Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-07 CommentsMike Ruddy From: Funkhouser, Rhonda [ Rhonda .Funkhouser @VDOT.Virginia.gov] on behalf of Ingram, Lloyd [Lloyd.I ngram@VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 9:20 AM To: Patrick R. Sowers Cc: Eric Lawrence; Ingram, Lloyd Subject: The Village at Opequon The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable impact on Routes 820 and 7. These routes are the VDOT roadways which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is not satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in The Village at Opequon Rezoning Application dated April, 2007 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Specifically: * Five of the six transportation proffers reference the closing of Eddy's Lane, Route 820. In Transportation Proffer #12.3, you stipulate the applicant will retain ownership and control of the "reservation parcel ". The "reservation parcel" is the access for residents on Route 82.0 to access Route 7 via Haggerty Boulevard. All of this is based on Route 820 being terminated at Route 659 /Route 7. Currently I am unaware of any precedence where VDOT would terminate access from an existing State riche -of -way, therefore, requiring affected property owners to cross your private roadway. * Proffer #12.1 in itself will not adequately offset the traffic impacts on the existing roadway that this development would generate. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right -of -way needs, including right -of -way dedications, traffic signalization, and off - site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right -of -way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. Lloyd A. Ingram, Transportation Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation Edinburg Residency - Land Development 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 Phone #(540) 984 -5611 Fax #(540) 984 -5607 1 Eric Lawrence From: Rod Williams Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 12:43 PM To: Eric Lawrence Subject: FW: Opequon Crossing Attachments: Opequon Crossing GDP 091509.pdf Eric, I do not see any legal problem with land subject to a rezoning to RP and subject to proffers being noncontiguous. Nothing in our zoning ordinance indicates a contiguity requirement and, to the contrary, the number of other references therein to contiguity requirements implies there is no such requirement for a rezoning to RP (compare, for example, the contiguity requirements for R4, R5, OM, and MS). Along the same, but somewhat different, lines, 165 -133 (sorry, don't have the new number in front of me) seems to contemplate common ownership of identically zoned noncontiguous parcels. I'll let Patrick know of my concurrence unless you have other thoughts. 001 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Patrick R. Sowers [ mailto:Patrick.Sowers @phra.com] Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:28 AM To: Rod Williams Subject: FW: Opequon Crossing Rod, I wasn't sure if the attached PDF came to you from the e -mail Sheriff Williamson forwarded on. Thanks, Patrick Patrick R. Sowers, AICP Planner Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 P 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 www.phra.com - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Patrick R. Sowers Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:02 AM To: 'rwilliam @co.frederick.va.us' Subject: Opequon Crossing Rod, As a follow up to my voicemail earlier. Here's the PDF of the propsed Opequon Crossing GDP. We would like to proffer a portion of the adjoining property (known previously as the 1 Haggerty property)'for a paRr site. So long as the rezoning 0 binding on all the affected acreage...is it an issue that the two tracts are not contiguous? I did talk to Eric Lawrence a few minutes and we both agreed that so long as the rezoning is binding to all of the property then it should not be an issue. Thanks, Patrick Patrick R. Sowers, AICP Planner Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 P 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 www.phra.com < htto: / /www.phra.com / 2 0 COUNTY of FREDERICK March 26, 2009 VIA FACSMILE (540- 665 -0493) AND FIRST -CLASS MAIL Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust & Associates Winchester, VA 22601 Roderick B. Williams County Attorney 540/722 -8383 Fax 540/667 -0370 E -mai I: rwillia @co.frederick.va.us Re: Opequon Crossing — Proposed Rezoning — Proffer Statement dated February 23, 2009 Dear Patrick: You have submitted to Frederick County for review a proposed proffer statement • dated February 23, 2009 (the "Proffer Statement ") for the proposed rezoning,of 70.15± acres constituting the Opequon Crossing property (the "Property "), Parcel Identification Number 55 -A -210, in the Red Bud District, from the "RA (Rural Areas) District to the RP (Residential Performance) District. I have now reviewed the Proffer Statement and it is my opinion that the Proffer Statement would be in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of.Virginia, and would be legally sufficient as a proffer statement, subject to the following comments: 1. The application, item 10, erroneously states that the rezoning is from RA to B2. It would appear that you will want to correct this before submission of any final revised form of the application. Also, of course, any revised form of the applicaiion and the power of attorney will need to be signed: 2. Proffers 2.1 & 2.2 — Staff will want to be aware that the proposed phasing limits are cumulative and therefore will only limit the maximum rate of development of the Property for the first three years after the rezoning. Thereafter, in theory, nothing would prevent development of the entire Property within a much shorter timeframe to the extent that development is not completed within the first three years. 3. Proffer 3.1 — In order to avoid any potential ambiguity, the Proffer might identify the number of relevant dwelling units for which the recreation building is intended to meet the recreation unit requirement. Also, the Proffer should state • that the recreation building shall be constructed prior to the issuance 6f the indicated cumulative number of building permits or before the time required by 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 Mr. Patrick Sowers March 26, 2009 Page 2 E • County Code § 165 -64, if sooner. Finally, the Proffer might provide more clarity by describing the size and scale of the recreation building. 4. Proffer 3.6 — The Proffer does not provide any real specificity as to the particulars of the trail system and therefore, among other things, makes it difficult to ascertain exactly how extensive the trail system will be. Also, while the language in the second introductory paragraph of the Proffers explains that improvements will be provided at the time of development of the adjacent portion of the Property, the lack of specificity as to the trail system likewise makes it difficult to ascertain what portions of the trail system will be in place at what times. 5. Proffer 7.2 — In lines 1 and 2, "an HOA" might better read as "the HOA ". 6. Proffer 7.3 — The Proffers, read as a whole, do not provide indication as to when the Applicant will make the initial lump sum payment. Also, the Proffer might clarify whether the $100.00 per lot payment is due only in connection with the initial purchase of each lot or is also due upon each subsequent resale of a lot. 7. Proffers 9.1 -9.4 — These Proffers involve land use activities on other properties. Staff will want to review these Proffers with respect to other • developments in the area. Also, it would appear that Proffer 9.4 cannot be satisfied without at least some of the improvements in Proffers 9.2 & 9.3 being completed. Staff may wish to look closely at the interplay among Proffers 9.2- 9.4, including whether any modifications to Proffers 9.2 & 9.3 would be appropriate. J 8. Proffer 9.3 — If the Applicant intends to dedicate the right -of -way for the portions of Eddys Lane traversing the Property, the Proffer should so provide. 9. Proffer 9.4 — It appears from the GDP that a small segment of the "Haggerty Connection" will exist to the east of the extended Eddys Lane. If the Applican intends to dedicate right -of -. ay fUr this �egnivin, th:: Pro Should s0 provide. 10. Proffer 10.1 — Staff will want to be aware that the Proffer calls only for the ultimate identification of historic resources and does not address any means for the actual protection of any historic resources once they are identified. 11. Proffer 10.2 — Staff will want to determine whether the phrase "within the vicinity of the northern property boundary" requires any greater specificity. 12. Proffer 11.1 — In the second line, after the closed parenthesis and before "shall ", it appears that "and such portion so dedicated" should be inserted. Mr. Patrick Sowers March 26, 2009 Page 3 • I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for this specific development, as my understanding is that that review will be done by staff and the Planning Commission. Sincerely, Roderick B. Will County Attorney cc: Michael Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Director of Planning and Dcvelopment- • 0 0 COUNTY of FREDERICK • Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540/665 -6395 FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director — e RE: Initial Comments – Opequon Crossing Rezoning DATE: March 12, 2009 The following points are offered regarding the Opequon Crossing Rezoning Application. This is a request to rezone 70.15 acres from RA to RP with Proffers, allowing a maximum of 325 dwelling units including up to 170 single family attached dwelling units. Please consider the comments as you- continue your work preparing the application for submission to Frederick County. Please ensure that these comments and all review agency comments, including the HRAB, are adequately addressed. General. The application should be corrected to reflect the proposed zoning on the property. Land Use. The ropeii" is located it, tiie V DA and 1A ;7Q A and the property is in an area thm is p r pr p. -f planned for residential development. The request is in general conformance with the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan which identifies locations of future land uses. Transportation. Primary access should be consistent with and further the approved Frederick County Eastern Road Plan. This rezoning application should reflect the comprehensively planned road network and the adjacent projects' implementation of this road network. • The County's Eastern Road Plan in the vicinity of this project identifies the relocation of Valley Mill Road as a major collector road (U4D). 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 . TO: Patrick Sowers, AICP 0 • Opequon Crossing — Rezoning Comments March 12, 2009 Page 2 The project narrative discussing site access makes no mention of using or advancing the long range transportation improvement to Valley Mill Road which is planned to traverse this property, a very important connection. The emphasis should be on implementing the Valley Mill Road connection. Consideration of the completion of this comprehensively planned collector road system in the vicinity of the project should 'be a greater consideration. Without such a connection, all development related traffic, including school traffic, would be forced to use Route 7 to access locations east of this project. This application should avoid placing traffic on Eddy's Lane. Traffic may ultimately use the unimproved Eddy's lane. existing Valley Mil: Drive connection with Route 7, and the one lane bridge. Any right -of -way dedication should accommodate the right -of -way for its ultimate construction, and any necessary grading and other easements should be provided for. This project is located within the Urban Development Area and all roads should be built with an urban typical section. Construction of the four lane section is warranted. An alternative approach may be to provide a two lane connection of the ultimate section from point A to existing Valley Mill Road. Any section of Valley Mill Road on the property should be in place with the initial phase of construction. It is suggested that section A to B is constructed initially and section B to existing Valley Mill Road in place by the issuance of the 150` building permit. The timing of any development of this site should reflect the timing of the improvements provided for with the original Haggerty rezoning. This should be addressed in the proffer statement. All roads in the Haggerty project should be accepted into the State System before any building permits are issued for construction in this project. Other recent rezoning projects have contributed additional funding for Itransportation improvements in the general area of their requests. This has been done in recognition of the need to address the broader transportation improvements in the developing areas of the County in addition to the specific impiovei ?tents they may be proposing. Such an approach should be considered with this request relative with the scale of this request. Previously, the application had proposed a $3,000 per single family attached dwelling and $5,000 per single family detached dwelling monetary contribution that was to be utilized for road improvements to alleviate transportation problems in the general vicinity of the property. At that time, the Applicant's transportation program was considered insufficient in addressing the transportation impacts of the project and furthering the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 0 • Opequon Crossing — Rezoning Comments March 12, 2009 Page 3 The monetary transportation proffer has been significantly reduced from that proposed with the original submission of this request ($1,000 per single family attached dwelling and $2,000 per single family detached dwelling). At the same time, no additional transportation improvements have been proposed. Rather, the improvements appear to have been minimized. Staff would maintain that the Applicant's transportation program is insufficient in addressing the transportation impacts of the project and furthering the transportation goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Inter parcel connectivity should be provided with this application. Particular recognition must be provided for the adjacent properties with approved master planned roads that connect to this property. Please identify any opportunities for such connections to the south west and west of this site including additional connectivity to the Twin Lakes project. Bike and pedestrian accommodations should be a consideration with this request and key . connections should be identified with the rezoning and GDP rather than later at the MDP stage. The following additional transportation TIA- related comments are provided by Mr. Bishop, Frederick County Transportation Planner. .Aside from a right -of -way dedication, this proposal does not address the Eastern Road Plan connection to Valley Mill Drive. It is important to recognize that the Eastern Road Plan needs to be implemented in this area in order to create a sustainable transportation network. Accessing Route 7 as the only means for residents of this development to reach goods and services degrades the function of Route 7 as an Arterial highway. The proffer of $1,000 per multi family unit and $2,000 per single family unit is well below the standards which have previously been followed for offsetting transportation impacts in Frederick County. While I recognize and empathize with the challenges of today's market, those challenges do not lessen the impact of new residential development on Frederick County roadways. The results of the TIA's study of the intersection with Route 7 do not alleviate my concerns about the impacts to Route 7 as it approaches 1 -81. Due to the distances involved, it was deemed excessive to have this development scope their traffic • impacts that far. However, it is clear from what is being proposed that that congested area is where the residents of this development will need to go for 0 Opequon Crossing — Rezoning Comments March 12, 2009 Page 4 0 goods and services, thus adding to a traffic situation that is already unacceptable. Please consider this issue when reviewing the points above. Proffer Statement. The Generalized Development Plan could be utilized to a greater extent to better describe the project and to address the various considerations that may be forthcoming from the review agencies, including those identified in this memorandum. The recreational building identified in the proffer statement should be defined in terms of size, use, and resources associated with it and its construction should be further guaranteed with the first phase of development. Other. It would be appropriate for the application to more thoroughly address the preservation of the existing tree lines and wooded areas, the integrity of the pond, and the other • environmental open spaces, as a greater consideration of this application and as part of the proffer statement. Such features could be promoted as features on the GDP. At a minimum, the area in wetlands, lakes, and ponds should be determined at this time. Incorporating the existing pond low impact site development techniques into the design of the project should also be addressed. The Adams House may also be a feature that could be incorporated into the design of the project; architecturally or as part of the open space and recreation facility. Once again, please ensure that all review agency comments are adequately addressed MTR/bad • , r Paffon Harr0Rust & Associates • Engineers. Surveyors Planners.lanesm pe Archlecls. I �! SEP 2 5 2009 I L 25 September 2009 w- Mr. Michael Ruddy Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 N Kent St, Suite 202 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Opequon Crossing Rezoning Application; Response to Comments P PA Dear Mike, To accompany the application submission for the Opequon Crossing rezoning, I have C °R`ORAtE provided below a response to all comments made by review agencies. Our responses Ch C ° y are as follows: VIRGINIA OFFICES. ehanrrue pJQnni�egandDez�loime�rt Ruddy, AICP) Charlotlsville Fred enc'aburg Harrisonburg General L.eebu,g 1. The application should be corrected to reflect the proposed tioning on the propery. Newport News NoIfart Application has been revised accordingly. VV, n.hesre, Woo dbrld9. La/id Use LAeORArORIES. 1. The property is located in the UDA and SfFSA and the property is in an area that is planned Cnantdly for residential development. The request is in general conformance with the Eastern Frederick Fred. rlcksbut County Long Range Land Use Plan which identifies locations offuture land uses. MARYLAND OFFICES'. BaIYlmorA, Acknowledged. CalumbA, Fredarlck Tran.4ortalion GermanI 1. Primary access should be consistent with and further the approved Frederick County Eastern Hollywood Road Plan. This re.Zoning application should reflect the comtrehensivey planned mad network Hunt valley wllrl amspoo and the adjacent projects' implementation of this road network. The County's Easter Road Plan in the vicinity of thin project idenl.yies the location of Vary Mill Road as a major collector PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE road (U4D). A len own T 540.667.21 39 The portion of Valley Mill Road relocated that is proposed for construction by the F 540.665 0493 Applicant is proffered to be designed as a U4D roadway. The alignment of the 1 17 `°' P "` ° °'ii s rr..t relocated Valley Mill Road and right of way reservation area is in accordance with Suite 200 the Frederick County Eastern Road Plan. Wlnchesier, VA 22601 2. '] 'be project narrative discussing site access maker no mention of using or advan ng the long range transportation improvement to Valley Will Road which is planned collector road system in the vicinity of the project should be a greater consideration. Without such a connection, all development related traffic, including school trafft, would be forced to use Route 7 to access locations east o f tbis project. This application should avoid placing traffic on Eddy's Lane. Tra#ic may ultimately use the unimproved Eddy's Lane, existing Valley Mill Drive connection with Route 7, and the one lane bridge. The applicant has proffered to construct relocated Valley M ll Road within the Property limits to the extent possible without offsite grading easements. The PH 7� n remaining portion of relocated Valley Mill Road is accommodated on the Property P l with a right of way reservation. As such, the Applicant has incorporated the Eastern Road Plan to the extent possible within the Property boundaries. To reach existing Valley Mill Road would require going through an adjacent property that is not owned by the Applicant. The Eddys lane connection is seen as a secondary access point as the main traffic movement of the Haggerty Spine Road /Route 7. Assuming all traffic uses the Route 7 access point, the intersection will still function with an overall LOS B. 3. Arry right-of- -way dedication should accommodate the right -of- -way for its ultimate construction, and any necessary grading and other easements should be provided for. This project is located within the Urban Development Area and all roads should be built with an urban typical section. Construction of the four lane section is warranted. An alternative approach may be to provide a Iwo lane connection of the ultimate section from point A to existing Valley Mill Road. Any section of Valley Mill Road on the property should be in place with the initial phase of onstrwction. It it suggested that section A to B is constructed initially and section B to existing Valley Mill Road in place by the issuance of the 150 building permit. The revised proffer provides for construction of two lanes of a U41) roadway from Point A to Point B prior to issuance of the 100` building permit (which is at just 30% buildout). It is important to note again that the Applicant only owns to Point C and thus is implementing the long range transportation plan to the extent possible within the Property boundary. 4. The timing of any development of this site should reflect the timing of the improvements provided or with the Haggerty rezoning. This should be addressed in the proffer statement. All roads in the Haggerty project should be accepted into the State System before any building permits are issued for construction in ibis project. The Applicant has proffered that the project must have access via the Haggerty Transportation network and that the Haggerty "Spine" Road must be completed per the Haggerty Proffers before issuance of the first building permit. This allows for a logical progression of development and ensures the key components of the Haggerty Rezoning are in place before development begins on Opequon Crossing. t • • 3. Other recent mZoning projects have contributed additional funding for transportation Improvements in thegeneral area of their requests. This has been done in recognition of the need to address the broader transportation improvements in the developing areas of the County in addition to the specific improvements they may be proposing. Such an approach should be considered with this request relative with the scale of this request. The proposed proffer statement has provided for a monetary contribution in the amount of $2,000 per detached dwelling unit and $1,000 per attached dwelling unit. This would total $480,000 at project build out and would be provided to address transportation improvements for Frederick County. P uR+A 6. Previously, the application had proposed $3,000 per single family attached dwelling and 55,000 1 1 per single family detached dwelling monetary contribution that was to be utibf�cd for road improvements to alleviate transportation problems in the general vicinity of the properly. At that time, the Applicant; transportation program was considered insufficient in addressing the transportation impacts of the prmecl and furthering the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The monetary transportation proffer has been .signqicantly reduced from that proposed with the original submission of this request (51,000 per single family attached dwelling and .,$'2,000 per single family detached dwelling). At the same lime, no additional transportation improvements have been proposed Bather, the improvements appear to have been minimised. As the traffic study indicates that a Level of Service B is achieved at the intersection of Route 7 and the Haggerty "Spine" Road, it would appear that the Application is within the Level of Service threshold advised by the Comprehensive Plan. The monetary contribution proffered is the Applicant's attempt to aid the County in addressing other transportation concerns for broader transportation improvements. 7. Staff would maintain that the Applicant's tranportation is insufficient in addressing the transportation impacts of the project and furthering the transportation goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Again, the primary entrance to the site which is located at the intersection of a Major Collector and Arterial Roadway will operate within the Level of Service recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan. With an additional cash proffer provided in addition, we feel the Applicant has adequately addressed any transportation impacts resulting from the rezoning. 0 0 S. Inter parcel connectivity should be provided with this application. Particular recognition must be provided for the adjacent properties with approved master planned roads that connect to ibis property. Please identib any opportunities far such connections to the south west and west of this site including additional connectivity to the Twin Lakes project. The proffer statement accommodates the planned interparcel connector at Eddys Lane shown as part of the approved Twin Lakes Master Plan. Additionally, the Applicant has provided for a reserve area to provide for an interparcel connection to the adjacent Fieldstone Property to the west of the site. The Fieldstone Development has approved design plans that include no interparcel connections PH /� so the use of this connection would be at the discretion of the Fieldstone n R \ Development owners. 9. Bike and pedestrian accommodations should be a consideration with this request and key connections should be identified with the rnZomng and CDP rather than later at the MDP stage. The proffer statement ensures that the hiker /biker trail will be provided along, at minimum, relocated Valley Mill Road and Eddys Lane which ensures connectivity with the planned trail system included as part of the Haggerty and Twin Lakes projects. The following additional transportation TIA- related comments are provided by Mr. Bishop, Frederick County Transportation Planner. Aside ftom a right- of-way dedication, this proposal does not address the Eastern Road Plan connection to Valley Mill Drive. 11 is important to recogni .Ze that the Eastern Road Plan needs to be implemented in this area in order to create a sustainable transportation network. Accessing Route 7 as the only mean.) residents of this development to reach goads and services degrades the junction of Route 7 as an Arterial highway. The Applicant is implementing the Eastern Road Plan. As the adjacent Property has yet to be rezoned to RP (as planned by the Comprehensive Plan) and is the lone remaining link for Valley Mill Road relocated, we feel that implementation of this portion of the portion of the roadway would be a responsibility of any application for the adjacent Property. 2. The pro(/ar of 51,000 per multi family unit and $2,000 per single family unit is well below the standards which have previously been followed for offsetting tran.portation imbacts in Frederick County. While I recogni .Ze and empathitie with the challenges of today s market, those challenges do not lessen the impact of new residential development on Frederick County roadways. The application maintains a Level of Service B at the primary access point. Rezonings should be evaluated on a case by case basis on what should be expected to mitigate the impacts of each particular rezoning. In the case of Opequon Crossing, we feel our high LOS combined with a nearly half million dollar monetary proffer effectively mitigates any impacts associated with the request. 3. The results of the TM s study of the intersection with Route 7 do not alleviate my concerns about The impacts to Route 7 as it approaches 1 -81. Due to the distances involved, it was deemed excessive to have this development scope their trajic impacts that far However, it is dear from what is being proposed that that congested area is where the residents of this development will need logo forgoods and services, thus adding to a tra�c situation that is already unacceptable. Please consider this issue when reviewing the points above. P� n /� We feel the monetary proffer could be used to address the off -site impacts of the 1\TL � rezoning, whether the proffer monies are geared toward Route 7 improvements or implementation of the off -site portions of Valley Mill Road relocated. Proffer Statement 1. The Generali , Development Plan could be utilized to a greater extent to better describe the project and to address the nations considerations that may be forthcoming from the review agencies, ncluding those identified in this memorandum. The GDP shows all relevant proffered conditions and the relationship between Opequon Crossing and the adjacent Haggerty Property. 2. The recreational building identoed in the proffer statement should be defined in terms of.rif�e, use, and resources associated with it and its construction should be furtherguaranteed with the first phase of development. The recreation building is proffered to be constructed prior to 50% development of the site. The size, use, and resources would be better defined at the MDP or SDP stage of development when a builder is online for construction of the project. The value of the recreation building is dictated by County Ordinance, thus ensuring that the end product will be appropriate for the development. Other 1. It would be appropriate for the application to more thoroughly address the preservation of the existing tree lanes and wooded areas, the integrity of the pond, and the other environmental open spaces, as a greater consideration of this application and as part of the proffer statement. Such features could be promoted as features on the GDP. The existing farm pond is not of extremely high quality. Further, land disturbance of the site would be kept to a minimum as part of the design of the project to ensure development costs are not excessive. As a final design is not yet complete, it would be difficult to designate exact areas of non disturbance or preservation at this time. P 2. At a minimum, the area in wetlands, lakes, and ponds should be determined at this time. Incorporating the existing pond low impact site development techniques into the design of the project should also he addressed. By ordinance, environmental features are defined at the time of the IvIDP. The Impact Statement does provide a narrative for environmental features which addresses all items listed in the comment with the exception of wetlands which will be depicted on any future MDP. 3. The Adams House may also be a feature that could be incorporated into the design of the project; archilecturali or as part of the open space and recreation f ieikYy. The Adams House will be documented in accordance with suggestion from the HRAB, but will not be kept as part of the final development. Urrri>rurD a r1merrtofTra)YsPoiWio ( GregI - Toffman) The analyst coded the Sjnchro files assuming a 45 mph .speed limit f r Route 7, but our database shows the speed limit as 55 mph. At 55 mph, the Department would not likely allow a permissive left turn movement. Coding the movement as Protected and raising the trarel speed to 55 mph, degrades the LOS, therefore requiring additional mitigation. Ve suggest A following turn lane configurations at the Route 71Haggerty intersection: VB (I left, 2 thru), EB (2 thru, I ri NB (I l e ft, I ri The advised turn lane improvements were included as part of the approved plans for the Haggerty "Spine" Road. To ensure these improvements are in place, the lane configuration has been proffered. Additionally, an updated exhibit provided at the end of the TIA indicates that with these lane improvements, the intersection operates at an overall LOS B at build -out. 2. A turn lane analysis should be conducted as Haggerty Dr. /Site Drive 2. As no thru connection for the Spine Road will be in place south of Site Drive 2 as part of development of the project, no eastbound vehicles on site drive # 2 (relocated Valley NO Road) would turn right onto the Spine Road. Instead, all vehicles will be left turn movements as indicated in the TIA. 3. An alternate roadway connection (either through a new Valley Mill Road or Fieldstone, Section 210janning Drive connection) is needed for this development to access areas west and south. Vitboul this alternate roadway connection, all trips will be forced to use Primary Route 7 back to Vinchester to access schools, shopping etc. The existing single lane bridge on Valley Mill Road w not accommodate increased traffc flow. This single-lane !ridge structure will be difficult to upgrade /replace due to right -of- -way, historical and environmental concerns. The Applicant met with the Fieldstone Development owners but no agreement could be reached to provide for a connection through Fieldstone to Channing Drive. Additionally, a connection to existing Valley NO Road would not be cost P 77 /� feasible with the number of units proposed as part of this development. � 1��L 4. Due to the close proximity to Northern Virginia, there is a public need for a park and ride facility in this area. This development will certainty increase the need for park and ride commulerr. Dedicated rightof- -way andlor monetary contributions should be considered far a park and ride facility. The proposed monetary contribution could be used for a park and ride facility if so desired. 5. Inter-parcel roadway connections should be provided to adjacent properties. Inter - parcel roadway connections are provided to properties in all directions of the site. 6. Future Valley Mill Road connection from Point B to Point C is not mentioned in the intersections requiring right turn lanes. A UD4 with right turn lanes; without sidewalk, requires a minimum of 100' of nghl of The revised proffer allows for the right of way for Future Valley Mill Road to be expanded to 100' where necessary for turn lanes as determined by VDOT. T ilzclaester (Serena R Manuel) 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 pace of the lVinchesterAirport. Due to its proximity to the airport, property owners may experience aircraft fly -over noise from aircraft entering into or departing the li; bl pattern from the North. Special considerations will not he requested by the [Vinchesier Regional Auport. Acknowledged. FrederickCOA <MAttorney IY/illiam) The application, item 10, erroneously states that the re .Zoning a from RA to B2. It would appear that you will want to correct this before submission of any final revised form of the application. Also, of course, any revised form of the application and the power of attorney will need to be signed. The Application form has been revised accordingly. All required signatures have been provided. 2. Proffers 2.1 Q% 2.2 — Siag'will want to be aware that the proposed phasing limits are cumulative P n /� and thereyare will only limit the maximum rate of development of the Property for the first three � 11[ \ years after the rezoning. Thereafter, in theory, nothing would prevent development of the entire Property within a much shorter time_ frame to the extent that development is not completed within the first threeyears. Acknowledged, though it is unlikely that the Property would develop in less than three years as development will be dictated by market demands. Proffer 3.1 — In order to avoid any potential ambiguity, the Proffer might identi the number of relevant dwelling units for which the recreation building is intended to meet the recreation unit requirement. Also, the Proffer should state that the recreation building shall be constructed prior to the issuance of the indicated cumulative number of building permits or before the time required by County Code ff1(55-64, if sooner. Finally, the Proffer might provide more clarity by describing the .rile and scale of the recreation building. Section 165 -64 dictates which units must use the recreation building requirement so this will be determined further in the design process. The proffer also includes a trigger of the 150` building permit for the latest the recreation building could be constructed. The size and scale of the recreation building would be better defined later in the process when we know the exact number of units that the recreation building is applicable. d. Proffer 3.6 — The Proffer does not provide any real ipecifidly as to the particulars of the trail system and therefore, among other thing, makes it difilicull to ascertain exactly how extensive the trail ystem will be. Also, while the lauguage in the second introductory paragraph of the Proffers explains that improvements will be provided at the time of development of the adjacent portion of the Property, the lack of .specificity as to the trail system likewise makes it difficult to ascertain what portions of the trail system will be in place at what time. The revised proffer specifies the areas where the trails will be constructed, at minimum and also ties construction of the trail to construction of the adjacent roadways which are triggered at different building permits. J • S. Proffer 7.2 — In lines 1 and 2, an HOA "might better read as `the HOA ". Proffer revised accordingly. 6. Proffer 7.3 — The Proffers, tead as a whole, do not prorule indication as to when the Applicant will make the initial lump rum payment. Also, the Proffer might clanfy whether the .$100.00 per lot payment is dare only in connection with the initial purchase of each lot or is also due upon each subsequent resale of a lot. Proffer revised to clarify time of initial lump sum payment and that the $100.00 PH / � 7. per lot payment is made upon initial sale of each lot. 77 R \ Projjers 9.1 -9.4 — These Ptnf)err invoke land use actinides on other properties. Staff will ]Paul to eview these Proffers with respect to other developments in the area. Also, it would appear that PiY)jfir 91.4 cannot be sashed without at least some of the improvements in Proffers 9.2 6 9.3 being completed Sta(l naay wish to look closetq at the interplay among Pipffer r 9.2 -9.4, including whether any modircations to Proffers 9.2 6' 9.3 would be appropriate. Acknowledged. 8. Proffer 9.3 — If the Applicant intends to dedicate the right -of- -way for the potion of Eddys Iline traversing the property, the Proffer should so prnride. Proffer revised accordingly. 9. Pro(Jer 9.4 — It appears from the GDP that a small segment of the `Ht ggerty Connection" will exist to the east of the extended Eddys Lane. If the Applicant intends to dedicate nghl -of- -way for this segment, the Proffer should so provide. Proffer revised accordingly. 10. Proffer 10.1 — Staff will want to be aware that the Proffer calls only for the u /timrde identification of historic resources and does not address any means for the actual protection of any historic resources once lhey are identified Acknowledged. I1. Proffer 10.2 — Stan will want to delemiiue whether the phrase `within the vicinity of the northern properly boundary" requires any greater . pecificity. Acknowledged. 12. P roffer 11.1 — In the second line, after the closed parenthesis and before "shall" it appears that and such potion m dedicated" should be inserted. Proffer revised accordingly. 0 0 0 Frederick Cozrnt�DW LitmentofPuhlic larks (Harvey E. Stransnyder, Jr., P.E) The revised retioning application dated February 23, 2009 has adequately addressed our previous comments. l i/e anticipate that any future master development plans will include a wetlands analysis and a detailed discussion of a proposed stormwater management plan. Acknowledged. Frederick County Fire ffatsha lue(jrey Neal) P T7 /� Plan approval recommended. � ��� Acknowledged. Frederick Coarrntp Sa7Z&MM7>Z Az <thotzt Qohn Vhitacre) There ehould be adequate sewer and water capacity to serve this project. Acknowledged. Frederick - V- wchesterffealthV fp artmevt Dailey) Health Department has no objection if public water and sewer are provided. Acknowledged. Frederick CourctvDpartment ofParks awlBecreation (Matthew Holt) 1. Opequon Crossing is proposing a total of 325 dwelling units and would require eleven (11) recreation units. Acknowledged. Rec unit will be further defined at time of MDP. 2. Item 3.1: The Parks and Recreation Department would need to review the design of the recreation building for appropriateness as a "recreation amenity ". Acknowledged. Any plans for the recreation building would be provided to Parks and Recreation for review. 3. Item 3.2 6 3.3: The proffer contribution would appear to meet the Development Impact Model. Acknowledged. 0 0 Item 3.6: The trail ystem should provide connectivity to adjoining subdivisions, facilities and be consistent with the 2007 IVinchesterFrederick County MPO Bieyelelpedesinan network. The trail facility will connect to planned facilities within the Haggerty Property and Twin Lakes. Frederick CountXIiis,�iectk Uobn Trenary) No comments at this time. Commente shall be made at site plan submittal Pn A Acknowledged. � l��L l H&torzc Resources AdzzsoryBoard 7. Arcl>itectur<rlDocumentatiori: The HR IB felt that there is a need to document and research the historic s gnificance of this property. The HRAB suggested documenting the house and any out buildings for their baltorical significance, including (but not limited to) researching and identing past owners / occupants, significant application of building materials, and architectural features associated with the time period of construction, etc. The HRAB felt that photographs of the interior and exterior of the buildings sbould also be taken 1 msaaly document the Adams Farm House. Proffer revised to include architectural documentation. 2. Brsffers arcd Screetiitig7: The HRAB suggested an increased buffer along the sbared proper y line with the Valley Mill Farm property (PIN 33-A-10). The HRAB acknowledged the existing woodlands on the Valley Mill Farm prapery as well as the topography of the area as natural screening, but felt Thal the applicant could provide additional pine trees in this area to help mitigate the impact of this new development on the view shed of the Valley Mill Farm since it is on bath State and national Registers. Proffer revised to include a double row of evergreen trees along the northern property boundary to aid in providing a year round screen as advised. 3. DezeiopmeW Name: Due to the fact that the Back Creek magisterial District of Frederick County already rrcogni .Zes an area as the `Hislonc Opequon Village" and that the Historic Opequon Village area is indicated in the Cou prehensire Policy Plan as a possible hi.aoric dwrict the HRAB felt that the applicant could consider renaming this new development proied to maintain the integnty of the potential historic district and eliminate confusion that the new development is a historic area. Project name has been revised to "Opequon Crossing" to ensure there is no confusion with the Historic Opequon Village. 0 Frederick CounlyPerh&7 Schools (IC 17%ayne Lee) 1. The cunuitalive impact of this project and olherprojecGs in various stager of development in eastern Frederick County will necessitate future construction of new schools and suppor! fa6ilities to accommodate in6reased student enrollment. Ve estimate that the 155 single family delached units and 170 s ngle- faurily attached uruU in this development will house 43 high school students, 37 middle school students, and 70 elementary school students. In order to properj seme these 114 students, Frederick County Public Schools will oulley 55,546,000 in capital expenditures and 51,567,000 annually in operating costs. You will find, enclosed will) this letter, a more detailed �+ l� assessment of the impact o this developmenl on FCPS, including attendance done information. PH l � � Acknowledged. 2. U% note the proffered amounts of 520,265 per siuglefamily detached unit and „14,268 per .single family attached unit, which match the current development impact tnodel. Thankyou. These values have been revised to $18,494 and $13,033, respectively, in accordance with the revised impact model adopted by Frederick County on June 24, 2009. In this area of the county, we use the larger Iransil bearer will.) a student capaeiy of 7R. Ve are strongly concerned about the connection of Haggerty Boulevard to Route 7. For safey, /bat connection needs to be either signalitied or have a awsoier capable of providing refuge for u transit bus. Our concern stems from the heavy iviume of high -speed tra�c currently on Route 7, particu /arty during the morning rush hour, which pass a rign#icant safety issue for buses rumung from existing housing to etiziting schools. The location of the I laggerty Boulevard intersection m Berryville Canyon across from the Route 37 ramps could compound the problem with .right distance issuer and a complex enviromnent for drivers to interpret. The intersection of Haggerty Boulevard will be signalized and include turn lanes which ensures all traffic using the intersection, including buses, can travel safely through the intersection. I hope that these responses aid in the review of the application by Frederick County Staff as well as the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. If you have any questions or would like to discuss further, please feel free to call me at (540) 667 -2139. Sincerely, PATTON HARRIS RUST & ASSOCIATES Patrick R Sowers, AICP PRS /ld Enclosure Patton Horlkust & Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners_ Landscope Archirecs. P CORPORATE'. Chantilly VIRGINIA oEEICS Bridgewater cFanlilly ehadcnes'dle Freder'¢ksburg Leesburg Newport News Vlrginio Beach `vVnchester Woodbridge LABJF'ATORIES: chomill F rederickebmg MArrtAND OFFICES: Ballirnore Columbia FleJA,GL Germantown Ho h;wood Hunr Valley \Allllamspoo PENNSYLVANIA OFf ICE: AI lentawn WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE', Martinsburg T 540.667.2139 F 540 b65 0493 117 Easr Piccadilly S:,A.t Scde 200 W"'Chester, VA 22601 November 2, 2007 Mr. Michael Ruddy Planning and Development Frederick County, Virginia 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 0 RE: Opequon Crossing Rezoning Application Dear Mike: On behalf of my client, I would like to formally request postponement of the Opequon Crossing rezoning application (RZ# 12 -07) scheduled for a public hearing at the November 7, 2007 Planning Commission to allow time to revise the application. I would request that a timeframe for this postponement not be specified to ensure that the revisions to the application are completed prior to returning to the Planning Commission. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Patton Hams Rus & Associates % Patrick R Sowers r COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RE: Additional Review Points — Villages @ Opequon Rezoning DATE: July 2, 2007 The following points are offered regarding the Villages at Opequon Rezoning application. Please consider them as you continue your work preparing the application for submission to Frederick County. Villages at Opequon. 71.45 acre RP Rezoning — Additional Rezoning Comments. Transportation. Primary access should be consistent with and further the approved Frederick County Eastern Road Plan. This rezoning application should reflect the comprehensively planned road network and the adjacent projects implementation of this road network. The County's Eastern Road Plan in the vicinity of this project identifies the relocation of Valley Mill Road as a major collector road. The desired typical section for a major arterial road should be addressed and incorporated into this application. Any right -of -way dedication should accommodate the right -of -way for its ultimate construction. Consideration of the completion of this comprehensively planned collector road system in the vicinity of the project should be a significant consideration. Please refer to the additional transportation TIA- related comments previously provided by Mr. Bishop, Frederick County Transportation Planner. Inter parcel connectivity should be provided with this application. Particular recognition must be provided for the adjacent properties with approved master planned roads that connect to this property. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director Villages at Opequon Rezoning — Additional Rezoning Comments July 2, 2007 Page 2 This project is located within the Urban Development Area and all roads should be built with an urban typical section. Proffer Statement. A Generalized Development Plan could be utilized to a greater extent and further incorporated into the proffer statement to better describe the project and to address the various considerations that may be forthcoming from the review agencies. If it is ultimately determined that the transportation approach proposed by the Applicant is acceptable, the applicant should guarantee the improvements to an acceptable level. The reservation areas, reservation parcels, and identified road work reimbursement areas do not provide an acceptable approach to addressing the transportation impacts of this project and the transportation needs of this area. The transportation components of the proffer statement must be revisited (Section 12). The proffer statement may be more specific about the housing types permitted. The proffer as written is inconsistent with the application. Proffer 3.1 is extremely problematic and should be eliminated or significantly revised. The expectation should be that any project addresses the recreational facility needs for their particular project as specified in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, and addresses the fiscal impacts identified on the County's parks and recreation system. The wording of the proffers and the administration of the proffered monetary contributions should be in a form acceptable to the County's Attorney. Please find attached to this review the comments provided by the County Attorney. Other. It would be appropriate for the application to more thoroughly address the preservation of the existing tree lines and wooded areas, the integrity of the pond, and the other environmental open spaces, as a greater consideration of this application and as part of the proffer statement. MTR/bad Attachments 0 0 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665.5651 FAX: 540 /665 -6395 June 20, 2007 Patton Harris Rust & Associates Attn: Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: County Transportation Planner Comment on the Preliminary Rezoning Application for the Village at Opequon Dear Mr. Sowers: As the Transportation Planner for Frederick County, VA in which the proposed rezoning is located, I have reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis and Rezoning Application for the Village at Opequon. While I understand that a number of land use actions are pending in that area that will likely impact this application, I must limit my comments to what has been submitted as of this time. I look forward to reviewing an updated application should one be submitted. In the meantime, I have the following comments and concerns to point out regarding this application package: Traffic Impact Analvsis 1. The TIA does not include a signed copy of the VDOT scoping sheet. This document aids the County in review of the TIA by detailing what is agreed upon at that scoping session. 2. Staff experience with VDOT has been that Synchro has been required for TIAs in this region; is there a particular reason that HCS+ was used for this particular TIA? 3. Build out year for this development is stated as 2007. As of the date of this review, 2007 is nearly half over and this property does not have the zoning required for the proposed development. Lack of proper build out year in the analysis will impact the results of the study by rendering them less accurate. 4. Page three of the TIA shows Berryville Pike traffic to be 26,170 vehicles per day; however, 2005 VDOT projections indicate traffic for this roadway to be 32,000 vpd. This is a significant difference that should be addressed in some form. 5. No traffic is considered from Eddy's lane. Please address. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 0 0 Patrick Sowers RE: County Transportation Planner Comment on the Preliminary Rezoning Application for the Village at Opequon. June 20, 2007 Page 2 6. An urban peak hour factor of 0.95 was used for this analysis. This rur area justifies no more than 0.88. This difference likely impacts the true levels of service . Please adjust. In summary, the traffic impact analysis, in its current state, is in need of updating and correction to enable a proper view of the impacts. Rezoning Application/Proffers Regarding Proffer 12. 1, the proffer actually states that the applicant will proffer $3,000 per unit at the time of building permit issuance while the application states that $3,000 per attached and $5,000 per detached is being proffered. Though I understand that there is a desire to build out this property quickly, nothing guarantees that, and an escalator clause should be considered. In addition, though the single family attached units generate 87% of the traffic that a single family detached unit generates, just 60% of the detached amount is being proffered for attached units. 2. The remainder of the proffers appear to be concerned with limiting the use of roadways built by the applicant by Eddy's Lane properties that may be developed and trying to obtain funds from those Eddy's Lane properties should they be developed. These proffers are inappropriate, and any transportation contributions made by Eddy's Lane properties that may develop should be paid to the County and \or VDOT to offset their impacts and not to this applicant to offset their proffers. These proffers set up a spite strip. 3. The application does not accurately reflect the Valley Mill extension as it approaches Abrams Creek or the Haggerty Property. The application and TIA rely on Route 7 for all local traffic. As Route 7 is an arterial roadway, this is not appropriate. Additional east west access is needed and provided via the Valley Mill extension. In summary, it appears that the transportation proffers shown here are significantly inferior to what was proffered with the Haggerty rezoning. The submitted proffers fail to mitigate impacts projected by the TIA and that is with a TIA that fails to properly model background traffic, or the flow of traffic created by this proposed development. 0 L] Patrick Sowers RE: County Transportation Planner Comment on the Preliminary Rezoning Application for the Village at Opequon. June 20, 2007 Page 3 Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this review further, please contact the case planner, Mr. Mike Ruddy and we can arrange a meeting which I will be happy to attend Sincerely, John A. Bishop, AICP Transportation Planner CC: Dave Holliday Lloyd Ingram, VDOT Jerry Copp, VDOT JAB/bad Patrick R. Sowers it Funkhouser, Rhonda [ Rhonda .Funkhouser @VDOT.Virginia.gov] on behalf of Hoffman, Gregory [ Gregory.Hoffman @VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 3:25 PM To: Patrick R. Sowers Cc: John Bishop; Smith, Matthew, P.E.; Hoffman, Gregory; Copp, Jerry Subject: Opequon Crossing - VDOT Comments to Rezoning The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 7, 659, and 820. These routes are the VDOT roadways which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is not satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the revised Opequon Crossing Rezoning Application dated November, 2008 address transportation concerns associated with this request. Specifically, VDOT has the following concerns: * The analyst coded the Synchro files assuming a 45 mph speed limit for Route 7, but our database shows the speed limit as 55 mph. At 55 mph, the Department would not likely allow a permissive left turn movement. Coding the movement as Protected and raising the travel speed to 55 mph, degrades the LOS, therefore requiring additional mitigation. We suggest the following turn lane configurations at the Route 7 /Haggerty intersection: WB (1 left, 2 thru), EE (2 thru, 1 right), NB (1 left, 1 right). * A turn lanes analysis should be conducted at Haggerty Dr. /Site Drive 2. * An alternate roadway connection (either through a new Valley Mill' Road or Fieldstone, Section 2 /Channing Drive connection) is needed for this development to access areas west and south. Without this alternate roadway connection, all trips will be forced to use Primary Route 7 back to Winchester to access schools, shopping, etc. The existing ngle lane bridge on Valley Mill Road will not accommodate increased traffic flow. This Ingle -lane bridge structure will be difficult to upgrade /replace due to right -of -way, historical and environmental concerns. * Due to the close proximity to Northern Virginia, there is a public need for a park and ride facility in this area. This development will certainly increase the need for park and ride commuters. Dedicated right -of -way and /or monetary contributions should be considered for a park and ride facility. * Inter - parcel roadway connections should be provided to adjacent properties. * Future Valley Mill Road connection from Point B to Point C is not mentioned in the proffers. Generalized Development Plan should be revised to show B to C right -of -way as a dedication to Frederick County rather than a reservation. * Additional right -of -way is needed on the East - West Collector Roadway at any intersections requiring right turn lanes. A UD -4 with right turn lanes, without sidewalk, requires a minimum of 100' of right -of -way. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right -of -way needs, including right -of -way dedications, traffic signalization, and off - site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right -of -way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. •Uregory T. Hoffman, Supervisor Virginia Department of Transportation Edinburg Residency - Land Development 2275 Northwestern Pike 1 Frgm:LIPBAFF 12rn1/2006 11;36 #530 P.0011001 �d s e fl iRazct s Me B' } P� 3 r knn SQL a tl n FO-;'F-,ii Lt'-� t IRCINIA .. ..... . ... ........ . ........ Control number Date received Date reviewed Date Revised a7,05 -0015 1126/2008 12/1/2006 Project Name Applicant Opequon Crossing Patton Harris Rust & Associates Address City State Zip Applicant Phone 117 E. Piccadilly St. Suite 200 Winchester VA 22601 540-667 -2139 Type Application Tax ID Number Fira District Rescue District Rezoning 55 -A -210 1B 18 Current Zoning Elect or, RA Recommendations Red Bud Automatic Sprinkler System Automatic Fire Alarm System Residential Sprinkler System No No No Other recommendation • Emergency Vehicle Access Hydrant Location Fire Lane Required No Siamese Location RoadwaylAasleway Width. Emergency Vehicle Access Comments Access Comments Additional Comments Plan Approval Recommended Reviewed By a> J. Nea Special Hazards No Signature y $ j Title _�....- -,. _ • 0 • Mr Patrick.Sowers, AICP Paiton.Harris,Rusi,& Associates, P.C. 117 E- Ticcadill'y Street 'Winchester, Virginia`2260,1' RE. Opequonj2rossingi Proposed,Rezoning Frederick County Virginia • Dear.Patrick.. 40 COUNTY of. FREDERICK Department:of'Public Works 540/665 -5643 FAX. 540/678.0682 Septeritier 24 ,2009 The_ red- ised, rezoningiapplicaiion - daied;Eebruary 23' 2009 haskadequately addressed.our previous comments. We•anticipnte that any future master devel6pihent prans'will.include,a wetlands: analysis and a detailed \discussion of a,proposed•stormwater management plan. 'Sincerely HES7rl's ce: Mdrining and D 'file • ' T• \Rhonda\TEMPCO MJI ENTS \OP EQ OONCR Os51 NG Rtzc6S I.d oc` HarveyE.�Straw yder.Jf P.E. Di'rectorof'Public Works 101 Siorth',Kent;§ireet' Winchester, Virgi6ia22601.'5000 • • 0 0 Rezoning Comments OPEQUON CROSSING Frederick County Inspections Mail to: Frederick County Inspections Attn: Building Official 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665 -5650 Applicant iPlease'fill out,the information as accurat "el} as possihle m order to assist the Frederick yCounty Inspectton's �De artment „with theirs review ' AttACh a,Copy of,yotiroapolieitioii .f6rm,`h Iocatjon .map;lproffer•sfatement,;impact analysis; a_'nd any, other, pert ingnt.mfolrmation. °* Hand deliver to: Frederick County Inspections Attn: Building Official 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 DEC 2 31008 PUB 11C DERI g M " OVSPEBBONS Applicant's Name: Mailing Address: Location of Property: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, ATTN: Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Phone: (540) 667 -2139 The Property is located South of the existing terminus of Eddys Lane (Rt 820) approximately 2,400 feet South of Route 7 and 1,650 West of Opequon Creek. Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 70.15 acres Inspection's Comments: t KO . Signature & Date: Notic o Inspections— Please Return This Form to the Applicant H • 0 Rezoning Comments OPEQUON CROSSING Frederick County Sanitation Authority Mail to: Frederick Co. Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, VA 22604 (540) 868 -1061 Hand deliver to: Frederick Co. Sanitation Attn: Engineer 315 Tasker Road Stephens City, VA IR NOV 2 6 F Applicant's Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Mailing Address: ATTN: Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: Phone: (540) 667 -2139 The Property is located South of the existing terminus of Eddys Lane (Rt 820) approximatel feet South of Route 7 and 1,650 West of Opeguon Creek. � e101v Clq 6 Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 70.15 acres Sanitation Authority Comments: ?7FR.F 5110044 1 -3cc 14D,L=6)U� i AE 51- yYXEW TD 5,FAi 7211 Sanitation Authority Signature & Date: Notice to Sanitation Ant ty 6 GY/UB — Please Return This Form to the Applicant • 8 Q 0 0 Rezoning Comments OPEOUON CROSSING Frederick - Winchester Service Authority Mail to: Fred -Winc Service Authority Attn: Jesse W. Moffett, Executive Director P.O. Box 43 Winchester, VA 22604 (540)722 -3579 Hand deliver to: Fred -Wine Service Authority Attn: Jesse W. Moffett 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Applicant: Please fill out the inforthation as accurately, as possible in order: to - assist the Department of Public Works with their review. Attach a copy of your application map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Mailing Address: ATTN: Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: Phone: (540) 667 -2139 i SEP - 4 2009 J The Property is located South of the existing terminus of Eddys Lane (Rt 820) approximately 2,400 feet South of Route 7 and 1,650 West of Opequon Creek. Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 70.15 acres Fred-Wine Ser Authority's Comments: Ad COI`lM&Vt Fred -Nine Service Authority's Signature &Date: Notice to Fred -Winc Service Authority — ' 1 � - � W " •"� Please Return This Form to the Applicant 14 • • � C�9o`bc7�5� 1��3i+pg no �� Rezoning Comments OPEQUON CROSSING SS' �i'ala Frederick— Winchester Health Department • • Mail to: Frederick - Winchester Health Dept. Attn: Sanitation Engineer 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 722 -3480 Hand deliver to: Frederick - Winchester Health Dept. Attn: Sanitation Engineer 107 North Kent St., Suite 201 Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 722 -3480 Applicant's Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Phone: (540) 667 -2139 Mailing Address: Location of Property: ATTN: Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 The Property is located South of the existing terminus of Eddys Lane (Rt 820) approximately 2,400 feet South of Route 7 and 1,650 West of Opequon Creek. Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 70.15 acres Frederic Winchester Health Department's Commen / Signature & Date: / o Notice to Health Department— Please 4ewrn This Form to the Applicant 9 0 0 0 Rezoning Comments OPEOUON CROSSING Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation Mail to: Frederick County Dept. of Parks & Recreation 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665 -5678 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation Co. Administration Bldg., 2 nd Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Applicant's Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Mailing Address: ATI Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 • • Location of Property: Phone: (540) 667-2139 The Property is located South of the existing terminus of Eddys Lane (Rt 820) approximately 2,400 feet South of Route 7 and 1,650 West of Opequon Creek. Cu ent Zot:ing: RA Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 70.15 acres Dept. of Parks & Recreation Comments: See Attached Signature & Date: See Attached Notice to Dept. of Parks & Recreation — Please Return This Form to the Applicant 0 0 • Opequon Crossing Rezoning Request January 20, 2009 Opequon Crossing is proposing a total of 325 units and would require eleven (11) recreation units. Item 3.1: The Parks and Recreation Department would need to review the design of the recreation building for appropriateness as a `recreation amenity ". 3. Item 3.2 & 3.3: The proffer contribution would appear to meet the Development Impact Model. 4. Item 3.6: The trail system should provide connectivity to adjoining subdivisions, facilities and be consistent with the 2007 Winchester Frederick County MPO Bicycle /Pedestrian Network. Matthew G. Hott, Superintendent of Parks • • COUNTY of FREDERICK i` • May 24. 2007 Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust & Associates 117 E. Piccadilly Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Villages at Opequon Rezoning; Property Identification Number (PIN): 55 -A -210; Current Zoning District: RA (Rural Areas); Proposed Zoning District: RP (Residential Performance) Dear Mr. Sowers: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the above referenced rezoning proposal during their meeting of May 15, 2007. The FIRAB reviewed information associated with the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey Repo The subject parcel is the site of the Adams Farm House (DHR #34 -397) and is in close proximity to several other structures, including Valley Mill Farm (DHR # 34 -108) which is on the National and Virginia Registers of Historic Places. Other properties in close proximity to the proposed rezoning project are the Route 659 House (DHR #34 -396), the Haggerty House (DHR #34- 398), and the Carter- Lee- Damron House (DHR #34- 1150). Historic Resources Advisory Board Concerns Although only the Valley Mill Farm property is listed as potentially significant, the HRAB did have several suggestions to mitigate the impact of the proposed development on the cluster of historic structures in this area. Both the Haggerty House and the Carter- Lee- Damron House are located on adjoining properties which were recently rezoned for residential uses similar to this proposal. The Carter - Lee - Damron house, on the Toll Brothers "Twin Lakes" property, will be utilized as a recreational element for that development. The application states that the applicant proposes to construct a residential development of 155 single family homes and 170 townhomes. The HRAB feels that this proposed development can address the following issues in an effort to mitigate impacts on historic resources: 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Mr. Patrick Sowers Re: Villages at Opequon Proposal May 24, 2007 Page 2 Architectural Documentation: The HRAB felt that there is a need to document and research the historic significance of this property. The HRAB suggested documenting the house and any out buildings for their historical significance, including (but not limited to) researching and identifying past owners /occupants, significant application of building materials, and architectural features associated with the time period of construction, etc. The HRAB felt that photographs of the interior and exterior of the buildings should also be taken to visually document the Adams Farm House. Buffers and Screening: The HRAB suggested an increased buffer along the shared property line with the Valley Mill Farm property (PIN 55 -A -165). The HRAB acknowledged the existing woodlands on the Valley Mill Farm property as well as the topography of the area as natural screening, but felt that the applicant could provide additional pine trees in this area to help mitigate the impact of this new development on the view shed of the Valley Mill Farm since it is on both State and National Registers. Development Name: Due to the fact that the Back Creek Magisterial District of Frederick County already recognizes an area as the "Historic Opequon Village" and that the Historic Opequon Village area is indicated in the Comprehensive Policy Plan as a possible historic district, the HRAB felt that the applicant could consider renaming this new development project to maintain the integrity of the potential historic district and eliminate confusion that the new development is a historic area. Thank you for your presentation to the HRAB and for the opportunity to comment on this rezoning proposal. Please feel free to contact me with any questions concerning these comments from the HRAB. Sincerely. Lauren E. Krempa Planning Technician LEK/bad cc: Rhoda Kriz, HRAB Chairman Philip A. Lemieux, Red Bud District Supervisor Susan K. Eddy, Principal Planner • 02 -93- 09:09 =23AM: :5496622936 � 2/ Rezoning Comments OPEOUON CROSSING • f. J Winchester. Regional Airport Mail to: Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road Winchester, VA 22602 (540) 662 -2422 Hand deliver to: Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road Winchester, VA Applicant's Name: Mailing Address: Location of Property: • Patton Harris Rust & Associates, ATTN: Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 • Phone: (540)667 -2139 The Property is located South of the existing terntinus of Eddys Lane (Rt 820) approximately 2,400 feet South of Route 7 and 1,650 West of Opequon Creek. Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 70.15 acres Winchester Regional Airport's Comments Winchester Regional Airport Signature & Date: r(� t . S 31 awC Notice to Winchester Regional Airport— Please Return This Form to the Applicant 40 02- 03 -09; Og :23AM; PHRA ;5406622936 s 1 _ 9. REGIO& • • WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT 3 ~ 491 AIRPORT ROAD • SFT'1NG INE WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 (540) 662 -2422 February 3, 2009 Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust & Associates 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Rezoning Comments Haggerty.Commercial Red Bud Magisterial District Dear Mr. Sowers: The Winchester Regional Airport Authority,offers the following comment regarding the proposed rezoning plan for the Bean Property. Neither the location or the elevation- 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 fty -over noise from aircraft entering into or departing the - flight pattern from the North. Special considerations will not be requested by the Winchester Regional Airport. Thank you for allowing us the to review this rezoning request. Sincerely, S. R. Manuel Executive Director 1 J - AlFredeRick County PuA Schools Q ... to ensure all students an excellent education • K. Wayne Lee, Jr. CZA . Coordinator of Planning and Development . leew @frederick,kl2.va.us February 2, 2009 Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust & Associates 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Opeq`uon Crossing Rezoning Dear Patrick: i Frederick County Public Schools has reviewed the Opequon Crossing rezoning application submitted to us on January 14, 2009. We offer the following comments: The cumulative impact of this project and other projects in various stages of development in eastern Frederick County will necessitate future construction of new schools and support facilities to accommodate increased student enrollment. We estimate that the 155 single - family detached units and 170 single-family attached units in this development will house 43 high school students, 37 middle school students, and 70 elementary school students. In order to properly serve these 114 students, Frederick County Public Schools will outlay $5,546,000 in capital expenditures and $1,567,000 annually in operating costs. You will find, enclosed with this letter, a more detailed assessment of the impact of this development on FCPS, including attendance zone information. • 2. We note the proffered amounts of $20,265 per single- family detached unit and S 14,268 per single- family attached unit, which match the current development impact model. Thank you. 3. In this area of the county, we use the larger transit buses with a student capacity of 78. 1 We are strongly concerned about the connection of Haggerty Boulevard to Route 7. For safety, that connection needs to be either signalized or have a crossover capable of providing refuge for a transit bus. Our stems from the heavy volume of high -speed traffic currently on Route 7, particularly during the morning rush hour, which poses a significant safety issue for buses running from existing housing to existing schools. The location of the Haggerty Boulevard intersection in Berryville Canyon across from the Route 37 ramps could compound the problem with sight distance issues and a complex environment for drivers to interpret. Frederick County Public Schools is concerned about all land development applications. Both capital expenditures and annual operating costs are increased by each approved residential development, as is illustrated above and in the attached development assessment. Please feel free to contact me at leew2( frederick.k 12.va.us or 540 -662 -3888 x88249 if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, K. Wayne ee, T JrCZA Coordinator of Planning and Development enclosure Ce'. Mrs. Patricia Taylor, Superintendent of Schools Mr, AI Omdorti. Assistant Superintendent for Administration 1415 Amherst Street wwwfredenck.kl 2.va.us 540- 662 -3889 Ext. 88249 P.O. Box 3508 540- 6624237 fax Winchester, Virginia 22604 -2546 0 0 0 Frederick County Public Schools Development Assessment Project Name: Opequon Crossing Assessment Date: February 2, 2009 Student Generation kg Type family detached familv attached Housing Units 155 170 0 325 Elementary School Student Generation 37 33 0 70 Middle School Student Generation 21 16 0 37 I High School Student Generation I I. 26 I 17 0 43 Total Student Generation 84 66 0 Costs )ol Cost ;ram Capacity Student Cost lents Generated by this Development i Development's Impact on FCPS Capital Costs Elementary School Cost (2009 CIP) $23,200,000 750 $30,933 70 Middle School Cost (2009 CIP) 33,992,000 850 $39,991 37 $1 High School Cost (2009 CIP) 55,250,000 1250 j $44,200 43 $1 Total Capital Costs • 0 0 Annual Operational Costs FY 2009 Budgeted Cost Total Student Per Student Generation Annual is Development's Impact on FCPS Operational Costs $10,449 150 $ $156 School Facility Information Elementary School Middle School High School (Grades K -5) (Grades 6 -8) 1 (Grades 9 -12) School Attendance Zone* Redbud Run James Wood Millbrook er 15, 2008 Student Enrollment 496 790 1,260 Program Capacity 644 850 1,250 * - School Attendance Zones are subject to change.