concerns and have committed to specific development details within the Core Area and other portions of the development. Refer to the revised Proffer Statement. Comment: 2. The commercial development of the property should be in a style consistent with that presented in the application. The proffers do not ensure that this will occur. No architectural details and site design elements have been proffered and secured. It would appear as though the core commercial area is integral to the design of the project and the success of the concept. It may be appropriate for the applicant to consider this within the proffer statement. Response: See answer to Comment # 9 of Part I of this letter. Comment 3. It has been suggested that the alternative development standards included in the proffer statement be detached from the statement and stand alone. The proffer statement should then make specific reference to the stand alone document as an attachment to the proffers and would therefore be recognized as an integral part of the proffer package. Response: The revised Proffer Statement is providing a comprehensive description, Appendix A, in order to clarify the details of the alternative development standards. Appendix A • will function as a stand alone design guide for the future site engineering and subdivision process. Refer to the revised Proffer Statement. Comment: 4. It would be helpful for the application to further describe the shared parking concept proposed for the commercial areas of this application. A reduction in the amount of 20 percent may be appropriate. However, no justification has been provided for this reduction as required. Response: The integration of commercial and residential uses should in theory justify a reduction in the number of parking spaces required. However, the speculative nature of this development and the unknown timing of Warrior Drive's connection to Crosspointe require the above flexibility with respect to parking. Comment: 5. A phased approach to the development of this project is desirable. The details of the phasing program offered warrants modifications to ensure that an increased amount of commercial comes on line earlier in the development process. Particular attention should be paid to providing for the inclusion of the core commercial area as early as possible in the projects lifecycle. This would provide for a key component of the overall concept of the project. Presently, 577 residential units could be in place prior to the inclusion of 10,000 square feet of commercial. The entire 900 units could be developed prior to the initiation of the remaining commercial product being introduced. In fact, there appears to be no guarantee that the commercial will be provided. Certainly, there is no assurance that • the commercial will be provided in the preferable manner represented in the concept plan. R Dewberry 0 E J Response: The Applicant proposes to develop the property in three Phases, and is now committing to the construction of 10,000 square feet of commercial development prior to the initiation of Phase III. Because the economic viability of the project for commercial uses is so dependent upon the completion of Warrior Drive through Crosspointe as well as through Wakeland Manor, the Applicant does not believe that it is reasonable, or even possible, to commit to additional commercial development prior to the connection of Warrior Drive to I-81 and through Wakeland Manor. It can be fairly anticipated that such development will occur once the necessary road connections are in place, and if the market permits earlier development, it will be constructed Comment: 6. Please correct the reference in proffer 3.1.5 regarding the early construction of Warrior Drive and its connection to area roads. Response: The revised proffer statement accommodates this concern. Warrior Drive is extensively treated elsewhere. Refer to the revised Proffer Statement. Comment: 7. Connection should be provided for the provision of necessary community facilities in relationship to the phasing program. A summary of the requirements of the Ordinance should be provided which would include consideration of the additional recreational units for the small lot single family housing alternative. It may be appropriate to further clarify the commitments regarding community facilities in the proffer statement. An elaborate arrangement of community facilities has been expressed in the Concept Plan. However, the flexibility proffered by the applicant may enable a substantially alternative approach to be provided. Response: Refer to the revised Proffer Statement. Comment: 8. The architectural, signage and landscaping proffers could be more illustrative and committal to achieving a certain design for the Villages project. The proffered buffering should be consistent with the alternative buffer and screening plan that is developed for this project. Also, please provide the comprehensive sign plan that is referenced in proffer 4.3. Response: Refer to the revised Proffer Statement. Comment: 9. It should be noted that the minimum acceptable standard for hiker biker trails is ten feet in width. Proffer 5.1 should reflect this requirement. Response: The revised proffer statement has modified proffer 5.1 to reflects a Hiker biker trail width of ten feet. Comment: 10. It would be appropriate for the application to address the full impacts on the Community Facilities of the proposed project. Presently, the values have been omitted from the proffer statement. A significant relationship exists between the phasing of the project, the inclusion of the commercial land uses, and the impacts to community facilities. The identified fiscal impacts of the IM Dewberry • 0 project should be fully addressed with this application. A reevaluation of the phasing may assist in addressing the impacts of the residential components of the project. Alternately, it may be appropriate to offset the impacts of the residential components of the project by contributing a corresponding • amount that represents the impact of only the residential components of the project. This may ease any concern regarding the timing of the inclusion of the commercial components of the project. Response: The revised rezoning application and proffer statement proffers monetary and land contributions to off -set impacts that the proposed development may have on the community. In addition to the proffered monetary contributions, the Applicant would construct the ultimate design of the connection of Warrior Drive from the Wakeland Manor Subdivision to the Crosspointe Subdivision, which includes an off -site $3 million bridge improvement in the Wakeland Manor right-of-way dedication accessing the Applicant's property. This capital improvement to community facilities significantly contributes to the greater transportation needs of Frederick County. The Applicant is further willing to provide land for construction of an elementary school. Refer to the revised Proffer Statement. Comment: 11. A fine example of a specimen Delaware Pine tree is identified in the application and exists on the property in the general location of the original home site and gravesite. Further consideration should be given to the preservation of this tree and the incorporation of the tree into the overall design of the project. Response: In the process of revising the Rezoning Application, Proffer Statement and Master Development Plan, open spaces have been created in the vicinity of the specimen tree noted. It is the intent of the Applicant to attempt to preserve this tree during the preparation of final• engineering documents and construction. Comment: 12. The character of the environmental areas adjacent to the steep slope areas and the mature woodlands that exist in this vicinity are dramatic examples that should be incorporated into the project. Serious consideration should be given to adjusting the limits of development to minimize the impacts on these resources. This appears to be a more critical concern adjacent to the Opequon Creek. Such modifications would appear to have a minimal impact on the overall development of the project and would result in enhanced areas of environmental protection. Response: Specific attention has been given to the wooded slopes near the Opequon Creek boundary in the Master Development Plan revisions. Additional separation has been achieved in some areas of noted concern. Specifically, the limits of development have been moved further away from Opequon Creek to further protect the identified environmental resource. Comment: 13. The notations regarding the proffered transportation improvement should be modified to ensure that the road improvements related to a specific phase of the development are substantially completed prior to the issuance of the first building permit for that particular phase of the project. This is consistent with existing policy of the County Department of Public Works. The design, bonding, and platting of the phases of the project will occur prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project consistent with customary land development practices and County policy. }':' Dewberry � 0 Response: The Applicant acknowledges that prior to building permits, related road improvements must be designed, bonded and platted consistent with Frederick County land development policy. Comment: 14. Specific language should he included regarding the roundabout intersection improvement project at the intersection of Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road. In addition, accommodations should be provided for the connection of Lakeside Drive, or an alternative entrance to this area of the project, into the roundabout intersection. Response: The proposed Warrior Drive roundabout will be designed to all applicable VDOT design criteria and standards. The review and approval process will involve key VDOT personnel having expertise in roundabout design and construction. As the County is likely aware, VDOT has materially changed its policies on the use of roundabouts because evidence has demonstrated that they can be safer and more effective in moving traffic than stop signed or signalized intersections. Should VDOT decide not to have a roundabout, then the intersection with Lakeside Drive will be signalized. The Applicant proffers to build Lakeside Drive north of Warrior Drive (Parkins Mill Road) to the Applicants property line; or the Applicant will provide the right-of-way required to connect to Cantor Estates where construction at the property line cannot be completed at the point in time when build out is finished. Comment: 15. It may he appropriate to consider advancing the substantial completion of the transportation improvement package for the entire project with the initial phase of the projects development. . Response: The phasing of the transportation improvements and have been revised to satisfy the needs of VDOT as determined through the analysis of the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for this rezoning application. El Comment: 16. Proffer 15.4.1 should be revised to reflect the correct number of units as the approach appears to be cumulative. Also, as previously mentioned, consideration should be given with this section to the completion of Warrior Drive and the extension of Parkins Mill Road to a more logical terminus. Response: Proffer 15.4.1 has been revised to reflect the revised Rezoning Application and MDP. The Applicant proffers to build Warrior Drive from Wakeland Manor to the Warrior Drive roundabout location as a full -section. Comment: 17. It would be appropriate for the purpose of clarity to proffer the width of the right-of- way that is to be dedicated in conjunction with the transportation improvements for this project. Response: The revised Proffer Statement has specified where appropriate the width of the Right -of -Way to be dedicated for the future construction of Warrior Drive, Parkins Mill Road and Lakeside Drive. Dewberry 0 0 The applicant has revised the Rezoning Application, Proffer Statement and Master Development Plan in response to multiple reviewing agency comments. We offer the following resubmission as a result of these application modifications. The applicant appreciates the opportunity to resubmit the revised Rezoning Application, Proffer Statement and Master Development Plan to your office for additional review and comment. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you wish to review or discuss the resubmission of this Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan. Sincerely, David L. Frank, CLA Project Manager Encl. • 71 `°:" Dewberry 10/21/04 12:35 FAX 7036802161 1VALSH COLUCCI Z 001-002 WALSH CULUCCI LUSELEY EMRICH John H_ Foote T E R PA K PC (703) 680-4664 Ext. 114 jtoote@pw.theland lawyers, Qum Fax: (703) 680-2161 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information transmitted in this facsimile message is sent by an attorney or his/her agent. It is intended to be confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity addressee, If the recipient is a client, this message may also be. for the purpose of rendering legal advice and thereby privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination; distribution or copy of this telecopy is strictly prohibited. If you have received this facsimile in error. please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the address below via the mail service. (We will reimburse postage,) Thank You! DATE: October 21, 2004 TO: Eric R. Lawrence, (540) 665-6395 Den Lineberry, (540) 984 5607 Charles Segerman, (301) 984-7601 John Callow, (703) 777-3725 FROM: John H. Foote RE: VDOT Attendance 10/12/04 TOTAL PAGES TRANSMITTED, INCLUDING COVER: If all pages were not received, call (703) 680-4664. COMMENTS: Begin Typing Here PHONE 703 690 4664 1 FAX 7O3 68o 6067 1 A,WW.THELANDLAWYERS,C0M 4310 PRINCE WILLIAM PARKWAY, SUITE 300 1 PRINCE WILLIAM, VA 22192 AR1.INCTON orFICE 703 528 4700 1 LOUDOUN OFFICE 703 737 3633 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 10'21/04 :35 FAX 7036002161 0 Zv^2'Vu2 1 co -54,51 Dewberry July 7, 2005 Eric Lawrence, AICP Planning Director County of Frederick 107 North Kent Street Suite 202 Winchester VA 22601 611 West Jubal Early Drive Building B, Suite C - I - Winchester, Virginia 22601-6501 540 678 210 540 678 2703 fax www.dewberry.com RE: The Villages at Artrip Rezoning application & Master Development Plan Dewberry Project 1276-014 Dear Eric: On behalf of The Tower Companies we have formally submitted the revised Rezoning Application for the Villages at Artrip to your office. On our June 201h application the Planning Department requested additional input from the Department of Public Works on the solid waste impact concerns raised in an earlier comment letter on our project. We have added a satisfactory response letter from the Department of Public Works on this specific issue to all copies of the June 201h application that have been graciously stored in your office. A copy of this letter, dated June 22n , is attached. As a result of our efforts over the past year, we have satisfied all of the requirements and requests for this application and the land owner formally requests placement on the August 3rd Planning Commission public hearing agenda. We have appreciated the opportunity to work through the application process with your planning staff and look forward to continuing the land planning for this project through the public hearing process with your planning department. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any additional questions. Sincerely, 1 - id L. Frank, CLA Project Manager Cc: Jeffrey Abramson, The Tower Companies Dewberry & Davis LLC Dewberry Transmittal 611 West Jubal Early Dr. Bldg B Suite C, Winchester, VA 22601 Phone 540.678.2700 Fax 540.678.2703 Atlanta, GA _ ❑ Fairfax, VA ❑ Gaithersburg, MD ❑ Manassas, VA _J Chicago, IL —1 Leesburg, VA Baltimore, MD ❑ Fredericksburg, VA EJ Lanham, MD F%01 Winchester, VA To: Frederick County Planning Dept. 107 Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Ruddy Date: 6/20/2005 Project No: 1276014 Project Name: Villages at Artrip — Reference: 26BH0002 We Transmit: the following: for: ❑ as per your request _ J prints El your approval r' under separate cover specifications your review and comment _J by mail change order your file/use by messenger shop drawings revision and submission by pick up reproducibles distribution by overnight samples carrier i , product literature _ computations descriptions Copies: Date: Number: 6/21/2005 Rezoning Application 6/21/2005 Master Development Plan 6/21/2005 2 Fee Checks 6/21/2005 Resubmission Comments: If enclosures are not as noted, pka notify us at once Transmittal# 4542 Dewberry & Davis LLC a m aqual opportunity employer and, as such, complies with Section of Erz utive Order 11246 as amended by Executive Order 11357 Description: J as requested by as approved by as submitted for approval by _I please acknowledge receipt of enclosures return enclosures to us Sent by: David Frank 0 I June 22, 2005 Mr. David L. Frank, CLA Dewberry & Davis LLC 611 West Juba] Early Drive, Suite C Winchester, Virginia 22601 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 RE: The Villages at Artrip - Comments related to Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mr. Frank: Your letter dated June 13, 2005, has adequately addressed our previous review comments related to the rezoning application and master development plan associated with the proposed Villages at Artrip. Sincerely, I U` Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. iLAO Director of Public Works HES/rls cc: Planning and Development File J U L 7 2O!'F 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 0 • Document Approval Form PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT. IF THIS DOCUMENT MEETS YOUR APPROVAL PLEASE INITIAL AND PROVIDE THE DATE AND TIME OF YOUR APPROVAL. IF THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT MEET YOUR APPROVAL PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS AS TO WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE COMPLETED. INITIALS DATE & TIME Candice Bernie Mark Susan Eric Mike Kevin John COMMENTS: Received by Clerical Staff (Date & Time): 1 -1 g IMPACT ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VILLAGES AT ARTRIP November 28, 2005 Introduction] The Winchester Artrip Limited Liability Company, a Virginia corporation, has submitted its application for consideration of the Frederick County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to rezone the Winchester Artrip Limited Partnership Property ("the Property" hereinafter) located in Frederick County, Virginia from Rural Areas (RA) to Residential Planned Community District (R4). The Property is identified in detail submissions that have been filed with the Planning Department. The Property is currently vacant and was formerly used for farming activities for at least the past 40 years. It is within the County's 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan (CPP) South Frederick Planning Area. In addition, the entire Property lies within the County's designated Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer & Water Service Area (SWSA) and is adjacent to several prominent developments either under construction or approved, including Crosspointe Center to the west, Canter Estates V to the east, and Lakewood Manor and Wakeland Manor to the south. The applicant believes this request is timely and will assure the County significant tax revenue, and more importantly, will provide an orderly development of this Property that • provides a diverse mix of uses and products in accordance with the spirit, intent and goals of the CPP. Development Proposal The proposed project is aptly named for the various small villages contemplated for this nixed -use residential and commercial development. These villages include six land bays A through F, that include single-family and multi -family residential uses, a neighborhood commercial center, a central "Core Area" integrating the commercial center, interior and perimeter "greens" or "commons" as depicted on the MDP, and a comprehensive road network to connect the villages and reflect master -planned roads designated on the CPP. A significant portion of the project is laid out on a grid pattern and is oriented with "true" north, similar to traditional development planning, both of which are characteristics of neo-traditional design. This Executive Summary expands upon and describes certain details of the proposed project that have developed in detail during the Applicant's discussions with the various review agencies and that reflected in earlier Executive Summaries . This revised Summary is substituted for previous versions, and the Exhibits heretofore filed are incorporated herein by reference. The proposed gross residential density has been reduced to 4.6 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC). The residential land uses will include a mix of single-family and multifamily products that are specified on the MDP and in the associated proffers. We note that two proposed residential products will be new to the Frederick County market, as well as product types not specifically listed within the Zoning Ordinance. These are the "stacked -flats" units, and apartments over retail. These multifamily product types have been successful in other areas within the region, and meet the need for variety and various price points of housing, which we believe is a key element to a successful mixed -use development. With the inclusion of the variety of housing types, the applicant has requested modifications to the bulk and dimensional standards to achieve the mixed -use and neotraditional design concepts that are important to achieving the correct land use balance. Moreover, the Applicant has committed to a residential phasing plan that is linked to the phasing of construction of proffered road improvements, including the extension of Warrior Drive referenced herein. The Applicant also requests a modification of the requirements of § 165-71 of the R4 District which provides that no more than 40% of the area of those portions of the planned community designated for residential uses shall be used, among other housing types, for townhouses or garden apartments or any combination of those types. The current layout of the Core Area and those elements of the associated Land Bays that provide higher density for single family attached units and multifamily units, are critical to the creation of that Core Area, and to the development of an integrated and "walkable" community. It permits the integration of the several linked communities in a far more attractive and functional manner than larger lot development would permit. Limitation of the area that may be devoted to such homes would actually produce more suburban sprawl than the County likely either anticipates or desires for this portion of the County. Given the residential densities approved in Wakeland Manor, and the densities to be developed in Crosspointe, most particularly the large amount of commercial space, a higher density of development serves not only this project but the Warrior Drive/Crosspointe Boulevard corridor. The approval of this rezoning, as it has been yet further revised during consultations with the Planning Commission and the staff, will produce a unified and coherent series of communities that are unlike any other in Frederick County, both in the mix of uses, the innovative and attractive design of the Core Area and its supporting Land Bays, and the provision of much -needed public lands and roads as further detailed herein. These design elements, together with the Applicant's commitment to the provision of land for a school site, and construction of major elements of the County's road network, justify the additional density that is proposed. This project will include commercial/retail uses, though on a materially smaller scale than Crosspointe. Initially, the Applicant can only commit to construction of 20,000 square feet of commercial development prior to completion of the project, and prior to the completion of a through connection to Crosspointe. But the Applicant has also heard 2 clearly the concerns expressed by the Planning Commission for commercial development of the area, and once this connection is made the Applicant anticipates that the project will readily sustain the total commitment of 128,550 square feet of retail, office and restaurant space. The Applicant is also aware that Crosspointe has submitted, or will soon submit, a Master Development Plan for its property that will be the first step in the construction of that project. Because of the integration of walking paths from adjoining residential areas to the retail, restaurant and office uses, as well as different time periods of the uses within these elements, and because the applicant is very sensitive to the appearance of providing a "sea of parking" for this area of the project, and strives to reduce total impervious areas for environmentally friendly design principles, shared parking for the retail, office and restaurant uses may be justified. In order to assure the County that the Core Area will develop consistently with the MDP, and in a timely manner, the Applicant has committed to certain aspects of the development of that Area. This includes specific commitment to commercial, residential and community uses within the Core Area, which is to conform to a grid lot layout, and to the street layout and unit types shown. Not fewer than three housing types will be provided in that Core Area. The Applicant shall commence development of the Core Area at the outset and not fewer than 100 residential units shall be built there as part of Phase I of the development. Development within the Landbays on the Property outside the Core Area will also conform to the street layouts, points of connection to Warrior Drive and Parkins Mill Road, and to the limits of development as are depicted on the MDP. In addition to the MDP, the Applicant has proffered a Concept Development Plan as a separate attachment to the MDP, which gives specific guidance on the layout of the residential and other elements of the Core Area. Development of other Land Bays outside of the Core Area will occur within a defined road layout and limits of development, and the housing styles that are permitted within each Land Bay have been identified on the MDP. There are also specific project proposals that materially advance the County's planning needs, beyond the development of, and commitment to, an innovative and detailed land development plan. Warrior Drive The 2003 CPP's Eastern Road Plan area designates this road as a "New Major Collector". Additional research in the CPP implies this road to be closed section/urban in character. The adjacent development plans of record for Crosspointe Center and Wakeland Manor show this road in various functional classifications. The Applicant has committed to the phased construction of all of Warrior Drive on its Property, from its future connection with Crosspointe Boulevard through to Wakeland Manor. This will include the costly 3 • construction of a bridge crossing of a tributary of the Opequon, in the South and construction of full four lane sections of Warrior throughout. The Applicant has conservatively estimated the cost to construct Warrior Drive to a four -lane section through the project (approximately 3,700 feet), including the bridge crossing at approximately $6,000,000. Construction of Warrior will be undertaken with the development of this Property, including either the construction of the connection between Warrior at the Crosspointe boundary, if a set location for that connection has been determined, or bonding of the extension if that location has not been determined by the time that the Applicant is engaged in the development of that portion of the Property. Parkins Mill Road Extended The 2003 CPP's Eastern Road Plan area designates this road as a "New Minor Collector". Additional research in the CPP implies this road to be open section/rural in character. The adjacent development plans of record for Canter Estates 5 V show this road as an 80' wide reservation, with no listed functional classification. The Applicant has committed to the construction of Parkins Mill Extended and connecting to Canter Estates. Dedication of Land for an Elementary School Site and Other Purposes As an integral part of its revised application, the Applicant will dedicate 15 acres of • property to be used for the location of an elementary school site. The proposed location of this school has been completely revised to increase the amount of land to be dedicated, to be on land entirely within the Applicant's control, and to be adjacent to the Core Area. This change has been discussed with the School Division staff, which will provide revised comments. - Fiscal Impact The Applicant has also proffered to contribute funds to the County consistently with fiscal impact modeling provided by the Planning Department, and the proffers that are associated with this rezoning application. Summary Because of the unique nature of this proposal, and its inclusion of design elements that have not heretofore been accomplished in Frederick County, but which are desired elements of the County's CPP and which employ the County's amended R4 zoning classification to maximum benefit, the applicant also herewith requests a modest increase in the permitted density cap of 4 DU/AC per County Code, Article IV, § 165-72.C, an increase in the maximum permitted land use area of 40% of the total residential area for 2 The Applicant had formerly proposed to dedicate approximately 5 acres of • additional land, but has revised its submission to show increased commercial uses for that property. C! • n • multifamily products, and modification of the previously -mentioned dimensional standards to accomplish the Frederick County's outlined objectives. The justification for the modifications sought is essentially that a neotraditional development cannot be accomplished using the traditional Euclidian patterns of development, and standard public and private road and lot designs. Jurisdictions in which such developments have been approved have recognized the need for such modifications, and the County is aware that the recent revisions to the VDOT Secondary Road Standards now contains provisions for neotraditional street designs that accommodate the evolving development of such street patterns. The justification for the increased density beyond the 4 units to the acre contemplated for the R4 district can be found in the need for such increased density to finance the private construction of one of the County's principal arterial routes and the advancement of its transportation plans for this area of the County, and the dedication of a school site to service the already approved population in the area. Moreover, the use of neotraditional designs advances • The intent of the 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan; and • Unification of architectural styles; and • A truly walkable community; and • Integration of residential villages and neighborhood commercial uses within one "community" and the provision of a probable school site to add significantly to the sense of that community; and • A balanced design of preserving environmental features, while meeting the intent of a mixed -use community for a variety of land uses, efficient layout of the transportation system and Land Bays, and providing a community that will not create a burden on the tax payers; and • Provision for multiple housing types to attract the largest variety of residential housing consumers; and • Completion of major CPP road links The Applicant respectfully requests approval of this Rezoning Application. Exhibits: Exhibit I Vicinity Map Exhibit 2 Aerial Photograph Exhibit 3 Boundary Verification Exhibit 4 Topographic Survey Exhibit 5 Zoning Map Exhibit 6 2003 Comprehensive Plan Exhibit 7 Urban Development Areas and Sewer and Water Service Area Exhibit 8 Illustrative Plan Housing Types E i J a �♦ I l� !ll -��� �ws. �\ I,. J J J'1J J JIJ J ; 71 J., ` L.t ) j �� �� I !�I ''' +�}! `� S .� , •.. EtEiuE,.Iw4� WZ 4.1'. 4 �. •s 44 +t y yr ♦ • 1 ♦ i i 1 ,SOS' // , J/J J "�J �♦ ``o 'C /—J jt o 4 r ♦ ♦ il� rJ " � J ,, JJ J kJ , j -II aJJj i �,•i y J l J J J J_ /i�r+ a. J� J J t �� I mirtri� ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN - ., . •,. •.. v ♦ 3 r �► TIME VkLA GES A T AR TRIP J ; his a J _ A UEVELOPMEN'P \ J OF THE TOWER COMPANIES \ �J' ,� •� 1 J PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN\ SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT I \ , j '. ,) •�y.�/ !�� •_ -- --- - - ,°PE cxEE4— -- \ I.E.— ES lop -s- IISUI IN,THE TOWER COMPANIES I..E•„\, r, -��, , �,"� x>LI•IenIUl— SCALE:1•—Ilp' •� I -- - yyyYYY'''� wLE.a•-:... ,: Dewberry AwALENT rRaPeKnuwNFK mFo. wA1tIA.r TAM.Ar.». 111TN r ^ `' ta1K1IW .uAR rlu.Murw j�...nana.n... m..le �..•• 9 Z••.A..� Llq.ar MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHEET I OF 5 THE VILLAGES ATAR TR/P A DEVE!"MENT OF OIE TOWER COWANIES PARKDNS MILL PKFC1NCT DI SHA W NEE MAGISTERIAL DISTKICr T THE TOWER COMPANIES ISOI H.rtt.rn +lur;h BalrlA Marta AIMS DL AI MA.IRDO FAX MIYM nU.I rr..m.mv�;e.[ae Al. C.Y1-APRIL ADS SfAL[. I' IOP ��..... ...ry... ��..s A+. —.. +� _ 4AND8 euvu—µ i Nle 1 I SIY Yw TI_ �\ * 1 � LrEA.HmoLLAa �1 1 f' ..' may► � �•�, �� 1 �+��AY1%, I r l �q I ..\ ijlljY � /l 1, �. �s �unr�nnnrrcKtu vu� L,o IM XY 11 Ti. 4r, \ \ 1 .ee... o. MA.,........>.La.AAr �'\ • � - sly - • '\I IS.? KJSVAO.LAM r'AtKiR ROAOI .r'...Mr.r.r a vfau Au46.Y1r1 n9.x RSA,. C 'O RUM' • Pwla9m M L SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED CLUSTER REAR LOAD W/DETACHEDCMRArE �vq�uu wui i�r, nu. iu.rvw+i mow.. wuu.w uw..uix �. ��w un.ew l.rA n.on...,r.. �nw r9a9sRn 0 fnRnN NAIL RMU 4 r ROR' 1 IRl11Vl101 g rrin.m.0 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED CLUSTER /RONTLOAD .uxu ru nrr. �uiniuorira!iaiw rain MULTIPLEX 8A0C7OR4CX LWn MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHEET 2 OF 5 Yazd Setbacks THE VILLAGESATARTRIP A DEVELOPMENT OF TIIE 70WER COMPANIES PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRKT THE TOWER COMPANIES I ISOI iwffc R Nad sahar4 MyYed INNS TP.1_ 101.964.70M FAX 101.994E0]) ...Ao.•a9onpRrnearR 17 SMEMBER 200! SCALE NTS ISPRUIU9H) SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED CLUSTER RFAR LOUD W%Rn ui�:TMu�.n. n.nr..r. �w.ruini. n u l.AumauoRar.or a•Kn nm iv�u un�uu nA o.uuw AVRrorc 1+wawR PRIYA1i MMn IS'N1oN.uu 1 S' •u lev t r SINGLE FAMILY SMALL LOT R"R LOAD .+rrne rRro.lR NOTE: GREY DIMENSIONS REPRESENT R4 STANDARDS; BOLD DIMENSIONS REPRESENT REQUESTED WAIVERS OF STANDARDS; ALSO SEE CHARTS FOR INDIVIDUAL PRODUCT TYPES FOR LISTING OF DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS MULTIPLEX STAO)CEDFLATS ow I APARTMENTS J 11 Dewbwry • 0 I A WAH-1 - I Ak-1 I'- Cl- rV IRKINS 'A L_ RC --v -'_ El ,' � � � � `vs ,de..� ,r � _ ,e ...� ..-.:.'�._ � � �, � � tea.^ ..-... _lJ INV, 4.1 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHEET 3 OF 5 Major Road Sections THE VILLAGES A T A R TPJP A DhVELOPMEN I OF THE TOWER COMPANIES PARKINS MILL PReciNc r IN UIAWNFE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT THE TOWER COMPANIES n1_101164?0110 FAX101.91M.6011 17 SUMMDUR 29 SCALE: NTS am Pa tW/d9Y c= "y, WN NOTE: - ALL OTHER ON -SITE ROAD SECTIONS TO HE PER VDOT STANDARDS - ALI. INTERSECTIONS TO BE DESIGNED WITH PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TEMPORARY ACCESS ROAD TYPICAL StYT/04 ASPHALr TE411 0 Dewberry... 0 0 I J u 1 PLAN KEY _ SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED mrcaz r,uair.nKrrtnrorns w.1 . ��nr.A.Maon n.csFnrun :LTI-FAMILY � wrto�mmroa . _ nv•�,VVm�rown� .mrA, rumv •n.cVfn s.Vs rorVx .nvn rt..nam.un COMMERCIAL/RETAIL OFFICE, RESTAURANTS PLO LICpRI'G'rHT OF WAY COMMON OPEN SPACE c LOI SUES VARY . ___ i O ZC21 ILQiWFS',MAY VARY (r I I I I I I I C LLLL GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - SHEET 5 OF 5 THE VILLA GES A T A R TRIP A DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOWER COMPANIES PARKINS MILL PRFCINCT IN SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT rxn,rn rr rr� �w rrr .oM.nnr. THE TOWER COMPANIES II501 IIu1YCa Nmhaamd. MMyj.W 208" TPL. RII 9Ra. X* FAX W19MM13 29 APRR. 2003 WALF: I- SR ti AY'Y¢FOM rdr .s aacxmridv r .ru rncA�T rarrATs t/ e/Fe /� M20I A1RIIMC 0 / d 59 R/W 0 DsWbsay is • T A I j 71? I J- scHoHDL PtAvFELD5 ;70 mt ftm.wy . ....... scHOOt 16 aj ja A- .44 ITTITT 1 J, Ja a J�M `; liuull� J, Xo- tr �o J ;,j ilk ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN ( - )S(� 1 THE VILLA GES A T A R TRIP A DEVELOPMENT -J OF THE TOWER COMPANIES PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN S MAGISTE RIAL OPMAGISTERIAL DISTRICT T �RTRIF E IILLAG THE TOWER COMPANIES 115011tuffCow Non Bcfficsde M,qW,120395 TEL.301.984.7000 FAX301.9".6032 ... P..m— Dl .M.H 2W5 SCALE: I* - IW Dewberry E 0 4� .2 T - �r - LIN (r MAIN IRI I• / �11111� �1111 fq j 74 -� ° ELEMENIMv ) �� ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN THE VILLAGESATARTRIP A DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOWER COMPANIES PARKINS MILL PRECINCT IN SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT THE TOWEROCMPANIES 11501 Noll Cmd Nosh Bdhada, M,,ylmd 20995 TEL. Mi.9114.7000 FAX 501.984.W3' www lowrnumpanieccom JUNE 2005 SCALE: I'-10P m 'MPIII sSCAI.E � s V i _ , l w.ue.u.ar m.neorrwllo.e I III � . • I'r 11 ._.-�... J , � / _ ,,.t: r J J�caxx[acwr.mwa�axctlnoxa..o° \\ OPEOOON CREEK T.ATE PTRIPGES ��• �. J.1 vI ALE AUE, RIAP SCI'-;WR Dewberry 01 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC MEETING October 25, 2006 TO: TIIE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #12-05 FOR VILLAGES AT ARTRIP On behalf of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, you are hereby notified of a public meeting being held on Wednesday, November 8, 2006, at 7:15 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning #12-05 for Villages at Artrip, submitted by Dewberry, to rezone 169.924 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District for the proposed mixed use development of 793 Residential Units and Retail, Restaurant, Office and Public Uses. The property is located one mile west of Interstate 81, three quarters mile north of Tasker Road (Route 649), 150 feet north of Fair Lawn Court (Route 1176), and west of Canter Estates Section V - Falabella Drive, in the Shawnee Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number (PIN) 75-A-99A. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Planning Director MTR/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is to certify that t e attached correspondence was mailed to the following on 'Uo from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 75G -11.8- 121- WINCHESTER-ARTRIP LIMITED PARTSHP CIO TOWER CONSTRUCTION 11501 HUFF CT NORTH BETHESDA COURT, MD 20895.1043 0 L01) Dewberry 611 West Jubal Early Dr., Bldg. B, Ste. 3 Winchester, VA 22601 Pf fit - 75G -11.8- 122- ELLIOTT, TIMOTHY J SR & KATHLEEN A 105 FAIR LAWN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2397 75G -11.8- 123- WINGFIELD, KEITH N 103 FAIR LAWN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655-2397 75 - A- - 101- WAKELAND MANOR LAND TRUST 300 CRAIG DR STEPHENS CITY, VA. 22655-2367 75 - A- - 95- GLAIZE DEVELOPMENTS, INC PO BOX 888 WINCHESTER, VA 22604.0888 75 - A- - 97- DUBRUELER,STEVE 346 SADDLEBACK LN WINCHESTER, VA 75G-11-8-1 16 Ronald & Carolyn Holben 106 Canaan Court Stephens City, VA 22655 75G-11-8-117 Stephen & Tracy Arvoy 105 Canaan Court Stephens City, VA 22655 75G -11.8- 118- ELLIS, JANE A 103 CANAAN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22602.2886 22655.2393 o7Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Directo Frederick County Planning Department STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK I, _ �� %" , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do h� eby fy th certiat M'c lael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director for the Department of Planning/ ano Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated /I-)-, 6 , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. Given under my hand this c day of L'(� L My commission expires on C�40 C rt� - A2'&jjL-) NOTARY PUBLIC 0f g 75G -11. 8- 120- MCDONALD, ROBERT E & MAR* 76C - 1- G- 357. SHULL,*K H 109 FAIR LAWN CT 318 S LOUDOUN ST STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2397 WINCHESTER, VA 22601.4638 75G - 4.413- 60- TORP, RODNEY S. & SUZANNE R. 76C-1-5-358 102 JADE CT William & Kelly Walker STEPHENS CITY, VA. 22655.2387 120 Lipizzaner Court 75G - 4.413- 62- Stephens City, VA 22655 CORDER, JOHN L & MELISSA L 76C-1-5-362 CIO VIRGINIA CREDIT UNION, INC PO BOX 90010 James &Emily Crowley and Ruth Duggan RICHMOND, VA 23225.9010 112 Lipizzaner court 75G - 4.413- 63- Stephens City, VA 22655 BEARDSLEE, PATRICIA GAIL 125 BELL HAVEN CIR 76C-1-5-363 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2385 Oliver & Carrielyn Frye 75G - 4.413- 64- 110 Lipizzaner Court RODRIGUES, CYNTHIA D Stephens City, VA 22655 127 BELL HAVEN CIR 76C-1-5-364 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655-2385 Hubert & Ernestine Goode 75G - 8- 5- 85- 108 Lipizzaner Court ADAMS, TIMOTHY J & KAREN E Stephens City, VA 22655 129 BELL HAVEN CIR STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2385 76C-1-5-366 76 - A- - 13- John & Denise May ARTRIP, W F JR 104 Lipizzaner Court 1726 FRONT ROYAL PIKE Stephens City, VA 22655 WINCHESTER, VA 22602.4417 76C-1-5-367 76 - A- - 23- George & Shirley Kelley JASBO, INC 102 Lipizzaner Court PO BOX 480 Stephens City, VA 22655 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655-0480 76C - 1- 5- 385-A 76C-1-5-368 CANTER ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC Daniel & Lavinia Armanca 100 Lipizzaner Court PO BOX 480 Stephens City, VA 22655 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.0480 76C - 1- 5- 368- 76C-1-5-369 H & H BUILDERS, INC Fountain Homes of Shen -Valley, LLC 218 Fairfield Drive 301 HARTSELL LN STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.5760 Winchester, VA 22602 76C - 1- 5- 364- FOREMAN BUILDERS, INC 3202.1 VALLEY PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22601 76C - 1- 5- 360- EAGLE PLACE INDUSTRIES, INC PO BOX 1866 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.1866 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING September 27, 2006 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #12-05 FOR VILLAGES AT ARTRIP On behalf of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, October 11, 2006, at 7:15 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning 1112-05 for Villages at Artrip, submitted by Dewberry, to rezone 169.924 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District for the proposed mixed use development of 793 Residential Units and Retail, Restaurant, Office and Public Uses. The property is located one mile west of Interstate 81, three quarters mile north of Tasker Road (Route 649), 150 feet north of Fair Lawn Court (Route 1176), and west of Canter Estates Section V - Falabella Drive, in the Shawnee Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number (PIN) 75-A-99A. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this public hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the hearing, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Planning Director MTR/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is to certily that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Vir inia: 75 -A- - 97- OUBRUELER, STEVE 75G -11.8- 121- 346 SADDLEBACK LN WINCHESTER-ARTRIP LIMITED PARTSHP WINCHESTER, VA 22602.2886 C10 TOWER CONSTRUCTION 11501 HUFF CT 75G-1 1-8-1 16 NORTH BETHESDA COURT, MD 20895.1043 Ronald & Carolyn Holben Dewberry 611 West .lubal Early Dr., Bldg. B, Ste. C Winchester, VA 22601 75G -11- 8. 122- ELLIOTT, TIMOTHY J SR & KATHLEEN A 105 FAIR LAWN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2397 75G -11.8- 123- WINGFIELD, KEITH N 103 FAIR LAWN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2397 75- A- - 101- WAKELAND MANOR LAND TRUST 300 CRAIG DR STEPHENS CITY, VA. 22655.2367 75 - A- - 95- GLAIZE DEVELOPMENTS, INC PO BOX 888 WINCHESTER, VA 22604.0888 STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK 106 Canaan Court Stephens City, VA 22655 75G-1 1-8-117 Stephen & Tracy Arvoy 105 Canaan Court Stephens City, VA 22655 ELLIS, JANE A 103 CANAAN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2393 'Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning erector Frederick County Planning Departs,%nt I, �� . �� a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, d iereby certify that Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director for the Department of PIT' nd Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and Lounty aforesaid. Given under my hand this day of L My commission expires on NOTARY " BLIC ()\l e-(Z 75G •11.8- 120- MCDONALD, ROBERT E & MARY• 109 FAIR LAWN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2397 75G - 4.413• 60- TORP, RODNEY S. & SUZANNE R. 102 JADE CT STEPHENS CITY, VA. 22655-2387 75G - 4.4B- 62- CORDER, JOHN L & MELISSA L CIO VIRGINIA CREDIT UNION, INC PO BOX 90010 RICHMOND, VA 23225-9010 75G - 4.413- 63- BEARDSLEE, PATRICIA GAIL 125 BELL HAVEN CIR STEPHENS CITY, VA 75G - 4.4B- 64- RODRIGUES, CYNTHIA D 76C -157. SHULL, ._ K H 318 S LOUDOUN ST WINCHESTER, VA 22601.4638 76C-1-5-358 William & Kelly Walker 120 Lipizzaner Court Stephens City, VA 22655 76C-1-5-362 James & Emily Crowley and Ruth Duggan 112 Lipizzaner court Stephens City, VA 22655 76C-1-5-363 22655-2385 Oliver & Carrielyn Frye 110 Lipizzaner Court Stephens City, VA 22655 127 BELL HAVEN CIR STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2385 75G - 8.5- 85- ADAMS, TIMOTHY J & KAREN E 129 BELL HAVEN CIR STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2385 76 - A- - 13- ARTRIP, W F JR 1726 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602-4417 76 - A- - 23- JASBO, INC PO BOX 480 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655-0480 76C.-1-5-364 Hubert & Ernestine Goode 108 Lipizzaner Court Stephens City, VA 22655 76C-1-5-366 John & Denise May 104 Lipizzaner Court Stephens City, VA 22655 76C-1-5-367 George & Shirley Kelley 102 Lipizzaner Court Stephens City, VA 22655 76C - 1- 5- 385-A 76C-1-5-368 CANTER ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC Daniel & Lavinla Armanca 100 Lipizzaner Court PO BOX 480 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655-0480 Stephens City, VA 22655 76C - 1- 5- 368- 76C-1-5-369 H & H BUILDERS, INC Fountain Homes of Shen -Valley, LLC 218 Fairfield Drive 301 HARTSELL LN STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.5760 Winchester, VA 22602 76C - 1- 5- 364- FOREMAN BUILDERS, INC 3202.1 VALLEY PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22601 76C - 1- 5.360- EAGLE PLACE INDUSTRIES, INC PO BOX 1866 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.1866 n COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF POSTPONEMENT OF PUBLIC MEETING February 28, 2006 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #12-05 FOR VILLAGES AT ARTRIP On behalf of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, you are hereby notified that this public meeting, which was scheduled for Wednesday, March 8, 2006, at 7:15 p.m., has been postponed. At this time, no rescheduling date has been confirmed. The meeting was to consider the following application: Rezoning 912-05 for Villages at Artrip, submitted by Dewberry, to rezone 169.924 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District for the proposed mixed use development of 793 Residential Units and Retail, Restaurant and Office Uses. The property is located one mile west of Interstate 81, three quarters mile north of Tasker Road (Route 649), 150 feet north of Fair Lawn Court (Route 1176), and west of Canter Estates Section V, in the Shawnee Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number (PIN) 75-A-99A. As a property adjoiner, you will be notified by letter of the new hearing date. Sincerely, ✓Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Planning Director MTR/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 ® Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is to certify tl at th attached correspondence was mailed to the following on �- � i ©L from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 75G -11- 8. 121- WINCHESTER-ARTRIP LIMITED PARTSHP CIO TOWER CONSTRUCTION 11501 HUFF CT NORTH BETHESDA COURT, MO 20895-1043 Dewberry 611 West lubal Early Dr., Bldg. B, Ste. C Winchester, VA 22601 75G -11.8- 122- ELLIOTT, TIMOTHY J SR & KATHLEEN A 105 FAIR LAWN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2397 75G -11.8- 123- WINGFIELD, KEITH N 103 FAIR LAWN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2397 75 -A- -101- WAKELAND MANOR LAND TRUST 300 CRAIG DR STEPHENS CITY, VA. 22655.2367 75 - A- - 95- GLAIZE DEVELOPMENTS, INC PO BOX 088 WINCHESTER, VA 22604.0888 75 -A- - 97- DUBRUELER,STEVE 346 SADDLEBACK LN WINCHESTER,VA 22602.2886 75G -11.8- 116- SANTORO, RONALD E & CHAGNON, PAMELA A 106 CANAAN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2393 75G -11.8- 117- LOPEZ, RENE 0 105 CANAAN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2393 75G 11 8 118 ELLIS, JANE A 103 CANAAN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655-2393 Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Dire Frederick County Planning Department STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, doh - by certify that ich 1 T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director for the Department of Plamiir g ar Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated aZ , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and C unty aforesaid. Given under my hand this j (;-e/L day of cep- ,v2dO My commission expires on C,fi> L�'/ /' e�' a�/ ) 9"/"� . . NOTARY BLIC (11 Vl(-�/c 75G -11.8- 120- MCDONALD, ROBERT E & MARY I* 76C ' 57- 109 FAIR LAWN CT SHULLMARK H STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2397 318 S LOUDOUN ST WINCHESTER, VA 75G - 4.413- 60- TORP, RODNEY S. & SUZANNE R. 102 JADE CT STEPHENS CITY, VA. 22655.2387 75G - 4.413- 62- CORDER, JOHN L & MELISSA L CIO VIRGINIA CREDIT UNION, INC PO BOX 90010 RICHMOND, VA 23225.9010 75G - 4.413- 63- BEARDSLEE, PATRICIA GAIL 125 BELL HAVEN CIR STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2385 75G - 4-48. 64- RODRIGUES, CYNTHIA D 127 BELL HAVEN CIR STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2385 75G - 8- 5. 85- ADAMS, TIMOTHY J & KAREN E 129 BELL HAVEN CIR STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2385 76 - A- - 13- ARTRIP, W F JR 1726 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602.4417 76 - A- - 23- JASBO, INC PO BOX 480 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.0480 76C - 1- 5- 385-A CANTER ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC PO BOX 400 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.0480 76C - 1- 5- 368- H & H BUILDERS, INC 301 HARTSELL LN STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.5760 76C - 1- 5- 364- FOREMAN BUILDERS, INC 3202.1 VALLEY PIKE WINCHESTER,VA 22601 76C - 1- 5- 360- EAGLE PLACE INDUSTRIES, INC PO BOX 1866 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.1866 22601.4638 I February 22, 2006 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC MEETING TO: THE APPLICANTS) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION # 12-05 FOR VILLAGES AT ARTRIP On behalf of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, you are hereby notified of a public meeting being held on Wednesday, March 8, 2006, at 7:15 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning 812-05 for Villages at Artrip, submitted by Dewberry, to rezone 169.924 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District for the proposed mixed use development of 793 Residential Units and Retail, Restaurant and Office Uses. The property is located one mile west of Interstate 81, three quarters mile north of Tasker Road (Route 649), 150 feet north of Fair Lawn Court (Route 1176), and west of Canter Estates Section V, in the Shawnee Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number (PIN) 75-A-99A. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this public meeting. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the hearing, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Planning Director 7 MTR/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is to ertify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 75 - A- - 97- 75G -11.8- 121- DUBRUELER, STEVE WINCHESTER-ARTRIP LIMITED PARTSHP CIO TOWER CONSTRUCTION �c) 346 SADDLEBACK LN 11501 HUFF CT WINCHESTER, VA 22602 NORTH BETHESDA COURT, MD 20895.1043 Dewberry \ 611 West Jubal Early Dr., Bldg. B, Ste. C�Q�' Winchester, VA 22601 75G -11.8- 122- ELLIOTT, TIMOTHY J SR & KATHLEEN A 105 FAIR LAWN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2397 756 -11.8- 123- WINGFIELD, KEITH N 103 FAIR LAWN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2397 75 - A- - 101- WAKELAND MANOR LAND TRUST 300 CRAIG DR STEPHENS CITY, VA. 22655.2367 75 - A- - 95- GLAIZE DEVELOPMENTS, INC PO BOX 888 WINCHESTER, VA 22604.0888 STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK 75G -11.8- 116- SANTORO, RONALD E & CHAGNON, PAMELA A 106 CANAAN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2393 75G -11.8- 117- LOPEZ, RENE 0 105 CANAAN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2393 75G -11.8- 118- ELLIS, JANE A 103 CANAAN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2393 Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Direct Frederick County Planning Department I, �� , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do •eby certify that Mic el T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director for the Department of Plannin ar Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated . ,� ��.� a (, , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State And County aforesaid. Given under my hand this Z day of Q d My commission expires on 06 NOTARY PtMLlC b V 6C 75G -11- 8. 120- MCDONALD, ROBERT E & MAF• 109 FAIR LAWN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2397 75G - 4.413- 60- TORP, RODNEY S. & SUZANNE R. 102 JADE CT STEPHENS CITY, VA. 22655.2387 75G - 4.413- 62- CORDER, JOHN L & MELISSA L CIO VIRGINIA CREDIT UNION, INC PO BOX 90010 RICHMOND, VA 23225.9010 75G - 4.413- 63- BEARDSLEE, PATRICIA GAIL 125 BELL HAVEN CIR STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2385 75G - 4.4B- 64- RODRIGUES, CYNTHIA D 127 BELL HAVEN CIR STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2385 75G - 8- 5- 85- ADAMS, TIMOTHY J & KAREN E 129 BELL HAVEN CIR STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2385 76 - A- - 13- ARTRIP, W F JR 1726 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602.4417 76 - A- - 23- JASBO, INC PO BOX 480 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655 76C - 1- 5- 385-A CANTER ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC P 0 BOX 480 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655 76C - 1- 5. 368- H & H BUILDERS, INC 301 HARTSELL LN STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655 76C - 1- 5- 364- FOREMAN BUILDERS, INC 3202.1 VALLEY PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22601 76C - 1- 5- 360- EAGLE PLACE INDUSTRIES, INC P 0 BOX 1866 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX:540/665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC MEETING February 1, 2006 TO: TIIE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #12-05 FOR VILLAGES AT ARTRIP On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public meeting being held on Wednesday, February 15, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning 912-05 for Villages at Artrip, submitted by Dewberry, to rezone 169.924 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District for the proposed mixed use development of 793 Residential Units and Retail, Restaurant and Office Uses. The property is located one mile west of Interstate 81, three quarters mile north of Tasker Road (Route 649), 150 feet north of Fair Lawn Court (Route 1176), and west of Canter Estates Section V, in the Shawnee Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number (PIN) 75-A-99A. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this public meeting. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bown-ian Library the week of the hearing, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, I Michael T. Ruddy , Deputy Planning Director ' MTR/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on I /i 6 from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia! 75 - A- - 95- 75G -11.8- 121- GLAIZE DEVELOPMENTS, INC WINCH ESTER-ARTRIP LIMITED PARTSHP CIO TOWER CONSTRUCTION F;� PO BOX 888 11501 HUFF CT WINCHESTER, VA 22604.0888 NORTH BETHESDA COURT, MD 20895.1043 Dewberry 611 West Jubal Early Dr., Bldg. B, Ste. C �Re� Winchester, VA 22601 75G -11.8- 122- ELLIOTT, TIMOTHY J SR & KATHLEEN A 105 FAIR LAWN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2397 75G -11.8- 123- WINGFIELD, KEITH N 103 FAIR LAWN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2397 75 -A- -101- WAKELAND MANOR LAND TRUST 300 CRAIG OR STEPHENS CITY, VA. 22655-2367 75 - A- - 97- DUBRUELER,STEVE 346 SADDLEBACK LN WINCHESTER, VA 22602 75G -11. 8. 116- SANTORO, RONALD E & CHAGNON, PAMELA A 106 CANAAN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2393 75G -11.8- 117- LOPEZ, RENE 0 105 CANAAN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2393 Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director Frederick County Planning Department STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERLCK a• I, a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do l reby certify tfi-at-MIA111 T. Ruddy, Dcputy Planning Director for the Department of Plannii g and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated "t:)- 1 0 1� , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. Given tinder my hand this day ofSA,,&C o2Q,-' My commission expires on -�;� j1 & , NOTARY UBLIC S) Ve EC, 75G -11.8- 118- ELLIS, JANE A 103 CANAAN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2393 75G -11.8- 120- MCDONALD, ROBERT E & MARY E 109 FAIR LAWN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2397 75G - 4.413- 60- TORP, RODNEY S. & SUZANNE R. 102 JADE CT STEPHENS CITY, VA. 22655.2387 75G - 4.413- 62- CORDER, JOHN L & MELISSA L CIO VIRGINIA CREDIT UNION, INC PO BOX 90010 RICHMOND, VA 23225.9010 75G - 4.413- 63- BEARDSLEE, PATRICIA GAIL 125 BELL HAVEN CIR STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2385 75G - 4.413- 64- RODRIGUES, CYNTHIA D 127 BELL HAVEN CIR STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2385 75G - 8- 5- 85- ADAMS, TIMOTHY J & KAREN E 129 BELL HAVEN CIR STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2385 76 - A- - 13- ARTRIP, W F JR 1726 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER,VA 22602.4417 76 - A- - 23- JASBO, INC PO BOX 480 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655 76C - 1- 5- 385-A CANTER ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC P 0 BOX 480 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655 76C - 1.5- 368- H & H BUILDERS, INC 301 HARTSELL LN STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655 76C - 1- 5- 364- FOREMAN BUILDERS, INC 3202.1 VALLEY PIKE WINCHESTER,VA 22601 76C 0360- EAGLE PLACE INDUSTRIES, INC P 0 BOX 1866 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655 r 9 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING December 7, 2005 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #12-05 FOR VILLAGES AT ARTRIP On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public bearing being held on Wednesday, December 21, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning 1412-05 for Villages at Artrip, submitted by Dewberry, to rezone 169.924 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District for the proposed mixed use development of 793 Residential Units and Retail, Restaurant and Office Uses. The property is located one mile west of Interstate 81, three quarters mile north of Tasker Road (Route 649), 150 feet north of Fair Lawn Court (Route 1176), and west of Canter Estates Section V, in the Shawnee Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number (PIN) 75-A-99A. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this public hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the hearing, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Planning Director MTR/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 75G -11.8- 117- 75 - A- - 99-A LOPEZ, RENE 0 WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC 105 CANAAN CT CIO THE TOWER COMPANIES STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2393 11501 HUFF CT -11- 8- 118 8 N BETHESDA, MD 20895.1043 �� 75G 75GELLJA Dewberry 611 West Jubal Early Dr., Bldg. B, Ste. C Winchester, VA 22601 75 -A- -101- WAKELAND MANOR LAND TRUST 300 CRAIG DR STEPHENS CITY, VA. 22655.2367 75 - A- - 95- GLAIZE DEVELOPMENTS, INC PO BOX 888 WINCHESTER,VA 22604.0888 75 - A- - 97- DUBRUELER,STEVE 346 SADDLEBACK LN WINCHESTER, VA 22602.2086 75G -11.8- 116- SANTORO,RONALDE & CHAGNON, PAMELA A 106 CANAAN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2393 STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK 103 CANAAN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2393 75G -11.8- 120- ��Q�,\ MCDONALD, ROBERT E & MARY E 109 FAIR LAWN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2397 75G -11.8- 122- ELLIOTT, TIMOTHY J SR & KATHLEEN A 105 FAIR LAWN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2397 75G -11. 8. 123- WINGFIELD, KEITH N 103 FAIR LAWN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2397 Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Direct, Zr- Frederick County Planning Department I, , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director for the Department of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. Given under my hand this day of My commission expires on NOTARY PUBLIC 75G - 4.413- 60- TORP, ROONEY S. & SUZANNE I* 102 JADE CT STEPHENS CITY, VA. 22655.2387 0 7 75G - 4.413- 62- CORDER, JOHN L & MELISSA L CIO VIRGINIA CREDIT UNION, INC PO BOX 90010 RICHMOND, VA 23225.9010 75G - 4.413- 63- BEARDSLEE, PATRICIA GAIL 125 BELL HAVEN CIR STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2385 75G - 4.413- 64- RODRIGUES, CYNTHIA D 127 BELL HAVEN CIR STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2385 75G - 8. 5. 85- ADAMS, TIMOTHY J & KAREN E 129 BELL HAVEN CIR STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2385 76 - A- - 13- ARTRIP, W F JR 1726 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602.4417 76 - A- - 23- JASBO, INC PO BOX 480 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.0480 76C - 1- 5- 385-A CANTER ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC PO BOX 480 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.0480 76C - 1- 5- 368- H & H BUILDERS, INC 301 HARTSELL LN STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.5760 76C - 1- 5.364- FOREMAN BUILDERS, INC 3202.1 VALLEY PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22601 76C - 1- 5- 360- EAGLE PLACE INDUSTRIES, INC PO BOX 1866 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.1866 76C - 1- 5.357- SHULL, MARK H 318 S LOUDOUN ST WINCHESTER, VA 22601.4638 r COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC MEETING September 21, 2005 TO: TIME APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #12-05 FOR VILLAGES AT ARTRIP On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public meeting being held on Wednesday, October 5, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning 412-05 for Villages at Artrip, submitted by Dewberry, to rezone 169.924 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District for the proposed mixed use development of 905 Residential Units and Retail, Restaurant and Office Uses. The property is located one mile west of Interstate 81, three quarters mile north of Tasker Road (Route 649), 150 feet north of Fair Lawn Court (Route 1176), and west of Canter Estates Section V. in the Shawnee Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number (PIN) 75-A-99A. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this public meeting. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Plamling and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely,-- Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Plarming Director MTR/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is to certify .tl at the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on ( from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 75 - A- - 99-A WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC CIO THE TOWER COMPANIES 501 HUFF CT N1B THESDA, MD 20895.1043 Dewberry 611 West Jubal Early Dr., Bldg. B, Ste. C Winchester, VA 22601 A 75 -A- -101- 75G -11.8- 116- SANTORO,RONALDE & CHAGNON, PAMELA A 106 CANAAN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2393 75G -11.8- 117- LOPEZ, RENE 0 105 CANAAN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2393 75G 11 8 118 ELLIS, JANE A WAKELAND MANOR LAND TRUST 103 CANAAN CT 300 CRAIG DR STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2393 STEPHENS CITY, VA. 22655.2367 75G -11.8- 120- MCDONALD, ROBERT E & MARY E 75 - A- - 95- 109 FAIR LAWN CT GLAIZE DEVELOPMENTS, INC STEPHENS CITY, VA 2.2655.2397 PO BOX 888 75G -11- 8. 122- WINCHESTER, VA 22604.0888 ELLIOTT, TIMOTHY J SR & KATHLEEN A 105 FAIR LAWN CT 75 - A- - 97- STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2397 DUBRUELER, STEVE 346 SADDLEBACK LN WINCHESTER, VA 22602 75 - A- - 9 9- FREDERICK COUNTY 5 A,t) 107 N KENT ST Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director WINCHESTER, VA. 22601.5039 Frederick County Planning Department S'I'A'I'E OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FRFDERICK a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, doh reby certify that 1 hael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director for the Department of Plann' and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and Countv aforesaid. Given under my hand this My commission expires on day of .C�J -= 005 A Uv NOTARY PtA3LIC 75G -11.8- 123- WINGFIELD, KEITH N 103 FAIR LAWN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2397 75G - 4.413- 60- TORP, RODNEY S. & SUZANNE R. 102 JADE CT STEPHENS CITY, VA. 22655.2387 75G - 4.413- 62- CORDER, JOHN L & MELISSA L CIO VIRGINIA CREDIT UNION, INC PO BOX 90010 RICHMOND, VA 23225.9010 75G - 4.4B. 63. BEARDSLEE, PATRICIA GAIL 125 BELL HAVEN CIR STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2385 75G - 4.413- 64- RODRIGUES, CYNTHIA D 127 BELL HAVEN CIR STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2385 75G - 8- 5- 85- ADAMS, TIMOTHY J & KAREN E 129 BELL HAVEN CIR STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2385 76 - A- - 13- ARTRIP, W F JR 1726 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER,VA 22602.4417 76 - A- - 23- JASBO, INC PO BOX 480 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655 76C - 1- 5- 385-A CANTER ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC P 0 BOX 480 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655 76C - 1. 5.368- H & H BUILDERS, INC, 301 HARTSELL LN STEPHENS CITY, VFa 22655 76C - 1- 5- 364- FOREMAN BUILDERS, INC 3202.1 VALLEY PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22601 76C - 1- 5- 360- EAGLE PLACE INDUSTRIES, INC P 0 BOX 1866 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655 • 9 0 COUNTY of FRIJDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING July 20, 2005 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #12-05 FOR VILLAGES AT ARTRIP On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public bearing being held on Wednesday, August 3, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning 912-05 for Villages at Artrip, submitted by Dewberry, to rezone 169.924 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District for the proposed mixed use development of 905 Residential Units and Retail, Restaurant and Office Uses. The property is located one mile west of Interstate 81, three quarters mile north of Tasker Road (Route 649), 150 feet north of Fair Lawn Court (Route 1176), and west of Canter Estates Section V, in the Shawnee Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number (PIN) 75-A-99A. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this public bearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the hearing, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: w-ww.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Plarming Director MTR/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 75G -11.8- 116- 75 - A- - 99-A WINCHESTER ARTRIP, LLC CIO THE TOWER COMPANIES 11501 HUFF CT�? (J�� N BETHESDA, MD 20895.1043 Dewberry 611 West Jubal Early Dr., Bldg. B, Ste. C Winchester, VA 22601 75 -A- -101- WAKELAND MANOR LAND TRUST 300 CRAIG DR STEPHENS CITY, VA. 22655.2367 75 - A- - 95- GLAIZE DEVELOPMENTS, INC PO BOX 888 WINCHESTER,VA 75 - A- - 97- DUBRUELER,STEVE 346 SADDLEBACK LN WINCHESTER, VA 75 - A- - 99- FREDERICK COUNTY 107 N KENT ST WINCHESTER, VA. SANTORO, RONALD E & CHAGNON, PAMELA A 106 CANAAN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 75G -11.8- 117- LOPEZ, RENE 0 105 CANAAN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 75G -11.8- 118- ELLIS, JANE A 103 CANAAN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2393 22655.2393 22655.2393 75G -11. 8- 120- MCDONALD, ROBERT E & MARY F. 109 FAIR LAWN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2397 75G -11.8- 122- 22604.0888 ELLIOTT, TIMOTHY J Sll & KATHLEEN A 105 FAIR LAWN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2397 22602 g 22601.5039 Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Directo ;:7 Frederick County Planning Department STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERI , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do lWeby ceitiry that Mic hqR. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director for the Department of Plannin an Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated a , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and C unty aforesaid. r1\ Given under my hand this _ My commission expires on 75G -11.8- 123- WINGFIELD, KEITH N 103 FAIR LAWN CT STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2397 75G - 4.413- 60- TORP, RODNEY S. & SUZANNE R. 102 JADE CT STEPHENS CITY, VA. 22655.2387 75G - 4.413- 62. CORDER, JOHN L & MELISSA L CIO VIRGINIA CREDIT UNION, INC PO BOX 90010 RICHMOND, VA 23225.9010 75G - 4.413- 63- BEARDSLEE, PATRICIA GAIL 125 BELL HAVEN CIR STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2385 75G - 4.413- 64- RODRIGUES, CYNTHIA D 127 BELL HAVEN CIR STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2385 75G - 8- 5- 85- ADAMS, TIMOTHY J & KAREN E 129 BELL HAVEN CIR STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.2385 76 - A- - 13- ARTRIP, W F JR 1726 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602.4417 76 - A- - 23- JASBO, INC PO BOX 480 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655 76C - 1- 5- 385-A CANTER ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC P 0 BOX 480 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655 76C - 1- 5.368- H & H BUILDERS, INC 301 HARTSELL LN STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655 76C - 1- 5- 364- FOREMAN BUILDERS, INC 3202.1 VALLEY PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22601 76C - 1. 5- 360. EAGLE PLACE INDUSTRIES, INC P 0 BOX 1866 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655 i O:BARBARA-DATA PROCESSING FROM:BEV - Planning Dept. Please print 4 sets of labels by THE VILLAGES AT ARTR/P _ // 2�, �0THANKS! TABLE 3 Adjacent Property Owners PIN Name 75-A-101 `" Address Wakeland Manor Land Trust 300 Craig St. 75-A-95 r/ Glaize Development, Inc. �, 75-A-96 '� P.O. Box 888 Glaize Development, Inc. 75-A-97 ✓ Steve Dubrueler . P.O. Box 888 346 Saddleback Lane 75-A-99 `� Frederick County 107 N. Kent St. 75G-11-8-116Ronald Santoro & Pamela Chagnon: 106 Canaan Ct. 75G-11-8-117�/James Swiger & Michelle Vitela'CA�v� ��,105 Canaan Ct. 75G-11-8-118 David T.& Tammy M. Foster ' : s-y,, „) '103 Canaan Ct. 75G-11-8-120�Robert & Mary E. McDonald 109 Fair Lawn Ct. 75G-11-8-121✓Winchester/Artrip LP 11501 Huff Ct. 75G-11-8-122,/-imothy J. Elliot Sr. & Kathleen A. Elliott 105 Fair Lawn Ct. 75G-11-8-123./Timothy Wingfield 103 Fair Lawn Ct. 75G-4-413-60 / Rodney &Suzanne R. Torp 102 Jade Ct. 75G-4-4B-62 /John & Melissa Corder P.O. Box 90010 c/o Valerie Whit 75G-4-4B-63 / Patricia Gail Beardslee 125 Bell Haven Cr. 75G-4-4B-64 Cynthia D. Rodriguez 127 Bell Haven Cr. 75G-8-5-85 / Timothey J. & Karen E. Adams 129 Bell Haven Cr. 76-A-13 W.F. Artrip, Jr. 76-A-23 1726 Front Royal Pike Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 480 City St: Stephen City VA Winchester VA Winchester VA Winchester VA Winchester VA Stephens City VA Stephens City VA Stephens City VA Stephens City VA N. Bethesda MD Stephens City VA Stephens City VA Stephens City VA Richmond VA Stephens City VA Stephens City VA Zip 22655 22604 22604 22602 22601 22655 22655 22655 22655 20895 22655 22655 22655 23225 22655 22655 Stephens City VA 22655 Winchester VA 22602 Stephens City VA 22655 -76 f A', / 3O. 3.6 !3 34,5 3 < 3 4./363 Note: ✓ /, , =; 3t��, 3�r 1. Information from SpecPrint Edition 13, 2004 2. Use Codes: 2- Single Family Residential (Suburban) 4- Commercial & Industrial 5- Agricultural / Undeveloped (100+ ac.) 6- Agricultural / Undeveloped (100+ ac.) 73- Regional / Local Government Use 6 2 (Residential) 6 (Over 100 Ac.) 2 (Residential) 73 (Exempt) 2 (Residential) 2 (Residential) 2 (Residential) 2 (Residential) 2 (Residential) 2 (Residential) 2 (Residential) -2 (Residential) 2 (Residential) 2 (Residential) 2 (Residential) 2 (Residential) 6— (Over 100 Ac.) 5 (20-100 AC.) 3s7 ' Zoning RP RA RA RA RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RA RP �I 11/8/2004 10:30 AM P:IProject1760300071AdmnlRezoning Application Text Documents\REZONING TABLES.Ar,2 Rt IRR f-11AMCoe AO) 0 4 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING July 20, 2005 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #12-05 FOR VILLAGES AT ARTRIP On behalf of the Frederick County Plaiuling Conunission, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, August 3, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning 912-05 for Villages at Artrip, submitted by Dewberry, to rezone 169.924 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Conununity)� District for the proposed mixed use development of 905 Residential Units and Retail, Restaurant and Office Uses. The property is located one mile west of Interstate 81, three quarters mile north of Tasker Road (Route 649), 150 feet north of Fair Lawn Court (Route 1176), and west of Canter Estates Section V, in the Shawnee Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number (PIN) 75-A-99A. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this public hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the hearing, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Plarming Director MTR/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 75 - A- - 99- FREDERICK COUNTY 107 N KENT ST WINCHESTER, VA. 22601.5039 JUL M I! I C J COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING July 20, 2005 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #12-05 FOR VILLAGES AT ARTRIP On behalf of the Frederick County Planting Commission, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, August 3, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning 412-05 for Villages at Artrip, submitted by Dewberry, to rezone 169.924 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District for the proposed mixed use development of 905 Residential Units and Retail, Restaurant and Office Uses. The property is located one mile west of Interstate 81, three quarters mile north of Tasker Road (Route 649), 150 feet north of Fair Lawn Court (Route 1176), and west of Canter Estates Section V, in the Shawnee Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number (PIN) 75-A-99A. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this public hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the hearing, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Planning Director MTR/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning & Development J U I- 2 8 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 76C 1 5. 360- EAGLE PLACE INDUSTRIES, INC P 0 BOX 1866 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655 N 7 X'T E It, 0 k I RETURN TC, NO SUCH NUMBER 1.) N A ED L E. 'T 0 Ft: RWARM S 46 0 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING December 7, 2005 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION 412-05 FOR VILLAGES AT ARTRIP On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, December 21, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning 412-05 for Villages at Artrip, submitted by Dewberry, to rezone 169.924 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District for the proposed mixed use development of 793 Residential Units and Retail, Restaurant and Office Uses. The property is located one mile west of Interstate 81, three quarters mile north of Tasker Road (Route 649), 150 feet north of Fair Lawn Court (Route 1176), and west of Canter Estates Section V, in the Shawnee Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number (PIN) 75-A-99A. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this public hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the hearing, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy . Deputy Planning Director MTR/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 �r 76C - 1- 5- 360- EAGLE PLACE INDUSTRIES, INC PO BOX 1866 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655-1866 r P? "-rasMN -r0 S:aNDER 1.4p yucn-1 NIUMEBEF? TO FORWAP0 'sC'009c) 42 07-42 ----- - �?? 6c a7,-sc^00 9 & 2- /vl-D ip nV l L Z -n67CS 0 0 leP THE VILLAGES AT ARTR/P TABLE 3 Adjacent Property Owners PIN Name 75-A-101 Wakeland Manor Land Trust 75-A-95 Glaize Development, Inc. 75-A-96 Glaize Development, Inc. 75-A-97 Steve Dubrueler . 75-A-99 Frederick County 75G-11-8-116 Ronald Santoro & Pamela Chagnon 75G-11-8-117 James Swiger & Michelle Vitela 75G-11-8-118 David T.& Tammy M. Foster 75G-11-8-120 Robert & Mary E. McDonald 75G-11-8-121 Winchester/Artrip LP 75G-11-8-122 Timothy J. Elliot Sr. & Kathleen A. Elliott 75G-11-8-123 Timothy Wingfield 75G-4-4B-60 Rodney & Suzanne R. Torp 75G-4-4B-62 John & Melissa Corder 75G-4-46-63 Patricia Gail Beardslee 75G-4-4B-64 Cynthia D. Rodriguez 75G-8-5-85 Timothey J. & Karen E. Adams 76-A-13 W.F. Artrip, Jr. 76-A-23 Jasbo, Inc. -76c- -5- -3ss,4t Note: TO:BARBARA-DATA PROCE55INC FROM:Bev - Planning Dept. Please print 6 sets of labels by THANKS!! Use 6 2 (Residential) 6 (Over 100 Ac.) 2 (Residential) 73 (Exempt) 2 (Residential) 2 (Residential) 2 (Residential) 2 (Residential) 2 (Residential) 2 (Residential) 2 (Residential) -2 (Residential) 2 (Residential) 2 (Residential) 2 (Residential) 2 (Residential) 6— (Over 100 Ac.) 5 (20-100 AC.) 361. 3b$ , 3b r 366, 3� 1 36 343,?. Z' 3 61, 360, 3 591 355 , 3.5 -7, 1. Information from SpecPrint Edition 13, 2004 2. Use Codes: 2- Single Family Residential (Suburban) 4- Commercial & Industrial 5- Agricultural / Undeveloped (100+ ac.) 6- Agricultural / Undeveloped (100+ ac.) 73- Regional / Local Government Address City SL Zip 300 Craig St. Stephen City VA 22655 P.O. Box 888 Winchester VA 22604 P.O. Box 888 Winchester VA 22604 346 Saddleback Lane Winchester VA 22602 107 N. Kent St. Winchester VA 22601 106 Canaan Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 105 Canaan Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 103 Canaan Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 109 Fair Lawn Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 11501 Huff Ct. N. Bethesda MD. 20895 105 Fair Lawn Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 103 Fair Lawn Ct. Stephens City VA 22655 102 Jade Ct, Stephens City VA 22655 P.O. Box 90010 c/o Valerie Whit Richmond VA 23225 125 Bell Haven Cr. Stephens City VA 22655 127 Bell Haven Cr. Stephens City VA 22655 129 Bell Haven Cr. Stephens City VA 22655 1726 Front Royal Pike Winchester VA 22602 P.O. Box 480 Stephens City VA 22655 Zoning RP RA RA RA RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RA RP 11/8/2004 10:30 AM P:IProject1760300071AdmnlRezoning Application Text Documenfc4RF7r)K11Kin rn o1 +3 �% '' •, �. �� Vi °r al,ywk_ :mv : t t R e; r' !v ef . •'�..'` . . i ` CAP, ell • �� f��:; 1 4}F � z�,'. �� �' �. `C- , 1. • � `�+•a. ; !- '� ,..r � ^j+=; r �' •► ' 3• 0