Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-08 CommentsPatton Harris Rust Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 0 rg an izationlCo m pany: From: Date: Project NamelSubject: PHR +A Project file Number: Site Plan Number: 10212 Governor Lane Blvd., Suite 1007 Williamsport, MD 21795 T 301.223.4010 F 301.2216831 To: Matthew Smith, PE Virginia Department of Transportation Michael Glickman, P.E. August 14, 2008 Memorandum Responses to April 16, 2008 VDOT comments regarding the Governors Hill Carpers Valley) Development 13415 -3 -1 Per your request, Patton Harris Rust Associates (PHR +A), has prepared this memorandum to provide responses to the April 16, 2008 VDOT comments regarding the TIA submittal of Carpers Valley Development. The following provides responses to each of the April 16, 2008 VDOT comments: VDOT Comment #1: Costello Drive has two lanes each direction east of Route 522 and one lane each direction west of Prince Frederick Dr. The existing Synchro files were coded with three WS lanes and one eastbound lane. Also, some left -turn and right -turn pocket lanes were coded as a full- length lane in Synchro files. Based upon aerial photos, the NB approach at Route 50 /Custer Ave appears to have one left -turn lane and a shared through -right lane, but Synchro files used a shared one left through lane and one right -turn lane. Please revise. PHR +A Response: PHR +A has revised the existing condition analysis based upon the existing turn -lanes and storage length. VDOT Comment #2: Synchro Existing Sat file has 544 SB left -turn vehicles at Route 522 /Costello Drive, and a permitted phase only was used for those left -turn vehicles. It's not common or realistic to use permitted phase only for such high volume. Please clarify how existing timings were obtained. PHR +A Response: PHR +A has revised the existing condition analysis to utilize the VDOT signal timing. VDOT Comment #3: The following is the methodology and standard assumption from the Chapter 527 regulation: 1) Residential with a mix of nonresidential components use the smaller of 15% of residential or 15% nonresidential trip generated. 2) Residential with office use use the smaller of 5.0% of residential or 5.070 of office trip generated. 3) Residential with retail use for AM peak hour, use the smaller of 5.0% residential or 5.0% retail trips generated; for PM peak hour, use the smaller of 10% residential or 10% retail trips generated; for 24 -hour traffic, use the smaller of 15% residential or 15% retail trips generated. Referencing Table 4 on Page 17 the Internal Trip reductions do not match the smaller of 5 10 and 15% respectively. Also, the In and Out Internal Capture trips Patton Harris Rust Associates Governors Hill: Responses to VDOT Comments cannot be the same, they should be calculated based on In and Out trips from the trip generation. Furthermore, the Pass By trips should be calculated based on the trips after the internal capture trip reduction, not based on the original trips from the trip generation. Please revise. PHR +A Response: PI -IR +A has utilized the internal trip reduction percentages per VDOT Chapter 527. Figure A is provided below to depict the interaction of trips between residential and retail uses and between residential and office uses. 1 No Scale RETAIL Internal Trips in: 11(13)(15] Out: 3(231116] ADT: p r Figure A In .5 L 31 Cr 5%of o t +Oaf% /1/4°e r -t RESIDENTIAL i t" Internal Trips In: 6(35)(18] (from Retail Office) Out: 22(20)(17] (to Retail Office) ADT: 11 (Retail &Office) 562 TOTAL INTERNAL TRIPS (RETAIL OFFICE RESIDENTIAL) IN: 28(55) [361 OUT: 28(55)[36] 401 ADT. 41 Internal Trips Illustration Memorandum Page 2 OFFICE Internal Trips In: 11(7)[2] Out: 3(12)[2] ADT* l AWeekda"y!Menial ADT.; Saturday Internal ADT I AM Peak Ilour(PM Peak Ilour)[SAT Peak (lour] Otrice Saturday Peak Hour Trips /ADT Weekday ADT are lower than respective Residential Trips Patton Harris Rust Associates Governors Hill: Responses to VDOT Comments VDOT Comment #4: Referencing Figure 7a, Figure 7b, and Figure 7c, why were pass -by trips applied at only the Route 50 /Prince Frederick Drive intersection. The proposed site can be accessed from three intersections, the pass -by trips should be applied at all three intersections. Please explain. PHR +A Response: Per your request, PHR +A has revised the analysis to apply the pass -by trips at all the entrances. VDOT Comment #5: Referencing Table 5; Table 5b, and Table 5c, some approaches have LOS D or E with the proposed improvements. Also, some movements have a queue as long as 1,141 ft. The queue lengths for many movements are a longer than the associated left -turn or right -turn pocket lanes. For example, some intersections with long queues are Listed below. The proposed improvements do not appear to be sufficient. 1. Scenario 1 Prince Frederick Dr /Costello Dr: NBT 553 ft at PM Peak, NBT 578 ft at Sat Peak, and SBT 1,141 ft at Sat Peak Route 50 /Prince Frederick Dr: \VBT /TR 467 ft at PM Peak, \VBL 465 ft at Sat Peak, NBL 494 ft at Sat Peak, and NBT 494 ft at Sat Peak. 2. Scenario 2 Route 522 /Costello Dr: SBL 635 ft at Sat Peak Prince Frederick Dr /Costello Dr: SBTR 697 ft at PM Peak Route 52 /Prince Frederick Dr: \VBT /TR 520 at PM Peak Route 50 /Sulphur Springs Rd: SBR 477 ft at Sat Peak Route 50 /Victory Rd: WBT /TR 485 ft at PM Peak 3. Scenario 3 Route 522 /Costello Dr: SBL 626 ft at Sat Peak Prince Frederick Dr /Costello Dr: SBTR 835 ft at PM Peak Route 50 /Sulphur Springs Rd: WBT 580 ft at Sat Peak Memorandum Page 3 PHR +A Response: PHR +A has provided the list of the proffered improvements in the revised study in order to improve the level of service and to reduce the queue length. PHZtA CORPORATE: Chantilly VIRGINIA OFFICES: Chantilly Charlottesville Fredericksburg Harrisonburg Leesburg Newport News Norfolk Winchester Woodbridge LA3ORATORIES' Chantilly Fredericksburg MARYLAND OFFICES: Baltimore Columbia Frederick Germantown Hollywood Hunt Valley Williamsport PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE: Allentown r 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 117 East Piccadilly Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Patton Harris usl Associates Engineers. Surveyors_ Planners. Landscape Architects. 3 November 2008 Mr. Gregory T. Hoffman Virginia Department of Transportation 2275 Northwestern Pike Winchester, Virginia 22603 RE: Governors Hill Response to VDOT's Comments dated 10/27/08 n L k NOV 3 2008 L Dear Greg: The following is in response to the VDOT review comments received October 27, 2008 for the Governors Hill Rezoning and Master Development Plan application. REGIONAL PLANNING Comment 1 The planned proffer modification that will remove a previously- agreed -to connection to Sulphur Springs Rd (Rt. 655) is inconsistent with the County's Eastern Road Plan, updated as recently as August 2007. As depicted, both the connection to Rt. 655 and Inverlee Way thin the development are planned Major Collectors. The approval of this rezoning request as presented would arguably eliminate the County's ability to see the connection to Rt. 655 move forward in the foreseeable future PHR +A Response: The current Eastern Road Plan for Frederick County was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in November 2006 (See attached Exhibit 1) and was included as part of the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan update approved in August 2007. One of the revisions made to the Eastern Road Plan as part of the November 2006 revision was the addition of Coverstone Drive and its connection with Sulphur Springs Road to depict the transpotiation plan approved with the anginal Govnernors Hill reoning application (Careers Valley; RZ 11 -05). We believe, if not for Governors Hill, the Eastern Road Plan would still reflect the improvements planned prior to the 2006 revision. The Sulphur Springs Road connection was proposed in 2005 as part of RZ 11 -05 as the Applicant did not own the Properly necessary to make a connection to Route 50 at Inverlee IVay. We believe that connecting Coverstone Drive at Inverlee Way will result in a much safer design than adding trips at Sulphur Springs Road Comment 2 Additionally, it is important to note that a Six Year Improvement Plan project northwest of Rt. 50 along Rt. 655 is currently designed to provide typical section (lane arrangement) that would be inconsistent with the amended proffer /rezoning currently being considered with this application. It may be warranted for the County to re- evaluate the scope of the project should the connection be removed. PHR +A Response: SrreerPnor to the approval of RZ 11 -05, we understand that the Frederick County Eastern Road Plan depicted Sulphur Springs Road as an improved major collector (See attached Exhibit 2). Therefore, Sulphur Springs Road was intended to be a major collector roadway before the Coverstone Drive connection was conceived. As such, the Six Year Road Improvement Plan may reflect an earlier commitment to improve that intersection and provide safer access for Sulphur Springs Road. We believe the planned improvements would still serve this function. Intersection Overall LOS AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) [Sat Peak Hour] Scenario 1 Scenario 3 Rt 50 /Prince Frederick Dr /Custer Ave B(D)[C] C(D)[C] Rt 50 /Coverstone Dr /Inverlee Way Bp[c] B(C)[D] Rt 50 /Sulphur Springs Rd/Tazewell Dr (Coverstone) BA[C] B(Ci[C] Rt 50/VictoryRd A(A)[A] A(A)[A] Prince Frederick Dr /Costello Dr A(B)[B] A(B)[B] Rt 522 /Costello Dr B(C)[D] B(C)PD] Comment 3 As part of the TIA that was prepared for this request, three scenarios have been presented (at different stages of development). The first with one connection which is made at Inverlee via Coverstone Drive. The second, a single connection made opposite Rt. 655; and the third, a combination of connections at Rt. 655 and Inverlee Way via Coverstone Drive. From a regional planning perspective, VDOT's opinion is that Scenario 3 is the preferred option for the following reasons: Consistency with the 2007 adopted Comprehensive Plan Connection opposite Rt. 655 offers enhanced access from the eastern part of the County to the planned future realignment of Rt. 522 and destination development west of the I- 81 area. Connection (as approximated in the TIA) would divert a minimum of 30% of the planned development traffic (and background traffic) away from Rt. 50 as it approaches a land use setting that is increasingly more residential in nature. Allowing a single point of access for a large scale retail planned development opposite Inverlee could arguably be disruptive to neighboring residential uses. Connection opposite Inverlee offers direct access to planned development north of Rt. 50. As can be construed in the TIA, a connection opposite Rt. 655 could very well satisfy an existing significant latent demand for the connection. From an access management perspective, the Route 50 Corridor is identified as a Principal Arterial which requires certain access goals be recognized during the development process. The distance between Inverlee and Rt. 655 is nearly 1/2-mile, which is reasonably consistent with the recently adopted VDOT Access Management Regulations. It is important to understand that the connection to Inverlee Way via Coverstone Drive was never an `either /or' option as evidenced in the 10/12/2005 rezoning and related approved proffers which state: PHR +A Response: As shown by the TIA through a comparison of Scenario 1 and Scenario 3, providing both connections to Route 50 (Inverlee and Sulphur Springs Road) does not provide for increased Levels of Service (LOS) at subject intersections within the network. To further support this fact, please see the table below which depicts the overall LOS for the subject intersections for Scenario 1 and Scenario 3 for the 2025 Build out conditions when assuming the suggested road improvements: As shown, the network will function as well, or better, using Scenario 1 rather than the additional Route 50 connection at Sulphur Springs Road modeled under Scenario 3. P Additionally, the 2005 rezoning proffer package allowed for the ultimate connection to Route 50 at Inverlee lVay, assuming that connection would be constructed by others. During approval of the subsequent Master Development Plan, the Applicant was asked by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to consider a shift of the project entrance to the Inverlee Way location with a cul-de -sac in place of the Sulphur Springs Road Connection. (Far your reference, please see Exhibit C meeting minutes from the March 14, 2007 Frederick Coun Board of Supervisors Meeting regarding the approval of the existing Governors Hill Master Development Plan). Comment 4 The future connection to Inverlee Way has been contemplated for some time so as to supplement access to the proposed development at Rt. 655 and Rt. 50. What is now being considered is the elimination of the Rt. 655 connection, at the same time that the applicant is requesting the addition of hundreds of thousands of additional square feet of retail space. PHR +A Response: As stated previously, the Coverstone Drive extension to Sulphur Springs Road was only contemplated as a result of the original Governors Hill rezoning request. At that time, if the Applicant had been able to provide the connection at Inverlee Way as opposed to Sulphur Springs Road then the Applicant would have proposed that plan. We have always believed that the Inverlee connection provides better future access to Senseny Road, and with good sight distance and standard approaches, is the safer of the two intersections. Comment 5 While the subject TIA has demonstrated that significant large scale improvements to Inverlee .Way at Coverstone Drive can result in an overall LOS of C, it is critical that the County understand that 6 out of 11 of the movements at this intersection fail/under- perform at build -out (LOS D, E and F). PHR +A Response: The VDOT required software package (Synchro) utilized to optimize/ synchronize signal systems does so according to vehicle progression, delay and queue along the main line of a corridor. The performance of an optimized corridor is best judged by evaluating the `Time- Space" diagram associated with the system. Optimizing the level of service for minor street movements is not the function of the program. The Phase 2 `Scenario 1" 2025 Build -out analyses provided in the Governor's Hill TIA included the optimization/ synchronization of three (3) traffic signals along the Route 50 corridor: Route 50/Prince Frederick Drive/ Custer Ave, Route 50 /Inverlee Pay/ Coverstone Drive and Route 50 Sulphur Spntgs Road. The analyses included in the TIA were based upon the optimal synchronization of the Route 50 corridor as described in the aforementioned paragraph. Furthermore, since all overall levels of service were shown to maintain acceptable levels of service `C" or better, it did not seem appropriate to make adjustments to the optimized condition This is consistent with previous submissions relating to other similar projects in the Staunton District. However, had we decided to manually adjust the network in an effort to optimize levels of service for minor movements, we would have presented improved results. For instance, at the interrection.ofRoute 50 /Inverlee Way/Coverstone Drive, referenced in the comment above, we can show all movements, except the 513 le (LOS `E'), operating with LOS ranging from `A" to `D" (with overall intersection LOS `C'). Note: The VDOT comment above states that the September 2, 2008 submission included analyses showing movements with LOS `F" at the intersection of Route 50 /Inverlee Way/ Coverstone Drive. Na movements at this intersection are shown to maintain LOS `F PROFFERS Comment 1 We disagree with Section 15.6 of the current proffer as it relates to the monetary contribution for the signalization of Costello and Prince Frederick Drive. At current •VDOT costs, the offered amount of $150,000 would cover only75% of the cost of a signal. PHR +A Response: The Applicant has increased the monetary contribution for the signalization of Costello and Prince Frederick Drive to x'1 75,000.00. (See attached Proffer Statement dated 10/29/08) Comment 2 We disagree with the terms of Section 15.2: Phase 4 of the proposed proffers with establishes a deadline of June 30, 2018 for the County or VDOT to secure right -of -way for the extension of Coverstone Drive Extended. This terminology was not included in prior agreements, and we feel that a deadline should not be established now. PHR +A Response: This note was added to the Proffer Statement to avoid a scenario in which the Applicant maintains a perpetual obligation which could never be fulled As such, we feel the language is appropriate and provides ample time to determine the alignment of relocated Route 522. Comment 3 Revised Section 3.1 to read as follows: The applicant shall design and construct a two lane public roadway from Arbor Court to Tazewell/Coverstone Drive. PHR +A Response: Ire have revised the Proffer Statement to provide for the connection of Tazewell Drive to Arbor Court concurrent with the construction of Tazewell Drive. In the interim, the Arbor Court connector roadway has been built utilizing a cul -de -sac in order to provide immediate access to the Armory. Comment 4 Similar to VDOT continents at the time of the 10/2005 application, we are concerned about proffer language included in Section 15.12 which states "The applicant shall make good faith efforts to obtain any off -site ROW needed to complete any proffered off -site transportation improvements. In the event that the Applicant is not able to obtain the ROW and, further, the County and /or State of Virginia do not obtain the necessary ROW, the Applicant shall not be responsible for constructing those improvements where sufficient ROW is not available. We would suggest that those specific off -site improvements where ROW may be problematic for the Applicant be identified and reviewed prior to the approval of the current rezoning application. PHR +A Response: The areas where additional right of wily may be required to provide transportation improvements are depictea on Sheet 1 of 2 of the proffered road improvements plan entitled `Governors Hill Road Improvements." Comment 5 We disagree with Section 15.13 of the proposed proffer which states that the TIA that has been provided for this application be valid for a period of 6 years from the date of final rezoning Given that no specific tenants have been identified that will urili7e a new public road (Coverstone) from Prince Frederick to Rt. 50, the evolving nature of the neighboring parcels, and historic regional growth patterns, we do not support this proffered condition. PHR +A Response: We have revised proffer 15.13 to state that any future transportation analyses would utilize Code 820 'Retail" per the I.T.E. Tris Generation Manual 7" Edition or an retail uses other than 'eneral oisce. This will ensure that all future traffic studies are consistent with the study prepared as part of the proposed application. TIA TECHNICAL OBSERVATIONS Comment 1 Please use separate figures for site generated and pass by trips in the future. PHR +A Response: Noted Comment 2 For 2025 Build -Out scenarios 1, 2, and 3 with Imp the intersections have an acceptable intersection overall LOS, but many movements operate at LOS E and some movements operate at LOS F. As an example, please refer to the following sub bullets: A) The approach to Rt. 50 from Inverlee Way currently enjoys a LOS of B, and is projected to maintain a LOS C during the 2025 background conditions. That said, the proposed development would create a new signalized intersection at Inverlee and Rt. 50 resulting in a LOS D for this approach. B) At the Prince Frederick Dr. and Rt. 50 intersection during year 2025 Saturday peak -hour background (no- build), the LOS at the intersection is B, with all individual movements operating at acceptable /good LOS (A,B,C). Also, the roadway between Rt. 50 and Costello Drive yields 250+ vehicles in the peak hour. By contrast, at build out the LOS for the intersection drops to LOS D with 6 out of 8 movements failing (D,E,F), with a peak hour volume of 1,850+ along the roadway from Rt. 50 to Costello Drive. This with no planned improvements to Prince Frederick Drive other than turn lanes at intersections. PHR +A Response 2k Currently, the approach to Route 50 from Inverlee Way is limited to a net out movement only and therefore cannot be compared to future conditions. In accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, the TIA depicts Inverlee Way under future conditions as a 'full movement" intersection. Without the signalization improvement proposed by Governor's Hill, the aforementioned approach would operate at LOS 'F", not `C" (as described in the Comment), during future conditions. PHR +A Response 2B: Upon a subsequent evaluation of this intersection, it appears that there would be a high likelihood that a significant portion of the vehicles currently turning left along eastbound Route 50 onto Custer Avenue would reroute to the new signalized intersection of Route 50/lnverlee Way/Coverstone Drive. This change would improve the LOS for this movement from `F" to "C" while not negatively impacting the intersection of Route 50 /Inverlee Way/ Coverstone Drive. Additionally, if we had decided to manually adjust the network in an effort to optimize levels of service for minor movements, we would have presented results for the intersection of Route 50 /Prince Frederick Drivel Custer Avenue that included all movements operating with LOS ranging from 'IA" to `D Comment 2 For 2025 Build -Out we disagree with the spacing of the proposed driveway entrances and signalized intersections along Coverstone Drive. The arterial LOS from Tazewell Drive to Rt. 50 is LOS D for NB, and LOS E for SB during the 2025 Build -out Saturday conditions as an example. When considering the volumes and traffic operations depicted in the TIA, we feel that the following additional improvements are necessary at the intersection of Coverstone and Tazewell: EB Dual lefts SB Dual lefts PHR +A Response: The arterial LOS described above appears to be predicated upon the assumption that Coverstone Drive would operate as a two -lane facility. Although the TIA did represent two -lanes as the minimum requirement, the proposed Governors Hill proffers commit the Applicant to providing a 4 -lane divided section under 2025 build-out conditions. Furthermore, according to HCS Multilane analyses, Coverstone Drive, as a 4 -lane divided roadway, would maintain LOS of "C" or better (NB and SB) during 2025 build -out conditions. The lane geometry depicted in the TIA for the intersection of Coverstone Drive/ Tazewell Drive results in overall LOS of "13" (with no movement worse than `D') while readily accommodating all anticipated future storage requirements. Therefore, the inclusion of dual EB and SB turn -lanes would be superfluous. I hope that these responses help clarify /address any issues VDOT has with the proposed rezoning and master development plan for Governors Hill. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (540) 667 -2139. Sincerely, PATTON HARRIS RUST ASSOCIATES PatrickR Sowers Enclosure cc: Carpers Valley Development LLC VIA FACSIMILE (540- 665 -0493) AND FIRST -CLASS MAIL December 30, 2008 Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust Associates 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Governors Hill Rezoning Proffer Statement dated December 8, 2008 COUNTY of FREDERICK Roderick B. Williams County Attorney 540/722 -8383 Fax 540/667 -0370 E-mail: rwillia @co.frederick.va.us Dear Patrick: I have reviewed the above- referenced proposed Proffer Statement. 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: I. Regarding Proffers 1.1 and 1.2, design and development should either be in "conformance" or "substantial conformance" with the MDP and the "Design and Development Standards Also, in Proffer 1.1, any modifications of an MDP require County approval of a revised MDP. Finally, concerning the "Design and Development Standards there should be a comma after "Standards" and the particular "Design and Development Standards" document should bear that title on its cover page. 2. Regarding Proffer 1.6, the genesis of the ADT number is unclear, for purposes of determining if it might be an appropriate baseline. Also, staff should be aware that the Traffic Impact Analysis that would be used to support an increase in building square footage would be prepared by a consultant of the Applicants' choosing. 3. Regarding section 3 of the Proffers, as County tax records do not indicate that the transfer of Tax Map Parcel 64 -A -82 has been completed yet, it still appears that provisions from Paragraph 3.3 of the 2005 proffer statement should be included here, regarding the Armory dedication. 4. Regarding Proffers 4.1 and 4.2, County Code 165- 72(M), regarding phasing, requires that a reasonable balance be maintained between residential and nonresidential uses, 165- 72(M)(3). Therefore, the failure of Proffers 4.1 and 4.2 to provide any balance over time between development of the residential and nonresidential uses of the property to be rezoned would not be in compliance with the County Code. 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Mr. Patrick Sowers December 30, 2008 Page 2 5. Proffer 7.2 continues to provide that the fire and rescue contribution would terminate if the volunteer fire and rescue company ceased being a volunteer company or if the County adopts a fee for service plan for fire and rescue services. In particular in the former instance, the County would still incur costs, likely increased, for providing fi re and rescue services and therefore a need for the contribution (to the County in lieu of the company) would seemingly still exist. Also, staff should note that, while the obligation to make the annual contribution will be the obligation of the master POA, the Proffer provides that the obligation shall be monitored and enforced by the master POA, which would in effect be self monitoring and self enforcement. Separately, I would note as well that the references in Proffer 7.2 to a master HOA should be to a master POA. 6. Regarding section 12 of the Proffers, the reference in the heading should delete the term "Homeowners and, in Proffer 12.1, it appears that the reference should be specifically to a master POA. In Proffers 12.1, 12.4, and 12.5, the terms "homeowners" and "HOA" should be changed to "property owners" and "POA respectively. Also, the use of multiple POAs for the residential portion of the development does not appear to be necessary; one POA for the residential portion of the development seemingly should suffice, with that POA then being subject to the master POA for the entire development. 7. Proffer 12.6 says that the respective commercial POA(s) will be responsible for maintenance of any SWM facilities under common (open space) ownership. Does this mean that there will also be certain SWM facilities that will under individual commercial lot owner ownership? If so, then staff should ascertain whether any further provisions regarding such private ownership of SWM facilities would be necessary or appropriate. Also, does the reference to SWM facilities only in conjunction with the commercial POA(s) mean that there will be no SWM facilities within the residential component or, if there will be, that the master POA will be responsible for them? 8. In Proffer 13.1, the provisions for public water and sewer facilities presume that the Sanitation Authority lines are now at the property boundary, or will be brought to the property boundary by the Sanitation Authority. 9. Proffer 14.3, regarding the granting of an avigation easement, does not address the handling of a situation in which the Applicants and the Airport are unable to reach mutual agreement on such an easement. 10. Regarding Proffer 15.7, parcel 64- A -83B, which was a part of the previous rezoning of the development, prior to its subdivision from parcel 64 -A -83 in 2006, is not included in the current rezoning. The subdivision deed for parcel 64 -A -83B, Instrument Number 060002436, provides that title to the parcel "shall include appurtenant and perpetual right of way or easement, 60' in width, for purposes of ingress and egress said right of way or easement being over parcel 64 -A -83. Proffer 15.7 states that current driveway, which presumably uses the referenced right of way or easement, will be closed, with alternate access to be provided via the development's internal residential street network. Given that the owners of parcel 64 -A -83B have not joined in the current rezoning and that Proffer 15.7 appears to propose a significant change in the rights of Mr. Patrick Sowers December 30, 2008 Page 3 parcel 64 -A -83B (the current right of way or easement serving parcel 64 -A -83B is 60 feet wide, as wide as that of the proposed Tazewell Road, and offers direct access to Millwood Pike), it is altogether unclear that the Applicants will be able to satisfy Proffer 15.7. 11. Regarding Proffer 15.10, is the correct reference for VDOT standards for private streets and roads a reference to "structural" standards? 12. Regarding Proffer 15.11, design should either be in "conformance" or "substantial conformance" with the referenced plan. 13. Proffer 15.12 is unclear as to what it means for the Applicants to "obtain" the subject rights of way, in terms of whether the Applicants would facilitate direct acquisition by VDOT and/or the County or whether the Applicants would make the acquisition in their own names. In this context, the Proffer is also unclear regarding precisely what items the Applicants would be willing to make payment for? Is it land acquisition cost or construction cost, depending on whether the rights of way can be "obtained Finally, with respect to construction cost, it may be better if the Proffer set out a mechanism for calculating such costs. 14. Proffer 15.13 propose using only Code 820 "Retail per the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual 7 Edition, for any commercial use other than office use, but Proffer 1.3 would allow any B2 use in the commercial portion of the development. Therefore, use of I.T.E. classifications other than "Retail" may be appropriate if a proposed use is other than retail or office. 15. Regarding Proffer 17.1, I have not reviewed how the Proffer Statement comports with the County's current proffer guidelines, but I note that the escalator clause and the various specific monetary amounts included throughout the Proffer Statement are the same as those referenced in the 2005 rezoning proffer statement. With the 30 months referenced in the 2005 rezoning proffer statement and in Proffer 17.1 having now passed, it may be more appropriate to update the monetary amounts and then change the date in the escalator clause to that of the new rezoning. 16. The cover page of the master development plan materials you have submitted bears the title "Preliminary" Master Development Plan. It would appear that the word "Preliminary" should be removed. 17. The cover page of the master development plan materials you have submitted also contains several items that need to be addressed: a. The materials indicate two proposed waivers of County Code 144 -24. Is the applicant seeking these waivers at the present time? If so, then the applicant should follow the procedure under County Code 144 72(0). If not and if the text remains on the cover page of the MDP, then staff should ensure that any proposed approval resolutions for the rezoning make clear that the waivers have not been applied for and therefore are not being granted as part of the rezoning approval. Mr. Patrick Sowers December 30, 2008 Page 4 b. Concerning item 1 of "Road Notes such modifications of an MDP require County approval of a revised MDP. c. Concerning item 1 of "Commercial Area Dimensional Standards the MDP states that the commercial buildings will have a maximum height of 60 feet. The maximum allowed building height for B2 uses generally in the County is 35 feet. County Code 165- 83(A). If the applicant wishes to seek a waiver of this limitation, then the applicant should follow the procedure under County Code 144 72(0). Otherwise, staff should ensure that any proposed approval resolutions for the rezoning make clear that the waiver has not been applied for and therefore is not being granted as part of the rezoning approval. I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for this specific development, as it is my understanding that review will be done by staff and the Planning Commission. Sincerely, Roderick B. Williams County Attorney cc: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Development VIA FACSIMILE (540- 665 -0493) AND FIRST -CLASS MAIL Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust Associates 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester. VA 22601 April 22, 2008 Re: Governors Hill Proposed Rezoning Proffer Statement Dear Mr. Sowers: COUNTY of FREDERICK Roderick B. Williams County Attorney 540/722 -8383 Fax 540/667 -0370 E -mail: rwillia @co.frederick.va.us I have reviewed the above referenced proposed Proffer Statement. 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: 1. As the ProffeF Statement concerns a further rezoning of parcels that were subject to a rezoning in 2005, the Proffer Statement would be an original proffer statement and not a revision. Accordingly, the date listed for the original date of proffers should be a 2008 date and no revision date should be noted until a revision is made to the current document. x 2. For clarity, the last sentence on page 1 should refer to the MDP as being "prepared by Mark W. Thomas, Certified Landscape Architect, of Patton Harris Rust Associates, (the "MDP dated March 21, 2008." Mr. Thomas' certification is presently the only indicia on the MDP of the March 21. 2008 date. 3. As I was not provided a copy of a document entitled as "Design and Development Standards," my comments do not address the specifics of the Proffer Statement to the extent that it references the "Design and Development Standards" for Governors Hill. /4. Regarding Paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2, the 2005 proffer statement stated that the design and development would either be in "conformance" or "substantial conformance." The proposed Proffer Statement proposes "relative conformance" and, with respect to Paragraph 1.2, offers no criteria for deviating. The "relative conformance" standard (or lack of a standard) is indefinite. 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Mr. Patrick Sowers April 22, 2008 Page 2 5. In Paragraph 1.3, as the proffers limit business uses to B2 uses, the reference to 165 -82 should only mention subsection B. Also, the cross reference to the RP sections (Article VI, 165 -58 through 165 -66) should be included here. )1. 6. In Paragraph 3.1, as County tax records do not indicate that the transfer of Tax Map Parcel 64 -A -82 has been completed yet, provisions from Paragraph 3.3 of the 2005 proffer statement would need to be included here in order to effectuate the Armory dedication. 7. In Paragraph 4.1, the reference to "the residential portion" should be consistent to "Land Bay 1" or "the residential land bay." Also, the Proffer Statement does not address carryovers, as the 2005 proffer statement did. J 8. Section 12 refers to an organizational structure in which there will be one or more homeowners associations (for the residential component) and one or more property owners associations (for the commercial component), with each then governed by a master association. This appears to be at odds with the County Code's single association requirement for a community zoned as an R4 Residential Planned Community District: "All phases of a planned community development shall be included under a single property owners' association according to the requirements of this chapter." County Code 165- 72(N). 9. Paragraph 7.2 provides that such a master HOA to be established would make an annual contribution for each residential unit, and for each 1,000 square feet of commercial, for fire and rescue (in light of the structuring of the associations noted in the previous comment, the status of this "master HOA" with respect to both the residential and the commercial portions'of the development is unclear). Since the homeowners association has not been established and is not a party to these proffers, future enforceability could be an issue. In addition, the paragraph provides that the contribution shall terminate if the volunteer fire and rescue company converts to a fully paid service. In that event, the company would presumable no longer exist, but the cost to the County for fire and rescue service would continue and would likely be increased. It would seem that if the volunteer fire and rescue company ceased to exist, the annual contribution should be made to the County. This paragraph also provides that the obligation to make the annual contribution will be the obligation of the master HOA, and the obligation shall be monitored and enforced by the master HOA, which is, in effect, providing for self monitoring and self enforcement. 10. In Paragraph 13.1, the provisions for public water and sewer facilities presume that the Sanitation Authority lines are now at the property boundary, or will be brought to the property boundary by the Sanitation Authority. 11. In Paragraph 15.1.1, the indicated right -of -way for Coverstone Drive is 80 feet, but the MDP indicates that a right -of -way of 90 feet is necessary (not including the 10 foot trail). Mr. Patrick Sowers April 22, 2008 Page 3 12. In Paragraph 15.1.1.1.3, it is unclear as to when the obligation occurs. Is it prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any of the first 400,000 square feet of commercial uses or prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for commercial uses beyond the first 400,000 (or 399,999) square feet? 13. Paragraph 15.5 would have added clarity if it indicated that the existing entrance, remaining from the golf club, will be /remain closed. 14. I have not reviewed how the Proffer Statement comports with the County's current proffer guidelines, but I note that the Paragraph 17.1 escalator clause, and the various specific monetary amounts included throughout the Proffer Statement, are the same as those referenced in the 2005 rezoning proffer statement. As such, with the 30 months referenced in the 2005 rezoning proffer statement having now passed, the property would now be subject to the escalator clause, absent any new rezoning (as is proposed), but the 30 months proposed in the current Proffer Statement would not pass until late 2010 at the earliest, and the amounts referenced in the 2005 rezoning proffer statement would therefore not adjust until that time, were the proposed rezoning approved. 1 have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for this specific development, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by staff and the Planning Commission. cc: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Development Roderick B. Williams County Attorney October 29, 2008 Patton, Harris, Rust Associates c/o Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: County Transportation Comment on the Rezoning Application for Governors Hill Dear Mr. Sowers: As the Deputy Director Transportation for the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development, I have reviewed the Rezoning Application for the Governors Hill Rezoning. 1 have the following comments and concerns to point out: 1. This modification continues to promote a change that does not recognize the Eastern Road Plan portion of the Comprehensive Plan, while the currently approved rezoning does recognize the Eastern Road Plan. The existing proffers on the property allow for the Coverstone Drive connection to Route 50 at Sulphur Springs and also allow for right -of- way for Inverle Way, whereas this new application changes that scenario in spite of the addition of acreage that would have allowed your client to be a part of establishing the planned road network. a. In recognition of this disparity, staff would recommend that at a minimum, your client consider planning the property in such a way that the County and VDOT could potentially realize the adopted road plan in the future. The proposed road system proffers construction of a four lane section that is over 1 /4 mile shorter than what is currently proffered. This is in addition to the fact that the proposed road system eliminates the need to blast through a significant topographical challenge to gain access to the Route 50 and Sulphur Springs road intersection. On top of that, the commitment to the signal at Route 50 is less at Inverle Way than it was at Sulphur Springs due to the participation of other proffers at that location. However, it is not apparent to staff that these savings are being used to help mitigate the additional impact that will be placed on Route 50 by this change. The additional changes that are being done to Route 50 appear to be fairly minor by comparison. 3. Regarding proffer 1.6, there does not seem to be a number in the TIA that corresponds to the trip generation number listed therein. Please clarify. 4. Regarding proffer 6.1, bicycle and pedestrian trails, particularly along roadways, should be built to VDOT standards unless and until such time as Frederick County adopts a higher standard. 2_ EIVI FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Patrick Sowers RE: County Transportation Comment on the Rezoning Application for Governors Hill October 29, 2008 Page 2 5. It was my understanding early in the process that the primary purpose of this rezoning application was the issue I discussed in Comment 1; however, proffer 15.3 is proposing to extend the implementation period of the roadway by 3.5 years. 6. Regarding proffer 15.2, the time deadline proposed for the proffered design of Coverstone extended was not present in the current proffers, and it does not appear to me that it would be in the County's best interest to endorse one now. Please modify. 7. Regarding proffer 15.5, since three years have passed since the rezoning was originally approved, it may be appropriate to adjust this figure for inflation. 8. Regarding proffer 15.6, the $150,000 that was proffered in 2005 toward the signalization of the intersection of Prince Frederick and Costello likely was enough at that time to install a signal. Now, that is less likely to be the case. In order to assure the full value of that proffered improvement, it may be more appropriate to proffer the signalization or cash equivalent. 9. Regarding proffer 15.12, the proffer basically states that if the applicant cannot obtain right -of -way for proffered improvements, the improvements will not be done. I would recommend that you consider additional language that protects the County in terms of the value of that proffer should that eventuality arise. 10. Regarding proffer 15.13, I'm not sure what this proffer is trying to accomplish. It can have no impact on VDOT requirements, but seems to be targeting County policy that is not yet adopted. Even if said County policy were already adopted, this development would not be in danger of triggering that policy by virtue of the existing TIA. Further, this proffer is in direct conflict with proffer 1.6. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this review further, please contact the case planner, Mrs. Candice Perkins, and we can arrange a meeting which I will be happy to attend. Sincerely, John A. Bishop, AICP Deputy Director Transportation JAB/bad cc: Matt Smith, VDOT Jerry Copp, VDOT October 29, 2008 Dear Patrick: ga i] CHICO Q COUNTY of FREDERICK Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust Associates 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Proposed Rezoning and Master Development Plan for the Governors Hill Project Second Review Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 I have had the opportunity to review the revised draft rezoning application and Master Development Plan for the Governors Hill Property. The rezoning application seeks to rezone 39.7 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the R4 (Residential, Planned Community) District and 238.3 acres from the R4 District to the R4 District with revised proffers. Staffs review comments are listed below for your consideration. Rezoning Comments 1. TIA Proposed Uses. The TIA states that the site will be used for a mixture of office and retail uses (900,000sf retail /385,000sf office); however, these uses are not proffered and, therefore, any use allowed in the B2 District could develop on the site. A proffer to limit the use of the site to 900,000sf of retail and 385,000sf of office would be appropriate. 2. Impact on Community Facilities. As you are aware, the development impact model for the County has been revised since the figures were calculated for this project. With this new rezoning package, the residential portion of the property should follow the new impacts. Since the residential development is not phased in to recognize commercial development, the entire impact for each residential unit should be addressed and mitigated. If the non residential phase of the project does not materialize and the project is built solely as a 550 residential unit development, the per unit capital facilities fiscal impact is projected to be $16,965 for townhouses and $8,975 per multi family unit. 3. Proffer 1.1. The last portion of this proffer needs to be removed. All entrance alignments need to mirror the MDP and modifications will not be permitted without a revised MDP. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Page 2 Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Proposed Rezoning of Governors Hill Property October 29, 2008 4. Proffer 1.6. Clarify that the ADT number used in proffer 1.6 is the same used in the TIA. 5. Proffer 3.1. Proffer 3.1 should be revised to clarify that "the applicant shall design and build as well as bond for completion of construction not later than the construction of an Armory structure on Tax Map Parcel 64 -A -82, a minimum two lane roadway from Arbor Court to the entrance to the Armory Site". This proffer should also be expanded to ensure the completion of the road to Tazewell Road. The original proffers also stated that the Armory site would be provided access to Route 50 via Coverstone Drive; it is unclear why the proffers have been modified to eliminate the main access route to the armory and provide an access point through an industrial park instead. 6. Proffer 4.1. As this rezoning application does not tie the residential permits to the commercial development, there is the potential for the residential portion of the development to be built without the commercial, thereby creating impact to the County. Consideration should be given tying the residential permits to the commercial development or providing a monetary offset. 7. Proffer 4.3. The monetary value on the recreational unit needs to be removed from the proffer. Recreational values are subject to change and when developed, the most current monetary value needs to be used. The proffer should also be revised to remove the statement about the recreational amenities being "bonded for completion as soon as practicable The recreational amenities should be bonded when the residential portion of the project is subdivided. 8. Proffer 7.2. Indicate why the fire and rescue proffer has been revised to remove the rate increase provided in the original rezoning. Your response comment stated that it was removed to prevent the increase from placing an unfair burden on the residents and HOA. Please clarify what has changed since Rezoning #11- 05 was approved that this proffer was determined to be a burden. 9. Proffer 12.2. Per your response letter, it is understood that there will be a "Master" HOA and that the residential and commercial will be subsets of this HOA. It is still unclear why the residential development would have the potential to be broken up into multiple 1- IOA's; the residential should be covered under the same HOA that would be a subset of the Master. 10. Proffer 15.2. The proffer should be revised so that the 200,000sf of office uses are not developed until the Phase B improvements (Millwood Pike/Prince Page 3 Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Proposed Rezoning of Governors Hill Property October 29, 2008 Frederick Drive and Prince Frederick/Costello) indicated in proffer 15.11 Phase B have been completed. 11. Proffer 15.2 Phase 1. The phase 1 improvements should be completed (not to include just the base asphalt) prior to the occupancy of any commercial or residential structure. It appears that phase 2 and phase 3 should be combined to construct all four lanes of Coverstone Drive from B to C. 12. Proffer 15.3. The original proffers stated that Coverstone Drive would be completed from Millwood Pike to Prince Frederick Drive by June 1, 2012. The revised proffers have pushed this deadline back to 2015. As previously stated, the timeline for the completion of this roadway should not be pushed back simply because the applicant is revising the proffers. 13. Proffer 15.7. This proffer states that the only access to this development shall be via Coverstone Drive except for parcel 64 -A -85. The MDP appears to provide this parcel with access to Coverstone Drive once the residential streets are developed. The proffer should be revised to remove the residential driveway once the internal streets are constructed. 14. Proffer 15.11. This proffer refers to a document that is not part of this rezoning. These referenced sheets need to be made part of the proffered MDP. 15. Proffer 15.13. Proffer 15.13 conflicts with 1.6. 16. Proffer 17.1. As thirty months have already passed since this rezoning was approved, it would be appropriate to update the fiscal impact contributions reflective of the Development Impact Model, and continue to apply the escalator clause in the future. Master Development Plan Comments 17. Residential Layout. The revised layout for the residential area now creates an area of units that are completely separated from the remaining units. These units as depicted would access Coverstone Drive through the commercial area. The residential layout needs to be re- evaluated to ensure that it is internally connected. 18. Zoning District Buffer. A Category B zoning district buffer needs to be provided between the newly acquired area intended to be rezoned to R4 for commercial and the existing R4 designated for residential. Page 4 Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Proposed Rezoning of Governors Hill Property October 29, 2008 Other 19. Road Notes. On the coversheet under road notes, note 2 needs to be removed. The streets need to be constructed consistent with the MDP. If the road layout needs to be changed, the MDP will need to be modified. 20. Recreational Unit Requirement. As stated previously, remove the monetary unit price for the recreational units. Only the total number of units and the type should be provided on the plan, not the cost. This MDP will not be accepted until this unit price has been removed. 21. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency comments from the following agencies: Virginia Department of Transportation and the local Fire and Rescue Company. 22. Special Limited Power of Attorney. Provide a power of attorney for the property owners. 23. Fees. Based on the fees adopted by the Board of Supervisors on April 23, 2008, the rezoning fee for this application includes a $10,000.00 base fee plus $100.00 per acre for the first 150 acres and $50 for each acre over 150, and a $50.00 public hearing sign fee. The Master Development Plan fee for this application includes a $3,000.00 base plus $100.00 per acre for the first 150 acres and $50 for each acre over 150. All of the above comments and reviewing agency comments should be appropriately addressed before staff can accept this rezoning application. Please feel free to contact me with questions regarding this application. Sincerely, t. 7 r C Candice E. Perkins, AICP Senior Planner cc: Carpers Valley Development LLC, 480 Jubal Early Drive, Suite 330, Winchester, VA 22601 April 28, 2008 Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust Associates 117 E. Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Proposed Rezoning and Master Development Plan for the Governors Hill Project Dear Patrick: MM ERicK Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540 /665 -6395 I have had the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application and Master Development Plan for the Governors Hill Property. The rezoning application seeks to rezone 39.7 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the R4 (Residential, Planned Community) District and 238.3 acres from the R4 District to the R4 District with revised proffers. Our understanding of this project was that the applicant wished to relocate the previously proffered location of Coverstone Drive from its planned intersection with Sulfur Springs Road to Inverlee Road. In reviewing this application package, it is noted that extensive proffer revisions have occurred, more than simply the anticipated road relocation, and this application as proposed significantly detracts from the original approved application and proffers. Because of the significant changes to the previously approved proffer, staff has conducted a thorough review of the recently submitted application package. Staff's review comments are listed below for your consideration. Rezoning Comments 1. Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan. The site is within the limits of the Route 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan and the Airport Support Area. The plan shows a portion of this property with a business/office designation. The proposed R4 Zoning with commercial uses is generally consistent with this plan as it relates to this area. 2. Rezoning Application Proposed Uses. The .rezoning application calls for 540,000sf of office, 360,000sf of retail and 550 residential units. While the number of residential units has been proffered, the 900,000sf of commercial space has not been proffered. Also, the TIA was modeled on 540,000sf of retail and 360,000sf of office. Unless a specific use and square footage is proffered, the County will assume the maximum possible development (retail) as per the 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Page 2 Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Proposed Rezoning of Governors Hill Property April 28, 2008 County's application package, combined with the maximum possible floor space. At the maximum possible use, there is the potential for 3,385,718.5sf of retail uses. A proffer to limit the square footage of this development to no more than what the TIA was based on would be appropriate. 3. Impact Analysis. The impact analysis states that the site will be used for a mixture of office and retail uses (540,000sf office /360,000sf retail); however, these uses are not proffered and, therefore, any use allowed in the. B2 District could develop on the site. 4. Impact on Community Facilities. As you are aware, the development impact model for the County has been revised since the figures were calculated for this project. With this new rezoning package, the residential portion of the property should follow the new impacts. Since the residential development is not phased in to recognize commercial development, the entire impact for each residential unit should be addressed and mitigated. If the non residential phase of the project does not materialize and the project is built solely as a 550 residential unit development, the per unit capital facilities fiscal impact is projected to be $16,396 for townhouses and $8,975 per multi family unit. 5. Parcel 64- A -83B. Parcel 64 -A -83B (Richard and Donna Dick) should be included in the revised rezoning package, as this property was party to the original R4 application and approved proffers. 6. Revised Proffers. The proffers provided for this application are significantly different than the previously approved proffers. A redlined copy of the proffers should be provided that shows the proffers with deletions and additions for clarification. 7. Proffer 1.1. The last portion of this proffer should be removed. All entrance alignment should mirror the MDP and modifications will not be permitted without a revised MDP. Also, the development should be in substantial conformance with the MDP not relative conformance. 8. Proffer 1.2. The original rezoning had a proffered "Design and Development Standards" manual which is no longer referenced in revised proffer 1.2. This manual referenced the housing types and street designs and architectural standards, and should be updated and included with this submission. Failure to include the manual would exclude certain housing types previously requested as well as other necessary modifications, Also, the development should be in substantial conformance with the MDP, not relative conformance. Page 3 Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Proposed Rezoning of Governors Hill Property April 28, 2008 9. Proffer 1.3. The intent of Proffer 1.3 is unclear as it seems to state the same requirements as proffers 1.4 and 1.5. Also, proffer 1.3 conflicts with proffer 1.4 as proffer 1.4 states that only 82 uses are permitted and proffer 1.3 references §165-83, which is the 83 Zoning District. 10. Proffer 1.5. While this proffer is the same as proffer 1.6 from the original rezoning, since the Design and Development Standards Manuel has been removed from the rezoning, there should be no modifications to the housing types. If modifications to the Zoning Ordinance requirements are still being requested, the manual needs to be updated and proffered with this rezoning. The design manual is also referenced in proffer 1.5.1. A list of modifications needs to be provided so that they may be acted on, including the modifications on the MDP is not acceptable. 11. Proffer 3.1. Proffer 3.1 should be revised to clarify that "the applicant shall design and build as well as bond for completion of construction not later than the construction of an Armory structure on Tax Map Parcel 64 -A -82, a minimum two lane roadway from Arbor Court to the entrance to the Armory Site This proffer should also be expanded to ensure the completion of the road to Tazewell Road. Proof of the ability to build a road through parcel 64 -A -80J should be addressed. The original proffers also stated that the Armory site would be provided access to Route 50 via Coverstone Drive; why has the revised proffer eliminated the main access route to the armory that was provided as part of the original proffer? 12. Proffer 4.1. The note in proffer 4.1 that states "the above identified phasing schedule is taken from the Date of Final Rezoning (DER)" should be removed. 13. Proffer 4.1. As this rezoning application does not tie the residential permits to the commercial development, residential construction will be an impact to the County. Consideration should be given to limiting the number of residential permits within a given 12 month period to possibly 100 units. 14. Proffer 4.3. The monetary value on the recreational unit should be removed from the proffer. The proffer should also be revised to remove the statement about the recreational amenities being "bonded for completion as soon as practicable The recreational amenities should be bonded when the residential portion of the project is subdivided. 15. Proffer 7.2. Indicate why the fire and rescue proffer has been revised to remove the rate increase provided in the original rezoning. Page 4 Mr, Patrick Sowers RE: Proposed Rezoning of Govemors Hill Property April 28, 2008 16. Proffer 12.2. It is unclear why the residential portions of the property would be controlled by more than one homeowners association and the proffer should be revised. 17. Proffer 15. It is unclear why proffers 15.1.1.1.1 and 15.1.1.1.2 are not combined to just state that Phase 1 of Coverstone Drive will consist of the construction of a four lane section (with the trail) from point A to point B and must be bonded and constructed prior to the occupancy of the first commercial building. It is also unclear why proffer 15.1.1 was modified to remove the previously approved street tree plan. 18. Proffer 15.1.1. Coverstone Drive should have raised landscaped medians as previously approved, not just raised medians. 19. Proffer 15.1.2. Proffer 15.1.2 states that Tazewell Road will be constructed to provide access to the residential land bay; however, the construction of just Tazewell Road does nothing to get the residents to Route 50 or Prince Frederick Drive. The proffers do not mention anything about the construction of Coverstone Drive should the residential portion develop first. The way the proffers are currently worded, if the residential portion develops first, they would access the site via Tazewell Road and into the adjacent industrial park which would be completely inappropriate. 20. Proffer 15.2. The original proffers stated that Coverstone Drive would be completed from Millwood Pike to Prince Frederick Drive by June I, 2012. The revised proffers have pushed this deadline back to 2015. The timeline for the completion of this roadway should not be pushed back simply because the applicant is revising the proffers. 21. Proffer 15.5. The intent of this proffer is unclear; the uses within this development should not have any direct access to Millwood Pike. The proffer should state that the only access to Millwood Pike will be via Coverstone Drive. 22. Closure of Crossover. The revised proffers eliminate original proffer 15.8 which stipulated the closure of the golf course crossover and stated that it could only be used for emergency access for GSA. The original proffer went on to state that if the applicant obtained access to the Inverlee intersection, the crossover would be closed. Extensive discussions in 2005 resulted in the need for the closure of this crossover and it is unclear what has changed to enable this crossover to remain open. Page 5 Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Proposed Rezoning of Governors Hill Property April 28, 2008 23. Proffer 17.1. As thirty months have already passed since this rezoning was approved, it would be appropriate to update the fiscal impact contributions reflective of the Development Impact Model, and continue to apply the escalator clause in the future. Master Development Plan Comments 24. Sheet Index. On the coversheet under the index, sheet 6 does not have the proffers on it. 25. Signature Blocks. A signature block needs to be provided for Richard Dick. 26. Residential Layout. The revised layout for the residential area now creates an area of units that are completely separated from the remaining units. These units must access Coverstone Drive through the commercial area. The residential layout needs to be reevaluated to ensure that it is internally connected. 27. Residential Area. It is unclear how the residential area, which was depicted as being 124 acres on the original MDP, has dropped to 119.5 acres on the new MDP. 28. Open Space. Sheet 2, on the area labeled open space for residential land bays, shows both residential and commercial. A separate table should be created for the commercial or the title should be changed. Please note that the site is required to have 30% of the entire site in open space per the Zoning Ordinance. Thisopen space must be provided with each phase and cannot be consolidated within one area of the development. Both the commercial and residential areas must have adequate open space. 29. Zoning District Buffer. A zoning district buffer needs to be provided between the newly acquired area intended to be rezoned to R4 for commercial and the existing R4 designated for residential. 30. Road Notes. On sheet 2 under road notes, note 2 needs to be removed. The streets need to be constructed consistent with the MDP. If the road layout needs to be changed, the MDP will need to be modified. 31. Recreational Unit Requirement. On sheet 3, the monetary unit price for the recreational units needs to be removed. Sincerely, Page 6 Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Proposed Rezoning of Governors Hill Property April 28,2008 4 32. Legend. On sheet 3 -5, the trail needs to be included in the legend. Other 33. Transportation Comments. Please note that transportation comments on the rezoning application from John Bishop, Deputy Director of Transportation, are being provided to you in a separate letter. 34. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency comments from the following agencies: Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marshall, Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, Frederick- Winchester Health Department, the local Fire and Rescue Company and the Frederick- Winchester Service Authority. The proposed proffers have been forwarded by staff to the Frederick County Attorney. Once attorney comments are received by the Planning Department, they will be forwarded to your office. Attorney comments are required for acceptance of the rezoning application. 35. Special Limited Power of Attorney. Provide a power of attorney for the property owners. 36. Fees. Based on the fees adopted by the Board of Supervisors on April 23, 2008, the rezoning fee for this application includes a $10,000.00 base fee plus $100.00 per acre for the first 150 acres and $50 for each acre over 150, and a $50.00 public hearing sign fee. The Master Development Plan fee for this application includes a $3,000.00 base plus $100.00 per acre for the first 150 acres and $50 for each acre over 150. All of the above comments and reviewing agency comments should be appropriately addressed before staff can accept this rezoning application. Please feel free to contact me with questions regarding this application. Candice E. Perkins, AICP Senior Planner cc: Carpers Valley Development LLC, 480 Jubal Early Drive, Suite 330, Winchester, VA 22601 April 28, 2008 Patton, Harris, Rust Associates c/o Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: County Transportation Comment on the Rezoning Application for Governors Hill Dear Mr. Sowers: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540 /665 -6395 As the Deputy Director Transportation for the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development, I have reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis and Rezoning Application for the Governors Hill Rezoning. It was our understanding that the primary intention of this rezoning was the relocation of the Coverstone Drive connection from Sulphur Springs Road to Inverlee Way; however, this proposal has a number of other modifications and an intensification of use to analyze I have the following comments and concerns to point out: 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. Compared to the TIA used in the previous rezoning, this TIA has shifted the residential unit types considerably. It has a much higher percentage of townhomes than the previous TIA. As you know, townhomes generate more trips than apartments. However, the per unit generation for townhomes and apartments is lower in the new TIA; significantly lower in the case of townhomes. 3. The previous TIA offered two potential scenarios. One scenario analyzed 1.2 million square feet of office space while the other scenario analyzed 620,000 square feet of retail. This new TIA considers 540,000 square feet of retail and 360,000 square feet of office. This results in thousands more trips than previously considered. Additionally, these square footages are not proffered, which would allow the applicant to put significantly greater square footages of retail than depicted in the TIA. Accordingly, even though this TIA proposes thousands more vehicle trips, it is still not a worst case scenario TIA as required under the Comprehensive Plan. 4. While I recognize that a significant effort was made to have this TIA show the long term picture, it simply doesn't get there. This is partially proven by the fact that, though this application relies so heavily on the desire to complete Inverlee Way through this portion of the County, no development traffic was assigned to this roadway. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Patrick Sowers RE: County Transportation Comment on the Rezoning Application for Governors Hill April 28, 2008 Page 2 5. The Eastern Road Plan, unanimously adopted by the Board of Supervisors on 11/08/06, calls for connections with Inverlee Way and Sulphur Springs Road. The previous rezoning recognized both of these connections. However, this application renders the connection to Sulphur Springs Road impossible in the future. As you know, the Eastern Road Plan is a component of the County's Comprehensive Plan. 6. Without going into detail, I would echo case planner Candice Perkins' comments of April 28, 2008 on the roll back in timing of project implementation, as well as the scaling back of language that details the quality of the road improvements. In summary, the TIA does not adequately model the impacts of altering the County's adopted Eastern Road Plan. The TIA combined with proffered land uses does not represent a worst case scenario. The proffer package seems only to scale back and soften the language of existing proffers while requesting nearly 40 acres in additional commercial land bays. The application states that additional impacts are not generated by this proposal. However, I would suggest that this application as presented creates the following impacts; 1. Undermines an approved Eastern Road Plan that previous proffers for this development supported. 2. Even as presented, this TIA generates additional trips without additional transportation proffers. I would note again that this is without a worst case scenario TIA. 3. Extends the implementation of previously proffered improvements and removes guarantees about the type of those improvements. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this review further, please contact the case planner, Mrs. Candice Perkins, and we can arrange a meeting which I will be happy to attend. Sincerely, John A. Bishop, AICP Deputy Director Transportation JAB /bad cc: Lloyd Ingram, VDOT Jerry Copp, VDOT Patrick R. Sowers From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: oleO.bmp (44 KB) Regional Planning Picture (Metafile) 1 Ronald A. Mislowsky Monday, October 27, 2008 3:01 PM Patrick R. Sowers FW: Governor's Hill VDOT Comments to TIN Rezoning Package NOV 3 2008 L_ Original Message From: Funkhouser, Rhonda [mailto: Rhonda .Funkhouser @VDOT.Virginia.gov] On Behalf Of Hoffman, Gregory Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 2:46 PM To: Michael C. Glickman Cc: Smith, Matthew, P.E.; Hoffman, Gregory; Copp, Jerry; John Bishop; elawrenc @co.frederick.va.us; Short, Terry; Conrad, John; Ronald A. Mislowsky Subject: Governor's Hill VDOT Comments to TIA/ Rezoning Package The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes"50, 1538 and 781 These route are the VDOT roadways which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is not satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Governors Hill Development rezoning application dated September 2, 2008 address transportation concerns associated with this request. We have reviewed the proffers, preliminary drawings, as well as the associated traffic impact analysis (TIA) report. There have been two primary questions asked of the Department with respect to this application. First, would a single point of access for the development function, and second, to offer our opinion regarding the proposed removal of the development's connection to Rt. 655 at Rt. 50. From our review of the TIA, it is our opinion that a single point of access to the proposed development offers certain failing or underperforming conditions that are not desirable. Furthermore, as also evidenced in the applicant's TIA, the existing proffered connection from the development to Route 655 at Route 50 offers good regional connectivity. Revising the development's road connection proffers as requested by the applicant, would remove a logical and effective future road connection that has been a part of the County's planning activities for many years. We offer the following detailed review comments: The planned proffer modification that will remove a previously- agreed -to connection to Sulphur Springs Rd (Rt. 655) is inconsistent with the County's Eastern Road Plan, updated as recently as August 2007. As depicted, both the connection to Rt. 655 and Inverlee Way thru the development are planned Major Collectors. The approval of this rezoning request as presented would arguably eliminate the County's ability to see the connection to Rt. 655 move forward in the foreseeable future. Additionally, it is important to note that a Six Year Improvement Plan project northwest of Rt. 50 along Rt. 655 is currently designed to provide typical section (lane arrangement) that would be inconsistent with the amended proffer /rezoning currently being considered with this application. It may be warranted for the County to re- evaluate the scope of the project should the connection be removed. As part of the TIA that was prepared for this request, three scenarios have been presented (at different stages of development). The first with one connection which is made at Inverlee via Coverstone Drive. The second, a single connection made opposite Rt. 655; and the third, a combination of connections at Rt. 655 and Inverlee Way via Coverstone Drive. From a regional planning perspective, VDOT's opinion is that Scenario 3 is the preferred option for the following reasons: Consistency with the 2007 adopted Comprehensive Plan Connection opposite Rt. 655 offers enhanced access from the eastern part of the County to the planned future realignment of Rt. 522 and destination development west of the I -81 area. Connection (as approximated in the TIA) would divert a minimum of 30 of the planned development traffic (and background traffic) away from Rt. 50 as it approaches a land use setting that is increasingly more residential in nature. Allowing a single point of access for a large scale retail planned development opposite Inverlee could arguably be disruptive to neighboring residential uses. Connection opposite Inverlee offers direct access to planned development north of Rt. 50. As can be construed in the TIA, a connection opposite Rt. 655 could very well satisfy an existing significant latent demand for the connection. From an access management perspective, the Route 50 Corridor is identified as a Principal Arterial which requires certain access goals be recognized during the development process. The distance between Inverlee and Rt. 655 is nearly 1/2-mile, which is reasonably consistent with the recently adopted VDOT Access Management Regulations. It is important to understand that the connection to Inverlee Way via Coverstone Drive was never an 'either /or' option as evidenced in the 10/12/2005 rezoning and related approved proffers which state: Picture (Metafile) The future connection to Inverlee Way has been contemplated for some time so as to supplement access to the proposed development at Rt. 655 and Rt. 50. What is now being considered is the elimination cf the Rt. 655 connection, at the same time that the applicant is requesting the addition of hundreds of thousands of additional square feet of retail space. While the subject TIA has demonstrated that significant large scale improvements to Inverlee Way at Coverstone Drive can result in an overall LOS of C, it is critical that the County understand that 6 out of 11 of the movements at this intersection fail /under- perform at build -out (LOS D, E and F). Proffers We disagree with Section 15.6 of the current proffer as it relates to the monetary contribution for the signalization of Costello and Prince Frederick Drive. At current VDOT costs, the offered amount of $150,000 would cover only 75% of the cost of a signal. We disagree with the terms of Section 15.2: Phase 4 of the proposed proffers with establishes a deadline of June 30, 2018 for the County or VDOT to secure right -of -way for the extension of Coverstone Drive Extended. This terminology was not included in prior agreements, and we feel that a deadline should not be established now. Revised Section 3.1 to read as follows: The applicant shall design and construct a two lane public roadway from Arbor Court to Tazewell /Coverstone Drive. Similar to VDOT comments at the time of the 10/2005 application, we are concerned about proffer language included in Section 15.12 which states "The applicant shall make good faith efforts to obtain any off -site ROW needed to complete any proffered off -site transportation improvements. In the event that the Applicant is not able to obtain the ROW and, further, the County and /or State of Virginia do not obtain the necessary ROW, the Applicant shall not be responsible for constructing those improvements where sufficient ROW is not available. We would suggest that those specific off -site improvements where ROW may be problematic for the Applicant be identified and reviewed prior to the approval of the current rezoning application. We disagree with Section 15.13 of the proposed proffer which states that the TIA that has been provided for this application be valid for a period of 6 years from the date of final rezoning. Given that no specific tenants have been identified that will utilize a new public road (Coverstone) from Prince Frederick to Rt. 50, the evolving nature of the neighboring parcels, and historic regional growth patterns, we do not 2 support this proffered condition. TIA Technical Observations future. Please use separate figures for site generated and pass -by trips in the For 2025 Build -Out scenarios 1, 2, and 3 with Imp the intersections have an acceptable intersection overall LOS, but many movements operate at LOS E and some movements operate at LOS F. As an example, please refer to the following sub bullets: The approach to Rt. 50 from Inverlee Way currently enjoys a LOS of B, and is projected to maintain a LOS C during the 2025 background conditions. That said, the proposed development would create a new signalized intersection at Inverlee and Rt. 50 resulting in a LOS D for this approach. 1 At the Prince Frederick Dr. and Rt. 50 intersection during year 2025 Saturday peak -hour background (no- build), the LOS at the intersection is B, with all individual movements operating at acceptable /good LOS (A,B,C). Also, the roadway between Rt. 50 and Costello Drive yields 250+ vehicles in the peak hour. By contrast, at build out the LOS for the intersection drops to LOS D with 6 out of 8 movements failing (D,E,F), with a peak hour volume of 1,850+ along the roadway from Rt. 50 to Costello Drive. This with no planned improvements to Prince Frederick Drive other than turn lanes at intersections. We disagree with the spacing of the proposed driveway entrances and signalized intersections along Coverstone Drive. The arterial LOS from Tazewell Drive to Rt. 50 is LOS D for NB, and LOS E for SB during the 2025 Build -out Saturday conditions as an example. When considering the volumes and traffic operations depicted in the TIA, we feel that the following additional improvements are necessary at the intersection of Coverstone and Tazewell: EB Dual lefts 1 SB Dual lefts 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. Should you have any questions or concerns, do not hesitate to call. Gregory T. Hoffman, Supervisor Virginia Department of Transportation Edinburg Residency Land Development 2275 Northwestern Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Phone #(540) 535 -1824 Fax #(540) 535 -1846 3 Patrick R. Sowers 6 7 Peak Object: Governor's HiII /Carper's Valley VDOT Comments to Rezoning Original Message From: Funkhouser, Rhonda [mailto:Rhonda.Funkhcuser @VDOT.Virginia.gov] On Behalf Of Ingram, Lloyd Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 12:40 PM To: Ronald A. Mislowsky Cc: Ingram, Lloyd; Smith, Matthew, P.E.; Copp, Jerry; Eric Lawrence; mruddy @co.frederick.va.us Subject: Governor's Hill /Carper's Valley VDOT Comments to Rezoning The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 50, 781, 728, 1367. 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 Governor's Hill Rezoning Application dated March 24, 2008 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Comments are as follows: 15.1 The relocation of Coverstone Drive is not consistent with Frederick County's Road Plan. 1 15.1.1. Should be changed to 90' per the proposed MDP 2 15.1.1.1, 2, 3 Due to the projected volumes of traffic this roadway will not be eligible for acceptance into the Secondary System until all three phases are complete. 3 15.1.2 Due to the potential traffic volumes exceeding 2000 VPD, unless Frederick County agrees to a reduced width of the roadway, the F.C. to F.C. should be 40'. Thus the nroposed Right -of -way width is too narrow. 15.2 Acceptable 5 15.3 The $75,000 offered for the intersection of Route 50 and Victory Lane does not appear to mitigate the traffic impact sufficiently. 15.4 The County will have to determine if the $150,000 offered is sufficient. 15.5 Agree 8 15.6 Agree 9 15.7 Acceptable 10 15.8 Acceptable Under Scenario 2, the following intersections were identified as needing improvements to handle the significant stacking requirements. These improvements were not mitigated in the proffers offered. Route 522 /Costello Dr: SBL 635 ft at Sat Peak 1 Prince Frederick Dr /Costello Dr: SBTR 697 ft at PM 2 Route 52 /Prince Frederick Dr: WBT /TR 520 at PM Peak 3 Route 50 /Sulphur Springs Rd: SBR 477 ft at Sat Peak 4 Route 50 /Victory Rd: WBT /TR 485 ft at PM Peak Conclusion The TIA submitted for this rezoning, while not perfect, appears to indicate that acceptable LOS can be maintained by the proposed relocation of Coverstone Drive to intersect Route 50 opposite of Inverlee Drive. This relocation is not in accordance with the County's Road Plan and therefore Frederick County will need to make the determination if the relocation is acceptable. The issues identified in the proffer comments will need be adequately addressed prior to support by VDOT. 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 1 right -of -way needs, including right-of-way dedications, tra c 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. III ank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. <<SCN 20080521123836 001.pdf» 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 2 From:LIFESAFE Control number Rzoa -0C;04 Project Name Governors Hill Address 117 East Piccadilly Street. Suite 200 Type Application Rezoning Current Zoning R4 /RA Automatic Sprinkler System Yes Other recommendation Emergency Vehicle Access Not Identified Siamese Location Not Identified Emergency Vehicle Access Comments Access Comments Additional Comments Plan Approval Recommended Yes Date received 3/28/2008 Tax ID Number 64 -A -83, etc. City State Zip Applicant Phone Winchester VA 22601 540- 667 -2139 Recommendations Automatic Fire Alarm System Residential Sprinkler System Yes Roadway/Aisleway Width Not Identified Reviewed By J. Neal S? a"Rew t Date reviewed 4/1/2008 Applicant Patton Harris Rust Associates Fire District Rescue District 21 21 Signature Title 04/01/2008 09:43 #939 P.002/002 Special Hazards No Election District Shawnee No Hydrant Location Fire Lane Required Not Identified Yes Date Revised Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust Associates, p.c. 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Patrick: Governors Hill Master Development Plan (MDP) Frederick County, Virginia June 12, 2006 2. Indicate the contour intervals shown on the applicable topographic sheets. 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540!665 -5643 FAX: 540/678-0682 We have completed our review of the proposed Governors Hill MDP and offer the following comments: I Refer to our previous review comments,.1 and 2 dated June 27, 2005, related to the Carpers Valley Rezoning. These comments need to be incorporated in the proposed MDP. 3. Existing ponds are shown on sheet 4 of 6 in conjunction with proposed stormwater management ponds. Indicate if the existing ponds will be used in the development of a stormwater management plan for the commercial area. If so, the site design should reflect what treasures will he taken to insure the integrity and long -term stability of the dams associated with these ponds: Off -site easements may be required to accommodate point source discharges. 4. The -area in the vicinity of the existing rubble fill is shown as steep slopes rather than uncompacted fill. This discrepancy needs to be resolved in conjunction with addressing the previous rezoning con related to this fill. 5. Indicate if consideration has been given to constructing one (1) or two (2) large stormwater detention facilities in the residential development areas rather than the len (10) small facilities shown on sheet 4 of 6. This approach would greatly reduce the Governors Hill AMP Comments Page 2 June 12, 2006 1 can be reached at 722 -8214 if you should have any questions regarding the above corm ems. HESlrls maintenance responsibilities assi to the Homeowners' Associations, cc: Planning and Development file Sinccrcly, C:J'rogram Filcal,WurdPer( eel Ol'lice 11V2hundalTEMP COMMENTS lgovcrnorshilimdpcom.rpd Harvey E. Strawsnyder, .h.. P.E. Director of Public Works Department of Inspections Comments: r \\O OocnmvAs e).�- nk S- N ∎CV%c ln<NIMQCAC SholI l nnacI 9 ■-\‘sAcr(\ Sk&m,\.„\ Inspections Signature Date: IX,- Notice to Dept. of spections Please Return This Form to the Applicant Rezoning Comments Mail to: Frederick Co. Dept. of Inspections Attn: Director of Inspections 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5650 Appli ant t Department o rmap p ro motion Ani ew. egirevXen l .and Applicant's Name: Mailing Address: NOM WOE& ACOUNFY The properties are located approximately one mile east of Interstate 81 on the Location of Property: Patton Harris Rust Associates c/o Patrick Sowers south side of Millwood Pike (Route 50 East), across from Sulphur Springs Road (Rt. 655) and The Ravens Subdivision. Frederick County Department of inspections 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Current Zoning: R4 /RA Zoning Requested: Governors Hill Rezoning Hand deliver to: Frederick Co. Dept. of Inspections Attn: Director of Inspections Co. Administration Bldg., 4 Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Phone: (540) 667 -2139 RECEIVED MAR 2 8 2p@@ R4 Acreage: 278 acres 14 F ed Wiinchesst�$ervice Authority's Comments: no FWSA Signature Date: WIAA 412415 Notice to Fred -Wine Service Authority Please Return This Form to the Applicant Rezoning Comments Mail to: Fred -Winc Service Authority Attn: Jesse W. Moffett, Executive Director P.O. Box 43 Winchester, VA 22604 (540) 722-3579 Applicant's Name: Mailing Address: Location of Property: (Rt. 655) and The Ravens Subdivision. Frederick Winchester Service Authority Current Zoning: R4/RA Zoning Requested: Patton Harris Rust Associates c/o Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Hand deliver to: Fred -Wine Service Authority Attn: Jesse W. Moffett 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 nior-der cr dkyouriapplicationtfbrm m entsmro`imation n i The properties are located approximately one mile east of Interstate 81 on the Governors Hill Rezoning rPhone:: (540)_667 =2-139 -_w. 200 11; south side of Millwood Pike (Route 50 East), across from Sulphur Springs Road R4 Acreage: 278 acres 22 Sanitation Authority Comments: 7 /5 SMOOZ Q 43,y 5 c/16 5Ew/ A? 4444 1/1/17 this C4P4C /7Y 70 5,[`R I 7 AR ochcc7T. /09,46? OE Sanitation Authority Signature Date:: Notice to Sanitation Auth d Please Return This Form to the Applicant Rezoning Comments Mail to: Frederick Co. Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, VA 22604 (540) 868-1061 (Rt. 655) and The Ravens Subdivision. Frederick County Sanitation Authority Hand deliver to: Frederick Co. Sanitation A Attn: Engineer 315 Tasker Road Stephens City, VA Governors Hill Rezoning ty MAR 2 8 2008 a.oy �i FCSA Aoohcant x Please fills riAttOur u Author th review statement, Impact analysts rant orm a accur ach eopy o you any otherjpertinen Applicant's Name: Patton Harris Rust Associates Mailing Address: c/o Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 o rde ssz rd to m order tmasstst t a ioca ion i torm ittocation Location of Property: The properties are located approximately one mile east of Interstate 81 on the Phone: (540) 667 -2139 south side of Millwood Pike (Route 50 East), across from Sulphur Springs Road Current Zoning: R4 /RA Zoning Requested: R4 Acreage: 278 acres 2 a'Y viat 't°s'4 etsatutatton Mutter I8 _.f Frederick Winchester Health Department's Comments: f 116 (pct A 3 -e- rt .ii� 4tJ 4 s &/M C.-• 1...&ttt 2/ C -taf Health Signature Date: 2a, 1t 9 0 e Notice to Health Department Please Return This Form to the Applicant Rezoning Comments Mail to: Frederick Winchester Health Dept. Attn: Sanitation Engineer 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 722 -3480 rteaith uepar litcatmr map, proffer sto Applicant's Name: Mailing Address: Frederick Winchester Health Department `nt oa9, rk 9 €aa ation accurately as m r,fl oe'r netr,review acn,- a eo ategliNWS ementtmpact analysis ,andtanr of Patton Harris Rust Associates c/o Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Hand deliver to: Frederick Winchester Health Dept. Attn: Sanitation Engineer 107 North Kent St., Suite 201 Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 722-3480 Location of Property: The properties are located approximately one mile east of Interstate 81 on the (Rt. 655) and The Ravens Subdivision. Current Zoning: R4 /RA filarea e. Governors Hill Rezoning B. a is t' h9 ?old order to assistl� Fire ur 'rat ,,ouriappueatton3torm er pe A nentimformatton Phone: (540) 667 -2139 south side of Millwood Pike (Route 50 East), across from Sulphur Springs Road Zoning Requested: R4 Acreage: 278 acres goon 88 8'm 03A13338 19 Dept. of Parks Recreation Comments: Spp ('nmmpnts nn attached cheat. Parks Signature Date: A pra Notice to Dept. of Parks Recreation v AO z� "0 )3�er Please Return This Form to the Applicant Current Zoning: R4 /RA al Rezoning Comments Frederick County Department of Parks Recreation Mail to: Frederick County Dept. of Parks Recreation 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5678 Applicant's Name: Patton Harris Rust Associates Mailing Address: c/o Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 (Rt. 655) and The Ravens Subdivision. Hand deliver to: Frederick County Department of Parks Recreation Co. Administration Bldg., 2 Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: The properties are located approximately one mile east of Interstate 81 on the Governors Hill Rezoning Phone: (540) 667 -2139 south side of Millwood Pike (Route 50 East), across from Sulphur Springs Road Zoning Requested: R4 Acreage: 278 acres 16 Governors Hill Rezoning Request October 22, 2008 1. The proposed monetary proffer for Parks and recreation does not appear to be adequate to compensate for the impact the residents of this development will have on the capital needs of the Parks and Recreation Department. 2. Plan appears to offer the equivalent to the required number of recreational units; however, detailed information regarding the proposed recreational units will be needed for review during the subdivision review phase of this project. 3. The pedestrian/bicycle trail appears to meet county standards and should be constructed to the 2007 MPO Bicycle /Pedestrian Plan specifications. 4. The proposed Dog Park would not be considered a recreational unit. 5. The net useable open space to be provided in the commercial areas should be included in the project summary. 6. It appears this project is required to provide 30% open space throughout the entire development. 7. The proffered neighborhood swimming pools should have adequate decking, dressing rooms and support amenities. 8. Completion of the 3,000 square foot Community Center and the 3,500 square foot swimming pools by the issuance of the 281 building permit should be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department as deemed appropriate. Matthew G. Hon, Superintendent of arks Winchester Regional Airport's Comments (n� ti .0 A L r9 0..._d l t i d lei. i #)c Winchester Regional Airport Signature Dated E it Notice to Winchester Regional Airport Please Return This Form to-the Applicant .0-24-08 6PM; Rezoning Comments Applicant's Name: Mailing Address: Mail to: Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road Winchester, VA 22602 (540) 662-2422 PHRA Winchester Regional Airport Patton Harris Rust Associates c/o Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 HaudReliver to: Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road Winchester, VA Location of Property: The properties are located approximately one mile east of Interstate 81 on the south side of Millwood Pike (Route East), across from Sulphur Springs Road (Rt. 655) and The Ravens Subdivision. ;5400522936 Governors Hill Rezoning Phone: (540) 667 -2139 Current Zoning: R4/RA Zoning Requested: R4 Acreage. 278 acres 20 10- 24- 03:02: 36PM; Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust Associates 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Rezoning- Comment Govemors Hill 39.7 acres RA to R4 238:3-acres R4 to R4 Shawnee Magisterial District Dear Mr. Sowers: WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT 491 AIRPORT ROAD WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 (540) 662 -2422 PHRA :5406622936 2/ 5 I have reviewed the rezoning request-for-Governors Hill for additional property acquired formerly known as the Hockman parcel to be included into the Governors Hill complex. After review by legal counsel; we -feel that- the- proffer referring to an avigation-easement be reworded in order to clearly define the Airport Authority's request for an avigation easement and the applicant's concurrence to that request. On behalf of the Winchester- RegionatAirport Authority, I respectfully request-the following change in the Proffer statement under Section 14.•Environment, subsection 14.3: "The Applicant shall convey to -the Winchester Regional Airport Authority an avigation easement to provide further protection for Airport operations in the form as attached to this document. The Applicant shall provide-noise- attenuation treatment for'all residential units." I have enclosed a copy of the Dee:tot Easement for your use: This is the same easement form recorded in the County of Frederick between -the applicant and the Airport Authority on prior land transactions. Provided the above languags is used to replace subsection 143, the Airport Authority has no further comments or objections to tho proposed rezoning. Thank you for your continued cooperation-and assistance. We appreciate your efforts to ensure continued and safe operations of -the Winchester Regional Airport. Sincerely, S. R. Manuel Executive Director Enclosure 10- 24 -09; V1 :36°9; 540682293G n 3/ 6 THIS DEED OF EASEMENT AND RESTRICTIONS is made this day of .20 by and between ("Grantor") and THE WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia "Grantee WHEREAS, the Grantee is the owner of the Winchester Regional Airport "Airport"), located within Frederick County, Virginia; WHEREAS the Grantee is the owner of certain real property, described below; WHEREAS the zoning ordinance of the County of Frederick requires an avigation easement for any properties that are subdivided-that -lie within the airport support area as -shown in the zoning regulations of the County; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to set out the rights and responsibilities of each related to the Winchester Regional Airport. WITNESSETH: THAT for and in consideration of- the.mutual- benefits to the parties hereto, the Grantor does hereby grant to the Grantee a permanent .avigation easement, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein below, across the following described property (hereinafter, "Property to wit: The property over which- an- avigationeasement is hereby conveyed is described as follows: FOR A DESCRIPTION OF THE REAL ESTATE CONVEYED, SEE SCHEDULE A,-ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF 1. THAT the Grantor, foritself,- its:heirs; successors and-assigns, hereby grants unto Grantee for the benefit of the public in the use_andoperation of the Airport a right of :the public and specifically, without limitation of owners, operators and occupants of aircraft to use the airspace over the Property and for all said persons and entities to cause in- the-navigable airspace above -the Property such light, sound, noise, smoke and vibration as may be inherent -in or related to-the operation:of-.aircraft using said airspace for landing at, taking off from, or otherwise operating at or about the Airport: and 2. 'THAT Grantor, for itself, its-heirs, successors and assigns,-and for the benefit of the public in the use and operation of the Airport and the airspace above the airport, covenants and agrees that it will not use the Property, or permit any use-of-the Property, in a manner that would-constitute an obstruction to the passage of aircraft using the.navigable airspace above the Property- for landing at, taking off from or otherwise operating at or about the- Airport, and that they will not use the- Property, or-permit any use of the Property, in a manner, including eastingof -light into the airspace above -the property which would present a hazard to any aircraft using the navigable airspace above the- Freperty:for..landing -at, taking off from, or otherwise Operating at or about the Airport. A. For the purpose of this restriction "object" including any mobile object, shall mean any natural growth, any terrain;- any- permanent construction= or=alteration of any structure, including equipment or materials used therein; any apparatus of a permanent or temporary character; 10- 24- 05;02:36Pv; PRA ;5405522936 4i 5 and alteration of any permanent or temporary existing structure by a change in its height (including appurtenances) or lateral dimensions, including equipment or materials used therein. B. For the purpose of this. restriction, "structure" shall mean any object, including a mobile object, constructed or erected- by_man,-including but not limited to: buildings, towers, communications towers, radio and television antennae, cranes, smokestacks, earth formations, everhead transmission lines, flag poles and ship masts. C. For the purpose of this restriction, "obstruction" shall mean any existing object or structure, any future object or structure including -a mobile object or structure, jf such object or structure is of greater height than any of the following heights or surfaces: (1). The Transitional Surface described herein; or any imaginary surface of the Airport that may be applicable- to- the-Property, as establis -hed by -the Federal: Aviation Regulations, Part 77, or any applicable successor regulations; (2). Any other heightsor- surfaces-established =as standards for determining obstructions by the Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77, or any applicable successor regulations, as such standards may apply to the Property; and 3. THAT Grantor for itself, its heirs, successors and assigns, covenants and agrees with the Grantee that for the benefit of the public in the -use and operation of the Airport they will not hereafter establish, construct, erect or grow, or- permit -the establishment. construction, erection or growth of, any structure or vegetation, whether natural or:man- made;-which =would penetrate- into -or through -the Transitional Surface described herein, or any Airport -cl ear :zone, runway protection zone, approach,zone, imaginary surface, obstruction clearance surface,obstructienclearance zone,-er- other- surface or :zone-(as such zones or surfaces may currently or- hereafter-bedefined by applicable regulations of the Virginia Department of Aviation and/or the Federal Aviation-Administration, and -as-such zones or surfaces -may be made applicable to the Property by such regulations and as such zones or-surfaces are shown on the documents of the Grantee). Grantor and-Grantee agree on- behalf of themselves, their- successors and assigns that a structure erected in such- zoneorsurface pursuant to, and in accordance with, a permit issued by the Virginia Board of Aviation pursuant -to- Section 5.1- 25.1 ofthe- Virginia Code, 1950 as amended or any applicable successor statute shall not violate this restriction. For the purpose of this restriction, "structure" shall mean any object, including a- mobile object, constructedor- erected by man inc- luding but not limited to: buildings, towers, communications towers, radio and television antennae, cranes, smokestacks, earth formations, overhead transmission lines, flag poles and ship masts. THE GRANTEE TO HAVEANDTO L HOLD such easement and all rights appertaining thereto under the Grantee, its successors and.-assigns,-with the understanding-and-agreement that the covenants, restrictions and agreements set -forth herein- shall -be binding upon the-heirs administrators, executors; successors in interest and assigns -of -the Grantee and Grantor, and that tthese coverants and agreements shall run with the land, unless and- until -the Airport is abandoned. Iwthe- event- the, Airport is abandoned this easement shall automatically4erminate ,and- titleto the Property, unencumbered-by this casement and the restrictions set forth herein shall automatically revert to the Grantor or its successors in interest, as applicable, without the need of any further action by the parties or their successors. 10- 24- 05;02:36PM; THIS DEED IS EXEMPT from the state recordation taxes imposed by Virginia Code §58.1 -801, pursuant to Virginia Code §58.1- 811(A)(3). WITNESS the following signatures and seals: GRANTOR: (Seal) Commonwealth of Virginia City /County of to wit: PHHA ;5403322036 tt 5 5 Before me, a Notary Public on this day of 20011 appeared who acknowledged his /her signature to the foregoing easement, dated 20 My commission expires: Notary Public K. Wayne Lee, Jr. CZA Coordinator of Planning and Development leew@frederick.k12.va.us 2008- Apr -23 03:53 PM Frederick County Public School 5406624237 2/5 County Public Schools Q to ensure all students an excellent education April 23, 2008 Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust Associates, P.C. 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Governors Hill Rezoning and Preliminary Master Development Plan Dear Patrick, Frederick County Public Schools has reviewed the Governors Hill rezoning and preliminary MDP submitted to us on March 31, 2008. We offer the following comments: 1. 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 422 single family attached units and 128 multifamily units is this development will house 46 high school sttidents, 45 middle school students, and 94 elementary school students. In order to property serve these 185 students, Frederick County Public. Schools will outlay $6,409,000 in capital expenditures and $1,890,000 annually in operating costs. You will find, enclosed with this letter, a more detailed assessment of the impact of the Governors Hill development on- FCPS. 2. We note the cash proffers for public schools of $1,714 per dwelling unit, which totals $942,700. This would defrayonly 15% of the $6 in capital costs mentioned above. 3. We will be sending four school buses (two elementary, one middle school, and one high school) into a subdivision that has only one access point to the road network. With roughly 75% of the 550.proposed households on Tazewell Road, there are a lot of vehicles concentrated on that one road that can slow. iravel.along.it,.or even close the road in the event of an accident. We therefore recommend the addition of a signalized access point onto Route 50 to facilitate the movement of traffic; including our buses, to and from the broader road network: 1415 Amherst Street vrvrw.trederick.k12.ve.us 540-662-3389 Ext. 88249 P.O. Box 3508 540.652-4237 fax Winchester, Vuyinie 22604.2546 2008- Apr -23 03:54 PM Frederick County Public School 5406624237 3/5 Frederick County Public Schools is concemed about all land development applications. Both capital expenditures and annual operating costs are significantly increased by each approved residential development, as is illustrated above and in the attached development assessment. Please feel free to contact meat leew@frederick.k12:va.us or 540 -662- 3888 •x88249 if you have any questions or comments. K. Wayne T e, Jr CZA Coordinator of Planning and Development enclosure Cc: Mrs. Patricia Taylor, Superintendent of Schools Mr. Al Omdorff, Assistant Superintendent for Administration Candice Perkins, Senior Planner, Frederick County Annual Operational Costs This Development's Impact on FCPS Operational Costs., FY 2008 Budgeted Cost Per Student l0,215 Total Student Generation 185 Annual Impact SP 890,000 School Facility Information 2007 -08 School Attendance Zone* September 15, 2007 Student Enrollment 2007 -08 Progam Capacity Elementary School (Grades 1C-5) Evendale 695 644 Middle School (Grades 6 -8) Admiral Byrd 810 850 High School (Grades 9 -12) Millbrook 1,278 1,250 School Attendance Zones are subject to change. Frederick County Public Schools Development Assessment Project Name: Governors Hill (Rezoning and Preliininary MDP) Assessment Date: April 18, 2008 Student 'Generation Housing Type Single- family detached Single family attached Multifamily Totals Elementary Middle School School Student Student Housing Units Generation Generation 0 0 0 422 82 128 12 550, 94 40 5 45 High School Student Total Student Generation Geperation 0 0 41 163 5 22 46 185. Capital Costs School Cost Program Capacity Per Student Cost Students Generated by this Development This Development's Impact on FCPS Capital Costs Elementary School Cost (2008 CIP) $19,900,000 750 $26,533 94 S2,494,000 Middle School Cost (2008 CIP) 35,542,000 850 $41,814 45 $1,882,000 High School Cost Total Capital (2008 CIP) Costs 55,250,000 1250 $44,200 46 $2,033,000 S6.409.000 Iv. AGENCY COMMENTS