Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08-08 Governors Hill Mixed Use - Shawnee - Backfile (2)
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN TRACKING SHEET (Note: The application does not need to be complete to be accepted, but will not be scheduled for the PC or BOS until all items have been received.) Submission Package Comment sheets from the following agencies along with any marked copies of the plan:s,rg VDOT County Engineer ✓" Fire Marshall ✓ City of Winchester ✓ Sanitation Authority GIS Inspections Dept. ✓ Parks & Recreation �- Health Dept. Winchester Regional Airport One copy of the master development plan application. Appropriate number of plans, colored maps, etc., to cover PC & BOS meetings Submission Fee Application received O Fee Paid ($ Od 00 Preliminary M P heard by Planning Commission ACTION: 1 b Preliminary MDP heard by Board of Supervisors ACTION:,�)Q A V Letter to applicant regarding Board action (if required) Final MDP submitted with review agency, PC & BOS comments addressed Administratively approved; letter sent to applicant, copy to file and cc's Sys ID # OPEN FILE: /j/7ZZ)1r File opened 1 0 Reference Manual updated/number assigned D-base updated o List of adjoiners given to staff member for verification Location maps requested from Mapping Application Action Summary updated 0� CLOSE FILE: /043 Approval (or denial) letter mailed to applicant, copy for file, cc's Public Works and Real Estate File stamped "approved", "denied" or "withdrawn" o Reference Manual updated 0 D-base updated 3 Q Application Action Summary updated R9 m 0 CD CD cc 0 RECEIVED FROM QDD ❑ FOR ❑ FOR DATE �\, t NO. 0041 `YA., tj� `i �� .. LIB ,4LLARS $ .: -7, �5 �l1- p•y' (" j,�%�-', • • • AMT. OF CASH I ACCOUNT I ovi • r> ,J AMT. PAID `J " CHECK aa 7 ?•e— 1,�Z. C�Y�1�Q,^'�i T � {� C.�`} r _1 BALANCE DUE 41, MONEY ORDER BY Contents: I. Project Introduction II. Design and Development Standards Cohesive Design • Residential Standards Commercial / Retail Standards Suggested Building Characteristics Street Standards Public Streets Private Streets Streetscape Design Landscape, Screening and Open Space Standards • Modifications Governors Hill - Frederick County, VA Design & Development Standards 2 I. Introduction The site is intended as a mixed use residential and commercial/office center. Significant retail uses will be complemented by a variety of other commercial and office uses as well as medium density residential uses, all of which will be developed in a functionally and aesthetically unified manner. Attainment of such an integrated development program will occur through the application of uniform design guidelines and the implementation of a multi -modal transportation network, both of which • will be proffered by the Applicant. The proposed rezoning will establish a neighborhood unique to Frederick County, because of its explicit provision for a balanced mix of mutually supportive uses in an area already served by public facilities and a good road system. The presence of significant retail and employment uses within the project will catalyze a synergistic relationship between land uses that will enhance the economic vitality of the area and achieve a more sustainable form of development. The Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies the planned use of the site as a mix of business/office and transitional land uses. The mixed use commercial center concept proposed with this rezoning is consistent with this land use vision, and provides for its realization in an efficient and dynamic manner. 9 _, Governors Hill - Frederick County, VA G O V L' R H O R S HILL , Design & Development Standards 3 II. Design and Development Standards Cohesive Design Much of the success of the Governors Hill project depends on the intimate relationship between structure, parking, street and open spaces. The following topics will be coordinated with respect to the cohesive design of Governors Hill. Structure • Location on lot Relationship of primary facade to the prevailing street Setbacks- Allow intimate pedestrian scale to be developed between building and street Materials Height transitions Parking On -Street importance Traffic calming effect Proper screening of vehicles if visible from street or pedestrian area Street Network Pedestrian scale Vehicular efficiency Traffic Calming Streetscape uniformity Landscape uniformity Linkages Mixtures of Uses Mixed uses within landbays allows: Greater flexibility within each landbay Greater use possibilities Core of interest and activity to extend hours of use Governors Hill - Frederick County, VA Lot Sizes Multiple sizes encourage creative design Setback reductions to create a more human scale that focuses on the relationship between the home and the streetscape. Allowance for a variation of building setbacks to create a dynamic landscape and streetscape. Design & Development Standards 4 • i Single Family Attached — Alley Served or without Garage Total Number of Units: 422 (Maximum for all SFA housing types) Parking: 2 Spaces Per Unit garage, parallel, or off street Building Height: 35' maximum Building Use: Single Family Attached Units Lot Width: 18' Minimum Lot Size: No Minimum- as long as setbacks are met (allows narrower product mix) Front Setback: No less than 10' Side Setback: No less than 10' on ends Rear Setback: No less than 5' to garage in rear load condition 20' without garage e e a E — - ------ASS' 16'MutimumPavement i'Minimum Rear Building Setback to Easement 20' without Garage Building Depth Varies 10' Minimum Front Building Setback 4'Mmmium Sidewalk 6' Minimum Planting with Trees (Y without) Public or Private Street with on Street Parking Single Family Attached - Rear Load Garage Governors Hill - Frederick County, VA Design & Development Standards 5 • Single Family Attached — Front Load Garage Total Number of Units: Parking: Building Height: Building Use: Lot Width: Lot Size: Front Setback: Side Setback: Rear Setback: 422 (Maximum for all SFA housing types) 2 Spaces Per Unit garage, parallel on -street, or off street 35' max Single Family Attached Residential Units 20' Minimum No Minimum- as long as setbacks are met (allows narrower product mix) No less than 10' No less than 10' on ends No less than 20' Governors Hill - Frederick County, VA f Brulding Depth varies 10'Min. Side Setback on ends 10' Min. Rear Building Setback Single Family Attached - Front Load Garage Design & Development Standards 6 0 Multi -Family Total Number of Units: 128 Max. # of Units per Bldg.: 24 Parking: 2 Spaces Per Unit Surface Lot or Off Street Building Height: 55' maximum Building Use: Multi -Family Units (lease or condo) Front Setback: No less than 20' Building Separation: Building Separation no less than 20' Rear Setback: No minimum Governors Hill - Frederick County, VA No = Multi- Family surface parking flat and on -sore!) :z'aowvw 10'Aliniinum Separation bet —en Buildings 10' Alinimum Front Building Setback 4' Alinunium Sidewalk 6' Alinin u n Planting Mith Trees (3' wnhout) Design 8v Development Standards Suggested Building Characteristics The over -arching goal of building design within Governors Hill is the creation of a unique sense of place and enduring character. As such, development within Governors Hill shall be unified through the use of complementary building facades and materials as well as careful attention to the scale and placement of buildings. To achieve the desired design outcome, all new construction shall be reviewed and approved by an architectural review committee (ARC) managed by the developer. The ARC shall ensure that the following guidelines are met: • Residential Standards • Individual neighborhoods within Governors Hill shall be comprised of similar style homes. This provides a sense of identity to the individual neighborhoods. • Similar construction materials shall be used for each individual housing edition, chosen by the builder. • Single Family Attached buildings shall not exceed a height of 35'. • Multi -Family buildings shall not contain more than 24 units per building and shall not exceed a height of 55'. a r w Governors Hill - Frederick County, VA Commercial/Retail Standards • Buildings shall be constructed of similar materials and conform to a specified style. Form and style should be cohesive with the remainder of the development. • Buildings shall not exceed 60' in height Design 8s Development Standards 8 Street Design Standards A Principal goal of the street standards for Governors Hill is to shift the emphasis from merely accommodating vehicular traffic to encouraging pedestrian and bicycle movement, thus assuring a true multi -modal transportation network. The street framework shall support a wide range of land uses, and create a public infrastructure that encourages pedestrian movement, street life, and a sense of community and place. • General Standards ■ Private streets shall be developed to VDOT structural standards, except for alleys and travelways serving parking courts. ■ On -street parking is encouraged in all areas. Such parking further adds to the amount of shared parking available for lot owners thereby reducing the number of spaces required on individual lots. On street parking provides the added value of creating a buffer for pedestrians using adjoining sidewalk or trail facilities. ■ Parallel Parking requires 7' min. designated lane on side(s) of road where parking will take place. ■ Sidewalks shall be a min. of 4' wide. ■ Planting strips between the sidewalk and streets shall be a minimum width of 6' if they are to accommodate plantings. ■ A Hiker/Biker trail that is a minimum 10' in width will provide additional accommodations for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. ■ Alleys require a min. of 20' ROW and minimum pavement width of 16'. ■ The street width will vary to accommodate parallel parking ■ Curbs along parking shall be straight; curbs along medians shall be rolled. ■ Curb Extensions shall be required at the end of blocks where parallel parking is present. Curb extensions will decrease distance between blocks for pedestrians at crosswalks. Such extensions will further separate parking lanes from driving lanes, thus providing an effective traffic calming measure. Governors Hill - Frederick County, VA ■ Demarcation of crosswalks through paint striping, textured pavement or alternative materials shall be provided at major street intersections. Design speed for secondary streets shall be kept at 25 mph. _TJT_ 9 ■ Design speeds of 20 mph shall require a curb radius of 15' for intersections with secondary and private streets. Curb cuts shall be reduced as much as possible on collectors and primary streets to improve traffic safety. Design & Development Standards 9 Streetscape Design Standards The unique sense of place intended for Governors Hill will be derived largely from its streetscape, which will be defined by the intimate relationship between structure and street. The streetscape within Governors Hill will be designed pursuant to the following: Residential Standards • Streets trees shall be placed at approximately 60' on center. • Canopy trees with minimum caliper of 2.5" shall be used as street trees. This will provide protection for pedestrians from motorists. Street trees visually unify a neighborhood. They shall also serve as a traffic calming devices and add character to the neighborhood. • On -street parking is encouraged. This too can add character to the streetscape. • Materials to be used shall be diverse yet complementary to create a sense of place. • Streetscapes shall maintain a pedestrian scale, which shall be formed by reduced front yards and inviting architectural treatments. Streets shall enhance vehicular efficiency while maintaining natural topography (when appropriate) and serving as a network for pedestrians and bicyclists. Governors Hill - Frederick County, VA Commercial / Retail Standards • Street trees shall be used to create a visual connection between the structure and the street, thus integrating commercial uses with the surrounding neighborhood. • Street trees along public streets shall be placed approximately 50' on center. • Street furniture shall coordinate with the character of the surrounding buildings to enhance the character of the streetscape. Design & Development Standards 10 Landscape, Screening, and Open Space Standards The open space and screening standards for Governors Hill are intended to set a landscape standard with a broad range of street plantings, formal greens, parking lot plantings, buffer treatments and natural parks. General Landscape Design Standards VegetationlMaterials • Provide woody plants that are respectful of the surrounding scale of both • buildings and streets. • Native plant species should comprise a significant portion of all new landscape improvements. • Portions of existing vegetation, where appropriate, will be preserved and incorporated into the development. • Massing and grouping of plant material and color should be used generously at key points in the landscape to aid visibility (i.e. entry signs, directional signs, plazas, etc.). • Canopy trees shall be used in open spaces and pocket parks to naturalize and shade the area. • Ornamental trees should be used as accents to provide visual emphasis. • All evergreen shrubs (in public areas) must be winter -hardy with a min. size of 18" spread. • Evergreen trees shall be strategically used to provide winter interest, screen • objectionable views and parking, and serve as a backdrop for other plant materials. Governors Hill - Frederick County, VA Design & Development Standards 11 Openspace • A minimum of 1 S% of all commercial area and 30% of all residential area shall be maintained as openspace. • Pocket parks should be designed as secondary focal points to Open Greens located throughout. Governors Hill - Frederick County, VA Pedestrian and Vehicular Routes • Landscaped streets and trails shall be provided as a linking entity throughout the community. Trails shall connect neighborhoods to the commercial, retail areas and to businesses. These connections will become a critical part of the pedestrian movement in the community. • Street trees and canopy trees shall be used to control views and enhance the visual appearance of the street. • Trees and shrubs which produce fruits and/or nuts shall not be permitted along sidewalks. • Use quality materials that will stand up to daily use and abuse and that will age gracefully. • Provide materials that may be easily maintained over time. • All planting beds should be separated from lawn areas with concrete walks, edging or curbing. Design • All landscape designs shall be coherent throughout Governors Hill. This creates a sense of community and durability and can be greatly achieved through simple design. • Plantings shall be grouped, when appropriate, versus scattered and shall incorporate minimal species mix over numerous species. • Topography will be preserved or used, when appropriate, to provide relief to the continuum of development. The combination of topography and vegetation will provide natural areas of interest throughout the project. • Project Lighting shall be designed to prohibit obtrusive light on adjacent properties. • Parking Lot Lighting shall provide adequate illumination for security. The pole fixture shall be coordinated with the design and color chosen for pedestrian fixtures (street furniture and signage). o Residential fixture height shall not exceed 14' o Commercial fixture height shall not exceed 24' Design & Development Standards 12 Commercial/Retail Standards • For security and surveillance purposes plant material shall not exceed 36" and tree limbs shall be maintained so that the canopy and limbs start at 12' above ground level. • Lights in parking lots shall be downcast to minimize glare and the fixtures shall be properly designed to promote cohesive project design. • Shrub height should not exceed an un-manicured 36" high in focal point areas. All evergreen shrubs must be winter -hardy with a min. size of 18" spread. . • Street trees and canopy trees shall be used to control views and enhance the visual appearance of the street. They shall also be used in parking islands to break the monotony of the parking lot and provide shade for parked cars. Landscape Practices A standard planting practice shall be used. All plants shall conform to the American Standard for Nursery Stock as published by the American Association of Nurserymen. All plants shall be approved by a Landscape Architect as `hardy' for Fredrick County. Also, the vegetation must be approved, before installation, as healthy, well -developed, and disease -free by the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) of the Owners Association. • The Owners Association will ensure that lawns and plants are orderly, neat, and attractive. Watering, mowing, fertilizing, and pruning will be necessary to produce this type of appearance. Governors Hill - Frederick County, VA Design 8, Development Standards 13 A Modifications Per Section 165-72.0. of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, an applicant for R4 zoning may request modifications to provisions of the Code of Frederick County governing physical development. Such modifications may be sought to enable implementation of a design and/or land use concept beneficial to the community that would not otherwise be permitted by existing ordinances. The following modifications are requested with this rezoning application: 1. Modification to Section 165-71 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance governing the mixture of housing types required within a planned community. Current Standard: No more than 40% of residentially designated areas of a planned community may develop with any of the following housing types: duplexes, multiplexes, atrium houses, weak -link townhouses, townhouses or garden apartments or any combination of those housing types. Proposed Standard: The residentially designated areas of a mixed use employment center may develop with any combination of housing types permitted by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the approved proffer statement without limitation to the percentage or ratio of any given housing type. Governors Hill -Frederick County, VA Justification: The proposed rezoning is sought to enable development of a mixed use employment center, which is a type of planned community development that is not expressly accommodated by the Zoning Ordinance. The R4 district, however, is the only Frederick County zoning category that is suitable for the development of a mix of land uses pursuant to a single zoning category, where innovative design concepts and standards may be created and applied. However, the R4 district is oriented toward a predominantly residential development program (as implied by its formal title - Residential Planned Community) and its requirements for a mixture of housing types as stated above befits a project intended to develop with residential uses over a majority of its land area. In contrast, the land use program for a mixed use employment center emphasizes reservation of greater amounts of land for commercial and business uses, which results in less area available to locate the residential density necessary to achieve a balanced mix of land uses within the project. The ordinance requirement promotes a residential mix dominated by single family detached housing types. Such housing types are less conducive to the limited residential areas of a mixed use employment center given the greater land area required for individual lots. The development of single family attached and multi -family dwellings as the predominant housing types in Carpers Valley is necessary to complement and catalyze the business and commercial uses on the site. Moreover, the availability of such housing in a planned community setting within walking distance of employment, shopping, and commercial uses will provide a positive although presently non- existent choice for current and future County residents. Design & Development Standards 14 r Governors Hill - Frederick County, VA 2. Modification of Section 165-72.1). of the Frederick County Zoning for residential uses. The modified standard proposed with this Ordinance governing the maximum areas permitted for commercial or application will facilitate development of a mix of land uses in a industrial uses. planned community setting consistent with the intent of the R4 district, but with the notable distinction of elevating business and Current Standard: No more than 50% of the gross area of the commercial land uses to the forefront of the planned development planned community shall be used for program. commercial and industrial purposes. Proposed Standard: No more than 60% of the gross area of the planned community shall be used for . business and commercial purposes. Justification: The proposed rezoning is sought to enable development of a mixed use commercial center, which is a type of planned community not currently accommodated by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The R4 district is the only zoning category that is available to develop a mix of land uses pursuant to a single zoning category wherein innovative design standards may be applied. However, the R4 district is intended to facilitate development of a principally residential project complemented by relatively small areas of commercial and/or industrial uses. In contrast, the land uses intended to predominate within the proposed development are business and commercial uses, with residentially designated areas comprising a lesser amount of the total land area. • The mixed use commercial center concept advanced through this rezoning application requires the amount of land designated for commercial and business uses to exceed the 50% limit of the R4 district. The essential components of the proposed mixed use development program are the commercial and employment uses planned for the site, which may require significant acreage depending upon the ultimate users. However, to ensure a mix of mutually supportive land uses, a minimum amount of land needs to be reserved R� Design 8v Development Standards 15 C TY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 February 2, 2009 Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust & Associaies 117 E. Piccadilly St. Winchester, VA 22601 RE: REZONING #10-08 AND MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 408-08 FOR GOVERNORS HILL Dear Patrick - This letter serves to confirm action taken by the Frederick County Beard of Supervisors at their meeting of January 28, 2009. The above -referenced application was approved to rezone 39.7 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the R4 (Residential Planned Community) District, with proffers, and 238.3 acres from the R4 District to the R4 District to revise the proffers associated with Rezoniag ff 11-05. The proffer originally dated March 24, 2008, and last revised on January 9, 2009, that was approved as apart of this rezoning application is unique to this property and is binding regardless of ownership. Enclosed is a copy of the adopted proffer statement for your records. Furthermore, Frederick County administratively approved the above referenced master development plan on January 30, 2009. All requirements of the Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance have been addressed in the plan. Please note that a site plan is required prior to the development of 'these parcels. I am providing you with four copies of the approved final master development plan. Please ensure that these plans are distributed accordingly. The subject properties are located approximately one mile east of Interstate 81 on the south side of Millwood Pike (Route 50 E), across from Sulphur Spring Road (Route 655) and The Ravens Subdivision, in the Shawnee Magisterial District', and are identified with Property Identification Numbers 64-A-83, 64-A-83A, 64-A-84, 64- A-85, 64 -A-86 and 64-A-87. Please do not hesitate to contactthis office if you have any questions regarding the approval of this rezoning application. Sincerely, 1 G Candice E. Perkins, AICP Senior Planner CEP/bad Attachment cc: Gene Fisher., Shawnee Magisterial District Supervisor Lawrence Ambrogi and H. Paige Manuel. Shawnee Magistenai District Commissioners Jane Anderson, Real Estate Commissioner of Revenue Carpers Valley Development, LLC, 480 Jubal Early Dr.., Ste. 330, Winchester, VA 22601 Governors Hill, LLC, 480 Jubal Early rn.. Ste. 330, Winchester,VA 22601 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 6 0 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package APPLICATION MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Department of Planning and Development Use Only Date application received / ' f Complete - Date of acceptance Incomplete - Date of Return Application 4 1. Project Title: Governors Hill 2. Owner's Name: Carpers Valley Development, LLC and Governors Hill Development, LLC 480 West Jubal Early Dr, Suite 330 Winchester, VA 22601 3. Applicant: Same as above Address: Phone: 4. Design Company: Patton Harris Rust & Associates Address: 117 E. Piccadilly Street Winchester, VA 22601 Phone Number: (540) 667-2139 Contact Name: Patrick Sowers Frederick_ County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package APPLICATION cont'd MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 5. Location of Property: South and adjacent to Route 50 approximately one mile east of Interstate 81. 6. 7. 8. Total Acreage: 278.0 acres Property Information: a) Property Identification Number (PIN): b) Current Zoning: c) Present Use: d) Proposed Use: 64-A-83, 83A, 84, 85, 86, 87 R4/RA (Proposed R4) Vacant Mixed use commercial and residential e) Adjoining Property Information: See Attached f) Magisterial District: Shawnee Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan? Original Amended X I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. I also understand that the master development plan shall include all contiguous land under single or common ownership. All required material will be complete prior to the submissiph otrqy master development plan application. Signature: Date: // 7 0 ; 339 has endorsed this application. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Lemieux, the Board approved the Transportation, Community, and System Preservation (TCSP) Program Grants. WHEREAS, the Transportation Community, and System Preservation (TCSP) Program provides finding for a comprehensive initiative including planning grants, implementation grants, and research to investigate and address the relationships among transportation, community, and system preservation plans and practices and identify private sector -based initiatives to improve those relationships. A 20% match is required from Frederick County; and WHEREAS, Tevis Street Extension, Senseny Road Widening, and the Intersection of Fox Drive and Route 522 are needed improvements in Frederick County; and WHEREAS, Eastern Route 37 is a critical need for Frederick County's long range transportation system; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, desires that the Planning and Development Department submit an application for funding from the Transportation, Community, and System Preservation (TCSP) Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, hereby supports the application for the above listed projects from the Transportation, Community, and System Preservation (TCSP) Program. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye OTHER PLANNING 1TI MS: MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #10 06 OF GOVERNOR'S HILL. APPROVED Planner II Candice Perkins appeared before the Board regarding this item. She advised this was a master development plan for commercial and 550 residential units. The applicant proffered a generalized development plan as part of the rezoning application. The major roadways are to be constructed and the townhouse roadways do reflect a modification to the layout, but not the proffered generalized development plan. She concluded by saying that the Master Development Plan is consistent with the proffers and land use plan and the Board is being requested to grant staff MSautc Boo: Board of Su Exhibit 3 — 3/14/07 BOS Meeting Minutes for Governors Hill MDP Approval 340I administrative authority to approve this plan. Upon a motion by Supervisor Fisher, seconded by Supervisor Lemieux, the Board authorized staff to administratively approve Master Development Plan #10-06. Supervisor Fisher stated that he would like the applicant to request access for Inverlee Way at Route 50 to access Coverstone Drive and ultimately cul-de-sac Coverstone Drive at the intersection of Route 50/Sulphur Springs Road. He stated that the Board would try to work with the applicant to see that it occurs. Chairman Shickle asked staff how the process would work and if it would require only a modification to the master development plan. Director Lawrence responded that he would have to investigate the proffers because the proffers might have to be amended. Administrator Riley stated that if the request occurs the County would expedite the application through the process. There being no further discussion, the above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C, Shickle Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara F. Van Osten Aye BOARD LIAISON REPORTS There were no Board liaison reports. CITIZEN COMMENTS John Lamanna, Shawnee District resident and Chairman of the Frederick County School Board, stated the communication between the two boards has been open, honest, and collaborative, for the most part. The School Board has put forth an honest budget and he wanted to make sure the residents knew that the reduced state and federal funds and unfunded mandates were the reason for the additional local monies requested. He stated that the current local money is 21.6% less than last year and tonight's discussion is desperate. He advised that the School Board began with a request of $12,1 million, but the Board and Finance Committee only funded $4.3 million. He stated that list Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervlsors Regular Meeting or 03/14/07 Ah Ah 1W a M - IN w PROPOSED WAIVERS 1. Waiver of Sec The Applicant requests a waiver of Section 144-24C of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance to allow commercial lots to be subdivided on private streets. 2. Waiver of Section 144 24C2(b): Proposed Private Street network shall locate lots a maximum of 800 feet from a state maintained road, as measured from the public street along the access route. ROAD NOTES: 1. Location of private streets subject to modifications at the time of final engineering. 2. Coverstone Drive shall be constructed in accordance with Section 15 entitled 'Transportation' of the approved proffer Statement on Sheet 4. 3. The following street names have been reserved by the Frederick County Department of GIS: - Pendleton, Swanson, Tazewell, Cobell, Darden, Pollard, Montague, McKinney COMMERCIAL AREA DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS- 1 . Maximum Height - 60 feet 2. All other dimensional standards shall be in accordance with 82 (General Business) zoning district regulations. UTILITY NOTES: 1. All Utility locations including storm water ponds are conceptual in nature and are subject to change upon final engineering. 2. Sanitary sewer and water available per FCSA. 3. All utilities will be placed underground. ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURE NOTES: 1. Open Space Summary for Commercial Land Bay: 151.10 Acres - Open Space Required (15%): 24.17 Acres Minimum Net Useable Open Space (50%): 12.09 Acres - Open Space location to be finalized at time of Site Plan. 2. Open Space Summary for Residential Land Bay: 116.90 Acres Open Space Required for Residential Area (30%): 35.85 Acres Open Space shown on MOP: 35.85 Acres Net useable Open Space: 27.42 Acres aa' ACINE asrsnlI� a� fwwrrqq r,.� s e ripe PbMed on an f"M"wmt e' In XNghL b' eUarNE eUREII � r rsbwq --- -- qM-b-wry Lbe Nac'. Eiisring cicveti"o e"d'rc oenral v<g.*m,00 mfyttm io Ra,uc SU miy mny mquiteeme"i of mud aA ieow b ff with"w addirioml boa cep A Artu g Route ii W�ich RAN arodeeicr�Y butter en.ah rcrified wiW Pfemi"g 6ben time of gubdivbioo DesyR PW. TYPICAL (REDUCED DISTANCE) ROAD CATEGORY "C" ZONING DISTRICT EFFIC�NCY BUFFER BUFFER (FULL SCREEN) 16 nor ro SCA E Tram roscetE Governors Hill PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT SITE IZ2 VICINITY MAP 1' = 2000' MARCH 2O08 REVISED DECEMBER 8, 2008 SHEET INDEX 1. COVER SHEET 2. OVERALL PLAN 3. MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4. BOUNDARY SURVEY & APPROVED PROFFER STATEMENT Phasing Schedule (Per Proffer 4.1) Year 1 - 140 building permits Year 2 - 140 building permits Year 3 - 140 building permits Year 4 - 130 build.8 permits Note: Any permits not issued for a given year may be carried over to the following year, however the Applicant shall not make application for more than 200 building permits in any given year. Proiect Summary Total Gross Commercial Area: 161.1 Acres Total Residential Area: 116.90 Acres Existing Zoning: R-4 Proposed Use: Mixed Use Residential and Commercial No. of Multi -Family Housing Units: 128 No of. Single Family Attached Housing Units (SEA): 422 General Notes 1. Contour Interval shown C 5'. 2. All Public Roads to be built to VDOT Standards. 3. PIN Numbers: 64-A-83, 64-A-83A, 64-A-84, 64-A-85,64-A-86,64-A-87 Recreational Unit Requirements: Total Units: 550 Rec Units Required (1/30): 18.33 Note: Required recreation units shall be constructed or bonded in conjunction with residential development. 3,000 square foot community center, 3,500 square feet of neighborhood swimming pools, and dog park shall be completed prior to the issuance of the 281 St building permit (proffer 4.3), LEGEND ®nreuc vEwcuuR cmcvl.anon ® ralviTE vuucLua rTrruRE VEmcur_aa mcvl-anoN aow E.asE?u:Nr L+.uo awY auunuAxv PROPERTY so m ary O�C�LOCATION OF �ara RAN ciE�ars�mF.r-F. E<tsrauoarse- ® E,61'IMG WEILUtp 11AC's ='OPEA now. De mf 1111tmR DEvEL(%•4ff- Nf tsvi...r_'Lror. PROPOSEDSAN �+ S_ srALvs wrra aLYvxoLE PR01f oWATER slaw !, esans'. c srwc s.u+rrARr © s�uxrAwArex �r�y �� r1A:rAGEMEM mvTx < [ TRAFFIC sICNAL STATION ("PSI PL Owner and Applicant Owner and Applicant Carpers Valley Development, LLC Governors Hill, LLC 480 Jubal Early Drive, Suite 300 480 Jubal Early Drive, Suite 300 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540(722-9566 (540( 722-9566 John T. Conrad Date John T. Conrad Date APPROVAL BLOCK Mecca.1 Pbnraq aM Di W. ova U 9 C-rq Ae„weaao, Dare NARK T. THONAS Cert. No. 916 Patton Harris Rust & Assoclates,pc vydsCd PE p4C0`��` Engineers. Surveyors, Planners. Landscape Architects. T Church Street, S.E Le . es6urg, VA 20175 T 703.777.3616 F 703.777.3725 13415-1-0 Sheet 1 of 4 , I- - -__--lop zz - _-\ - _ = 771 .i _ _ 1 G z . 1 _ I 1I1Ir I I r�- ?-T„ `mot. I I ZMZ --- - / r u 30 / i- t / '; - ; - 3231 Iz- r,It - _ 777 ==-�: - - - _ - ;% -_ -- - -----------__ -- --------- ---------- _2 '- '' SCALE - 600' 300' 150' 75' 0' 300' 600, 900, er. i i ar ee�d r w KEY LOT OWNER ZONE USE 1 84A 712 KAKNIS, JOHN H S CHRISTOPHER BROOKS RP RES 2 84A 7 1 3 HARTLEY, DOUGLAS ALLEN RP RES J 84A 714 HA Y RTLE DOUGLAS ALLEN RP RES 4 64A 7 1 5 Y COOK. JUDY BELLE ! GO RODGERS, JUDY B RP RES 5 64A 7 1 8 JUDY ! COOK, JU BELLE GO RODGERS, JUDY B RP RES 6 64A 7 1 7 - COOK, JUDY BELLE ! GO RODGERS, JUDY 8 RP RES 7 64A 71 8 DV BELLE! COOK, JUDY GO RODGERS, JUDY B RP OS 84G 2 1 83A RAVENWING HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION RP RES 9 84A 7 1 10A LAMBERT, GEORGE G IS KEU R RP RES 10 64A 71 11A I LAMBERT, GEORGE G 3 KELSA R RP RES 11 84A 7 1 12A LAMBERT, GEORGE G 8 KELSA R RP RES 12 64A 7 1 13 FRAZIER. ROBERT A RP RES 13 64A 71 14 FRAZIER, ROBERT A RP RES 14 64A 7 1 15 LOY, DAVID W RP OS 15 84G 2152A RAVENWING HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION RP RES 16 84 A 85 RICHARD DICK RA RES 17 64 A 116 FISHER, LLOYD EST. ! GO MARY E. WASHINGTON RA RES 18 64 A 122 FISHER, LLOYD EST. / GO MARY E. WASHINGTON RA RES 19 64 A 124A POTOMAC EDISON COMPANY RA - 20 64 A 123 PERRY ENGINEERING CO 64C RA VAC 21 84 A 123A PERRY ENGINEERING CO INC RA VAC 22 64 A 124 PERRY ENGINEERING CO INC RA VAC 23 64 A 132 RUFFNER. TERRY W 6 LOTS J RA RES 24 64 A 133 LONG, RAYMOND 3 TANYA C RA RES 25 64 A 134 LONG, RAYMOND 6 TANYA C RA IND 26 64 A 81 WINCHESTER INDUSTRIAL PARK, LLC MH1 - 27 64 A 81A WINCHESTER INDUSTRIAL PARK, LLC M1 IND 28 64 A 80L IR G R, LLC M7 IND 29 64 A SOK MAIN OF WINCHESTER, LLC Mt IND 30 64 A 800 BLUE RIDGE INDUSTRIES M1 IND 31 64A SW CAMPFIELD, U.C. M1 IND 32 64 A 82 COUNTY OF FREDERICK R4 ARMORY 33 64 A 79 WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT RA AIRPORT 34 64 A 87A COUNTY OF FREDERICK R4 GOV 35 64 A 89 FREDERICKTOWNE GROUP LC GO RICHARD DIELE 62 VAC 38 64 A 898 PRINCE FREDERICKTOWNE GROUP LC GO JAMES L. MCILVAINE JR_ 62 GOV 37 154A 88 WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT RA JAIRPORT 38 164103 IKAREN BARRETT- PERRY ETALS 82 VAC 39 54A A 12 HELEN J. SEMPELES RP VAC 40 64A 71 1 JOHN H. KALENIS 6 CHRISTOPHER BROOKS RP I VAC Ltd'.= :. _:i::i 4- VDOT TYPE 1. SUBG 1 PEDESTRIAN cor —1 nrrr mun, t• >�o r - w mmx _ 1 r n-. i�m.'r'� \ 1u4e1w.n'i wm` _33= r r. g'p'rn ama i+vo aar �v ana L——` , r r. a.vr a' mv.ic rrV w mrx ' a emamc e,x`.o r..� 10'BlffJQ9 .re�aemum name riroo a.a ^ m""IDTYPICAL PUBLIC STREET 400-1000 ADT TYPICAL ALLEY TYPICAL PUBLIC STREET 1000-40 NTS 10'EASMENT-16'PAVEMENT TYPICAL PRIVATE STREET COVERSTONE DRIVE SECTION (4 LANE SECTION) '�"w NTS NTS ADT = 10,400 VDP Design Speed 40 MPH 1 REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS /24/08 JWP FIRS H O Foip Patton Harris Rust & Associates 4 jai ' Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. Governors HIII MARK W. THOMAS' 2011 Church Street SE OVERALL PLAN MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Cert. No. 916 + Leesburg, VA 20175 �y w� T 703.777.3616 N0. DESCRIPTION REVISION DATE RLVS'D REVW'0 osOAPE ARC�F 703.777.3725 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DESIGN SURVEY TEAM PHR+A DRAWN DATE TEAM MARCH 2O08 CHECKED SCALE FIRS 1' = 300' SHEET FILE NO. 2 OF 4 13415-1-0 i ✓ _ 1 - - I I -IP�Ia STASE _ - / /•Q — — \ 1 - OPOSED SiGN /- i \ ' - ! _ TFgs - HUAij , C �_ MILLW `% N c F� 10 5.r"2ER _ _ - E�N"IFNCS eL'Pr P �MILCPIOOD Pln� -- ` _ --- - „� - � r S n KgC.RE-ill _.'" - _ -- -�._ _ - - - . c. - L �, � ..-,y�� (- Uj�l1�E50) E"STIN IGNA ._.._ ._-----77 �`r —_._ - _ � � POSSIBLE OCATION �- ..:_i-i"" .. -- �T _ •- - ) ��A C 'JC�'`t ,. _rz� ..,. rc i s... C - - •---- \ ZONE - - .r cl ,.1 r, CG ZONt� --�.z N of � i - � 0A^ r E II •f -FTEGORY'C'ZONING� 1', 7 1 .,\: - \ .,.�. .� 1 1-- „•__.,,,. ,\ DISTRICTBUFFER \ 4 - • sFa - oo PROPOSED a ! i�\rA IL �' t ENTRANCE Land Bay 1 v 116.9 Acres Gress V' 4 % OPEN SPACE f v rr ;'ILY ss 1% Y 2 aPOSEO _ E"L---------r--� � c:�.t �\ � i %•� 161.1 Acres Gross ENTf2AtxCE / i A ., (COfnlnerpel) IN V. 11 ✓'__- N• ISTING WPTEFi `, �•;, •`♦l \\ A 17 — _ OPEN Land Bay - ��� P POSED Y FL'r �C SPACE _ NOINCIPE .. _ FFE R 1. _. - - , � ,. _. --- ___ .. ;-�. __-'• �� OEM r r a% _ � RJr % / sw�F - nrV - .,1 C F f D '_ FtiTRANCE PROPOSED -ENfWCE \ _ tU fRA1L �. ENTRANCE E-0kNF -� i"♦ f v i 1 - ProposedQ)nnectontcArba V I i COMMERCIAL / F� 118oanvlN0-1payf�jwl,111•1-b'. % COAtA€RCIAL - ` I —71 PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER I • 10'iRA! ARMORY SITE J' r r ' (Provided per Rezoning 1145) u (provided per Rezoning 11-05) _ _ - / EX RO'.ti .. --- y \ / �. _ --- 1 1 -'i WINCHE ER REGIONAL AIRPORT W i DO' r ' %' - - ""�'-�'r - II� Iwuu'' 200" 100!. '" 0' II!IPI II IJ, IIII 4 IIIII 6,00' 1 REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS t•�,17H 0p" P a t t a n Harris Rust & Associates p 2 REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS r°��r/oe rRs o� ��j� Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. Governors HIII Mm W. THOMAS 2011 Church Street SE MASTER PLAN MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Cert. N0. g16 + Leesburg, VA 20175 T 703.777.3616 NO. DESCRIPTION REVISION DATE REVS'D REVe'D OSC�P6 ABC�`I C F 703.777.3725 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DESIGN SURVEY TEAM PHR+A DRAWN DATE TEAM MARCH 2O08 CHECKED SCALE PRS 1- = 200' SHEET FILE NO. 3 OF 4 13415-1-0 • Ak • 5.2 NI vv}uga Mtlw N< Pmpaty shag be I. svbmaml wd'osmiry with a 1 a.3 ticmt shag cmaWt with she Exttwve DlmI, of We Airport PROFFER STAT&16\T wmpmhaarve sign plan that mttu the rtquiremrnu of the IumnB cct w she prvtag of • ressonbie avigman ens®en w _ pure Phan B'. Phae B improvemmu chill tousle of impmvarrnta as Urc 1 i. ESCAIAIOR CTAUSE G,dj me far ai 1, whit'•. d d] be wbevind in lmjmvc wit the a fr "per ad shall dd;mm u h fs_wliom of Millwood PBzdPrin. Frdmck Dtivc ad Frederick DsivoJCosm➢o D[iva Phase .7.1 m fv anal my monetary rmlribulims at RIM . the PmQ4 Sm_at REZONING. RZ p_ A4 ad RA b R4 fv fivW site or sudivuim la° for she Pm erry. P p U— ad t eas_ms, m the Aispvl and the Applicant shall muuWly egrea Tbc mm , I th, prime B aprovanmts ehaP Ise wmplctd wimdea with Phue 2 Cl,Dnv< v paid to she Frdmck Cowry Board Casmry Supervisors ("Road') PROPERTY: 278.0 Aura+/ : 6. PEDFSTRAIN TRAIL SYSTEM AND RECREATION AREAS ApPEcmt shop aside noise attmum- Geetmmt far W rvidmlial emu. wnnnudav pe Pro Fa I52. within 30 mouths of October t2, 2005, u eppBd fr by Um AppliemL Tu MV & Pmeels 6CA-83, BJ.t U. 85, U. ad 87 (the "P:opasyv') 6A The AMU-, AW do;m and build a pubc pdohim-bicycle mall 15 TRANSPORTATION: Phoe C: Phme C imp -mall Av]I Illin of impmvemmu at Shoe said brrrions mafl be in She amnau a ar. i bveb. AvY bamts wvmbuoem at fanhin the Pmffa Smazar which are paid to the Baud syaan b Virginia Olpatlnal of Trmep-r. audmds @at ]inks I5.1 The myor ma El W be Illb, ctta oa the Property mW M comtrumd ivm 6. of NQ➢wvod PrtaSWphm SpringAu=1. Phu< C after l0 monbs following a ba 12, 2005 Gall U,, adjmmd b RECORD OWNEF, Cup_ VbU y D-l[Mbb a, LLC ad Govern_ Hill reidaOW and wmmvciil man wish( We devclopmme Sad etch shall I.d: Ift'i d av the NmP. w;f rtawnable Wjumnmu IM-lamb, shW be completed wbcidmt with Pha< 3 xc IlN wit the Urbm C.Price Ids C'CPIU") ll,limd by 'c be in the Ima tal I, bIdly depictd - fe MDP. T. the n bat such pea ldl lb, Qvil mginzmng C. Drive comamoon Fer Pnff. 15.2, die Unitd Statn DM of Labor, such then u the ome covbibofiva APPLICANT: Carp_ V etley Ill,, apmm4 LLC ad Governors IHII exile roc III depiad m the MOP a fc rhme of Final Aewnivg, smb traits mW be camasd wish m liekd b the halm] a- ad s;d-A 15.2 Excluding 2W." smut fen Of.Race met which ally be devehgd . IS U The Applicam ahaB mate Sod faith efforu w obIm my offaim n8h1 of vie Paid fey shell h adjuvd by the Pem Ihl mmge a the CPI-U Elm Ihn due 30 maahs after October 12, 2005 b the m"n toady LLC nnwnrk Sidewa0. gill be-amucted - public mmecs b VDOT g amp portion o my tune Wi]iazrg leas I. the eidn teed f C.-Ir, way traded b Iaple my PmQad lF,h, trmspomrion a lb CPI_ U . she due the wambwam am PWd, abject m a cap of saedvdq ad a of fom-fm ",,ydw gall be -asW vn Dnvc, ncr Applicant stir➢ deal and conmuct Drive ss a fill) improv_m i m In she event that tla A I ma is cot mlc b obab ➢w 5Y. PQ year, mvrampomdd. PROJECT NAME: Gwvma Hill 10 1 R r,ab i o/bicychvB VWs ebW he lO ha 'male atr:eta. AB wmbi°d nghaf-m zuvon with :us:d mu4am m a minimum 90' zighro(-wry, unlvxog the n, , Countyf b am,, hl, lain do tat abtaw 0.4TE OF wide, and mW have a aphals .,..n.. mr fl follomvg phasieg uhdtde -larY fi& If Imll of way, , Ba of wasuudag the mad improvement, Y' the v AMU— Alrd]l_ provide a aaeay wvtribwon b Fsodaick Camry the Ai, SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWRJG PAGES POVALROFFERS OF PROFFERS: Math 2d, 2008 Ft:t_ Y' R_SCUE'. PRASE t: Phau 1 gall wasin of the firB fur Ill, aeni- including a gmt Waz is emivWevt m She estimated wmWdm met of IMse mad REVISION DATE: September; 2008, Ocmba 31, 20dg, Dwmba S, 2008 7 , The APPlica°r shall ton Bose a be Boa')the sum of SI22 Per dwellin6 tm-fm rail halo Miliw-1 Prte m tiv fill mtesmta - Cov_mve Drive u depimd -the b1DP Goa Palm A ro improvernau Ben wind not be;mplanaated The monetary wrWiburim s�W .rmde with the m®cuiil am frahold Ihv mgg_ She °Q-sire milt for &e and rearm p-Irl, Poyeble upon the Issuance ofa building Poim B. Said madwvy zha be amo-nad b baze vpbell had bIP. mmt a idarifid. -fb 15.11. The wd_ignd osm_ hereby pmfl bu the use ad development If die pamil for each dwelling-1 Pnar b Ub avee of a certificate of mrb,aby f- mY mbjmt pmPerry ('Prapary), u dl_bd above, mall be . wnfaaame with the commmcis] bWdm8 for She Pwpmy md/r, M,, b I— 15.13 Avy forme 4.portWao ably.. wacb may Im rquamd fr the fMwag wdrrionz, wh.m stall ss P-Ilb W other pmff_ Ibis may bane been made 7.2 Following Final R..oning, the muter HOA w be cratd in uwrdmce ofa b.Jdmg Pamir fen my ran Ud tmiv, adding motel Pmpary• ,haR urily< Cade 820 "Anvil" DQ the LT.E. Tnv Gaeaom prior h_m. m die car dim be above r<(eemd rczoainB u cot grated ss app➢d fr h. db xha➢ wvnibutc a l rdly, - - be(0rt III 1' of <a:h Year, the homes, bntd m land Bay 1. Phssc t improv®mu mW Maisel 7' EdiN- err mY cammemiel use other than ofice use by the Applicant C'AMti.r), than M flm mW be deemd mdd1Ubsva ad mW ba xurn of SIN pa c°mWcted re admti l mot and SIN pa IOW squat ovru..m of W vacsury impmv®mu, i°:l°div8 signvl®oav vW ed void Furthm rhea gaff_ m e¢afmgam W- fill rtmvivg a.<be Pmpety "Pill feet of wmtrocrd cammavial (mr including my lad in public mej, so I'ha wmrmrd by VDOT, a ante a f wa Y i°t d°° x 11 n TTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATION NND PRESERVATION mf R.nviv8" defined u then rmomng that u m efita av the dvy W. which the Boardof Cowry Sopavimn th-"BOvd') the fire and reserve mW ay M idag fill response sa l m the Sheexisting hrSIDP. 1r of mv.len WaY and Millwod Pikem 16.1 The Ecam b be Pbsse I APP Fred -&Clary ( manethe rtx®ve_ P:oparH Sum <"ntlibbld shall be ra. and m,a 9 by She msaa HO.A, and fc Boad wY sequin m aanmOng o[ ouch paymenu mow"on feNmp aha0 mndu:I a cause umdsuW a As gical bvemgifiov of th,m Y. prior m be approval of be The headin f the colon sn (mth 6Waw have ban far wvvaimw °> ° pIg I, ad mall not -ahol a the memmg err be u m °PO° Y mrY. at such time sod such wndioom az h ma detttmiae vece PHASE 2: Phase 2 shall cags;m v[ coa v two Ile Goal sate m mbdivinm plan the Property, ad t fild fibc dm eo Tfat rt(r I la" fen fWe Herz -The® Qertd by®abW interpresAa o Y Dmviaim ° pro pIw®mu Pm Said monetary c-tnbm;m shall cease v smb time faz the 5rt and reae B 0 P tr = m Cav_w°e Dave Goa Pow B m Point C u ict t m the d`P mb W bl Plisse D by Ql by our rhermf u ma be Pm a �s� Y danmawtd w be byfePhaalmd. be pmvidd m the time of devebpmmr Ifthis porti- of We Propery djxmt b a comply a m longer a volwtm g first rlFa.Iy AE3P. Said rodwaY iropmv®enu mW be campind poor In � axary Y die fa ff.'d zpbr; id 'eret. ll "A_enr - a Pm requirement, wl_ o -Ir - t"antereeud h.dv shaft;nettle.dI iu mevaiogW herein. Thearm',,l, , m..I Imp , f. l mp_von err should the Cmmry doll a fin fr tern. pta Io provide fire ad resuetwice. a of a ccrtifi<mc or owuPmeY fr aY me It. wood cma¢c We r exsxed 400,000 agate feet of ad forme awes, aaagva ad mccnsoa in btacn. When led in thew profferz. She Id_ comm_ial bolding arm 'bgaa Developmat Play" afr the auOd "Mato Devebpmmt Plam 8. SCHOpIS. P , & 2W8mva Hi➢" prtpartd by Pawn Huns Run & Asz-imer, (She "hIDP') datd Maul 2008 naiad 1)acmber 8, 2gOB. 81 The Applicant mz➢ w°rsgme b the Bond We am of $1,714 PHA$E 3: mm 3 shall .aria O[coasGmdoo of be remeiwvg tw lave aaoav of Covernane Dove Gorr Point B m Poim C u ')wailing oohs for danoamt purpose, Payable upon the uzuavice If a dWic m the S(E)P. Said roadwy hnprov_rnu mill be 1. LAND IRE building permit fr each d-S air. m_nletd Pri, I° w e of a c 11 au of oaupmcy Ian 1.1 The all b< hdei8od a eszmGm mtacamead mud -use Irmt-Mill a l w ach Wem Iv P Ymmr I.md Bay. b moos] 9 PARKS & OPEN SPADE: my u< this wWd cause the Pzopaty a exced 800,000 squmv fun of co®ecul buildiv8 am avfowmw wit She MDP, ad az ie apa;fidty set I. in Shoe 91 The Appticem zhW comnbvte I. the BOW She pm o[Sl4J Pa dwelling F1 A.SE 4. The AMU- shall design Cavamom Drive Eatmdcd u a pal£ cob,- b miwr emdi➢noom u vcwavaty upon flnW vat f- rtacanonil putpm, paymle upon the Iona of v binding aginttra8 imldi°g but our Imord to mt_ection Wmamu, permit for bah d-Im'tat fen -lam sesti- fiom Prurc FreieoQ a 12ebcad Amte Si from PolarD, ss d<IXI Eorerraad 5n 12 NI dbvblbmlld, inciding men l a d shall 6e aso_dlyd, in 10. LBR4RIF5 lmr II, k. Of Bop fen when She ad dt, I,t of Re fibd 522E been f VDOT, the of waY Gr Wier se of ga_I ."Sham. wit the "p.;go and Ssmdada fen I' 10.1 The Applimvl gall co a be Goad She sum of 379 Pa dweth Cn -by Cov_wm Dnvc his been agWrd by VDOI a Fsda;d bl qIl rlda ball ad irm"rparmd Cavevors ,d bat a fibr Prepared by h t ,'Yale vpm We ivuame If • bvildiog Pamir Sly] Cowry b die evert fv the Wgvaem fa d Rave 522 d p ad IbPrb ha®by tefuaxe (Wc'TXagi.°d Devebpmmt SIa°dvdi'7. Ga each dw<Ilivg sit. Ibr ah 41 g ar, -yfi his rat been detamind or if Ne right of wvy fr Covvawne 1.3 Reddmdai rise Nu0. pmhib;md a sM veer ids dfid a lard Bry ] t I. ADMIIJISTRAT10N BVPDBJG'. Dd- Ell- is oar secured uY Iwe 3B, MI. fen the AMfiraot gW cot be tespomrble dim be dmp of Cov.ma- - She MDP. Funhamort, [sod BaY 2 ahaB be rutricsd m those um pemivd in the Gmaal ice M-2) xeimg disain a gx6fid m I I The Applicant Shall w bole m the Baal der men of $79 pa dweUJag Urine Exrmdd. Thc Applicaa shall ➢vtha pay b the Co-ry fe Ral,kk Cowry C°de A,mi,%.§165-82B(1). unit mm, ismuxe of a building Mail fr emh dwWfg Im b be bad SLOoo far vats'era.rd msW-fill car oac°n 16- Drive •s,l� I < Exrepl . moth id laea, arm of r aAatid develapaas a the to- conmrmn- of a gmavl govwmmmd adminima6- bW king mwda the foul <nttmuctim of Coverstone Extadd. bur if the mmEbm aMv<have m1 beer urn by J. 30,2M 8 Property mail be Baird m Lad B¢Y 1 and abut be devdvpd in 12. CREATION OF HOMEOWTJERS' AND PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOC3AT30N. Wm Wee funds may be - fr ofa pr.I- f the vi.-Iy wdlaut. BWa Ubg Fallf(Im Raidedal Plawd C."") _ III, F ima gmwx, Idr I, VILlbly housing type see fM m III, FrtdmWt Cowy Cade Article Vq 5g 7 rh[ovgh 4165-T2, as 12.1 Tbc Mmawvas amciatioo m M aril in rrurduue herewith mW be PlIdlffirtrpety W d . den rtimil vcxu w fc Prapary. $um f[da mml be paid v die I®e of bWid'me pall: iavavice fen • r3 ry\ �a'q -rerermcd I. Amck VL 9165-58, sGough §165fi6. UWI types thr until emt<anpormwmslY wit the firm final Sim or m1h ivivov Plan apbmam fr the P-.,y rah offvpemdnetl rnidmtiW muu. ,q1S a. \•P ��\� a� Y\4}/��\T' Y 99' 9".yA•' g� �-,nf. • and lot leyow within re ld Gad Bl r mry mmprix mY o(fe perm;ttd lit types v xn (oral . She Illap ad Devebpm_ 122 Tbb A v,.. ablU lam- a Mama PP Property Owns' Asrociarioo 15 .l Nornibasadin8 a ofa f dime She Appticml gall y prone o Metal. couturier Covvabvc Dnvc a a fW fen -lira orlon Gan Millwod Pike / ..nn .0- Slmdads and avlharisd fr the Ra diamn, ad rhea I4oQ_ 1.5 Rrmhmall dcacbpman - be Pmpaty AW mr ac.d 150 dwtlling (b.mmPa'Tluta POA") for Gavanoa Hill. in it, adrety, the d.11, unong other thong; have re nsrbility fur usuring cormliacc with Io Prinu Frdmck Dave pn« m November 1, MI5. I La The App4evm she➢ deipa ad covsvwd Tamwcll Rod u mow m die �M' \zw q G7g $ gJTt'IG• E A 4{3.� uWta, with a mu of MufB typo pamitld . Um R4 diatrice MWti- family uvihl, . dcfixd by fe Design ad Developmem Ssadarts, shall deign Smdelim ad ztmdadz, m;mge nq bbbb u, Imdwape owvcn' lame, and similes mellea AvY hoa<owv_' m pl,,,tyat MDP u a mivva_ wo Ile medwaY wither v vvimk .hilt nehl of way wf • maximum right of way width of 60' a provide awsss w N2•'4CKA'E Y • •f. i9S a '\• Gh excud SOY. o(fe brat "umber of dweiGvg uau devWopat m fc 14-si pmj cot. No rteidadal latrines mW b<cloee Ihm 2000 f t fiom She afcd for wmmerciil m llbdauil ma loth mdl AaB ass«izuom u< Y net ere a subsn of She Mona PoA rvrdbaiil caw within Lad Bay i and oth. waammJ area or tad Bay 2. Said SoriwaY il mt shall M rogvird lb, TazmW Road ght of \sfsp �}iA '(Q I i Tiyis �2` 7T➢ •E 4t1.eB caoafi existing WfNusc Airport rwwaY. Propertyry 12.3 Thc -id portion ofthe devclopmat l W M mxd,abject w our or - ' OA7 Shot between Cavnuone Dnvc ad She Murry eotraace. The n8hr of way ed mad .hilt ShW de.exse for fc ranaivsvg pommy of Tazew JI }}s s 16 Comrmtril devdapmat - III sbW cot need a mIW balding ➢ of 1.785 M equve 6a f m c"mplmoe of Wdinaml cast&mudrn The mul permind mmmercul building➢wr or• hour (.l (Isammfter mail be W ;bl f f ally a and ape f the community - - 1 W wow 1dW8 Road. S d r z y AO tdm phaas az coded fm fine eubdivw Plea. Fmfaa 'EWc of accupmcY for my vlfl o rt h vuy' pmvidd tbat the Applicmrm pl dmthe w.aR..g gp mY sr. f , b< embliand in Nance la-,h rim reidenlial daeWvB fv u J b i ewll Road. ucludivg model WW s Lp$43 61 is impr-t melyzia 'M1;"s• admnfie Shr ma mtS f uip f 'a1 dcelopmm cat of 45.815 Avmvge D 'ly T'ps (ADT) and mi Baum frsaid inWa'Ia u providd by the Apra a Ill f.I d d <d f C y or oferz and no_wv g_mr Gtrlio<s riot dd;wld m public rase fr ach aura ab1_ m rhevjmudreaoq and Mao, abW b iaad w l h the acca w Laud Bay I Goa M;Ilwmd Pike n pm id via Covam-e Drive ad T-11 Rod. O +_ t+ 1�YI ia3� �1 LUG �„ i rL eia'•pT ucepublem She Cwnry ad VDOT mail be providd cum of. rapovvbmrie, dune, cad pow_ u vie be for NOA IS i The ma➢ pay b fc Cowry She o of for d. � O \ g 2. CONSTRUCTION OFUNIFIED DEYEI.01` EYf cuzromary for men usmimom a ss meY tcquird emh hLe'°' li.t. f I (U m, 500 ognalino- of She int_ec[im of Millwmd P;ks ([R Roble 50) ad �' 0' i o \ i 6 .A 2.1 Tbc Prop.ry shill ht devebpd a one aivele and uvifid deveiopmem in accorUll wit eppliuble arl and rcguleriov for She R,Ibl lid m addgm a ouch mho dunce and rep Ilhh.. may be ssv8od, m HOA shW have riNe w ad biliry for U)IIIwvumo opa VizhrYR°d(Roum 728). Such tram mW be path within axry (60)days of tM asswe< ilthe fill rI =br buJditag pamrt in 1a Bay 1. 0. the ad fv Shia dgval by cot been wvavted VDOT by Iwc 30, t s i SafBW'09'E rp N bd by z"ring distritt, tM MDP a appmrd by ih Board• art this PmHa d I. l a- ua+ rid ofawisc i d I m public osS (i;) c-rmon buR veu 71,d III; (u) mau She I, 2018, aid monnry wnmbuom m ileo be and fin ofa S. ry Pmjau wibin die vkiniry °( the Raptly War bane a IWaval lam b We ;S dy • Qar Z i Sul _ ouuide of m;den[iel pnvSm raving rmdmu ervb_ of Such U.. (iv) wosmov wfid wartc tspOW ad er_ erg pmgrma, imluthvg embsde pick-W of rtbue by a Pmme for the P.,.y. a, �, ISIV\ 6a� p / die COmry ShS150,000 fr MAACEL 3. ACCESSTOARORYP 3.1 The AMU— mill do;gn and wnmmt a Iwo lane midway. wmppapehal mfue wliccom mf. ad omlb (v) aepiliry rldma- of -y ewer+, pawn, . road buff. eras, all of which buRa _'ha be bused wihBm mamba] b be rld b the HOA if ll all pry a aa e atm of 156 The AppBcama zimsEza . of fc buac<tim of C-11, Dine ad Pnnw Frdmck pave. Smh furls shW be Paid wif;n axry (tA) days ofrtcieviog wrinm i I \ \ Q\Jk\\6' � di +..i public idatl . then N[OP u PadlmmI Drive, Goa Arbor Court b the m c Of the Asmmy Si. ('iM 64-A.82) m .;aide with fe 'land-Iles,-daGalaofa bta,aofawix grated bShe HOA by appropoue m. brall stout Goa fe Camay ad VDOT all. ac1Tp of Fhae 2 Cower.., Dave Ivq�mvmmu pa Roll. 152 um IMsae Shighwvy r eq g j a ' S 1 f the ArmoAt b dae but T-Id Rd u am Five ommmud djarnr ry wr b Padtm dRicld -die N1DP, Sh123 System m fc "a, dill fit 'Sad hm cot beer .noosed by VDOT by J)0, 2018, aid maedvY bladuries may aim be Idim ofa 96 ¢ a S /+ ma➢ be mlimd a W to n AppGcml sh W tvd Padlman Dave b color wit Tazewell Rod. The HOA w a then Pbosaessa vttesry powers feu den in projmu uifin the vicinity of She R°P-Y this Ww a smovil vnm b the a �a\O� . q /.3 a PHASING OF RESIDENTIAL DEVEIAPh ENT act ad aevim all wAcient suou w perform IN, rc ponlrbihdes mai®Id m A hcr<svde ad mda the Dam lvetim be Property 44 a Y Z V \ s{� r ,dd creCvg mch All.imom b ad,hLM upon my wav<ymce of a res;dermal .1 Goa She builds -T b v Mme Purr th_ mall IS Across a M➢jwod Puc mall be emiud a Cov_wve Dave ss mown 4.1 Building perwu fr Trod BaY 1 °( She Prapery shall be wad oc She toga wing 'home utdule: . be •fee paid to the HOA b m maoua aryel m 1. ten She dim on the MDP wish She ncepn- of We Mivve driveway cmrmdy a r,,ag TM did-A-B]B. TD< Y ace rem ir Applicant Ae11 close aid dnvewa 0 - Yew f (Movtha 13-2): Ia0 building penu Ycu3(M-dr, i3-26): I60 bl.Z eunas movtNy -id-till duce IpPliuble m nc� wit wvvcyd. 12 6 A,,commercial portion of She dodo mat (with the ve<PEan of my y P vidd w TM fss-193B via the internal m0dmt;al men network a dep;etd on She NQ]P AdditIm ly. She Applicant mill close She exisrW 4 for She N LIl ssa•le'�7•E_Reg.•g' g / P-i. Yet 3 (Mmrha boild'mg pewiu property owmb, m leased by She UWtd SUIu, or FMmek Cowry) gW h ark mbjed b -e or more Pmpary aweri avucintim(s) crvsw via previoulY cad ucaz to golf worse concurrent w;f Phuetimpmv®musspmnGd bYP*oEr. t52 �.z bi GM1 3749), 130 Yard mho J7d8: IJO bWdin (Mo ) gpermiu The move idmtifid scM1edWe is akin from the Dan of Foal @crainaAa "POA" ). Such PDA(,) mall be rnp"nvble fr She aw.zhip, emote a"d rtpav of all waam amaa including my .taervuion �casvtthu t5.g All Wbdi nghtaf-ways ahaQ be ddicved :o Fred Ih Camay a part of She approval cao_dstm[IY wit appliubb Ynginia 4S !^_ Na5•lrYa7Y Lea /R4It)1•gi ���f.•f.. phavng R Ilag (DFA). Ary taJUE erg pemd;u m1 iaud within my Si"' y a` very be estWlbad in ¢ceordmce haewrth cot ddiwld m She abfsiziov lwcoa, law •*, NJ4.4y'= 4 / eQ{e• ley be camel ova W the (olbwbg yam, blw ,I, She Applima shall mI fa dim 200 bWlfvB Cowy a ahem, ad sbrmwiler mvu8emerd fmah'. (oiler ammo" (opa Space) -hip) ens da icud a public me fr each au avbjttt 15.9 All mesa ad ads mall be d�8md in w+vNmce wit She i0.00• t make appEwdun mom roidmfial pvmiu m my w feu jutisdicrioq and mall be provided such oba r�poa;Bon, public VISmIl Dcpub"at of Trmrymtuim opa;fmui-a, aubjw a miew N5"I 33'N N r eA4Y N{e�P• b�l'{ g ®vim Yur Cammemim ad e�layment lea may be wvmucrd a mY rwq doom, and pow_ a vie cvvamvy fr sued aaamimom a u vuY M rrywd fr ach POA hvaim and approval by Fzdaiek County and VDOT. {7wgr42 113.10 1u�TP �Ilk li 7 m ddinon b am other Burin cad rtganaihiBaa u may be aligned, a All pnvxm m.0 vd maG ens➢ be camauctd c acordmce wit fc haarymmw 43 la�rovemrnu imlud;n8 a 1,000 square (mr <onunmury cma3j00 be POA nballrick b ad reap°" airy [. Ii) W common open Rac pubic me mm�on buJf:r ar cot o ell dimvf ddira went ..&fi Dryuwat of maenad swmmg, adIIIpart She maybe mcdiGd by the Cotrmy, and mW be awd and mrataimd tianwitrmWmtial1 land theefor ahW be dediusd upon mmplmo" of She 41. ofcommeciil lou; (ill) rcaiamibiliry fr She pery<NWeau .i ll or uwridan snvd by ach mouuide N�T/'4 wpmvemmu b fc hommwona uaocarion TM I- diermf mall of my meet pairwwr, a road buff. vim, all of wh;ebtOBd's huRacul. be loaned within eannmu w M td b Ore PDA H a3J.ez' be dryi.d - fi� .-Arion pima w ach reaidm1,1 developlwrr. There recrea4oraal amminn m W lave b meet She requvument of 1 shill �J° Elxr:d w;fia commercial a ofa bm, err Pa 6' m llb w greed to 15.I t the deign of bfr and impl°vaa m, mW be in BeaeN wdomuncc wit Ibe I ➢d'Yiovam l HAI Rad fmpmvmae" Shttn 1-1 az P m anti u pa Id dwe➢inge Thee impavemmta mW be c"mPkted She PDA by appropriate instrument. pmpard by Pam" R.far cad Asaociuo, dad Y M d JD. Id fat a(at6w u khmay bpdv pnmwlit feiaswvice affe 2glmrendmealbWd;rill permit 13 WATER&SEWER: N. my lid Idli0,000 N. apt I IfC my dme uuGzag neat b She ea mug mmpl.d pottron of Covetsmve ` ARCHREC[URE, SIGNAGE, AND LA.NDSCAPINIG I J.1 Tve gall 1, repo ale far mmmIil She Ro)aary to public Rive, afFal .'"name. mW be cmOacld w ll �e Phazea a adr•^• warm and sewer. i[ map bnLa b< rta)wmblc fr wtmrvcnne ell dryictd an the afarmauoved plays u (allows: 5.1 All buildingi m the Property aheB covsacted umg w, faciline required fr acM1 conmwm v She Psaperty boraday. NI water A impmvemmra fall f< w?rZI' u t .. amld[avvil aryls The l flmm t ahaB e_bd 1 our a come Architec Review Botha through She required .s oil and arna inGWrvcrua shell b< corvmmld f vwrdmce wit rh< Phazc A. Phase easier of at Pikdlavmn amedia o...pi O ad ah Property Owva Aaweiatiam a M aeud b atone and admwna a rtgW[mmu of f<Frcdaick Cowry SaloomAufonty. 7t m h Ph. ad m.0 M campletd w ncidat with Phew I Cov_rove m -fiII development plan u gaeil comb 'ry wit She Desi®a and Developmat shad I, Ia. Ehl'QiONMEhT chive.°much-pa RoQa 152, 14.1 Smawatl1 maag'vxl 4 i Ben Mang®cot m V.9i (BMP) fs She Pmpary mW be providd in a.oName wit tM Vugwa Slorvrwar. Note: Mmagcmat Rcgul¢[iona, Pirn Fd. 19 J, t]upta 2, Tahle 2-T. 14.2 The AppB:mt provide "I mw i rin all ale lm_taa, a w.e-nta, The Boundary Information shown on this page is for informational purposes only. cadiuom and reavictiom cur ay hmvaweti m Ptalsary "woos smiuiova of She djvmcy ofWe W'rmMt.Regimal Airport. Hop c Patton Harris Rust & Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. Governors Hill oa > ` BOUNDARY SURVEY & APPROVED MARK W. TH01fAS Cert. No. 916 F 'may qua 208 Church Street SE I�_A Leesburg, VA 20175 T 703.777.3615 PROFFER STATEMENT MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN No. DESCRIPTION DATE "" D NEvWO opE REVISION ARCR F 703.777.3725 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DESIGN SURVEY TEAM PHR+A DRAWN DATE TEAM MARCH 2O08 CHECKED SCALE PRS 1" = 400' SHEET FILE NO. 4 of 4 13415-1-0 U.S. ROUTE 50 - CUSTER AVE - PRINCE FREDERICK DR. COVERSTONE DR. - COSTELLO DR. - PRINCE FREDERICK DR. U.S. ROUTE 50 - INVERLEE WAY - SITE DRIVEWAY/COVERSTONE DRIVE \ \ n U.S. ROUTE 50 - SULPHUR SPRING ROAD OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS O PHASE A GRAPH/CSCALE O PHASE B Jcn so o Jaa 2W rµ�• 1 hch — JAB ft. PHASE C `j Z W O N N Z IN 3 N n L� S z Z O z >� N k' U U U z O 1. O Z U EMI r ^ = • . Patton Harris Rust & Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 117 East Piccadilly Street PH R+ 1 Winchester, Virginia 22601 T 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 To: Organization/Company: From: Date: Project Name/Subject: PHR+A Project file Number: K4 Candice Perkins, AICP Frederick County Planning Patrick Sowers November 7, 2008 Governors Hill RZ/MDP Application 13415-1-8 Memorandum Please find attached the signed MDP application, as requested, for the Governors Hill Rezoning and Master Development Plan application package. Also, please find attached a revised proffer comparison/justification which compares the approved 10/12/05 proffer statement and the proposed 10/31 /08 proposed proffer statement. I have also attached the three comment response letters that were provided to Planning Staff and VDOT earlier this week. I would request that these documents be made part of the agenda packet provided to the Planning Commissioners for their review prior to the public hearing. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (540) 667-2139. PRS I L NOV 7 2008 Patton Harri' ' ust & Associates 0 PHR1� CORPORATE: Chantilly VIRGINIA OFFICES: Chantilly Charlottesville Fredericksburg Harrisonburg Leesburg Newport News Norfolk Winchester Woodbridge LABORATORIES: Chantilly Fredericksburg MARYLAND OFFICES: Baltimore Columbia Frederick Germantown Hollywood Hunt Valley Williamsport PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE: Allentown Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 3 November 2008 Mr. John A. Bishop, AICP Deputy Director- Transportation Frederick County Planning Department 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: County Transportation Comment on the Rezoning Application for Governors Hill Dear John: The following is in response to review comments per your letter dated October 29, 2008. We have attached revised application materials including revised Proffer Statement and Master Development Plan both revised October 31, 2008 as well as the Governors Hill. Road Improvements Plan revised October 30, 2008. We have also enclosed our response to VDOT comments received on October 27, 2008. The responses to your comments are as follows: T 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 117 East Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 1. This modification- continues to promote a change that does not recognize the Eastern Road Plan portion of the Comprehensive Plan, while the currently approved rezoning does recognize the Eastern Road Plan. The existing proffers on the property allow for the Coverstone Drive connection to Route 50 at Sulphur Springs and also allow for right-of-way for Inverlee Way, whereas this new application changes that scenario in spite of the addition of acreage that would have allowed your client to be part of establishing the planned road network. a. In recognition of this disparity, staff would recommend that at minimum, your client consider planning the property in such a way that the County and VDOT could potentially realize the adopted road plan in the future. Removing the connection to Route 50 at Suphur Springs Road will provide a safer transportation network. The plan to provide a cul-de-sac in place of the Su phur Springs connection is also in keeping with the direction provided to the Applicant by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors during the March 14, 2007 Board Meeting when the BOS granted approval of the Master Development Plan. 9 • 2. The proposed road system proffers construction of a four lane section that . is over 1/a mile shorter than what is currently proffered. This is in addition to the fact that the proposed road system eliminates the need to blast through a significant topographical challenge to gain access to the Route 50 and Sulphur Springs road intersection. On top of that, the commitment o the signal at Route 50 is less at Inverlee Way than it was at Sulphur Springs due to the participation of other proffers at that location. However, it is not apparent to staff that these savings are being used to help mitigate the additional impact that will be placed on Route 50 by this change. The additional changes that are being done to Route 50 appear to be fairly minor P"R+A by comparison. Your assumption that on -sate roadway construction has decreased assumes that Coverstone Drive is the only roadway being built to serve the Property internally as was the case with the 2005 rezoning application. Under the proposed plan, Coverstone would loop through the commercial land bay with Tazewell Road providing access to residential land bays, the armory site, a small area of commercial uses, and the connector roadway to Arbor Court. In fact the length of proposed on site roads is greater with the revised plan than the current MDP. We are not sure if the comparison of infrastrcacture costs is an appropriate litmus test for determining if a land plan is in the best interest of the County. If that were the case it would be necessary to include all the costs that the Applicant has endeared in order to provide the elements that were needed to achieve the Board of Saapervisor's goal of a safe road network., We also consider the improvements proposed for Route 50, Prince Frederick Drive, Custer Drive, and Su pher Springs Road to be substantial in that they mirror the suggested improvements proposed by the TIA in order to adequately serve the site and surrounding uses. Lastly, it is important to note that the Applicant, at the airging of the County, purchased the property necessary to make the Inverlee connection possible. Irlbile this area is part of the commercial land bay, the majority of it cannot be used for commercial uses dine to site constraints and the fact that it is bisected by' Coverstone Drive. When comparing the transportation proffers of the 2005 rezoning with the current proposal, there are actually increased costs to the Applicant. 3. Regarding Proffer 1.6, there does not seem to be a number in the TIA that corresponds to the trip generation number listed therein. Please clarify. We have revised the proffer to reference 0,359 as depicted by the TM dated August 14, 2008. 4. Regarding proffer 6.1, bicycle and pedestrian trails, particularly along - roadways, should be built to VDOT standards unless and until such time as Frederick County adopts a higher standard. As suggested, we have revised the proffer statement to state that the pedestrian -bicycle trail will be built to TVDOT standards. S,A 5. It was my understanding early in the process that the primary purpose of this rezoning application was the issue I discussed in Comment 1; however, proffer 15.3 is proposing to extend the implementation of the roadway by 3.5 years. The final completion date has been moved to 2015 in recognition of current market trends. More importantly, until such time that Route 522 is relocated and connection with Coverstone made possible or until Governors Hill develops (triggering road construction by proffer), there is little need for Coverstone Drive to satisfy any latent demands in the PP 1 existing traffic network. IH6. Regarding proffer 15.2, the time deadline proposed for the proffered design of Coverstone extended was not present in the current proffers, and it does not appear to me that it would be in the Countys best interest to endorse one now. Please modify. We added this note to the Proffer Statement to avoid a scenario in which the Applicant maintains a perpetual obligation which could never be fulled. As such, we feel the language is appropriate and provides ample time to determine the alignment of relocated Route 522. 7. Regarding proffer 15.5, since three years have passed since the rezoning was originally approved, it maybe appropriate to adjust this figure for inflation. Proffer 17.1 provides an escalator clause for any monetary contribution to ensure that any proffered monetary amounts are in keeping with inflation. The escalator clause states that any monetary contribution notpaid to the County within 30 months of October 12, 2005 (approval date of RZ 11-05) would have to be adjusted per the Consumer Pace Index. This will ensure that the value of the original proffer has not deflated with the proposed proffer modifications. 8. Regarding proffer 15.6, the $150,000 that was proffered in 2005 toward the signalization of the intersection of Prince Frederick and Costello was likely enough at that time to install a signal. Now, that is less likely to be the case. In order to assure the full value of that proffered improvement, it may be more appropriate to proffer the signalization or cash equivalent. As referenced in my response to Comment 7 above, this monetary contribution would be subject to ad ustment for inflation per the Consumer Price Index. Nevertheless, the 'Applicant has revised Proffer 15.6 to provide a monetary contribution in the amount of $175, 000 for this signal. 9 9. Regarding proffer 15.12, the proffer basically states that if the applicant cannot obtain right-of-way for proffered improvements, the improvements will not be done. I would recommend that you consider additional language that protects the County in terms of the value of that proffer should that eventuality arise. Proffer 15.12 states that the Applicant will make good faith efforts to obtain any needed off -site right of ways and would not be responsible for the construction of off -site road improvements only if the County and/or State do not obtain the right-of-way. In response to your comment, we have revised Proffer 15.12 to state that should the implementation of PAproposed off -site transportation improvements not be feasible due to an ultimate lack of H right-of-way, the Applicant will provide a monetary contribution to the County that is equivalent to the estimated cost of those road improvements that could not be implemented. The monetary contribution would coincide with the commercial square footage threshold that triggers the required off -site road improvement. 10. Regarding proffer 15.13, I'm not quite sure what this proffer is trying to accomplish. It can have no impact on VDOT requirements, but seems to be targeting County policy that is not yet adopted. Even if said County policy were already adopted, this development would not be in danger of triggering that policy by virtue of the existing TIA. Further, this proffer in direct conflict with proffer 1.6. We have revised this proffer to state that any future traffic analyses will use Code 820 `Retail" per the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual 7te Edition for any retail use other than general office uses. This will ensure that fixture traffic studies are consistent with the study prepared as part of the proposed rezoning application. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, PATTON HARRIS RUST & ASSOCIATES Patrick R. Sowers PRS/kF cc: Carpers Valley Development LLC 9 Patton Harris Rust & Associates 0 Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 3 November 2008 Mr. GregoryT. Hoffman Virginia Department of Transportation 2275 Northwestern Pike Winchester, Virginia 22603 RE: Governors Hill — Response to VDOT's Comments dated 10/27/08 Dear Greg: PThe following is in response to the VDOT review comments received October 27, 2008 for Hthe Governors I-M Rezoning and Master Development Plan application. REGIONAL PLANNING CORPORATE: Chantilly Comment 1 VIRGINThe planned proffer modification that will remove a previously -agreed -to connection to Chantilly OFFICES: Sulphur Springs Rd (Rt. 655) is inconsistent with the Countyrs Eastern Road Plan, updated Chantilly Charlottesville as recently as August 2007. As depicted, both the connection to Rt. 655 and Inverlee Way Fredericksburg thru the development are planned Major Collectors. The approval of this rezoning request Harrisonburg as presented would arguably eliminate the County's ability to see the connection to Rt. 655 Leesburg move forward in the foreseeable future. Newport News PHR+AResponse: Norfolk The current Eastern Road Plan for Frederick County was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in Winchester Woodbridge November 2006 (See attached Exhibit 1) and was included as part of the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan update approved in August 2007. One of the revisions made to the Eastern LABORATORIES: Road Plan as part of the November 2006 revision was the addition of Coverstone Drive and its connection Chantilly with Suphur Springs Road to depict the transportation plan approved with the original Govnernors Hill Fredericksburg re7,aning application (Careers Talley; RZ 11-05). We believe, if not for Governors Hill, the Eastern MARYLAND OFFICES: Road Plan would still reflect the improvements planned prior to the 2006 revision. The Suphur Springs Baltimore Road connection was proposed in 2005 as part of RZ 11-05 as the Applicant did not own the Properly Columbia necessary to make a connection to Route 50 at Inverlee Way. We believe that connecting Coverstone Drive Frederick at Inverlee Way will result in a much safer design than adding trips at Suphur Springs Road. Germantown Hollywood Comment 2 Hunt Valley Additionally, it is important to note that a Six Year Improvement Plan project northwest of Williamsport Rt. 50 along Rt. 655 is currently designed to provide typical section (lane arrangement) that PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE: would be inconsistent with the amended proffer/rezoning currently being considered with Allentown this application. It maybe warranted for the County to re-evaluate the scope of the project should the connection be removed. T 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 PHR+A Response: 117 East Piccadilly StreePrior to the approval of RZ 11-05, we understand that the Frederick County Eastern Road Plan depicted Suite 200 Suphur Springs Road as an improved major collector (See attached Exhibit 2). Therefore, Suphur Winchester, VA Springs Road was intended to be a major collector roadway before the Coverstone Drive connection was 22601 conceived. As such, the Six Year Road Improvement Plan may reflect an earlier commitment to improve that intersection and provide safer access for Suphur Springs Road. We believe the planned improvements would still serve this function. Comment 3 As part of the TIA that was prepared for this request, three scenarios have been presented (at different stages of development). The fast with one connection which is made at Inverlee via Coverstone Drive. The second, a single connection made opposite Rt. 655; and the third, a combination of connections at Rt. 655 and Inverlee Wayvia Coverstone Drive. From a regional planning perspective, VDOT's opinion is that Scenario 3 is the preferred option for the following reasons: Consistency with the 2007 adopted Comprehensive Plan Connection opposite Rt. 655 offers enhanced access from the eastern part of the County Pto the planned future realignment of Rt. 522 and destination development west of the I- H81 area. Connection (as approximated in the TIA) would divert a minimum of 30%+ of the planned development traffic (and background traffic) away from Rt. 50 as it approaches a land use setting that is increasingly more residential in nature. Allowing a single point of access for a large scale retail planned development opposite Inverlee could arguably be disruptive to neighboring residential uses. Connection opposite Inverlee offers direct access to planned development north of Rt. 50. As can be construed in the TIA, a connection opposite Rt. 655 could very well satisfy an existing significant latent demand for the connection. From an access management perspective, the Route 50 Corridor is identified as a Principal Arterial which requires certain access goals be recognized during the development process. The distance between Inverlee and Rt. 655 is nearly %2-mile, which is reasonably consistent with the recently adopted VDOT Access Management Regulations. It is important to understand that the connection to Inverlee Way via Coverstone Drive was never an `either/or' option as evidenced in the 10/12/2005 rezoning and related approved proffers which state: PHR+A Response: As shown by the TIA through a comparison of Scenario I and Scenario 3, providing both connections to Route 50 (Inverlee and Suphur Springs Road) does not provide for increased Levels of Service (LOS) at subject intersections within the network. To further support this fact, please see the table below which depicts the overall LOS for the subject intersections for Scenario 1 and Scenario 3 for the 2025 Build -out conditions when assuming the suggested road improvements: Intersection Overall LOS AM Peak Hour M Peak Hour [Sat Peak Hour] Scenario 1 Scenario 3 Rt 50/Prince Frederick Dr/Custer Ave B(D)[C] C(D)[C] Rt 50/Coverstone Dr/Inverlee Way B [C] B C [D] Rt 50/Sulphur Springs Rd/Tazewell Dr Coverstone B(C)EC] B(C)[C] Rt 50/Victo Rd A A [A] A A [A] Prince Frederick Dr/Costello Dr A[B] A[B] Rt 522/Costello Dr B(C)[DI B(G)[D] As shown, the network will function as well, or better, using Scenario rather than the additional Route 50 connection at Suphur Springs Road modeled under Scenario 3. • Additionally, the 2005 re.Zoning proffer package allowed for the ultimate connection to Route 50 at Inverlee Way, assuming that connection would be constructed by others. During approval of the subsequent Master Development Plan, the Applicant was asked by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to consider a shift of the project entrance to the Inverlee Wray location with a cull -de -sac in place of the Suphur Springs Road Connection. (Foryour reference, please see Exhibit C — meeting minutes from the March 94, 2007 Frederick County Board of Supervisors Meeting regarding the approval of the existing Governors Hill Master Development Plan). Comment 4 The future connection to Inverlee Way has been contemplated for some time so as to supplement access to the proposed development at Rt. 655 and Rt. 50. What is now being considered is the elimination of the Rt. 655 connection, at the same time that the applicant HP+A is requesting the addition of hundreds of thousands of additional square feet of retail space. PHR+A Response: , As stated previously, the Coverstone Drive extension to Suphur Springs Road was only contemplated as a result of the original Governors Hill re.Zoning request. At that time, if the Applicant had been able to provide the connection at Inverlee allay as opposed to Suphur Springs Road then the Applicant would have proposed that plan. We have always believed that the Inverlee connection provides better future access to Senseny Road, and with good sight distance and standard approaches, is the safer of the two intersections. Connnent5 While the subject TIA has demonstrated that significant large scale improvements to Inverlee Way at Coverstone Drive can result in an overall LOS of C, it is critical -that the County understand that 6 out of 11 of the movements at this intersection fail/under- perform at build -out (LOS D, E and F). PHR+A Response: The VDOT required software package (Synchro) utili.Zed to optimizel ynchronize signal ystems does so according to vehicle progression, delay and queue along the main line of a corridor. The performance of an optimi.Zed corridor is best judged by evaluating the `Time -Space" diagram associated with the ystem. Optimising the level of service for minor street movements is not the function of the program. The Phase 2 `Scenario 9 " 2025 Build -out analyses provided in the Governor's Hill TIA included the optimi.Zationl ynchroni.Zation of three (3) trafc signals along the Route 50 corridor.• Route 50lPrince Frederick Drivel Custer Ave, Route 5011nverke Wlayl Coverstone Drive and Route 50l Su phur Springs Road. The analyses included in the TIA were based upon the optimal synchronisation of the Route 50 corridor as described in the aforementioned paragraph. Furthermore, since all overall levels of service were shown to maintain acceptable levels of service "C" or better, it did not seem appropriate to make ad ustments to the optimi.Zed condition. This is consistent with previous submissions relating to other similar projects in the Staunton, District However, had we decided to manually adjust the network in an eort to optimi.Ze levels of service for minor movements, we would have presented improved results. For instance, at the intersection of Route 50/Inverlee Wlayl Coverstone Drive, referenced in the comment above, we can show all movements, except the SB left (LOS `E'), operating with LOS ranging from `A" to `D" (with overall intersection LOS "C'). Note: The VDOT comment above states that the September 2, 2008 submission included analyses showing movements with LOS `F" at the intersection of Route 50llnverlee Wlayl Coverstone Drive. No movements at this intersection are shown to maintain LOS `F" PROFFERS Comment 1 We disagree with Section 15.6 of the current proffer as it relates to the monetary contribution for *the sigrialization of Costello grid Prince Frederick Drive. 'At current VDOT costs, the offered amount of $150,000 would cover only75% of the cost of a signal. PHR+A Response: The Applicant has increased the monetary contribution for the signali,-ation of Costello and Prince Frederick Drive to $175, 000. 00. (See attached Proffer Statement dated 10129108) PT A Comment 2 H1-�11 We disagree with the terms of Section 15.2: Phase 4 of the proposed proffers with establishes a deadline of June 30, 2018 for the County or VDOT to secure right-of-way for the extension of Coverstone Drive Extended. This terminology was not included in prior agreements, and we feel that a deadline should not be established now. PHR+A Response: This note was added to the Proffer Statement to avoid a scenario in which the Applicant maintains a perpetual obligation which could never be fulfilled. As such, we feel the language is appropriate and provides ample time to determine the alignment of relocated Route 522. Comment 3 Revised Section 3.1 to read as follows: The applicant shall design and construct a two lane public roadway from Arbor Court to Tazewell/Coverstone Drive. PHR+A Response: We have revised the Proffer Statement to provide for the connection of Ta.Zewell Drive to Arbor Court concurrent with the construction of Ta.Zewell Dave. In the interim, the Arbor Court connector roadway has been built utilising a cul-de-sac in order to provide immediate access to the Armory. Comment 4 ' Similar to VDOT comments at the time of the 10/2005 application, we are concerned about proffer language included in Section 15.12 which states "The applicant shall make good faith efforts to obtain any off -site ROW needed to complete any proffered off -site transportation improvements. In the event that the Applicant is not able to obtain the ROW and, further, the County and/or State of Virginia do not obtain the necessary ROW, the Applicant shall not be responsible for constructing those improvements where sufficient ROW is not available.". We would suggest that those specific off -site improvements where ROW may be problematic for the Applicant be identified and reviewed prior to the approval of the current rezoning application. PHR+A Response: The areas where additional right of way may be required to provide transportation improvements are depicted on Sheet 1 of 2 of theproffered road improvements plan entitled "Governors Hill Road Improvements. " Comment 5 We disagree with Section 15.13 of the proposed proffer which states that the TIA that has been provided for this application be valid for a period of 6 years from the date of final rezoning. Given that no specific tenants have been identified that will utilize a new public road (Coverstone) from Prince Frederick to Rt. 50, the evolving nature of the neighboring - parcels, and historic regional growth patterns, we do not support this proffered condition. PHR+A Response: We have revised proffer 15.13 to state that any future transportation analYses ouId utilise Code 820 `Retail"per the I T E T Generation Manual 711 Edition or any retail uses other than general office. This will ensure that all future tralc studies are consistent with the study prepared as part of the proposed PRA application. H TIA— TECHNICAL OBSERVATIONS Comment 1 Please use separate figures for site generated and pass -by trips in the future. PHR+A Response: Noted. Comment 2 For 2025 Build -Out scenarios 1, 2, and 3 with Imp the intersections have an acceptable intersection overall LOS, but many movements operate at LOS E and some movements operate at LOS F. As an example, please refer to the following sub -bullets: A) The approach to Rt. 50 from Inverlee Way currently enjoys a LOS of B, and is projected to maintain a LOS C during the 2025 background conditions. That said, the proposed development would create a new signalized intersection at Inverlee and Rt. 50 resulting in a LOS D for this approach. B) At the Prince Frederick Dr. and Rt. 50 intersection during year 2025 Saturday peak -hour background (no -build), the LOS at the intersection is B, with all individual movements operating at acceptable/good LOS (A,B,C). Also, the roadway between Rt. 50 and Costello Drive yields 250+ vehicles in the peak hour. By contrast, at build out the LOS for the intersection drops to LOS D with 6 out of 8 movements failing (D,E,F), with a peak hour volume of 1,850+ along the roadway from Rt. 50 to Costello Drive. This with no planned improvements to Prince Frederick Drive other than turn lanes at intersections. PHR+A Response 2A: Currently, the approach to Route 50 from Inverlee Way is limited to a right out movement only and therefore cannot be compared to future conditions. In accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, the TIA depicts Inverlee Way under future conditions as a `full movement" intersection. Without the si,g 1l ation improvement proposed by Governor's Hill, the aforementioned approach would operate at LOS T'; not "C" (as described in the Comment), during future conditions. 0 0 PHR+A Response 2B: Upon a subsequent evaluation of this intersection, it appears that there would be a high likelihood that a significantportion of the vehicles currently turning left along eastbound Route 50 onto CusterAvenue would reroute to the new signali.Zed intersection of Route 50llnverlee Wayl Coverstone Drive. This change im d improve the LOS for this movement from `F" to "C" while not negatively impacting the intersection of Route 50/Inverlee Wlayl Coverstone Drive. Additionally, if we had decided to manually ad ust the network in an effort to optimize levels of service for minor movements, we would have presented results for the intersection of Route 501Prince Frederick Drivel Custer Avenue that included all movements operating with LOS ranging from `A" to `V " PHR ,�_ /� Comment 2 1 \1 1 For 2025 Build -Out we disagree with the spacing of the proposed driveway entrances and signalized intersections along Coverstone Drive. The arterial LOS from Tazewell Drive to Rt. 50 is LOS D for NB, and LOS E for SB during the 2025 Build -out Saturday conditions as an example. When considering the volumes and traffic operations depicted in the TIA, we feel that the following additional improvements are necessary at the intersection of Coverstone and Tazewell: • EB Dual lefts • SB Dual lefts PHR+A Response: The arterial LOS described above appears to be predicated upon the assumption that Coverstone Drive would operate as a two-lane facility. Although the TIA did represent two -lanes as the minimum requirement, the proposed Governors Hill proffers commit the Applicant to providing a 4-lane divided section under 2025 build -out conditions. Furthermore, according to HCS Multilane analyses, Coverstone Drive, as a 4-lane divided roadway, would maintain LOS of "C" or better (NB and SB) during 2025 build -out conditions. The lane geometry depicted in the TIA for the intersection of Coverstone Drivel Tazewell Drive results in overall LOS of `B " (with no movement worse than `D') while readily accommodating all anticipated future storage requirements. Therefore, the inclusion of dual EB and SB turn -lanes would be superfluous. I hope that these responses help clarify/address any issues VDOT has with the proposed rezoning and master development plan for Governors Hill. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (540) 667-2139. Sincerely, PATTON HARRIS RUST & ASSOCIATES Patrick Sowers Enclosure cc: Carpers Valley Development LLC ^ Patton Harri•ust & Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. • 3 November 2008 Ms. Candice E. Perkins, AICP Senior Planner Frederick County Planning Department 107 N. Kent Street Winchester; Virginia 22601 RE: Proposed Rezoning and Master Development Plan for the Governors Hill Project PHl `1 L Dear Candice: 'Me following is in response to review comments per your letter dated October 29, CORPORATE: 2008, For your reference, I have attached revised application materials including Chantilly Proffer Statement and Master Development Plan both dated October 31, 2008 as VIRGINIA OFFICES: well as the proffered Governors Hill Transportation Improvements Plan dated Chantilly October 30, 2008. Our responses to comments are as follows: Charlottesville Fredericksburg Rezoning Comments Harrisonburg Leesburg Newport News 1. TIA — Proposed Uses. The TIA states that the site will be used for a Norfolk mixture of office and retail uses (900,000sf retaiV385,000sf office); however, Winchester these uses are not proffered and, therefore, any use allowed in the B2 Woodbridge District could develop on the site. A proffer to limit the use of the site to LABORATORIES: 900,000sf of retail and 385,000sf of office would be appropriate. Chantilly Fredericksburg Proffer 1.6 limits the total square footage of the development to a total of 1,285,000 square feet as modeled by the TIA. Additionally, Proffer 1.6 limits the commercial area MARYLAND OFFICES: Baltimore of the Properly to a total trip generation of 49,351 ADT as depicted by the TIA unless Columbia additional transportation mitigation is provided by the Applicant that is approved by the Frederick County and VDOT. This ensures that the land use does not exceed the trafficprojections Germantown modeled by the TIA thus eliminating the need to proffer 900,000sf retail and 385,000sf Hollywood office specifically. Hunt Valley Williamsport 2. Impact on Community Facilities. As you are aware, the development PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE: Impact model for the County has been revised since the figures were Allentown calculated for this project. With this new rezoning package, the residential portion of the property should follow the new impacts. Since the residential T 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 development is not phased in to recognize commercial development, the 117 East Piccadilly Street entire impact for each residential unit should be addressed and mitigated. If Site 200 the non-residential phase of the project does not materialize and the project Winchester, VA is built solely as a 550 residential unit development, the per unit capital 22601 facilities fiscal impact is projected to be $16,965 for townhouses and $8,975 per multi -family unit. ' The proposed monetary proffer remains unchanged from the October 12, 2005 approved proffer statement. We would like to also note that the reduced per unit monetary contribution included in the approved 2005 proffer statement did not include a commercial offset, but rather gave credit for the 10 acre tract dedicated with the 2005 re.Zoning for the Amory. As a further note, no credit was taken for the 10 acre parcel that was proffered to the County for the Public Safety Building As the Applicant is not requesting any additional residential units from the 550 dwelling units that were approved in 2005, we feel that it is appropriate and reasonable to maintain the per unit monetary proffer approved with the 2005 re.Zoning. PuRA3. Proffer 1.1. The, last portion of this proffer should be removed. All 1 1 entrance alignment should mirror the MDP and modifications will not be permitted without a revised MDP. As stated in our letter dated September 2, 2008, we feel that requiring a revised MDP for even only a small shift in a road or entrance alignment would seem to be excessive. Proffer 1.1 is attempting to provide flexibility that will allow for a final design that can accommodate any site constraints but still be in harmony with the intent of the proposed MDP. Asyou know, it is difficult to fix intersections and road alignment in advance of final design. Minor changes to accommodate site constraints would seem to be appropriate. 4. Proffer 1.6. Clarify that the ADT number used in proffer 1.6 is the same used in the TIA. We have revised the proffer to reference 49,351 as depicted by the TIA dated August 14, 2008. 5. Proffer 3.1. Proffer 3.1 should be revised to clarify that "the applicant shall design and build as well as bond for completion of construction not later than the construction of an Armory structure on Tax Map Parcel 64-A 82, a minimum two lane roadway from Arbor Court to the entrance to the Armory Site". This proffer should also be expanded to ensure the completion of the road to Tazewell Road. The original proffers also stated that the Armory site would be provided access to Route 50 via Coverstone Drive; it is unclear why the proffers have been modified to eliminate the main access route to the armory and provide an access point through an industrial park instead. Wle have revised the Proffer Statement to provide for the connection of Tazewell Drive to Arbor Court concurrent with the construction of Tazewell Drive. In the interim, the Arbor Court connector roadway, identified on the MDP as Pendleton Road, has been built utili.Zing a cul-de-sac in order to provide immediate access to the Armory. Once Tazewell Road and Covers/one Drive are constructed, the Armory will be provided with two access points which we feel is an improvement from the 2005 re.Zoning application. 6. Proffer 4.1. As this rezoning application does not tie the residential permits to the commercial development, there is the potential for the residential portion of the development to be built without the commercial, thereby creating impact to the County. Consideration should be given tying the residential permits to the commercial development or providing a monetary offset. The monetary proffers for residential units match the 2005 approved proffer statement Pwhich employed no commercial offsets, but only the value of the Armory site, to determine H the monetary offset. Binding residential permits to commercial development will detrimentally impact the Applicant's ability to meet future market demands, which is the only handing source for the sizeable infrastructure requirements on the pr ject, thus we cannot make this change, nor do we feel it is necessary. 7. Proffer 4.3. The monetary value on the recreational unit needs to be removed from the proffer. Recreational values are subject to change and when developed, the most current monetary value needs to be used. The proffer should also be revised to remove the statement about the recreational amenities being "bonded for completion as soon as practicable". The recreational amenities should be bonded when the residential portion of the project is subdivided. As you have requested, we have revised the Proffer Statement and MDP to remove the ,$25,000 recreation unit value and removed the clause that the recreational amenities will be "bonded for completion as soon as practicable. " 8. Proffer 7.2. Indicate why the fire and rescue proffer has been revised to remove the rate increase provided in the original rezoning. Your response comment stated that it was removed to prevent the increase from placing an unfair burden on the residents and HOA. Please clarify what has changed since Rezoning # 11-05 was approved that this proffer was determined to be a burden. Similar to the circumstance in your request for changes from the 2005 approval in Comment 7 above, there are some items in the approved Proffer Statement that could unfairly impact the development. The annual increase of $5.00 per calendaryear beyond the $100 base amount per unit may appear to be a nominal fee, but over time would become a burdensome amount on each homeowner as their HOA dues would rise in perpetuity to provide that donation. The payment will be made annually until the service ceases operation as a volunteer operation or the County adopts a fee for service plan. Please remember that this is a voluntary contribution ' that is the first of its kind in Frederick County and as the proffer is currently worded, at full build out the Property will provide ayearly contribution to the fire and rescue service of $183,500.00. 9. Proffer 12.2. Per your response letter, it is understood that there will be a "Master" HOA and that the residential and commercial will be subsets of this HOA. It is still unclear why the residential development would have the potential to be broken up into multiple HONs; the residential should be covered under the same HOA that would be a subset of the Master. Proffer Section 12 provides for a single Master POA to govern the entire Governors Hill Development. There is the possibiliy for the residential area to be controlled by two sub - associations, one for the townhomes and one for the condominiums. PHRA 10. Proffer 15.2. The proffer should be revised so that the 200,000sf of office uses are not developed until the Phase B improvements (Millwood Pike/Prince Frederick Drive and Prince Frederick Drive/Costello) indicated in proffer 15.11 Phase B have been completed. The Applicant has completed a foitr lane divided collector road, which serves a single user, the Frederick County Public Safety Building. Approximately 500 ADT will be generated by the 200,000sf of office uses which would have limited impact on the existing transportation network. This proffer will provide an opportunity that is in the best interest of the Applicant and the County while creating little impact on Prince Frederick Drive, Costello Drive, or Millwood Pike. 11. Proffer 15.2 - Phase 1. The phase 1 improvements should be completed (not to include just base asphalt) prior to the occupancy of any commercial or residential structure. It appears that phase 2 and phase 3 should be combined to construct all four lanes of Coverstone Drive from B to C. The County typically allows ocapancy in advance of final asphalt to allow as much construction to be completed and construction traffic to cease prior to placement of the final asphalt layer. We believe this will provide for a better product for P DOT acceptance . Phase 2 and 3 assures that the Coverstone Drive Connection from Route 50 to Prince Frederick Drive is made in a timely fashion on a phased schedule. Regardless of the amount of development that occurs on the Property, the Applicant is responsible for completing the full four lane connection by June 1, 2015. 12. Proffer 15.3. The original proffers stated that Coverstone Drive would be completed from Millwood Pike to Prince Frederick Drive by June 1, 2012. The revised proffers have pushed this deadline back to 2015. As previously stated, the timeline for the completion of this roadway should not be pushed back simplybecause the applicant is revising the proffers. The final completion date has been moved to 2015 in recognition of current market trends. More importantly, until such time that Route 522 is relocated and connection with Coverstone made possible or until Governors Hill develops (triggering road construction by proffer), there is little need for Coverstone Drive to satisfy any demands in the existing traffic network. 13. Proffer 15.7. This proffer states that the only access to this development shall be via Coverstone Drive except for parcel 64-A 85. The MDP appears to provide this parcel with access to Coverstone Drive once the residential streets are developed. The proffer should be revised to remove the residential driveway once the internal streets are constructed. As suggested, Proffer 15.7 has been revised to require that the existing driveway connection to Route 50 from parcel 64 A-83B be closed once the Applicant has provided access via the internal residential street network. PHRA 14. Proffer 15.11. This proffer refers to a document that is not part of this rezoning. These referenced sheets need to be made part of the proffered MDP. This is a proffered document as an attachment to the Proffer Statement in the same manner that the Design Guidelines are apart of the Proffer Statement rather than the MDP. 15. Proffer 15.13. Proffer 15.13 conflicts with 1.6. We have revised proffer 15.13 to state that any future transportation analyses would utili.Ze Code 820 `Retail"per the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual 7f�' Edition for any retail uses other than general office. This will ensure that all future traffic studies are consistent with the study prepared as part of this application. 16. Proffer 17.1. As thirty months have already passed since this rezoning was approved, it would be appropriate to update the fiscal impact contributions reflective of the Development Impact Model, and continue to apply the escalator clause in the future. The proposed proffer would apply the escalator clause to the date rpecif c to the original rezoning approval in 2005. Regarding the current Development Impact Model, please see response to Comment 2. • 0 Mastn-PezelaAmewPla)v Comments 17. Residential Layout. The revised layout for the residential area now creates an area of units that are completely separated from the remaining units. These units must access Coverstone Drive through the commercial area. The residential layout needs to be reevaluated to ensure that it is internally connected. The revised layout includes a small land bay that will access Coverstone Drive at the first entrance South of Millwood Pike. This modified layout decreases environmental impacts PT by eliminating a stream and wetlands crossing for an access road To ensure that these H units are integrated into the residential land bay, the Applicant has provided a trail connection as shown on the MDP. 18. Zoning District Buffer. A Category B zoning district buffer needs to be provided between the newly acquired area intended to be rezoned to R4 for commercial and the existing R4 designated for residential. The MDP has been revised to provide a Category B Zoning district buffer between the commercial and residential areas of the project. 19. Road Notes. On the coversheet under road notes, note 2 needs to be 'removed. The streets need to be constructed consistent with the MDP. If the road layout needs to be changed, the MDP will need to be modified. Please refer to response to Comment 3 above. 20. Recreational Unit Requirement. As stated previously, remove the monetary unit price for the recreational units. Only the total number of units and the type should be provided on the plan, not the cost. This MDP will not be accepted until this unit price has been removed. As stated in our response to Comment 7, we have removed the monetary value for recreation units from both the Proffer Statement and MDP. Other 21. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency comments from the following agencies: Virginia Department of Transportation and the local Fire and Rescue Company. Please find attached Virginia Department of Transportation comments dated October 27, 2008. With regards to the local Fire and Rescue Company, we have contacted the Millwood Station Fire and Rescue Company to obtain comments. l would note that the application package includes a comment from the Frederick County Fire Marshal and that comments from the local Fire and Rescue Company are ypically not required to process the rezoning application. 22. Special Limited Power of Attorney. Provide a power of attorney for the property owners. Acknowledged. 23. Fees. Based on the fees adopted by the Board of Supervisors on April 23, 2008, the rezoning fee for this application includes a $10,000.00 base fee plus $100.00 per acre for the first 150 acres and $50 for each acre over 150, and a $50.00 public hearing sign fee. The Master Development Plan fee for /� this application includes a $3,000.00 base plus $100.00 per acre for the first PT TR \ 150 acres and $50 for each acre over 150. Acknowledged. I hope that these response aid in your review of the application. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, PATTON HARRIS RUST & ASSOCIATES Patrick R. Sowers NEI Enclosure cc: Carpers Valley Development LLC � r Patton Horris•Rust & Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. September 2, 2008 Ms. Candice E. Perkins, AICP Senior Planner Frederick County Planning Department 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Governors Hill Rezoning Application - Response to Comments P�� n Dear Candice: Hl `l i The following is in response to review comments per your letter dated April 28, 2008. Please find attached all revised application materials for the Governors Hill rezoning application including Proffer Statement dated September 2, 2008 and Master CORPORATE: Development Plan dated August 29, 2008. Chantilly VIRGINIA OFFICES: Rezoning Co17 mellts Chantilly 1. Route-FOEist CorridorLand Use Plan. The site is within the limits of'the Route Charlottesville Fredericksburg 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan and the Airport Support Area. The plan shows a Harrisonburg portion of this property with a business/office designation. The proposed R4 Zoning with Leesburg commercial uses isgenerally consistent with this plan as it relates to this area. Newport News Norfolk We agree with this analysis of the land use envisioned by the Comprehensive Winchester Plan. Woodbridge 2 Rezo>ing 4pplcation - Proposed Uses. The retioning application calls for LABORATORIES: Chantilly 540,000jj'of office, 360,000sf of retail and 550 residential units. While the number of Fredericksburg residential units has been proffered, the 900,000sf of' commercial space has not been proffered. Also, the TA was modeled on 540,000s 'of retail and 360,000 f of o> ice. MARYLAND OFFICES: Baltimore Unless a specific use and square footage is proffered, the County will assume the maximum Columbia possible development (retail) as per the Countys application package, combined with the Frederick maximum possible floor space. At the maximum possible use, there is the potential for Germantown 3,385,718.5 f of retail uses. A proffer to limit the square footage of this development to no Hollywood more than what the TIA was based on would be appropriate. Hunt Valley Williamsport The UA has been revised to include the 550 residential units as well as a total PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE: of 1,285,000 square feet of commercial area including 900,000 square feet of Allentown shopping center and 385,000 square feet of office uses. The revised proffer statement provides for a maximum of 1,285,000 square feet of commercial T 540.667.2139 area unless additional traffic studies are completed. F 540.665.0493 1 17 East Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester, VAQ SEP 22601 LWD • 0 3. Inpact,4&a1ys,& The impact analysis states that the site will be used for a mixture of office and retail uses (540,000f officel360,000 f retail); however, these uses are not proffered and, therefore, any use allowed in the B2 District could develop on the site. The impact analysis and TIA have been revised to reflect the development scenario outlined in the response to Comment 2 above. While the applicant has not proffered specific uses, the uses modeled within the TIA are an accurate reflection of the intended development scenario for the Property. 4 Impact on CommunityFacilties. Asyou are aware, the development impact model for the County has been revised since the figures were calculated for this project. IYlith this ��� new rezoning package, the residential portion of the properly should follow the new impacts. Since the residential development is not phased in to recogni.Ze commercial development, the entire impact for each residential unit should be addressed and mitigated. If the non- residential phase of the project does not materiali.Ze and the priocl is built solely as a 550 residential unit development, the per unit capital facilities fiscal impact is projected to be 16,396 for townhouses and 8,975 per multi family unit. The proposed monetary proffer remains unchanged from the October 12, 2005 approved proffer statement. We world like to also note that the reduced per unit monetary proffer included in the approved proffer statement did not include a commercial offset, but rather gave a credit for the 10 acre tract dedicated with the 2005 rezoning for the Armory. As the Applicant is not requesting any additional units form the 550 dwelling units that were approved in 2005, we feel that it is appropriate to maintain the per unit monetary proffer approved during the 2005 rezoning. S. Palicel6¢A-83B, Parcel 64 A-83B (Richard and Donna Dick) should be included in the revised rezoning package, as this property was party to the original R4 application and approved proffers. The parcel was subdivided subsequent to the October 12, 2005 rezoning approval in order to convey TM 64-A 83B to Richard and Donna Dick. As the Applicant no longer owns this Property they do not have the legal right to include this parcel in the rezoning application. The Proffer Statement has been revised to accommodate the existing access point on Millwood Pike for TM 64-A 83. 6, Revised Proffers. The proffers provided for this application are significantly different than the previously approved proffers. A redlined copy of the proffers should be provided that shows the proffers with deletions and additions for clarification. Please find attached a proffer comparison which includes both the approved October 12, 2005 Proffer Statement and the newly proposed Proffer Statement as well as a brief justification for changes that have been made. 0 • 7. Proffer 1.1. The last portion of this proffer should be removed All entrance alignment should mirror the MDP and modifications will not be permitted without a revised MDP. Also, the development should be in substantial conformance with the MDP not relative conformance. The Proffer Statement has been revised to reflect that the final design shall be in "general conformance" with the MDP subject to minor modifications upon final engineering. We feel that minor adjustments to the MDP at the time of final engineering should be permitted as administrative changes so long as the changes are in keeping with the intent of the MDP. For example, if an entrance shifts 100 feet to better accommodate site constraints but still meets PHR+A all applicable ordinances, we feel that processing a revised MDP for a legislative action is in excess of what should be required using a common sense approach. 8. Proffer 12.. The original re.Zoning had a proffered `Design and Development Standards" manual which is no longer referenced in revised proffer 1.2. This manual referenced the housing types and street designs and architectural standards, and should be updated and included with this submission. Failure to include the manual would exclude certain housing types previously requested as well as other necessa y modifications. Also, the development should be in substantial conformance with the MDP, not relative conformance. We have revised the Proffer Statement and application package to include the Design and Development Standards. This document includes both modified housing types and proposed modifications to the R4 District regarding permitted housing types and maximum permitted commercial areas. Regarding substantial vs. relative conformance with the MDP, please see response to same issue in Comment 7 above. 9 Pro,�rer1.3. The intent of Proffer 1.3 is unclear as it seems to state the same requirements as proffers 1.4 and 1.5. Also, proffer 1.3 conflicts with proffer 1.4 as proffer 1.4 states that only B2 uses are permitted and proffer 1.3 references g 165-83, which is the B3 Zoning District. Proffer 1.3 has beenrevised to state that commercial development on the Property shall be limited to B2 (General Business) uses. Proffer 1.4 is specific to residential but not commercial uses in the revised Proffer Statement 10. Profferl.S, While this proffer is the same as proffer 1.6 from the original re.Zoning, since the Design and Development Standards Manuel has been removed from the rezoning there should be no modifications to the housing types. I modifications to the Zoning Ordinance requirements are still being requested, the manual needs to be updated and proffered with this re.Zoning. The design manual is also referenced in proffer 1.5.1. A list of modification needs to be provided so that they may be acted on, including the modifications on the MDP is not acceptable. We have revised the Proffer Statement and application to include the Design and Development Standards as a separate proffered document per your request. 0 11. Proffer 3.1. Proffer 3.1 should be revised to clarify that "the applicant shall design and build as well as bond for completion of construction not later than the construction of an Armory structure on Tax Map Parcel 64 A-82, a minimum two lane roadway from Arbor Court to the entrance to the Armory Site' : This proffer should also be expanded to ensure the completion of the road to Tazewell Road. Proof of the ability to build a road through parcel 64 A-80J should be addressed. The original proffers also stated that the Armory site would be provided access to Route 50 via Coverstone Drive; why has the revised proffer eliminated the main access route to the armog that was provided as part of the original proffer? The Proffer Statement has been revised to clarify that the road from Arbor PH Court to the Armory will be constructed coincident with completion of the Armory. This roadway will accommodate access to the Armory. As the Property develops, the Armory will also have access to Route 50 via Tazewell Road and Coverstone Drive. 12 Proff r 41, The note in proffer 4.1 that states "the above identified phasing schedule is taken from the Date of .Final Rezoning (DFR) " should be removed. This element has remained in the proffer as it specifies the trigger for determining start date of the phasing schedule. Without this note, it would be unclear as to when the trigger for phased building permits is set. B. Pro,fer 41. As this rezoning application does not tie the residential permits to the commercial development, residential construction will be an impact to the County. Consideration should be given to limiting the number of residential permits Mithin agiven 12 month period to possibly 100 units. The proposed phasing schedule will extend the potential build out of the site from the approved rezoning by at least one year. As such, we feel the 200 unit maximum within a 12 month period is appropriate. Additionally, simply because commercial development and residential development are not tied together by proffer is not a guarantee that residential development will begin first. If commercial development occurs initially then the County will be getting a tax benefit with no proffer offset applied towards the per unit residential proffer. 14 Proffer -13. The monetary value on the recreational unit should be removed from the proffer. The proffer should also be revised to remove the statement about the recreational amenities being "bonded for completion as soon as practicable" The recreational amenities should be bonded when the residential portion of the project is subdivided. We have removed the statement "bonded for completion as soon as practicable" from the Proffer Statement. As the $25,000 monetary value specified for recreation units is in accordance with the current value of a recreation unit as defined from Frederick County, this portion of the proffer remains unchanged. 0 • IS. Proffer 7.2. Indicate why the fire and rescite proffer has been revised to remove the rate increase provided in the original rezoning. The five dollar/year increase has been removed to prevent the yearly raise in fire and rescue contribution from placing an unfair burden on the residences and HOA. It's important to note that this is a voluntary proffer that is above and beyond what the ordinance requires and will be a funding mechanism provided to Fire and Rescue Department exclusively by residents and businesses within Governors Hill. This funding will help to serve residents of Frederick County who will not be paying this additional fee. PH� 16. P>offer12.2. It is unclear wly the residential portions of the proper y would be controlled by more than one homeowners association and the proffer should be revised There will be an Master HOA for Governor Hill. The Commercial and Residential HOA will be a subset of this HOA. This will ensure that common shared items such as landscaping along entrance routes shared by both commercial and residential users will be properly maintained with costs shared by both responsible parties. 17 Proffer IS. It is unclear why proffers 15.1.1.1.1 and 15.1.1.1.2 are not combined to just state that Phase 1 of Coverstone Drive.will consist of the construction of a four lane section (with the trail from point A to point B and must be bonded and constructed prior to the occi panty of the first commercial building. It is also unclear wly proffer 15.1.1 was modified to remove the previously approved street tree plan. The Proffer Statement has been revised to clarify the phasing of Coverstone Drive. The proffered street tree plan was a modification to the required road efficiency buffer when Coverstone Drive (a major collector) bisected the residential land bay. As a major collector no longer traverses the residential land bay, a road efficiency buffer is no longer required and, as such, the street tree plan is no longer needed. 18 Frog .131.1. Coverstone Drive should have raised landscaped medians as previously approved, not just raised medians. This language is consistent with the approved proffer statement. To clarify the intent, however, we have revised the proffer to clearly state that raised landscaped medians will be utilized as you have suggested. 19. P>offer 15.1.2. Proffer 15.1.2 states that Tazewell Road will be constructed to provide access to the residential land bay; however, the construction of just Tayewell Road does nothing to get the residents to Route 50 or Prince Frederick Drive. The proffers do not mention anything about the construction of Coverstone Drive should the residential portion develop first. The way the proffers are currently worded, if the residential portion develops first, they would access the site via Tazewell Road and into the adjacent industrial park which would be compleleyinappropriate. This Proffer (now 15.3) has been revised to clearly state that no occupancy permits for residential units shall be issued until access is provided to Millwood Pike via Coverstone Drive. 0 • 20. Proffer 15.2. The original proffers stated that Coverstone Drive would be completed from Millwood Pike to Prince .Frederick Drive by June 1, 2012. The revised proffers have pushed this deadline back to 2015. The timeline for the completion of this roadway should not be pushed back simply because the applicant is revising the proffers. This final completion date has been moved to 2015 in recognition of current market trends. More importantly, until such time that Route 522 is relocated and connection made possible with Coverstone or until Governors Hill develops (triggering road construction by proffer), there is little need for this roadway for the existing traffic pattern. P+A 21. Proffer -If S. The intent of this proffer is unclear; the uses within this development should not have any direct access to Millwood Pike. The proffer should state that the only access to Millwood Pike will be via Coverstone Drive. This proffer has been revised to restrict access to Millwood Pike to only Coverstone Drive. The only exception is the existing driveway for TM 64-A 83B which will remain for the singly family residential use located on that parcel. 22.. Closure of Crossover. The revised proffers eliminate original proffer 15.8 which stipulated the closure of the golf course crossover and stated that it could only be used for emergency access for GSA. The original proffer went on to state that if the applicant obtained access to the Inverlee intersection, the crossover would be closed. Extensive discussions in 2005 resulted in the need for the closure of this crossover and it is unclear what has changed to enable this crossover to remain open. The Proffer Statement has been revised to clearly -state that the Applicant will be responsible for the closure of this crossover. (See Proffer 15.7) 23. Proffer 171 As thirty months have already passed since this re.Zoning was approved, it would be appropriate to ipdate the fiscal impact contributions reflective of the Development Impact Model, and continue to apply the escalator clause in the future. The base date of 36 months trigger for the escalator clause in the revised Proffer Statement has been set as the approval date for the initial rezoning (October 12, 2005). This will ensure that any proffers paid are in keeping with the values that would have been required with the initial rezoning. IllasterDelome>atPla>z Comments 24 SheetAndex. On the coversheet under the index, sheet 6 does not have the proffers on it. The MDP has been revised to include the most recent proffer statement on Sheet 4. 2S. Signature Blocks. A signature block needs to be provided for Richard Dick. No signature block has been provided for Richard Dick as he no longer an owner of the affected Property. • 26. ResidevA&Zayoatt. The revised layout for the residential area now creates an area of units that are completely separated from the remaining units. These units must access Coverstone Drive through the commercial area. The residential layout needs to be reevaluated to ensure that it is internally connected The revised layout includes a small land bay that will access Coverstone Drive through a loop road as shown on the MDP. This modified layout decreases environmental impacts by eliminating a stream and wetlands crossing associated with the previous design. Ph 27. ReszWe;Y&W red It is unclear how the residential area, which was depicted as being + 124 acres on the original MDP, has dropped to 119.5 acres on the new MDP. The residential land bay included open space that was in excess of the required 30%. As such, the land bay lines were revised to bring the excess open space area into the commercial land bay. Additionally, the alignment of Tazewell Road differs slightly from that of Coverstone Drive on the previous plans which also affected the area calculations. 28 Open Space. Sheet 2, on the area labeled open space for residential land bays, shows both residential and commercial. A separate table should be created for the commercial or the title should be changed. Please note that the site is required to have 30% of the entire site in open space per the Zoning Ordinance. This open space must be provided with each phase and cannot be consolidated within one area of the development. Both the commercial and residential areas must have adequate open space. The Applicant has proposed an open space standard of 30% open space for the residential land bay (in accordance with RP standards) and 15% open space for the commercial land bay (in accordance with B2 standards). The open space will be defined for each land bay separately. 29. Zoning Dki trk't Buffer A .Zoning district buffer needs to be provided between the newly acquired area intended to be re.Zoned to R4 for commercial and the existing R4 designated for residential. The MDP has been revised to include a Category A zoning district buffer between the residential and commercial land bays. 30. Roa,-1,1Vo/es. On sheet 2 under road notes, note 2 needs to be removed The streets need to be contracted consistent with the MDP. If the road layout needs to be changed, the MDP will need to be modified. The note is intended to allow for minor modifications upon final engineering that are still consistent with the intent of the MDP. If the road layout is modified slightly, but is still consistent with the MDP road plan then there should not be a requirement to revise the MDP. 0 • 31. Reereatz;2&al Unit On sheet 3, the monetary unit price for the recreational units needs to be removed. As identified in the response to Comment 14, these values are consistent with the value identified by Frederick County for a recreation unit. As such, we have maintained the $25,000/rec unit value on the MMP. 32. Legend. On sheet 3-5, the trail needs to be included in the legend. The trial has been added to the legend. PAOther H R ,33. Trdnsportdtion Comments. Please note that transportation comments on the re.Zoning application from John Bishop, Depaaty Director of Transportation, are being provided to you in a separate letter. Please find attached a memorandum from Michael Glickman to John Bishop which addresses the comments provided by Mr. Bishop. 3-1 Agency Comments, Please provide appropriate agony comments from the following agencies: Virginia Department of Transportation, .Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marshall, Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, .Frederick -Winchester Health Department, the local Fire and rescue Company and the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority. The proposed proffers have been forwarded by staff to the Frederick County Attorney. Once attorney comments are received by the Planning Department, they will be forwarded to your office. Attorney comments are required for acceptance of the re"oning application. Acknowledged. 3S." Spec1WL1;witea'Power ofAttorney. Provide a power of attorney for the property owners. The required Power of Attorney will be provided with final submission. 36. Fees. Based on the fees adopted by the Board of Supervisors oil April 23, 2008, the rezoning fee for this application includes a $'10,000.00 base fee plus $100.00 per acre far the first 150 acres and $50 for each acre over 150, and a $50.00 public hearing sign fee. The Master Development Plan fee for this application includes a $3,000.00 base plus $100.00 per acre for the f rst 150 acres and $50 for each acre over 150. Acknowledged. 0 0 I hope that these responses aid in your review of the application. Please feel free to call me at (540) 667-2139 if you have any questions. Sincerely, PATTON HARRISUST &SOCIATES Patrick R. Sowers PRS/1d PhR+A cc: Carpers Valley Development LLC f � • Patton Harris Rust & Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 10212 Governor Lane Blvd., Suite 1007 RA Williamsport, MD 21795 T 301.223.4010 F 301.223.6831 Memorandum PHJLJL To: John A. Bishop, AICP Organization/Company: Frederick County, VA From: Michael Glickman, P.E. Date: August 26, 2008 Response to April 28, 2008 Frederick County comments regarding Project Name/Subject: the Governors Hill (Carpers Valley) Development PHR+A Project file Number: 13415-3-1 Site Plan Number: Per your request, Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR+A), has prepared this memorandum to provide responses to the April 28, 2008 Frederick County comments regarding the TIA submittal of Governors Hill (Carpers Valley) Development. The following provides responses to each of the April 28, 2008 Frederick County comments: County Comment #1: The TIA does not include a signed copy of the VDOT scoping sheet. This document aids the County in review of the TIA by detailing what is agreed upon at that scoping session. PHR+A Response: Per your request, PHR+A has attached the scoping document in the revised traffic impact study. County Comment #2: Compared to the TIA used in the previous rezoning, this TIA has shifted the residential unit types considerably. It has a much higher percentage of townhomes than the previous TIA. As you know, townhomes generate more trips than apartments. However, the per unit generation for townhomes and apartments is lower in the new TIA; significantly lower in the case of townhomes. PHR+A Response: Per VODT requirement, PHR+A utilized the VDOT — Staunton District townhouse rates for AM/PM/Saturday peak hours and ADT. For all other uses, 7`' edition of ITE rates are utilized. County Comment #3: The previous TIA offered two potential scenarios. One scenario analyzed 1.2 million square feet of office space while the other scenario analyzed 620,000 .square feet of retail. This new TIA considers 540,000 square feet of retail and 360,000 square feet of office. This results in thousands more trips than previously considered. Additionally, these square footages are not proffered, which would allow the applicant to put significantly greater square footages of retail than depicted in the TIA. Accordingly, even though this TIA proposes thousands more vehicle trips, it is still not a worse case scenario TIA as required under the Comprehensive Plan. • Patton Harris Rust & Associates Governors Hill (Carpers Valley): Responses to Frederick County Comments Memorandum Page 2 PHR+A Response: Per the recent scoping meeting, PHR+A has revised the land uses for the Governors Hill development. The total development will include 128 multi -family units, 422 townhouse units, 385,000 square feet of office and 900,000 square feet of shopping center. PHR+A has provided Table 1 below to show the trip generation comparison between the June 2005 TIA and the revised 2008 TIA. Table 1 Governors Hill Development: Trip Generation Comparison Old TIA Uses Vs New TIA Uses Code Land Use Amount AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT In Out Total In Out Total Per June 2005 TIA Scenario 1 220 Apartment 487 units 48 194 242 186 100 286 3,077 230 Townhouse/Condo 263 units 19 93 112 89 44 133 2,288 710 Office 1,200,000 SF 1,205 164 1,369 242 1,181 1,423 9,040 Total 1,272 451 1,724 516 1,325 1,841 14,405 Scenario 2 220 Apartment 487 units 48 194 242 186 100 286 3,077 230 Townhouse/Condo 263 units 19 93 112 89 44 133 2,288 820 Retail 620,000 SF 285 182 468 1,002 1,085 2,087 22,233 Total 353 469 822 1276 1229 2,506 27,598 Per Revised 2008 TIA 220 Apartment 128 units 13 53 66 57 31 88 920 230 Townhouse/Condo 422 units 49 164 213 176 100 275 2,753 710 Office 385,000 SF 485 66 551 87 423 510 3,767 820 Shopping Center 900,000 SF 565 362 927 1,620 1,755 3,375 38,646 Sub -Total 1,113 645 1,758 1,940 2,309 4,248 46,085 Internal Trip Reduction (max 5%-15%) 28 28 56 55 55 109 1,478 Retail Pass -by Trip Reduction (max 25%) 114 114 228 417 417 835 9,524 Total 'New Trips" 971 503 1474 1468 1,837 3,304 35,083 Per June 2005 TIA - Scenario 1 Total Trips 1,272 451 1,724 516 1,325 1,841 14,405 Per Revised 2008 TIA Total "New" Trips 971 503 1,474 1,468 1,837 3,304 35,083 Differential ("Old TIA - Scenario I"minus "New TIA") +302 -52 +250 -952 -512 -1,4631-7,485 20 678 Per June 2005 TIA - Scenario 2 Total Trips 353 469 822 1,276 1,229 2,50627,598 Per Revised 2008 TIA Total "New" Trips 971 503 1,474 1,468 1,837 3,30435,083 Differential ("Old TIA - Scenario 2" ininus "New TIA") -618 -34 -652 -192 -608 -799 County Comment #4: While I recognize that a significant effort was made to have this TIA show the long term picture, it simply doesn't get there. This is proven by the fact that, though this application relies so heavily on the desire to complete Inverlee Way through this portion of the County, no development traffic was assigned to this roadway. PHR+A Response: PHR+A has assigned the development traffic through Inverlee Way (Site - Driveway) in Scenario 1 and Scenario 3 of the Phase 2 development in the revised study. I l 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates Memorandum Governors Hill (Carpers Valley): Responses to Frederick Page 3 County Comments County Comment #5: The Eastern Road Plan, unanimously adopted by the Board of Supervisors on 11.08/06, calls for connections with Inverlee Way and Sulphur Springs Road. The previous rezoning recognized both of these connections. However, this application renders the connection to Sulphur Springs Road impossible in the future. As you know, the Eastern Road Plan is a component of the County's Comprehensive Plan. PHR+A Response: Per the VDOT approved scoping document, the Eastern Connection between Inverlee Way and Sulphur Springs Road was not assumed for this TIA. County Comment #6: Without going into detail, I would also echo case planner Candice Perkins' comments of April 28, 2008 on the roll back in timing of project implementation, as well as the scaling back of language that details the quality of the road improvements. PHR+A Response: Noted. C& EDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 April 28, 2008 Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust & Associates 117 E. Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Proposed Rezoning and Master Development Plan for the Governors Hill Project Dear Patrick: I have had the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application and Master Development Plan for the Governors Hill Property. The rezoning application seeks to rezone 39.7 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District. to the R4 (Residential, Planned Community) District and 238.3 acres from the R4 District to the R4 District with revised proffers. Our understanding of this project was that the applicant wished to relocate the previously proffered location of Coverstone Drive from its planned intersection with Sulfur Springs Road to Inverlee Road. In reviewing this application package, it is noted that extensive proffer revisions have occurred, more than simply the anticipated road relocation, and this application as proposed significantly detracts from the original approved application and proffers. Because of the significant changes to the previously approved proffer, staff has conducted a thorough review of the recently submitted application package. Staff s review comments are listed below for your consideration. Rezoning Comments 1. Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan. The site is within the limits of the Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan and the Airport Support Area. The plan shows a portion of this property with a business/office designation. The proposed R4 Zoning with commercial uses is generally consistent with this plan as it relates to this area. 2. Rezoning Application — Proposed Uses. The rezoning application calls for 540,000sf of office, 360,000sf of retail and 550 residential units. While the number of residential units has been proffered, the 900,000sf of commercial space has not been proffered. Also, the TIA was modeled on 540,000sf of retail and 360,000sf of office. Unless a specific use and square footage is proffered, the County will assume the maximum possible development (retail) as per the 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 00 • Page 2 Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Proposed Rezoning of Governors Hill Property April 28, 2008 County's application package, combined with the maximum possible floor space. At the maximum possible use, there is the potential for 3,385,718.5sf of retail uses. A proffer to limit the square footage of this development to no more than what the TIA was based on would be appropriate. 3. Impact Analysis. The impact analysis states that the site will be used for a mixture of office and retail uses (540,000sf office/360,000sf retail); however, these uses are not proffered and, therefore, any use allowed in the. B2 District could develop on the site. 4. Impact on Community Facilities. As you are aware, the development impact model for the County has been revised since the figures were calculated for this project. With this new rezoning package, the residential portion of the property should follow the new impacts. Since the residential development is not phased in to recognize commercial development, the entire impact for each residential unit should be addressed and mitigated. If the non-residential phase of the project does not materialize and the project is built solely as a 550 residential unit development, the per unit capital facilities fiscal impact is projected to be $16,396 for townhouses and $8,975 per multi -family unit. 5. Parcel 64-A-83B. Parcel 64-A-83B (Richard and Donna Dick) should be included in the revised rezoning package, as this property was party to the original R4 application and approved proffers. 6. Revised Proffers. The proffers provided for this application are significantly different than the previously approved proffers. A redlined copy of the proffers should be provided that shows the proffers with deletions and additions for clarification. 7. Proffer 1.1. The last portion of this proffer should be removed. All entrance alignment should mirror the MDP and modifications will not be permitted without a revised MDP. Also, the development should be in substantial conformance with the MDP not relative conformance. 8. Proffer 1.2. The original rezoning had a proffered "Design and Development Standards" manual which is no longer referenced in revised proffer 1.2. This manual referenced the housing types and street' designs and architectural standards, and should be updated and included with this submission. Failure to include the manual would exclude certain housing types previously requested as well as other necessary modifications. Also, the development should be in substantial conformance with the MDP, not relative conformance. Page 3 Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Proposed Rezoning of Governors Hill Property April 28, 2008 9. Proffer 1.3. The intent of Proffer 1.3 is unclear as it seems to state the same requirements as proffers 1.4 and 1.5. Also, proffer 1.3 conflicts with proffer 1.4 as proffer 1.4 states that only B2 uses are permitted and proffer 1.3 references §165-83, which is the B3 Zoning District. 10. Proffer 1.5. While this proffer is the same as proffer 1.6 from the original rezoning, since the Design and Development Standards Manuel has been removed from the rezoning, there should be no modifications to the housing types. If modifications to the Zoning Ordinance requirements are still being requested, the manual needs to be updated and proffered with this rezoning. The design manual is also referenced in proffer 1.5.1. A list of modifications needs to be provided so that they may be acted on, including the modifications on the MDP is not acceptable. 11. Proffer 3.1. Proffer 3.1 should be revised to clarify that "the applicant shall design and build as well as bond for completion of construction not later than the construction of an Armory structure on Tax Map Parcel 64-A-82, a minimum two lane roadway from Arbor Court to the entrance to the Armory Site". This proffer should also be expanded to ensure the completion of the road to Tazewell Road. Proof of the ability to build a road through parcel 64-A-80J should be addressed. The original proffers also stated that the Armory site would be provided access to Route 50 via Coverstone Drive; why has the revised proffer eliminated the main access route to the armory that was provided as part of the original proffer? 12. Proffer 4.1. The note in proffer 4.1 that states "the above identified phasing schedule is taken from the Date of Final Rezoning (DFR)" should be removed. 13. Proffer 4.1. As this rezoning application does not tie the residential permits to the commercial development, residential construction will be an impact to the County. Consideration should be given to limiting the number of residential permits within a given 12 month period to possibly 100 units. 14. Proffer 4.3. The monetary value on the recreational unit should be removed from the proffer. The proffer should also be revised to remove the statement about the recreational amenities being "bonded for completion as soon as practicable". The recreational amenities should be bonded when the residential portion of the project is subdivided. 15. Proffer 7.2. Indicate why the fire and rescue proffer has been revised to remove the rate increase provided in the original rezoning. 'f •0 0 • Page 4 Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Proposed Rezoning of Governors Hill Properly April 28, 2008 16. Proffer 12.2. It is unclear why the residential portions of the property would be controlled by more than one homeowners association and the proffer should be revised. 17. Proffer 15. It is unclear why proffers 15.1.1.1.1 and 15.1.1.1.2 are not combined to just state that Phase 1 of Coverstone Drive will consist of the construction of a four lane section (with the trail) from point A to point B and must be bonded and constructed prior to the occupancy of the first commercial building. It is also unclear why proffer 15.1.1 was modified to remove the previously approved street tree plan. 18. Proffer 15.1.1. Coverstone Drive should have raised landscaped medians as previously approved, not just raised medians. 19. Proffer 15.1.2. Proffer 15.1.2 states that Tazewell Road will be constructed to provide access to the residential land bay; however, the construction of just Tazewell Road does nothing to get the residents to Route 50 or Prince Frederick Drive. The proffers do not mention anything about the construction of Coverstone Drive should the residential portion develop first. The way the proffers are currently worded, if the residential portion develops first, they would access the site via Tazewell Road and into the adjacent industrial park which would be completely inappropriate. 20. Proffer 15.2. The original proffers stated that Coverstone Drive would be completed from Millwood Pike to Prince Frederick Drive by June 1, 2012. The revised proffers have pushed this deadline back to 2015. The timeline for the completion of this roadway should .not be pushed back simply because the applicant is revising the proffers. 21. Proffer 15.5. The intent of this proffer is unclear; the uses within this development should not have any direct access to Millwood Pike. The proffer should state that the only access to Millwood Pike will be via Coverstone Drive. 22. Closure of Crossover. The revised proffers eliminate original proffer 15.8 which stipulated the closure of the golf course crossover and stated that it could only be used for emergency access for GSA. The original proffer went on to state that if the applicant obtained access to the Inverlee intersection, the crossover would be closed. Extensive discussions in 2005 resulted in the need for the closure of this crossover and it is unclear what has changed to enable this crossover to remain open. Page 5 Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Proposed Rezoning of Governors Hill Property April 28, 2008 23. Proffer 17.1. As thirty months have already passed since this rezoning was approved, it would be appropriate to update the fiscal impact contributions reflective of the Development Impact Model, and continue to apply the escalator clause in the future. Master Development Plan Comments 24. Sheet Index. On the coversheet under the index, sheet 6 does not have the proffers on it. 25. Signature Blocks. A signature block needs to be provided for Richard Dick. 26. Residential Layout. The revised layout for the residential area now creates an area of units that are completely separated from the remaining units. These units must access Coverstone Drive through the commercial area. The residential layout needs to be reevaluated to ensure that it is internally connected. 27. Residential Area. It is unclear how the residential area, which was depicted as being 124 acres on the original MDP, has dropped to 119.5 acres on the new MDP. 28. Open Space. Sheet 2, on the area labeled open space for residential land bays, shows both residential and commercial. A separate table should be created for the commercial or the title should be changed. Please note that the site is required to have 30% of the entire site in open space per the Zoning Ordinance. This open space must be provided with each phase and cannot be consolidated within one area of the development. Both the commercial and residential areas must have adequate open space. 29. Zoning District Buffer. A zoning district buffer needs to be provided between the newly acquired area intended to be rezoned to R4 for commercial and the existing R4 designated for residential. 30. Road Notes. On sheet 2 under road notes, note 2 needs to be removed. The streets need to be constructed consistent with the MDP. If the road layout needs to be changed, the MDP will need to be modified. 31. Recreational Unit Requirement. On sheet 3, the monetary unit price for the recreational units needs to be removed. Page 6 Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Proposed Rezoning of Governors Hill Property April 28, 2008 32. Legend. On sheet 3-5, the trail needs to be included in the legend. Other 33. Transportation Comments. Please note that transportation comments on the rezoning application from John Bishop, Deputy Director of Transportation, are being provided to you in a separate letter. 34. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency comments from the following agencies: Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marshall, Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, Frederick -Winchester Health Department, the local Fire and Rescue Company and the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority. The proposed proffers have been forwarded by staff to the Frederick County Attorney. Once attorney comments are received by the Planning Department, they will be forwarded to your office. Attorney comments are required for acceptance of the rezoning application. 35. Special Limited Power of Attorney. Provide a power of attorney for the property owners. 36. Fees. Based on the fees adopted by the Board of Supervisors on April 23, 2008, the rezoning fee for this application includes a $10,000.00 base fee plus $100.00 per acre for the first 150 acres and $50 for each acre over 150, and a $50.00 public hearing sign fee. The Master Development Plan fee for this application includes a $3,000.00 base plus $100.00 per acre for the first 150 acres and $50 for each acre over 150. All of the above comments and reviewing agency comments should be appropriately addressed before staff can accept this rezoning application. Please feel free to contact me with questions regarding this application. Sincerely, Candice E. Perkins, AICP Senior Planner cc: Carpers Valley Development LLC, 480 Jubal Early Drive, Suite 330, Winchester, VA 22601 s •• •. o CO M RLE We i U� 4 � COUNTY of FREDERICK w Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 vcix,. FAX: 540/ 665-6395 April 28, 2008 Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates c/o Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: County Transportation Comment on the Rezoning Application for Governors Hill Dear Mr. Sowers: As the Deputy Director - Transportation for the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development, I have reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis and Rezoning Application for the Governors Hill Rezoning. It was our understanding that the primary intention of this rezoning was the relocation of the Coverstone Drive connection from Sulphur Springs Road to Inverlee Way; however, this proposal has a number of other modifications and an intensification of use to analyze. I have the following comments and concerns to point out: 1. The TIA does not include a signed copy of the VDOT scoping sheet. This document aids the County in review of the TIA by detailing what is agreed upon at that scoping session. 2. Compared to the TIA used in the previous rezoning, this TIA has shifted the residential unit types considerably. It has a much higher percentage of townhomes than the previous TIA. As you know, townhomes generate more trips than apartments. However, the per unit generation for townhomes and apartments is lower in the new TIA; significantly lower in the case of townhomes. 3. The previous TIA offered two potential scenarios. One scenario analyzed 1.2 million square feet of office space while the other scenario analyzed 620,000 square feet of retail. This new TIA considers 540,000 square feet of retail and 360,000 square feet of office. This results in thousands more trips than previously considered. Additionally, these square footages are not proffered, which would allow the applicant to put significantly greater square footages of retail than depicted in the TIA. Accordingly, even though this TIA proposes thousands more vehicle trips, it is still not a worst case scenario TIA as required under the Comprehensive Plan. 4. While I recognize that a significant effort was made to have this TIA show the long term picture, it simply doesn't get there. This is partially proven by the fact that, though this application relies so heavily on the desire to complete Inverlee Way through this portion of the County, no development traffic was assigned to this roadway. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 0• 0• Patrick Sowers RE: County Transportation Comment on the Rezoning Application for Governors Hill April 28, 2008 Page 2 5. The Eastern Road Plan, unanimously adopted by the Board of Supei visors on 11/08/06, calls for connections with Inverlee Way and Sulphur Springs Road. The previous rezoning recognized both of these connections. However, this application renders the connection to Sulphur Springs Road impossible in the future. As you know, the Eastern Road Plan is a component of the County's Comprehensive Plan. 6. Without going into detail, I would echo case planner Candice Perkins' comments of April 28, 2008 on the roll back in timing of project implementation, as well as the scaling back of language that details the quality of the road improvements. In summary, the TIA does not adequately model the impacts of altering the County's adopted Eastern Road Plan. The TIA combined with proffered land uses does not represent a worst case scenario. The proffer package seems only to scale back and soften the language of existing proffers while requesting nearly 40 acres in additional commercial land bays. The application states that additional impacts are not generated by this proposal. However, I would suggest that this application as presented creates the following impacts; 1. Undermines an approved Eastern Road Plan that previous proffers for this development supported. 2. Even as presented, this TIA generates additional trips without additional transportation proffers. I would note again that this is without a worst case scenario TIA. 3. Extends the implementation of previously proffered improvements and removes guarantees about the type of those improvements. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this review further, please contact the case planner, Mrs. Candice Perkins, and we can arrange a meeting which I will be happy to attend. Sincerely, John A. Bishop, AICP Deputy Director - Transportation JAB/bad cc: Lloyd Ingram, VDOT Jerry Copp, VDOT Frederick Count Public Schools r,. Y ... to ensure all students an excellent education K. Wayne Lee, Jr. CZA . Coordinator of Planning and Development . leew@frederick.k12.va.us April 23, 2008 APR 2 5 = Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust & Associates, P.C. 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Governors Hill Rezoning and Preliminary Master Development Plan Dear Patrick, Fredei3ck County Public Schools has reviewed the Governors Hill rezoning and preliminary MDP submitted to us on March 31, 2008. We offer the following comments: The cumulative impact of this project and other projects in various stages of development in eastern Frederick County will necessitate future construction of new schools and support facilities to accommodate increased student enrollment. We estimate that the 422 single-family attached units and 128 multifamily units in this development will house 46 high school students, 45 middle school students, and 94 elementary school students. In order to properly serve these 185 students, Frederick County Public Schools will outlay $6,409,000 in capital expenditures and $1,890,000 annually in operating costs. You will find, enclosed with this letter, a more detailed assessment of the impact of the Governors Hill development on FCPS. 2. We note the cash proffers for public schools of $1,714 per dwelling unit, which totals $942,700. This would defray only 15% of the $6,409,000 in capital costs mentioned above. 3. We will be sending four school buses (two elementary, one middle school, and one high school) into a subdivision that has only one access point to the road network. With roughly 75% of the 550 proposed households on Tazewell Road, there are a lot of vehicles concentrated on that one road that can slow travel along it, or even close the road in the event of an accident. We therefore recommend the addition of a signalized access point onto Route 50 to facilitate the movement of traffic, including our buses, to and from the broader road network. 1415 Amherst Street www.frede6ck.k12.va.us 540-662-3889 Ext 88249 P.O. Box 3508 540-662-4237 fax Winchester, Virginia 22604-2546 Frederick County Public Schools is concerned about all land development applications. Both capital expenditures and annual operating costs are significantly increased by each approved residential development, as is illustrated above and in the attached development assessment. Please feel free to contact me at leew(a�frederick.kl2.va.us or 540-662-3888 x88249 if you have any questions or comments. Sincery, K. Wa neZe.Jr. CZAY > Coordinator of Planning and Development enclosure Cc: Mrs. Patricia Taylor, Superintendent of Schools Mr. Al Orndorff, Assistant Superintendent for Administration Candice Perkins, Senior Planner, Frederick County I• It Frederick County Public Schools Development Assessment Project Name: Governors Hill (Rezoning and Preliminary MMP) Assessment Date: April 18, 2008 Housing Type Single-family detached Single-family attached otals School Cost Program Capacity Per Student Cost Students Generated by this Development This Development's Impact on FCPS Ca Student Generation Housing Units 0 422 128 550 Elementary School Student Generation 0 82 12 94 Capital Costs Elementary School Cost (2008 CIP) $19,900,000 750 $26,533 94 Costs $2,494,000 Middle School Student Generation 0 40 5 45 Middle School Cost (2008 CIP) 35,542,000 850 $41,814 45 $1,882,000 High School Student Generation 0 41 5 46 High School Cost (2008 CIP) 55,250,000 1250 $44,200 46 $2,033,000 Total. Student Generation 0 163 22 185 Total Capital Costs Development's 0 Annual Operational Costs act on FCPS Operational Costs 2007-08 School Attendance Zone* September 15, 2007 Student Enrollment 2007-08 Proeram Capacity FY 2008 Budgeted Cost Total Student Per Student Generation Annual $10,215 185 $1,89 School Facility Information * - School Attendance Zones are subject to change. 10 Elementary School (Grades K-5) Evendale 695 644 Middle School (Grades 6-8) Admiral Byrd 810 850 High School (Grades 9-12) Millbrook 1,278 1,250