The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-07 CommentsF E B 2 0 2007 I HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN S, MITCHELL`' A PNFXVER5HIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILBUR C. HALL (1892 THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924 -1999) J S 301 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST 005CAW EN STREET SAMUEL D. ENGLE LEESBURG, VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 0. LELAND MAHAN TELEPHONE 703777 1050 TELEPHONE 540- 662 -3200 ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. FAX 540662 -4304 .JAMES A. KLENKAR E - MAIL lawyers @hallmonahan.com STEVEN F. .JACKSON February 20, 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 Re: The Preserve at Jordan Springs Proffer Statement dated January 10, 2007 Dear Susan: PLEASE REPLY TO P. O. Box 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604 - 0848 1 have reviewed the above - referenced Proffer Statement dated January 10, 2007. 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. You have advised that there is a previously approved Proffer Statement on a 10.33 acre portion of the 227 acre property which is the subject of this Proffer Statement. You have also advised that it is your understanding that the Applicant wishes this Proffer Statement to replace the previous Proffer Statement on the 10.33 acres, adopted in 2001. If this is the case, there should be a specific statement in the Proffer Statement that this Proffer Statement revokes and replaces the proffers approved in 2001 on the 10.33 acres. Further, if this Proffer Statement replaces the 2001 Proffer Statement, staff needs to review the 2001 Proffer Statement to see if there are any provisions in that Proffer Statement that need to continue and which have not been addressed in the present Proffer Statement. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy February 20, 2007 Page 2 2. In Proffer 1. 1, staff should determine whether it is comfortable with "subject to minor revisions" language in the first sentence of this proffer. 3. Staff should review Proffers 1.3 and 1.4 to determine if all inappropriate uses in the B -2 district have been excluded. I do note that the July 17, 2006 Proposed Proffer Statement on this property excluded 65 uses in the B -2 property which is within the Historic Overlay District, whereas the current Proposed Proffer Statement excludes 21 uses. Likewise, on the B -2 property which is not located within the Historic Overlay District, the July 17, 2006 Proposed Proffer Statement excluded 25 uses, whereas the current Proffer. Statement excludes 11 uses. 4. Proffer 2.1 constitutes a monetary proffer for "transportation improvements" in the "Northeast Geographic Region ", as described on "the attached and incorporated plat ". I do not believe that region is delineated on the GDP plats attached to the Proffer Statement i received. It needs to be determined that the location for the transportation improvements for which the proffers are being made is clearly identified. Further, I would recommend that the proffer be expanded so that the funds could be used for design and construction of transportation improvements. 5. With respect to Proffer 2.2, staff should determine whether the timing of the installation of the traffic signal (before commencement of Phase II construction) is satisfactory. 6. I would recommend more detail be included in Proffer 2.3 with respect to "site entrance improvements ". It is also noted that Proffer 2.3 references "Site Entrance #3 (commercial entrance) ", but the location of the entrance to the commercial property does not appear to be shown on the GDP. 7. It is noted that there is no provision in the transportation proffers for the dedication of addition of right of way for Jordan Springs Road or Woods Mill Road. IJ 0 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy February 20, 2007 Page 3 8, Proffer 3.1 references architectural and design covenants. However, it does not appear that a copy of these covenants is made a part of the Proffer Statement. Accordingly, there would appear no basis on which to evaluate whether the covenants are appropriate and beneficial. 9. Proffer 3.2, as written, is, in my opinion, legally defective and unacceptable. Proffers may impose restrictions on the property in addition to the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The Board of Supervisors cannot, by acceptance of proffers, approve development of property which is in violation of the zoning ordinance, unless the zoning ordinance expressly provides for the variation from regulations in that specific district. It does not appear that the zoning ordinance regulations for the RP district provides for the variation from the requirements set forth for that district. Therefore, the proffers in Proffer 3.2 which attempt to modify the requirements of the RP district with respect to setbacks, lot area, and building types are not permissible. 10. It is noted that in Proffer 4.1 (Phasing) there is no timing commitment on the development of the commercial property. Therefore, under this proposed Proffer Statement, the residential development could be completely built out, and the commercial portion of the property never developed. 11. Staff needs to review the last sentence of Proffer 7.1 to determine whether it is feasible to be applied and enforced by the County. 12. With respect to Proffer 7.2, I offer the following comments: (a) The proffer provides that the location of the trail easement is to be selected by the Applicant, with a "trail system plan" to be submitted to Frederick County Parks and Recreation for "evaluation ". As the County would be taking over the trail and trail easement for maintenance, it would seem to be appropriate that the location selected by the Applicant be subject to approval by the County (FCRP). The proffer does not specify when the ten (10) foot wide asphalt trail will be constructed. 0 0 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy February 20, 2007 Page 4 The proffer does state that the Applicant will convey the easement and trail to Frederick County, but not prior to the commencement of Phase II construction. As Phase I construction may involve up to 236 residential units, staff should determine whether the timing for the construction and dedication of the trail is appropriate. (b) Staff should review this proffer as to whether the reservation of the Applicant for rights within the trail easement are appropriate. 13. Staff should determine whether the location of the proposed community center and pool proffered in Proffer 10.1 is sufficiently located on the GDP. It should also be noted that the community center and pool would not be required to be completed until after the commencement of Phase II has commenced. It should be noted that 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. truly yours, Robert T RTM /ks REZONING FORM RESPONSES A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE: 100 year flood plain: There is a flood plain throughout the site a5500ated with both Lick and Hutt Runs per FEMA Panel Number 5 1 0063 01 10 B and further Studies by Bowman Con5uitmg Group. The floodplam area is limited south of the creeks by steep slopes and along the western part of the site to the north of Lick Creek a5 well. The width of the floodplain varies by a5 much a5 1 1 0' -380'. The approximate flood plain area 15 33 acres. 2. Wetlands: Wetlands shall be delineated on the 5ubdivi5ion plan prior to approval. 3. Steep slopes: (see Appendix IV: Slope t Runoff Analysis) The Preserve at Jordan Springs (PJS) Site 15 bisected by Lick and Hiatt Runs. Geologically, these creeks have created what is locally called "The Devil's Backbone ". This is a formation of somewhat steep slopes that separate the site into two distinct areas north and south. Although the Site 15 topographically challengmg, most of the slopes actually fall into the category of 15-25% slopes ( ±4G acres) (see Slope $ Runoff Analysis exhibit). While still challengmg, these slopes are not forbidding to work with. Most of the slopes of 25 -50% ( ±40 acres total area) remain untouched. There are a few areas where the slopes are proposed to be graded out to allow for houemg. Likewise, the slopes of 50 %+ remain largely untouched (--t7 acres total area). The primary area affected is when a road 15 riding the slopes down a hill. 4. Existing Vegetation Report: (See Appendix V: Existing Vegetation Analysis) There are Six d15tlnCt areas of woodland on this Site. They depend largely on how the site has been used, proximity to the floodplam, and the slopes on the site. (1) Developed land -AREA (all areas are approximate): 12.5 acres - OVERALL FOREST CONDITION (GOOD, AVERAGE, POOR (IF POOR, WHY?): Average to good - CANOPY TREE SPECIES: Norway t silver maples, Southern magnoha, black walnut, Northern red oak, black locust, sycamore, ehellbark hickory, aolclenraintree, eastern redcedar, 4- Norway spruce - CANOPY TREE HEIGHT (IE: 40' +): quite variable 30 -GO' - CANOPY TREE CALIPER RANGE (IE: 24 -30'): 14-24" - UNDERSTORY TREE SPECIES: Saucer magnolia, flowering pear, flowermg dogwood, redbud, purple -leaf plum, autumn -olive, mazzard cherry, crabapple, tree -of- Heaven, * Colorado blue spruce - UNDERSTORY TREE HEIGHT (20 -30'): 15-20' - UNDERSTORY TREE CALIPER AVERAGE (5- 1 O"): 3 -8" -MAJOR SHRUBS SPECIES: American boxwood, China Girl/ Boy Holly, common lilac, Hollywood ,Juniper, honeysuckle, and viburnum 5p. 0 0 (2) Environmentally Sensitive Area: Floodplain -AREA: 23.6 acres - OVERALL FOREST CONDITION (GOOD, AVERAGE, POOR (IF POOR, WHY?): Poor to average... north of Jordan 5prmcgs road the condition is good, but the remainder (although some pockets of average condition exist), is poor with the weedy trees 4 shrubs taking over - CANOPY TREE SPECIES: Red # silver maple, sycamore, eastern cottonwood, tree -of- Heaven, slippery elm, black locust, shellbark hickory, green ash, swamp white oak, B Virginia pine - CANOPY TREE HEIGHT (IE: 40' +): 55 -GO' - CANOPY TREE CALIPER RANGE (IE: 24 -30 "): 1 G -24' - UNDERSTORY TREE SPECIES: black cherry, chestnut t northern red oak (saplings), Wtchhazel, hophornbeam, red maple, redbud, B slippery elm (5aplm6Js) - UNDER5TORY TREE HEIGHT (20 -30'): 15-20' - UNDERSTORY TREE CALIPER AVERAGE (5- 10"): G -8" -MAJOR SHRUBS SPECIES: mapleleaf viburnum, American bladdernut, rose brambles, $ honeysuckle (3a) Young Successional Growth -AREA: 59.0 acres - OVERALL FOREST CONDITION (GOOD, AVERAGE, POOR (IF POOR, WHY?): Poor... young successional area 15 full of young, weedy trees, shrubs, 8 brambles - CANOPY TREE SPECIES: N/A to area - CANOPY TREE HEIGHT (IE: 40' +): N/A - CANOPY TREE CALIPER RANGE (IE: 24 -30 "): N/A - UNDER5TORY TREE SPECIES: northern red, white, t- post oak (saplings), black cherry, black locust, redbud, and Virginia pine - UNDER5TORY TREE HEIGHT (20 -30'): 15-20' - UNDER5TORY TREE CALIPER AVERAGE (5- 10"): 3 -G" -MAJOR SHRUBS SPECIES: honeysuckle shrubs/ vines, various field grasses, $ wild rose brambles (31b) Mid -Aged Successional Growth -AREA: 5.05 acres - OVERALL FOREST CONDITION (GOOD, AVERAGE, POOR (IF POOR, WHY?): Pooi mid -aged successional growth is populated by weedy tree 5peae5 and an understory of primarily honeysuckle t brambles - CANOPY TREE SPECIES: Black locust, tree -of- Heaven, black walnut, slippery elm, southern red oak, American linden, hackberry, pignut hickory, $ Virginia pine - CANOPY TREE HEIGHT (IE: 40' +): 35 -40' - CANOPY TREE CALIPER RANGE (IE: 24 -30 "): 10- 1 G" - UNDER5TORY TREE SPECIES: Black cherry, post oak, persimmon, flowering dogwood, Virginia pine, hackberry, B eastern redcedar. - UNDER5TORY TREE HEIGHT (25 -30'): 10- 1 5' - UNDER5TORY TREE CALIPER AVERAGE (5-10"): 2 -5" -MAJOR SHRUBS SPECIES: Brambles B honeysuckle (4a) Evergreen Forest: -AREA: 20.G acres - OVERALL FOREST CONDITION (GOOD, AVERAGE, POOR (IF POOR, WHY?): Poor to Average... Mature pine forest 15 attractive, but a number of the more mature trees are either both dead and Still standing or have fallen and litter the forest floor. - CANOPY TREE SPECIES: Virginia, white, (and 5hortleaf, red, or loblolly ?), black locust, tree -of- Heaven, and northern red oak - CANOPY TREE HEIGHT (IE: 40' +): 55 -GO' (evergreens)/ 35 -40' (deciduous) - CANOPY TREE CALIPER RANGE (IE: 24 -30 "): 1 2 -20° - UNDERSTOFY TREE SPECIES: flowering dogwood, northern red oak, black cherry, slippery elm. black walnut, t red maple - UNDERSTORY TREE HEIGHT (25 -30'): 15-20' - UNDERSTORY TREE CALIPER AVERAGE (5-) 0 "): 3 -G" -MAJOR SHRUBS SPECIES: honeysuckle * brambles (few) (412) Evergreen Forest w/ Hardwoods -AREA: 17.0 acres - OVERALL FOREST CONDITION (GOOD, AVERAGE, POOR (IF POOR, WHY?): Average - CANOPY TREE SPECIES: Northern red, white, t chestnut oaks, pignut hickory, * Virginia pine - CANOPY TREE HEIGHT (IE: 40' +): 55 -GO' - CANOPY TREE CALIPER RANGE (IE: 24-30"); 1 2 -24" - UNDERSTORY TREE SPECIES: oak saplings, flowenng dogwood, black cherry, red maple, t Virginia pine - UNDER5TORY TREE HEIGHT (25 -30'): 15-20' - UNDER5TORY TREE CAUPER AVERAGE (5- 10 "): 3 -G" -MAJOR SHRUBS SPECIES: honeysuckle (5a) Young Hardwood Forest -AREA: I 1 .0 acres - OVERALL FOREST CONDITION (GOOD, AVERAGE, POOR (IF POOR, WHY?): Poor to average... . transitional forest between successional and mature hardwoods has many fallen evergreens that died with age and brambles and honeysuckle that have filled space until the younger oaks fill in and smother the light. - CANOPY TREE SPECIES: Northern red, white, 4- post oaks, red maple, pignut hickory, t Virginia pine - CANOPY TREE HEIGHT (IE: 40' +): 50' (pines) t 35 -40' (deciduous) - CANOPY TREE CALIPER RANGE (IE: 24 -30 "): 1 2-18" - UNDER5TORY TREE SPECIES: black cherry, American hornbeam, slippery elm, dogwood, tree - of Heaven, t, persimmon - UNDERSTORY TREE HEIGHT (25 -30'): 15-20' - UNDERSTORY TREE CALIPER AVERAGE (5-10 3 -G" -MAJOR SHRUBS SPECIES: brambles and honeysuckle (5b) Environmentally Sensitive Area: Hardwood Forest on slopes >20% -AREA: 3G.G acres - OVERALL FOREST CONDITION (GOOD, AVERAGE, POOR (IF POOR, WHY?): Average - CANOPY TREE SPECIES: Chestnut t. white oak, sycamore, green ash, shellbark hickory, pignut hickory - CANOPY TREE HEIGHT (IE: 40' +): GO -G5' - CANOPY TREE CALIPER RANGE (IE: 24 -30 "): 10-28" - UNDERSTORY TREE SPECIES: Post, chestnut, t southern red oaks, black * mazzard cherry, flowering dogwood, American hornbeam, slippery elm, and hackberry - UNDER5TORY TREE HEIGHT (25 -30'): 20 -25' - UNDER5TORY TREE CALIPER AVERAGE (5- 10 "): 4 -8" -MAJOR SHRUBS SPECIES: N/A (5c) Mature Hardwood Forest -AREA: 4 1.838 1 acres - OVERALL FOREST CONDITION (GOOD, AVERAGE, POOR (IF POOR, WHY?): Average 0 0 - CANOPY TREE SPECIES: Chestnut, northern red, white, and post oaks, green ash, shellbark, pignut, It mockernut hickories, and Virgrrna pine - CANOPY TREE HEIGHT (IE: 40' +): G5 -70' - CANOPY TREE CALIPER RANGE (IE: 24 -30 "): 1 G -28" - UNDER5TORY TREE SPECIES: black cherry, flowering dogwood, American hornbeam, persimmon, and eastern redcedar - UNDERSTORY TREE HEIGHT (25 -30'): 15-20' - UNDERSTORY TREE CALIPER AVERAGE (5- 10 "): 3 -6" -MAJOR SHRUBS SPECIES: N/A 5. Soils * Bedrock: (see Appendix VI: Sods Exhibit # Information Spreadsheet) Prime Agricultural Soils: Three of five types of soils on this site are deficient in some way when relatmg their usefulness to agriculture. The entire site is comprised of different types of silt loans. In order: - I -Berks channery: The depth to bedrock is 30" or less. Although somewhat limitmg, it's not prohibitive for agriculture. This soil type is mostly found in the upland parts of the site. The Berks soil comprises approximately 75.7 1 acres of the site. -9- Clearbrook channery: The depth to bedrock is 27" or less, but this soil also typically has a high water table. Given the location along the higher parts of the site, this wouldn't be as much of an issue. Although the bedrock depth is somewhat limitincJ, it's also not prohibitive. The Clearbrook sod comprises approximately 1 4.44 acres of the Site. - 32- Oaklet: Although the depth to bedrock 15 much better at 60 ", the big issue with this soil is the slow permeability and likelihood of floodmg as a result. This is one of two sods that follow the stream. The Oaklet soil comprises approximately 7.82 acres of the site. -4 1 - Weikert -Berks channery: This soil has the shallowest depth to bedrock of the site at 15-30'. This 15 due largely to it engulfing the steepest slopes of the site. 4 113 has acceptable slopes, but the areas of 4 1 D If E have slopes of 15% and greater. The Weikert -Berks channery soil comprises approximately 1 06.6 acres of the site. -44 -Zoar: This is the second soil type (along with Oaklet) that follows the streams (more so than the former). This one also has a deep depth to bedrock of 60" and suffers from flooding frequently not Just from the streams, but also due to a perched water table that Oaklet typically doesn't have. The Weikert -Berks channery soil comprises approximately 22.62 acres of the site. Relation to development: Three of five types of soils are acceptable to development. - I -Berk5 channery: This is the largest group as a whole that could work for development. The bedrock is fairly Shallow, but if basements can be avoided (and depending on cut/ fill), development can work on Berks. -9- Clearbrook channery: Similar to Berks. This area is shallow to bedrock, but workable. Given the location on the slope, the water table shouldn't be an issue. -32- Oaklet: This clearly is not developable within the floodplam. -4 1 - Wekert -Berks channery: 4 1 E is largely not developable, not Just because of the steep slopes throughout the delineation, but it is hkewise over a floodplain. There 15 an area north of the creeks in which the slopes don't seem to indicate the designation of 4 1 E that is developable, pending bedrock. 4 1 D has some steep slopes, but there are areas that, pendmg depth to bedrock, could be developed. 4 1B is mostly within a zone that won't be developed as part of this submission. -44 -Zoar: This clearly 15 not developable within the floodplam. 5. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Proposed Stephenson Village, which 15 proposed a5 a R4 development northeast of our Site, 15 proposed 05 a mixed -use development also. Within that proposed Site, there will be a mix of 5mg1e -family attached and detached (different unit types of detached). They will vary in Size from 6,000- 15,000 5f lot5. There are also approvals for condominiums and other multi - family units. ExiStmg High Banks and Opequon Ridge are both nearby developments that are zoned RP (albeit with well/ septic). Their lot sizes vary from 3 -6 acre lots on average. There are a number of other developments/ properties within 1-2 miles that are also zoned RP in the area. In addition to those existing R4 * RP developments, there are many adjacent and/ or nearby lots that have relatively small lot sizes. With the village of Stephenson to the north, there are many lots of one -acre or 1e55 (a5 low a5 1 /2 an acre); south on Jordan 5prmgs Road there are lots a5 low a5 0.43 -acre: and finally, on Woods Mill Road a5 low a5 0.34 -acre. C. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: (see Appendix VII: Traffic Impact Analysis Illustrations) TA has been prepared and distributed to appropriate agencies for their review and comment. D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT: (5ee Appendix VIII: Sewer 8 Water Exhibit) The Jordan Spnng5 Property 15 5pltt by both the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) of Frederick County. Approximately 30% of the Site lies within the UDA and SWSA. Sanitary sewer Service for the Site will require the installation of a pump Station and force main to extend Service to the closest and most feasible treatment plant, gravity Sewer, or pump Station. The sewage will be treated at the Opequon Treatment Plant, which does have the capacity to include the development. Under the a55umption that the water inflow t5 approximately the same a5 the 5amtary sewer outflow, please reference the calculations below for both the water and sewer flow demands. Number of Re51dent5 = G05 homes * 3.5 people / home = 2 I 18 people Average Daily Demand= 2 1 18 people * 100 GPD = 2 1 1 ,800 GPD Maximum Daily Demand= 2 1 1 ,800 GPD * 2 = 423,600 GPD Peak Hour Demand = 423,600 GPD * 2 = 847,200 GPD E. WATER SUPPLY: (5ee Appendix VIII: Sewer t Water Exhibit) A5 mentioned in Section D, Sewage Conveyance and Treatment, the Jordan Spnng5 Property 15 5pht by both the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) of Frederick County. Water service for the Site will need to be extended from an exi5tmc3 10" waterline that ends at the mter5ection of Jordan 5pnn6j5 Road and Morn5on Road. The existing waterline will need to be extended about 3/10 of a mile along Jordan 5pnng5 Road. The water for the Site would be provided by the Clear Brook facility. This facility does have the capacity to provide Service to the Site. Please reference Section D, Sewage Conveyance and Treatment for the demand flows for the water. F. DRAINAGE: (See Appendix IV: Slope 4 Runoff Analy5i5) Currently, most of the Site drams into Lick and Hiatt Runs. In the area north of those streams, all of the drainage runs to them. South of those streams, all but approximately one eighth of the area drains into them. 0 0 Lick and Hiatt Runs then 5ub5eauently drain into the Opequon Creek. The drainage flows into deep Swale fmger5. These fingers, on the south end of the creeks, have the steepest slopes of the site at 50 %+ slopes. G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES: The G05 units comprisrng the Jordan 5prmg5 Property will generate approximately 98 10 (b5. of 5ohd waste per day (4.9 Tons /day). Solid waste from the project will be deposited in the Frederick County landfill following collection at citizen convenience /dumpster facilities or via private carriers contracted by neighborhood residents. TOTAL WASTE (LBS. /DAY) 9810 TOTAL WASTE (TONS /DAY) 43 H. HISTORIC SITES AND 5TRUCTURE5: (See Appendix IX: Historic Site Study) I. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY PACILITIE5: (See Appendix X: Generalized Development Plan) The Preserve at Jordan 5prmg5 15 an environmentally Sensitive design that will enhance the area by providng a pleasant place to live, with many amenities (man -made and natural), and many benefits to the local (and extended) commun tie5. It 15 our desire to provide an extension of the natural corridor that follows the steep slopes of "The Devil's Backbone" and the 100 year flood plain that follows both Lick and Hiatt Runs. This could be an amenity for both The Preserve at Jordan 5prmg5 (PJ5) and the outlying neighborhoods. This park would tie into a trail system that would wind around the existing slopes that make up the Backbone. This trail system would also extend into various areas of the Site to expand into a comprehensive open space system throughout the PJ5. These open spaces would include little neighborhood parks/ tot lots up to the preserved corridor and a recreation center for the community. Development also helps the community a5 far a5 economic development 15 concerned. The proposed design has a con501entiou5 mix of detached, attached, and multi - family Units to allow for a wide economic base. There 15 little diversity in terms of attached and multi - family units in Frederick County and this would allow for that choice of unit for an income that may not be able to afford a detached house. Finally, the Site will be providing a sewage pump Station off of Jordan Sprmgs Road to Service our development and neighbormg community. 50LID WASTE NO. OF TOTAL WASTE UNIT TYPE GENERATION UNIT5 (LB5.) (LB. / DAY) SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 365 18 6570 TOWNHOMES )20 13.5 I G20 MULTIFAMILY 120 13.5 I G20 TOTAL WASTE (LBS. /DAY) 9810 TOTAL WASTE (TONS /DAY) 43 H. HISTORIC SITES AND 5TRUCTURE5: (See Appendix IX: Historic Site Study) I. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY PACILITIE5: (See Appendix X: Generalized Development Plan) The Preserve at Jordan 5prmg5 15 an environmentally Sensitive design that will enhance the area by providng a pleasant place to live, with many amenities (man -made and natural), and many benefits to the local (and extended) commun tie5. It 15 our desire to provide an extension of the natural corridor that follows the steep slopes of "The Devil's Backbone" and the 100 year flood plain that follows both Lick and Hiatt Runs. This could be an amenity for both The Preserve at Jordan 5prmg5 (PJ5) and the outlying neighborhoods. This park would tie into a trail system that would wind around the existing slopes that make up the Backbone. This trail system would also extend into various areas of the Site to expand into a comprehensive open space system throughout the PJ5. These open spaces would include little neighborhood parks/ tot lots up to the preserved corridor and a recreation center for the community. Development also helps the community a5 far a5 economic development 15 concerned. The proposed design has a con501entiou5 mix of detached, attached, and multi - family Units to allow for a wide economic base. There 15 little diversity in terms of attached and multi - family units in Frederick County and this would allow for that choice of unit for an income that may not be able to afford a detached house. Finally, the Site will be providing a sewage pump Station off of Jordan Sprmgs Road to Service our development and neighbormg community. i • HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL HAND - DELIVERED Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 OCT 2 3 2,006 PLEASE REPLY TO: P. O. BOX 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 226040848 Re: The Preserve at Jordan Springs Proffer Statement Dear Susan: 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: L I assume that the language "which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto" at the end of the first sentence of the first paragraph is referring to any prior drafts of this Proffer Statement. If, however, there have been previous conditional rezonings approved on this Property or any portion thereof, it needs to be made clear that this clause is not referring to any approved proffers now existing on the Property. 2. The last sentence of the first paragraph must be deleted. If the Board were to deny this conditional rezoning application, and the Applicant appealed that denial to the Circuit Court, and if the Circuit Court overruled the Board and remanded A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILBUR C. HALL (1892 -1972) THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924 -1999) a 301 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST 1305CAWEN STREET SAMUEL D. ENGLE LEESBURG, VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA O. LELAND MAHAN TELEPHONE 703 -777 -1050 TELEPHONE 540 -C62 -3200 ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. FAX 540 -662 -4304 NAMES A. KLENKAR Iawyers @hallmcnahan.com STEVEN F. JACKSON '] E-MAIL October 23, 2006 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 OCT 2 3 2,006 PLEASE REPLY TO: P. O. BOX 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 226040848 Re: The Preserve at Jordan Springs Proffer Statement Dear Susan: 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: L I assume that the language "which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto" at the end of the first sentence of the first paragraph is referring to any prior drafts of this Proffer Statement. If, however, there have been previous conditional rezonings approved on this Property or any portion thereof, it needs to be made clear that this clause is not referring to any approved proffers now existing on the Property. 2. The last sentence of the first paragraph must be deleted. If the Board were to deny this conditional rezoning application, and the Applicant appealed that denial to the Circuit Court, and if the Circuit Court overruled the Board and remanded 0 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy October 23, 2006 Page 2 the matter to the Board for reconsideration, the application which would be back before the Board by virtue of the remand from the Circuit Court would be this conditional rezoning with these proffers. If the Applicant did not wish the Board to go forward with the reconsideration with these proffers, the Applicant would have to withdraw the application at that time. 3. Proffer 1.1 does not constitute a proffer, as the Property must be developed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Further, in any event, the last clause ( "or as may be approved by Frederick County") would have to be deleted, as there is no alternative for Frederick County to approve development which is not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The last clause, ("125,000 square feet of general business area ") should be separated into a separate sentence. Further, it is assumed that the 125,000 square feet is referring commercial floor area. Accordingly, it is recommended that this portion of the proffer provide: "Commercial development on the B 2 portion of the Property shall not exceed 125,000 square feet of commercial floor area. 5. As written, it would appear that the proffer in Proffer 2.1 is meaningless. There does not appear to be any delineation, or identification on the Generalized Development Plan, of what the three phases are, and the Property, in any event, must be developed in accordance witb applicable ordinances, regulations, and design standards, and this Proffer Statement as approved by the Board. 6. Staff needs to review the last sentence of Proffer 5.1 to determine whether it is feasible to be applied and enforced by the County. 7. With respect to Proffer 5.2, I offer the following comments: (1) The actual dedication of an easement would be to Frederick County, as Frederick County Parks and Recreation is a County department and, as such, is not a separate entity which holds title to interests in land; HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy October 23, 2006 Page 3 (2) It would appear that the location of this easement is not to be known at the time of the approval of the rezoning and these proffers, and that the location is to be selected by the Applicant, with a "trail system plan" to be submitted to FCPR for "evaluation "; (3) The proffer suggests that there will be a trail within the easement, but there is no express obligation set forth that the Applicant will construct the trail; (4) It is provided that the Applicant will convey the easement after development of the adjoining parcels or reasonable access is provided (whatever that means) -- Why does the conveyance of the easement have to wait for development of adjoining parcels ?; (5) The proffer provides that the area dedicated shall entitle the Applicant to recreational credit units for the "value" of the construction of the trail and dedicated land -- How is the "value" to be determined, and why should the Applicant receive credit unless the proffer includes a commitment to construct the trail ?; (6) Staff needs to review this proffer as to whether the reservation of the Applicant for rights within the trail easement area are appropriate; (7) The last paragraph of Proffer 5.2 suggests that perhaps the Applicant is going to construct the trial, but then says that is contingent upon "limitations due to terrain and constmctibility considerations." -- It would seem that these matters could be determined at this time and the Applicant should be able to know whether the proposed trail can be constructed; and (8) What County ordinances or State code provisions could prohibit the construction of the trail? 8. In Proffer 9.2, Item (iii), who is "they "? HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy October 23, 2006 Page 4 9. In Proffer 1 1.1, after the words "Table 2 -3" should be inserted the words "as may be hereinafter amended ". 10. Proffer 12 is incomplete. 11. In Proffer 13. 1, 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. 12. It is not clear from this Proffer Statement whether or not the roads to be constructed within the development are to be public roads or private roads. It would be preferable for that to be set forth. 13. There was attached to the Proffer Statement provided to me a Generalized Development Plan. However, there is no reference in the proposed Proffer Statement to the Generalized Development Plan. To the extent that the project is being considered with reference to the Generalized Development Plan, there should be a proffer added to the Proffer Statement that the development of the Property shall be in substantial conformity with the Generalized Development Plan attached to the proffers. As previously noted 1 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. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy October 23, 2006 Page 5 If there are any questions concerning the foregoing comments, please contact me. Very truly yours, Robert T. Mitchell, Jr. RTM /ks r&1 11 PLK colm irtment of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540 /665 -6395 September 20, 2006 Mr. David Zollman Bowman Consulting 124 Cork Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Proposed Rezoning of Jordan Springs Property Dear David: Bowman Consulting recently submitted to the Planning Department a combined preliminary rezoning application and comprehensive policy plan amendment (CPPA) application for the Jordan Springs Property. The County has not accepted the comprehensive policy plan amendment request. In 2004 the Frederick County Board of Supervisors established an annual review process for comprehensive plan amendment requests. Applications for amendments must be received in the Planning Department no later that June V for consideration during that calendar year. As this application was received on August 8, 2006, it must wait until the 2007 review cycle. Fees have not yet been set for the 2007 applications. I will inform you in the Spring of 2007 what the application fee will be for a CPPA application. The fee must be paid before the CPPA application can be considered complete. I am returning the CPPA application with this letter, as the application is not complete and does not accurately reflect the current Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) boundaries. I have reviewed the draft rezoning application for the Jordan Springs Property based on the current Comprehensive Policy Plan. This application seeks to rezone 227.1881 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District and B2 (Business General) District to RP (Residential Performance) District and B2 (Business General) District. Staff's review comments are listed below. 1. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The site is within the limits of the North East Land Use Plan (NELUP), a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The land use plan identifies the site as a rural area. The plan specifically calls for the preservation of rural areas. The plan does not identify the site for residential or t 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Page 2 Mr. David Zollman RE: Proposed Rezoning of Jordan Springs September 20, 2006 commercial uses. The proposed rezoning for residential and commercial uses is therefore contrary to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. 2. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The site is outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Services Area (SWSA) as adopted by the Board of Supervisors on September 13, 2006. The Comprehensive Policy Plan confines urban development, such as this proposal, to the UDA, while also allowing commercial and industrial uses in the SWSA. The proposed development is outside of the UDA and is therefore not in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. 3. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The NELUP states that business and commercial land uses which adjoin existing residential uses and significant historic resources should be adequately screened to mitigate impact. The more general policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan recommend a number of design features for business properties. These include landscaping, screening and controlling the size and number of signs. Given the historic Jordan Spring setting, it would be appropriate to also consider building design, layout and materials. These design elements should all be incorporated into the commercial portion of this application. The County typically sees these items addressed in the proffer statement. 4. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan designates Woods Mill Road and Jordan Springs Road as improved minor collectors. The applicant will need to ensure that Woods Mill Road and Jordan Springs Road in the vicinity of this project have sufficient right -of -way and are built to a minor collector road standard. The County typically sees these items addressed in the proffer statement. Also include a timing element, such as improvements will be in place before the first building permit. 5. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The NELUP calls for Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better on roads impacted by new development. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) indicates some surrounding roads will have levels of service less than C, which is contrary to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. See detailed comments on the TIA below. 6. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The NELUP shows the future Route 37 located on the western end of the Jordan Springs property. This is no longer the County's preferred location for Route 37. The route endorsed by the Board of Supervisor's on April 12, 2006 does not include any portion of the Jordan Springs property. 2 ,. Page 3 Mr. David Zollman RE: Proposed Rezoning of Jordan Springs September 20, 2006 7. Impact Analysis — Vegetation. Considerable effort has gone into the analysis of existing vegetation. The Generalized Development Plan (GDP) shows areas of open space. However, there is no clear link between these two. There is no commitment to tree preservation. There is no indication that a forest management plan will be in place for the future homeowners association. Similarly, there is no commitment to protecting the steep slopes and floodplains during the construction phase. The County typically sees these issues addressed in the proffer statement. 8. Impact Assessment Statement — Wetlands. Wetlands must be shown on the Master Development Plan (MDP). 9. Impact Assessment Statement. Significant wildlife habitats were identified on the adjacent Snowden Bridge property. Please investigate whether they exist on this site as well by contacting the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 10. Traffic Impact Analysis. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was based on 100,000 square feet of office development. The proffer statement calls for up to 125,000 square feet of general business floorspace, which could be all retail floorspace. The TIA was based on 230 single family detached units, 117 townhouse units and 60 apartment units. The proffer statement calls for up to 315 single family detached units, 175 townhouses and 120 apartments. The rezoning application requires that the full development be modeled. Correct the TIA to model the maximum development that is proffered. 11. Traffic Impact Analysis - Table 3: 2010 Other Developments. Background traffic in the TIA does not include two large developments in close proximity to this site - the Adams Development and the North Stephenson Development. Include these as background traffic. 12. Traffic Impact Analysis - Figure 6: Trip Distribution Percentages. Only 30% of the traffic generated by this development is projected to travel south on Woods Mill Road to Route 7. This is unreasonable given the development will appeal to commuters and also given that most retail and school sites will be accessed from Route 7. Reexamine the trip distribution split. I would suggest that as much as 70% of the trips generated by this development will travel south on Woods Mill Road to Route 7. 13. Traffic Impact Analysis. The Northeast Land Use Plan calls for Level of Service C or better. Even with the suggested improvements in the TIA, Level of Service C is not provided. At the intersection of Route 7 and Woods Mill Road 3 Page 4 Mr. David Zollman RE: Proposed Rezoning of Jordan Springs September 20, 2006 levels of service are C, D and F. Furthermore, the TIA suggested improvements include signalization and turn lanes at the intersection of Route 11 and Old Charlestown Road and at the intersection of Route 11 and Stephenson Road. Please state clearly who is providing these improvements and when these improvements will be in place. Without these improvements, the level of service at these intersections falls to level of service F. 14. Proffer Statement — Introduction. The proffer statement should state the acreage of B2 District and the acreage of RP District land. 15. Proffer Statement — Land Use 1.3. Many of the uses listed as not permitted on the B2 with HA (Historic Area) overlay zone portion of the site are not allowed in the B2 District. Please carefully review the Zoning Ordinance and delete these from the proffer statement. Please provide an explanation as to why certain uses, such as food stores and restaurants, that were excluded by proffer when the property was rezoned to B2 with HA overlay zone in 2001, should now be allowed. 16. Proffer Statement — Land Use 1.4. Virtually all of the uses listed as not permitted on the B2 portion of the site (not in the HA overlay) are not allowed in the B2 District. Please carefully review the Zoning Ordinance and delete these from the proffer statement. 17. Proffer Statement — Land Use 2. The proffer statement mentions three phases, yet there is no explanation of these phases in either the proffer statement or the GDP. Please clarify. 18. Proffer Statement — Parks & Open Space 5.1. There is no evidence that the trails will exceed the required recreation units. It is not clear how or when a credit for trails would be calculated. Please note that the Code of Virginia allows voluntary proffers in addition to the regulations provided for the zoning district by the ordinance. 19. Proffer Statement — Parks & Open Space 5.2. It is unreasonable to take a credit for the value of the land dedicated for a trail system, since that land is part of the required open space. The County's standards trail is a ten (10) foot wide asphalt surface. Determine before the rezoning is processed whether the trail can be public. Otherwise the County cannot know precisely what type of trail it is accepting. 4 Page 5 Mr. David Zollman RE: Proposed Rezoning of Jordan Springs September 20, 2006 20. Proffer Statement — Home Owners Association 9.2. It is unclear if the HOA will be responsible for the public trail. Please clarify. 21. Proffer Statement — Design Proffers 12.1. Given the historic and environmental quality of this site, design proffers are strongly recommended. See earlier comment 93. 22. Generalized Development Plan (GDP). The GDP shows a level of detail better suited to a master development plan (MDP). Only items above and beyond the ordinance requirements should be shown. Therefore, only include buffers if they exceed county requirements. Similarly, indicating the breakdown of single family unit types on the GDP effectively proffers this precise breakdown of units. 23. Generalized Development Plan (GDP). Please note that only 50% of the required open space may be within environmental areas. 24. Generalized Development Plan (GDP). The County's on -going UDA study has been directing development in the UDA towards a more neo- traditional form of development. Please consider some of the neo - traditional concepts such as an integrated mix of uses, an integrated mix of housing types and a grid pattern. 25. Development Impact Model. Staff evaluated the capital impacts of this proposal based on 315 single family detached units, 175 single family attached units, and 120 multi- family units, as per the proffer statement. Staff did not take into account the prospective 125,000 square feet of business floor space as the timing of this commercial use was not proffered. All of the residential units could be built without any commercial floorspace being built. Please be advised that the projected impacts to capital facilities changed on September 13, 2006 as a result of the Board of Supervisors adopting 2006 inputs. See the new output sheet for appropriate amounts. 26. 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 School Department, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, Frederick - Winchester Health Department, Winchester Regional Airport, Greenwood and Clearbrook Fire and Rescue Companies and the Frederick - Winchester Service Authority. The proposed proffer statement has been forwarded by staff to the Frederick County Attorney. Once attorney comments are received by the 5 Page 6 Mr. David Zollman RE: Proposed Rezoning of Jordan Springs September 20, 2006 Planning Department, they will be forwarded to your office. Attorney comments are required for acceptance of the rezoning application. 27. Adjoining Property Owners. The list of adjoiners is missing ten properties. Nine of these are along Woods Mill Road and one (PIN 45 9 3 1) is on Jordan Springs Road. While the nine Woods Mill Road properties are on the GDP, they are not included in the list of adjoiners. Please add details of these ten properties. 28. Other. This application is missing a number of items — the precise acreage of the zoning requested, a survey showing the proposed zoning boundary lines, a copy of the deed verifying current ownership and a statement that taxes have been paid. All of these must be included for the application to be accepted by the Planning Department. 29. Fees. The fee for this application includes a $3,000.00 base fee plus $100.00 per acre, and a $50.00 public hearing sign fee. Thus, a total of $25,750.00 is due upon submission of the official rezoning application. This is based on fees as of January 27, 2005. Fees may change. All of the above comments and reviewing agency comments should be appropriately addressed before staff can accept this rezoning application. Please feel free to contact me with questions regarding this application. Sincerely, i�k� T. e Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner SKE /bad Attachment cc: Greig Aitken & Tonic Wallace - Aitken, 1160 Jordan Springs Road, Stephenson, VA, 22656 Drees Homes, 5510 Cherokee Ave., Suite 300, Alexandria, VA 22312 9 Bowman C O N S U L T I N G January 10, 2007 Ms. Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner County of Frederick Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, VA 22601 -5000 RE: Jordan Springs Property BCG Project #5016 -01 -001 Dear Susan Eddy, JAN 1 3 2007 r , As you mention in your introduction, we acknowledge the County not accepting the Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment request and we have revised our Rezoning Application so that the CPPA application is no longer included. When we submitted the application for review on August 8, the UDA and SWSA boundaries were accurately shown on our plan, but during the review process the UDA boundary was removed from the subject property. We have received your comments dated September 20, 2006, and offer the following in response. Comprehensive Policy Plan !. "The site is within the limits of the North East Land Use Plan (NELUP), a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The land use plan identifies the site as a rural area. The plan specifically calls for the preservation of rural areas. The plan does not identify the site for residential or commercial uses. The proposed rezoning for residential and commercial user is therefore contrary to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. " Response: We acknowledge that the site located within the NELUP. However, the NELUP identifies the site as Planned Unit Development, undesignated and rural area The NELUP does not have specific goals for rural areas within its study area. While residential and commercial uses are generally discouraged in Rural Area zoning by the Comprehensive Policy Plan, such plans are general in nature in accordance with the Code of Virginia. When this plan was submitted for agency review on August 8, 2006, the property was partially within the UDA /SWSA boundaries. County plans show that public sewer is proposed to bisect the property. We strongly feel that our request to rezone would be appropriate and beneficial to the adjacent local community, and can act as a transitional buffer between the PUD, Commercial, rural community center and large lot residential development which dominate the adjacent development. Bowman Consulting Group, Ltd. 124 East Cork Street • Winchester.VA 22601 Phone: 540.722.2343 • Fax: 540.722.5080 • www.bowmanconsulting.com Ms. Susan Eddy • • January 10, 2007 Page 2 of 7 2. "The site is outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Services Area (SWSA) as adopted by the Board of Supervisors on September 13, 2006 The Comprehensive Policy Plan confines urban development, such as this proposal, to the UDA, while also allowing commercial and industrial uses in the SWSA. The proposed development is outside of the UDA and is therefore not in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. " Response: The Board of Supervisors ( "Board ") adopted the new locations for both the UDA Boundary and SWSA on September 13, 2006, approximately one month after our application was submitted for agency reviews. The development goals of a Comprehensive Plan are general in nature, showing the general or approximate location, character, and extent of features shown on the plan. The UDA's depiction on the plan is general in nature and should not be used as a bar to applying for a rezoning of the subject property. 3. "The NF.I,UP states that business and commercial land which adjoin existing residential uses and significant historic resources should be adequately screened to mitigate impact. The more general policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan recommend a number of design features, for business properties. These include landscaping, screening, and controlling the size and number of signs. Given the historic Jordan Spring setting, it would be appropriate to also consider building design, layout and materials. These design elements should all be incorporated into the commercial portion of this application. The County typically sees these items addressed in the proffer statement. " Response: A Category "B" buffer shall be provided along the perimeter of the B -2 areas, in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. Proffer 3.1 commits to architectural guidelines being developed for the overall community, including the commercial development. These covenants are intended to assure a continuity of overall architecture appearance, quality material selection, and a cohesive color palate for all structures within the entire development. 4. "The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan designates Woods Mill Road and Jordan Springs Road as improved minor collectors. The applicant will need to ensure that Woods Mill Road and Jordan Springs Road in the vicinity of this project have sufficient right -of- way and are built to a minor collector road standard The Counry typically sees these items addressed in the proffer statement. Also include a timing element, such as improvements will be in place before the first building permit. - Response: Sufficient right -of -way shall be dedicated along Woods Mill Road and Jordan Springs Road according to minor collector standards. The Applicant is proffering full site entrance improvements with left and right turn lanes at each site entrance. In addition, the Applicant has committed to a monetary contribution that the County can use for Regional transportation improvements to use at the County's discretion. 5. "The NELUP calls for Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better on roads impacted by new development. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) indicates some surrounding roads will have levels of service less than C, which is contrary to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. See detailed comments on the TIA below. " Ms. Susan Eddy January 10, 2007 Page 3 of 7 Response: The Applicant has proffered the signalization of Route 1 1 and Stephenson Road in order to bring the LOS to "C" or better. The signalization of Route 11 and Old Charlestown Road has been proffered through the adjacent Stephenson Village rezoning. The intersection of Route 7 and Woods Mill Road has recently been upgraded, but in order to bring the LOS to "C" or better, Regional transportation improvements would be necessary. Therefore, the Applicant has proffered a monetary contribution to be used for Regional transportation improvements. 6. "The NELUP shows the future Route 37 located on the western end of the Jordan Springs property. This is no longer the County's preferred location for Route 37. The route endorsed by the Board of Supervisor's on April 12, 2006, does not include any portion of the Jordan Springs property. " Response: We are aware of the future location of Route 37 endorsed on April 12, 2006, and the GDP we submitted with our application does not show Route 37 on our property. Impact Analysis "Vegetation. Considerable effort has gone into the analysis of existing vegetation. The Generalized Development Plan (GDP) shows areas of open space. However, there is no clear link between these two. There is no commitment to tree preservation. There is no indication that a forest management plan will be in place for the future homeowners association. Similarly, there is no commitment to protecting the sleep slopes and floodplains during the construction phase. The County typically sees these issues addressed in the proffer statement." Response: The GDP has been updated to more clearly define the existing tree line. Proffer 13.2 has been added to include commitment from the developer to protect steep slopes and floodplain areas on the site. 8. "Wetlands. Wetlands must be shown on the Master Development Plan (MDP). " Response: Wetlands shall be shown on the MDP as requested. 9. "Significant wildlife habitats were identified on the adjacent Snowden Bridge property. Please investigate whether they exist on this site as well by contacting the Virginia Department of Game and Inland fisheries (VDGIT). " Response: The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries shall be contacted to determine if significant wildlife habitats exist on our site. Traffic Impact Analysis 10. "The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was based on 100,000 square feet of office development. The proffer statement calls for up to 125, 000 square feet of general business floor space, which could be all retail floor space. The TIA was based on 230 single-family detached units, 117 townhouse units and 60 apartment units. The proffer statement calls for up to 315 single-family detached units, 175 townhouses and 120 apartments. The rezoning application requires that the full development be modeled. Correct the TIA to model the maximum development that is proffered. " Ms. Susan Eddy • January 10, 2007 Page 4 of 7 Response: Typos at the beginning of the TIA have been corrected. The TIA does model maximum full development as proffered. An updated TIA is hereby provided. The proffer statement and GDP will reflect accordingly. 90,000 sf. General Business 365 Single - Family Detached Units 120 "Townhouse Units 120 Apartments 11. "Table 3: 2010 Otlrer Developments. Background traffic in the TIA does not include two large developments in close proximity to this site — the Adams Development and the North Stephenson Development. Include these as background traffic." Response: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pe (PHR +A) has included all the background developments as per the scoping session with Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). 12. "Figure 6: Trip Distribution Percentages. Only 30% of the traffic generated by this development is projected to travel south on Woods Mill Road to Route 7. This is unreasonable given the development will appeal to commuters and also given that most retail and school sites will be accessed from Route 7. Re- examine the trip distribution split. I would suggest that as much as 70% of the trips generated by this development will travel south on Woods Mill Road to Route 7. " Response: The distribution of the development generated trips (Figure 6 in TIA) is in agreement with the scoping session with VDOT. 13. "The Northeast Land Use Plan calls for Level of Service C or better. Even with the suggested improvements in the TIA, Level of Service C is not provided. At the intersection of Route 7 and Woods Mill Road levels of service are C, D and F Furthermore, the TIA suggested improvements include signalization and turn lanes at the intersection of Route 11 and Old Charlestown Road and at the intersection of Route I1 and Stephenson Road. Please state clearly who is providing these improvements and when these improvements will be in place. Without these improvements, the level of service at these intersections falls to level of service F. " Response: The Applicant has proffered the signalization of Route 1 l and Stephenson Road in order to bring the LOS to "C" or better. The signalization of Route I 1 and Old Charlestown Road has been proffered through the adjacent Stephenson Village rezoning. The intersection of Route 7 and Woods Mill Road has recently been upgraded, but in order to bring the LOS to "C" or better, Regional transportation improvements would be necessary, Therefore, the Applicant has proffered a monetary contribution to be used for Regional transportation improvements. Proffer Statement 14. "Introduction. The proffer statement should state the acreage of B2 District and the acreage of RP District land. " Response: The exact acreages of each zoning district are shown on the GDP. Ms. Susan Eddy • • January 10, 2007 Page 5 of 7 Li. "Land Use 1.3. Many of the uses listed as not permitted on the B2 with HA (Historic Area) overlay zone portion of the site are not allowed in the B2 District. Please carefully review the Zoning Ordinance and delete these from the proffer statement Please provide an explanation as to why certain uses, such as food stores and restaurants, that were excluded by proffer when the property was rezoned to B2 with HA overlay zone in 2001, should now be allowed. " Response: The proffer statement has been revised so that uses already excluded from the B- 2 District by the Zoning Ordinance are not restated in the proffers. We are also requesting to re- establish permitted uses in the B -2 with HA. We believe that such accessory neighborhood supportive uses, such as a restaurant /pub within walking distance of two large communities, are appropriate for the area, as well as permit accessory food service in relation to the Jordan Springs facility, 16. "Land Use 1.4. Virtually all of the uses listed as not permitted on the B2 portion of the site (not in the HA overlay) are not allowed in the B2 District. Please carefully review the Zoning Ordinance and delete these front the proffer statement " Response: The proffer statement has been revised. 17. "Land Use 2. The proffer statement mentions three phases, yet there is not explanation of these phases in either the proffer statement of the GDP. Please clam. " Response: The project will be developed in two phases. Proffer 4.1 has been added to clarifying the phasing of the project. The GDP has been updated with labels clearing identifying the two phases. 18. `Parks & Open Space 5.1. There is no evidence that the trails will exceed the required recreation units. It is not clear how or when a credit for trails would be calculated. Please note that the Code of Virginia allows voluntary proffers in addition to the regulations provided for the zoning district by the ordinance. " Response: The proffers for the trail are a commitment by the Applicant to provide a trail for the public benefit. The cost to construct the trail will be a credit against the monetary contributions outlined in proffer 7.1. In the event that the cost of the trail is less than the monetary proffer amount, the Applicant shall contribute the balance of the monetary proffer to the Board. 19. 'Parks & Open Space 5.2. It is unreasonable to take a credit for the value of the land dedicated for a trail system, since that land is part of the required open space. The County's standards trail is a ten (10) foot wide asphalt surface. Determine before the rezoning is processed whether the trail can be public. Otherwise the County cannot know precisely what type of trail it is accepting." Response: The trail shall meet the County Standards and shall be public. No credit will be requested for the value of the land; the only credit requested will be for actual construction costs of the trail. Ms. Susan Eddy • January 10, 2007 Page 6 of 7 20. "Home Owners Association 9.2. It is unclear if the HOA will be responsible for the public trail. Please clarify. " Response: The Property Owners Association shall be responsible for the public trail until such time as the County accepts the trail and trail easement dedication. See Proffers 7.2 and 11.2. 21. "Design Proffers 12.1. Given the historic and environmental quality of this site, design proffers are strongly recommended See earlier Comment #3. " Response: Proffer 3.1 commits to architectural guidelines being developed for the overall community, including the commercial development. These covenants are intended to assure a continuity of overall architecture appearance, quality material selection, and a cohesive color palate for all structures within the entire development. Generalized Development Plan (GDP) 22. "The GDP shows a level of detail better suited to a Master Development Plan (MDP). Only items above and beyond the ordinance requirements should be shown. Therefore, only include buffers if they exceed County requirements. Similarly indicating the breakdown of single-family unit types on the GDP effectively proffers this precise breakdown of units. " Response: The GDP has been revised to meet its more conceptual intent. 23. "Please note that only 50% of the required open space may be within environmental areas. " Response: We have noted that only 50% of the required open space may be within environmental areas. 24. "The County's on -going UDA study has been directing development in the UDA towards a more neo- traditional form of development. Please consider some of the neo - traditional concepts such as an integrated mix of uses, an integrated mix of housing types and a grid pattern. " Response: These items are being considered and will be adequately addressed on the MDP. The modifications and additional neo - traditional housing type are the basis for being able to implement some of the neo- traditional concepts. 25. 'Impact Model. Staff evaluated the capital impacts of this proposal based on 315 single family detached units, 175 single-family attached units, and 120 multi family units, as per the proffer statement. Staff did not take into account the prospective 125, 000 square feet of business floor space as the timing of this commercial use was not proffered. All of the residential units could be built without any commercial floor space being built. Please be advised that the projected impacts to capital facilities changed on September 13, 2006, as a result of the Board of Supervisors adopting 2006 inputs. See the new output sheet for appropriate amounts. " Response: Monetary proffer amounts have been updated. Ms. Susan Eddy • January 10, 2007 Page 7 of 7 General 26. `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 School Department, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, Frederick - Winchester Health Department, Winchester Regional Airport, Greenwood and Clearbrook Fire and Rescue Companies and the Frederick - Winchester Service Authority. The proposed proffer statement has been forwarded by staff to the Frederick County Attorney. Once attorney comments are received by the Planning Department, they will be forwarded to your office. Attorney comments are required for acceptance of the rezoning application. " Response: Copies of agency comments, including Frederick County Attorney, have been included with this application. Please note that at the scoping meeting, it was determined that agency comments would not be needed from Winchester Regional Airport or Greenwood Fire and Rescue Company. 27. "Adjoining Propert Owners. The list of adjoiners is missing ten properties. Nine of these are along Woods Mill Road and one (PIN 45 9 3 1) is on Jordan Springs Road. While the nine Woods Mill Road properties are on the GDP, they are not included in the list of adjoiners. Please add details of these ten properties. " Response. The adjoining property owner list has been revised to include any additional owners not previously located. 28. "Other. This application is missing a number of items — the precise acreage of the zoning requested, a survey showing the proposed zoning boundary lines, a copy of the deed verifying current ownership and a statement that taxes have been paid. All of these must be included far the application to be accepted by the Planning Department. " Response: Acreage of zoning requested is shown on the GDP. The Survey showing the proposed zoning boundary lines has been added to the Application package. A Copy of the Deed to verify current ownership, and a Statement that taxes have been paid are all included with this application submission. 29. "Fees. The fee for this application includes a $'3,000.00 base fee plus $100.00 per acre, and a $50.00 public hearing sign fee. Thus, a total of $25,750.00 is due upon submission of the official rezoning application. This is based on fees as of January 27, 2005. Fees may change." Response: The total amount of $25,750.00 is included with the submission of this rezone application. Should you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me at the office. Sincerely, P; ( I L�T�I,�N,'/G� GROUP Virginia Department of Transportation mail to: Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 (540) 954 -5600 2275 Northwestern Pike Winchester, Virginia 22603 (Applicant: Please f out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Virginia Department of Transportation with their review. Attach three copies of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name , !r�7re2s Shines Telephone: ( 703) 941 - 0617 Mailing Address: 5510 Cherokee Avenue, Suite 300 Alexandria, VA 22312 Location of property: 1160 Jordan Springs Road Stephenson, VA 22656 TM: 44 -A -294 and 44- A -294A Current zoning: RA /R -2 Zoning requested: RP / -2 Acreage: 227.188 Virginia Department of Transportation Comments: See attached email dated September 27, 2006 from Lloyd Ingram TVU0TjTo 41 1 VDOT Signature & Date: . Notice to VD ®T - Please Return Form to Applicant 19 Hand deliver to: Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer Funkhouser, Rhonda From: Funkhouser, Rhonda on behalf of Ingram, Lloyd Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 1:12 PM To: 'Ronald A. Mislowsky' Cc: Ingram, Lloyd Subject: The Preserve at Jordan Springs - Route 664, Frederick County Attachments: SCN_20060927130935_001.pdf The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 664 and 660. These route are the VDOT roadways which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is not satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in The Preserve at Jordan Springs Rezoning Application dated July 17, 2006 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. The Residency cannot support this rezoning application as there has not been any mitigation of the impacts on the transportation system offered by the applicant. 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_20060927130 935_001,pdf(43... Lloyd A. Ingram Transportation Engineer VDOT — Edinburg Residency Land Development 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 (540) 984 -5611 (540) 984 -5607 (fax) Criy Alexandria Control number Data ro0erved R206-0011 8/212M D ata reiriewed Data Revised 0/1012006 Project Alamo Jordan Springs Property Address 5510 Cherokee Ave, suits 300 Type Application Rezoning Current Zoning RAIB.2 Automatic Sprinkler System Yes Other recommendation Tax 10 Number 44- A -294,A APplicant Drees Homes State Zip VA 22312 Fns, District 13 Recommendations Automatic Fire Alarm System Yes Requirements Emergency Vehicle Mom Not Idemifiad Siamese Location Not Identified Emergency Vehicle Access Comments Access Comments Additional Comments PIRI)."; &.,)P O \]ed as submitie:d, Hydrant Location Not Identified Roadway /Aleieway Width Not Identified Plan Approval Recommended Revi By Yen— —' — — J. Neal _. r1l1 V11 VY Applicant Phone 703.941-0617 Rescue District 13 Election District Stonewall Residential Sprinkler system Yes Fire Lane Required Yes Special Hazards NO Signature TMe E�CA J "COUNTY Attn: Fire Chief or Assistant Fire Chief Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Fire and Rescue Squad with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. AppIicant's Name: Drees Homes Telephone: ( 703) 941 -0617 Mailing Address: 5510 Cherokee Avenue Suite 300 Alexandria, VA 22312 Location of property: 1160 Jordan S rin s Road Ste henson VA 22656 Current Zoning: RA /B -2 Zoning requested: RP /B-2 Fire and Rescue Company's Comments: Fire & Rescue Company's Signature & Date: Notice to tire & Rescue Company - Please Return This Acreage: 2 27.1881 to the Applicant 31 CLEAR BROOK VOLUNTEER FERE & RESCUE, CO Post Office Box 56 Clear Brook, VA 22624 (540) 722 -2073 November 30, 2006 Drees Homes 5510 Cherokee Avenue Suite 300 Alexandria, VA 22312 Bowman Consulting Group Mr. David Zollman RE: JORDAN SPRING PROPERTY Fire & Rescue Company's Comments After review of the proposed plans, and due to the of the number of units proposed, and knowing that this will pose a major impact on the Fire & Rescue Services, any finical assistance in funding for new or replacement equipment would be appreciated. Any comments by the Frederick County Fire & Rescue Office would also apply. Thank you, CLEAR BROOK VOL. FIRE & RESCUE CO. Lloyd C Winters President Station 540- 722 -2073 Work 540- 667 -9300 Cell 540 -539 -0691 0 • ,,rbl &-6 / M COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665.5643 FAX: 540/678 -0682 Mr. R. David Zollman, CLA Bowman Consulting 124 East Cork Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Rezoning Application for Jordan Springs Property Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mr. Zollman: We have completed our review of the rezoning application for the Jordan Springs Property and offer the following comments: The Comprehensive Plan Policy Amendment (CPPA) application indicates that the subject parcel contains 227.18 acres. The application further indicates a desire to rezone the parcel from RA/B -2 to RPB -2. However, the does not indicate how the acreage will be subdivided between RP and B -2. 2. The justification of the proposed CPPA needs to be revised to reflect the latest changes in the Comprehensive Plan Policy which indicates that the subject property is completely outside the UDA/SWSA lanes. 3. Under the rezoning application, page 13, indicate the square footage associated with the B -2 property. This item will be needed to determine the total impact of the project on water and sewer demand and solid waste generation. 4. The impact analysis, paragraph 2 Wetlands, indicates the inclusion of a wetland study in Appendix III. However, our copy of the rezoning submission did not include a copy of Appendix III and the wetlands study. This office will require a copy of this report before we can complete our review. Refer to paragraph D. Sewage Conveyance and Treatment: Revise these calculations to include the impact of the commercial development. Refer to paragraph F. Drainage: Indicate what methods of stormwater management will be employed for the proposed RP /B -2 development. The 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Jordan Springs Rezoning Comments Page 2 December 4, 2006 proffer statement indicates Best Management Practices (BMP) facilities. If these methods will be utilized, indicate who will be responsible for maintaining the BMP facilities. Refer to G. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: The narrative indicates that solid waste will be deposited in the Frederick County landfill following collection at citizens' convenience areas /dumpster facilities or via private carriers contracted by neighborhood residents. We are requiring all new subdivisions to adopt curbside trash pickup using a private hauler. The new Stephenson Village (Snowden Bridge) subdivision has proffered curbside trash pickup contracted by the homeowners' association. Therefore, we request that the reference to convenience facilities be eliminated. Also, the calculations of the solid waste generation shall be revised to include the impact of the commercial development. For comparison purposes, the landfill currently receives approximately 210,000 tons of trash per year. Based on this number, you can determine the impact of the project on the landfill. 8. Refer to proffer statement, paragraph 9.2 (iii): Delete the statement, "...if they decide to use a commercial collection company." The use of a private hauler to provide curbside trash disposal will be a requirement, not an option. 9. Refer to proffer statement, paragraph 11.1: Indicate who will be responsible for maintaining the BMP facilities. I can be reached at 722 -8214 if you should have any questions regarding the above comments. We will require satisfactory resolutions to the above comments before we can grant our final approval for the proposed rezoning. Sincerely, _ l \ CA" E. S � I � C ✓ � b ��1 Harvey rawsnyder, Jr., P.E. 1 Director of Public Works HES /rls cc: Susan Eddy, Planning and Development file RdProgram Hes \WordPerfect Office Y TE> IPCOJDIE NTSJORll.4NSPRINGSREZONINGCO?l.a pd I 1V V., VY 0 Rezoning Comments ,�JI,VY4ARIN�RAM1YMT.. ST1. 7G- 4'RP.:G6T,S.oN�V:'nliln!:!S'� Frederick- Winchester Service Authority ii to: Fred -Wins Service Authority Attn: Jesse W. Moffett, E P.O. Box 43 xecutive Director Winchester, Virginia 22604 (540) 722 -3579 and de ive t : Fred -Winc Service An Attn, Jesse W. Moffett 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia AUG - 2 7006 LAPPUCAnt. Please 511 oat th information as accurately as possible in order to assist the d -Winc Service Authority with t their review Attach a copy ofyour application formp, proffer statement, impac analysis, and an other e Y pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Drees Hanes Telephone: 1703)) 941 Mailing Address: 5510 Cherokee AVI�nUe 0 Suite 300 Al exandria, VA 22312 Location of property; 1160 Jordan Springs Road Stephenson, vn 77FSc Current zoning: RA /B-2 Fred-Wine Service "a to hay -N1k, Wine Service cure & Date: Zoning requested: RP /B-2 Acreage: 227.188 c, �'r � eSur 3nri Noti t Fred -Winc Service Aathon ty - — == 34 Return JForm to • M ail to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, Virginia 22604 (540) 868 -1061 0 � nUC UJI VY dde' ert : Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attrt: Engineer 315 Tasker Road Stephens City, Virginia Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to Sanitation Authority with then review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and an other pert info y P rmation. Applioa Ws Name: Drees Hanes Telephone: (703) 941 -0617 Mailing Address: 5510 Cherokee Avenue, Suite 300 Alexatidria� VA 22312 Location of property: 5570 Cherokee Avenue T49: 44 -A -299 and 44 A_294A Current zoning: M --/ -- 2 Zoning requested: Rri /, Sanitation Authority Comments: Acreage: 227.1887 to the pro wa11 rovide service perty• Water facilities in the vicinity of this Property have capacity to meet the projected demand. Sanitation Authority Signature & Date: Notice to Sanitation Authority - Please Return This Form to the An Pli c 24 Frederick County Sanitation Authority Vl'J! 141 LGGb 14:41 lG3L7bb254� Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation Ma' to: Frederick County Department of P & Recreation 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 665 -5678 rklat GJ /U'.3 H and deliver t : Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation County Administration Bldg., 2nd Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Department of Parks & Recreation with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent informatia n Applicant's Name: oxees gas Telephone: (703 941 -0617 Mailing Address: 5510 Cherokee Avenue, Suite 300 pia, VA, 22312 Location of property: 1160 Jordan Sri Road, Ste enson, VA 22656 714: 44 -A -294 arid 44 -A-294A Current zoning: RA/B-2 Zoning requested: /B-2 Acreage: 227.188 Department of Parks & Recreation Comments: See a ttached comments Pks. & Rec. Signature & Date: See attached Notice to Department of Parks & Recreation - Please Return This Foray to the Applicant 22 141 LOGO S V 4 ( (CULOOOO40 r"Hla GLI UJ Rezoning Application Jordan Springs September 11, 2006 Monetary proffer for parks and recreation capital needs appears to be appropriate; however, the cost of the proposed trail system should not impact the monetary proffer. • The proposed trail easement needs to be 20' to accommodate a recommended 10' wide hard surface trail. o The developer appears to be asking for monetary credit for land that has been dedicated as open space and is to be occupied by a trail easement.;, If this area counts toward the developers open space requirement, no additional credit should be given. o Staff recommends the trail system be constructed by the developer and maintained by the Home Owners Association. The trail should also be designed so as to offer connectivity to trail systems from, future adjacent developments. ® More specific information is needed relative to the required recreational wits. Staff needs to know what recreational units, other�han the trail, will be included with this development. // Co. Parks and Recreation COUNTY o? FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665.5651 FAX: 540/665 -63395 August 22, 2006 David Zolman Bowman Consulting, Group 124 E. Cork St. Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Request for Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) Comments Jordan Springs Rezoning; PINS# 44 -A -294, 294A Dear Mr. Zolman: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the above referenced rezoning proposal during their meeting of August 15, 2006. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey Report and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, as well as information provided by the applicant. Historic Resources Advisory Board Concerns The HRAB requested that the applicant provide a Phase I Archeological Survey on the parcels proposed for rezoning, since archeological history of this property is relatively unknown. A Phase II and III Archeological Survey will be required if the Phase I survey determines that it is warranted. Thank you for the chance to comment on this application. Please contact me with any questions concerning these comments from the HRAB. Sincerely, Kevin T. Henry Planning Technician KTH /bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - 'Winchester, Virginia 226411-5000 dents M F 6 PS O Coordinator of Construction and Facilities Use Frederick County Public Schools Visit us at www.frederick.kl2.va.us October 3, 2006 Mr. David Zollman, CLA Bowman Consulting 124 Cork Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Zotlmam RE: Jordan Springs Rezoning e -mail: ka pocsis@frederick. k12. va. us This letter is in response to your request for comments regarding the rezoning application for the Jordan Springs property. Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 315 single - family homes, 175 town homes, and 120 multi - family homes will yield 73 high school students, 63 middle school students, and 119 elementary school students for a total of 255 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, N Stephen M. Kapocsi Coordinator of Construction and Facilities Use SMK:dkr cc: Patricia Taylor, Superintendent of Schools Al Omdorff, Assistant Superintendent for Administration Charles Puglisi, Director of Transportation 540- 662 -3889 Ext 1'12 1415 Amherst Street, Post Office Box 3508, Winchester, VA 226042546 FAX 540- 662 -3890