Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout21-06 CommentsI \ HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MIT&HELL HAND - DELIVERED Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Willow Run Proffer Statement Dear Susan: OCT 2 3 2006 4 � PLEASE REPLY TO P. 0. BOX 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604 -0848 I have reviewed the above - referenced Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. It is noted that the project name on the front of the Proffer Statement is "Willow Run ", and that that same name is used on the Master Development Plan. However, throughout the Proffer Statement, the project appears to be referred as "Willow Run Community ". The name of the project should be consistent throughout. SECTION A-RES I DENTIAL LAND USE 2. In Paragraph A(3), the range of different type of residential units are set forth in a chart. It should be noted that the range is set forth in terms of a minimum and maximum percentage. It is assumed that this is a percentage of the A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILBUR C. HALL (1892 -1972) THOMAS V. MONAHAN- (1924 -1999) 7 A am EAST MARKET STREET 0 EAST 605CAWEN STREET SAMUEL D. ENGLE LEESBURG, VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA O. LELAND MAHAN TELEPHONE 703 -777 - 1050 TELEPHONE 540662-3200 ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. FAX 540- 662 -4304 JAMES A. KLENKAR E-MAIL lawyers(ajhallmonahancom STEVEN F. JACKSON October 23, 2006 DENNIS J. MOLOUGHLIN, JR. HAND - DELIVERED Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Willow Run Proffer Statement Dear Susan: OCT 2 3 2006 4 � PLEASE REPLY TO P. 0. BOX 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604 -0848 I have reviewed the above - referenced Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. It is noted that the project name on the front of the Proffer Statement is "Willow Run ", and that that same name is used on the Master Development Plan. However, throughout the Proffer Statement, the project appears to be referred as "Willow Run Community ". The name of the project should be consistent throughout. SECTION A-RES I DENTIAL LAND USE 2. In Paragraph A(3), the range of different type of residential units are set forth in a chart. It should be noted that the range is set forth in terms of a minimum and maximum percentage. It is assumed that this is a percentage of the 0 0 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy October 23, 2006 Page 2 total number of residential units permitted (1,390). It should be noted that there is no proffer related to the timing of the construction of various types of residential units. Therefore, theoretically, the entire component of a certain type of residential unit could be fully built before any other residential unit types are built. (For example, over 400 multi - family units could be the first units constructed in the project). B. COMMERCIAL LAND USE 3. In Paragraph B 3 reference is made to "Sandyridge Drive" (Main Street) ". On the Master Development Plan (Sheet 2 of 11), the street appears to be named Sandyridge Boulevard. Also, I did not see any reference on the Master Development Plan to a "Main Street ". Further, it is not clear to me, but perhaps it is clear to staff, what this proffer is seeking to accomplish. It appears that Jubal Early Drive and Sandyridge Drive intersect and that there are proposed to be commercial buildings fronting on Jubal Early Drive. Therefore, it is hard for me to visualize how there would not be parking between those buildings and Sandyridge Drive, unless all oftheparking forthose commercial buildings would be located between the buildings and Jubal Early Drive. 4. With respect to Paragraphs B 4 and 5, the proffer guarantees the completion of a certain amount of square footage of "commercial land use." I am concerned that this may be considered to include parking lots, which I do not think is intended. Should it refer to " 10,000 square feet of commercial floor space "? Also, it should be noted that there is no requirement for the construction of commercial space until 600 dwelling units have been constructed, and that there is no commitment for the construction of commercial space in excess of 20,000 square feet for the entire project. 5. The staff should review the excluded uses in Paragraph B 6 to see if there are other permitted uses which should be excluded. 0 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy October 23, 2006 Page 3 C. MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 6. I find the wording of Paragraph C 1 to be somewhat confusing. I believe that the purpose of the second sentence is to set forth the intention of the Master Development Plan to delineate the general location of certain elements of the development. The third and fourth sentence would appear to identify certain things in the Master Development Plan that are flexible and can be modified without a conditional zoning amendment. That being said, it seems to me that the phrase "but could be modified in such a manner to accommodate engineering constraints" should be deleted from the second sentence, as the third and fourth sentences identify those things that can be modified. In addition, the fourth sentence makes reference to Modification #1 - Master Development Plan Flexible Design Elements, which is submitted as a proffered document. Therefore, as a proffered document, it becomes part of the proffers. In reviewing Modification #1, the two bullet points at the bottom of page 1 of Modification #1 contain the words, at the end of each statement, "minimum ordinance standards are not exceeded." This does not seem to make much sense to me, and I would think the wording should be "minimum ordinance standards are met." D. TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENTS 7. In Paragraphs D 7, 8, 9, and 11, I would recommend that there be some timing requirement for executing the referenced signalization agreements, perhaps with 30 days of being requested to do so by the County and /or VDOT. Also, there should be a timing commitment to the construction of the roundabout referenced in Paragraph D 7. 8. Staff should review Paragraph D 10 to determine whether the language of the last sentence is sufficient to be able to determine if and when the referenced improvements could be required to be constructed. E • HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy October 23, 2006 Page 4 E. MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS 9. I assume that the Physical Impact Model breaks down contributions so that the County would be able to determine how to allocate the monetary proffers contained in this Proffer Statement. 10. In Paragraph E 5, I am not sure that the provision that the cap of 4% per year be non - compounded is appropriate as a CPI is normally applied to show the increase in the index over the prior year's index. F. COMMUNITY RECREATION 11, In Paragraph F 2, it should be noted that the age - restricted community center may not be built until all of the age - restricted units are built, and only if the minimum required number of age - restricted units (5 %) is actually constructed. H. CREATION OF HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 12. In Paragraph H 2, reference is made to design guidelines "established by the Applicants." Are these guidelines to beset forth and made apart of the Proffer Statement, or does this proffer mean that the Applicants will establish design guidelines without rev; ew by the County' ?. I. ENVIRONMENTAL 13. In Paragraph 11, it is not clear to me whether the DSA boundary is on the Master Development Plan, or is to be put on the Master Development Plan at some future time. Since the Master Development Plan is made a part of the proffers, it would appear that the DSA boundary would need to be delineated before the rezoning is completed, and that the proffer would recite that a DSA boundary is delineated on the Master Development Plan. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy October 23, 2006 Page 5 As previously noted I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the rezoning of this specific property, or whether other proffers would be appropriate, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. If there are any questions concerning the foregoing comments, please contact me. yours, Robert T. Mitchell, RTM /ks 0 0 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MIT,CHELL HAND - DELIVERED Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 JAN 2 3 2007 PLEASE REPLY TO P. O. Box 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604 -0848 Re: Willow Run Proffer Statement -- Supplementary Review Dear Susan: Pursuant to your request, I have reviewed certain proffers in the Willow Run Proffer Statement dated January 4, 2007. My review is limited to the nine specific proffers listed in your memo to me of January 19, 2007. This review supplements my Proffer Statement review of October 23, 2006, which reviewed the June 27, 2006 Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the proffers listed below are generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. Proffer A6 (new). This proffer should identify a date by which the Phase I Archaeological Assessment will be completed. 2. Proffer BI (revised). In this proffer the Applicants proffer to rezone the right of way associated with the relocation of Merriman's Lane. The Applicants, A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILBUR C. HALL (1892 - 1972) THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924 -1999) J S 301 EAST MARNET STREET 9 EAST B05CAWEN STREET SAMUEL D. ENGLE LEESBURG. VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA O. LELAND MAHAN TELEPHONE 709 777 1050 TELEPHONE 540 -662 -9200 ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. FAX 54o-0B2 -4904 JAMES A. KLENKAR lawyers @hallmonahan mm STEVEN F. JACKSON 23, 2007 January 23, 2007 DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN. JR. HAND - DELIVERED Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 JAN 2 3 2007 PLEASE REPLY TO P. O. Box 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604 -0848 Re: Willow Run Proffer Statement -- Supplementary Review Dear Susan: Pursuant to your request, I have reviewed certain proffers in the Willow Run Proffer Statement dated January 4, 2007. My review is limited to the nine specific proffers listed in your memo to me of January 19, 2007. This review supplements my Proffer Statement review of October 23, 2006, which reviewed the June 27, 2006 Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the proffers listed below are generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. Proffer A6 (new). This proffer should identify a date by which the Phase I Archaeological Assessment will be completed. 2. Proffer BI (revised). In this proffer the Applicants proffer to rezone the right of way associated with the relocation of Merriman's Lane. The Applicants, 0 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy January 23, 2007 Page 2 of course, cannot rezone the property. I would suggest that this portion of the proffer be amended to state the Applicants will file a rezoning application within sixty (60) days of the abandonment. Also, in the third sentence, I would recommend a clarity that the words "merged and" be inserted prior to the word "absorbed ". 3. Proffer B2 (revised). This proffer provides that a five -acre site shall be deeded to Frederick County within ninety (90) days of an executed irrevocable contract for the construction of the aquatic center. The staff needs to determine whether the execution of an construction may require commencement of construction sooner than ninety (90) days. Also, it should be determined whether the County can likely be in a position to execute a construction contract for the aquatic center within three (3) years. Also, is the location of the five acre site established, and, if not, the proffer should provide that the site will be in a location acceptable to the County. 4. Proffer B7 (last two bullets)(new). This bullet seems to presume that all commercial space will be leased. Should the proffer refer to "tenant or owner" rather than just "tenant "? 5. Proffer D5 (revised). In the third sentence, I would recommend that the word "provide" be replaced with the words "dedicate, within 60 days of a request by the County," 6. Proffer D7 (new). The proffer should include a date by which the construction of the extension of Cider Mill Lane will be completed. 7. Proffer D10 (revised). I would recommend that the words "in any event" be inserted prior to the word "shall" in the last clause of the second sentence. 8. Proffer D14 (new). No comment. 0 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy January 23, 2007 Page 3 9. Proffer FI (revised). It is noted that this proffer calls for the construction of the community center building prior to the issuance of the 600` building permit. I note that this is a revision from the prior proffer that I reviewed, which provided for the construction prior to the issuance of the 400 ° i building permit. As I have previously noted in the prior proffer review, I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the rezoning of this specific property, or whether other proffers would be appropriate, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. If there are any questions concerning the foregoing comments, please contact me. ery rrulyl yours, Robert T. M RTM/ks B �► M :. ; :� ; ,,x :� Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540 /665 -6395 November 9, 2006 Mr. Evan Wyatt Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester. VA 22602 RE: Proposed Rezoning of Willow Run Dear Evan: I have had the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application for the Willow Run Property. The application seeks to rezone 359.97 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the R4 (Residential Planned Community) District. While the application proposes a mixed use development, as called for in the current Comprehensive Policy Plan for large Urban Development Area (UDA) sites, the commercial component is inadequate. The overall layout is generally consistent with the Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan, although this plan calls for a larger, single concentration of commercial uses. It is encouraging though that the proposal does include some of the traditional neighborhood design (TND) features that are being advocated in the County's emerging UDA study. Below are specific issues that should be addressed with this rezoning. Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan (WJELUP). The subject properties are within the area covered by the Western Jubal Early Land Use Plan as adopted by the Board of Supervisors on January 11, 2006. This plan is a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. WJELUP calls for one large commercial concentration along Jubal Early Drive, rather than the two smaller clusters proposed. 2. WJELUP — Commercial. The WJELUP suggests neighborhood scale commercial development and high end office uses in the commercial areas. Further, it discourages strip commercial development and encourages consolidated entrances. Few details of the commercial component are included in the application, and more attention should be paid to the layout and design of the commercial areas. Most recent commercial rezonings in the County have included proffers associated with design, materials and signage. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 0 Page 2 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Willow Run Property November 9, 2006 3. R4 Zoning District — Commercial. §165 -72D of the "Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 10% of the gross area of an R4 development to be used for business and industrial uses. This equates to 36 acres for this property. This proposal does not provide 36 acres of business use. It takes credit for 3.1 acres of land owned by VDOT (the current right -of -way for Merrimans Lane). This is not acceptable. The County has no guarantee that this land will be made available to the applicant and the County cannot guarantee its future rezoning. In addition, proffer 4132, which dedicates a five acre site in the commercial area to the County for an aquatic center, further reduces the commercial component of the site. Please provide 36 acres of commercial land. You could explore adding land between the pond and the planned commercial development, as this would provide an ideal setting for a use such as a restaurant. (This applicant takes advantage of the density, flexibility and new housing types offered with the R4 Zoning District, therefore the applicant should be prepared to follow the ordinance as regards commercial development.) 4. Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) — Commercial. Given the TND of this project, it is important to consider details of the commercial sites. These details should include the uses, especially retail and restaurants; incorporating store frontages with display areas, not blank walls; and incorporating traditional signs and entrances along the commercial street to add vitality and avoid dead frontages. Serious consideration should be given to a public area for meeting and resting. The work prepared for the applicant by Streetsense in February of 2006 certainly contains many ideas for how to implement TND in a commercial setting. (This applicant seeks modifications to the VDOT Subdivision Street Requirements on the grounds that it is a neotraditional neighborhood design. In order to justify using alternative standards, the applicant should be prepared to design both the residential and commercial portions of the site in a neotraditional manner.) 5. WJELUP — Transportation. The WJELUP calls for a north /south major collector road. An alternative to the required road efficiency buffer for Sandyridge Boulevard will need to be provided. 6. WJELUP - Transportation. The WJELUP is fundamentally linked to the extension of Jubal Early Drive and the new Route 37 interchange at Jubal Early Drive. If only Phase I of the development (599 residential units and a portion of Jubal Early Drive) is built, the application will not be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 7. WJELUP — Environment. The WJELUP recommends restricting development near the filled sinkhole. The MDP only shows this as an open space area. The 0 0 Page 3 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Willow Run Property November 9, 2006 applicant will need to address how the impact of this fill will be mitigated and how the area will now be protected from further sinking. 8. WJELUP — Historical Resources. The WJELUP encourages the protection of the Baker Jacob House and placing it on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the State and National Registers of Historic Places. This needs to be addressed in the application. 9. WJELUP — Education/Public Facilities. §165 -68B of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requires R4 developments to dedicate land for facilities necessary to serve the development as described in the Comprehensive Plan. The WJELUP calls for a site for school facilities in this area. The Frederick County School Board on January 18 2005 passed a resolution requesting 25 -30 acres for a multi- campus school site in the WJELUP area. Willow Run is the largest portion of the WJELUP area and will produce the greatest number of homes in this area. (Up to 1,320 non- age- restricted units could be built.) Instead of providing a school site, a cash contribution of $1,000 per non -age restricted unit has been proffered. This proffer does not guarantee a school site, and thus the application is not in conformance with this aspect of the WJELUP, and also not in conformance with §165 -68B of the Zoning Ordinance. 10. WJELUP — Parks. The WJELUP calls for neighborhood parks interconnected with a trail system. Many neotraditional communities use a standard of all residences being within one -fifth (1/5) of a mile of useable open space. With that standard in mind, some portions of this development, particularly in the area of Julian Drive, will not be well served by recreational amenities. 11. Urban Development Area (UDA) Study. The County's emerging UDA study designates West Jubal Early as a potential urban center. Urban centers are envisioned as walkable urban areas with a larger commercial core, higher densities, and designed around some form of public space or focal point. The applicant is encouraged to incorporate all of these features. 12. Urban Development Area (UDA) Study. In light of the County's emerging UDA study, it is encouraging that a TND is sought by the applicant. Given the applicant's willingness to provide a TND, a number of features, taken from the emerging UDA study, could be incorporated into the Willow Run development. • Mix and integration of a variety of uses. • High quality architecture and urban design (should include building design, high quality building materials such as brick, stone and stucco, as E 0 Page 4 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Willow Run Property November 9, 2006 well as the design of lighting, signage, entrance features, fencing paving, street furniture, bus shelters, etc) . • Community focal points. • Integrated community facilities. 13. Impact Analysis Statement (Mature Woodlands). The application is missing a consideration of mature woodlands as required in the rezoning application. Following a site visit, it is clear that some woodlands merit particular attention. Tree save areas of key woodlands, including the trees and the associated stone wall along Orchard Lane, should be evaluated at the rezoning stage and shown on the MDP. Snow fences around tree save areas are also recommended to further protect the woodlands during the construction phase of the project. 14. Impact Analysis Statement (Soil and Bedrock Conditions). The application does not include information on soil or bedrock conditions which could create construction difficulties or hazards, as required in the rezoning application. Given the known location of a large sinkhole, the applicant will need to ensure that further geotechnical information is provided at the subdivision design stage. 15. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). The TIA lacks a section on existing conditions. Although this was included in the original TIA, it should be part of this new TIA for ease of analysis. 16. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). The County requires applicants to model the worst case scenario in a TIA. In this case, the applicant has modeled an appropriate number of residential units, but has modeled only 150,000 square feet of office and 225,000 square feet of retail. This represents a FAR of .24. While this FAR is representative of commercial development in the County, it is low for a neo- traditional development, where higher density is encouraged. Consider modeling a larger amount of commercial floorspace. 17. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). Since the TIA assumed the completion of Meadow Branch Avenue to Route 50 as background, it is appropriate to include the impact of the 34 acres of recently approved commercial /residential development along Meadow Branch Avenue as background. Please add this. 18. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). The Comprehensive Policy Plan calls for Level of Service C or better on roads adjacent to and within new development. Even with the suggested improvements in the TIA, Level of Service C is not provided on adjacent roads. 0 Page 5 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Willow Run Property November 9, 2006 19. Community Design Modifications — Modification #2. Add a sentence to this alternative design standard that clarifies that the applicant can use any of the traditional RP housing types. 20. Community Design Modifications — Modification 42. As per staff conversation with Mr. Evan Wyatt on September 20, 2006, there are some minor errors on the Minimum Residential Dimensional Standards Table. Correct these errors. 21. Community Design Modifications — Modification 43. This alternative design standard seeks a maximum of 60% of the units to be used for single - family attached and multi - family units. However, the proffered residential unit matrix leaves open the possibility that 80% of the units will be single- family attached and multi - family units. Revise this modification or revise the matrix. 22. Community Design Modifications — Modification 44. All streets should be public as per the ordinance. Alleys may be private. Please revise the wording of this modification. Proffer comments were based on the proffer statement dated October 24, 2006. 23. Proffer Statement A5. This proffer needs a timing element. 24. Proffer Statement B2. The applicant seeks to have the land for the aquatic center count towards its required commercial land and also seeks for the value of the land to count towards the overall recreational values. This is getting credit for two different purposes for land that WJELUP designates for commercial use. it would be more appropriate to locate the aquatic center on land designated for residential use. 25. Proffer Statement B4. The applicant should try to ensure a neo- traditional commercial street frontage. This could include maximum setbacks, provision of storefronts, etc. (See earlier comments.) The proffer as written will not guarantee a neo- traditional layout. 26. Proffer Statement B5 & B6. These proffers guarantee only 10,000 square feet of commercial floor space by the 600 residential building permit and an additional 10,000 square feet of commercial floor space by the 1,000` residential permit. This is not consistent with §165-72M(3) of the Zoning Ordinance which requires a reasonable proportion of the nonresidential uses in all phases of the development. While it is clear that the economic viability of the commercial site is linked to the new interchange, the interchange is guaranteed with the 600` residential permit. By 0 0 Page 6 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Willow Run Property November 9, 2006 proffer, all 1,390 residential units could be completed with only 20,000 square feet of commercial floorspace guaranteed. This defeats both the intent of the R4 zoning district and the principles of TND. Consider phasing a greater amount of commercial floorspace earlier in the development. 27. Proffer Statement B7. The R4 Ordinance allows all uses allowed in the B3 (Industrial Transition District) and the M1 (Light Industrial District). As these are likely not wanted in this development, specifically exclude most of these uses. Further, it will be a challenge in a TND to accommodate gas service stations and self- service storage. Give more thought to their successful integration into this community, or consider excluding them. Furt her thought should be given to limiting the square footage of any one commercial use to avoid big box stores in this TND. 28. Proffer Statement — Transportation. The County will need assurance that the major road improvements will be completed even if this development ends with the 599'" building permit. Consider dedicating the land for all of Jubal Early Drive, the relocated Merrimans Lane, Sandyridge Boulevard and the interchange ramps, and bonding their construction, within five years of rezoning approval. 29. Proffer Statement Dl. Jubal Early Drive should include a landscaped median as called for in the WJELUP. Consider language for proffers D2 -D4 that provides a landscaped median. Also consider landscaping the roundabouts. 30. Proffer Statement D8 & D9. Pedestrian signalization will be needed at these two intersections. 31. Proffer Statement D13. The County will need to be notified every time a payment is made to the City. 32. Proffer Statement D14. This proffer should not only address all internal subdivision streets, but should reference all streets in the development. 33. Proffer Statement El. The proffered monetary contribution ($9,078 per residential unit) is based on the 2002 Capital Facilities Impact Model. The County's 2006 Development Impact Model (DIM) projects an impact of $22,098 for each single family detached unit, $15,530 for each townhouse and $8,739 for each apartment. Consideration of current impact is advised. 34. Proffer Statement E2. The proffered age- restricted monetary contribution ($2,000 per unit) is based on the 2002 Capital Facilities Impact Model. The County's 0 0 Page 7 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Willow Run Property November 9, 2006 current Development Impact Model (DIM) projects an impact of $4,392 for each age- restricted single family detached unit, $3,338 for each age- restricted townhouse and $3,348 for each age- restricted apartment. Consideration of current impact is advised. 35. Proffer Statement Fl & F2. Details of the community centers are sought. In general, the County expects a community center to be an enclosed, year- round heated facility with restrooms and kitchen facilities. Outdoor amenities associated with a community center might include a basketball court and a pool. The County's community center requirement was created specifically to address the needs of residents with very small lots, such as those in this development. 36. Proffer Statement F2. The location of the community center for the age- restricted units is inconvenient It should be placed within the age- restricted development, not across the street from it. The residential unit matrix indicates that a minimum of 70 age restricted units will be constructed in this development. With that in mind, Proffer F2 could guarantee construction of the community center at an earlier stage, perhaps by the 50' age restricted unit. The construction of the center will need to be bonded, and the land for it dedicated, at the onset of this portion of the development. 37. Proffer Statement F3. This proffer needs a timing element. 38. Proffer Statement F4. This proffer needs a timing element. The County's standard for trails is ten feet. 39. Proffer Statement 11. The DSA is not clearly designated on the MDP. 40. Proffer Statement I3. The RPA is not clearly designated on the MDP. 41. Proffer Statement J4. Very little of the wetlands are south of Jubal Early Drive. It is therefore recommended that this proffer also apply to the wetlands north of Jubal Early Drive. This proffer is also missing information on when the landscape plan will be prepared and who will review it. 42. Proffer Statement - General. Consider access for construction vehicles. 43. Other - Residential. Romsey Court, the short cul -de -sac on the north side of Jubal Early Drive, is not a neo- traditional feature, looks like an afterthought and interrupts the scenic open space. Consider eliminating it or moving it further west. 0 Page 8 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Willow Run Property November 9, 2006 44. Other - Recreation. The County will need assurances that any recreation unit credit going towards construction in communal recreation sites is bonded with each subdivision plan submitted, and that the land for these sites is dedicated in advance. 45. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency comments from the following agencies: Historic Resources Advisory Board, Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marshall, Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation, Frederick County Public Schools, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, Frederick - Winchester Health Department, City of Winchester, Winchester Regional Airport, Round Hill Fire and Rescue Company, the Frederick - Winchester Service Authority and the Frederick County Attorney. Note: the proffer statement has been sent to the Frederick County Attorney by the Planning Department. 46. Other. Please provide a deed to the property verifying current ownership. Please have the property owners complete the special limited power of attorney form which authorizes you to represent them during the application process. Please provide a receipt from the Treasurer's office which verifies that real estate taxes for the properties have been paid. In summary, this preliminary application is consistent with some aspects of the Comprehensive Plan and the R4 (Residential Planned Community) Zoning District. It fails, however, to fully address community facilities, lacks a commitment to the commercial component and lacks design standards. All of the comments in this letter and any agency comments should be appropriately addressed before staff can formally accept this rezoning application. Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions regarding this application. Sincerely, Susan K. Eddy, AICP ccd}} Senior Planner SKE /bad r I Page 9 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Willow Run Property November 9, 2006 0 cc: Greystone Properties, LLC, 13 South Loudoun St., Winchester, VA 22601 Miller & Smith at Willow Run LLC, 8401 Greensboro Drive, Suite 300, McLean, VA 22102 Willow Grove LC, 720 South Braddock St., Winchester, VA 22601 740 LLC, 720 South Braddock Street, Winchester, VA 22601 750 LLC, 720 South Braddock Street, Winchester, VA 22601 0 JAI 2 6 2007 46 COUNTY of FREDERICK Parks and Recreation Department James M. Doran, Director 540- 665 -5678 FAX: 540-665-9687 www.co. frederick.va.us e -mail: fcprd @co.frederick.va.us MEMORANDUM TO: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Planner II FROM: James M. Doran, Director of Parks and RecreatioY s !' SUBJECT: Willow Run Rezoning and Master Development DATE: January 24, 2007 Thank you for the up -dated material pertaining to the Willow Run Rezoning and Master Development Plan submittal. Based on review of this new information, I have listed our September 12, 2006 comments followed by a revised/additional comment: Plan appears to provide for required open space; however, no calculations for required or usable open space have been provided Revised comment - According to the Land Use Table found in the January 19, 2007 revised plan, the developer appears to meet open space requirements. The residents of the age restricted housing units will undoubtedly spend time outside of the development and have an impact on the recreational services provided by the county. Therefore, staff believes a monetary profferfor these units would be appropriate. Additional Comment- Our comment regarding a monetary proffer for age restricted housing units is for consideration by those responsible for determining the appropriate proffers for new development. Plan appears to provide for the required recreational units; however, specific requirements have not been stated in the plan. Revised Comment- Based on the Recreational Amenities Table provided in the January 19, 2007 revised plan, it appears the developer intends to meet the intent of the county ordinance relative to recreational units. However, Multi- Purpose Fields should offer more than open space and, of the amenities listed, the Pedestrian Park Areas should only be given credit for park benches and ten foot wide trails. Lighting should only be given credit 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 as a recreational unit if in support of a recreational component. Lighting used to illuminate the six foot wide sidewalk should not qualify as a recreational amenity. The six foot wide pedestrian trail system, referred to in the proffer statement, should be considered no more than a sidewalk and should not receive credit as a recreational amenity. If the six foot wide pedestrian trail system were to be expanded to encourage multi uses (10 feet in width), it could be considered a recreational facility. To ensure a connection to Cedar Creek Grade, the Transportation Enhancements should offer an area for a 10' wide asphalt bicyclelpedestrian trail along Willow Run to Cedar Creek Grade. Additional Comment- Although this office offered comments regarding the desirability of a ten foot wide asphalt bicycle trail along Sandy Ridge Boulevard, the county may be better served to view bicycle trails within transportation easements as transportation issues and not as a recreational unit consideration. In addition to providing the Proffer Model, staff recommends the Proffer Statement include a list of proposed monetary proffers by agency. Revised Comment- No comment If this project includes the planning for or construction of a new interchange at Route 37, the proposed Transportation Improvement Program proffer should offer the ability to facilitate a 10' wide bicycle trail to cross over Route 37 at this location. Additional Comment - Although staff offered comments regarding the desirability of a ten foot wide bicycle trail to cross over Route 37, the county may be better served to view bicycle trails within transportation easements as transportation issues and not as a recreational unit consideration. Rezoning Comments Virginia Department of Transportation Mail to: Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 (540) 984 -5600 Hand deliver to: Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 2275 Northwestern Pike Winchester, VA 22603 (540) - 53501828 Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Virginia Department of Transportation with their review. Attach a:copy of your application form, location map proffer statement' Impact. analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Greenway Eneineenng Telephone: 540- 662 -4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: East of Route 37 and Merriman's Lane (Route 621). North of Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622). South and West of the City of Winchester Corporate Limits Current zoning: RA District Acreage: 359.97± Zoning requested: R4 District Virginia Department of Transportation Comments: See attached email from VD(YP to r? 3r J�ngin@@r;na dated 9eteher 31, 2 6 for details. VDOT Signature & Date: 10/31/06 Notice to VDOT — Please Return This Form to the Applicant • Willow Run Rezoning 0 Page 1 of 1 • Evan Wyatt From: Funkhouser, Rhonda [ Rhonda .Funkhouser@VDOT.Virginia.gov] on behalf of Ingram, Lloyd [Lloyd. Ingram @ VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 2:20 PM To: Evan Wyatt Cc: 'Eric Lawrence'; 'Susan Eddy'; Ingram, Lloyd Subject: Willow Run Rezoning The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 621 and 37. These route are the VDOT roadways which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Willow Run Traditional Neighborhood Development Rezoning Application dated October 24, 2006, received by email October 31, 2006 @ 1:23 p.m., addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right -of -way • needs, including right -of -way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right -of -way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. <<SCN_20061031135111 _001.pdf>> Lloyd A. Ingram Transportation Engineer VDOT N Edinburg Residency Land Development 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 (540) 984 -5611 (540) 984 -5607 (fax) • 10/31/2006 Control number RZ06 -0014 Project Name Willow Run Community Address 151 Windy Hill Ln. Type Application Rezoning Current Zoning RA Automatic Sprinkler System Yes Other recommendation • Emergency Vehicle Access Not Identified Siamese Location Not Identified Emergency Vehicle Access Comments Access Comments Additional Comments • Plan Approval Recommended Yes Date received 8%7/2006 City Winchester Tax ID Number 53 -A -90, etc. Date reviewed 8/30/2006 Applicant Greenway Engineering State Zip VA 22602 Fire District 15 Recommendations Automatic Fire Alarm System Yes Requirements Hydrant Location Not Identified Roadway /Aisleway Width Not Identified Date Revised Applicant Phone 540 - 662 -4185 Rescue District 15 Election District Shawnee Residential Sprinkler System Yes Fire Lane Required Yes Special Hazards No i ii iI AUG 3 0 2006 - Reviewed By Signature J. Neal Title COUNTY of Department of Public Works 540/665 -5643 FAX: 540/678 -0682 November 6, 2006 Mr. Evan Wyatt AICP Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 RE: Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan for Willow Run Frederick County, Virginia Dear Evan: We have completed our review of the rezoning application and master development plan for the proposed Willow Run development. In addition to the rezoning application and master development plan, we also reviewed the environmental site assessments for the White and • Marshall properties and the wetland delineation study. Based on the review of these documents, we offer the following comments: 1. Refer to Impact Analysis, page 5, Soil Types: The narrative indicates that the applicant plans to conduct a geotechnical analysis throughout the development of the Willow Run Community for road construction, utility installation and within any areas where karst features are present. We applaud this course of action and suggest that it be expanded to include the stormwater retention pond. Also, we suggest that the geotechnical analysis include geophysical methods to expand the subsurface evaluations and delineate any potential cavities and/or sinkholes. The results of the geotechnical analysis shall be submitted with the subdivision design phase. 2. Refer to Impact Analysis, page 11, Drainage: The discussion indicates that a stormwater retention structure will be designed and constructed in the central portion of the development. Considering the karst nature of the underlying geology, the design of this man-made lake /retention pond will, most probably, require an impervious liner to insure long term stability and prevent seepage. The design of the retention pond shall include the preparation of an operation and maintenance manual that can be implemented by the HOA. This manual shall be included with the design calculations for the retention pond at the time of the subdivision design submission. • - 3. Refer to the Impact Analysis, Environmental Features Exhibit: This exhibit shall be amended to include all of the karst features referenced in the Environmen e� NOV 1 0 7006 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 • Willow Run Rezoning Application and Master Development Plan Comments =Page 2 November 6, 2006 Assessments (ESA) prepared by ECS for the White and Marshall Properties. These features shall also be added to sheet four (4) of eleven (11) of the master development plan. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an article recently published by the Winchester Star which is related to the development of a sinkhole along Route 37. This article highlights what can happen within karst geology. Also, note the location relative to the proposed development of Willow Run. The importance of a detailed geotechnical study cannot be over emphasized for the Willow Run Development. 4. Refer to the ESA for the Marshall property: The summary conclusions included in this report highlighted the presence of hazardous waste in the forms of pesticides and petroleum products and contaminated soils. These conclusions recommended remediating these items using proper methods. We request that documentation verifying the proper disposal of these hazardous wastes and contaminated soils be provided to this office prior to issuing the first land disturbance permit. A note to this effect shall be included in the subdivision design documents. We will grant our approval of the proposed rezoning and MDP upon receipt of the minor revisions noted in comment three (3). • Sincerely, Harvey E Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works • CAProgram Files \WordPerfect Office X3\Rhonda \TEMPCOMMENTS \willow run.wpd Rezoning Comments • Frederick County Sanitation Authority 7 Mail to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, Virginia, 22601 (540) 665 -1061 Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Sanitation Authority with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Hand deliver to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer 315 Tasker Road Stephens City, Virginia Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540- 662 -4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: East of Route 37 and Merriman's Lane (Route 621). North of Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622) South and West of the City of Winchester Corporate Limits Current zoning: RA District Zoning requested: R4 District Acreage: 359.97± Sanitation Authority Comments: Sanatation Authority Signature & Date: IN Notice to Sanitation A 0 Return This Form to the Applicant Rezoning Comments • Frederick — Winchester Service Authority • • Mail to: Fred -Winc Service Authority Attn: Jesse W. Moffett, Executive Director P.O. Box 43 Winchester, Virginia 22604 (540) 722 -3579 Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Frederick - Winchester Service Authority with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, and any other pertinent information. Hand deliver to: Fred -Winc Service Authority Attn: Jesse W. Moffett 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540- 662 -4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: East of Route 37 and Merriman's Lane (Route 621), North of Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622), South and West of the City of Winchester Corporate Limits Current zoning: RA District Zoning requested: R4 District Acreage: 359.97± Fred -Winc Service Authority's Comments: Conr ctinsl O -o bt ao- t-&A X0 at pmteo (��ll ade �e c� 0Ae cca�c�cc(c� 5hoc�ld ae call�xewble Fc� dek�[o� Fred- Wine Service Authority's Signature & Dater Notice to Fred-Wine Service Authority — Please Return This Form to the Applicant 0 • • Rezoning/Master Development Plan Comments Willow Run September 12, 2006 • Plan appears to provide for required open space; however, no calculations for required or usable open space have been provided. • The residents of the age restricted housing units will undoubtedly spend time outside of the development and have an impact on the recreational services provided by the county. Therefore, staff believes a monetary proffer for these units would be appropriate. • Plan appears to provide for the required recreational units; however, specific requirements have not been stated in the plan. • To ensure a connection to Cedar Creek Grade, the Transportation Enhancements should offer an area for a 10' wide asphalt bicycle /pedestrian trail along Willow Run to Cedar Creek Grade. • In addition to providing the Proffer Model, staff recommends the Proffer Statement include a list of proposed monetary proffers by agency. • • If this project includes the planning for or construction of a new interchange at Route 37, the proposed Transportation Improvement Program proffer should offer the ability to facilitate a 10' wide bicycle trail to cross over Route 37 at this location. M. Doran, Director ick Co. Parks and Recreation • 0 0 FREDERICK COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE NEED FOR THE INCLUSION OF LAND FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN THE WEST JUBAL EARL YLAND USE PLAN" WHEREAS, a request to expand the Urban Development Area (UDA) to incorporate parcels owned by the White and Marshall families was approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in February 2004; and WHEREAS, a UDA expansion request has been submitted for the 262 acre Solenberger /Bridgeforth property; and WHEREAS, a new community of over 600 acres is being land - planned in a portion of the county that was previously agricultural farmland; and WHEREAS, the planned land use will be primarily residential with a mix of commercial and residential uses; and WHEREAS, "The West Jubal Early Land Use Plan" estimates up to 2,400 dwellings that could be built in this area; and WHEREAS, the capital facilities impact model yields up to 1,680 students from "The West Jubal Early Land Use Plan'; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County School Board of Frederick County, Virginia requests that "The West Jubal Early Land Use Plan" include 25 -30 acres for a multi - campus school site; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the school site be consistent with the Community Facilities and Services policies in the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. Resolution dated this 18` day of January 2005. awrence K. Van Hoose, Chairman Frederick County School Board Stephdi M. Kapoc er< • Coordinator of Construction and Facilities Use `S�uSP111.Y 9!J �Yp C� n 7 9 GP a Frederick County Public Schools Visit us at www.frederick.kl2.va.us September 19, 2006 Mr. Even Wyatt Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Dear Mr. Wyatt: e- mail, kapocsis@frederick.k­12.va.us RE: Willow Run Traditional Neighborhood Development Rezoning & Master Development Plan This letter is in response to your request for comments regarding the rezoning application for the proposed Willow Run Rezoning and Master Development Plan project. Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 1515 single family detached and attached homes, and 416 apartments will yield in two phases 304 high school students, 262 middle school students, and 720 elementary school students for a total of 1286 new students upon build -out. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new schools facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Respectfully yours, Stephen M. Kapocst Coordinator of Construction and Facilities Use SMK:dkr • cc: Patricia Taylor, Superintendent of Schools Al Orndorff, Assistant Superintendent for Administration Charles Puglisi, Director of Transportation 540- 662 -3889 Ext 112 1415 Amherst Street, Post Office Box 3508, Winchester, VA 22604 -2546 5f' Nov 2 2 700E lD By __F_AX 5 40 - 6623890. -- 5f' 0 0 WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT 491 AIRPORT ROAD WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 (540) 662 -2422 August 21, 2006 Evan Wyatt Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 Re: Rezoning Comment Willow Grove, L.C. Shawnee Magisterial District Dear Mr. Wyatt: After review of the proposed rezoning request for Willow Grove, L.C. for proposed residential performance and business use, we offer the following comment: . The proposed site does lie within airspace of the Winchester Regional Airport and is in close proximity to the approach path for Runway 14/32. Residential occupants should be forewarned that they might experience noise from over flights of aircraft departing from and arriving to the Winchester Regional Airport. We appreciate the opportunity to review these plans and your cooperation in ensuring the continuing operations of the Winchester Regional Airport. Sincerely, S. R. Manuel Executive Director • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540 /665 -6395 November 28, 2006 Mr. Evan Wyatt, AICP Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 RE: Willow Run Rezoning Proposal Location: East of Route 37 and Merriman's Lane (Route 621), North of Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622) and west of the City of Winchester Corporate Limits. Property Identification Numbers (PINs):53 -A -90, 91, 92, 92A, 92B, 94, 53 -3 -A, 63 -A -2A Zoning District: RA (Rural Areas) Dear Mr. Wyatt • The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the above referenced rezoning proposal during their meeting of November 21, 2006. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey Report the Virginia Department of Historic Resources as well as information provided by the applicant. Historic Resources Advisory Board Concerns • The Rural Landmarks Survey Report for Frederick County identifies the 740 House (Willow Grove 434 -89), the 750 House (Baker, Jacob House #34 -90) and the Penbrook -Cove Farm ( #34 -1236) as being on the property. It is the intent of the applicant to rezone this property to the R4 (Residential Planned Community) Zoning District. The HRAB expressed concern that the 740 and 750 houses on the property might be removed. While the current owner does not intend to demolish the structures at this time, future owners' intentions are unknown. Information from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) file states that the VDHR State Review Board determined that the Baker, Jacob House (750 House) is eligible for the Virginia Landmarks Register and the State and National Register of Historic Places. The HRAB recommends approval of the project so long as the following be considered to mitigate impacts on the historic resources: • The applicant stated that a Phase I archeological survey had been done NOV 2 9 7006 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 1 9�Il/G ,3B 0 r Mr. Evan Wyatt, AICP Re: Willow Run Rezoning Proposal November 28, 2006 Page 2 4 around the Penbrook -Cove farm complex but the foundation of the burned house had not been located. A more detailed study should be conducted to locate the foundation of the house that burned down at this complex, as well as additional studies around the foundations of the existing buildings. A Phase I environmental study should be conducted on the site (followed by further studies if warranted — Phase II archeological /environmental) before construction on the site begins. The applicant should utilize the Virginia Department of Historic Resources to determine additional areas of interest for archeological studies. • • The property owners should consider preserving the 750 and 740 houses; these houses are landmarks on the site and should have permanent protection through the rezoning proffers. The HRAB felt that the residential designation encompassing the 750 and 740 houses was inappropriate, as well as the adjoining commercial use, and requested that viewshed preservation measures be taken into consideration. • As stated previously, the 750 House (Baker, Jacob House) is eligible for the State and National Registries because of its architecture. The property owners should pursue placing the 750 House on the State and National Registries. In lieu of this same comment from last years meeting, the HRAB also felt that the 750 and 740 Houses should be placed into conservation easements. Staff will provide the property owner with conservation easement opportunity information. The HRAB requested that archeological preservation proffers be provided within the rezoning proposal to help further mitigate impacts on the historical properties within the rezoning. 0 Please contact me with any questions concerning these comments from the HRAB. Sincerely, Kevin T. Henry Planning Technician KTH/bad cc: Rhoda Kriz Gene Fisher, Shawnee District Supervisor Susan Eddy, Senior Planner BOUD OF 1RUBTEFS OFF.. =kle J C r. C hair Nancy H. Hess Y Clair Kris C. Temey r -- D. r&4O cl Newman .John P. Ackerly III Joseph E. Callahan Vincent F. Callahan Faye C. Cooper Jahn D. CH. II Beverley H. Fleming Kay D. Frye Sasie M. Hill Richard R. G. Hobson Dori E. Hower Kat S. Kilpatrick Richard B. Klee. Allen L Icoderback John W. Mwnlcaslle Alexander L Rives James L. While Doreen S. Williams 10 L Zanfine Hoard J. Kitlell busvA.e Di,m • 0 18 August 2004 Evan Wyatt, AICP Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 66602 RE: Willow Run Mixed Use Development Dear Evan: This is in response to your letter of 9 August 2004 concerning the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation's interest in the remnant of core area land that is part of the First Winchester battlefield in Frederick County. This property is part of the Willow Run Mixed Use Development proposal. As we discussed, the federal funds the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation receives from congress may not be used to purchase land on the First Winchester battlefield. (The battlefield was not included in the 1996 enabling legislation for the National Historic District, hence we are not able to use our appropriated funds to purchase land there.) Because of this the Battlefields Foundation does not funds for the property in question nor has it had plans to acquire this land. While we do not like to see any battlefield land compromised, given the lack of context and the relatively small size of this fragment of First Winchester the Battlefields Foundation would not pursue other funding sources for land acquisition. We hope that if the development project proceeds and Jubal Early Drive is extended as planned that due consideration be given to both the historic and environmental issues on this property. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention and providing the opportunity to consider the possible impacts to the land. Please contact me if you have any questions about this response. Sincerely yours, yours, 4 1 1 w uv l '� Ho ward J. Kittell Executive Director Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation Post Office Box 897 New Market, Virginia 22844 ph: 540.740.4545 / 888.689.4545 fx: 540.740.4509 w .ShenandoahAlWanorg comes A. Davis E 1] COUNTY of FREDERICK John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator 540/665 -5666 Fax 540/667 -0370 February 23, 2006 Evan Wyatt, AICP Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 RE: Change of Limited Access Control — Route 37 West Dear Mr. Wyatt: E -mail: jriley@co.frederick.va.us In response to your letter of February 6, 2006 regarding the above reference matter, please be advised that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, at its February 22, • 2006 Regular Meeting, unanimously voted to endorse /support a break in access on Route 37 West at the location of the future extension of Jubal Early Drive. Further, the Board approved your request for Frederick County to serve as requestor for this change in limited access control. The Board looks forward to working with you and VDOT to bring this change in limited access control to fruition. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, N RR11cy, Jr. County Administrator 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 9 0 0 CITY OF ' Rouss City Hall 15 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 540- 667 -1815 TDD 540- 722 -0782 October 11 , 2006 Mr. Evan Wyatt, AICP Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Re: Break in Access on Route 37- W. Jubal Early Drive Interchange Dear Evan: In response to your request on behalf of Greystone Properties and Miller and Smith at Willow Run, please be advised that City of Winchester supports your clients' attempts to secure a break in access approval from the Commonwealth Transportation Board for the proposed Route 37 Interchange at W. Jubal Early Drive in the vicinity of the current Merrimans Lane overpass. The • City supports for this action is evidenced by the attached resolution adopted by City Council on October 10, 2006. We look forward to working with you in this regard. Should you have any questions or require additional assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at 540- 667 -1815. Sincerely, , 64� Edwin C. Daley City Manager cc: John Riley OCT 1 3 2006 we alc • *HE COMMON COUNCIL Reuss City Hall 15 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 540- 667 -1815 TDD 540- 722 -0782 www. Leticia Chavez, Deputy Clerk of the Common Council, hereby certify on this 11` day of October 2006, that the following :esolution is a true and exact copy of one and the same adopted by the Common Council of the City of Winchester, assembled : regular session on the 10 day of October, 2006 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A BREAK IN ACCESS ON ROUTE 37 TO PERMIT THE W..IUBAL EARLY DRIVE INTERCHANGE WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) is authorized to consider requests for breaks in access on tate -owned limited access highways such as Rte 37 in Frederick County, and; WHEREAS, a request for break in access on Route 37 has been made to the CTB by the developers of the Willow Run roject in western Frederick County adjacent to the City of Winchester, and; ,ese WHEREAS, the Willow Run project entails the construction of W. Jubal Early Drive extending westward from the current terminus at its intersection with Meadow Branch Avenue in the City of Winchester and connecting to Route 37 at a new tterchange in the vicinity of the present Merrimans Lane overpass, and; WHEREAS, the alignment proposed by the developer is consistent with the recently adopted Win -Fred MPO Long -Range ' ransportation Plan as well as the City of Winchester's adopted Comprehensive Plan, and; WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on February 22, 2006 unanimously approved a etter of Support for the break in access for this interchange and further agreed to serve as official Requestor of the break in access. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Winchester, Virginia, hereby ipports the requested Route 37 break in access to permit the W. Jubal Early Drive interchange as shown on adopted transportation lans and as official requested of the CTB by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on behalf of the Willow Run developer. ,esolution No. 2006 -32. ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Winchester on the 10 day of October, 2006. fitness my hand and the seal of the City of Winchester, lrrginia. Leticia Chavez Deputy Clerk of the Common Council 0 CITY OF WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA October 11, 2006 Evan Wyatt Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 Dear Evan, • Rouss City Hall 15 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 540- 667 -1815 TDD 540- 722 -0782 On Tuesday, October 10, 2006, the Winchester City Council acted on the following request: • SD -05 -07 — Request of Greenway Engineering for final subdivision approval for the construction of W. Jubal Early Drive zoned Planned Commercial, PC District and High Density Residential w/ Planned Unit Development Overlay, HR(PUD) District. City Council approved the request subject to the following conditions: 1. Working with Winchester & Western Railroad for an at -grade rail crossing as depicted on the plan & profile drawings; 2. Staff review and approval of the plans and plats, including securing approval for disturbance in the City's floodplain; 3. Satisfactory negotiations of provisions for Fire and Rescue services from the City of Winchester; and, 4. Developer contributing funds to offset the costs of improvements to City intersections prior to opening the extended roadway into the County. The forth condition above is understood to be accomplished as stated in the September 26, 2006 version of the Transportation Enhancement Proffer # 13 which calls for a monetary contribution totaling $100,000 to the City. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, , Timoth A. Youman r'! OCT 12 2006 Planning Director (l_ .._, 0 0 1\ COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540/665 -6395 September 19, 2006 Evan Wyatt, AICP Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester- VA 22602 RE: Willow Run Internal Street System Design Exceptions Dear Mr. Wyatt: This letter serves to confirm that on August 28, 2006 you presented the internal street design of the Willow Run project to the Frederick County Transportation Committee. Included in your presentation was a description and explanation of the four street design exceptions of which you are seeking approval from VDOT. Those exceptions and number of occurrences as you presented at the meeting are as follows: 1. Intersection Spacing - Nine occurrences with all but two of them taking place in the age - restricted enclave portion of the development, and the remaining two are located on Willow Run Drive. 2. Cul -de -sac Radius - Three occurrences. 3. Pavement Width - Two segments of connector road between Jubal Early Dr. and Cedar Creek Grade. 4. Centerline Radius - Three occurrences with two of them located in the age - restricted enclave portion of the development, and the remaining one located on a non -major roadway. After your presentation, there was a significant amount of discussion within which members of the Committee pointed out that this `neo- traditional' style of development, as is being pursued with Willow Run, is what the Urban Development Area (UDA) Study Committee has been moving toward in their efforts. The Committee voted unanimously to "endorse the concept" that you are promoting with the design of the development. Please call me at (540) 665 -5651, if you have any questions or to discuss this proposed project. Sincerely, fl Li A C/ John A. Bishop, Jr. Transportation Planner JAB /bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 0 0 Willow Run Rezoning Review Agency Comments • 0