Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-07 Application/Staff ReportJuly 27, 2007 Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust Associates 117 E. Piccadilly St., Ste.200 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: REZONING #04 -07, PROFFER AMENDMENT HAGGERTY PROPERTY Dear Patrick: This letter serves to confirm action taken by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their meeting of July 25, 2007. The above referenced application was approved to amend the proffers associated with Rezoning #14 -05, as they pertain to the transportation improvements previously approved by the County. The approved Proffer Statement contains revisions dated July 17, 2007. The properties are located adjacent and east of Eddys Lane (Route 820), approximately three miles east of Winchester and 1,500 feet south of Route 7. The subject site is further located adjacent and south of the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant property and adjacent and west of Opequon Creek, which forms the boundary of Clarke County. The properties are identified with Property Identification Numbers 55 -A- 212 and 55- A -212A in the Red Bud Magisterial District. The proffer that was approved as a part of this rezoning application is unique to the above referenced properties and is binding regardless of ownership. Enclosed is a copy of the adopted proffer statement for your records. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any questions regarding the approval of this rezoning application. Sincerely, Eric R. Lawrence, AICP Planning Director ERL/bhd Enclosures 0 C O cc: The Canyon, LC, PO Box 3276, Winchester, VA 22601 Philip A. Lemieux, Red Bud Magisterial District Supervisor Gregory Kerr and Christopher Mohn, Red Bud Magisterial District Commissioners Jane Anderson, Real Estate Commissioner of Revenue 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 BJRQPYIC K Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 REZONING APPLICATION #04 -07 PROFFER AMENDMENT HAGGERTY PROPERTY Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors Prepared: July 13, 2007 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist /helm in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 05 /02/07 Recommended Approval Board of Supervisors: 05/23/07 Tabled to 6/13/07 06/13/07 Tabled to 07/25/07 07/25/07 Pending PROPOSAL: To amend the proffers associated with Rezoning #14 -05, as they pertain to the transportation improvements previously approved by the County. LOCATION: The properties are located adjacent and east of Eddys Lane (Route 820), approximately three miles east of Winchester and 1,500 feet south of Route 7. The subject site is further located adjacent and south of the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant property and adjacent and west of Opequon Creek, which forms the boundary of Clarke County. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Red Bud PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 55 -A -212 and 55- A -212A PROPERTY ZONING: RP (Residential Performance) with Proffers (RZ14 -04) PRESENT USE: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) South: RA (Rural Area) East: Clarke County West: RA (Rural Area) RP (Residential Performance) Use: Vacant /Wastewater Treatment Plant Use: Vacant/ Agricultural Use: Agricultural Use: Vacant /Agricultural Vacant (Twin Lakes) Rezoning 404 -07 Proffer Amendment Haggerty Property Page 2 July 13, 2007 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: VDOT has provided several comments on the various submissions of this application and Proffer Statement. At this time a comment bas not been received from VDOT on the revised application submitted to the County on July 3, 2007, and modified on July 10, 2007. Fire Marshall: Plan approval recommended. Department of Inspections: Shall require 100 year flood plain elevation to be established on any future subdivision plan. No additional comments at this time. Department of Public Works: Refer to paragraph 10.2111: The statement "if they decide..." conflicts with paragraph 10.4 where the I-10A is required to provide curbside trash collection. Delete the latter part of paragraph 10.2i ii "if they...company Frederick Winchester Service Authority: Our first comment is in reference to Section 11, Water and Sewer, Subparagraph 11.4, regarding the applicant's proffer to install a water main to a point of connection with the Frederick Winchester Service Authority's Opequon sewer plant property line. Under an agreement approved by the Frederick Winchester Service Authority Board, the water main would be extended and tied into the existing onsite water system which would require an extension well beyond the Opequon's westerly property line. Our other comment is with regard to the applicant's change (downgrading) of the roadway system from urban undivided (U2) to rural undivided (R2). Our concern is that, with the new entrance to the Opequon facility coming off ofthe new collection road, there will be significant truck traffic entering and leaving the facility. We believe a left turn lane is critical. In closing, so that you are aware of the requirements of the applicant to the Frederick- Winchester Service Authority, I have attached prior correspondence outlining those conditions. I will also note that, as of this date (1/3/07), we have not received a formal submittal regarding the entrance to the Opequon facility, although I have met with your firm to discuss options prior to your submittal of this proffer statement. Sanitation Authority Department: We will provide sewer and water service to this site. Department of Parks Recreation: No comment. Winchester Regional Airport: Neither the location or the elevation of this site requires a 7460 -1 to be filed with the Federal Aviation .Administration; however, it does lie within the air space of the Winchester Airport. Due to its proximity to the airport, property owners may experience aircraft fly- over noise from aircraft entering into or departing the flight patter from the North. Frederick County Attorney: Mr. Mitchell was provided with the latest proffer statementsubnritted on July3, 2007. His comments are pending. Rezoning #04 -07 Proffer Amendment Haggerty Property Page 3 July 13, 2007 Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is important that improvements to the transportation system in this undeveloped part of Frederick County be completed prior to the issuance of building permits. Transporting large numbers of students in and out of areas with high density housing has become increasingly difficult. The impact of this project on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Planning Zoning: 1) Site History On February 9, 2005, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors approved Rezoning #14 -04 for the Haggerty Property. Specifically, this request was to rezone 11.56 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) with proffers which enabled the development of up to 300 single family detached and single fancily attached housing units. The request also contained significant transportation proffers which supported a revised Eastern Road Plan and relocated Valley Mill Road. Due to several transportation issues, PHR &A, on behalf of various property owners including this applicant, approached the County in December 2006 to request consideration of a revision to the Frederick County Eastern Road Plan. The issues the request sought to address included; inconsistencies between the Haggerty Master Development Plan submitted to the County and the Proffers and Generalized Development Plan approved by the County as part of Rezoning #14 -04, concerns regarding access to the Carriage Park project identified during the Planning Commission's review of this project, the relocation of Valley Mill Road in a manner consistent with the Eastern Road Plan, access to the properties along Eddy's Lane, and the continued recognition of the need to avoid the one -lane bridge over Abrams Creek. PI -IR &A provided an initial analysis in support of the request. Jointly, Frederick County and VDOT responded by providing guidance regarding what additional information should be provided to allow for a thorough review of the request by VDOT and the County. Since that time, the County received no additional information regarding the modification to the Eastern Road Plan. It is recognized that the various development applications have chosen not to jointly pursue a revision to the Eastern Road Plan and a comprehensive approach to evaluating the area transportation improvements; rather each property is pursuing changes to the County's planned transportation network through their individual rezoning requests. Rezoning #04 -07 Proffer Amendment Flaggerty Property Page 4 July 13, 2007 2) Request to amend Proffers This is a request to amend the proffers associated with Rezoning #14-05, as they pertain to the transportation improvements previously approved by the County. The evaluation of this request should carefully consider the relationship between this project and several other projects in the vicinity of this property that are at various stages of review and consideration. Transportation improvements designed to implement the County's long range transportation plan, the Eastern Road Plan, should be of paramount importance. Any modifications to the transportation program should continue to advance the County's long range transportation plan. It is required that rezoning requests provide transportation impact analyses to demonstrate that the transportation impacts of a request are mitigated and the transportation improvements proposed are consistent with the County's long range transportation planning efforts. This current request does not provide a transportation impact analysis. No evaluation has been provided to demonstrate any attributes that this proposed modification may have on the transportation network in this critical area of the County. Approved transportation improvements (RZ #14 -04) The construction of a collector road, the spine road, which would provide direct access from the project to Route 7. This collector road shall be constructed from Route 7 to the southern property line within a sixty foot right -of -way as an urban undivided (U2) cross section with a center turn lane. This is a similar typical section to that of the recently upgraded Aylor Road. The construction of all necessary improvements at the intersection of the spine collector road and Route 7 to complete the crossover at this location, including the signal ization of this intersection. Provisions for the future construction ofan east -west road that will connect to the spine collector road. The construction ofan entrance on the spine collector road for the Opequon Regional Wastewater Facility. The dedication of the right -of -way for Route 37. The construction of a landscape screen on a 20 foot easement adjacent to the Route 37 right -of -way. 2005 Revision to the Eastern Road Plan The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan was revised in 2005 in reflection of the approved road network promoted by the Haggerty project and the need to relocate the critical east west collector road, Valley Mill Road, in a manner which enhanced the road network provided by the Haggerty rezoning. The designation of this east -west major collector road has yet to be recognized by the revised Haggerty rezoning proffer and the various other projects under review in this area. This is a critical connection designed to enable vehicle trips to make the east -west movement without impacting the capacity of Route 7 and Senseny Road intersections and corridor. Rezoning #04 -07 Proffer Amendment Haggerty Property Page 5 July 13, 2007 Proposed transportation improvements (Changes in Bold) (RZ #04 -07; Proffer Statement Dated July 10. 2007) The construction of a collector road, the spine road, which would provide direct access from the project to Route 7. This collector road shall be constructed partly within an eighty foot right -of -way and partly within a sixty foot right -of -way parallel to the Route 37 right -of -way as a rural undivided (R2) cross section, and partly within the planned right -of -way of Route 37. The collector spine road would transition from a R2 cross section to the typical Route 37 cross section upon entering the Route 37 right -of -way. The spine collector road shall be constructed from Route 7 to the southern property line. The construction of all necessary improvements at the intersection of the spine collector road and Route 7 to complete the crossover at this location, including the signalization of this intersection. Provisions for a 90' reservation area to construct the southern two lanes of an east west collector road, planned ultimately to be an urban four lane divided road within an 80' right -of -way, and the provision of a landscape buffer or road efficiency buffer adjacent to this road. This roadway shall be constructed prior to the issuance of the 225 building permit. (Two alternate approaches have been proffered by the Applicant. The design and location of this east- west major collector road should be addressed in consideration of the issues identified in the following section). The construction of an entrance on the spine collector road for the Opequon Regional Wastewater Facility. The dedication of the right-of-way for Route 37. The construction of a landscape screen on a 20 foot easement adjacent to the Route 37 right -of -way (This should be reevaluated in light of the renwval of the spine collector road from the area immediately adjacent to the Route 37 right -of -way. It would be appropriate to provide the road efficiency buffer required by the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that an adequate buffer is provided for the future residents adjacent to Route 37). No direct lot access to either the north -south or east -west collector roads. Interparcel connection to the adjacent property in a location different from that previously approved on the adjacent Toll Brothers Twin Lakes property. Issues for consideration. It is important to reiterate that no evaluation has been provided to demonstrate any attributes that this proposed modification may have on the transportation network in this critical area of the County. This request is lacking the information needed to effectively evaluate the cumulative impacts of the approach proffered by the Applicant. Rezoning #04 -07 Proffer Amendment Haggerty Property Page 6 July 13, 2007 East West Major Collector Road. The Applicant has recognized this major collector road and its ultimate design as an urban four lane divided typical section. However, only the southern two lanes of an east west collector road are proposed to be constructed by the applicant. In addition, the latest proffer statement submitted on July 11, 2007 places a trigger mechanism for the timing of the construction of this major collector road. The applicant has proffered that this roadway shall be constructed prior to the issuance of the 225 building permit. This timing trigger does not provide that this important major collector road will be constructed in a timely Haunter, or even constructed at all. The design and location of this east- west major collector road should be addressed in greater detail. The application should ensure that the road is constructed so as to allow the future construction of Route 37 to cross over the east west major collector road. Further, the general topographical constraints along the roads path must be satisfied in the ultimate design of the east west major collector road The application proffers a linear reservation directly adjacent to the property line. It must be confirmed that the road can be constructed within this area of reservation. Sufficient elevation and radius should be provided to ensure that the necessary improvements and design can be implemented. Two alternate approaches have been proffered by the Applicant for the construction ofthe east west collector road; both are within a 90' reservation area. o The first approach assumes the future dedication of a 40' right —of -way on the property immediately north ofthe Haggerty Property. In this case, the Applicant would provide a 40' dedication for the construction of the southern two lanes of the road and a road efficiency buffer in the remaining 50' reservation area. o The second approach assumes that no dedication of right-of-way will occur in the future on the topography of the property immediately north of the Haggerty Property. In this case, the Applicant would dedicate 80' of right -of -way and provide a 10' landscaped buffer between the roadway and the residential lots. This is a modification to the road efficiency buffer based on the recognition of the east west road as a major collector road. Bicycle and pedestrian accommodations have not been specified in the amended proffers. Given the nature of the east west road as a major collector road, it should be expected that a 10' wide bike bath be incorporated into the design of the road. The director of Parks and Recreation should continue to be satisfied in the location of the trails provided with this application. Rezoning #04 -07 Proffer Amendment Haggerty Property Page 7 July 13, 2007 North South Spine Road. Modification of the spine road from an urban section to a rural section in the area outside of Route 37 may not be appropriate given this property's location in the UDA. It is recognized that minimizing the number of crossings of the environmental area along the properties southern boundary would be environmentally and financially beneficial; however, this modification to the north south collector spine road should be thoroughly evaluated. The location of the spine road within the right -of -way for Route 37 creates a conflict with the road layout identified in the Eastern Road Plan which identifies the spine road parallel to Route 37. In the long term, this road was designed to accommodate Local trips that were looking to go west and south of the Haggerty project. The elimination of this local connector would compromise the road network envisioned and modeled in the Eastern Road Plan. In general, the addition of local traffic onto Route 7 and the County's arterial street system should be avoided and the use of the collector street system promoted. There remains no guaranteed connection south from this project to Senseny Road. The proffer justification seems to indicate that moving the spine road within the Route 37 corridor somehow makes the ultimate connection to Senseny Road less dependent upon development of the adjoining property to the south. Presently, there is no active effort on the part of the County, or property owner, to complete the connection from the southern boundary of the I- laggerty property to Senseny Road. Interparcel Connection. The application includes a proffer, 15.1, that provides for inter parcel connectivity to the adjacent property in a location different from that previously approved on the adjacent Toll Brothers Twin Lakes property. The Board should be aware that the endorsement of this proffer would have an impact on the adjacent Toll Brothers development. Should the adjacent development be agreeable to the inter parcel connection in the location on the GDP, the Toll Brothers Master Development Plan and Subdivision Design Plans would have to be modified to reflect the new interparcel connections. Only, with the adjacent property owner's endorsement would it be recommended that the Board recognize this change. STAFF SUMMARY FOR 07/25/07 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING: Key transportation issues remain a concern. As presented, this application does not adequately address the transportation impacts associated with this request, creating additional transportation impacts on adjacent roads and properties. The Board's evaluation of this request to amend proffers should continue to carefully consider the following items to the Board's satisfaction. The east -west major collector road, relocation of Valley Mill Road is only partially accommodated in the amended proffer statement. In addition, the timing trigger does Rezoning #04 -07 Proffer Amendment- Haggerty Property Page 8 July 13, 2007 not provide that this important major collector road will be constructed in a timely manner. It must also be confirmed that the road can be constructed within the proffered area of reservation. The transportation elements proffered in this application are not consistent with, and do not implement, the County's Eastern Road Plan. Specifically, the Spine Collector Road south of the east west collector road and adjacent to future Route 37 has been removed from the transportation program. The elimination of the parallel Spine Road will significantly impact the local transportation network at such time that Route 37 is constructed as a limited access highway. The application has not demonstrated through a supporting Transportation Impact Analysis that the proposed modifications to the transportation program provide an acceptable transportation solution to meet the needs of the development and implement the Comprehensive Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 05/02/07 MEETING: Representatives for the applicant indicated that a two -lane, 750 -foot section of Route 37 will be constructed, using vertical and horizontal alignments, from where the spine road transitions into the Route 37 right -of -way to the end of the property, including the section that crosses the stream. A TIA was not provided because it was their belief that the same connections as the original plan are in place. A profile has been provided to VDOT to show the feasibility of constructing the east -west connector, as proposed by the Eastern Road Plan, 400 feet further south and there is adequate clearance to go under Route 37 at this location. The applicant's representatives said that when they examined the engineering aspects of constructing Valley Mill Road extension, they realized that a shift in the location of the road would avoid topography issues, it would provide a more suitable crossing of Abrams Creek and subsequent environmental protections, and it would provide for a connection to the spine road. The applicant's agents were confident that, from an engineering standpoint, the applicant could both fund and implement the revised transportation plan. The County's Transportation Planner addressed the re- location of the east -west connector. He was concerned about increased costs for connection with existing Valley Mill because it would require angled cut backs; the original location ofthe east -west connector would have provided better diffusion of local traffic; and there were property owners willing to dedicate right -of -way along the previously approved location. One person spoke during the public comment portion of the hearing. An attorney representing an adjacent property owner to the north ofthe east -west connector, with approximately 700 feet of frontage along Eddy's Lane, had concerns about how the proposed revised transportation plan will impact adjoining parcels currently within the review process. She asked the Commission to keep the surrounding property owners and developers in mind during their consideration so that all of the properties carry their fair share of the costs, particularly for improvements to Eddy's Lane. Rezoning #04 -07 Proffer Amendment Haggerty Property Page 9 July 13.2007 Some members of the Commissioners were not supportive of the revised transportation plan for several reasons. They said it appeared the revised east -west collector would have less capacity because it was shown as a local street rather than a major collector; and, shifting the road 400 feet south would remove the likelihood that properties along Eddy's Lane would use the road. Concern was expressed that the local collector street system would be compromised, along with the general transportation in the area. Questions were raised about the proposal's affect on costs for the future construction of Route 37. The overall thought was that the proposal was piecemeal and they suggested the possibility of adjoining tracts corning in together in a coordinated effort. Commission members expressed concern about the cumulative affect of the revised transportation plan, the ability to have inter parcel connectors, and the ability to complete the County's road plan. Other members of the Commission thought the revised transportation plan was fundamentally consistent with the original transportation proposal. They commented positively about the construction of the western section of Route 37, moving the majority of traffic from this site to Route 7; they also noted that the construction of the relocated east -west connector will probably be more economically feasible because it avoids topography issues. They believed the revised proposal ultimately provides the foundation to accommodate the traffic, not only for this development, but on a larger scale. Comments were made that the plan was both efficient and could facilitate the County's transportation planning in this area; however, it would be incumbent on the Commission, the staff, and VDOT to insure that future development proposals fit into the plan to get the County to the next step. By a majority vote, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Rezoning #04 -07 for the 1- laggerty Property proffer revisions which propose modifications to the transportation program previously approved by the County. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO REC. APPROVAL): NO: Oates ABSTAIN: Manuel Unger, Watt, Morris, Wilmot, Thomas, Kriz, Kerr, Mohn (Note: Commissioners Light and Ours were absent from the meeting; Commissioner Triplett was absent for this item.) Original Message From: Ingram, Lloyd [mailto:Lloyd.Ingram @VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 11:53 AM To: Patrick R. Sowers Cc: Mike Ruddy Subject: Haggerty Property Proffers Patrick, VDOT has the following comments on the revised proffers dated 7/2/2007: 13.2 In the last sentence it is felt that the word apply "right to apply should be changed to request "right to request 13.3 clarify that these improvements will be completed prior to the issuance of building permits. 13.4 The design for the roadway connecting points D to E should be such as to allow for the construction of the future Route 37 fly -over bridges. 13.6 "Limited Access" should be noted on all plats that have property lines bounded by the future Route 37 right -of -way. If you require additional information about these comments, please contact me. Regards, Lloyd A. Ingram Transportation Engineer VDOT Edinburg Residency Land Development 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 (540) 984 -5611 (540) 984 -5607 (fax) Z #04 -0 40111111101110110110010 Foi Location Vg' /S U 55M\ l r ♦�IIg!1 \III 0,1011 04 I N *III� *Vent off# 55 A 1658 55 A 174C A 195 ve ,01 OQ Clarke County, Virginia Location in the County Map Features Future Rt37 Bypass 0 Application Location A LakeslPonds Streams Streets Primary +4 Secondary Tertiary 11 Urban Development Area AM SWSA irm Map Document: (N:1Planning And_Development1 _1_ Locator_ Mps\ HaggertyProperty _REZ0407_040307.mxd) 4/11/2007 4:03:11 PM Frederick County, VA 0 250 500 Case Planner: Mike Re Zoning REZ# 04 07 Application Haggerty Property Parcel ID: 55- A- 212,212A Location in Surrounding Area 1,Onet Z 04 07 A Zoning Clarke County, Virginia Frederick County, VA Location in the County Map Features 4■1. Future Rt37 Bypass O Application Location 0 LakesfPonds Streams Streets Primary 4%r Secondary Tertiary Urban Development Area r11y SWSA 0 Map Document: (N:1Planning_And_Development1 1_ Locator_ Mps\ HaggertyProperty _REZ0407_040307.mxd) 4/11/2007 4:03:11 PM 250 Zoning u B1 (Business, Neighborhood District) 82 (Business, General District) B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) rine HE (Higher Education District) MD M1 (Industrial, Light District) M2 (Industrial, General District) MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) MS (Medical Support District) us R4 (Residential, Planned Community Disle aie R5 (Residential Recreational Community D RAZ (Rural Area Zone) RP (Residential Performance District) Location in Surrounding Area 500 Case Planner Mike Re Zoning REZ# 04 07 Application Haggerty Property Parcel ID: 55- A- 212,212A 1,0reet i l 1 Asb y O /i 1 1 1 Ab i s C reek 1 r 1 1 1 clit j if 0o"° A11 t� 10 OQ°j" I ■zF—I Clarke County. Virginia Frederick County, VA Location in the County Map Features Future R137 Bypass CO Application Location SS Lakes /Ponds Streams Streets Primary Secondary Tertiary t$ Urban Development it_ SWSA Map Document: (N:1Planning_And_Development1 1_ Locator_ Mpsl HaggertyProperty _REZ0407_040307.mxd) 4/11/2007 4:03:11 PM 250 500 Case Planner: Mike Re Zoning REZ# 04 07 Application Haggerty Property Parcel ID: 55- A- 212,212A Long Range Land Use Rural Community Center Residential Business Industrial si;b Institutional Recreation can Historic Areal Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development Location in Surrounding Area 1,0n Haggerty Proper Aerial Location in the County Map Features Pik Future Rt37 Bypass Q Application Location tt• Lakes /Ponds Streams Streets Primary Secondary Terciary TOO Urban Development Area SWSA Map Document: (N: \Planning And_Development \_1_ Locator_ Mps\ HaggertyProperty _REZ0407_040307.mxd) 4 /11/2007 4:03:11 PM Frederick County, VA 0 250 500 Case Planner: Mike Re Zoning REZ# 04 07 Application Haggerty Property Parcel ID: 55- A- 212,212A Location in Surrounding Area e A mount :a atel eceived BOS Heannga ,coliiplete by Planning Stag The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: The Canyon, LC Telephone: 540- 667 -2120 Address: P.O. Box 3276 Winchester, Virginia 22601 2. Property Owner (if different than above) 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Patton Harris Rust Associates c/o Patrick R. Sowers Address: 117 E Piccadilly St Winchester, Virginia 22601 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Telephone: 540- 667 -2139 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location Map Agency Comments X Plat Fees X Deed of property Impact Analysis Statement Verification of taxes paid Proffer Statement X 1 Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: David B. Holliday 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. The Canyon, LC 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Unimproved/Vacant Residential B) Proposed Use of the Property: Mixed Residential Development 7. Adjoining Property: SEE ATTACHED. PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers). Located adjacent and east of Eddys Lane (Route 820), approximately 3 miles east of Winchester and 1,500 feet south of Route 7. The subject site is further located adjacent and south of the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant property and adjacent and west of Opequon Creek, which forms the boundary of Clarke County. 2 Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested RP 111.56 RP 111.56 Total acrea e to be rezoned Districts Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density of intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel identification /Location: Parcel Identification Number 55 -A -212 212A Magisterial: Red Bud High School: Millbrook Fire Service: Greenwood Middle School: James Wood Rescue Service: Greenwood Elementary School: Red Bud Run 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family Home 148 Townhome 152 Multi- Family 0 Non Residential Lots NA Mobile Home NA Hotel Rooms NA Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office NA Service Station NA Retail NA Manufacturing NA Restaurant NA Warehouse NA Other NA 3 12. Signature: 1 (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right -of -way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Owner(s) Date j 4 Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We) (Name) The Canyon, LC Department of Planning Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540- 665 -5651 Facsimile 540 -66S -6395 Instrument No. 040014715 on Page and is described as (Address) PO Box 3276, Winchester, VA 22601 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land "Property conveyed to me (us), by decd recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Parcel: 212.212A Lot: Block: A Section: 55 Subdivision: N/A do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Phone) 540.667.2120 (Name) PHRA Ron Mislowsky. Patrick Sowers, Chuck Maddox John Callow Tom Price Phone: 667,2139 (Address) 117 E. Piccadilly Street Winchester, VA 22601 To act as my true and lawful attorney -in -fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including: X Rezoning (including proffers) Conditional Use Permits Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) Subdivision Site Plan My attorney -in -fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I have hereto set fl. r) hand and seal this 24th day of May 200 6 Signature(s) State of Vir 1/111.— �f a, City /County of /x4 c ,To -wit: 1, Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, c'eflif9 thattthe person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this (9 day ofHa/41200 M__ IJk sty My Commission Expires: 103 1 4 1 Notat lib) R cn l ±l� Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site. www.co.frederick.va.us t: 11 fl a 11 e: Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We) (Name) The Canyon, LC Department of Planning Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540- 665 -5651 Facsimile 540 -66S -6395 Instrument No. 040014715 on Page and is described as (Address) PO Box 3276, Winchester, VA 22601 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land "Property conveyed to me (us), by decd recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Parcel: 212.212A Lot: Block: A Section: 55 Subdivision: N/A do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Phone) 540.667.2120 (Name) PHRA Ron Mislowsky. Patrick Sowers, Chuck Maddox John Callow Tom Price Phone: 667,2139 (Address) 117 E. Piccadilly Street Winchester, VA 22601 To act as my true and lawful attorney -in -fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including: X Rezoning (including proffers) Conditional Use Permits Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) Subdivision Site Plan My attorney -in -fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I have hereto set fl. r) hand and seal this 24th day of May 200 6 Signature(s) State of Vir 1/111.— �f a, City /County of /x4 c ,To -wit: 1, Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, c'eflif9 thattthe person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this (9 day ofHa/41200 M__ IJk sty My Commission Expires: 103 1 4 1 Notat lib) REZONING: RZ. 14 -04 Rural Areas (RA) to Residential Performance (RP) PROPERTY: 11156 acres +1 Tax Map Parcels 55 -A -212 212A (the "Property') RECORD OWNER The Canyon, LC APPLICANT: The Canyon, LC PROJECT NAME Haggerty Property ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: December 20, 2004 REVISION DATE (S): 1/12/05; 1/20/05; 2/9/05 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property "Property as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced RP conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant "Applicant these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the "Board decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, Haggerty Property" dated December 20, 2004 (the "GDP and shall include the following: 1. LAND USE: 1. 1 PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT Residential development on the Property shall not exceed a maximum of 300 dwelling units Housing types shall be limited to single family detached and single family attached units. Proffer Statement Haggerty 1.2 Single family detached housing types shall comprise a minimum of 60 units, but shall not exceed a maximum of 150 units. 2. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND PLAN APPROVALS: 2.1 The Property shall be developed as one single and unified development in accordance with applicable ordinances, regulations, and design standards, and this Haggerty Proffer Statement as approved by the Board. The project is a mixed use residential type allowing a range of housing types within limits established by this proffer statement. 2.2 The maximum dwelling units for which certificates of occupancy are requested shall be 75 in any 12 month period within the first 24 months of project development, beginning on the date of master development plan approval by the Board, and 50 in any 12 month period thereafter. Any such units not requested in a given 12 month period shall be allowed to carry over to the subsequent 12 month period in addition to those units otherwise permitted. 2.3 After 60 months from master development plan approval by the Board, any remaining certificates of occupancy up to 300 maybe requested. 3. PEDESTRIAN TRAIL SYSTEM AND RECREATION AREAS 3.1 The Applicant shall design and build a public pedestrian bicycle trail system to Department of Parks and Recreation standards that links residential and open space areas within the development. The precise location of said trail system shall be determined during the master development plan (MDP) process, pursuant to the approval of the Director of Parks and Recreation and the Planning Commission. The trails shall be 10 feet wide, have an asphalt surface and shall be located to enable connections with adjoining developments. 4. FIRE RESCUE: 4.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $889.00 per dwelling unit for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit. 4.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $707.00 per dwelling unit for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family attached unit. 5. SCHOOLS: 4.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $7,571.00 per dwelling unit for school purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit. Page 2 of 8 Rev. 2/09/05 Proffer Statement 4.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $5,881.00 per dwelling unit for school purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family attached unit. 6. PARKS OPEN SPACE: 7. LIBRARIES: 6.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of dwelling unit for recreational purposes, payable upon the building permit for each single family detached unit. 6.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of dwelling unit for recreational purposes, payable upon the building permit for each single family attached unit Haggerty $1,288.00 per issuance of a $1,040.00 per issuance of a 7.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $213.00 per dwelling unit for library purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such single family detached unit. 7.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $173.00 per dwelling unit for library purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such single family attached unit. 8. SHERIFF'S OFFICE 8.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $50.00 per dwelling unit for the Sheriff's Office upon issuance of building permit for each such unit 9. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 9.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $200.00 per dwelling unit for construction of a general governmental administration building upon issuance of building permit for each such unit 10. CREATION OF HOMEOWNERS' AND PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION: 10.1 The residential development shall be made subject to a homeowners' association (hereinafter "HOA that shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of all common areas, including any conservation areas that may be established in accordance herewith not dedicated to the County or others, for each area subject to their jurisdiction, and shall be provided such other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such associations or as may be required for such HOA herein 10.2 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, an HOA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all common open space areas not otherwise dedicated to public use, (ii) common buffer areas located Page 3 of 8 Rev. 2/09/05 Proffer Statement Haggerty outside of residential lots; (iii) common solid waste disposal programs, if they decide to use a commercial collection company, (iv) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any perimeter or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be located within easements to be granted to the HOA if platted within residential or other lots, or otherwise granted to the HOA by appropriate instrument and (v) responsibility for payment for maintenance of streetlights. 10.3 The Applicant shall provide management and start up assistance to the HOA, to include a contribution of $100 per dwelling unit to an escrow account established for HOA operations. 10.4 Curb side trash collection service shall be provided to all dwelling units by commercial carrier. The HOA shall be responsible for arranging and managing the delivery of said service to all dwelling units within the residential development. 11. WATER &SEWER 11.1 The Applicant shall be responsible for connecting the Property to public water and sewer, and for constructing all facilities required for such connection. All water and sewer infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority "the FCSA 11.2 The Applicant shall provide needed lands and easements on this site at no cost to the FCSA in order to implement the Senseny Road Regional Sewage Pump Station project. (See 1 on GDP). 11.3 The Applicant shall establish a buffer to a distance of 600' from presently planned future treatment units on the Frederick-Winchester Service Authority "the FWSA site. No residential dwelling units (structure) shall be located within this buffer. (See 2 on GDP). 11.4 The Applicant shall install a water main to a point of connection with the FWSA Opequon Sewer Plant property line The water main will be installed and serviceable before the 101" building permit is issued. (See 3 on GDP). 12. ENVIRONMENT: 12.1 Stormwater management and Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Property shall be provided in accordance with the Virginia Stormwater Management Regulations, First Ed. 1999, Chapter 2, Table 2 -3 which results in the highest order of stormwater control in existing Virginia law at the time of construction of any such facility. 13. TRANSPORTATION: 13.1 Transportation improvements shall be initiated at the outset of the development process unless otherwise specified below. Page 4 of 8 Rev. 2/09/05 Proffer Statement Haggerty 13.2 The Applicant shall construct a collector road as the "spine" of the project's internal road network and to provide direct access from the project to VA Route 7. Said collector road shall be located within a sixty foot right of way aligned parallel to the planned right of way for VA Route 37, and shall be constructed as an urban undivided (U2) cross section with a center tum lane. The collector road shall be constructed from VA Route 7 to the project site prior to issuance of the first building permit for the project, and shall be completed to the south project boundary prior to issuance of the 151" building permit. The Applicant reserves the right to apply for partial funding for collector road construction through revenue sharing or other programs as may be available through VDOT and/or Frederick County. (See 4 on GDP) 13.3 The Applicant shall install those improvements necessary to complete the cross -over at the intersection of the "spine" collector road and VA Route 7, including Route 7 improvements with tum lanes, pursuant to VDOT specifications and approval. The Applicant shall further enter into a signalization agreement with VDOT for said intersection. 13.4 The Applicant shall make available the area necessary for the future construction by others of an east -west road that will connect to the "spine" collector road. (See 5 on GDP) 13.5 The Applicant shall construct an entrance onto the "spine" collector road for the Opequon Regional Wastewater Facility. The final location and design of said entrance shall be determined pursuant to the specifications and approval of VDOT, the County, and the FWSA. 13.6 The right of way for VA Route 37 as identified by County studies and generally shown on the GDP will be surveyed and platted. The Applicant will cause the dedication of this right of way at no cost to the County within 90 days of request by the County. (See 6 on GDP). 13.7 The Applicant shall construct a complete densely planted landscape screen on a 20' landscape easement adjacent to both sides of the proposed VA Route 37 right of way and/or the proposed "spine" collector road. At least 3 trees are to be planted for each 10 linear feet of easement and are to be 4 feet in height at time of planting. The mix of trees are to be determined through discussion with the Virginia Forestry service and VDOT and shall be shown on initial construction plans (See 7 on GDP). 14. ESCALATOR CLAUSE: 14.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement are paid to the Frederick County Board County Supervisors ("Board") within 30 months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to the Board after 30 months following the approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index "CPI -U") published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time contributions Page 5 of 8 Rev. 2/09/05 Proffer Statement Haggerty are paid, they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI -U from that date 24 months after the approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI -U to the date the contributions are paid, subject to a cap of 6% per year, non compounded. SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES Page 6 of 8 Rev. 2/09/05 Proffer Statement Haggerty Respectfully submitted, By Title: Manager The Canyon, LC My commission expires Notary Public c—nlaruno 4 STA OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: ,�h The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me th �u' day rX uOry 2005, by Tht0 i cl 3: I CMG y Page 7 of 8 Rev. 2/09/05 DENOTES GENERALIZED OPEN SPACE LAYOUT HAGGERTY PROPERTY GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINW gilbert w. Clifford associates a division of Patton, Harris, Rust Associates, pc 117 E. Picadilly 5L Winchester, Virginia 22601 VOICE (510) 667 -2139 FM: (540) 665 -0493 Page8of8 Reminder: AOL will never ask you to send us your password or credit card number in an email. This message has been scanned for known viruses. From: sptlhill @aol.com To: clay @pond atheylaw.com Cc: lawyers@visua ll ink. com Subject Carriage Hill Project Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 11:02 AM Dear Clay, We are writing to inform you that we are no longer interested, under any circumstances, in allowing a right -of -way through our property to the Carriage Hill project. We ask that you not represent to :anyone on the Board of Supervisors that you are in any type of negotiations with us on this matter. Further, while you have been communicating through our attorney, no meaningful negotiations have taken place for some time. We ask that you cease communicating with Mr. Hobert on this matter. We do not intend to continue expending resources on negotiating given failure of our good faith efforts to address these matters. We have informed some Board members of our position and reinforced to them our previous commitment to donate a right -of -way through our bottom property to allow for the future realignment'of Valley Mill Road in accordance with the approved Eastern Road Program. Thank you, Tim and Tootser Stafford cc: All Members of the Board of Supervisors Staff at Frederick County Michael Hobert Pagel of 1" AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 05/02/07 Recommended Approval Board of Supervisors: 05/23/07 Tabled to 6/13/07 06/13/07 Pending *Please see page 9 for BOS Update PROPOSAL: To revise the proffers associated with Rezoning #14 -05, as they pertain to the transportation improvements previously approved by the County. LOCATION: The properties are located adjacent and east of Eddys Lane (Route 820), approximately three miles east of Winchester and 1,500 feet south of Route 7. The subject site is further located adjacent and south of the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant property and adjacent and west of Opequon Creek, which forms the boundary of Clarke County. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Red Bud PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 55 -A -212 and 55- A -212A PROPERTY ZONING: RP (Residential Performance) with Proffers (RZI4 -04) PRESENT USE: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) South: RA (Rural Area) East: Clarke County West: RA (Rural Area) RP (Residential Performance) REZONING APPLICATION #04 -07 HAGGERTY PROPERTY PROFFER REVISION Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors Prepared: June 4, 2007 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director Use: Vacant/Wastewater Treatment Plant Use: Vacant/ Agricultural Use: Agricultural Use: Vacant/Agricultural Vacant (Twin Lakes) PROPOSED USES: 300 Single Family Attached and single family detached housing units. Rezoning #04 -07 Haggerty Property Page 2 June 4, 2007 REVIEW: EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 7. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT has reviewed the transportation proffers offered in the Haggerty Rezoning Modification Request Application dated December 14, 2006 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. VDOT is satisfied provided the following clarifications are provided in Section 13.2: The spine road will transition from the R -2 cross section to the Route 37 typical section upon entering the proposed Route 37 Corridor. It should be clarified that "project boundary" and "property line" are the same in reference to the construction of a spine road. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right -of -way needs, including right -of- way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right -of -way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshall: Plan approval recommended. Department of Inspections: Shall require 100 year flood plain elevation to be established on any future subdivision plan. No additional comments at this time. Department of Public Works: Refer to paragraph 10.2iii: The statement "if they decide..." conflicts with paragraph 10.4 where the HOA is required to provide curbside trash collection. Delete the latter part of paragraph 10.2iii "if they...company Frederick- Winchester Service Authority: Our first comment is in reference to Section 11, Water and Sewer, Subparagraph 11.4, regarding the applicant's proffer to install a water main to a point of connection with the Frederick Winchester Service Authority's Opequon sewer plant property line. Under an agreement approved by the Frederick Winchester Service Authority Board, the water main would be extended and tied into the existing onsite water system which would require an extension well beyond the Opequon's westerly property line. Our other comment is with regard to the applicant's change (downgrading) of the roadway system from urban undivided (U2) to rural undivided (R2). Our concern is that, with the new entrance to the Opequon facility coming off of the new collection road, there will be significant truck traffic entering and leaving the facility. We believe a left turn lane is critical. In closing, so that you are aware of the requirements of the applicant to the Frederick Winchester Service Authority, I have attached prior correspondence outlining those conditions. I will also note that, as of this date (1/3/07), we have not received a formal submittal regarding the entrance to the Opequon facility, although I have met with your firm to discuss options prior to your submittal of this proffer statement. Sanitation Authority Department: We will provide sewer and water service to this site. Rezoning #04 -07 Haggerty Property Page 3 June 4, 2007 Department of Parks Recreation: No comment. Winchester Regional Airport: Neither the location or the elevation ofthis site requires a 7460 -1 to be filed with the Federal Aviation Administration; however, it does lie within the air space of the Winchester Airport. Due to its proximity to the airport, property owners may experience aircraft fly- over noise from aircraft entering into or departing the flight patter from the North. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is important that improvements to the transportation system in this undeveloped part of Frederick County be completed prior to the issuance of building permits. Transporting large numbers of students in and out of areas with high density housing has become increasingly difficult. The impact of this project on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Planning Zoning: 1) Site History On February 9, 2005, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors approved Rezoning #14 -04 for the Haggerty Property. Specifically, this request was to rezone111.56 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) with proffers which enabled the development of up to 300 single family detached and single family attached housing units. The request also contained significant transportation proffers which supported a revised Eastern Road Plan and relocated Valley Mill Road. Due to several transportation issues, PHR &A, on behalf of various property owners including this applicant, approached the County in December 2006 to request consideration of a revision to the Frederick County Eastern Road Plan. The issues the request sought to address included; inconsistencies between the Haggerty Master Development Plan submitted to the County and the Proffers and Generalized Development Plan approved by the County as part of Rezoning #14 -04, concerns regarding access to the Carriage Park project identified during the Planning Commission's review ofthis project, the relocation of Valley Mill Road in a manner consistent with the Eastern Road Plan, access to the properties along Eddy's Lane, and the continued recognition of the need to avoid the one -lane bridge over Abrams Creek. PHR &A provided an initial analysis in support of the request. Jointly, Frederick County and VDOT responded by providing guidance regarding what additional information should be provided to allow for a thorough review of the request by VDOT and the County. Since that time, the County received no additional information regarding the modification to the Eastern Road Plan. It is recognized that the various development applications have chosen not to jointly pursue a revision to the Eastern Road Plan and a comprehensive approach to evaluating the area transportation improvements; rather each property is pursuing changes to the County's planned transportation network through their individual rezoning requests. Rezoning #04 -07 Haggerty Property Page 4 June 4, 2007 2) Request to revise Proffers This is a request to revise the proffers associated with Rezoning #14 -05, as they pertain to the transportation improvements previously approved by the County. The evaluation of this request should carefully consider the relationship between this project and several other projects in the vicinity of this property that are at various stages of review and consideration. Transportation improvements designed to implement the County's long range transportation plan, the Eastern Road Plan, should be of paramount importance. Any modifications to the transportation program should continue to advance the County's long range transportation plan. It is required that rezoning requests provide transportation impact analyses to demonstrate that the transportation impacts of a request are mitigated and the transportation improvements proposed are consistent with the County's long range transportation planning efforts. This current request does not provide a transportation impact analysis. No evaluation has been provided to demonstrate any attributes that this proposed modification may have on the transportation network in this critical area of the County. Approved transportation improvements (RZ #14 -04) The construction of a collector road, the spine road, which would provide direct access from the project to Route 7. This collector road shall be constructed from Route 7 to the southern property line within a sixty foot right -of -way as an urban undivided (U2) cross section with a center turn lane. This is a similar typical section to that of the recently upgraded Aylor Road. The construction of all necessary improvements at the intersection of the spine collector road and Route 7 to complete the crossover at this location, including the signalization of this intersection. Provisions for the future construction of an east -west road that will connect to the spine collector road The construction of an entrance on the spine collector road for the Opequon Regional Wastewater Facility. The dedication of the right -of -way for Route 37. The construction of a landscape screen on a 20 foot easement adjacent to the Route 37 right -of -way. 2005 Revision to the Eastern Road Plan The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan was revised in 2005 in reflection of the approved road network promoted by the Haggerty project and the need to relocate the critical east west collector road, Valley Mill Road, in a manner which enhanced the road network provided by the Haggerty rezoning. The designation of this east -west major collector road has yet to be recognized by the revised Haggerty rezoning proffer and the various other projects under review in this area. This is a critical connection designed to enable vehicle trips to make the east -west movement without impacting the capacity of Route 7 and Senseny Road intersections and corridor. Rezoning #04 -07 Haggerty Property Page 5 June 4, 2007 Issues for consideration. Proposed transportation improvements (RZ#04 -07) The construction of a collector road, the spine road, which would provide direct access from the project to Route 7. This collector road shall be constructed partly within a sixty foot right -of -way parallel to the Route 37 right -of -way, and partly within the planned right -of -way of Route 37 as a rural undivided (R2) cross section. The collector spine road would transition from a R2 cross section to the typical Route 37 cross section upon entering the Route 37 right -of -way. The spine collector road shall be constructed from Route 7 to the southern property line. The construction of all necessary improvements at the intersection of the spine collector road and Route 7 to complete the crossover at this location, including the signalization of this intersection. Provisions for the future construction of an east -west road that will connect to the spine collector road. (The design and location of this east- west major collector road should be addressed in consideration of the issues identified in the following section). The construction of an entrance on the spine collector road for the Opequon Regional Wastewater Facility. The dedication of the right -of -way for Route 37. The construction of a landscape screen on a 20 foot easement adjacent to the Route 37 right -of -way (This should be reevaluated in light of the removal of the spine collector road from the area immediately adjacent to the Route 37 right -of -way. It would be appropriate to provide the road efficiency buffer required by the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that an adequate buffer is provided for the future residents adjacent to Route 37). It is important to reiterate that no evaluation has been provided to demonstrate any attributes that this proposed modification may have on the transportation network in this critical area of the County. This request is lacking the information needed to effectively evaluate the cumulative impacts of the approach proffered by the Applicant. The revised proffer's failure to provide for the east west major collector road is a significant consideration for several reasons. o This east -west connection was located on the original GDP to provide access to the adjacent properties to the north along Eddy's Lane in addition to the property to the west. Existing residences and future developments on existing state roads should be able to access the County's planned road system. Spite strips should be avoided. o In the location proposed by the revised GDP, there is a conflict with future Route 37 at the point the east west major collector road traverses under Route 37. In addition, this location would require a greater amount of disturbance of the critical slopes and environmental areas on the east side of Route 37. Sufficient elevation and radius should be provided to ensure that the necessary improvements and design can be implemented. Rezoning #04 -07 Haggerty Property Page 6 June 4, 2007 o The topography of the property at the point where the east -west connector road crossed under Route 37 on the original GDP would accommodate the construction of the roads without compromising the future construction of Route 37. The elevation differential would appear to provide an easier accommodation for the design of both roads. o Finally, and most significantly, the location depicted on the original GDP would enable the implementation of Comprehensive Plan's Eastern Road Plan which identifies this east -west connection as a major collector road The location of this connection as originally depicted on the original GDP would enable the most desirable alignment of Valley Mill Road. The revised GDP locates the east -west connection in a manner that would only provide for a local residential street connection into the adjacent property. o The applicant contends that the shifting southward of realigned valley mill road meets the original intent of the eastern road plan. This is not the case. This major collector road is to be the through movement over Abrams creek, and while shifting the roadway does not make this impossible, it is significantly detrimental to the purpose of through movement and also moves the roadway from the best location in terms of topography. It is important to recognize the broader transportation needs of this critical area of the County, as illustrated in the Eastern Road Plan, while still accommodating the traffic from individual developments. The alternative, accommodating access to individual developments while not addressing the planned road network, would not advance the County's long range transportation planning efforts. Modification of the spine road from an urban section to a rural section in the area outside of Route 37 may not be appropriate given this property's location in the UDA. It is recognized that if this road is being built for direct integration to future 37 that curb and gutter is not appropriate. However, it should also be recognized that a R2 section will also not be appropriate. The roadway should be designed (horizontal and vertical) as a future highway section with appropriate paved shoulders; the proffers do not guarantee the road will be designed to Route 37 standards There remains no guaranteed connection south from this project to Senseny Road. The proffer justification seems to indicate that moving the spine road within the Route 37 corridor somehow makes the ultimate connection to Senseny Road less dependent upon development of the adjoining property to the south. Presently, there is no active effort on the part of the County, or property owner, to complete the connection from the southern boundary of the Haggerty property to Senseny Road. It is recognized that minimizing the number of crossings of the environmental area along the properties southern boundary would be environmentally and financially beneficial; however, this modification to the north south collector spine road should be thoroughly evaluated. The location of the spine road within the right -of -way for Route 37 creates a conflict with the road layout identified in the Eastern Road Plan which identifies the spine road parallel to Route 37. In the long term, this road was designed to accommodate local trips that were looking to go west and south of the Haggerty project. The elimination of this local connector, and the east west Rezoning #04 -07 Haggerty Property Page 7 June 4, 2007 connector, would force all of the traffic from the development in this particular area to the north and Route 7. Route 7 has a higher functional classification and serves the regional transportation needs of the community. In general, the addition of local traffic onto Route 7 and the County's arterial street system should be avoided and the use of the collector street system promoted. Other changes to the Proffer Statement. Staff's review of the new Proffer Statement has noted that the Applicant has made several relatively minor changes to the Proffer Statement that are not associated with the transportation program. Section 2 (2.2, 2.3) which addresses the phasing of the Certificate of Occupancies for the dwelling units has been modified to extend the phased inclusion of the housing units. Section 10.2 has been modified with the removal of the following statement "if they (HOA) decide to use a commercial collection company This was removed as it is contrary to proffer 10.4 which requires the HOA to provide curb side trash service by a commercial collection company. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 04/18/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: It is Staff's belief that the transportation elements proffered in this application are not consistent with, and do not implement, the County's Eastern Road Plan. Specifically, the east -west major collector road referred to as the relocation of Valley Mill Road is not accommodated in the revised Generalized Development Plan. The application has not demonstrated through a supporting Transportation Impact Analysis that the proposed modifications to the transportation program provide an acceptable transportation solution to meet the needs of the development and address the Comprehensive Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 05/02/07 MEETING: Representatives for the applicant indicated that a two -lane, 750 -foot section of Route 37 will be constructed, using vertical and horizontal alignments, from where the spine road transitions into the Route 37 right -of -way to the end of the property, including the section that crosses the stream. A TIA was not provided because it was their belief that the same connections as the original plan are in place. A profile has been provided to VDOT to show the feasibility of constructing the east -west connector, as proposed by the Eastern Road Plan, 400 feet further south and there is adequate clearance to go under Route 37 at this location. The applicant's representatives said that when they examined the engineering aspects of constructing Valley Mill Road extension, they realized that a shift in the location of the road would avoid topography issues, it would provide a more suitable crossing of Abrams Creek and subsequent environmental protections, and it would provide for a connection to the spine road. The applicant's agents were confident that, from an engineering standpoint, the applicant could both fund and implement the revised transportation plan. The County's Transportation Planner addressed the re- location of the east -west connector. He was concerned about increased costs for connection with existing Valley Mill because it would require angled cut backs; the original location of the east -west connector would have provided better diffusion Rezoning #04 -07 Haggerty Property Page 8 June 4, 2007 of local traffic; and there were property owners willing to dedicate right -of -way along the previously approved location. One person spoke during the public comment portion of the hearing. An attorney representing an adjacent property owner to the north of the east -west connector, with approximately 700 feet of frontage along Eddy's Lane, had concerns about how the proposed revised transportation plan will impact adjoining parcels currently within the review process. She asked the Commission to keep the surrounding property owners and developers in mind during their consideration so that all of the properties carry their fair share of the costs, particularly for improvements to Eddy's Lane. Some members of the Commissioners were not supportive of the revised transportation plan for several reasons. They said it appeared the revised east -west collector would have less capacity because it was shown as a local street rather than a major collector; and, shifting the road 400 feet south would remove the likelihood that properties along Eddy's Lane would use the road Concern was expressed that the local collector street system would be compromised, along with the general transportation in the area. Questions were raised about the proposal's affect on costs for the future construction of Route 37. The overall thought was that the proposal was piecemeal and they suggested the possibility of adjoining tracts coming in together in a coordinated effort. Commission members expressed concern about the cumulative affect of the revised transportation plan, the ability to have inter parcel connectors, and the ability to complete the County's road plan. Other members of the Commission thought the revised transportation plan was fundamentally consistent with the original transportation proposal. They commented positively about the construction of the western section of Route 37, moving the majority of traffic from this site to Route 7; they also noted that the construction of the relocated east -west connector will probably be more economically feasible because it avoids topography issues. They believed the revised proposal ultimately provides the foundation to accommodate the traffic, not only for this development, but on a larger scale. Comments were made that the plan was both efficient and could facilitate the County's transportation planning in this area; however, it would be incumbent on the Commission, the staff, and VDOT to insure that future development proposals fit into the plan to get the County to the next step. By a majority vote, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Rezoning #04 -07 for the Haggerty Property proffer revisions which propose modifications to the transportation program previously approved by the County. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO REC. APPROVAL): NO: Oates ABSTAIN: Manuel Unger, Watt, Morris, Wilmot, Thomas, Kriz, Kerr, Mohn (Note: Commissioners Light and Ours were absent from the meeting; Commissioner Triplett was absent for this item.) Rezoning #04 -07 Haggerty Property Page 9 June 4, 2007 UPDATE FOR 05/23/07 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING: The evaluation of this rezoning request should continue to carefully consider the following items to the Board's satisfaction. The east -west major collector road referred to as the relocation of Valley Mill Road is not accommodated in the revised Generalized Development Plan. Inter parcel connectivity is compromised to adjacent properties and Eddy's Lane. Route 37 topographical conflicts at the point where this road joins the Spine Road. The transportation elements proffered in this application are not consistent with, and do not implement, the County's Eastern Road Plan. The application has not demonstrated through a supporting Transportation Impact Analysis that the,proposed modifications to the transportation program provide an acceptable transportation solution to meet the needs of the development and implement the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF UPDATE FOR 06/13/07 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING: Prior to the Board's 05/23/07 meeting, the Applicant submitted a revised proffer statement dated 05/16/07 which included the following changes; 1) matching the proposed 60 month phasing schedule to the original proffer approved by the Board, 2) Prohibiting direct lot access to Haggerty Boulevard, and 3) ensuring that the portion of the Spine Road within Route 37 would be constructed using the Preliminary Plans for Route 37 prepared by Maguire Associates. Key transportation issues remain a concern. In particular, the preservation of the proper configuration of the Valley Mill extension as originally proposed by this development and endorsed by the county through the Eastern Road Plan. The Valley Mill Road extension and realignment should be fully recognized as a major collector road. The consideration of impacts to Route 7, Route 7 is already backing up to Greenwood Rd from I -81 on a daily basis, and the recognition that the Spine Roads completion to Senseny Road is not expected anytime in the near future due to right of way issues, should continue to be carefully evaluated. As the Board is aware, alternative alignments of the extension of Valley Mill Road are not accommodated on adjacent projects. The importance of the County's collector road network should continue to be recognized in their location, function, and design. As presented, this application does not adequately address the transportation impacts associated with this request, creating additional transportation impacts on adjacent roads and properties. All efforts should continue to be made to promote and implement the Comprehensive Plan and make a safer and more efficient use of Valley Mill Road, in the manner identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Please see the attached correspondence from the owners of Valley Mill Fann which continues to indicate that the ability to realign Valley Mill Road in accordance with the County's Eastern Road Plan is feasible and desirable. This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Planning Commission: 05/02/07 Board of Supervisors: 05/23/07 REZONING APPLICATION #04 -07 HAGGERTY PROPERTY PROFFER REVISION Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: April 18, 2007 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy. AICP, Deputy Planning Director Action Pending Pending PROPOSAL: To revise the proffers associated with Rezoning #14 -05, as they pertain to the transportation improvements previously approved by the County. LOCATION: The properties are located adjacent and east of Eddys Lane (Route 820), approximately three miles east of Winchester and 1,500 feet south of Route 7. The subject site is further located adjacent and south of the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant property and adjacent and west of Opequon Creek, which forms the boundary of Clarke County. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Red Bud PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 55 -A -212 and 55- A -212A PROPERTY ZONING: RP (Residential Performance) with Proffers (RZ14 -04) PRESENT USE: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) South: RA (Rural Area) East: Clarke County West: RA (Rural Area) RP (Residential Performance) Use: Use: Use: Use: Vacant/Wastewater Treatment Plant Vacant/ Agricultural Agricultural Vacant/Agricultural Vacant (Twin Lakes) PROPOSED USES: 300 Single Family Attached and single family detached housing units. Rezoning #04 -07 Haggerty Property Page 2 April 18, 2007 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 7. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT has reviewed the transportation proffers offered in the Haggerty Rezoning Modification Request Application dated December 14, 2006 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. VDOT is satisfied provided the following clarifications are provided in Section 13.2: O The spine road will transition from the R -2 cross section to the Route 37 typical section upon entering the proposed Route 37 Corridor. o It should be clarified that "project boundary" and "property line" are the same in reference to the construction of a spine road. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right -of -way needs, including right -of- way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right -of -way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshall: Plan approval recommended. Department of Inspections: Shall require 100 year flood plain elevation to be established on any future subdivision plan. No additional comments at this time. Department of Public Works: Refer to paragraph 10.2iii: The statement "if they decide..." conflicts with paragraph 10.4 where the HOA is required to provide curbside trash collection. Delete the latter part of paragraph 10.2iii "if they...company Frederick Winchester Service Authority: Our first comment is in reference to Section 11, Water and Sewer. Subparagraph 11.4, regarding the applicant's proffer to install a water main to a point of connection with the Frederick- Winchester Service Authority's Opequon sewer plant property line. Under an agreement approved by the Frederick Winchester Service Authority Board, the water main would be extended and tied into the existing onsite water system which would require an extension well beyond the Opequon's westerly property line. Our other comment is with regard to the applicant's change (downgrading) of the roadway system from urban undivided (U2) to rural undivided (R2). Our concern is that, with the new entrance to the Opequon facility coming off of the new collection road, there will be significant truck traffic entering and leaving the facility. We believe a left turn lane is critical. In closing, so that you are aware of the requirements of the applicant to the Frederick Winchester Service Authority, I have attached prior correspondence outlining those conditions. I will also note that, as of this date (1/3/07), we have not received a formal submittal regarding the entrance to the Opequon facility, although I have met with your firm to discuss options prior to your submittal of this proffer statement. Sanitation Authority Department: We will provide sewer and water service to this site. Rezoning #04 -07 Haggerty Property Page 3 April 18, 2007 Department of Parks Recreation: No comment. Winchester Regional Airport: Neither the location or the elevation of this site requires a 7460 -1 to be filed with the Federal Aviation Administration; however, it does lie within the air space of the Winchester Airport. Due to its proximity to the airport, property owners may experience aircraft fly- over noise from aircraft entering into or departing the flight patter from the North. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is important that improvements to the transportation system in this undeveloped part of Frederick County be completed prior to the issuance of building permits. Transporting large numbers of students in and out of areas with high density housing has become increasingly difficult. The impact of this project on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Planning Zoning: 1) Site History On February 9, 2005, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors approved Rezoning 14 -04 for the Haggerty Property. Specifically, this request was to rezone111.56 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) with proffers which enabled the development of up to 300 single family detached and single family attached housing units. The request also contained significant transportation proffers which supported a revised Eastern Road Plan and relocated Valley Mill Road Due to several transportation issues, PHR &A, on behalf of various property owners including this applicant, approached the County in December 2006 to request consideration of a revision to the Frederick County Eastern Road Plan. The issues the request sought to address included; inconsistencies between the Haggerty Master Development Plan submitted to the County and the Proffers and Generalized Development Plan approved by the County as part of Rezoning #14 04, concerns regarding access to the Carriage Park project identified during the Planning Commission's review of this project, the relocation of Valley Mill Road in a manner consistent with the Eastern Road Plan, access to the properties along Eddy's Lane, and the continued recognition of the need to avoid the one -lane bridge over Abrams Creek. PHR &A provided an initial analysis in support of the request. Jointly, Frederick County and VDOT responded by providing guidance regarding what additional information should be provided to allow for a thorough review of the request by VDOT and the County. Since that time, the County received no additional information regarding the modification to the Eastern Road Plan. It is recognized that the various development applications have chosen not to jointly pursue a revision to the Eastern Road Plan and a comprehensive approach to evaluating the area transportation improvements; rather each property is pursuing changes to the County's planned transportation network through their individual rezoning requests. Rezoning #04 -07 Haggerty Property Page 4 April 18, 2007 2) Request to revise Proffers This is a request to revise the proffers associated with Rezoning #14 -05, as they pertain to the transportation improvements previously approved by the County. The evaluation of this request should carefully consider the relationship between this project and several other projects in the vicinity of this property that are at various stages of review and consideration. Transportation improvements designed to implement the County's long range transportation plan, the Eastern Road Plan, should be of paramount importance. Any modifications to the transportation program should continue to advance the County's long range transportation plan. It is required that rezoning requests provide transportation impact analyses to demonstrate that the transportation impacts of a request are mitigated and the transportation improvements proposed are consistent with the County's long range transportation planning efforts. This current request does not provide a transportation impact analysis. No evaluation has been provided to demonstrate any attributes that this proposed modification may have on the transportation network in this critical area of the County. Approved transportation improvements (RZ#14 -04) The construction of a collector road, the spine road, which would provide direct access from the project to Route 7. This collector road shall be constructed from Route 7 to the southern property line within a sixty foot right -of -way as an urban undivided (U2) cross section with a center turn lane. This is a similar typical section to that of the recently upgraded Aylor Road. The construction of all necessary improvements at the intersection of the spine collector road and Route 7 to complete the crossover at this location, including the signalization of this intersection. Provisions for the future construction of an east -west road that will connect to the spine collector road. The construction of an entrance on the spine collector road for the Opequon Regional Wastewater Facility. The dedication of the right -of -way for Route 37. The construction of a landscape screen on a 20 foot easement adjacent to the Route 37 right -of -way. 2005 Revision to the Eastern Road Plan The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan was revised in 2005 in reflection of the approved road network promoted by the Haggerty project and the need to relocate the critical east west collector road, Valley Mill Road, in a manner which enhanced the road network provided by the Haggerty rezoning. The designation of this east -west major collector road has yet to be recognized by the revised Haggerty rezoning proffer and the various other projects under review in this area. This is a critical connection designed to enable vehicle trips to make the east -west movement without impacting the capacity of Route 7 and Senseny Road intersections and corridor. Rezoning #04 -07 Haggerty Property Page 5 April 18, 2007 Proposed transportation improvements (RZ #04 -07) The construction of a collector road, the spine road, which would provide direct access from the project to Route 7. This collector road shall be constructed partly within a sixty foot right -of -way parallel to the Route 37 right -of- -way, and partly within the planned right -of -way of Route 37 as a rural undivided (R2) cross section. The collector spine road would transition from a R2 cross section to the typical Route 37 cross section upon entering the Route 37 right -of -way. The spine collector road shall be constructed from Route 7 to the southern property line. The construction of all necessary improvements at the intersection of the spine collector road and Route 7 to complete the crossover at this location, including the signalization of this intersection. Provisions for the future construction of an east -west road that will connect to the spine collector road. (The design and location of this east- west major collector road should be addressed in consideration of the issues identified in the following section). The construction of an entrance on the spine collector road for the Opequon Regional Wastewater Facility. The dedication of the right -of -way for Route 37. The construction of a landscape screen on a 20 foot easement adjacent to the Route 37 right -of -way (This should be reevaluated in light of the removal of the spine collector road from the area immediately adjacent to the Route 37 right -of -way. It would be appropriate to provide the road efficiency buffer required by the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that an adequate buffer is provided for the future residents adjacent to Route 37). Issues for consideration. It is important to reiterate that no evaluation has been provided to demonstrate any attributes that this proposed modification may have on the transportation network in this critical area of the County. This request is lacking the information needed to effectively evaluate the cumulative impacts of the approach proffered by the Applicant. The revised proffer's failure to provide for the east west major collector road is a significant consideration for several reasons. o This east -west connection was located on the original GDP to provide access to the adjacent properties to the north along Eddy's Lane in addition to the property to the west. Existing residences and future developments on existing state roads should be able to access the County's planned road system. Spite strips should be avoided. o In the location proposed by the revised GDP, there is a conflict with future Route 37 at the point the east west major collector road traverses under Route 37. In addition, this location would require a greater amount of disturbance of the critical slopes and environmental areas on the east side of Route 37. Sufficient elevation and radius should be provided to ensure that the necessary improvements and design can be implemented. Rezoning #04 -07 Haggerty Property Page 6 April 18, 2007 o The topography of the property at the point where the east -west connector road crossed under Route 37 on the original GDP would accommodate the construction of the roads without compromising the future construction of Route 37. The elevation differential would appear to provide an easier accommodation for the design of both roads. o Finally, and most significantly, the location depicted on the original GDP would enable the implementation of Comprehensive Plan's Eastern Road Plan which identifies this east -west connection as a major collector road. The location of this connection as originally depicted on the original GDP would enable the most desirable alignment of Valley Mill Road. The revised GDP locates the east -west connection in a manner that would only provide for a local residential street connection into the adjacent property. o The applicant contends that the shifting southward of realigned valley mill road meets the original intent of the eastern road plan. This is not the case. This major collector road is to be the through movement over Abrams creek, and while shifting the roadway does not make this impossible, it is significantly detrimental to the purpose of through movement and also moves the roadway from the best location in terms of topography. It is important to recognize the broader transportation needs of this critical area of the County, as illustrated in the Eastern Road Plan, while still accommodating the traffic from individual developments. The alternative, accommodating access to individual developments while not addressing the planned road network, would not advance the County's long range transportation planning efforts. Modification of the spine road from an urban section to a rural section in the area outside of Route 37 may not be appropriate given this property's location in the UDA. It is recognized that if this road is being built for direct integration to future 37 that curb and gutter is not appropriate. However, it should also be recognized that a R2 section will also not be appropriate. The roadway should be designed (horizontal and vertical) as a future highway section with appropriate paved shoulders; the proffers do not guarantee the road will be designed to Route 37 standards. There remains no guaranteed connection south from this project to Senseny Road. The proffer justification seems to indicate that moving the spine road within the Route 37 corridor somehow makes the ultimate connection to Senseny Road less dependent upon development of the adjoining property to the south. Presently, there is no active effort on the part of the County, or property owner, to complete the connection from the southern boundary of the Haggerty property to Senseny Road. It is recognized that minimizing the number of crossings of the environmental area along the properties southern boundary would be environmentally and financially beneficial; however, this modification to the north south collector spine road should be thoroughly evaluated. The location of the spine road within the right -of -way for Route 37 creates a conflict with the road layout identified in the Eastern Road Plan which identifies the spine road parallel to Route 37. In the long term, this road was designed to accommodate local trips that were looking to go west and south of the Haggerty project. The elimination of this local connector, and the east west Rezoning #04 -07 Haggerty Property Page 7 April 18, 2007 connector, would force all of the traffic from the development in this particular area to the north and Route 7. Route 7 has a higher functional classification and serves the regional transportation needs of the community. In general, the addition of local traffic onto Route 7 and the County's arterial street system should be avoided and the use of the collector street system promoted. Other changes to the Proffer Statement. Staff's review of the new Proffer Statement has noted that the Applicant has made several relatively minor changes to the Proffer Statement that are not associated with the transportation program. Section 2 (2.2, 2.3) which addresses the phasing of the Certificate of Occupancies for the dwelling units has been modified to extend the phased inclusion of the housing units. Section 10.2 has been modified with the removal of the following statement "if they (HOA) decide to use a commercial collection company This was removed as it is contrary to proffer 10.4 which requires the HOA to provide curb side trash service by a commercial collection company. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 04/18/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: It is Staffs belief that the transportation elements proffered in this application are not consistent with, and do not implement, the County's Eastern Road Plan. Specifically, the east -west major collector road referred to as the relocation of Valley Mill Road is not accommodated in the revised Generalized Development Plan. The application has not demonstrated through a supporting Transportation Impact Analysis that the proposed modifications to the transportation program provide an acceptable transportation solution to meet the needs of the development and address the Comprehensive Plan. Following the requirement for a public hearing, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning this rezoning application would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Planning Commission: 05/02/07 Board of Supervisors: 05/23/07 North: RA (Rural Areas) South: RA (Rural Area) East: Clarke County West: RA (Rural Area) RP (Residential Performance) Use: Use: Use: Use: REZONING APPLICATION #04 -07 HAGGERTY PROPERTY PROFFER REVISION Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors Prepared: May 16, 2007 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director Action Recommended Approval Pending PROPOSAL: To revise the proffers associated with Rezoning #14 -05, as they pertain to the transportation improvements previously approved by the County. LOCATION: The properties are located adjacent and east of Eddys Lane (Route 820), approximately three miles east of Winchester and 1,500 feet south of Route 7. The subject site is further located adjacent and south of the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant property and adjacent and west of Opequon Creek, which forms the boundary of Clarke County. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Red Bud PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 55 -A -212 and 55- A -212A PROPERTY ZONING: RP (Residential Performance) with Proffers (RZ14 -04) PRESENT USE: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING PRESENT USE: Vacant/Wastewater Treatment Plant Vacant/ Agricultural Agricultural Vacant/Agricultural Vacant (Twin Lakes) PROPOSED USES: 300 Single Family Attached and single family detached housing units. Rezoning #04 -07 Haggerty Property Page 2 May 16, 2007 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 7. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT has reviewed the transportation proffers offered in the Haggerty Rezoning Modification Request Application dated December 14, 2006 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. VDOT is satisfied provided the following clarifications are provided in Section 13.2: The spine road will transition from the R -2 cross section to the Route 37 typical section upon entering the proposed Route 37 Corridor. It should be clarified that "project boundary' and "property line" are the same in reference to the construction of a spine road. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the 1.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review, VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right -of -way needs, including right-of- way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right -of -way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshall: Plan approval recommended. Department of Inspections: Shall require 100 year flood plain elevation to be established on any future subdivision plan. No additional comments at this time. Department of Public Works: Refer to paragraph 10.2iii: The statement "if they decide..." conflicts with paragraph 10.4 where the 1 -IOA is required to provide curbside trash collection. Delete the latter part of paragraph 10.2iii "if they...company Frederick Winchester Service Authority: Our first comment is in reference to Section 11, Water and Sewer, Subparagraph 11.4, regarding the applicant's proffer to install a water main to a point of connection with the Frederick- Winchester Service Authority's Opequon sewer plant property line. Under an agreement approved by the Frederick Winchester Service Authority Board, the water main would be extended and tied into the existing onsite water system which would require an extension well beyond the Opequon's westerly property line. Our other comment is with regard to the applicant's change (downgrading) of the roadway system from urban undivided (U2) to rural undivided (R2). Our concern is that, with the new entrance to the Opequon facility coming offofthe new collection road, there will be significant truck traffic entering and leaving the facility. We believe a left turn lane is critical. In closing, so that you are aware of the requirements of the applicant to the Frederick- Winchester Service Authority, T have attached prior correspondence outlining those conditions. I will also note that, as of this date (1/3/07), we have not received a formal submittal regarding the entrance to the Opequon facility, although 1 have met with your firm to discuss options prior to your submittal of this proffer statement. Sanitation Authority Department: We will provide sewer and water service to this site. Rezoning #04 -07 Haggerty Property Page 3 May 16, 2007 Department of Parks Recreation: No comment. Winchester Regional Airport: Neither the location or the elevation of this site requires a 7460 -1 to be filed with the Federal Aviation Administration; however, it does lie within the air space of the Winchester Airport. Due to its proximity to the airport, property owners may experience aircraft fly- over noise from aircraft entering into or departing the flight patter from the North. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is important that improvements to the transportation system in this undeveloped part of Frederick County be completed prior to the issuance of building permits. Transporting large numbers of students in and out of areas with high density housing has become increasingly difficult. The impact of this project on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Planning Zoning: 1) Site History On February 9, 2005, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors approved Rezoning #14 -04 for the Haggerty Property. Specifically, this request was to rezone] 11.56 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) with proffers which enabled the development of up to 300 single family detached and single family attached housing units. The request also contained significant transportation proffers which supported a revised Eastern Road Plan and relocated Valley Mill Road. Due to several transportation issues, PHR &A, on behalf of various property owners including this applicant, approached the County in December 2006 to request consideration of a revision to the Frederick County Eastern Road Plan. The issues the request sought to address included; inconsistencies between the Haggerty Master Development Plan submitted to the County and the Proffers and Generalized Development Plan approved by the County as part of Rezoning #14 -04, concerns regarding access to the Carriage Park project identified during the Planning Commission's review of this project, the relocation of Valley Mill Road in a manner consistent with the Eastern Road Plan, access to the properties along Eddy's Lane, and the continued recognition of the need to avoid the one -lane bridge over Abrams Creek. PHR &A provided an initial analysis in support of the request. Jointly, Frederick County and VDOT responded by providing guidance regarding what additional information should be provided to allow for a thorough review of the request by VDOT and the County. Since that time, the County received no additional information regarding the modification to the Eastern Road Plan. It is recognized that the various development applications have chosen not to jointly pursue a revision to the Eastern Road Plan and a comprehensive approach to evaluating the area transportation improvements; rather each property is pursuing changes to the County's planned transportation network through their individual rezoning requests. Rezoning #04 -07 Haggerty Property Page 4 May 16, 2007 2) Request to revise Proffers This is a request to revise the proffers associated with Rezoning #14 -05, as they pertain to the transportation improvements previously approved by the County. The evaluation of this request should carefully consider the relationship between this project and several other projects in the vicinity of this property that are at various stages of review and consideration. Transportation improvements designed to implement the County's long range transportation plan, the Eastern Road Plan. should be of paramount importance. Any modifications to the transportation program should continue to advance the County's long range transportation plan. It is required that rezoning requests provide transportation impact analyses to demonstrate that the transportation impacts of a request are mitigated and the transportation improvements proposed are consistent with the County's long range transportation planning efforts. This current request does not provide a transportation impact analysis. No evaluation has been provided to demonstrate any attributes that this proposed modification may have on the transportation network in this critical area of the County. Approved transportation improvements (RZ #14 -04) The construction of a collector road, the spine road, which would provide direct access from the project to Route 7. This collector road shall be constructed from Route 7 to the southern property line within a sixty foot right -of -way as an urban undivided (U2) cross section with a center turn lane. This is a similar typical section to that of the recently upgraded Aylor Road The construction of all necessary improvements at the intersection ofthe spine collector road and Route 7 to complete the crossover at this location, including the signalization of this intersection. Provisions for the future construction of an east -west road that will connect to the spine collector road. The construction of an entrance on the spine collector road for the Opequon Regional Wastewater Facility. The dedication of the right -of -way for Route 37. The construction of a landscape screen on a 20 foot easement adjacent to the Route 37 right -of -way. 2005 Revision to the Eastern Road Plan The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan was revised in 2005 in reflection ofthe approved road network promoted by the Haggerty project and the need to relocate the critical east west collector road, Valley Mill Road, in a manner which enhanced the road network provided by the Haggerty rezoning. The designation of this east -west major collector road has yet to be recognized by the revised Haggerty rezoning proffer and the various other projects under review in this area. This is a critical connection designed to enable vehicle trips to make the east -west movement without impacting the capacity of Route 7 and Senseny Road intersections and corridor. Rezoning #04 -07 Haggerty Property Page 5 May 16, 2007 Proposed transportation improvements (RZ #04 -07) The construction of a collector road, the spine road, which would provide direct access from the project to Route 7. This collector road shall be constructed partly within a sixty foot right -of -way parallel to the Route 37 right -of -way, and partly within the planned right -of -way of Route 37 as a rural undivided (R2) cross section. The collector spine road would transition from a R2 cross section to the typical Route 37 cross section upon entering the Route 37 right -of -way. The spine collector road shall be constructed from Route 7 to the southern property line. The construction of all necessary improvements at the intersection ofthe spine collector road and Route 7 to complete the crossover at this location, including the signalization of this intersection. Provisions for the future construction of an east -west road that will connect to the spine collector road. (The design and location of this east- west major collector road should be addressed in consideration of the issues identified in the following section). The construction of an entrance on the spine collector road for the Opequon Regional Wastewater Facility. The dedication of the right -of -way for Route 37. The construction of a landscape screen on a 20 foot easement adjacent to the Route 37 right -of -way (This should be reevaluated in light ofthe removal ofthe spine collector road from the area immediately adjacent to the Route 37 right -of -way. It would be appropriate to provide the road efficiency buffer required by the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that an adequate buffer is provided for the future residents adjacent to Route 37). Issues for consideration. It is important to reiterate that no evaluation has been provided to demonstrate any attributes that this proposed modification may have on the transportation network in this critical area of the County. This request is lacking the information needed to effectively evaluate the cumulative impacts of the approach proffered by the Applicant. The revised proffer's failure to provide for the east west major collector road is a significant consideration for several reasons. o This east -west connection was located on the original GDP to provide access to the adjacent properties to the north along Eddy's Lane in addition to the property to the west. Existing residences and future developments on existing state roads should be able to access the County's planned road system. Spite strips should be avoided. o In the location proposed by the revised GDP, there is a conflict with future Route 37 at the point the east west major collector road traverses under Route 37. In addition, this location would require a greater amount of disturbance of the critical slopes and environmental areas on the east side of Route 37. Sufficient elevation and radius should be provided to ensure that the necessary improvements and design can be implemented. Rezoning #04 -07 Haggerty Property Page 6 May 16, 2007 c The topography of the property at the point where the east -west connector road crossed under Route 37 on the original GDP would accommodate the construction of the roads without compromising the future construction of Route 37. The elevation differential would appear to provide an easier accommodation for the design of both roads. o Finally, and most significantly, the location depicted on the original GDP would enable the implementation of Comprehensive Plan's Eastern Road Plan which identifies this east -west connection as a major collector road. The location of this connection as originally depicted on the original GDP would enable the most desirable alignment of Valley Mill Road. The revised GDP locates the east -west connection in a manner that would only provide for a local residential street connection into the adjacent property. o The applicant contends that the shifting southward of realigned valley mill road meets the original intent of the eastern road plan. This is not the case. This major collector road is to be the through movement over Abrams creek, and while shifting the roadway does not make this impossible, it is significantly detrimental to the purpose of through movement and also moves the roadway from the best location in terms of topography. It is important to recognize the broader transportation needs of this critical area of the County, as illustrated in the Eastern Road Plan, while still accommodating the traffic from individual developments. The alternative, accommodating access to individual developments while not addressing the planned road network, would not advance the County's long range transportation planning efforts. Modification of the spine road from an urban section to a rural section in the area outside of Route 37 may not be appropriate given this property's location in the UDA. It is recognized that if this road is being built for direct integration to future 37 that curb and gutter is not appropriate. However, it should also be recognized that a R2 section will also not be appropriate. The roadway should be designed (horizontal and vertical) as a future highway section with appropriate paved shoulders; the proffers do not guarantee the road will be designed to Route 37 standards. There remains no guaranteed connection south from this project to Senseny Road. The proffer justification seems to indicate that moving the spine road within the Route 37 corridor somehow makes the ultimate connection to Senseny Road less dependent upon development of the adjoining property to the south. Presently, there is no active effort on the part of the County, or property owner, to complete the connection from the southern boundary of the Haggerty property to Senseny Road. It is recognized that minimizing the number of crossings of the environmental area along the properties southern boundary would be environmentally and financially beneficial; however, this modification to the north south collector spine road should be thoroughly evaluated. The location of the spine road within the right -of -way for Route 37 creates a conflict with the road layout identified in the Eastern Road Plan which identifies the spine road parallel to Route 37. In the long term, this road was designed to accommodate local trips that were looking to go west and south of the Haggerty project. The elimination of this local connector, and the east west Rezoning #04 -07 Haggerty Property Page 7 May 16, 2007 connector, would force all of the traffic from the development in this particular area to the north and Route 7. Route 7 has a higher functional classification and serves the regional transportation needs of the community. In general, the addition of local traffic onto Route 7 and the County's arterial street system should be avoided and the use of the collector street system promoted. Other changes to the Proffer Statement. Staffs review of the new Proffer Statement has noted that the Applicant has made several relatively minor changes to the Proffer Statement that are not associated with the transportation program. Section 2 (2.2, 2.3) which addresses the phasing of the Certificate of Occupancies for the dwelling units has been modified to extend the phased inclusion of the housing units. Section 10.2 has been modified with the removal of the following statement "if they (HOA) decide to use a commercial collection company This was removed as it is contrary to proffer 10.4 which requires the HOA to provide curb side trash service by a commercial collection company. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 04/18/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: It is Staffs belief that the transportation elements proffered in this application are not consistent with, and do not implement, the County's Eastern Road Plan. Specifically, the east -west major collector road referred to as the relocation of Valley Mill Road is not accommodated in the revised Generalized Development Plan. The application has not demonstrated through a supporting Transportation Impact Analysis that the proposed modifications to the transportation program provide an acceptable transportation solution to meet the needs of the development and address the Comprehensive Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 05/02/07 MEETING: Representatives for the applicant indicated that a two -lane, 750 -foot section of Route 37 will be constructed, using vertical and horizontal alignments, from where the spine road transitions into the Route 37 right -of -way to the end of the property, including the section that crosses the stream. A TIA was not provided because it was their belief that the same connections as the original plan are in place. A profile has been provided to VDOT to show the feasibility of constructing the east -west connector, as proposed by the Eastern Road Plan, 400 feet further south and there is adequate clearance to go under Route 37 at this location. The applicant's representatives said that when they examined the engineering aspects of constructing Valley Mill Road extension, they realized that a shift in the location of the road would avoid topography issues, it would provide a more suitable crossing of Abrams Creek and subsequent environmental protections, and it would provide for a connection to the spine road. The applicant's agents were confident that. from an engineering standpoint, the applicant could both fund and implement the revised transportation plan. The County's Transportation Planner addressed the re- location of the east -west connector. He was concerned about increased costs for connection with existing Valley Mill because it would require angled cut backs; the original location of the east -west connector would have provided better diffusion Rezoning #04 -07 Haggerty Property Page 8 May 16, 2007 of local traffic; and there were property owners willing to dedicate right -of -way along the previously approved location. One person spoke during the public comment portion of the hearing. An attorney representing an adjacent property owner to the north of the east -west connector, with approximately 700 feet of frontage along Eddy's Lane, had concerns about how the proposed revised transportation plan will impact adjoining parcels currently within the review process. She asked the Commission to keep the surrounding property owners and developers in mind during their consideration so that all of the properties carry their fair share of the costs, particularly for improvements to Eddy's Lane. Some members of the Commissioners were not supportive of the revised transportation plan for several reasons. They said it appeared the revised east -west collector would have less capacity because it was shown as a local street rather than a major collector; and, shifting the road 400 feet south would remove the likelihood that properties along Eddy's Lane would use the road. Concern was expressed that the local collector street system would be compromised, along with the general transportation in the area. Questions were raised about the proposal's affect on costs for the future construction of Route 37. The overall thought was that the proposal was piecemeal and they suggested the possibility of adjoining tracts coming in together in a coordinated effort. Commission members expressed concern about the cumulative affect of the revised transportation plan, the ability to have inter parcel connectors, and the ability to complete the County's road plan. Other members of the Commission thought the revised transportation plan was fundamentally consistent with the original transportation proposal. They commented positively about the construction of the western section of Route 37, moving the majority of traffic from this site to Route 7; they also noted that the construction of the relocated east -west connector will probably be more economically feasible because it avoids topography issues. They believed the revised proposal ultimately provides the foundation to accommodate the traffic. not only for this development, but on a larger scale. Comments were made that the plan was both efficient and could facilitate the County's transportation planning in this area; however, it would be incumbent on the Commission, the staff, and VDOT to insure that future development proposals fit into the plan to get the County to the next step. By a majority vote, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Rezoning #04 -07 for the Haggerty Property proffer revisions which propose modifications to the transportation program previously approved by the County. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO REC. APPROVAL): NO: Oates ABSTAIN: Manuel Unger, Watt, Morris, Wilmot, Thomas, Kriz, Kerr, Mohn (Note: Commissioners Light and Ours were absent from the meeting; Commissioner Triplett was absent for this item.) Rezoning #04 -07 Haggerty Property Page 9 May 16, 2007 UPDATE FOR 05/23/07 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING: The evaluation of this rezoning request should continue to carefully consider the following items to the Board's satisfaction. The east -west major collector road referred to as the relocation of Valley Mill Road is not accommodated in the revised Generalized Development Plan. Inter parcel connectivity is compromised to adjacent properties and Eddy's Lane. Route 37 topographical conflicts at the point where this road joins the Spine Road. The transportation elements proffered in this application are not consistent with, and do not implement, the County's Eastern Road Plan. The application has not demonstrated through a supporting Transportation Impact Analysis that the proposed modifications to the transportation program provide an acceptable transportation solution to meet the needs of the development and implement the Comprehensive Plan.