Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06-94 Preston Place (Silver Communities) - Revised - Backfile
s * STAFF MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHECKLIST * This application is not complete if the following are not included: SUBMISSION PACKAGE Comments sheets from the following agencies along with any marked copies of the plan; LL VDOT 7 -� ; I Sanitation Authority � 211 Inspections Dept. q—L4 Fire Marshal City of Winchester Health Department 7' 2`1 Parks & Recreation ? 5_ County Engineer Q- < `i One copy of the master development plan application 25 copies of the plan on a single sheet One reproducible copy of the plan (if required) j/ A 35mm. slide of the plan TRACKING Date Z ,-9q Application received 4ee Paid (amount $ 01 Preliminary MDP heard by Planning Commission - Action taken 410 Z Preliminary MDP heard by Board of Supervisors - Action taken r Letter to applicant regarding action and revisions. j 1 Final MDP submitted with review agency, P/C and BOS comments addressed. j Final MDP signed by County Administrator and Planning Director. (send two copies to applicant) 2 7 Info added to Bette. r__ RECEIPT N12 U24235 AMOUNT DUE $ L) AMOUNT PAD $ BALANCE D I UE PAID BY CHECK OTHER FREDERICK COUP:,f. OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT P. O. BOX 601, 9 NORTH LOUDON ST. WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601- DAT H L RECEIVED FROM C0 [C)_ c ra, (2 ss )D tu P'tck c6k"a V/ ADDRESS oCL - ("a THE Sum OFtl:)" i. DOLLARS $ FOR kc By DAY -TIMERS RE -ORDER No 3221 —Printed in USA • Commercial 540-786-1405 FAX: 540-786-1406 C O M P A N I E S Corporate Offices 1201 Central Park Boulevard P.O. Box 7566 Fredericksburg, Virginia 22404 November 21, 1995 Mr. Robert W. Watkins, Director Department of Planning and Development County of Frederick P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22604 SUBJECT: Preston Place, Master Plan Revision Dear Mr. Watkins: • Residential 540-786-1400 FAX: 540-786-6455 By this letter, Stafford Holding Company withdraws its submission for the Preston Place Master Plan Revision for 31 single-family lots on the 14.5-acre balance of the Preston -Place -property. Castle Development Corporation, the developer of the existing apartments, will be filing, as the contract purchaser, for Master Plan Revision..;approval on this property for Phase III of the Preston P1ace.Apartments. Should you have any questions, please call me at 540-786-1400. Sincered y/, ST Ri hard Trdmblay Vi e. President f and Development RT/jc Planning cc: Fred Price, Patton Harris Rust & Associates Michael McNamaraY.� Edward Minniear ��'IS2627�d4 Tony. Sala % e Commercial & Residential Development Real Estate Management Hotel & Motel Development & Management COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 5401665-5651 FAX:540/678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II RE: Informal Discussion Regarding Revision. To Preston Place Master Development Plan DATE: November 21, 1995 Staff has received a request from Mr. Garrett S. Runey, P.E., of Bengtson, DeBell & Elkin, LTD., to address the Planning Commission regarding a revision to the above referenced master development plan. The property affiliated with this master plan is located on the north and south sides of Airport Road (Route 645), approximately 300 feet east of the intersection with Front Royal Pike (Route 522). A master development plan was approved by Frederick County in January 1993 to allow for the construction of 120 apartment units on the south side of Airport Road and for the construction of 117 townhouse units on the north side of Airport Road. The developer completed the construction of the apartment units in 1993. A revised master development plan was approved by Frederick County in November 1994 to modify the housing type on the north side of Airport Road. This approval did not increase the density; however, it did allow for the construction of 72 apartment units in phase one and 45 townhouse units in phase two. The developer completed the construction of the 72 apartment units in 1995. The purpose of this informal discussion is to request that phase two of the property located on the north side of Airport Road be allowed to be developed into 44 apartment units. Mr. Runey will present a preliminary master development plan during the meeting that depicts this new proposal. The applicant will be asking the Planning Commission for their view on the proposal to modify the housing type for build -out of this project. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 16 �♦� BENGTS ENGINEERS WELL & SURVEYORS ELKIN. LTD. PLANNERS d LANDSCAPE - ARCHITECTS November 20, 1995 Mr, Evan -A. Wyatt Department of Planning and Development County of Frederick 107 North Kent Street .Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Preston Place Apartments Master Development Plan Amendment Dear Mr. Wyatt: $01 MOOREMELO PARKD SUITE 220 RICHMOND VA 23M PH. ($01) 320.2"? FAX (OM) M.613! I am writing on behalf of Mr. Michael McNamara, President of Castle Develop- ment Corporation, to request being placed on the December 6, 1995 Planning Commission agenda. The purpose of this request is to obtain an informal hearing before the Planning Commission to present a proposed amendment to the referenced plan. The proposed amendment is to construct 44 apartment units instead of the 45 townhouse for sale units shown on the approved Master Development Plan. A drawing showing the revised concept is currently being prepared and will be available prior to the meeting date. Please call me if there are any questions or if additional information is required. Sincerely. zlw�_ 4.- Garre S, Ru y, II, P.E., L.S. Vice President GSR:smb cc: M. McNamara OFFICES THROUGHOUT VIROINA & NAR"NO 2-22-24 9,44 PM TO: Name: Firm: L*cation: • TELECOPY INFORMATION HUNTON & WILLIAMS Suite 600 3050 Chain Bridge Road Fairfax, Virginia 22030 (703)352-2200 Mr. Robert 'Watkins 0 7032736772;# 1/ 7 Telecopierr Nos. (703)273-6772 Frederick County Dept. of Planning & Development Winchester, VA Telecopy Number: (703) 678-0682 7 pages (Including Cover) FROM: Name: Francis A. McDermott Hunton & Williams (Sth Floor) (703) 934-8934 If problem with tra:tsniWon, please contac$ Telecopy Operator at (703)934-8959. Special Instructions: Let me know if you would like copies of underlying correspondence referenced in chronology. TWk you for your consideration. Operator: Date: September 22, 1994 Client/Matter Name: Sxlver)WInchester Client/Matter No.: 22648. Time: a.m./p.m. This communication is confidential and is intended to ba privileged pursuant to the attorney -client privilege and the work -product doctrine. IP the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. postal Service. 9-22-94 9:44 PM ; 7032736772,# 2/1 7 ATLANTA, GEORGIA BRUSSELS, BELGIUM KNOKVILLE/ TENNESSEE NEW YORK, NCW YORK NPRr0LK, YIRWHIA HUNTCIN & WILLIAMS 0030 CHA:[X BRIDGE ROAD, SIUITE (300 P. 0. BOX 1147 FAinirAx, VI R01NIA. 22000 TELEPHONE (703) 362-2200 TrLECCPIER (70Z) 273-6772 September 22, 1994 By Teleaopigr and Federal_ Express' Mr. Robert Watkins, Director Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 9 North Loudoun Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Preston Place, Parcel 64-A-� C bear Mr. WAkinss RA4CIGH, NORTH CAROLINA RICH MONO, VIRGINIA WAR*AW, POLAND WASHINGTON/ G. C• File: 22648 Direct Dial: 934-8934 Thank you and Kris Tierney for meeting this past Monday with Richard Tremblay of The Silver Companies ("Silver") and with me regarding development of the 22-acre residue of Silver's 42-acre Preston Place property, located on -the north and south sides of Airport Roetd, Route 646. As was dizougsod, thy+ change in the Residential Performance (RP) zoning district adopted by the County Board on May 1.1.1 1994, reducing silver's maximum allowable density from 8 to 5.5 dwelling units per acre on the north 22- acre residue, has severe, inequitable impacts on the RP -zoned property. This letter is to set forth the facts based upon which Silver is entitled to develop 156 dwelling units on the remaining 22-acres as a matter of right. most importantly, Silver entered into two legally binding contracts for the sale of portions of the 22-acre property prior to the adoption of the RP zoning amendment. one contract is for 72 apartment units on 5 to 6 acres, and the other contract is for 35 elderly apartments on approximately 3 acres. These contracts were executed, and subsequent engineering work was pursued, in relianoe on the a dwelling units per acre density which the RP zoning permitted at the time of thie Contract, and which Zoning density was confirmed by your department prier to our entering into each contract, and was reconfirmed subsequent to the apartment contract. 9-22-24 9:44 FNJ ; 11 C� 7032736772;# 3/ 7 IN Mr. Robert Watkins, September n2, 1994 Page 2 HUN'z'OW & WILLIAMS Director Our understanding from Mondays meeting is that the Preston Place Revised Master -Development plan for 72 apartments and townhouses on the-----22�aGr4 site will be forwarded to the Planning Commission at its botobex 5,..1994, meeting for a recommendation, and then to the Board of Supervisors at either the October 12 or October 26, 1994 meeting. As'was emphasized in the meeting, the County's action on the Revised Master Development Plan for the 72 apartment units is necessary by the end of October, 1994, in order for the contract purchaser, Castle Development Corporation, to close on the property and lock in Virginia Allocated tax credits for Preston place Apartments, Phase II.. Otherwise, Castle will not be able to requalify for another 12 months. Listed below is a chronology of the relevant actions and approvals on which we rely: Date Event November 2, 1990 Master Development Plan approval for 117 townhouse units Qn the 22-49xq port# parcel. .Tune 1.4, 1991 Final engineering plans and subdivision plat for 117 townhouse units submitted to the County, showing five development phases. September 23, 1992 Revised Master Plan approval for 120 apartments on 17.3 acres of the south 20-acre parcel, with the 2.7-acre balance shown as "future residential". (Total density of the revised master plan is 237 units on 39.3 acres, 6.0 per acre, which is well under the 10 per acre allowed by th& RP 26hihl. December 21, 1992 Closed with Preston Place As5ocia.tes (Mike McNamara) on 17.3 aoree on south side for 120 apartments. Fall, 1993 120 apartment units completed, which included water, sewer and stormwater infrastructure for whole 42-acre property. December 10, 1993 Silver entered into negotiations with castle Development Corporation for the saleof approximately 5 to 6 acres of the 22-acre property for 72 apartments as Phase 11 of Preston Place apartments. 9-22-94 9:44 PM 7032736772;4 4/ 7 HUNTON & WILLIAMS Mr. Robert Watkins, Director September 22, 1994 Page 3 January 24, 1994 Silver confirmed with Kris Tierney of the Planning Department that RP zoning would permit 72 apartments on approximately 5 to 6 acres of the site and 84 townhouse units on the balance of the property, a total of 156 units, at a gross density of 7 dwelling units per acr@. Mr. Tiern@y advised that the Master Development Plan would have to be revised, but that the RP zoning allowed the intended uses at the intended density. February 3, 1994 silver executed a contract with Castle Development Corporation for the sale of approximately 5 to 6 acres for 72 apartment units. The contract was based on the fact that the RP zoning allowed for density of 156 units. The 5-6 acre site fits into the Phase one area leaving intact the engineering for Phases Two through Five, but for a .total of 84 townhouse units. March 30, 1994 Letter from Kris Tierney to Michael Buseck (Mike McNamara's attorney) confirming that RP zoning allows io units per acre. March 31, 1994 Castle Development corporation, based on the contract, applied to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development for tax credits for 72 apartment units. April .5, 1994 silver ontored into negotiations with the Virginia United Methodist Housing Development Corporation for the eale, of approximately 3 acres of this north 22 acres for 35 elderly apartments. Apra) 26, 1994 Silver confirmed with the Planning Department staff that the proposed 35 elderly apartment units would be permitted in the RP zoning, as an amendment to the Master Development Plan, which would leave 49 townhouse lots on the 13-acre balance of the property, for a total of 156 units on the 22-acres. The 3-acre site fit into the phase Two area of our property, Leaving intact the engineering for Phases Three through Five, but for a total of 49 townhouse units. 9-22-94 9*44 PM 7032736772;# 5/ 7 HUNTOI'V & WILLI.AXS Mr. Robert Watkins, Director: September 22, 1994 Page 4 April 25, 1994 Castle Development Corporation was informed by the State that its application for tax credits was approved for the 72 apartment units. . May 5, 1994 Silver signed a contract with the Virginia United Methodist Housing Development Cokp6rat16h for th6 6a1,6 6f &W6Xim&t6ly 3 acres for 35 elderly apartments. The contract -purchaser then immediately filed its application with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for a grant under Title 202, The application is still pending with HUD. May 11, 1994 The RP zoning was amended to reduce density to 5.5 dwelling units per acre. No notice was given to Silver and Silver had no knowledge of the amendment, despite the Ccunty's prior knowledge of the above two development proposals and contracts, and the resultant change in density. June 3, 1994 Castle Development Corporation's engineer, Patton, Harris & Rust met with the Planning Department staff to review the proposed Master Development Plan revision for 72 apartments and 84 townhouse lots. Several technical comments were made dealing principally with access, but no comment was made regarding the RP zoning amendment or a density problem. June 21, 1994 The Planning Department staff wrote to Patton, Harris & Rust to confirm the technical comments made at the June 3, 1994, meeting; nothing was mentioned about a density problem. July 20, 1994 Castle Development Corporation submitted the Revised Master Development plan for 72 apartments and 84 townhouse lots to the various Frederick county departments for review. None of the review comments returned to the engineer mentioned a density problem. r 9-22-94 9,44 PN1 ; 7032736772;# 6/ 7 0 is HUNTO s $e WILLXAMS Mr. Robart Watkins, Director September 22, 1994 Page 5 July 27, 1994 Castle Development Corporation directed its engineer to prepare the final engineering plans for the 72 apartment units. August 29, 1994 The revised Master Development Plan application for 72 apartments and 84 townhouse lots was submitted to the Planning Department following department reviews. September 14, 1994 Patton, Harris & Rust contacted our company to say that the Planning Department would not forward the Revised Master Development plan to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors unless 35 of the 84 townhouse lots were eliminated from the plan to comply with the 5.5-unit per acre RP zoning density. This was the first indication that we had that the RP zoning has been amended and that there was a density issue with the proposed 156 units on the property. The two contracts that were entered into prior to the amendment of the RP zoning, coupled with Silvers specific reliance on the 8 dwelling units per acre density then applicable to the 22-acre parcel, which was confirmed by the County staff in response to several specific inquiries, the significant contractual exposure and financial detriment incurred by Silver because of this goad faith reliance', Silver's diligence in confirming the densities before entering into'the contracts, the obvious diligence with which the• -engineering and the Virginia and Federal applic�tions-were''pursued, the silence on the County's part at all stages during a time when Silver, if made aware of an apparently long -pending ordinance charge, could have (i) better protected itself, (ii) participated in this process, and/or (iii) declined to enter into the contracts, the prior construction of 120 units on the 17.3-acre south portion of the parcel., the expenditure of $105,000 in constructing a pump station, force main, and water line extension from Route 522, all of sufficient size to serve the pre-existing density allowed by the zoning ordinance on the entire 42 acres -- all of these facts vest in silver the right to develop a total of 156 dwelling units on the north 22 acres, a total which still equates to a density of approximately 7 units per acre, not the allowed 8 units per acre. The structure of the two contracts was based on the zoning provisions whereby Silver would have 49 townhouse units left on 9-22-94 9:44 PNI 7032736772;9 7/ 7 HTTNT4N & WILX IAXS Mr. Robert Watkina, b.ircator September 22, 1994 Page 6 the 13-acre balance of the property after selling the 6-acre parcel (72 apartment units) and the 3-acre parcel (35 elderly apartments). Under the revised ordinance, Silver would be left with only 10 townhouse units on 13 acres, a loss of 39 townhouse units, which is an enormous economic impact. Such a use for the 13 acres would not be logical nor economical. Furthermore, the fiscal impact on Frederick County of the 156 units, including 72 rental and 35 elderly apartments, will be less than the impact from the original 117 proposed townhouses. Studies show that apartments have less than half the f isGa1 impact of townhouses. clearly, elderly units have even less impact, and there is a significant need for elderly facilities in Frederick County. We request that the County consider all the above facts and the equities, and approve the Revised faster Development Plan for .-;U6 units, including 72 apartments and 84 townhouses. Should the HUD grant_"lie approved for the 35 elderly apartment uAits; we understand that the Master Development plan would have to be appropriately, -revised to reflect another change in unit type for that portion of the 22 acres, but Silver agrees that the density would riot 'exceed 156 total units on the residue, or a total of approXiinately 7 dwelling units per acre on the 22 acres. while we are convinced that this_. _is an absolutely compelling vesting case, should the Board, for some reason, not be able to reach a vesting determination, we would urge that the Board approve the pending Revised Development Plan pursuant to an equitable determination that Silver's right to develop 156 residential units on the north 22-acre parcel is "grandfathered." we appreciate your understanding and the Countycs careful attention to this request. Should you have any questions or need further information, please feel free to call Richard Tremblay at (703) 786-1400 or me. Very truly yours, Fdc�:is A. tl CDermott cc: Edward 0. Minnear, 3r. Richard Tremblay i� COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 November 23, 1994 Mr. Richard Tremblay Silver Development Companies 4500 Plank Road Fredericksburg, VA 22407 RE: Preston Place Apartments and Townhouses Master Development Plan Approval Dear Mr. Tremblay: This letter is to notify you that the revised Master Development Plan for the above referenced project was administratively approved by Frederick County on November 21, 1994. This 22 acre parcel is zoned RP (Residential Performance District), is located on the north side of Airport Road (Route 645), and is identified as tax map number 64-A-45C. Enclosed for your files are two copies of the final Master Development Plan with the appropriate signatures. Please contact our department if I may answer any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, L"', � - 41-- Evan A. Wyatt Planner II EAW enclosure cc: W. Harrington Smith, Jr., Shawnee District Supervisor John R. Riley, Jr., Frederick County Administrator Fred S. Price, Patton Harris Rust & Associates 9 North Loudoun Street . P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 0 0 i COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 November 7, 1994 Patton Harris Rust & Associates Attn: Mr. Fred Price 100 South Main Street Bridgewater, Virginia 22812 RE: Final Master Development Plan For Silver Development Companies Dear Mr. Price: I have had an opportunity to review the revised Master Development Plan, submitted by your office on October 31, 1994. The plans that were submitted appear to be produced from an older mylar. This makes it difficult to decipher some of the information on your revised plan. I will attempt to provide you with the information that needs to be included on this plan prior to final administrative approval: 1) Please revise the title block to state "Preston Place Apartments and Townhouses". 2) Please provide the Professional Engineer's Certificate with the appropriate signature on the final set of plans. 3) The subdivision application for the first phase of this project calls for a division of land that will be 7.44 acres.. The General Notes section specifies Phase I as being 6.5 acres. It would be appropriate to revise this section to ensure consistency with the subdivision application. 4) Please incorporate a boundary survey for the 22 acre property that provides a metes and bounds description. 5) The contour lines are difficult to read, please revise the plan to make this information legible. 6) Please provide a signature block that includes a signature line and date for the County Administrator and a signature line and date for the Director of Planning. 7) Please provide the names for the roads that border this site (Front Royal Pike - 522, and Airport Road - Route 645) along with the appropriate route numbers. 8) Please revise the heading of the phases to read "Area. In Lots/Rights-Of-Way/Open Space By Phase In Acres" since the proposed development will contain private drives instead of state maintained roads. 9) Please revise the phase section for this project to specify the number of units that will be developed under each phase. 10) Please provide a note that addresses how storm water will be managed on this site. 11) The revised plan indicates that there will be four tot lots, a volleyball court, and a 1/2 basketball court to serve this development. This is appropriate; however, it exceeds the required recreational amenities for this site. Please revise the plan to make the location and type of all desired recreational amenities legible. 9 North Loudoun Sweet P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 Page -2- Price Letter November 7, 1994 12) The revised plan indicates various buffers around the perimeter of the 22 acre parcel. The terminology for these buffers needs to be consistent with the language in our Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the buffers that border uses depicted as Single Family Dwelling need to read "Residential Separation Buffer with Full Screen", the buffer that separates this parcel from the B-2 parcel needs to read "A Category Buffer Required", and the buffer along Airport Road needs to read "Reduced Road Efficiency Buffer". 13) Please revise note #1 under Conditions To Be Met By Owner/Developer to read "... is in proximity to the Winchester Regional Airport and possible ensuing noise may be associated with the Winchester Regional Airport." 14) Please revise the buffer cross section to read "Typical Buffer Section". This cross section needs to be redrawn to include the six foot high opaque wooden fence located between the structures and the vegetative screen. The portion of the structure that is shown within the active buffer needs to be removed as well. Please revise your Master Development Plan to reflect the information specified in this letter and provide our department with six copies of the final plan. Our department has placed the subdivision request for Phase I on the November 16, 1994 Planning Commission Agenda with the understanding that an approved Master Development Plan must be on file prior to any Planning Commission action on the subdivision application. Therefore, our department will need final.copies of the Master Development Plan by the end of the week. Frederick County will also need to review and approve a site plan for the apartments and/or townhouses prior to the issuance of building permits for this project. Please contact me once your firm is ready to proceed with this phase of the planning process. I hope this information is beneficial to your work on this project. Please contact me if I may answer any questions regarding this letter, or if I may be of further assistance. Sincerely, Evan A. Wyatt Planner II EAW enclosure cc: Richard Trembley, Silver Companies =A § 165-125 ZONING • § 165-125 ✓ (1) The scale shall be one (1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet or larger [the ratio of feet to inches shall be no more than one hundred (100) feet to one (1) inch] or at a scale acceptable to the Director. The scale shall be sufficient so that all features are discernible. ✓(2) No sheet shall exceed forty-two (42) inches in size unless approved by the Director of Planning and Development. If the MDP is prepared on more than one (1) sheet, match lines shall clearly indicate where the sheets join. �(3) All MDP's shall include a North arrow, a scale and a legend describing all symbols. (4) A boundary survey of the entire property related to true meridian and certified by a certified Virginia surveyor, architect or engineer, with all dimensions in feet and decimals of feet, is required for all MDP's. A e(5) The total area of the property shall be specified on the MDP 6) The topography shall be shown at contour intervals acceptable to the Director. VIFFIC- t-'r 'm QF7D V(7) The title of the proposed project: the date, month, year the plan was prepared or revised: the name of the applicant(s), owner(s) and contract owner(s): and the names of the individuals or firms preparing the plan shall be clearly specified. ✓(8) A schedule of phases, with the approximate location of phase boundaries and the order in which the phases are to be developed, shall be provided. J(9) The use of all adjoining properties shall be clearly designated on the MDP. X10) An inset map shall be provided showing the location of the project along with the location of all existing or approved public roads, streets or rights -of -way within two thousand (2,000) feet of the boundaries of the project. B. Contents of a preliminary master development plan in the Residential Performance District, the Residential Planned Community District, the Residential Recreational Community District and the Mobile Home 16651 r\ U n U § 165-125 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-125 Community District. The preliminary MDP shall contain a conceptual plan, showing the location and functional relationship between all proposed housing types and land uses, including the following information: (1) A land use plan, showing the location, arrangement and approximate boundaries of all proposed land uses. gM. ACEWS /2) The approximate acreage in common open space, in each use and housing type and in roads, streets or rights -of -way for each phase and the total development. (3) The location and approximate boundaries of proposed housing types conceptually shown in accord with residential performance dimensional requirements. V (4) The proposed number of dwelling units of each type in each phase and in the total development. DE"my ISSuC' (D The location and approximate boundaries of existing environmen- tal features, including floodplains, lakes and ponds, wetlands, natural stormwater retention areas, steep slopes and woodlands. (6) The location of environmental protection land to be included in common open space. (7) The approximate acreage of each type of environmental protection land, the amount and percentage of each type that is to be disturbed and the amount and percentage of each type to be placed in common open space. /8) The amount, approximate boundaries and location of common open space, with the percentage of the total acreage of the site to be placed in common open space. (9 The location and general configuration of recreational facilities, with a general statement of the types of recreational facilities to be provided. f(10) The location and extent of proposed buffers, with statements, profiles, cross sections or examples clearly specifying the screening to be provided. 16652 • § 165-125 ZONING § 165-125 v (11) The proposed location, arrangements and right-of-way widths of roads and streets and the location of proposed access to surrounding properties. 42) The location and arrangement of street entrances, driveways and parking areas. 0 The approximate location of sewer and water mains with statements concerning the connection with and availability of existing facilities. G A conceptual plan for stormwater management with the location of stormwater facilities designed to serve more than one (1) lot. +(115) Calculations describing all proposed bonus factors with the location of and specifications for bonus improvements, when proposed. IJIA(16) The location and treatment proposed for all historical structures and saes recognized as significant by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors or as identified on the Virginia Historical Landmarks Commission Survey for Frederick County. (17) A history of all land divisions that have occurred in relation to the tract since the adoption of this requirement. C. Contents of a preliminary master development plan in the M 1 Light Industrial District, the M2 Industrial General District, the EM Extractive Manufacturing District, the HE Higher Education District, the B 1 Neighborhood Business District, the B2 Business General District or the B3 Industrial Transition District. The preliminary MDP shall contain a conceptual plan, showing the location and functional relationship between streets and land uses, including the following: (1) A conceptual plan, showing the location and arrangement of proposed uses. (2) The existing environmental features, including floodplains, lakes and ponds, wetlands, natural stormwater detention areas, steep slopes and woodlands, as defined. (3) The proposed location and arrangement of all streets and utility systems. 16653 i COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 October 27, 1994 PHR&A Attn: Mr. Fred Price 100 South Main Street Bridgewater, Virginia 22812 RE: MDP # 006-94 OF SILVER DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES: P.I.N. 64-A-45C Dear Fred: This letter is to confirm action taken by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their meeting of October 26, 1994. Master Development Plan #006-94 of Silver Development Companies to establish townhouses and garden apartments was approved contingent upon the overall density of the site not exceeding 117 units and all review agency, staff, and Planning Commission comments being addressed. Please submit five copies of the final Master Development Plan which reflect these changes. Please contact this office if I can answer any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, �- Kris C. Tierney Deputy Planning Director KCT/dre cc: Silver Development Companies Castle Development Corporation 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 LAWRENCE R. AMBROGI Commonwealth Attorney CHARLES W. STANSFIELD Administrative Assistant tjt • COUNTY OF FREDERICK r� OFFICE OF THE COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY FREDERICK-WINCHESTER JUDICIAL CENTER 5 NORTH KENT STREET WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 (703) 665-6383 FAX (703) 667-3454 October 5, 1994 Mr. Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Director Frederick County Planning Department 9 North Louaoun Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Preston Place, Parcel 64-A-45C Dear Kris: JAY D. COOK, III Assistant Commonwealth Attorney GLENN R. WILLIAMSON Assistant Commonwealth Attorney Having received the information you provided to my office, I am of the opinion that the increased density requested in the most recent Master Development Plan submitted for the above -captioned parcel would not be a vested right under the previous Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and is clearly not permitted under the recent amendment to that Ordinance. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincere y, Lawrence R., mbrogi Attorney for Frederick County, Virginia ATLANTA, GEORGIA BRUSSELS, BELGIUM KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE NEW YORK, NEW YORK NORFOLK, VIRGINIA 0 0 HUNTON & WILLIAMS 3050 CHAIN BRIDGE ROAD, SUITE 000 P. O. Box 1147 .FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030 TELEPHONE (703) 352 -2200 TELECOPIER (703) 273-6772 September 22, 1994 BV Telecopier and Federal Express Mr. Robert Watkins, Director Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 9 North Loudoun Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Preston Place, Parcel 64-A-45C Dear Mr. Watkins: RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA RICHMOND, VIRGINIA WARSAW, POLAND WASHINGTON, D. C. File: 22648 Direct Dial: 934-8934 Thank you and Kris Tierney for meeting this past Monday with Richard Tremblay of The Silver Companies ("Silver") and with me regarding development of the 22-acre residue of Silver's 42-acre Preston Place property, located on the north and south sides of Airport Road, Route 645. As was discussed, the change in the Residential Performance (RP) zoning district adopted by the County Board on May 11, 1994, reducing Silver's maximum allowable density from 8 to 5.5 dwelling units per acre on the north 22- acre residue, has severe, inequitable impacts on the RP -zoned property. This letter is to set forth the facts based upon which Silver is entitled to develop 156 dwelling units on the remaining 22-acres as a matter of right. Most importantly, Silver entered into two legally binding contracts for the sale of portions of the 22-acre property prior to the adoption of the RP zoning amendment. One contract is for 72 apartment units on 5 to 6 acres, and the other contract is for 35 elderly apartments on approximately 3 acres. These contracts were executed, and subsequent engineering work was pursued, in reliance on the 8 dwelling units per acre density which the RP zoning permitted at the time of this Contract, and which zoning density was confirmed by your department prior to our entering into each contract, and was reconfirmed subsequent to the apartment contract. 0 0 Mr. Robert Watkins, September 22, 1994 Page 2 HUNTON & WILLIAMS Director Our understanding from Monday's meeting is that the Preston Place Revised Master Development Plan for 72 apartments and 84 townhouses on the 22-acre site will be forwarded to the Planning Commission at its October 5, 1994, meeting for a recommendation, and then to the Board of Supervisors at either the October 12 or October 26, 1994 meeting. As was emphasized in the meeting, the County's action on the Revised Master Development Plan for the 72 apartment units is necessary by the end of October, 1994, in order for the contract purchaser, Castle Development Corporation, to close on the property and lock in Virginia Allocated tax credits for Preston Place Apartments, Phase II. Otherwise, Castle will not be able to requalify for another 12 months. Listed below is a chronology of the relevant actions and approvals on which we rely: Date Event November 2, 1990 Master Development Plan approval for 117 townhouse units on the 22-acre north parcel. June 14, 1991 Final engineering plans and subdivision plat for 117 townhouse units submitted to the County, showing five development phases. September 23, 1992 Revised Master Plan approval for 120 apartments on 17.3 acres of the south 20-acre parcel, with the 2.7-acre balance shown as "future residential". (Total density of the revised master plan is 237 units on 39.3 acres, 6.0 per acre, which is well under the 10 per acre allowed by the RP zoning. December 21, 1992 Closed with Preston Place Associates (Mike McNamara) on 17.3 acres on south side for 120 apartments. Fall, 1993 120 apartment units completed, which included water, sewer and stormwater infrastructure for whole 42-acre property. December 10, 1993 Silver entered into negotiations with Castle Development Corporation for the sale of approximately 5 to 6 acres of the 22-acre property for 72 apartments as Phase II of Preston Place apartments. 0 • HUNTON & WILLIAMS Mr. Robert Watkins, Director September 22, 1994 Page 3 January 24, 1994 Silver confirmed with Kris Tierney of the Planning Department that RP zoning would permit 72 apartments on approximately 5 to 6 acres of the site and 84 townhouse units on the balance of the property, a total of 156 units, at a gross density of 7 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Tierney advised that the Master Development Plan would have to be revised, but that the RP zoning allowed the intended uses at the intended density. February 3, 1994 Silver executed a contract with Castle Development Corporation for the sale of approximately 5 to 6 acres for 72 apartment units. The contract was based on the fact that the RP zoning allowed for density of 156 units. The 5-6 acre site fits into the Phase One area leaving intact the engineering for Phases Two through Five, but for a total of 84 townhouse units. March 30, 1994 Letter from Kris Tierney to Michael Buseck (Mike McNamara's attorney) confirming that RP zoning allows 10 units per acre. March 31, 1994 Castle Development Corporation, based on the contract, applied to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development for tax credits for 72 apartment units. April 5, 1994 Silver entered into negotiations with the Virginia United Methodist Housing Development Corporation for the sale of approximately 3 acres of this north 22 acres for 35 elderly apartments. April 26, 1994 Silver confirmed with the Planning Department staff that the proposed 35 elderly apartment units would be permitted in the RP zoning, as an amendment to the Master Development Plan, which would leave 49 townhouse lots on the 13-acre balance of the property, for a total of 156 units on the 22-acres. The 3-acre site fit into the Phase Two area of our property, leaving intact the engineering for Phases Three through Five, but for a total of 49 townhouse units. 0 - % HUNTON & WILLIAMS Mr. Robert Watkins, Director September 22, 1994 Page 4 April 26, 1994 Castle Development Corporation was informed by the State that its application for tax credits was approved for the 72 apartment units. May 5, 1994 Silver signed a contract with the Virginia United Methodist Housing Development Corporation for the sale of approximately 3 acres for 35 elderly apartments. The contract purchaser then immediately filed its application with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for a grant under Title 202. The application is still pending with HUD. May 11, 1994 The RP zoning was amended to reduce density to 5.5 dwelling units per acre. No notice was given to Silver and Silver had no knowledge of the amendment, despite the County's prior knowledge of the above two development proposals and contracts, and the resultant change in density. June 3, 1994 Castle Development Corporation's engineer, Patton, Harris & Rust met with the Planning Department staff to review the proposed Master Development Plan revision for 72 apartments and 84 townhouse lots. Several technical comments were made dealing principally with access, but no comment was made regarding the RP zoning amendment or a density problem. June 21, 1994 The Planning Department staff wrote to Patton, Harris & Rust to confirm the technical comments made at the June 3, 1994, meeting; nothing was mentioned about a density problem. July 20, 1994 Castle Development Corporation submitted the Revised Master Development Plan for 72 apartments and 84 townhouse lots to the various Frederick County departments for review. None of the review comments returned to the engineer mentioned a density problem. HUNTON & WILLIAMS Mr. Robert Watkins, Director September 22, 1994 Page 5 July 27, 1994 Castle Development Corporation directed its engineer to prepare the final engineering plans for the 72 apartment units. August 29, 1994 The revised Master Development Plan application for 72 apartments and 84 townhouse lots was submitted to the Planning Department following department reviews. September 14, 1994 Patton, Harris & Rust contacted our company to say that the Planning Department would not forward the Revised Master Development Plan to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors unless 35 of the 84 townhouse lots were eliminated from the plan to comply with the 5.5-unit per acre RP zoning density. This was the first indication that we had that the RP zoning has been amended and that there was a density issue with the proposed 156 units on the property. The two contracts that were entered into prior to the amendment of the RP zoning, coupled with Silver's specific reliance on the 8 dwelling units per acre density then applicable to the 22-acre parcel, which was confirmed by the County staff in response to several specific inquiries, the significant contractual exposure and financial detriment incurred by Silver because of this good faith reliance, Silver's diligence in confirming the densities before entering into the contracts, the obvious diligence with which the engineering and the Virginia and Federal applications were pursued, the silence on the County's part at all stages during a time when Silver, if made aware of an apparently long -pending ordinance charge, could have (i) better protected itself, (ii) participated in this process, and/or (iii) declined to enter into the contracts, the prior construction of 120 units on the 17.3-acre south portion of the parcel, the expenditure of $105,000 in constructing a pump station, force main, and water line extension from Route 522, all of sufficient size to serve the pre-existing density allowed by the zoning ordinance on the entire 42 acres -- all of these facts vest in Silver the right to develop a total of 156 dwelling units on the north 22 acres, a total which still equates to a density of approximately 7 units per acre, not the allowed 8 units per acre. The structure of the two contracts was based on the zoning provisions whereby Silver would have 49 townhouse units left on 0 0 HUNTON & WILLIAMS Mr. Robert Watkins, Director September 22, 1994 Page 6 the 13-acre balance of the property after selling the 6-acre parcel (72 apartment units) and the 3-acre parcel (35 elderly apartments). Under the revised ordinance, Silver would be left with only 10 townhouse units on 13 acres, a loss of 39 townhouse units, which is an enormous economic impact. Such a use for the 13 acres would not be logical nor economical. Furthermore, the fiscal impact on Frederick County of the 156 units, including 72 rental and 35 elderly apartments, will be less than the impact from the original 117 proposed townhouses. Studies show that apartments have less than half the fiscal impact of townhouses. Clearly, elderly units have even less impact, and there is a significant need for elderly facilities in Frederick County. We request that the County consider all the above facts and the equities, and approve the Revised Master Development Plan for 156 units, including 72 apartments and 84 townhouses. Should the HUD grant be approved for the 35 elderly apartment units, we understand that the Master Development Plan would have to be appropriately revised to reflect another change in unit type for that portion of.the 22 acres, but Silver agrees that the density would not exceed 156 total units on the residue, or a total of approximately 7 dwelling units per acre on the 22 acres. While we are convinced that this is an absolutely compelling vesting case, should the Board, for some reason, not be able to reach a vesting determination, we would urge that the Board approve the pending Revised Development Plan pursuant to an equitable determination that Silver's right to develop 156 residential units on the north 22-acre parcel is "grandfathered." We appreciate your understanding and the County's careful attention to this request. Should you have any questions or need further information, please feel free to call Richard Tremblay at (703) 786-1400 or me. Very truly yours, Francis A. McDermott cc: Edward O. Minnear, Jr. Richard Tremblay 0 0 HUNTON & WILLIAMS Mr. Robert Watkins, Director September 22, 1994 Page 7 efm:FF T:\sHver\wlnchesl\watkiw.2 0 0 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II �z RE: Silver Communities Revised Master Development Plan DATE: October 26, 1994 As you know, Silver Communities is claiming a vested design right for this Master Development Plan. The information included with this memorandum will assist you in the event the Board of Supervisors questions the events leading up to tonight's meeting. The crux of the matter is that Silver Communities claims that our department advised them that they could construct 72 apartment units on five acres and construct 84 townhouse units on the remaining tract. This in and of itself is not true. There was an assumption on the part of the developer that they could create a development that would allow a maximum of ten units per acre. Silver also claims that they were not informed by Frederick County of the density amendments that were ultimately adopted on May 11, 1994. The density amendment was advertised six times as an agenda item at the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee level. Silver Company's engineering firm Patton Harris & Rust Associates (PHR&A) never attended these meetings or contacted our office to question or comment on the density issue. The density amendment was legally advertised as an informal discussion and public hearing item at the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors level. Once again, PHR&A did not attend these meetings to express their concerns. The most interesting fact is that staff finally received a preliminary revised Master Development Plan on August 29, 1994. According to the date block, this plan was originally prepared on July 12, 1994 (two months after the density amendments were adopted by the Board of Supervisors). Clerical staff receipts indicate that PHR&A had paid for amendment updates in 1993 and 1994; therefore, these amendments were available to them. Carl Rinker, of PHR&A, told me that the PHR&A office in Bridgewater (the plan designer) never contacted him to verify that they were designing under the current ordinance requirements. 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 Page -2- Tierney Memo October 26, 1994 The remaining information will address specific points in the Hunton & Williams letter dated September 22, 1994. I believe that this information is misleading in that they contend that our staff continuously stated that 72 apartment and 84 townhouse units could be developed on this tract. Almost every letter from our department states that a Master Development Plan was approved for 117 townhouse units and that a revised Master Development Plan would need to be reviewed and ultimately approved by the Board of Supervisors prior to any development occurring. The majority of our conversations with the designer pertained to the 72 apartments only. Staff was not aware of the developer's intention to increase the density on the revised master Development Plan until August 29, 1994. Therefore, our department could not advise PHR&A of the design error until that time. PUBLIC DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC HEARING MEETING DATES The following dates depict the opportunities that were available for the general public to participate in the creation of new amendments that decreased the allowable gross density in the RP, Residential Performance District. Groups such as the Top of Virginia Builders Association and various engineering firms participated in this process. Patton Harris & Rust Associates did not. DRRS Meetings/Discussion Regarding RP Density Amendments June 22, 1993 July 27, 1993 October 22, 1993 November 23, 1993 January 25, 1994 February 22, 1994 PC & BOS Public Hearings/Discussion Regarding RP Density Amendments March 16, 1994 PC Informal Discussion April 6, 1994 PC Public Hearing May 11, 1994 BOS Public Hearing * Clerical Staff Receipts Indicate That PHR&A Has Received Amendments Over The Last Two Years (1993-1994) RESPONSE TO STATEMENTS MADE BY HUNTON & WILLIAMS The following information will address the statements made in the letter from Hunton & Williams dated September 22, 1994. This information will also include letters sent to the developer by our department, and plans that were submitted by Patton Harris & Rust Associates, the design firm. January 24, 1994 Silver states that they confirmed with Kris Tierney that our department would allow 72 apartment and 84 townhouses to be constructed on this tract if a revised Master Development Plan was submitted to Frederick County. Our department neither provided or received any correspondence that verifies this statement. March 18, 1994: Letter from Evan Wyatt to Mike Buseck indicating that a revised MDP would be required by staff and would need to be approved by the Board of Supervisors prior to advancement of the proposal for apartments, and that if only five acres was desired to be developed that the maximum amount of units allowed would be 50. This letter was not mentioned in the Hunton & Williams letter. March 30, 1994 Silver states that Kris Tierney provided a letter stating that the RP District allowed 10 units per acre. The letter states that a maximum residential density of ten units per acre is permitted in the RP District. However, the letter also states that a Master Development Plan was approved for 117 units and that the developer could substitute 72 apartment units for 72 townhouse units. No mention was made of 72 apartment units and 84 townhouse units. 0 0 Page -2- April 26, 1994 Silver states that our department confirmed that 35 elderly apartment units could be developed on this tract as an amended Master Development Plan. They state that this would leave 49 townhouse lots for a total of 156 units. Evan Wyatt provided a letter to the Virginia United Methodist Housing Development Corporation on May 10, 1994. This correspondence stated that apartments were a permitted use in the RP District and that a subdivision for this proposal would be approved by Frederick County once all applicable plan requirements were met. No mention was made to the numbers specified in the Hunton & Williams letter. May 11, 1994 Silver states that no notice was given to them regarding the proposed RP District density amendments. The amendments were advertised numerous times for discussion at the subcommittee level and legally advertised for discussion and public hearing at the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor levels. June 3, 1994 Silver states that PHR&A met with the planning department to discuss a revision to the Master Development Plan to allow 72 apartment units and 84 townhouse units. This statement is completely false! Evan Wyatt met with John Hash of PHR&A to discuss a preliminary site plan for the 72 apartment units only. A copy of this plan is available for the Board to review. June 21, 1994 Silver states that the planning department wrote to PHR&A regarding the June 3, 1994 meeting. Silver states that no mention was made about a density problem. Evan Wyatt provided a letter to John Hash of PHR&A to discuss the preliminary design proposal for the apartments. The letter also' states that there is currently an approved Master Development Plan for 117 townhouse units and that formal comments would be made by this office once a revised Master Development Plan was submitted. E Page -3- July 20, 1994 Silver states that a revised Master Development Plan was submitted for review to various Frederick County Departments and that there was no mention of a density problem. PHR&A did not submit a revised Master Development Plan to the planning department until August 29, 1994. The other review agencies are not concerned with overall gross densities; therefore none of those agencies would make a comment that reflected density issues. August 29, 1994: The Planning Department receives a revised master plan that replaces 33 townhomes in phase I with 72 apartment units. Evan Wyatt contacts PHR&A and advises them that density is too high. COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 March 18, 1994 Mr. Michael C. Buseck Williams, Mullen, Christian & Dobbins Central Fidelity Bank Building Two James Center 1021 East Cary Street P.O. Box 1320 Richmond, Virginia 23210-1320 RE: Parcel Identified As 64-A-45C In The Shawnee Magisterial District Dear Mr. Buseck: This letter is in response to your correspondence dated March 9, 1994. The purpose of your correspondence was to request information pertaining to property owned by the Silver Development Company of Fredericksburg, Virginia. This parcel is listed on the Frederick County Real Estate file as being 22.01 acres and zoned RP, Residential Performance District. The RP, Residential Performance District permits apartment dwelling units as a matter of right, provided that all required master development plans, site development plans, and structural plans are submitted and approved by Frederick County. The 22.01 acre parcel owned by Silver Development Company is one of two parcels that is part of approved master development plan #005-92. The approved master development plan indicates that the property located on the north side of Airport Road (Route 645), currently owned by Silver Development Company, is approved for the development of townhomes. Your letter, dated March 9, 1994, states that, "...I am writing to you regarding a parcel of real property containing approximately 5 acres, located on the north line of State Route 645, near the intersection with Route 522... across the street from the current Preston Place Apartments... and plans the development of an apartment complex... containing up to 72 units. " I have quoted this portion of your letter to advise you of all requirements pertaining to your proposal. A revised master development plan must be submitted to Frederick County by Silver Development Company and approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors prior to the advancement of this proposal. If Preston Place II Associates, L.P. is interested in developing only five (5) acres of the 22.01 acre site, then a legal subdivision of parcel 64-A-45C must occur as well. 9 North 1.0UdoU11 SU'eet P.O. 130\ 001 Winchester, VA 21-001 Winchester, VA 22)601 Page -2- Buseck Letter March 18, 1994 Section 165-62, of the Frederick County Code, provides for permitted gross densities for developments in the RP, Residential Performance District. The language within subsection 165- 62B limits the gross density of any development within a master development plan to ten (10) dwelling units per acre. Therefore, a maximum of 50 apartment dwelling units would be permitted under the Preston Place II Associates, L.P. proposal. I hope this letter has adequately addressed your comments. Please contact me if I may answer any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, &-.7 a - jr't- Evan A. Wyatt Planner H EAW cc: W. Harrington Smith, Jr., Shawnee District Supervisor Robert W. Watkins, Director of Planning and Development TELEPHONE (804) 643-1991 TELECOPIER (804) 783-6456 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL: (804) 783-6465 WILLIAMS, MULLEN, CHRISTIAN & DOBBINS ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION CENTRAL FIDELITY BANK BUILDING TWO JAMES CENTER 1021 EAST CARY STREET P.O. BOX 1320 RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23210-1320 March 9, 1994 Evan Wyatt Frederick County Planning 9 North Loudoun Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Preston Place II Associates, L.P. Dear Mr. Wyatt: OFFICES IN: RICHMOND WASHINGTON, D.C. AFFILIATE OFFICE: LONDON On behalf of our client, Preston Place II Associates, L.P., a Virginia limited partnership (the "Partnership"), I am writing to you regarding a parcel of real property containing approximately 5 acres, located on the north line of State Route 645, near its intersection with Route 522 in Frederick County, Virginia (the "Property"). The Property is across the street from the current Preston Place Apartments owned by Preston Place Associates, L.P., and is shown on the attached exhibit as Parcel 1. The Partnership has entered into a contract to purchase the Property from the current owner, Silver Development Co., and plans the development of an apartment complex on the Property containing up to 72 units. (The Partnership is a separate entity from Preston Place Associates, L.P., but it has the same managing general partner.) In connection with the proposed development of the Property, please verify by letter to me (1) the zoning classification of the Property, (2) that the development of the Property with an apartment complex containing up to 72 units is permitted as of a matter of right under the current zoning classification for the Property and the other ordinances and codes of Frederick County, and (3) whether th.ere.are any conditional or special use permits, plans, developments, site plans or other special approvals affecting the Property. We would appreciate receiving your letter by March 21, 1994. If you have any questions about the above request, please call me at the above number. Thank you for your assistance on this matter. Very truly yours, Ile,i Michael C. Buseck MCB/aml Enclosure c:\wmcd1ibVraebus\0089476.01 cc: Michael L. McNamara E 0 i COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 March 30, 1994 Mr. Michael C. Buseck Williams, Mullen, Christian & Dobbins 101 East Cary Street Richmond, Virginia 23210-1320 Dear Mr. Buseck: I am writing in response to our phone conversation of March 21, 1994, and your subsequent fax transmission of the 22nd. In your correspondence you reference a five acre parcel owned by the Silver Development Co. In actuality this site is part of a larger 22.01 acre parcel. The parcel is zoned Residential Performance (RP) which allows for a maximum residential density of 10 units per acre. This parcel has an approved Master Development Plan (MDP) which indicates 117 townhouse units. The County Zoning Ordinace would permit the MDP to be amended to reflect a change in the desired housing type, in effect substituting 72 apartments for 72 townhouses. Once an amended MDP for the twenty-two acres is approved with the substitution of the desired apartment units, the five acres with 72 apartments which your client is interested in, could then be separated from the remainder of the tract. I hope this letter provides the information you need. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance Sincerely, Kris C. Tierney, AICP Deputy Planning Director 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 i COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Dcvclopment 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 May 10, 1994 Reverend Robert Regan, President Virginia United Methodist Housing Development Corporation 308 Hanover Street Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 RE: Parcel Identified As 64-A-45C In The Shawnee Magisterial District Dear Reverend Regan: This letter regards your request for information pertaining to the above referenced parcel. This parcel is currently owned by the Silver Development Company of Fredericksburg, Virginia. This parcel is listed .in the Frederick County Real Estate file as containing 22.01 acres and is zoned RP, Residential Performance District. The RP, Residential Performance District permits a variety of housing types, of which apartments are a permitted use. Therefore, your application for the Title 202 Project for affordable elderly housing could be developed on this tract. The Silver Development Company is permitted to subdivide a portion of this tract for this project. Frederick County will approve this subdivision and the proposed elderly housing project once all applicable plan requirements are complete. I hope this letter is beneficial to your Title 202 Project application. Please contact me if I may answer any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Evan A. Wyatt Planner II EAW 9 North LOudoun Strcct P.O. Box 601 Wincticstcr, VA 22601 Winchcstcr, VA 22604 J COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Dcvclopment 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 June 21, 1994 Mr. John Hash Patton, Harris, Rust, & Associates 100 South Main Street P.O. Box 46 Bridgewater, Virginia 22812 RE: Preston Place Apartments - Phase II Dear Mr. Hash: This letter is in response to our meeting of June 3, 1994. The purpose of that meeting was to discuss preliminary design requirements pertaining to the above referenced project. This project suggests the development of apartment buildings on a parcel owned by the Silver Development Company of Fredericksburg, Virginia. As you know, a master development plan was approved for this 22.01 acre parcel, identified as tax map number 64-A-45C, for 117 townhouse units. Once a revised master development plan is submitted, I will make formal comments regarding Phase II of Preston Place Apartments. However, at this time I will offer suggestions based on your preliminary design. 1) The property owned by Hope Anne Reagan (formerly Adams) does not need access from this property. The approved master development does not indicate any required access. This is most likely due to it being a small tract with a single family dwelling which has access to Front Royal Pike. 2) The access drive that extends from the entrance to the limits of Phase I includes forty-five parking spaces and a dumpster area for residents. This new access drive and parking configuration may present a problem when additional phases are developed. It appears that this access drive will be the primary ingress/egress for the majority of the residents in Preston Place Apartments - Phase II. I foresee a conflict between through traffic and vehicles that are backing in and out of the forty-five parking spaces. There may also be a conflict between a refuse truck and through traffic. 3) The Fire Marshal will need to have the ability to access all apartment units with a ladder truck. It may not be possible to accomplish this from the centerline of the parking lot. Therefore, the provision of adequate all-weather fire lanes will need to be planned and designed to accommodate this need. 9 Nurlh I.OLI(IOLin SULct P.O. Roy 001 Wincl.,�sicr. VA _121001 Winchester. VA 2121hO-1 Page -2- Hash Letter June 21, 1994 I hope this letter is beneficial to your work on this project. Please contact me if I may answer any questions regarding this letter, or be of further assistance. Sincerely, L, �. . Evan A. Wyatt Planner II EAW cc: Douglas A. Kiracofe, Fire Marshal PC REVIEW: 10/05/94 BOS REVIEW: 10/26/94 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #006-94 SILVER DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES LOCATION: North side of Airport Road (Route 645) just East of Front Royal Pike (Route 522) MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 64-A-45C PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) Current Land Use: vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: B-2 (General Business) - vacant; RA (Rural Areas) - residential; RP (Residential Performance) - residential and vacant PROPOSED USE: Townhouses and Garden Apartments REVIEW EVALUATION: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: No objection to the revised master development plan for this property. Prior to making final comments this office will require a complete set of site plans which detail entrance(s) design and drainage features. Traffic flow data from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 4th Edition will also be needed for review. The data should include all phases of proposed development including the existing phase of the Preston Place project on the south side of Route 645. A left and/or right turn lane(s) may be required. Prior to construction on VDOT right-of-way the developer will be required to apply for issuance of necessary Land Use Permits. Sanitation Authority: First review approved. Inspections Dept.: Building shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 310 Use Group R (Residential) of the BOCA National Building Code/1993. Other Codes that apply are title IV Code of Federal Regulation, Part 36 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability. • Fire Marshal: Please see attached sheet dated 7/21/94. Parks and Recreation: Revised MDP appears to meet open space requirements. More information regarding required recreational units is needed prior to any comments on the aspect of the project. Please refer to Planning Staff comments regarding recreational amenities. County Engineer: We have no specific review comments at this time. A detailed review will be made at the time of the site plan submission. Our review will emphasize stormwater management, erosion and sediment control and site grading. Planning & Zoning: Currently, the applicant has an approved Master Development Plan that permits the construction of 117 townhouse units on 22 acres. This approved master development plan provides for an overall gross density of 5.3 units per acre. Recently, staff has received a proposed revision to this master development plan that calls for the construction of townhouse units and garden apartment units. Staff has specific concerns regarding this proposal which are described in detail as follows: 1) Allowable Gross Density: The allowable gross density for residential developments which contain more than 10 acres and less than 100 acres is 5.5 dwelling units per acre. The revision to this master development plan proposes 156 dwelling units which creates an overall gross density of 7.09 dwelling units per acre. This exceeds the allowable gross density - requirements. The applicant has questioned the possibility of being vested for this design (please refer to letter to Robert Watkins from Francis A. McDermott, dated September 22, 1994). They have indicated that design for this project began prior to the adoption of the allowable gross density amendments. These amendments were adopted on May 11, 1994. The date block of this plan indicates that design was complete on July 12, 1994. Staff has forwarded a request to the Commonwealth Attorney for an opinion regarding this matter. Staff hopes to have an opinion from the Commonwealth Attorney prior to the October 5, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. 2) Multifamily Lot Requirements: The Subdivision Ordinance requires lots to be no more than 500 feet from a state maintained road, as measured from the public street along the access route. The townhouse units in phase two, three, and four exceed this requirement. 3) Steep Slope: The master plan that is approved for this project indicates some areas along Airport Road (Route 645) which contain steep slopes. The revised master plan does not indicate these areas, but states that they do exist. The 0 • applicant needs to indicate the location of these areas and indicate those portions that will be disturbed. 4) Recreational Facilities: The master plan that is approved for this project provided recreational facilities throughout phase one. These units have been deleted through the revision to this plan. Currently, four recreational units are required based on the approved 117 units. The proposed design would require a minimum of six recreational units; however, only three recreational units are indicated. 5) Road Efficiency Buffers: The approved master development plan requires a road efficiency buffer along Airport Road (Route 645). The revised master development plan does not designate a road efficiency buffer in this area. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OCTOBER 5, 1994: Denial based on the proposed overall gross density. Staff is willing to recommend approval provided that the applicant reduce the overall gross density to 121 total units, as well as address all review agency comments and all comments and concerns of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The opinion from the Commonwealth Attorney may also affect the recommendation provided by staff. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION SUMMARY OF 1O15194: The staff noted that the applicants were unaware of the density amendment to the RP District that took place in May of 1994 and proceeded with their application and plans preparation under the assumption that the old density requirements were still in effect. The applicant requested that their application be considered to be vested, and as a result, the staff sought an opinion from the Commonwealth Attorney. The Commonwealth Attorney's opinion stated that the increased density was not a vested right under the previous zoning ordinance and was clearly not permitted under the recent amendment. The parties involved with the application (Mr. Fred Price of PHR&A, the design company; Mr. Richard Trembly of Silver Development Co., the owners; and Mr. Frank McDermott of Hunt & Williams, attorneys) gave a chronology of events that they felt showed they were acting in good faith, pointing out the economic decisions, such as a sales contract for the 72 apartment units, the investment made on infrastructure, and application for Federal tax credits, that were based on the ordinance before it was revised. Commissioners noted that the density was changed because of problems with transportation, infrastructure, and gross density of developments and the amendment was developed after a very well thought out, long-term process. It was also noted that area builders, engineering firms, and the Top of Virginia organization participated and the amendment was advertised and well publicized by the local news media. The Planning Commission felt it would be a setback to compromise on this issue. , There were no citizen comments. The applicants felt that given a choice on a recommendation by the Planning Commission, they would first prefer that it be approved. If not approved, their second choice would be that it be approved under current density requirements, and their third choice would be that it be denied. The applicants preferred that it not be tabled due to time constraints on contract purchasing of housing units and housing grants applied for. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION OF 1015194: Unanimously recommended approval of the revised master development plan provided that the overall gross density is reduced to within current limits of the ordinance in addition to addressing all review agency comments and all comments and concerns of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. (Mr. Romine and Mr. Wilson were absent for this vote.) PC REVIEW: 10/05/94 BOS REVIEW: 10/26/94 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #006-94 SILVER DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES LOCATION: North side of Airport Road (Route 645) just East of Front Royal Pike (Route 522) MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 64-A-45C PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) Current Land Use: vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: B-2 (General Business) - vacant; RA (Rural Areas) - residential; RP (Residential Performance) - residential and vacant PROPOSED USE: Townhouses and Garden Apartments REVIEW EVALUATION: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: No objection to the revised master development plan for this property. Prior to making final comments this office will require a complete set of site plans which detail entrance(s) design and drainage features. Traffic flow data from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 4th Edition will also be needed for review. The data should include all phases of proposed development including the existing phase of the Preston Place project on the south side of Route 645. A left and/or right turn lane(s) may be required. Prior to construction on VDOT right-of-way the developer will be required to apply for issuance of necessary Land Use Permits. Sanitation Authority: First review approved. Inspections Dept.: Building shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 310 Use Group R (Residential) of the BOCA National Building Code/1993. Other Codes that apply are title IV Code of Federal Regulation, Part 36 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability. Fire Marshal: Please see attached sheet dated 7/21/94. Parks and Recreation: Revised MDP appears to meet open space requirements. More information regarding required recreational units is needed prior to any comments on the aspect of the project. Please refer to Planning Staff comments regarding recreational amenities. county Engineer: We have no specific review comments at this time. A detailed review will be made at the time of the site plan submission. Our review will emphasize stormwater management, erosion and sediment control and site grading. Planning & zoning: Currently, the applicant has an approved Master Development Plan that permits the construction of 117 townhouse units on 22 acres. This approved master development plan provides for an overall gross density of 5.3 units per acre. Recently, staff has received a proposed revision to this master development plan that calls for the construction of townhouse units and garden apartment units. Staff has specific concerns regarding this proposal which are described in detail as follows: 1) Allowable Gross Density: The allowable gross density for residential developments which contain more than 10 acres and less than 100 acres is 5.5 dwelling units per acre. The revision to this master development plan proposes 156 dwelling units which creates an overall gross density of 7.09 dwelling units per acre. This exceeds the allowable gross density requirements. The applicant has questioned the possibility of being vested for this design (please refer to letter to Robert Watkins from Francis A. McDermott, dated September 22, 1994). They have indicated that design for this project began prior to the adoption of the allowable gross density amendments. These amendments were adopted on May 11, 1994. The date block of this plan indicates that design was complete on July 12, 1994. Staff has forwarded a request to the Commonwealth Attorney for an opinion regarding this matter. Staff hopes to have an opinion from the Commonwealth Attorney prior to the October 5, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. 2) Multifamily Lot Requirements: The Subdivision Ordinance requires lots to be no more than 500 feet from a state maintained road, as measured from the public street along the access route. The townhouse units in phase two, three, and four exceed this requirement. 3) Steep Slope: The master plan that is approved for this project indicates some areas along Airport Road (Route 645) which contain steep slopes. The revised master plan does not indicate these areas, but states that they do exist. The applicant needs to indicate the location of these areas and indicate those portions that will be disturbed. 4) Recreational Facilities: The master plan that is approved for this project provided recreational facilities throughout phase one. These units have been deleted through the revision to this plan. Currently, four recreational units are required based on the approved 117 units. The proposed design would require a minimum of six recreational units; however, only three recreational units are indicated. 5) Road Efficiency Buffers: The approved master development plan requires a road efficiency buffer along Airport Road (Route 645). The revised master development plan does not designate a road efficiency buffer in this area. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OCTOBER 5, 1994: Denial based on the proposed overall gross density. Staff is willing to recommend approval provided that the applicant reduce the overall gross density to 121 total units, as well as address all review agency comments and all comments and concerns of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The opinion from the Commonwealth Attorney may also affect the recommendation provided by staff. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION SUMMARY OF 1015194: The staff noted that the applicants were unaware of the density amendment to the RP District that took place in May of 1994 and proceeded with their application and plans preparation under the assumption that the old density requirements were still in effect. The applicant requested that their application be considered to be vested, and as a result, the staff sought an opinion from the Commonwealth Attorney. The Commonwealth Attorney's opinion stated that the increased density was not a vested right under the previous zoning ordinance and was clearly not permitted under the recent amendment. The parties involved with the application (Mr. Fred Price of PHR&A, the design company; Mr. Richard Trembly of Silver Development Co., the owners; and Mr. Frank McDermott of Hunt & Williams, attorneys) gave a chronology of events that they felt showed they were acting in good faith, pointing out the economic decisions, such as a sales contract for the 72 apartment units, the investment made on infrastructure, and application for Federal tax credits, that were based on the ordinance before it was revised. Commissioners noted that the density was changed because of problems with transportation, infrastructure, and gross density of developments and the amendment was developed after a very well thought out, long-term process. It was also noted that area builders, engineering firms, and the Top of Virginia organization participated and the amendment was advertised and well publicized by the local news media. The Planning Commission felt it would be a setback to compromise on this issue. There were no citizen comments. The applicants felt that given a choice on a recommendation by the Planning Commission, they would first prefer that it be approved. If not approved, their second choice would be that it be approved under current density requirements, and their third choice would be that it be denied. The applicants preferred that it not be tabled due to time constraints on contract purchasing of housing units and housing grants applied for. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION OF 1015194: Unanimously recommended approval of the revised master development plan provided that the overall gross density is reduced to within current limits of the ordinance in addition to addressing all review agency comments and all comments and concerns of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. (Mr. Romine and Mr. Wilson were absent for this vote.) 1 APPLICA`1'ION MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Frederick County Virginia Date: August 26, 1994 Application # ( )( j,-C) OWNERS NAME : Silver Development Companies 4500 Plank Road Fredricksburg, VA 22407 (Please list the names of all owners or parties in interest) APPLICANT/AGENT: Castle Development Corp. Address: 2801 Southwell Place "'Midlothian, VA 23113 Daytime Phone Number 804-794-0576 DESIGNER/DESIGN COMPANY: PHR&A Address: 100 South Main Street Bridgewater, VA 22812 Phone Number 703-828-2616 r-'A)( Contact Name Fred Price 7 i APPLICATION PACKAGE CHECKLIST FOR PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS. Frederick County Department of Planning and Development This Master Development Plan application is not complete if the items listed below are not present at the time of submission. if any items are missing the application will be returned to the applicant. It is recommended that the applicant meet with a member of the planning staff when submitting applications in order to review the materials for completeness. MDP Package ✓ 1, One set of comment sheets from the following agencies deemed necessary by the planning staff along with any marked copies of the plan; VDOT ✓ Fire'Marshal Co. San. Auth. Co. Health. Dept. ✓ Co. Engineer Inspections Dept. City of Winchester Town of Middletown Parks & -'Rec. 1� Airport Authority Town of Stephens City ✓ 2. 1 copy of the MDP application 3. 25 copies of the plan on a single sheet ✓ 4. 1 reproducible copy of the plan (if required) ^ ✓ 5, a 35mm. slide of the plan G. Application Review Fee (check made payable to "Frederick County Treasurer") 0-*450 » hs 04V44 M4,Leb AI 71yr 1000VA a. . n. 0 PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHECKLIST The following checklist is intended to assist the applicant in insuring that all required information is provided or is available to allow review by the County. This form must be completed by the applicant and submitted with the preliminary master development plan. All required items must be provided on the PMDP. Background Information: 1. Development's name: 0A:5-r4E ,Devc"p14e,vT aep .2. Location of property: A?-7Lc, GyS 6ovri4. eF )27-e, .a'"•'2Z, 3. Total area of property: Z,Z,a 4. Property ID # (14 Digit) &q&o6- /4 - 0666-e.- 5. Property zoning and present use R P Uk0A.-17 6. Adjoining property zoning and present use: 1/ga., SSEtAN 7. Proposed Uses: %,w,,� .,.gas Ave as,+ASiIE.✓ 8. Magisterial District: 46p%Aw,.fCE- 9. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan? Original Amended Ll 0 0 0 General Information: 1. Have.the following items been included? North arrow Yes ✓ No Scale Yes V No Legend Yes_/ No Boundary Survey Yes ✓ No Total Area Yes ✓ No Topography Yes ✓ No Project Title Yes ✓ No Preparation and Revision Date Yes ,/ No Applicants Signed Yes No Consent Statement 2. Number of phases -proposed? S 3. Are the proposed phases shown on the Master Development Plan? Yes ✓ No 4. Are the.uses of adjoining properties clearly designated? Yes No 5. Is an inset map provided showing the location of the project and all public roads within 2,000 feet. Yes 1/ No 6. Are all land uses clearly shown? Yes ✓ No 7. Are environmental features clearly shown? Yes ✓ No 8. Describe the following environmental features: Total Area % Disturbed (Acres) by development Floodplains -p Lakes and ponds p Natural retention areas 0 Steep slopes (15% or more) Q, Zr90 Woodlands E Acres in Open Space 9. Are the following shown on the master development plan? Street layout Yes ✓ No Entrances Yes '✓ No Parking areas Yes No Utilities (mains) Yes ✓ No 10. Has a conceptual stormwater manage ent plan been provided? Yes No '11. Have all historical structures been identified? Yes-AIA No Residential Uses If the Master Development Plan includes any land zoned RP, (Residential Performance) or any residential uses; the following items should be completed. 1. What numbers and types of housing are proposed? 7 Z 2. Is a schedule provided describing each of the following in each phase: Open space acreage Acreage in each housing type Acreage in streets and right Total acreage Number of dwellings of each of ways type Yes ✓ No Yes ,/ No Yes ;7 No Yes k/ No Yes_/ No 3. What percentage of the total site is to be placed in common open space?—, 6SXa 10 4. Are recreational facilities required? Yes v---- No 5. What types of recreational facilities are proposed? !>N+t7� af�vw.+ .�.� 7�rs• f't,.,q,✓ wrc� vSB E'X/37���i REC'AkAT�e.w Ft}�rr-r�r�"s �3��c.•r wrT>3 �R�'LT..+� /�e,9•�� /gFAt�x��.+ts e,✓ a�w-�� Ssx,� o� �r,�, Gy.S' 6. Are -separation buffers required? Yes No 7. Are road efficiency buffers required? Yes No ✓ 8. Are landscaping or landscaped screens required? Yes ✓ No 9. Are required buffers, screens, and landscaping described by the plan with profiles or examples? Yes ✓No 11 • NAME Luther Pangle Est. c/o John Pangle Address 560 N. Pershing Avenue, York, PA 17404 Property ID# 64B00-A-0000-00-55 Joseph C. & Thelma E. Bauserman Address 256 Bufflick Road, Winchester,; .VA 22602 Property ID# 64B00-A-0000-00-56 Joseph C. & Thelma E. Bauserman Address 256 Bufflick Road, Winchester,, VA 22602 Property ID# 64B00-A-0000-00-57 30' R/W Address Property ID# . Flotie E. Boggs .Address 226 Bufflick Road, Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID# 64B00-A-0000-00-59 Timothy P. Rogers Address 218 Bufflick Road, Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID# 64B00-A-0000-00-60 William L. Copenhaver Address 210 Bufflick Road, Winchester, VA 22602 . Property ID# 64B00-A-0000-00-61 James E. Wisecarver Address 202 Bufflick Road, Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID# 64B00-A-0000-00-62 John A. Pearson & Donna T.. Pearson Address 192 Bufflick Road, Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID# 64B00-A-0000-00-63 John M. & Pamela S. Orndorff Address 166 Bufflick Road, Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID# 64B00-A-0000-00-64 John M. & Pamela S. Orndorff Address IJ66 Bufflick Road, Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID# 64B00-A-0000-00-65 John M. & Pamela S. Orndorff Address 166 Bufflick Road, Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID# 64B00-A-0000-00-66 Aj AUG 994 RECE DEPT. OF PLANNING pjjj) DEVELOPMENT cl t! 0 ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the public hearing. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a road from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the 14 digit tax parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. NAME _ C. Douglas Adams Address 434 Bufflick Rd., Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID# 64000-A-0000-00-45 Preston Place Associates Address 2801 Southwell Place, Midlothian, VA 23113 Property ID# 64000-A-0000-0-45B Silver Development Co. Address 4500 Plank Road, Fredericksburg, VA 22407 Property ID# 64000-A-0000-0-45C C. Douglas Adams Address 434 Bufflick Rd., Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID# 64000-A=0000-0-45D Hope Anne Reagan Address 649 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, VA . 22602 Property ID# 64000-A-000070-45E Ellen Linette Spicer ` Address 298 Bufflick Rd., Winchester, VA 22602" Property ID# 64000-A-000-00-58 Thelma S. Cook Address 282 Bufflick Road, Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID# 64B00-A-0000-00-53 Thelma S. Cook Address 282 Bufflick Road, Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID# 64B00-A-0000-00-54 Thelma S. Cook Ad d r es s282 Bufflick Road, Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID# 64B00-A-0000-0-54A Thelma S. Cook. Address 282 Bufflick Road, Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID# 64B00-A-0000-0-54B 13 NAME John R. & Lillie E. Hawkins Address 160 Bufflick Road, Winchester, VA 22602' Property ID# 64B00-A-0000-00-67 Howard J. & Lillie M. Ashby Address 154 Bufflick Road, Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID# 64B00-A-0000-00-68 Isabelle V. Pingley, et als Address P.O. Box 173, Winchester, VA 22604 Property ID# 64B00-A-0000-00-84 Melvin D. Boone & Kathleen D. Address 641 Front Royal Pike,-, Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID# 64B00-A-0000-00-85 Clinton D. & Agnes J. Lewis Address 639 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID# 64B00-A-0000-00-86 Robert J. McDaniel & Karen S. Address 643 Front Royal Pike, 'Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID# 64B00-A-0000-00-90 Geneva O. Dean Address 687 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, VA 22602 Property ID# 64C00-A-0000-00-03 Elmer A. & Sherman Luella J. Address 699 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, VA 22602. Property ID# 64C00-A4000-00-04 Address Property ID# Address Property ID# Address Property ID# Address Property ID# 4H 352-130 01 Win Crest 5 7 372— 218 9A 9 a BOrberlo's MHP 1 6 32 4 96 5 8 10 231-71 Op 1 p, F Drive 12 231— 76 d� 0 13 A Al 89B J 88 ' Lys CS / 1> 45C Airport Road �/— q'^10 \�0°a 18 QQ� 14 15 r 16 Elmwood ,Rbod -&t. 786 1 Rt.785� Lon croft Rood ,B5 44 See 45 43 42 225-133 41 A 327-326 MDP #006-94 PIN; 64—A-45C Castle Development Corp, 0 COUNTY of FREDERICK y Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 October 12, 1994 TO THE APPLICANT(S) AND /OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS) The Application of: SILVER DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES Preliminary Master Development Plan #006-94 for proposed townhouses and garden apartments. This property is located off of Airport Road (Route 645) north side, just east of Front Royal Pike (Route 522), in the Shawnee District and is identified as PIN # 64-A-45C. This master development plan will be considered by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their meeting of October 26, 1994, at 7:15 p. in., in the board room of the old Frederick County Courthouse, Winchester, Virginia. Any interested parties may attend this meeting. Sincerely, '1 Evan A. Wyatt Planner II EAW/de 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 This is to, �ertify that attached correspondence was m to the following on *ning OCTOBE�; 1994 from the Department of and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: FLOTIE BOGGS ' 1 i 226 BUFFLICK"ROAD C. DOUGLAS ADAMS I WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 --- ---- 434 BUFFLICK ROAD-,---VIRGINIA ; WINCHESTER,VIRGINIA 22602 TIMOTHY ROGERS }% 218 BUFFLICK ROAD PRESTON PLACEASSOC :�;. �� � WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 2801 SOUTHWELL PLACE WILLIAM COPE_.. NHAVER- j' MIDLOTHIAN,VIRGINIA23113 _ , I210 BUFFLICK ROAD SILVER DEVELOPMENT CO. - 1f 1WINCHESTER,,VIRGINIA 22602: I f- PLANK ROAD C4500 FREDERICKSBURG,•VIRGINIA 22407 JAMES E. WISECARVER r � �`�202 HOPE ANNE REAGAN BUFFLICK ROAD l WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 649, FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 I JOHN'A. PEARSON 192 .BUFFLICK ROAD ELLEN LINETTE SPICER WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 298 BUFFLICK ROAD - -- - - - -- - - - _JOHN WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 " ORNDORFF I � --- 1 66 BUFFLICK ROAD (i THELMA S. COOK WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602, j 1.282.BUFFLICK ROAD �(JOHN WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 HAWKINS. 160 BUFFLICK ROAD `1LUTHER PANGLE EST: WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 560N. PERSHING AVENUE f { YORK PA. 17404 l JOSEPH BAUSERMAN 256 BUFFLICK`ROAD WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 ` { Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II . �- --- --- — — --=--= - = — -- -= - -- =- - --� Frederick Co. Planning Dept. STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK I, RENEE S. ARLOTTA , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II, for the Department of 1� Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated OCTOBER *, 1994 , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County foresaid. Given under my hand this day of OCTOBER 1994 My commission expires on AUGUST 31, 1995 NOTARY PUBLIC 'Z'hec NAAW* cbL" C I �HOWARD ASHBY, -- -- - ` 154 BUFFLICK ROAD, WINCHESTER,. VIRGINIA 22602 . � i �'ISABELLE PINGLEY � P.O. ' BOX 173 j'WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604 MELVIN BOONE 641 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 A. CLINTON LEWIS 639, FRONT:ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER'; VIRGINIA 22602 ROBERT MCDANIEL 643 FRONT ROYAL PIKE { WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 GENEVA DEAN I 687 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER,.VIRGINIA 22602 EL' 'ER SHEI*M 699 FRONT.ROYAL.PIKE WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 0 s i fit - 219921 ; REQUEST FOR RASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN CORI•SENTS Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer P.O. Dox 278 Edinburg, Virginia 22824-0278 (703) 984-4133 The local office of the Transportation Department is located at 1550 Commerce St. in Winchester if you prefer to hand deliver this form. Applicant's name, address and phone number:, Castle Development Corp. (804) 794-0576 2801 Southwell Place, Midlothian, VA 23113 Name of development and/or description of the request: Preston Place - Revised Master Development Plan Location: Shawnee Magisterial District on Route 645 (North Side) just east of Route 522. Va. Dept. of Transportation Comments: ` No objection to the revised master development plan for this property. Prior to making final comments this office will require a complete set of site plans which detail entrance(s) design and drainage features. Traffic flow data from the ITE TripCa-jeratian Manual, 4th Edition will also be needed for review. The data should include- all phases of proposed development including the existing phase of the' Preston Place project on the south side of Route 645. A left and/or right turn lanes may.Be required. Prior to cons ruc ion on VDOT rig -o -way the eve oper will be required to apply for issuance of necessary Land Use Permits. VDOT Signature and Date: (NOTICE TO RESIDENT ENGINEERNPLEASE RETURN TIiI OR TO APPLICANT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as .possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. UH 1 2 21994 FIfR&A SRMJ :1.4A fflR( OFFICF REQUEST FOR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN CO1*1ENTS Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer Director 199 Front Royal Pike P.O. Box 618 Winchester, Virginia 22604 (703) 665-5690 The Frederick County Sanitation Authority is located on U.S. 522 South, one tenth of a mile from the U.S. 50 North intersection, if you prefer to hand deliver this review. �� R'� A Applicant's name, address and phone number: /7 Castle Development Corp. (804) 794-0576 2801 Southwell Place, Midlothian, VA 23113 Name of development and/or description of the request: Preston Place - Revised Master Development Plan Location: Shawnee Magisterial District on Route 645 (North Side) just east of Route 522. Sanitation Authority Comments: Sanitation Authority Signature & Date: (NOTICE TO SANITATION AUTHORITY * I2N THIS FORM TO APPLICANT.) c%iG .Z NOTICE TO APPLICANT /, 9S• It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your application form, location map, and all other pertinent information. 0 n Li REQUEST FOR I•LASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN CO1121FNTS Frederick County Inspections Department Attn: Duilding Official P.O. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-5650 The Frederick County Inspections Department is located at 9 North Loudoun St., 2nd Floor of the Hammon Building in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Castle Development Co (804) 794-0576 2801 Southwell Place, Midlothian, VA 23113 Name of development and/or description of the request: Preston Place - Revised Master Development Plan Location: . Shawnee Magisterial District on Route 645 (North Side) just east of Route 522. Inspection Department Continents: Building shall comply with Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 310 Use Group R (Residential) of the BOCA National Building Code/1993. other codes that apply are title IV Code of Federal Regulation, Part 36 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability. Code Administrator Signature & Date: _ '� (NOTICE TO INSPECTIONS DEPT. *PLEASE RETURNTI I FOR24 TO , PPLICA 1T. )� l' NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form. as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. I/ I_I G— 2 — a .} I i t l_, a— I 1. ♦ �_ I __ I_ 1 I_ i 1 1 I 1 I,-- I 1 _ 1 1 �; I � �, �.. �� F. LJ G I:UUN I'Y OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA FIRE MARSf-LAL' S OFFIC117 LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS Control No. 0721 525 Date Received 07. 21F4 Date Reviewed 081794 Applicant Name _Patton xarri R Rust & Assoc Address P. 0. -Box 46 Bridgewater, VA 22812,_ T_ Project Name Preston Place v 1. Phone No. -703-828-2616 Type of Application Master Development Current'Zoning RP let Due Fire Co,'- la lst Due Rescue Co. 18__ R1 e.c; t ion District hgtlnee RECOMMENDATIONS Automatic, Sprinkler System Residential Sprinkler System ___ A+it.omatic Fire Alarm System X Other Emergency Vehicle Access; Adequate Inadequate r'll'� L�lii+n R_I4uiled Ye- C 1— X Nnt TriPnr i fi eri No rnmm4.nte Doctod f& 1J,t pll ckAiL locations and at arkin t entrance islands, Roadway/Aisleway Widths; I)dst.g711 tQ Tnadp(piato Not IdantiSlad OPrtc.ial Haaalaa Nuted; Yes No X Comments - Continued - llydrant LQQ1t10178; See Narp.s Ad--yuaLe inadequ,ar.a _ NoL. Iderir i f i (-.d X Siamese Connection Location; " ApprnvPri Not A�prnvnd PdOt T�ltiril X Adds t1 nnal ('r)mmpnt-q • 1 ) mn laddar truolc_ -9000M tZ CM&I'Liw-iiLm OpbGSite the parking lots This will be addressed at site -plan 1i i�r�ia„� iyt:al.lUfIH dippear Co, ►oe netalnCL var�incr 8vages. This will al3o be-addressbe-addresggj during site -plan r,yiew. 3) The parking lot lane to the building furtherest '"est i in excel of 300' Provid ui-d - c or h mmerhea turn around at the end of thi arking lot lane on site plan. 4 TemRorary street signrld street addresses must be posted when_constructign begins. 5) Land clearing debris can be burned Qn site after obtaining a permit from the Fire Marshal's Off:Lce. 6) Burning of construction debris on site is r)?Qhibited 7) No apartment unit can be more than 50' from centerline of parking It traffic lane;_ Thia is to facilitate -ladder t tck accesp to Upperrt-Qriesand the roof. 8) Access for emergency vehiclep must be maintained at glil time8 duringconstructs n, 9 20# fire ex 'nguisherg(ABC type) must be maintained on each floor of each LiildinQ during c,�nstruction. IQ) All other fire/zescue sstles will be addre ed on site plan. Re gw Timms. T1 hr Doi.tcilas A.' Kiracote Fire Marshal • �t 1� rpT. i, Aft DLVELol .,. �G �1ENT Ui:11/94 17:w3 4 U553 CAS1LL UE1" CURP• to002 REQUEST FOR 14AsTF.R DEVELOPMENT PLAN C014I4ENTS Frederick County parks and Recreation Dept. Attn: Directorjof Parks and Recreation P 1O. Sox 60l Winchester, Va. 22601 (703) 665-5678 The Frederick County Parks a9d Recreation Department is located on the second floor of the Frederick County Administration Building, 9 Court Square, Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Castle Development Corp. I• (804) 794-0576 2801 Southwell place, Midlothian, VA- 23113 Name of development and/or description of the request: Preston Place - Revised Master Development Plan Location: Shawnee Magisterial District on Route 645 (North Side) Just east. of Route 522. Parks & Recreation Dept. Cory ents: Uizements_ More information regarding required recreational units is needed prior to any comments on that aspect of the Project. Parks Signature and pate: (NOTICE TO PARKS - PLEASFTEI �R_N THIS FORM TO THE APPLICAN . ) TO APPLICANT. Yt is your responsibili Complate this form as accurately as possible in order to ashe agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your plans and/or application forTr,•.• I 0 4v- REQUEST FOR 14ASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS Frederick County Engineering Department Attn: Director of Engineering P.O. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-5643 The Frederick County Engineering Department is located at 9 North Loudoun St., 2nd Floor of the Hammon Building in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Castle Development Corp. (804) 794-0576 2801 Southwell Place, Midlothian, VA 23113 Name of development and/or description of the request: Preston Place - Revised Master Development Plan Location: Shawnee Magisterial District on Route 645 (North Side) just east of Route 522. Engineers Comments: . n rW,-tw _W' 1 i 6 Wka&Q- 0.�r IkL WISt ��-tYl�.. --n-P I \q.V, 'A is. )ton .0(-&Y, yc�i"m-ew VAS-\1 ey', taYvnwo-kv Ma%ACn.ckeVIA tt, a-vo5wA o-vA -,Aat ix* eoi Aml a%,,A SAt-cGv6AILY%A _ ICA Engineers Signature & Date: (NOTICE TO ENGINEERING DEPT. *PL ASE ETURN THIS FOR1,MT0 PPLIC T.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your plans and/or application form REQUEST FOR I-LASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN COIMENTS Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director Route 1, Box 208-A Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 662-2422 The Winchester Regional Airport is located on Route 645, off of Route 522 South, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number:. Castle Development Corp. (804) 794-0576 2801 Southwell Place, Midlothian, VA 23113 Name of development and/or description of the request: Preston Place - Revised Master Development Plan Location: Shawnee Magisterial District on Route 645 (North Side) just east of Route 522. Winchester Regional Airports Comments: The Airport Authority objects to residential development inside of the Airport Support Area. Please refer to the attached comments. Airport -Signature and Date: A. Cx c (NOTICE TO AIRPORT. * PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO A LICANT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. 1 u c SEWNG THE TOP Of VQGUA August 9, 1994 WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT 491 AIRPORT ROAD WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 (703) 662-2422 Mr. Robert W. Watkins, Director Department of Planning and Development Frederick County, Virginia Post Office Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22604 Re: Response to Request for Comments Preston Place Apartments - Revised Master Plan Dear Mr. Watkins: The Airport Authority's position on new residential construction within the Airport Support Area has not changed. The Airport Authority strongly recommends that residential units not be built within the Airport Support Area for reasons associated with perceived and real noise and fly -over nuisance. The story is a very old one and has been told for many years at numerous locations throughout the Country. Residential development occurs near an airport, people move in, discover the airport, and immediately begin complaining about aircraft noise. As a result, aeronautical activity and air commerce is restricted. We offer the following recommendations which we believe may reduce the impact of a potentially unfavorable situation. a. Encourage the developer to present a unequivocal notice of probable aircraft noise and fly -over nuisance to be give to all potential apartment/townhouse tenants. Specifically, the following actions should be taken: (1) Requirement to present a dominant statement of probable aircraft noise and fly -over nuisance in rental/buyer agreements/leases. (2) Requirement to post prominent warnings with specific regard to the proximity of the airport and probable aircraft noise and fly -over nuisance on all advertisements, brochures and promotional materials. b. Require acoustical treatment of the apartment/townhouse building(s), i.e., appropriate noise insulation, baffled vents, air conditioning, etc. Response to Request for Comments Preston Place - Revised Master Plan Page 2 These recommendations were agreed upon by Mr. McNamara, President, Castle Development Corporation, in a letter dated September 16, 1992, for construction of the first series of Preston Place Apartments on the south side of State Route 645. We appreciate the difficult position Frederick County. officials continuously face concerning zoning and the extremely difficult position we are suggesting with respect to potential a.irpnrt nois? problems. The airport is a significant public investment and an important economic development tool that, if protected from residential encroachment, will serve our growing community and the region for years to come. If you should have questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Serena R. Manuel Acting Executive Director pc: Michael McNamara, President, Castle Development Corporation Richard Dick,Chairman, Board of Supervisors W. Harrington Smith, Supervisor, Shawnee District John R. Riley, Jr., Administrator, Frederick County Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc 4 • • FILE COPY COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 TO: Mr. Lawrence Ambrogi, Commonwealth Attorney Mr. John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator FROM: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning DirectoL�y RE: Question of Vesting DATE: September 23, 1994 Frederick County has received an application for approval of a revised Master Development Plan for a 22 acre parcel located on the north side of Airport Road. The property is zoned RP (Residential Performance). The original MDP was approved for 117 townhouse units roughly three years ago. The proposed revision to this plan would increase the number of units to 156 (84 apartments and 72 townhouses) units. In May of this year the Board of Supervisors approved an amendment to the County Zoning Ordinance which reduced the permitted density on parcels between 10 and 100 acres in size to no more than 5.5. units per acre. The owner/applicants feel that based on a number of factors, their proposed revision should be considered vested. The applicants attorney has submitted the attached appeal which attempts to demonstrate their position. I have also attached some information which we had available in the office pertaining to vesting. It may or may not be of any use. The pending MDP will be considered by the Planning Commission at their October 5, 1994 meeting. We request that you or your staff give us your opinion on the issue of whether or not the density proposed should be considered vested. Members of the Planning staff will be happy to meet with you or provide you any additional information you might need in making your determination. 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 9-2 -94 9,44 PM ; 10 7032736772;# 1/ 7 TO: Name: Firmr : location: TELECOPY INFORMATION HUNTON & WILLIAMS Suite 600 3050 Chain Bridge Road Fairfax, Virginia 22030 (703)352-2200 Mr. Robert 'Watkins Teleaopier Nos. (703)273-6772 prederick County Dept. of Plarming & Development Winchester, VA Telecopy Number: (703) 678-0682 7 Pages (Including Cover) FROM: Name: Francis A. McDermott Hunton & Williams (5th Floor) (703) 934-8934 If problem with transmission, please contaci Telecopy Operator at (703)934-$959. Special Instructions: Let me know if you would like copies of underlying correspondence referenced in chronology. Thank you for your consideration. Operator: Date: September 22, 1994 Client/Matter Name: Szlver)WInc%ester Client/Matter No.: 22648. Time: a.m./p.m. This communication is confidential and is intended to be privileged pursuant to the attorney -client privilege and the work -product doctrine. X the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended ;recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissmination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited, if you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone, and return the original message to US at the above address via the U.S. postal Service. 9-22194 9,44 PM � , 7032736772;9 2/ 7 HUXTON SAC WILLIAMS ATLANTA, GEORGIA 0050 CHAIN BRIDGE ROAD, SUITE (300 RALCIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 5RU$5ELS,'9ELGIUM RICHMONO) VIRGINIA KNOXVILLEi-TENNESSEE P. O. $OK 1147 WAROAW, ►OLAND NEW YORK, NCW YORK WASHINGTON, Cp, C. NQRFOL,I, VIRO(NIA FAIi4FAx, VI RmNiA 22030 TELEPHONY (703) 382-2200 TrLECOPIER (709) 273-6772 September 22, 1994 y Tel�►copie Feder Ex]2gess Mr. Robert Watkins, Director Frederick county Department of planning and Development 9 North. Loudoun Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 preston Place, Parcel 64-A-4 tear Mr. Natkinss 'File: 22648 Direct Ditd: 934-8934 'hank you and Kris Tierney for meeting this past Monday with Richard,Tremblay of The Silver Companies ("Silver") and with me regarding development of the 22-acre residue of Silver's 42-acre Preston Place property, located on -the north and south sides of Airport Road, Route 645. As was dizoucced, tho ohangs in the Residential Performance (RP) zoning district adopted by the county Board on May 11., 1994, reducing silver's maximum allowable density from 8 to 5.5 dwelling units per acre on the north 22- acre residue, has severe, inequitable impacts on the RP -zoned property. This letter is to set forth the facts based upon which Silver is entitled to develop 156 dwelling units on the remaining 22-acres as a matter of right. Most importantly, Silver entered into two legally binding contracts for the sale of portions of the 22-acre property prior to the adoption of the RP zoning amendment. One contract is for 72 apartment units on 5 to 6 acres, and the other contract is for 35 elderly apartments on approximately 3 acres. These contracts were executed, and subsequent engineering work was pursued, in relianoe on the 8 dwelling units per acre density which the RP zoning permitted at the time of this contract, and which coning density was confirmed by your department prior to our entering into each contract, and was reconfirmed subsequent to the apartment contract. 9-22-94 9,44 PNI • 7032736772;9 3/ 7 IHTJX'1ON & WILLIAMS Mr. Robert Watkins, Director September 22, 1994 Page 2 Our understanding from Mondays meeting is that the Preston Place Revised Master Development Plan for 72 apartments and 84 townhouses on the 22-acre site will be forwarded to that Planning commission at its October 5, 1994, meeting for a recommendation, and then to the Board of Supervisors at either the October 12 or October 26, 1994 meeting. As*was emphasized in the meeting, the County's action on the Revised Master Development Plan for the 72 apartment units is necessary by the end of October, 1994, in order .for the contract purchaser, Castle Development corporation, to close on the property and lock in Virginia Allocated tax credits for Preston place Apartments, Phase 11. otherwise, Castle will not be able to requalify for another 12 months. Listed below is at chronology of the relevant actions and approvals on which we rely: Date Event November 2, 1990 Master Development Flan approval for 117 townhouse units on the 22-49rp n03�th parcel. June 1.4, 1991 Final engineering plans and subdivision plat for 117 townhouse units submitted to the County, showing five development phases. September 23, 1992 Revised Master Plan approval for 120 apartments on 17.3 acres of the south 20-acre parcel, with the 2.7-acre balance shown as "future residential". (Total density of the revised master plan is 237 units on 39.3 acres, 6.0 per acre, which is well under the i� per acre allowed by th& RP 26hihq. December 21, 1992 Closed with Preston Place Associates (Mike McNamara) on 17.3 acres on south side for 120 apartments. Fall, 1993 120 apartment units completed, which included water, sewer and stormwater infrastructure for whole 42-acre property. December 10, 1993 Silver entered into negotiations with castle Development corporation for the sale of approximately 5 to 6 acres of the 22-acre property for 72 apartments as Phase 11 of Preston Place apartments. 9-22-94 9,44 PM ; 7032735772;# 4/ 7- HUNTON & WILLIAMS Mr. Robert Watkins, Director September 22, 1994 Page 3 January 24, 1994 Silver confirmed with Kris Tierney of the Planning Department that RP zoning would permit 72 apartments on approximately 5 to 6 acres of the site and 84 townhouse units on the balance of the property, a total of 156 units, at a gross density of 7 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Tierney advised that the Master development Plan would have to be revised, but that the RP zoning allowed the intended uses at the intended density. February 30 1994 silver executed a contract with Castle Development Corporation for the sale of approximately 5 to 6 acres for 72 apartment units. The contract was based on the fact that the RP zoning allowed for density of 156 units. The 5-6 acre site fits into the Phase one area leaving intact the engineering for Phases Two through Five, but for a total of 84 townhouse units. March 30, 1994 Letter from Kris Tierney to Michael Buseck (Mike McNamara's attorney) confirming that RP zoning allows iv units per acre. March 31, 1994 Castle Development Corporation, based on the contract, applied to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development for tax credits for 72 apartment units. April 5, 1994 silver enterod into negotiations with the Virginia United Methodist Dousing Development Corporation for the sale of approximately 3 acres of this north 22 acres for 35 elderly apartments. April 26, 1994 Silver confirmed with the Planning Department staff that the proposed 35 elderly apartment units would be permitted in the RP zoning, as an amendment to the Master Development Plan, which would leave 49 townhouse lots on the 13-acre balance of the property, for a total. or 156 units on the 22-acres. The 3--acre site fit into the Phase Two area of our property, Leaving intact the engineering for Phases Three through Five, but for a total of 49 townhouse units. 9-22-94 9,44 PM ; 0 7032735772;# 5/ 7 HUNZ'014 tie WILLI.AXS Mr. Robert Watkins, Director September 22, 1994 Page 4 April 26, 1994 Castle Development Corporation was informed by the State that its application for tax credits was approved for the 72 apartment units. . May a, 1994 silver signed a contract with the Virginia United M6thodist Housing Development Oorp6rati6h for the 6&1e of APJ ttViMWIY 3 acres for 85 elderly apartments. The contract purchaser then immediately filed its application with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for a grant under Title 202. The application is still pending with HUD. May 11, 1994 The RP zoning was amended to reduce density to 5.5 dwelling units per acre. No notice .was given to silver and Silver had no knowledge of the amendment, despite the Caunty's prior Xngwledge of the above two development proposals and contracts, and the resultant change in density. O'une 3, 1994 Castle Development Corporation's engineer, Patton, Harris & Rust met with the Planning Department staff to review the proposed Master Development Plan revision for 72 apartments and 84 townhouse lots. Several technical comments were made dealing principally with access, but no comment was made regarding the RP zoning amendment or a density problem. June 21, 1994 The planning Department staff wrote to Patton, Harris & Rust to confirm the technical comments made at the June 3, 1994, meeting; nothing was mentioned about a density problem. July 20, 1994 Castle Development Corporation submitted the Revised Master Development Plan tor 72 apartments and 84 townhouse lots to the various Frederick County departments for review. None of the review comments returned to the engineer mentioned a density problem. 9-22-94 9:44 PM ; ' 0 7032736772; # 61' 7 HUNTQN & WILLIAMS Nor. Robert Watkins, Director September 22, 1994 Page 3 July 27, 1994 Castle Development Corporation directed its engineer to prepare the final engineering plans for the 72 apartment units. August 29, 1994 The revised Master Development Plan application for 72 apartments and 84 townhouse lots was submitted to the Planning Department following department reviews. September 14, 1994 Patton, Harris & Rust contacted our company to say that the Planning Department would not forward the Revised Master Development Plan to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors unless 35 of the 84 townhouse lots were eliminated from the plan to comply with the 5.5-unit per acre RP zoning density. This was the first indication that we'had that the RP zoning has been amended and that there was a density issue with the proposed 156 units on the property. The two contracts that were entered into prior to the amendment of the RP zoning, coupled with Silver's specific reliance on the s dwelling units per acre density then applicable to the 22-acre parcel, which was confirmed by the County staff in response to several specific inquiries, the significant contractual exposure and financial detriment incurred by Silver because of this good faith reliance, Silver's diligence in confirming the densities before entering into the contracts, the obvious diligence with which the engineering and the Virginia and Federal applications were pursued, the silence on the County's part at all stages during a time when Silver, if made aware of an apparently long -pending ordinance charge, could have (i) better protected itself, (ii) participated in -this process, and/or (iii) declined to enter into the contracts, the prior construction of 120 units on the 17.3-acre south portion of the parcel, the expenditure of $105,000 in constructing a pump station, force main, and water line extension from Route 522, all of sufficient size to serve the pre-existing density allowed by the zoning ordinance on the entire 42 acres -- all of these facts vest in silver the right todevelop a total of 156 dwelling units on the north 22 acres, a total which still equates to a density of approximately 7 units per acre, not the allowed s units per acre. The structure of the two contracts was based on the zoning provisions whereby Silver would have 49 townhouse units left on 9-22,94 9:44 PNJ �' ` 7032736772;# 7/ 7 HTJWTON & Wxl.lIAXS Mr. Robert Watkins, bireator September 22, 1994 Page 6 the 13-acre balance of the property after selling the 6-acre parcel (72 apartment units) and the 3-acre parcel (35 elderly apartments). Under the revised ordinance, Silver would be left with only 10 townhouse units on 13 acres, a loss of 39 townhouse units, which is an enormous economic impact. Such a use for the 13 acres would not be logical nor economical. Furthermore, the fiscal impact on Frederick. County of the 156 units, including 72 rental and 35 elderly apartments, will be less than the impact from the original 117 proposed townhouses. Studies show that apartments have less than half the fiscal impact of townhouses. Clearly, elderly units have even less impact, and there is a significant need for elderly facilities in Frederick County, We request that the County consider all the above facts and the equities, and approve the Revised Master Development Flan for 156 units, including 72 apartments and 84 townhouses. Should the HUD grant be approved for the 35 elderly apartment units; we understand that the Master Development Plan would have to be appropriately revised to reflect another change in unit type for that portion of the 22 acres, but Silver agrees that the density would not exceed 156 total units on the residue, or a total of approximately 7 dwelling units per acre on the 22 acres. while we are convinced that this is an absolutely compelling vesting case, should the Board, for some reason, not be able to reach a vesting determination, we would urge that the Board approve the pending Revised Development Plan pursuant to an equitable determination that Silver's right to develop 156 residential units on the north 22-acre parcel is "grandfathered." We appreciate your understanding and the Countylz aaraful attention to this request. Should you have any questions or need further information, please feel free to call Richard Tremblay at (703) 786-1400 or me. very truly yours, 4�cis.McDermott ac: Edward O. Minnear, ar. Richard Tremblay 0 ! ITEM #3 VESTED RIGHTS Generally speaking, a vested right allows a landowner to proceed with a proposed development which is not permitted by the existing regulations. When a governing body allows a developer to proceed with a project in which vested rights is a factor, the governing body has permitted a use which is legally non -conforming. If a governing body denies a developer to claim a vested right, the issue then becomes whether there has been a taking of private property without due process of law. Occasionally, the question of vested development rights arises which requires a determination on the part of staff. These questions generally pertain to allowable gross densities and design standards. The following questions provide an example: 1) Is a developer exempt from new development standards if he or she has an approved master development plan? 2) If a subdivision plan is approved for a new phase, can it be developed in accordance with the design standards of the previous phases? 3) Is a site plan vested from amendments to the Zoning and/or Subdivision Ordinances if it has been submitted for review but has not received final approval? The Planning Department has agreed with developers that approved master development plans permit certain vested rights. In other words, a master development plan which was approved in 1986 may permit a higher density than is currently permitted, or may specify specific buffer distances that are not consistent with current requirements. However, staff has disagreed that these approved plans provide developers with a vested right in design standards. This was the case in the proposed Fieldstone Heights residential subdivision. In this case, the developer had an approved master development plan that permitted 215 single family dwelling units on lots that were an average of 12,150 square feet. Prior to development of this residential subdivision, Frederick County adopted new subdivision standards for curb and gutter, sidewalks, street lights, etc., for residential subdivisions with lots Iess than 15,000 square feet. Frederick County agreed that 215 lots could be developed provided that the new design standards were met. In this case, the developer revised the master development plan to increase the lot size to a square footage in which the design standards were not required. The DRRS has been asked to consider development issues and opportunities where vested rights may be claimed. It would be beneficial for Frederick County to determine specific situations in which vested rights may be declared. This would provide staff with guidance in resolving these issues. Included under this agenda item is various case law, excerpts from the Code of Virginia, and issues discussed during the 1993 VAZO annual meeting. Staff asks that the DRRS review this material and provide input that can be researched or considered for future discussions. 90 Vested Rights The legal theory of vested rights Is a variation of the doctrine of the taking of property without due process of law. The issue arises when a locality changes (lie ordinance that regulates the use of certain land within the jurisdiction. The question in such a case then be- comes, what right, if any, does the ownerof that particu- lar property have to continue using the property in [lie same manner as before the new regulation took effect. As a universally accepted rule, the property owner has no vested right in a zoning classification by itself. The fact that a particular property has enjoyed a particular use classification by itself conveys no continuing right to that classification, since the right to zone and rezone is a continuing legislative right of the local government. Of course, such zoning or rezoning must be accom- plished according to law (including the basic legal prin- ciples in the first section of this volume). However, even valid zonings and rezonings will not affect certain preexisting uses if the court determines that applying the new regulations will result in an unconstitutional taking of property rights that have already 'vested' in the property owner by virtue of his reliance on the prior zoning regulations. This concept is easily stated in .the abstract. Tile problem arises in determining the point at which one acquires the type of property right that the court will allow to continue in spite of new regulation. This deter- mination is ultimately a matter of a case -by -case analy- sis according to certain broad standards. Two recent cases declaea by the Virginia Supreme Court have amplified the law of vested rights in Virginia from that set forth in the early 1970s, in the then -landmark cases u. Medical Structures and Cities Service Oil Coinpany.t Both Medical Structures and Cities Service Oil Com- pany gave considerable weight to the fact that the com- plaining property owner had relied upon the government's granting special exception permits, and that thereafter tile locality had changed file zoning ordinance to make the use invalid. The Court also appeared to place substantial weight on the fact that (lie property owners in question had each spent substantial sums of money in reliance upon their rights before the zoning law was changed. In the later Notestein and Toiu,l of Stephens City cases, the Court made clear (flat it would support the right of the local jurisdiction to change a land use regulation unless the complaining landowner could demonstrate an affirmative or significant governmental or official act upon which the landowner relied to his or herdetriment before the change of land use regulation.2 In Notestein, a landowner, relying upon assertions by members of the board of supervisors that no regula- tions prohibited the development of his property as a nonhazardous solid waste landfill, pursued such devel- opment by securing financing and filing with the Vir- ginia Department of Waste Management for a permit. Subsequently, the county enacted a zoning ordinance that prohibited the development of the property as a landfill. In Torun of Stephens City, a developer sought vested rights protection for his property based upon a site plan that had been filed but not finally approved. After the developer had applied for the site plan, tile relevant ordinance was amended to reduce [lie number of units that could be built on the site. The Virginia Supreme Court ruled against 'the landowner in each case. This discussion assumes that both the locality and the property owner act in good faith in pursuing their respective courses. If either does not, the court may find I Board of Supervisors of Fairfax Comely v. Medical Structures, luc., 213 Va. 255, 192 S.E.2d 799 (1972); and Board of Supervisorsof Fairfax County v. Cilics Semite Oil Co., 213 Va. 359,193 S.E.2d l (1972). 2 Nol estein v. Board of Supervisors of Appaumllox County, 240 Va. 146,393S.E.2d 205 (1990); 7 oturr of Stephens City v. Russell, 241 Va. 160,399 S.E.2d 814 (1991). Vested Iti91 its 91 0 2.4-L — ON VESTED RIGHTS --- An Annotated Outline Concerning the Constitutional, Statutory and Common Law Bases of Vested Rights to Land Use and Development •• 'Vested Rights: What They Are, What They Ain't" By. 1. Randall Mutchce v Hazei do 77zon= P.0 Leesburg VA 27075 Prepared for dw Hugvzia A.ssociadon of Zonbzg Admintszrarors Arutual Meeting September 17, 1993 • 0 — ON VESTcio RIGH-1S — An Annotated Outline Concc Wing the Constitutional. Statutory and Common Law Bases of Vested Rights to Land Use and Development or "Vested Rights: What T'ney Are, What They Ain't" By. .1. Randad Minrhew................................................ Sez►ressber 17 1993 Note strucraral framework Of United States Constitution - sovereign states granted/assigned certain limited powers to ; ede.-a! govemmeat with express exemptions (i.e.: the Bill of Rights) �• T'ne -Takings Clause" v. the Police Power (The sexiest interface in applied constitutional law) B. Virginia Constitution. Article I Section 11 "?'ice General A.ssembly s/wll ,or pass any law ... whereby private properry shad be taken or damaged for public user, wirhout jusr comaensarion". &..Vf1. dam; F k,,11- - r�1++ - �, ContYa LJ.,�i Made applicable to counties, cities and towns because they are created by General Assembly action and are thus bound by the same restrictions applicable to the General Assembly. Note szruc:tzral framework of Virginia Constitution. Article I, Preamble to the Bill of Rights: "A DECLARATION OF RIG= made by die good people cf lrtro.nta in die =emzz of their sovereign powers wiuclt rzgnz do pertain to deem and t/teir posteruy, as dce basis and foundation of governmeru". C. Code of Virzdnia Statutes 1. Secrion 15.1-492 (Vested Rights in C.enemi] 1 15.1492- Vested rights not impaired; nonconforming uses. — Noth- mg is this article shall be construed to author=e the impairment of any vested right, except that a zoning ordinance may provide that Iand, buildings, and structures and the uses thereof which ant conform to the zoning gresesled for the district in which they are situated may be continued only so long as the then rt,stng or a more restricted use continues and such use is not dissmntinued for more than two 7ears, and so long as the buildings or stractu:rs are maintained in their then structural aindition; and that the uses of such buiI shall conform to such regulations whenever they am enlarged, or extended, rec==ed or strntnunlly altered and may further provi dethc at no 'honconf building or structure may be moved on the same lot or to any other lot which is nut properip zoned to permit such 'nonconforming" usde (Code 1950, H 15-843, 15-845, Code 1950, 15-968.6; 1962, c. 407; 1966, c. = 1975, c. 64L) Page 3 of - ON VE=Tc- RICi. ; 3 - An ,annotated Outline Concerning ffte Constitutional. Scatutorrr and Comrnon L:w Bases of Vested Rients co Land Use and Qeveieeme^t or "Vested Rights: What i ,ze,/ Are. What 7nev ,din':" By: 1. Randall Minchew................................................ Serrernoer 17 1993 Secdon [Quillen Rights - :New Conditional Zoning; f 15.1-491.2. Conditional zoning., conditions as part of a rezoning or amendment to zoning map, — B. In the event proffered conditions incfude a requirement for the dedica- tion of real prooerty of substantial value or construction of substantial public improvements, the need for which is not generated solely by the rezoning itself, then no amendment to the zoning map for the property subject to such conditions, nor the conditions themselves, nor any amenaments to the text of the zoning ordinance with respect to the zoning disz.-ict applicable thereto initiated by the governing may, which eliminate, or maceriail y restrict, reduce, or mzocar, the uses, the floor area ratio, or the density of use permitted in the tong Zs ct applicable to such property, shall be elective with respect to such property unless : ,ere has been mistake. fraudor a change in GrC'Jmatanc:g substantially affecting the public health, safer;, or wei_{aTe. C. Any landowner who has prior to July 1, 19W, proffered the dedication of real property of substantial' value or const^.:=on of substannai public improvements, the need for which is not generated solely by the m--cning itself. but who has mot 3ubztantially implemented such proffers prior to Juiv 1. 1990. shall advise the local goverungboay by cermue4 ;nail prior to July 1, 1991, that he intends to proceed with the implementation of such proffers. Such notice shall identity the property to be developed. :.he zoning district, and the oroffem applicable thereto. Therear. er, any landowner giving such notice shall have until July 1, 1995. substantially to impiernenc such prodem, or such later time as the governing boav may allow. ThereaAer. the landowner in good faith shall diligently pursue the compietion of the development of the property. Any landowner who complies with the requirements of this subsection shall be enr-tled to the protection against action initiated by the governing body atfec•rg use. floor area ratio, and density set out in subsection 3, unless there has been mistake. fraud, or a change in ci=umstances substantially affecting the public health, safety, or welfare, but any landowner failing to comply with c Lie requirements of this subseion shall acquire no rights pursuant:o this sec -on. D. The provisions of subsections 3 and C of this section snail be erfec-ive praspect-iveiy only, and not rer-oactivel , and shall not aopiy Ca any zorung ordinance text amendments •Much may have been enacted oror to March 10, 1990. Nothing contained herein shall be constued to asiect any litigation � 1 g prior to July 1, 1990, or any such litigation nonsuited and thereafter Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect or impair the authority of a governing body to: L Accept proffered conditions which inciude provisions for timing or Phasing of dedications, psyment3. or improvements: or 2 Accept or impose valid conditions pursuant to subsection (c) of § 15.1491 or other provision of law. (19 -, S. c. 320. 1982- c 293; 1990, c. 868.) Page \ of C' E — ON V-F-.l i cD R1Gii 1 3 — .fin , ,nnotared Outline Concernine -the CJnsillud0nai. Statutory and Common 1_3w Bases er Veszed Rights co Land C:se and Deve:eome:a or "Vested Rights: What I hev , e, What i nev Ain'," By: .1. Randall Mindsew ................................................. St=errroer 17 1993 5. Section 15.1-1372-3(C) (Multicounty Transportation Improvement District - Special Vested Rights] C. Lf each board of supervisors finds the creation of the proposed district would be in furtherance of the apoiicable county compreriensive pian for the development of the armin the best interests of the residents and owners of real property within district.e proposed districand in furtherance of the public health, saiety and general welfare, eac:Z board of superrtsom snail pass a resolution. which shall be reasoasbly consistent with the eeat:on, aastiag the districr and providing for :he appoinawent of an aaysory baarC in accordance with § 15-1-1372.5. cacti resolution shall provide a desaimtion with speciLc terms and conditions of ail cotnme_-cial and industnal zoning classu:car-was which shall be in fora in the district upon its ceat:on. together with any related criteria, and a term of years, not to exceed twenty years, as to which Par^ such MM=9 cla_ssincacon and each related ctenon � forth therein shail not be eliminated, reduced, or restricted if a smeciai t= is imposed as Provided in § 15.1-1372.7. However, this commirnent serail not Iimit the leg=iacve prerogative of the board of supervisors :n any minty is which a distr- = is wholly or parry located with respect to land -use approvals of any kind or mature arising from requesrs inicatea by an owner of Property therein, or as mecacally required to compiy with the rrovtsionsf t Of Chesapeake Bay P-eservation Act (§ 10.14100 et sec.) or the regulations adopted pursuant thereto. or other state Law, or the requirements of the federal Clean Water Am (33 U.S.C. § 13.42 (p)) and regulatlons proamignted thereunder b7 '=ie federal EnvU-o=entai P-otecMon Agency or appuc=Le state reg'aiatioas. In the case of an7 dist—.cz tested under this sect. -on prior to July 1. 1992, all commercal anti Indust+-: maing orri;nanne tezL had real =oning Gasslrcncon9, and all gulacons reiacng thereto r egaar..ins all rwable - uses. denaitim 3etbaciQ building heights, required parsing, and omen space in forte in the district on the date of the dist: ic--'3 creation snail be deemed to have been a part of the ordinance =-eating t.:e district, and shall ren=n ac least as permissive without Li=-tacon. reduc-om. or rest^=on, eaept as provided hereinabove with respect to land -use anpravais of any kind or nature ansin iron requesu initiated by landowners or as required to comp& with the Chesapeaae Bay P;-eservacon Act or regulations adopted pursuant thereto, other state Law or the requirements of the federal C,ean user Act (33 U.S.C. § 13-42 (p)) and regulations pramuigated thereunder by the federal Page of 7 (7 • - ON VE5 ; `� R:GH—,, - ..n Annotated Outiine Conctr-ning to Consurutionai. Scatutor/ and Camrncn L.:w Bases or Vested Rigzts :o [.:1n Use and Deveioor:,e^t or "veste-t Rights: what i nev What i ,Zev rkiri'c„ By: I- Randall Minchew ............... ......................... S27LGRlaQ 17, 1993 6. Section I5.1-13 2._'3(Q 1Tran5p0r,,Zd0n Improvement District in Individual Lacmlities Special Vested Rights] 15.1-1372?3. Creation of disaict — C. LC the local governing body finds the c: estioa of the proposed district, be in flu the. -ante of :he applicable comprehensive plan for the development of the area, in the best interests of the residents and owners of real P=PeMy within the proposed dirt.-ic; and in furherance of the public health. safety, and general welfare, the governing body of he qualifying counr,- =ay, and the governing body of the cuaiirying cur,- may, at its option. pass a resoiution, wiucb snail be reasonably consistent 'wit= the p�et�z�tioa. Ming the district and and providing for the appointment of an advisory Iooard in accordance with 1 15.1-1372.25. The resolution snail provide: (i) a description with specific terms and canditio;.s of all comfaeraal and industral zoning clamivations which shall be in force in the district upon its c: eation, together wish any related =feria. and a term of years, hot to exceed twenry years, as to wrbucn eacil mxix zoning Ga38ifcacon and each related ctera set forth thcein sl•.ail remain in .`orce within the district without earnmation, rexi--cyon. or :e==-on, except coon the written request or approval of the owner -of any property affected by a c«fange, or as speoEcalIy required to amply with the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (§ 10.1-2100 et seq.) or ocher state law, and (i.i) that the disu-,c: &ball =ire either thirty-five firm the date upon wiiicZ :-vpassed or until the diszr:r+ the resolution is =s is abolished in accordance wjt}f i 15.1-1372.25. After the public hearm� the Iocal governing body aball deliver a tr--e copy of its proposed ring,zion c^eatiag the distric to the petitioning Iandowte--s or their atmraey-to-fat:. Any petitioning Landowner tray then withdraw its signature on the petition in vr:ting at any time prior to the vote of theth local governing body. In e case. where any signanfres on the petition are withdrawn as orovfded herein, the local governing body may pass the proposed resolution in conformance herrwith only upon certincat:on that the petition continues to meet the previsions of subsection A of this section ;rith reaped to minimum a=eige or assessed value as the case may be. After the local governing body has adopted resolutions cestin the disa:c- •he district Shall be established and the came of the disa:c sham be The .......... Transportation Improvement District-" Page of / q i7 - ON VES► ct7 RIGH7s - An Annotated Outline Concerning the Constitutional, Statutory and Common Law Bases of Vested Rights to Land Use and Develooment or "Vested Rights: What 7"nev Are, What They Ain't" Byr I. F=daa M- cft,-v................................................ Searemoe 17, I M D. Virginia Suareme Court cases- 1. Fairfax County v. vfedic:al Structures. Inc,213 Va. 355, 192 S.E.2d 799 (1972) 2. Fairfax County v. Cities Service Oil Co.. 213 Va. 359, 193 S.E?d 1 (1972) a. "We hold dzat where, as here, a Speca1 use permit has been gmnred wider a zoning C�as]ecadon, a boaza fide Sue plan has thereafter been filed and diligentiv pursued, and substantial Cxense has been incz rred in good faith before a change In zoning the per:-"Ize dten has a vested riglu to die land described in to use permit and he caimot be deprived of such use by subseauenr Legzrlacio,z". Medical' Structures 213 Va_ at 358, I92 S.E?d at 801 b. "Under czrrrent plaluting practice &I many urban Locations, die site plan has virtually replaced the buildvzg permit as the mosr vital document in the develoomeiu process." Medical Structures, 213 Va. at 357, 192 S.E. 2d at 801. C. 77te fdiJig of such a plan creates a monument to the developer's iruenrion, and when die plan is approved, die budding permit; - except &I rare siutadons, will be issued." Medical Struc^sres 213 Va. at 358, 192 S.E.2d at 301. d_(Due rv: Would same result have occurred if Medical Structures and Cities Service had conditional zoning approvals instead of special use permits? (Assume no "QunlIen" rights) e_ The Author's Lament: "77me cridcal meaning of dzese passages [(b) and (c) above] suggests to us dwr a filed Site plan for a permirred use is not di Arent from a sire plan for a perm=zble use arid drat bolt uses deserve die same degree of vesting protecron Page x of 0 • — ON VES t c:) RIGHTS — An Annotated Outline Concerning the Constitutional- Statutory and Common Law Bases of Vested Rights to Land Use and Development or "Vested Rights: what They Are, What T'ney Ain't" By: I Randad Minehew................................................ Sepuieba-17,, 1993 development density from 33 units to 21 units. Subdivision Plat not acted upon prior to zoning ordinance amendment. b. Virtinia Supreme Court: "Rusrell acauired fno f vested right in dw zoning classification which e=:Yred before zoning amendrneru was enacted Unlike developers in Medical Stnx-,ures or Cities Service. Parsed had nor obtained any type of governmental permir or approval. Even though Russell had j'Yled a proposed subdivision plat and a sire plan, neulcer dce plat nor the pian had been approved by the local pla7ming commission as required by Cade §15.1-475." 241 Va. at 164 c- uerv: If subdivision plat was truly approve -worthy as filed, why didn't Russell met; "governmental act" requirement sinc: approval of a subdivision plat is a ministerial act? 5. Holland v. Johnsnn Franklin County Zoninz Administrator. 241 Va. 553; 403 S.E?d 356 (1991) a. Zoning Administrator, acting under Va. Code §15.1-491(d) authority to "administer and enforce" zoning erdinanct, determines that quarn, corporation has vested right to develop and operate its quarry in spite of newly adopted zoning ordinance. b. Neighbors sue and claim that zoning administrator exceeded her statutory authority. C. Virzinia Supreme Court: ,it is dce sole province of the judiciary to expound rice laws and adfudicare cares'. 241 Va. at 555 "A vested right at a land use is a property right which is created and prateued by law. An adjudication regarding the a= on, ezisrence: or temurnarton of dtar riglu can be made oniv by a court of competent jurisdicdon." 241 Va. at 556. Page / of 13 t7 -- • 0 - ON VES770 FRIGHTS - An Annotated Outline Concerning the Constitutional. Statutory and Common Law Bases of Vested Rights to Land Use and Deveioome;It or "Vested Rights: What They Are. What They Ain't" By: J. Randal! Mincnew................................................ Senumoer 17 1993 B. Zonina Esrovpei L Based in equity ("It jury Qut't fair to do this to me"). Z Zoning Estoppel not recognized in Virginia. See. Gwinn v. Alward, 235 Va. 616, 369 S.E.2d 410 (1988); Hurt v. Caldwell, Z Va- 91 97 279 S.E?d 133, 14I-42 (1981) - ' IV. THE ELEMENTS OF A VESTED R IGHT A. Proio>:ue f! A zoning right standing alone is not "properry" protected by the Firth Amendment's "takings clause". A zoning right may become "prooerrf' and a tMe vested right through a metamorphosis known as a vesting process. The vesting process has ctr rain elements. Set Paragraphs IV (B)-(D), be;ow. B. Governmental Act or Omission I. Zoning Approvals a- General Rule - Standard Zonings: "Property owners have no vested rig/us to cOlubudry of zonings;' Town of Vienna v. Kohler 966, 976, 244 S.E?d 542, 548 (1978). b- Condirional (proffered) rezonings C. PUD zonings Z Special ErCCeptions/Spe- al Use Permits 3. Subdivision Plat or Site Plan Approvals 4. Preiiminary Permit Approvals 5. Informal Approvals Page yKof /vir .4- — ON VF-ST-ED RIGi- 7S — An Annotated Outline Concerning the Constitutional, Statutory and Common Law Bases or Vested Ruts to Land Use and Development or "Vested Rights: What They Are; What They Ain't" By. J. Randall Minrhaw ................................................. September 17, IM VL SOME MCE VESTED RiGRTS OUOTA77ONS TO FWQW aND SHARE YOUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ATTORN-Y A. "If all else faiLs, merely amend die reo. anon and scan over again". S an Diega Gas & Electric Co. v. City of San Diego 450 U.S. 6Z, 6.55 n. 22 (1981) (Brennan, J., dissenting) (Advice given by unnamed California City Attorney to fellow city attorneys at 1974 annual conference of the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers.) B. "He who rests less, vests bee'. John Delaney, Linowes & Blocher (1979) [Noted land use lawyer and author of splendid vested rights law review article contained in 23 St. Louis U.LJ. 219 (1979)j I aA9A2W,0c*_v.. aZw Page � of 114 17 17 b, 0 • FAX TRANSMITTAL PAGE COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 DATE: 9-29-94 TRANSMITTAL TIME: PLEASE DELIVER PAGE(S) IMMEDIATELY TO: NAME: Richard Trembley COMPANY: Silver Companies CITY,STATE: Fredericksburg, Va FAX NUMBER: (703) 786-6455 RE: Comments of Preston Place TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER PAGE: 4 MESSAGE: Dear Mr. Trembley: I mailed a copy of the cover page and the comment sheet to your office on Tuesday. If you have any questions please call me. FROM: Denice R. Cather TITLE: Secretary II FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT PHONE: (703) 665-5651 FAX NUMBER: (703) 678-0682 1) North Loudoun St►ect P.O. Box 601 Winchester. VA 22601 Winchester. VA 226(9 r 4��_ 9.� 0 • 7 21-15-8 v41^5-5-3 CONTENTS OF A PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN THE RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT, THE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT, THE RESIDENTIAL RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY DISTRICT, AND THE MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY DISTRICT. 15-5-3.1 The preliminary MDP shall contain a conceptual plan showing the location and functional relationship between all proposed housing types and land uses, including the following information: 115-5-3.1.1 A land use plan showing the location, arrangement and approximate boundaries of all proposed land uses. 15-5-3.1.2 The approximate acreage in common open space, in each-�se and �ousing type and in (roads, streets, or right-of-ways for each phase and the total development. 15-5-3.1.3 The location and approximate boundaries of proposed housing types conceptually shown in accord with residential performance dimensional requirements. 15-5-3.1.4 The proposed number of welling units of each type in each phaseznd in the total development. 15-5-3.1.5 The location and appro ,ximate boundaries of existing environmental features including4lood plains,4akes and ponds,.z"etlands,Zatural stormwater retention areas. (steep slope and v(oodlands. A (E.1D The location of environmental protection land to be included in common open space. ( r, lay.•.._) ✓ 15-5-3.1.7 The approximate-licreage of each type of environmental protection land, the amount and percentage of each type that is to be disturbed, and the amount and percentage of each type to be placed in common open space. -roTP L- ? 15-5-3.1.8 The amount, approximate boundaries and location of common open space, with theg1ercentage of the total acreage of the site to be placed in common open space. 15-5-3.1.9 The location and general configuration of recreation facilities, with a general Q c statement of the types of recreational facilities to be provided. 15-5-3.1.10 The location and extent of proposed buffers with statements, profiles, cross -sections, or examples clearly specifying the screening to be provided. 9 9 0 • 21-15-9 15-5-3.1.11 The proposed location, arrangements, and right-of-way widths of roads and streets and the location of proposed access to surrounding properties. 15-5-3.1.12 The location and arrangement of street entrances, driveways and parking areas. 15-5-3.1.13 The approximate location of sewer and water mains with statements concerning the connection with and availability of existing facilities. 15-5-3.1.14 A conceptual plan for stormwater management with the location of stormwater facilities designed to serve more than one lot. 15-5-3.1.15 Calculations describing all proposed bonus factors with the location of and specifications for bonus improvements, when proposed. 15-5-3.1.16 The location and treatment proposed for all historical structures and sites recognized as significant by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors or as identified on the Virginia Historical Landmarks Commission Survey for Frederick County. 15-5-3.1.17 A history of all land divisions that have occurred in relation to the tract since the adoption of this requirement shall be provided. 15-5-4 CONTENTS OF A PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN THE M-1 (INDUSTRIAL LIMITED) DISTRICT, THE M-2 (INDUSTRIAL GENERAL) DISTRICT, THE EM (EXTRACTIVE MANUFACTURING) DISTRICT, THE HE (HIGHER EDUCATION DISTRICT, THE B-1 (BUSINESS NEIGHBORHOOD) DISTRICT, THE B-2 (BUSINESS GENERAL) DISTRICT, OR THE B-3 (INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION) DISTRICT. 15-5-4.1 The preliminary MDP shall contain a conceptual plan showing the location and functional relationship between streets and land uses, including the following: 15-5-4.1.1 A conceptual plan showing the location and arrangement of proposed uses. 15-5-4.1.2 The existing environmental features including floodplains, lakes and ponds, wetlands, natural stormwater detention areas, steep slopes and woodlands, as defined. 15-5-4.1.3 The proposed location and arrangement of all streets and utility systems. P/C Review Date: 12/02/92 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #006-92 JAMES R. WILKINS III DEVELOPMENT Apartments and Townhouses LOCATION: On the south side of Route 659 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 54000020000100 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned R-P (Residential Performance) land use - vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned R-P (Residential Performance), Land use - residential, vacant and school PROPOSED USE: 86 townhouses and 76 apartments REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: See attached letter from W. H. Bushman to Bruce Edens dated August 14, 1992. Fire Marshal: Fire lanes shown must be posted as such with signage reading "No Parking - Fire Lane." Additional fire lane must be designated at all hydrants. See attached comments dated July 8, 1992. Inspections Department: Building shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 309, Use Group R-2 (Residential Use) of the BOCA National Building Code/1990. Other codes that apply are title 24, Code of Federal Regulation, Chapter I Fair housing accessibility guidelines. (ADA requirement for Use Group R-2, Apartment R-3 townhouses are exempt. • 0 Sanitation Authority: Second review - approved as noted - two items. No need to resubmit. Parks and Recreation: Plan appears to meet open space requirements. Size and specifications for picnic shelters just be provided before we can consider them as being recreational units. Staff recommends that shelters have a concrete deck and vary in size with the smallest being at least 400 sq. ft. A specific number of picnic tables and grills should also be required at each shelter. All recreation areas must be accessible and meet Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. Absorbent material, meeting the United States Consumer Products Safety Commission Standards, must be used under all playground equipment. County Engineer: The design and construction of the stormwater management areas will be required prior to the issuance of building permits for the proposed townhouse development Detailed review will be made at the time of the subdivision site plan. See attached comments from Harvey E. Strawsnyder, dated June 25, 1992. Planning & Zoning: The proposed apartment and townhouse development is a permitted use in the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District. The applicant plans to develop 76 apartment units and 86 townhouse units on an 18.68 acre parcel. This creates a gross density of 8.67 units per acre. Any Master Plan containing less than twenty-five (25) acres is permitted to contain up to ten (10) units per acre. Staff has specific concerns regarding the proposed Master Development Plan. Staff believes that the following issues need to be addressed prior to approval of this plan: 1) Multifamily Lot Requirements - Section 4-9-3.2� of the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance requires all welling lots to be within five hundred (500) feet of a state - maintained road as measured along the access route. The three (3) townhouse rows located near the southeast property line exceed this requirement. J2) Road Efficiency Buffers - Section 3-12-5 of the Frederick Mi6q, wR:nk�O) County Zoning Ordinance requires all residential structures to be separated from arterial or collector roads. The Frederick �i County Comprehensive Plan designates Route 659 (Valley Mill Road) as a minor collector road. The proposed plan does not indicate a road efficiency buffer along Route 659. 3) Steep Slopes - Section 3-6-8 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requires that no more than twenty-five percent (25%) of\steep slopes be disturbed. Steep slopes are A CA R i'&k- • 3 defined as land areas where the slope exceeds fifteen percent (15%). The proposed Master Plan specifies that there are 1.99 acres of steep slope. The proposed development will disturb 0.60 acres, or thirty percent (30%) of the existing steep slope. ✓"4) Phasing - The proposed Master Plan should indicate phasing for the development. of—a-1-1- housing types, right --of- '-Z �--d- recreational fac-l-it-i-es. �1✓5).._ -Total Development Specifications - The proposed Master Plan vide information regarding development for the r townhouse_ and apartments; however, it should also contain o��l riformation elated to the entire development. `. ✓�) Review Agency Comments - Comments made by the Fire Marshal and Parks and Recreation need to be addressed at the Master Plan stage. The Fire Marshal has expressed concern regarding access to the apartment buildings, location of fire hydrants, and the placement of tot lots in the townhouse area. Parks and Recreation will need to have specifications for the picnic shelters indicated on the Master Plan to insure that they qualify as recreational units. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 12/02/92 PC MTG.: Approval provided IL that the applicant revises the Master Development Plan to address s`� �.mstrall review agency comments. IZAC �1 46 G.I.S. WORK ORDERGIS x Department of Planning & Development w 9 North Loudoun Street Winchester, VA 22601 - 703-665-5651 The following information needs to be supplied to request production of mapping or graphics from the Planning Department. DATE Uy DEPARTMENTT- CONTACT: j��-n1 0PHONE: DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: N REQUESTED COMPLETION DATE: -- For Planning Department Use -- Materials & Supplies: Keep in Storage? Yes No Public Use Fee Total Time Spent on Project: Comments: t October 21, 1994 James E. Wisecarver, Sr. `" Katie E. Wisecarver 202-203 Bufflick Road Winchester, Va. 22601-4547 Mr. Evan A. Wyatt Department of Planning and Development County of Frederick 9 North Luodoun Street Winchester, Va. 22601 Dear Mr. Wyatt: mm Nf•�1��-t1�c'SF.Gtbi I wish to Thank You for listening, and, as per your request during our telephone conversation on October 13, 1994, I am putting our thoughts and concerns about the proposed Site Plan changes requested by SILVER DEVELOPMENT COMPANYS (PLAN #006-94) in writing. As I informed you on that date I really do not see the proposal for changing the plans at this time to be in the best interest of the established community for the reasons that I have voiced to you, aside from yet including, the demand of our Business Liability Insurance provider to place an 8ft. fence around the rear of our property if the field behind us is developed. I do not believe that the Developer will be here to provide ongoing assurance of the "Quality" Community we were led to believe was coming our way if we allowed them to proceed four years ago! We have seen this development proposal go from Quality Community to H.U.D. subsidized housing 'similar to Preston Place' and to this we say: ABSOLUTELY NO WAY. Again, we hold great concerns that THE PROPERTIES WILL NOT PROVIDE THE REVENUES NEEDED TO SERVICE THEM WITHOUT PUSHING THE SERVICE PROVIDERS BEYOND THEIR ABILITY TO BE EFFECTIVE. I do not see rental clients as being overly concerned about an investment in the local Fire and Rescue Company. As I told you on the telephone: a recent Fund Drive of the Preston Place complex raised $38.00, for Greenwood Co. 18. How many calls does that provide for in one year? Is the County willing to take on paying for the Service? Yet we are being asked to allow more of the same. Also, we are concerned for the safety of Our Children and Elderly; we ask you to check the Sheriffs' Logs and State Police Logs as to what has been happening around us: Crime is quickly increasing. Will the County Provide a Security Patrol? Where will these new Children be educated? Is the County ready to add on to Armel Elementary, or fund any more new Schools? I an calling our Supervisor this date to alert him to our concerns and I appreciate your assistance in making to entire Board aware of our strong misgivings about allowing this project to go forward at this time in any form. I must remind you that FOUR YEARS HAVE LAPSED SINCE THE LAST PROPOSAL APPROVAL AND THE AREA HAS CHANGED GREATLY. Please feel free to contact us at the above address or (703>662-1209. Sincerely Yours, James E. Wisecarver, Sr. Katie E. Wisecarver October 21, 1994 James E. Wisecarver, Sr Katie E. Wisecarver 202-203 Bufflick Road Winchester, Va. 22602 (703) 662-1209 Chairman Dick and Board Members: REGARDING: The application of: SILVER DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES. Please find attached a copy of the Speech that was made and offered into the records of this project on May 9, 1990. That Board of Supervisors approved the placement of a fence at that time, and, the Developer agreed to place a child resistant fence along the property line. In that speech we pointed out that the desire of our small area was to be 'Good Neighbors' and allow the project to go forward with only the requirement of such a fence. We were asked to allow Silver Development Companies to place 217, Townhouses on approximately ten (10) acres of land with the assurance that this would be a "quality" project. The plans presented seemed acceptable at that time. HOWEVER, if the intent is to saturate the property with housing which is similar to the 'PRESTON PLACE' property development then we must say: ABSOLUTELY NO WAY! * Our Insurance Company will not let a few firs or even a low wall be enough. We have been told in the last two Insurance Audits by our Business Liability provider that, "If the property behind ours is developed we will be required to place a fence to remain insurable". The area Roads will not accept the number of vehicles that this will generate. As administrative members of Greenwood Fire & Rescue Company (Co.18) we have been diligently trying to develop a Substation on Airport Road to cut down the current response time for emergency equipment which is presently NINE MINUTES FROM THE STATION TO AIRPORT ROAD. This is an unacceptable length of time and not compatible with saving the person or property who initiated the call for help. * The population that this type of development will bring will be transient at best, while some of the surrounding property owners have been here for as many as fifty years. We all plan to stay and have lovingly cared for Our Properties, will their tenants do the same? Will the Developer be in the County to maintain the Property? K The Sheriffs' Logs and State Pollce Logs will attest to the increased demands for assistance of late at Preston Place. The increase in high speed chases and the number of sick calls to Preston Place both attest to the fact that this area cannot handle the demand on Services that approving such a project will most assuredly present - immediately. 1� page 2 of 2 t i Were is the School that will educate the Children of these Garden Apartments? Will trailers be needed at Armel Elementary? What about the quality of life for the people who have spent there entire adult lives here? * What will happen to Taxbase in this area? What would be the best sustained revenue generator for the County, with the least cost to the taxpayers of the County: Homes or Apartments? Are not Rental Properties consumers of Revenues and Services more than generators of the same? * Most importantly: Can you guarantee the safety of Our Children and Our Elderly? It is hard for us to sit by and allow this project to go forward in its new form. The thought of 217 Townhouses, with, 2-4 children and two - three vehicles per household was enough to deal with four years ago but even that is too much today. We ask you to please decline the application change in light of the above reasons. And, the fact that four years have past without activity on this project leads us to believe that the "Quality" project that we were assured is not going to be built here in our Community by this Company at anytime. The current Economy seemingly will not allow the County to fund the Fire and Rescue Station that is already an obvious need to the Area. And, construction on Routes 522, and 37, will bottle up traffic for years to come. We do not see where funding for law enforcement is currently increasing, and, we certainly do not see crime in the area as anything but increasing if this project is approved. We are sorry that prior Civic commitments and work schedules prevent us from giving our views in person at this time. You can be assured of our interest in the quality of life in Our Community. Feel free to contact us by letter or telephone if there is any need for further communication concerning this matter. Respectfully Yours, )Jafews-E-) . Wisecarver, Sr. Car" Katie E. Wisecarver I (Copy of Speech delivered at The Supervisors Hearing on Silver Development. A file copy was supplied for the record.) May 9,1990 CHAIRMAN STILES AND BOARD MEMBERS I'M JAMES E. WISECARVER Sr. of OLD BUFFLICK Rd. FREDERICK Co. IN REGARDS TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT BEHIND OUR BUSINESS AND ACROSS FROM OUR HOME PROPERTY I WOULD LIKE TO SAY: FENCES MAKE GOOD NEIGHBORS ! WE ARE A SMALL, QUIET AND SETTLED COMMUNITY WITH GREAT CHANGES OCCURRING ALL AROUND US. WE ALL KEEP OUR PROPERTIES AS NICE AS WE CAN AND HAVE ENJOYED EXCLUSIVE ACCESS TO OUR YARDS, I FEEL THAT IN ORDER TO KEEP OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, PRIVACY, AND, SAFETY THAT WE NEED MORE THAN JUST A FEW FIR TREES ON THE PROPERTY LINE, AND, THAT WHILE GROWTH WON'T STOP WE DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT IT. IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO US AND POSSIBLY A DE -VALUING MARK ON OUR PROPERTIES IF EVERY TIME WE LOOT{ OUT OUR BACKDOOR WE HAVE STRANGE CHILDREN, DOGS AND CATS TEARING UP OUR YARD. PERSONALLY , AS A BUSINESS WE WOULD NOT WANT ONE OF THESE CHILDREN TO COME "EXPLORING" AND BE HURT ON OUR PROPERTY, NOR, ONE OF OUR CUSTOMERS OR OURSELVES TO BE BITTEN BY A DOG WHO HAPPENS TO COME THROUGH A HEDGE. I THEREFORE, REQUEST THAT THIS BOARD REQUIRE- THE DEVELOPERS TO PLACE A 6 - 7 FOOT PRIVACY FENCE ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE. AND, IF THEY THEN CHOOSE TO SCREEN WITH HEDGE OR FIR - THAT'S THEIR CHOICE. I WILL SAY THIS : IF THIS DEVELOPMENT GOES FORWARD WITHOUT A " CHILD RESISTANT " FENCE REQUIREMENT THEN WE WILL BE FORCED TO PLACE ONE OF OUR OWN FOR REASONS I'VE ALREADY STATED, WE WILL PUT UP AN 8 FOOT STOCKADE FENCE. IT WILL BE BRIGHT PURPLE AND BOLDLY PAINTED WITH 'NO TRESPASSING' ON THEIR SIDE. I WANT THE DEVELOPER TO PICTURE WHAT HIS SIDE OF THE LINE WILL LOOK LIKE IF WE EACH PICK A DIFFERENT FENCE TYPE AND EACH PAINT IT IN OUR FAVORITE COLOR ! WHILE IT IS NOT MY INTENTION TO STOP THIS DEVELOPMENT I DO FEEL THAT WE DO DESERVE THE SAVING OF OUR RIGHTS TO PRIVACY SAFETY AND PRIVATE ACCESS AND USE OF OUR PROPERTIES. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE BOARD MEMBERS FOR THEIR TIME AND CONSIDERATION IN THIS MATTER. PLEASE REMEMBER THAT FENCES MAKE GOOD NEIGHBORS. 10-22-1994 RESPECTFULLY YOURS, AMES E. WISECARVER, Sr. RTE. 1 BOX 467 WINCHESTER, Va. 22601 i COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 March 28, 1994 Mr. Michael C. Buseck Williams, Mullen, Christian & Dobbins 101 East Cary Street Richmond, Virginia 23210-1320 Dear Mr. Buseck: I am writing in response to our phone conversation of March 21, 1994, and your subsequent fax transmission of the 22nd. In your correspondence you reference a five acre parcel owned by the Silver Development Co. In actuality this parcel contains 22.01 acres. The parcel is zoned Residential Performance (RP). This parcel has an approved Master Development Plan (MDP) which indicates 117 townhouse units. It would be possible to amend the MDP to reflect a change in the desired housing type, in effect substituting 72 apartments for 72 townhouses. Once an amended MDP for the twenty-two acres is approved with the substitution of the desired apartment units, the five acres which your client is interested in could then be separated from the remainder of the tract. I hope this letter provides the information you need. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance Sincerely, Kris C. Tierney, AICP Deputy Planning Director 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 I COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 March 28, 1994 Mr. Michael C. Buseck Williams, Mullen, Christian & Dobbins 101 East Cary Street Richmond, Virginia 23210-1320 Dear Mr. Buseck: I am writing in response to our phone conversation of March 21, 1994, and your subsequent fax transmission of the 22nd. In your correspondence you reference a five acre parcel owned by the Silver Development Co. In actuality this parcel contains 22.01 acres. The parcel is zoned Residential Performance (RP) which allows for a maximum residential density of 10 units per acre. This parcel has an approved Master Development Plan (MDP) which indicates 117 townhouse units. It would be possible to amend the MDP to reflect a change in the desired housing type, in effect substituting 72 apartments for 72 townhouses. Once an amended MDP for the twenty-two acres is approved with the substitution of the desired apartment units, the five acres which your client is interested in could then be separated from the remainder of the tract. I hope this letter provides the information you need. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance Sincerely, Kris C. Tierney, AICP Deputy Planning Director 9 North Loudoun Strect P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchcster, VA 22604 I COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 March 30, 1994 Mr. Michael C. Buseck Williams, Mullen, Christian & Dobbins 101 East Cary Street Richmond, Virginia 23210-1320 Dear Mr. Buseck: I am writing in response to our phone conversation of March 21, 1994, and your subsequent fax transmission of the 22nd. In your correspondence you reference a five acre parcel owned by the Silver Development Co. In actuality this site is part of a larger 22.01 acre parcel. The parcel is zoned Residential Performance (RP) which allows for a maximum residential density of 10 units per acre. This parcel has an approved Master Development Plan (MDP) which indicates 117 townhouse units . The County Zoning Ordinace would permit the MDP to be amended to reflect a change in the desired housing type, in effect substituting 72 apartments for 72 townhouses. Once an amended MDP for the twenty-two acres is approved with the substitution of the desired apartment units, the five acres with 72 apartments which your client is interested in, could then be separated from the remainder of the tract. I hope this letter provides the information you need. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance Sincerely, Kris C. Tierney, AICP Deputy Planning Director 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 FAX TRANSMITTAL PAGE DATE: March 30. 1994 TRANSMITTAL TIME: PLEASE DELIVER PAGE(S) IMMEDIATELY TO: NAME: Michael C. Buseck COMPANY: Williams, Mullen, Christian, & Dobbins CITY,STATE: FAX NUMBER: RE: Richmond, VA 804-783-6456 TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER PAGE: -2- MESSAGE: FROM: Kris C. Tierney TITLE: Deputy Planning Director FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT PHONE: (703) 665-5651 FAX NUMBER: (703) 678-0682 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 EXHIBIT "A" • r��ESTo� ��A�� ; Fr ZONM ft$DENT AL UsE R 76' INACTNE t 100' ACTTM _ SPARATION BUFFET; 27r UrtttT3'' bt / ' UAh 13 IDO A lfj U ou .�. fQ ia Du ' 1 Qku '``JJ • 'gyp RA PHASE FOUR 23 ' L / 24' TYPICAL 4OLL-EE�-CTQR ROAD OAAACT1YE) PHAn 1 4�c°5 3— 60 L 0Q 0 i a� -aQ AC�5 117 Tw v OEM 6F COL-,LN7Y of F�EJE.RI�{ ?!an cr =d arzeicD=GZlL 703 / 6a5-S6� I Fax 7'03 / 678-0682 FAX TR vNStiIIZZ'AL PAGE DATA: ` I I i TRAYS1rLIZ'LAI, TZfF; PLEASE DELIVER PAGE(S) 5INIEDU=Y TO: NAL'YM: COMPANY: CTIY,ST'ATE: RE: TOTAL UNMER OF PAGES I3V(ML7)NG TES COVE PAGE: �Q �SSAGE: FROM: V--� 1 1� TnLE7: k _ FR=E CK COUNT-y PHONE: (703) 665-565I F.3.Y `T:-NC3E-R: (70:3) 673-06S= ec R-)r PL-�yNLXG DEPAR `) NotiI LJudnur, J(fCC; �Vinc1�',C.. vA __5c11 P.C. 3�x rirnll March 28, 1994 Mr. Michael C. Buseck Williams, Mullen, Christian & Dobbins 101 East Cary Street Richmond, Virginia 23210-1320 Dear Mr. Buseck: I am writing in response to our phone conversation of March 21, 1994, and your subsequent fax transmission of the 22nd. In your correspondence you reference a five acre parcel owned by the Silver Development Co. In actuality this parcel contains 22.01 acres. The parcel is zoned Residential Performance (RP). This parcel has an approved Master Development Plan (MDP) which indicates 117 townhouse units . It would be possible to amend the MDP to reflect a change in the desired housing type, in effect substituting 72 apartments for 72 townhouses. Once an amended MDP for the twenty-two acres is approved with the substitution of the desired apartment units, the five acres which your client is interested in could then be separated from the remainder of the tract. . I hope this letter provides the information you need. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance Sincerely, Kris C. Tierney, AICP Deputy Planning Director March 28, 1994 Mr. Michael C. Buseck Williams, Mullen, Christian & Dobbins 101 East Cary Street Richmond, Virginia 23210-1320 Dear Mr. Buseck: I am writing in response to our phone conversation of March 21, 1994, and your subsequent fax transmission of the 22nd. In your correspondence you reference a five acre parcel owned by the Silver Development Co. In actuality this parcel contains 22.01 acres. The parcel is zoned Residential Performance (RP) which allows for a maximum residential density of 10 units per acre. This parcel has an approved Master Development Plan (MDP) which indicates 117 townhouse units. It would be possible to amend the MDP to reflect a change in the desired housing type, in effect substituting 72 apartments for 72 townhouses. Once an amended MDP for the twenty-two acres is approved with the substitution of the desired apartment units, the five acres which your client is interested in could then be separated from the remainder of the tract. I hope this letter provides the information you need. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance Sincerely, Kris C. Tierney, AICP Deputy Planning Director March 30, 1994 Mr. Michael C. Buseck Williams, Mullen, Christian & Dobbins 101 East Cary Street Richmond, Virginia 23210-1320 Dear Mr. Buseck: I am writing in response to our phone conversation of March 21, 1994, and your subsequent fax transmission of the 22nd. In your correspondence you reference a five acre parcel owned by the Silver Development Co. In actuality this site is part of a larger 22.01 acre parcel. The parcel is zoned Residential Performance (RP) which allows for a maximum residential density of 10 units per acre. This parcel has an approved Master Development Plan (MDP) which indicates 117 townhouse units. The County Zoning Ordinace would permit the MDP to be amended to reflect a change in the desired housing type, in effect substituting 72 apartments for 72 townhouses. Once an amended MDP for the twenty-two acres is approved with the substitution of the desired apartment units, the five acres with 72 apartments which your client is interested in, could then be separated from the remainder of the tract. I hope this letter provides the information you need. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance Sincerely, Kris C. Tierney, AICP Deputy Planning Director August 23, 1994 Mr. H. Graham Driver Multi -Family Program Manager Department of Housing and Community Development 501 North Second Street Richmond, Virginia, 23219-1321 RE: Preston Place H Apartments 95MF30.TC Dear Mr. Driver: I am writing in response to your letter dated August 18, 1994 concerning the above referenced project and our phone conversation of August 22, regarding the same. As we discussed, the question of whether or not one can site 72 apartments on a five acre parcel does not lend itself to a simple yes or no answer. The parcel in question currently contains 22.01 acres and is zoned RP (Residential Performance) which allows for a maximum density of ten units per acre. The permitted density varies depending on the size of the track and the mixture of housing types. The site has an approved Master Development Plan (MDP) which depicts 117 townhouse units. Currently, our ordinance permits parcels between 10 and 100 acres to contain a maximum density of no more than 5.5 units per acre. Our County Zoning Ordinance does provide for a MDP to be amended, and apartments are a permitted use in the RP zone. Therefore, it would be possible to revise the approved MDP to reflect the desired 72 apartments. (The maximum density for the 22 acres could not be exceeded, therefore, the number of townhouses would have to be reduced accordingly.) Revising a MDP requires a formal application and fee, and a public hearing with both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. This can take a number of months to complete depending on a variety of factors. Once a revised MDP is approved for the 22 acres, a site plan would have to be approved. This process also requires a formal application and fee. Site Plan approval does not require a public hearing. Aspects of the site plan preparation and application can be done at the same time that the MDP is going through the public hearing process, however, final site plan approval cannot precede approval of the MDP. (Both applications can be prepared and submitted simultaneously though there are certain risks in doing this. During the public hearing process a change to the Page 2 Mr. H. Graham Driver Preston Place II Apartments August 23, 1994 MDP may be required which would result in a change being required to the site plan.) The issue of permitted density is perhaps more complicated. On the surface it would appear that a five acre parcel could not accommodate 72 residential units. The fact is that the Zoning Ordinance establishes limits to permitted gross density. At this point, we are talking about a 22 acre site which could theoretically contain up to 121 multifamily units. As long as other spacing, setback, and open space requirements are met, it is possible that 72 of the permitted 121 units might be situated on a five acre portion of the overall 22 acres. Subsequent to receiving the above described MDP and Site Plan approvals for the proposed development, the site could conceivably be subdivided such that the portion of the site containing the 72 apartment units would be separated from the remainder of the parcel. Appropriate accommodations would have to be made concerning such things as use of open space, parking, and access. Subdivision is, again, a public hearing process which would require a meeting of the Planning Commission. As for utilities to the site, the developer would be entirely responsible for extending whatever utilities were required. There are existing apartments across the street from the site in question, so utilities are at least nearby. To summarize, it would be possible and within the limits of pertinent County regulations to develop the site as proposed. Timing required is subject to a number of variables. I would say that a reasonable time frame would be somewhere in the range of six months. I hope this letter has provided the information you were seeking. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Kris C. Tierney, AICP Deputy Planning Director KCT/rsa 09/09/94 *0:50 Pal hom Ilarris Rust & Assueia( s, pc 1110 Scull) Main Stmvl 11. (). Box 46 Bridgmater, VA 22812 Nlel ru 385- N35 703 828-2016 Il i g i -4-1 i, ti:srle)ur%. PHR&: i E.' lJHTER 0 =tct1 PH R&ik A k, A SIR'1ILE COVER PA `C TO: EVAN V4YA-r7 (Cumpimy/Depart men t ) FAX NO. C-7-o3 &IS-O&a2 �\01 Of C tairfa. Ai;� Bridgvi%atcr, N A IA*shurg. VA Ituck%ille, NIU Virginia Beach. N A Winche%ler. VA FROM: F�.rD A, cE DATF, 4 4`� PHR&A - I RIDGL•WATER QEFIC E TIME. FAX NO. (703) N28-0437 HARD COPY: ❑ WILL FOLLOW ET WILL NOT FOLLOW NUMBER OF PAGES TRANSMITTED, INCLUDING THIS PAGE: IF YOU DO NO'I' RI;CUVE ALL PAGES IN LEGIBLE: FORM, PLEASE: CALL: rY_L_ _ _ AT (703) 828-2616 AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. ►'It(_)JIiC'TNUN1BI�It: StJBJlA( F/PROJECT: _ RBs.-rd.✓ PC_4e_f -?AAA Vlamicrs & COMMENTS: .-----,�774c.,yj& 1 A , -77t— 7s_0-M Ol.iell-7 /�ReNt d :ca pe l/_ �. Architects 1�1 _ _I� N -tJo c✓E srlLL N#-R-A To Ce.wpt,] 9_r/74 7 Ea✓ 5, S v.. r7s « ,grRc .��7vsi� i�/ �N� �f' 09 6' j 100 : 5d_101 e � COUNTY of FREDt RICK Depanlncnt or Planning and DCv0IU rncnt sue= ( I Fux 703 / 678.0682 t Jttnrch 30, 1994 Mr Alichael C. Auseck Williams, ?►kfullen, Christian & I�Obbins 101 Fast CaryStreet Richmond, Virginia 2321OL1326 I � Dear Mr. Auseck- i 1 ern writing in response to our hone con I ersetion of March 21, 1994, end your tuba u : t transmissiou of the 22ad. cq t n fax 1n your correspondence you reftlrenccia (j,� acre parcel owned b the Silver In actuality this site is part of N Iprger 22.01 acre parcel, The par �l la Zoned Residwi� Development Co. Performance (AP) which thews for a maumUrn residential duulty of 10 u�ts r.cre, nds parcel has an apprvv0d Master Development plan (,\,Dp) which lhd;cates 1 I7 tawnlrouse units. T7 County 7.oning prdinace would per"UNI the MUD pit a nded to reflect a cban8e in the desired t+ousutg type, in e9ect ttubstituting 12 A}sartroents foO ff oubes. Once an emended MD for the ant I•twd acres is a rov '' Apartment units, the five Acres with 72 npartutcnt8 wl,i�h yUur clien is 1ntcthe �restedl! n couof ld the gyred separated front the remainder of �he tract. I n► n be 1 hope this letter provides the Information y�o need Please let me know if 1 can be of any further; assistance Sincerely, Kris C. Tierney. A Deputy planning Director y Nonli Loudoun Slrcci I PO 13cti t[! Wlnchcnc►. VA 22601 j Y1'00E;;tcr, �A 22604 l:Wrtry JOi1Tr Juairrat --WM*r Mbrnerufi arreei entrance) m Winchester. Virginia. the following described property Irac1-1. Ad Mhei nenain not or parm of land, topsttr- er wdtj aft r4 ts, rights of way and appurtenances thereto belonging and wnprovernhents thereon. Iramng 45 feet or Paterson Avenue and adwxl- rig back an even width a distance of 160 feet, des- gurted as lot #21 on it plat known as 'Patterson Avenue Addition` and tudIner designated 604 Patterson Avenue. W ndmesfer, Virginia Reference is made to the Deed of Trust for a more parecuAr descriOtion d saia property TtWZ Aft arose cledain tots orparcels; of land. "V and bang sauale along fhe Sauthem side of a 12 bit alley extending Ir m Ellin Street to Spruce Street Wong the Northam end of 1lhe block of cols No. 70 to 7 Ironling on the Northern side 1hf Frederick Avenue, now bmN Lot 78, of Ow Harris Addition. (Tax Map No 176-04-H•79A) and Lot 71A (Tax Map 1764".71A) old designated as 926 and 932 Frederick Avenue in the City of Wwnchyster, Virginia Reference is made to the Deed ,' Trust for a more park utar desciption of said ;x-cperty. The lvuperty and the irprovements. thereon will w solo v, -as W WrOiCal aondrlion WithoA warTerry of any nura TERMS OF SALE ,,,asli A nx-rehrrdebie bidder's �Je"it of ten ppeercety (%0%14 of the sale price, in :bah or by casrr rE ltecir, required at the time of saie The nolehol"i, if a bipder, shall not be MWIred t{o past a depaet tiaiance of the pjMhWg pace must be Pero icy cas how s check wak 14 drys from date of sae Exoepl to Vwginia Grugrx trot, a1 fees, casts arc eogherrees are purtheser"s mspwai- bity Tww-- are pro -milled 10 the dabs of sale. Upon osteuft by purchaser the Trustees in adfi m Cat otmer remedies. reserve the right to forted dapo� rsadvaAse. and lieu to Waperfy al fdw mk vpost of the dotsulling pu"aser. In the event the Trustees do not corwsy We 10 any mason, pw- cl"aSeh`6 sole nomedy 's return of depose PulCfmsI stial 1,ahne Yte reepottsDity of abAatnrg possrrssion at the property. J. RANDOL H LARRXK and JAMIN R. LAfMICK, JR. Tntaleae For tntorwution J. Ran LARF11M i DROWN AftonaSs011-1" 25 E P.O. Bo M11irwEM 2it�4 mote nre safety: but also Io promote our oontinuing efforts to provide high quality water to our customers. We are sorry for any inconvenience. Questions may be directed to the Department of Public Utilities at (703)667-1815 REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS Ftafltrick Ootattw Robert E RIMe MfreorW GaMdim ic. The Canty of Frederick has recetl a FY 1994 Plisorning Grant through the Virginia Community Development Block Grant program to undertake the Planning of `The Center for Community Lwv*' pn>falcl The Robert E Rose Mernonai Foundation acting 00 Dehadf of the County m edintinq propos ads to propane the planning grant study. The work Involves the following tasks site selection and analysms site control: market derrhan itneeds arm* - us. preliminary schematic design with cost esh mates, financial assessment and certification - floor sin gfsubsidy deterrn-nation; cooperation aproerrielis, and a Conwnunily Improvement Grant (00) application for submission to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Devel Wriend during to FY 19 % fisndng cycle Written proposafs must be received by 5 fe-m., Felday, Aupual 11. 10M, of The oMm of hose .. metal Foundatim; 365 IWIonal Avenue; Wilaettaalet, VirgiMa 22601 to be considered QuIeVod and resportsble mapohdertts vA7 be Pal- utled based on estabN;ned selection Ldww arts negot ab" condxied witty the top ranked *wn Additional information and a copy of the oonplefe RFP Me*" for Proposaal( r"j*q the wmius- lion criteria frhay be obtained by corteciirg Gregory A. Sboenider. Executive Director. Robert E. Rose Momorial Foundation, Inc. (7031 667-1919, kKtfbh" naqu" ee kill lechnoiegfy n" ooatlr- ftsdfrftielt Comurty TDD (703) T211-46l6. The County d Foodariclr and The Roes Ftwndebw aria Equal Opporvrfh Employers- Proposals morn lgr=L nrna6y and lernew a -r so, firms we ih~ T`C WINCHES _r { s Ah .tiattrLUy. Augasf g 199W hD(A has thetp available Secretary 7yptst- Word P ,ocessor. Laborer. CAN Becky. John or Dorf 667-1916 Adfe Temporary Swvtcas ALL VINYL REPLACEMENT WINDOWS Vinyl Siding, ROW 9 for FREE EsWn&M Mcf50NALDs fgME 11IPROVEYENTS 66"78e ALL YOUR PAWT IG weeds new, old t.icens+ea. Richard Whftu 862-7E74 Appliance, err conditioner. hest pump. '11eartirig and repair Call Stuart Laylan 8659-3' 98 BAKERS COkTIRETE CONSTRUCTION t& >. ftoors. patios, � .. � oonsbttcoon of dyes and sited! ot. y �45. No )oe is too sr � r a' large 116�7'Kl Asfihnh Drive' S� Ptl itg Lots tar & ("hip Seal UMI,,; Lkeneed i Inwred 665-9758 Fast FREE ESTlUAM SHAWNEE ASPHALT Driveways Parking Lot Patch Work Tar and Chip $69-1224 os.. Acres tali t�rne M-7206 1 1111111114 babysd in my horn. n Tnhber Ridge Any shift 64ondaV++day Hot band snacks are kxbl�sone rerroe can be provided Call Phyi Ys d 70348W7992 Ili HOME CNLDCARE 15 years it"nence writ, daycare. Fredericklown area OW1617 l,P1I availaMe for private duly nodal and within 50 mile nedus. Respond io 667-762, VAN WANTS Job taking care of elderly man ST7 2595 MOTHER'S DAY OUT Fall Registration now avald" at FYst Asaembty of trod Ape ntant 10 5 66 -ow ALPINE PAINTING 51 C IALIZIN(; N CD ,i, r, Licensed & Insured - Since 1985 FREE ESTIMATES - 703467-3800 � R A*18kawsod puv 4kgd ,3 Apu looddk. BUM u aafwlsodui, Anew 1J%W AQ6A a autlyd Puu suarn _t -yr iuca IE -id 10 7p1et1 mW to emia ices., �x►cueler srJlo-lRd SJtees '9'Jr)1 ?rlort.f S taltuiC Ammr COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 618-0682 August 23, 1994 Mr. H. Graham Driver Multi -Family Program Manager Department of Housing and Community Development 501 North Second Street Richmond, Virginia, 23219-1321 RE: Preston Place H Apartments 95MF30.TC Dear Mr. Driver: I am writing in response to your letter dated August 18, 1994 concerning the above referenced project and our phone conversation of August 22, regarding the same. As we discussed, the question of whether or not one can site 72 apartments on a five acre parcel does not lend itself to a simple yes or no answer. The parcel in question currently contains 22.01 acres and is zoned RP (Residential Performance) which allows for a maximum density of ten units per acre. The permitted density varies depending on the size of the track and the mixture of housing types. The site has an approved Master Development Plan (MDP) which . depicts 117 townhouse units. Currently, our ordinance permits parcels between 10 and 100 acres to contain a maximum density of no more than 5.5 units per acre. Our County Zoning Ordinance does provide for a MDP to be amended, and apartments are a permitted use in the RP zone. Therefore, it would be possible to revise the approved MDP to reflect the desired 72 apartments. (The maximum density for the 22 acres could not be exceeded, therefore, the number of townhouses would have to be reduced accordingly.) Revising a MDP requires a formal application and fee, and a public hearing with both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. This can take a number of months to complete depending on a variety of factors. Once a revised MDP is approved for the 22 acres, a site plan would have to be approved. This process also requires a formal application and fee. Site Plan approval does not require a public hearing. Aspects of the site plan preparation and application can be done at the same time that the MDP is going through the public hearing process, however, final site plan approval cannot precede approval of the MDP. (Both applications can be prepared and submitted simultaneously though there are certain risks in doing this. During the public hearing process a change to the 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 Page 2 Mr. H. Graham Driver Preston Place II Apartments August 23, 1994 MDP may be required which would result in a change being required to the site plan.) The issue of permitted density is perhaps more complicated. On the surface it would appear that a five acre parcel could not accommodate 72 residential units. The fact is that the Zoning Ordinance establishes limits to permitted gross density. At this point, we are talking about a 22 acre site which could theoretically contain up to 121 multifamily units. As long as other spacing, setback, and open space requirements are met, it is possible that 72 of the permitted 121 units might be situated on a five acre portion .of the overall 22 acres. Subsequent to receiving the above described MDP and Site Plan approvals for the proposed development, the site could conceivably be subdivided such that the portion of the site containing the 72 apartment units would be separated from the remainder of the parcel. Appropriate accommodations would have to be made concerning such things as use of open space, parking,, and access. Subdivision is, again, a public hearing process which would require a meeting of the Planning Commission. As for utilities to the site, the developer would be entirely responsible for extending whatever utilities were required. There are existing apartments across the street from the site in question, so utilities are at least nearby. To summarize, it would be possible and within the limits of pertinent County regulations to develop the site as proposed. Timing required is subject to a number of variables. I would say that a reasonable time frame would be somewhere in the range of six months. I hope this letter has provided the information you were seeking. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, - C Kris C. Tierney, AICP Deputy Planning Director KCT/rsa ,�.. rtMazarC✓'`c' , George Allen DEPARTMENT OF Governor HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT August 18, .1994 Planning Department Frederick County P. O. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Sir or Madam: RE: Preston Place II Apartments 95MF30.TC Robert T. Skunda Secretary of Commerce and Trade David L. Caprara Director The above referenced project has applied to the Department of Housing and Community Development for funding. The project will be located at Airport Road, in Winchester, Virginia. According to the developer, the site comprises approximately 5 acres. The sponsor expects to build 72 units in 6 buildings. It appears from the application that the property is currently owned by Chris S. Ramsey. Please assist us by answering the following questions regarding this property. 1. Would the zoning, which is currently in effect for the above site, allow the construction of the planned number of units? 2. If the answer toll is yes, what special conditions or restrictions were imposed on the development at the time of zoning approval? 3. If the answer to #1 is no, what steps remain to change to zoning to allow such a project? How long would you expect this to take? 4. Is there an approved final site plan for the property which would allow for the development of a project as described above? 5. If the answer to #4 is yes, what special conditions or restrictions were imposed on the development at the time of final site plan approval? 501 North Second Street, The Jackson Center, Richmond, VA23219-1321 • (804) 371-7000 • FAX (804) 371-7090 • TTP (804) 371-7089 "Revitalizing Virginia's Inner Cities and Rural Communities" Planning Department Frederick County August 18, 1994 Page Two 6. If the answer to #4 is no, what steps remain for the property to get its final site plan approved? How long would you expect this to take? 7. Are all necessary utilities currently available at the site? 8. If the answer to #7 is no, please explain what remains to be done to get all utilities to the site. Who would be responsible? What are the likely time frames? What is the rough estimate of the cost to the development? Thank you for your assistance in providing this status information. If you have any questions, please call me at (804) 371-7122. Sincerely yours, H. Graham Driver Multi -Family Program Manager LCLPLAN.084 March 30, 1994 Mr. Michael C. Buseck Williams, Mullen, Christian & Dobbins 101 East Cary Street Richmond, Virginia 23210-1320 Dear Mr. Buseck: I am writing in response to our phone conversation of March 21, 1994, and your subsequent fax transmission of the 22nd. In your correspondence you reference a five acre parcel owned by the Silver Development Co. In actuality this site is part of a larger 22.01 acre parcel. The parcel is zoned Residential Performance (RP) which allows for a maximum residential density of 10 units per acre. This parcel has an approved Master Development Plan (MDP) which indicates 117 townhouse units. The County Zoning Ordinace would permit the MDP to be amended to reflect a change in the desired housing type, in effect substituting 72 apartments for 72 townhouses. Once an amended MDP for the twenty-two acres is approved with the substitution of the desired apartment units, the five acres with 72 apartments which your client is interested in, could then be separated from the remainder of the tract. I hope this letter provides the information you need. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance Sincerely, Kris C. Tierney, AICP Deputy Planning Director March 28, 1994 Mr. Michael C. Buseck Williams, Mullen, Christian & Dobbins 101 East Cary Street Richmond, Virginia 23210-1320 Dear Mr. Buseck: I am writing in response to our phone conversation of March 21, 1994, and your subsequent fax transmission of the 22nd. In your correspondence you reference a five acre parcel owned by the Silver Development Co. In actuality this parcel contains 22.01 acres. The parcel is zoned Residential Performance (RP) which allows for a maximum residential density of 10 units per acre. This parcel has an approved Master Development Plan (MDP) which indicates 117 townhouse units. It would be possible to amend the MDP to reflect a change in the desired housing type, in effect substituting 72 apartments for 72 townhouses. Once an amended MDP for the twenty-two acres is approved with the substitution of the desired apartment units, the five acres which your client is interested in could then be separated from the remainder of the tract. I hope this letter provides the information you need. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance Sincerely, Kris C. Tierney, AICP Deputy Planning Director } r � March 28, 1994 Mr. Michael C. Buseck Williams, Mullen, Christian & Dobbins 101 East Cary Street Richmond, Virginia 23210-1320 Dear Mr. Buseck: I am writing in response to our phone conversation of March 21, 1994, and your subsequent fax transmission of the 22nd. In your correspondence you reference a five acre parcel owned by the Silver Development Co. In actuality this parcel contains 22.01 acres. The parcel is zoned Residential Performance (RP). This parcel has an approved Master Development Plan (MDP) which indicates 117 townhouse units . It would be possible to amend the MDP to reflect a change in the desired housing type, in effect substituting 72 apartments for 72 townhouses. Once an amended MDP for the twenty-two acres is approved with the substitution of the desired apartment units, the five acres which your client is interested in could then be separated from the remainder of the tract. I hope this letter provides the information you need. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance Sincerely, Kris C. Tierney, AICP Deputy Planning Director •_ , %1 1 ' ' i �,-,tU E :57 I. r U`.i I Ilhl.�_ i� !1 s, 1 l�}� i'=l� ` i r � i --_"' i -jojluoa Al!lenb pezijalndwoa jaded lepo>{ job jaluaa „llauyaal s,� epo>{ . sleaiwaya � epoy{ J,4W gM M cua�saEs N��eMao/a�asuLpind , �lePQ1! laafgng ales p jr, YA ztno, OWA) SPECIFY NUMBER OF PRINTS OR ENLARGEMENTS DESIRED OPPOSITE NEGATIVE NUMBER IMPORTANT: PLEASE DO NOT CUT NEGATIVES FOR REGULAR PRINTS FOR ENLARGEMENTS ©MEN _�_m_�_m_�_ 0 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS J-520 Eastman Kodak Company, 1993 W iC r � -o �'L.'�'-•ate. �'�-. •F,..r ` `I �t1R '� � _S�. 4x0 � "�•'� �...,._ __-tom~} r--- - _ __ -. 1 - - �`^^\'� - — k-.I-__ . __•---�Y'^'..'^^�c-w~ - - _ -' �.' ..._ -- . '� ;1 -..' i�4-`� _ -. - - - - _ -- T L >..��;,X, .. � • � - - - - gyp:.: - t�' � �/ _-' -�..-i.'-.- '-—�\.``,"�- .'�'- �/�� `���• ��.- ,yam'}, � � _ -� 4 4^.. , ,- j e 44, 00 /r r ► > �' C S I j % `� 5` I�► t r* So -01 pa11 Ll�3-q Dtef',5!L, Residential (R 1) m Heavy Comm-rciall Medium GeoSity Residential (R-2) r. I Limited Industrial (1-1) OF inVNI kQTA1.,v1PGIN1A .0 LW11 HIQA Oef,Sity ReSidential (R-3,; (1-2) 70NING Heavy Iridust-ial MENTS DESIRED OPPOSITE iE DO NOT CUT NEGATIVES FOR ENLARGEMENTS SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS ©Eastman Kodak Company, 1990 -lojluoo Al!lenb pezijalndwoo jaded � epoyj . jol jaluao w,Iauuoal s,� Bpo>{ • sleoiwayo repo){ . "m i'd 1 19 "Amo 010 r, W( m cua;s�[saseqojnd y��eMao�o�10 XsP�JI •• - ;aa(gnS area