The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-08 Comments & CorrespondenceEastern Frederick County Road Plan L 37 'gig e lr ( 7 IIIJO ,/- - Eastern Road Plan A1011 11, 200G 00.250.5 1 1.5 2 2.6 1 � JI 11 Miles Exhibit 1 Current/Adopted Eastern Road Plan �hibit 2 — 2005 Eastern Road Plan has endorsed this application. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Lemieux, the Board approved the Transportation, Community, and System Preservation (TCSP) Program Grants. WHEREAS, the Transportation Community, and System Preservation (TCSP) Program Provides funding for a comprehensive initiative including planning grants, implementation grants, and research to investigate and address the relationships among transportation, community, and systempreservation plans and practices and identify private sector -based initiatives to improve those relationships. A 20% match is required from Frederick County; and WHEREAS, Tevis Street Extension, Senseny Road Widening, and the Intersection of Fox Drive and Route 522 are needed improvements in Frederick County; and WHEREAS, Eastern Route 37 is a critical need for Frederick County's long range transportation system; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, desires that the Plamiing and Development Department submit an application for funding from the Transportation, Community, and System Preservation (TCSP) Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, hereby supports the application for the above listed projects from the Transportation, Community, and System Preservation (TCSP) Program. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye OTHER PLANNING ITEMS M ASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 412-06 OF GOVERNOR'S HILL - APPROVED Planner II Candice Perkins appeared before the Board regarding this item. She advised this was a master development plan for commercial and 550 residential units. The applicant proffered a generalized development plan as part of the rezoning application. The major roadways are to be constructed and the townhouse roadways do reflect a modification to the layout, but not the proffered generalized development plan. She concluded by saying that the Master Development Ptan is consistent with the proffers and land use plan and the Board is being requested to grant staff Minu[u BOO: Mnrd of Su 339 Exhibit 3 — 3/14/07 BOS Meeting Minutes for Governors Hill MDP Approval 34011 administrative authority to approve this plan. Upon a motion by Supervisor Fisher, secondedby Supervisor Lemieux, the Board authorized staff to administratively approve Master Development Plan #10 -06. Supervisor Fisher stated that he would like the applicant to request access for Inverlee Way at Route 50 to access Coverstone Drive and ultimately cul -de -sac Coverstone Drive at the intersection of Route 50 /Sulphur Springs Road. He stated that the Board would try to work with the applicant to see that it occurs. Chairman Shickle asked staff how the process would work and if it would require only a modification to the master development plan. Director Lawrence responded that he would have to investigate the proffers because the proffers might have to be amended. Administrator Riley stated that if the request occurs the County would expedite the application through the process. There being no further discussion, the above motion was approvedbythe following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye BOARD LIAISON REPORTS There were no Board liaison reports. CITIZEN COMMENTS John Lamanna, Shawnee District resident and Chairman of the Frederick County School Board, stated the communication between the two boards has been open, honest, and collaborative, for the most part. The School Board has put forth an honest budget and he wanted to make sure the residents knew that the reduced state and federal funds and unfunded mandates were the reason for the additional local monies requested. He stated that the current local money is 21.6% less than last year and tonight's discussion is desperate. He advised that the School Board began with a request of $12.1 million, but the Board and Finance Committee only funded $4.3 million. He stated that list Minute Book Number 32 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/14107 0 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates Memorandum Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. N 1 17 East Piccadilly Street � W P1 i F 540.665.0493 V irg inia 22601 P [� t To: John Bishop, AICP Organ izationlCompany: Frederick County Planning From: Patrick Sowers Date: September 3, 2008 Project Name /Subject: Governors Hill Rezoning /527 Materials PHR +A Project file Number: 13415 -1 -8 Please find attached the following documents for the Governors Hill Rezoning Application for your review and distribution to VDOT: 1. 6 copies of the revised Governors Hill TIA dated August 14, 2008 (report only — no appendix) 2. 3 CDs containing electronic versions of the full TIA, Synchro worksheet, traffic counts, scoping document, and VDOT comment response memo. 3. 2 CDs containing electronic versions of the Synchro Files. 4. Check in the amount of $1,000.00 for the 527 application fee. 5. 6 copies of the revised Proffer Statement dated September 2, 2008. 6. 6 copies of the revised Master Development Plan dated August 29, 2008. 7. 6 copies of the proffered plan entitled "Governors Hill Road Improvements." 8. 6 copies of the proffered design manual. 9. 6 copies of the VDOT comment response memo. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (540) 667 -2139. PRS 4 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540/665.6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Finance Department FROM: Pam Deeter, Office Assistant II SUBJECT: Return Of Sign Deposit DATE: February 11, 2009 The amount of $50.00 was deposited in line item 43- 010 - 019110 -0008 for the company named below had a deposit for one sign for Rezoning 910 -08 for Governors Hill. The company has returned the sign and is therefore entitled to the return of the deposit. You may pay this through the regular bill cycle. Please send a check in the amount of $50.00 to: Carpers Valley Development 8401 Greensboro Dr. Ste 300 McLean, VA 22102 RSA/pd 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 , Pd by PLANNING BALANCE DUE INCLUDES PENALTY /INTEREST THRU THECMONTH58711 /2D008 VARIOUS 6/2008 LKHS2 0381 02 1 1 1 11 11 * $glance Due $ . H3A 90A 9 PaP )now 0 s,anuaeag rep anp J01PO n �uaj Sft SoQ 5 •aaQ. 5 aunr I •jdV I 'J Q �; LAM - -- iTB.LJ °A - ERICK COUNTY Date 11/06/2008 WILLIAM ORNDOFF, JR Register: JKH /LKHS2 LUi r.0. BOX 225 Trans. #: 50381 WINCHESTER VA 22604 -0225 Dept # Acct# 1095 SIGN DEPOSITS PLANNING Previous Balance $ 50.00 Principal Being Paid $ 50.00 Penalty $ .00 Interest $ .00 PLANNING Amount Paid $ 50.00 - - a - ante Due $ -- — .-0 00 Pd by PLANNING Check 55875.00 # VARIOUS BALANCE DUE INCLUDES PENALTY /INTEREST THRU THE MONTH 11/2008 Patton Harris Rust & Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 PHRA T 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 To: Organization /Company: From: Date: Project Name /Subject: Candice Perkins, AICP Memorandum Frederick County Planning Patrick Sowers January 20, 2009 Governors Hill PHR +A Project file Number: 13415-1-8 cc: Please find attached 30 copies of the following documents for the Board of Supervisors meeting for Governors F-lill: 1) MDP (24x36 — black and white) 2) MDP (11x17 — color) 3) Design and Development Standards 4) Road Improvements Plan Please feel free to call with any questions. PRS Patton Harris Rust &Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 PHRA T 540.667.2139 It IL F 540.665.0493 To: Organization /Company: From: Date: Project Name /Subject: PHR +A Project file Number: cc: Candice Perkins, AICP Memorandum Frederick County Planning Patrick Sowers January 16, 2009 Governors Hill Rezoning and MDP 13415 -1 -8 Please find attached revised application materials for Governors Hill. The materials have been revised per the commitments made at the January 7, 2009 Planning Commisson meetings. The modifications are as follows: Proffer 1.2: Revised to match the title of the Design and Development Standards to address comment made by the County Attorney. Proffer 1.6: Revised to require a revised TIA if the project exceeds 1,285,000 square feet of commercial space regardless ofADT'threshold. Proffers 12: 1Zevised to reference Master Property Owners Assocation and Residential Property Owners Association to address comment by County Attorney. All references to Homeowners Association within the Proffer Statement has been revised to Residential Property Owners. Proffer 14.3: Revised to require an avigation easement to be dedicated for the Property prior to issuance of the 1" building permit. Proffer 15.2: Revised to provide $20,000 monetary contribution in the event the Applicant is not required to (PHASE 4) design off site Coverstone Drive. Proffer 15.5: Revised to permit monetary contribution to be used for signalization "or other road improvements" at the intersection of Victory Road and Rome 50. Proffer 15.6: Revised to permit monetary contribution to be used for signalization "or other road improvements" at the intersection of Prince Frederick Drive and Costello Drive. Proffer 15.12: Revised to require the construction cost estimate for the equivalent monetary value for road improvements to be verified by VDOT. Proffer 15.14: Proffer added to provide equivalent monetary costs for any proffered road improvement that is constructed by others. The MDP has been revised to simply include the revised proffers on Sheet 4. if you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (540) 667 -2139. JAN 112009 Patton Harris Rust & 4sociates FPH ngineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. A /� 7 cast Piccadilly Street T � � Winchester, VA 22601 T 540.6672139 F 540.665.0493 4, —, t 0 EC 1 8 2008 1 smittal To: Candice Perkins Organization /Company: Frederick County Planning Address: Herewith Telephone Number: ❑ Date: December 18, 2008 From: Patrick Sowers Project Name /Subject: Governors Hill Via: Internal Project File #: Quantity File # 45 Sets 45 Sets 45 Sets 45 Sets Notes: BE Date Description Transmitted 0 Herewith MDP — 24" x 36" Format ❑ Under separate cover IvMP - 11" x v" Format Material M Originals Design Guidelines ❑ Photocopies ❑ Diskette Road Improvements Plan ❑ shop Drawings ❑ Mylar ❑ Ozalid Prints ❑ Invoice ❑ Sepia Purpose ® Your Use ® Your Files ❑ Approval ❑ Please Return: Corrected Prints ❑ Please Submit: Revised Prints Received by: Date: 0 • Patton Harris Rust & Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. /� 117 East Piccadllly Street R+ l Winchester, Virginia 22601 T 540.667.2139 P H F 540.665.0493 T0: Candice Perkins, AICP Organization /Company From Date Project Name /Subject Memorandum Frederick County Planning Patrick Sowers December 12, 2008 Governors Hill PHR +A Project file Number: 13415 -1 -8 cc, Please find attached a revised proffer statement and MDP for the Governors Hill application, both dated December 8, 2008. The MDP has been revised to depict the most recent proffer statement and 50% minimum useable open space for the commercial land bay (see coversheet). I have also attached a redmarked version of the proffer statement so you can see what changes have been made since the October 31, 2008 version. Also attached is a revised Proffer Comparison depicting the changes between the approved 2005 proffer statement and the proposed December 8, 2008 proffer. Lastly, I have attached an analysis depicting the impacts that 200,000 square feet of office uses would have on the existing transportation network if that amount of office space was constructed and accessed the existing completed portion of Coverstone Drive. As shown, a level of service C would be maintained with 200,000 square feet of office uses without the need for additional transportation improvements. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (540) 667 -2139. n rn 1 ? 2008 Patton H a r I - 0 us & Associates ETg meers_ Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. E NOV 1 0 2008 P coRP111TE. Chantill VIRGINIA OFFICES- Chantilly Charlottesville Fredericksburg Harrisonburg Leesburg lN'ewpwl Dews Vorfolk Winchester Woodbridge LABORATORIES: OLD ntllly Fredericksburg MARYLAND OFaCESJ B,lurr e Columbia Fled -,ak Germantown bol lywood Funt Valley Williamsport PENNSVrvANIA OFFICE: Allentown 10 November 2008 Ms. Candice E. Perkins, AICP Senior Planner Frederick County Planning Department 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Governors Hill Rezoning and MDP Dear Candice: On behalf of the Applicant, I would request that the Planning Comrnission public hearing for the Governors Hill Rezoning and Master Development Plan application be scheduled for the January 7, 2008 Planning Commission meeting date. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, PAATTON HA5US RUST & ASSOCIATES [J Patrick R. Sowers CC: Carpers Valley Development LLC T 540 667,2 139 F 540665.0493 117 East Ptccaddly Street Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Patton Harl *Rust & Associates • Engineers- Surveyors. Plonners. Landscape Architects. P CORPORATE. Chantilly v,AGWrA OFFICES'. Chantilly Charlones4le Fredericksburg Hcrinsonburg Leesburg Newport News INOrlalk 'V`Jinchester Vsoodbridge LABORATORIES Chanwl Fredericksburg MARVUNO OFFICES. Baltimore Colombia Frederick Germantown Hollywood Hunt Valley Williamsp.n PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE'_ A lentown 3 November 2008 Mr. john A. Bishop, AICP NOV 3 2008 Deputy Director- Transportation Frederick County Planning Department t 107 N. Kent Street - - -- __i Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: County Transportation Comment on the Rezoning Application for Governors Hill Dear John: The following is in response to review comments per your letter dated October 29, 2008. We have attached revised application materials including revised Proffer Statement and Master Development Plan both revised October 31, 2008 as well as the Governors Hill Road Improvements Plan revised October 30, 2008. We have also enclosed our response to VDOT comments received on October 27, 2008. The responses to your comments are as follows: T 540 - 6672139 F 540 665 0493 1 17 East Piccadilly Street Suite 200 W lnchester, VA 22601 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 Inverlee Way, whereas this new application changes that scenario in spite of the addition of acreage that would have allowed your client to be part of establishing the planned road network. a. In recognition of this disparity, staff would recommend that at 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. Renmring the connection to Route 50 at Sulf5hur S jwugs Road Mull provide a safer transportation network. The plan to provide a cul-de -jac iu place of the Sulphur Springs connection is also in keeping with the direction prorided to the Applicant by the Frederick County Board of Supemsorr during the March 14, 2007 Board Meeting when the BOS granted approval of the Master Development Plan. • 0 2. The proposed road system proffers construction of a four lane section that is over '/a 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 o the signal at Route 50 is less at Inverlee 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 P R + /� by comparison. H yL v Your assumption that on -site roadway conrlruction has decreased assumes that Coverrtone Drive is the only roadway being built to serve the Properly internally as was the case with the 2005 re�oniug application. Under the proposed plan, Coven lone would loop through the commercial hand bay with Tatewell Road providing access to residential land bays, the armory site, a small area of commercial uses, and the connector roadway to Arbor Courl. In fact the length ofproposed on site roads irgrealer with the revised plan than the current MDR We are not sure if the comparison of infrasimcture costs is an appropriate litmus test for determining fa land plan is in the best interest of the County. If that were the case it would be necessary to include all the costs that the Applicant has endured in order to provide the elements that were needed to achieve the Board of Supervisor's goal of a safe road network. Ve also consider the improvements proposed for Route 50, Prince Frederick. Drive, Custer- Drive, and Sulpher Springs Road to be substantial in that they mirror the suggested improvements proposed by the TIA in order to adequately serve the site and surrounding uses. Lastly, it is important to note that the Applicant, at the urging of the County, purchased the properly necessary to make the Inverlee connection possible. Vhile this area is part of the commercial land bay, the majority of it cannot be used for commercial asses due to site constraints and the fact that it is bisected by Coverstone Drive. I then comparing the transportation proffers of the 2005 m oniug with the currentproposal, there are actually increased costs to the Applicant. 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. Ve have revised the proffer to reference 49,351 as depicted by the T lA dated August 14, 2008. 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. As suggested, we have revised the proffer statement to slate that the pedestrian- bicycle trail will be built to VDOT standards. 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 of the roadway by 3.5 years. 7 he final completion date has been moved to 2015 in recognition of current market trends. More importantly, until such time that Route 522 is relocated and connection with Coverslorre made possible or until Governors Hill develops (trggering road construelion by proffer), there is little need for Coversione Dave to sari b any latent demands in the P� existing traffic network. H 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. Ve added this note to the Pro ffer Statement to avoid a scenario in which the Applicant maintains a perpetual obligation which could never be fielfilled. As such, we feel the language is appropriate and provides ample time to determine the alignment of mlocaled Route 522. 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. Prof er 17.1 provides an escalator clause for any monetary contribution to ensure tbal any proffered monetary amounts ate in keeping with inflation. The escalator clause states that any monetary contribution not paid to the County within 30 months of October 12, 2005 (approval date of RZ 11 -05) would have to he adjusted per the Consumer Price Index. This will ensure that the value of the onginal proffer has not dated with the proposed pro ff r nsod�ications. S. Regarding proffer 15.6, the $150,000 that was proffered in 2005 toward the signalization of the intersection of Prince Frederick and Costello was likely 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. As referenced in my response to Comment 7 above, this monetary contribution would be subject to adjustment for inflation per the Consumer Price Index. Nevertheless, the Applicant has revised Pro#er 15.6 to provide a monetary contribution in the amount of 175,000 for this signal. • • 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. Proffer 15.92 stater that the Applicant will make good faith efforts to obtain any needed of'sile right of ways and would not be responsible for the constnrction of ofj-.rite road improvements only if the County and/or State do not obtain the right- of-way. In re.ponse to your comment, we have revised Proffer 15.12 to state that should the implementation of PH proposed off- -site tranportation improvements not be feasible due to an ultimate lack of 1 1 right- ofway, the Applicant will provide a monetary to the County that is P equivalent to the estimated cost of those road improvements that could not be implemented. The monetay contribution would coincide with the commercial square footage threshold that lri�ers the required off to road improvement. 10. Regarding proffer 15.13, I'm not quite sure what this proffer is truing 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 n direct conflict with proffer 1.6. Ve have revised this proffer to state that any future tra�c analyses will use Code 820 `Retail" per the I.T. E. Trip Generation Manual 7' Edition for any retail use other than general office uses. This will ensure that future traffic studies are consistent with the study prepared as part of the proposed re .Zoning application. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, PATTON HARRIS RUST & ASSOCIATES Patrick R. Sowers PRS /1f cc: Csrpers Valley Development LLC 0 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Ranners. Landscape Architects. 10212 Governor Lane Boulevard Suite 1007 PH + RAWilliamsport, Maryland 21795 T 301.223.4010 • F 301.223.6831 Memorandum To: Organization/Company: From: Date: Project Name /Subject: PHR +A Project file Number: Plan Number: Matthew Smith, PE Virginia Department of Transportation (VD01) Michael Glickman, PE November 5, 2008 Governors Hill Development 13415 -3 -1 Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR+A) has prepared this document as an addendum to the report titled: A Tralc koact Analyrir of Governors Mill Develo ment dated August 14, 2008, by PHR +A. The purpose of this addendum is to provide initial phase analyses for the Year 2011. The initial phase will include 200,000 square feet of office. Access will be provided via a site - driveway to be located along the southeast of the intersection of Prince Frederick Drive /Costello Drive. All other methodology remains consistent with the aforementioned August 14, 2008 study. Analyses are provided for 2011 build -out conditions. INITIAL PHASE (2011) - TRIP GENERATION Using the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (TIE) Trip Generation Report, PHR +A has prepared Table 1 to summarize the trip generation for the proposed Initial Phase Governors Hill Development. Table 1 _ Proposed Development: Governors Hill Initial Phase - 2011 Trip Generation Summary Figures 1 is provided to show the development - generated weekday ATNI /PN4 peak hour trips and ADT as well as Saturday mid -day peak hour trips and ADT during initial phase. Page 'I of 7 \M Peak Hour I'M Peak Hour SA 'r Peak Hour Code Land Uee Anmunt ADT ADT In Out Total In Onr Total In Our Total 710 Office 200,000 SF 287 39 327 51 251 303 2,275 35 30 0 446 Sub -Total 287 39 327 51 251 303 2,275 35 30 65 446 Figures 1 is provided to show the development - generated weekday ATNI /PN4 peak hour trips and ADT as well as Saturday mid -day peak hour trips and ADT during initial phase. Page 'I of 7 Patton Harris Rust & 11 ' sociates Memorandum To: VDOT Page 2 of 7 t Figure 1 2011 Initial Phase: Development- Generated Trip Assignments A61 Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)[SAT Peak Hour[ Patton Harris Rust & Associates Memorandum To: VDOT Page 3of7 INITIAL PHASE (2011) BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The initial phase Governors Still trips, shown in Figure 1, were added to the 2011 background traffic volumes to obtain 2011 build -out conditions. Figure 2 shows the initial phase 2011 build -out weekday ADT and AM /PM peak hour traffic volutnes as well as Saturday ADT and rnid -day peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 3 shows the respective weekday AM /PM peak hour and Saturday mid -day peak hour levels of service and lane geometry. PHR +A has provided Table 2 to show the 2011 build -out levels of service and 95"' percentile back of queue for each lane group. All SYNCHRO level of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this document. Patton Harris Rust & l o ssociates 0 Memorandum To: VDOT Page 4 of 7 i rn Figure 2 Initial Phase: 2011 Build -out Traffic Conditions Patton Harris RustA Is ' sociates E Memorandum To: VDOT Page 5 of 7 zed 100 0 .egwamma awy msu control Denotes traffic signal control * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement ** Proffered Improvements AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) [SAT Peak Hour Note: See Table 2 for levels of service by "Lane Group" Figure 3 Initial Phase: 2011 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service Patton Harris Rust & Is p sociates • Memorandum To: VDOT Pige6of7 rill, 2 G ...... i, hill Development Levels of Service vaid Buck of Queue (95%d Results Initial Phase: 2011 Build -nut Ti nftic Conditinns (With lot pmvancnts) Inlersealion Traffic Control Lane Groupl Approach ANT Peak llmu PAT Peak Hour SAT Peak It.,,, LOS Back of QVc, e Back of LOS Queue LOS Back of Queue Route 522&. Costello Drive Signolieed EB/LT C 25.O C 25.0 D 25.0 EBIR C 25.0 A 250 C 25.0 EB LOS C C C WBIL C 82.0 D 105.0 D 152.0 WB /LT C 83.0 D 104.0 D 1520 WB/R B 25.0 B 520 B 118.0 WIT LOS C C C NB/L B 00 C 25.0 D 250 NIT Luce I d 1400 B 194.0 C 2050 NB /I'Lme2 NBlfR NB LOS B B C 58 /L C 790 U 208.0 D 4150 SB /T A t3`0 A 1700 A 960 BRR B LOS A B c Ovemrll LOS B B C Prince Frederick Drive &Costello Once Unsignalized EB/L B 250 C 300 B 250 EB/R B 25.0 A 25.0 A 25.0 NB/LT A 250 A 250 A 25.0 SBrfR Rome 50 &Prince Frederick UrA¢r -vad Avenue Signalized EB/L A 250 C 90.0 B 48 0 EB/I' Lane 1 C 1928 B 162.0 C 1520 EB? Lane 2 EB /R A 45.0 A 25.0 A 25.0 EB LOS C B B WBA B 790 IT 48.0 B 410 B 1150 C 3300 C 1860 NHBlffl INS LOS B C C NB/Lf C 580 C 2300 C 740 NB /R A 250 q 1 48.0 A 290 "' L05 B C B SB /LTR B 1360 B 75.0 A 630 SBLOS B B A 0.era11 LOS B C B Door s(i& Invede,l4ay WtvgnalizW EBII' fare I EDIT Lane 2 WB7 face 1 WEVr Lane WBIR SB /R done, 50 & SUIPhUT Springs Road Signalized EBPL A 25.0 B 102.0 B IJI.O EST Lanc 1 A 850 A 580 A 72.0 EB/1' Lane 2 Ell LOS A A A WB/T are B 1100 C '_760 1 1830 WB7 Lsav2 WB/& A 250 A 350 A 1 32.0 WIT LOS B B C SB/LR C 213A C 960 C 2030 SIT LOS C C C Route 50 &Vial, Road Signalized EWL A 25.0 A 310 A 25,0 EDT Lanel \ 75d A 770 A 50.0 EBrr Lane 2 EB /R A 7_5.0 A 720 A 25 0 Ell LOS A \ A WBIL A 250 B 280 A 250 WB7 A 810 B 7300 A 91.0 WB?R A 81.0 B 2J0.0 A 91.0 \FB LOS A B A NB/LTR B 450 C 1050 p J0.0 NB LOS A C B SB /LTR D 250 A 1 ..0 A 25.0 SIT LOS 8 A \ 0 ... a1i LOS A B A ' ASnnmd 2i feel Vehicle Lengtll EB= Easlbo:md, WD - W lbound,NB =Northbound, SB= SouWbonnd L. LeO. T'rbm. R: Right Patton Harris Rust & ssociates Memorandum To: VDOT Page 7 of 7 CONCLUSION Based upon Synchro analysis results, all the study area intersections, except the intersection of Route 50/Victory Road, will maintain level of service "C" or better during 1 2011 build -out conditions. Traffic signalization is proffered at the aforementioned intersection of Route 50/Victory Road to maintain acceptable level of service. Patton HarrO ust & Associates Engineers, Surveyors_ Plonners_ ondscape Architects. P 201401ATE'. Chantilly VIRGINIA OFFICER' channly Charlottesville Fredericksburg Harrisonbur Leesburg Newport News Norfolk Winchester Wooabndge LABORATORIESI Chomllly Fredericksburg MARYLAND OFFICES. Bahimore Cclumbla Frederlck Germantown Hollywood Hunt Valley Williamsport PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE'. Allentown 3 November 2008 Ms. Candice E. Perkins, AICP Senior Planner Frederick County Planning Department 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 0 NOV 3 2008 f a i RE: Proposed Rezoning and Master Development Plan for the Governors Hill Project Dear Candice: The following is in response to review comments per your letter dated October 29, 2008. For your reference, I have attached revised application materials including Proffer Statement and Master Development Plan both dated October 31, 2008 as well as the proffered Governors Hill Transportation Improvements Plan dated October 30, 2008. Our responses to comments are as follows: Rezoning Comments T 540.667.2139 F 540 665 0493 117 East Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 1. TIA — Proposed Uses. The TIA states that the site will be used for a mixture of office and retail uses (900,000sf retaiV385,000sf 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. Proffer 1.6 limit the total quare footage of the development to a total of 1,285,000 square feet as modeled by the TIA. Additionally, Proffer 1. 6 limits the commercial area of the Proper}' to a total trip generation of 19,351 ADT as depicted by the TIA unless additional trap portation mitigation is provided by the Applicant that is approved by the County and VDOT. This ensures that the land use does not exceed the traJfac projections modeled by the TTA thus eliminating the need to proffer 900,000sf retail and 385,000if office rpeafzeally. 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. • • P The proposed monetary proffer remains unebanged fiovn the October 12, 2005 approved proffer statement. Wle would like to also note that the reduced per unit monetary contribution included in the approved 2005 proffer statement did not include a commercial offset, but rathergave creditfor the 10 acre tract dedicated with the 2005 mZoning for the Amory. As a further note, no credit was taken far the 10 acre parcel that was proffered to the County for the Public Safety Building As the Applicant is not requesting arty additional residential units from the 550 dwelling units that were approved in 2005, we feel that it is appropriate and reasonable to maintain the per unit monetary proffer approved with the 2005 re�oniug. 3. Proffer 1.1. The last portion of this proffer should be removed. All permitted without a revised MDP. As stated in our letter dated Seplember 2, 2008, we feel that requiring a revised MDP far even only a small shift in a road or entrance alignment would seem to be excessive. Proffer 1.1 is atte opting to provide flexibuity that will allow far a fnal design that can acconrniodate any site constraints but still be in harniony with the intent of the proposed MDP. Asyou know, it is d�cult to fix intersections and road alignment in advance of final design. Minor changes to at site constraints would seem to be appropriate. 4. Proffer 1.6. Clarify that the ADT number used in proffer 1.6 is the same used in the TIA. Wle have revised the proffer to reference 49,351 as depicted by the TIA dated August 14, 2008. 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 Cover 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. l ile have rerned the Proffer Statement to provide for the connection of Tazewell Drive to Arbor Court concurrent will) the construction of 1a.�ewell Drive. In the interim, the Arbor Court connector roadway, identified on the MDP as Pendleton Road, liar been built utili .Zing a cul -de -sac in order to provide immediate access to the Armory. Once Tatewell Road and Coverstone Drive are constructed, the Armory will be provided with two access points which we feel h an improvementfrom the 2005 rezoning application. 9 0 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. The monetary proffers for residential units match the 2005 approved proffer statement PH which employed no commercial offsets, but only the value of the Armory site, to determine l 1 the monetary offset. Binding residential permits to commercial development will P detrimentally impact the Applicant's ability to meet future market demands, which is the only fiending source for the sizeable infrastructure requirements on the project, thus we annot make this change, nor do we feel it is necessary. 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. As you have requested, we have revised the Proffer Statement and MDP to remove the $25,000 recreation unit value and removed the clause that the recreational amenities will be `bonded for completion as soon as practicable. " S. 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. Similar to the circumstance in your request for changes from the 2005 approval in Comment 7 above, there are some items in the approved Preer Statement that could unfairly impact the development. The annual increase of $5.00 per calendveyear beyond the $100 base amount per unit may appear to be a nominal fee, but over time would become a bmzlensome amount on each homeowner as their HOA dues would rise in perpetuity to provide that donation. The payment will be made annually until the service ceases operation as a volunteer operation or the County adopts a fee for service plan. Please remember that this is a voluntary contribution lbal is the first of its kind in Frederick- Count' and as the proffer is currently worded, at full build out the Property will provide ayearly contribution to the fire and rescue service of $183,500.00. 0 0 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 whythe residential development would have the potential to be broken up into multiple HOA's; the residential should be covered under the same HOA that would be a subset of the Master. Proff r Section 12 provides for a .angle Master POA to govern the entire Governors ! Development. There is the possibility far the residential area to be controlled by two sub - associations, one for the townhomes and one for the condominiums. P�T 10. Proffer 15.2. The proffer should be revised so that the 200,000sf of office l� l uses are not developed until the Phase B improvements (Millwood Pike /Prince Frederick Drive and Prince Frederick Drive /Costello) indicated in proffer 15.11 Phase B have been completed. The Applicant has completed a four lame divided collector road, which serves a single user, the Frederick County Public Safety Building. Approximately 500 ADT will be generated by the 200,000. f of o#ice uses which would have limited impact on the existing transportation netzvork. This proffer will provide an opportunity that is in the best inlerest of the Applicant and the County while creating little impact on Prince Frederick Drive, Costello Drive, or Millwood Pike. 11. Proffer 15.2 — Phase 1. The phase 1 improvements should be completed (not to include just 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. The County typically allows occupancy in advance of final aphalt to allow as much construction to be completed and construction lraffic to cease brior to placement of the final asphalt layer. Wle believe this will provide for a better product for VDOT acceptance . Phase 2 and 3 assures that the Coverstone Drive Connection from Route 50 to Prince Frederick Drive is made in a timely fashion on a phased schedule. Regardless of the amount of development that occurs on the Properly, the Applicant is responsible for completing the full four lane connection hyJune 1, 2015. 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. The final completion date bass been moved to 2015 in recognition of current market trends. More iuzporiantly, until such time that Route 522 is relocated and connection with Covenione made possible or until Governors Hill develops (tnogering road construction by proffer), there is little need for Coverstone Drive to satisfy any demands in the existing traffic network. 0 0 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 drivewayonce the internal streets are constructed. As suggested, Proffer 15.7 has been revised to require that the e.visting driveway connection to Route 50 from parcel 64 A -83B be closed once the Applicant has provided access via the internal residential street network. p 17 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. This ii a prq#ered document as an attachment to the Proffer Statement in the same manner that the Design Guidelines are a part of the Pro�r Statement rather than the NOR 15. Proffer 15.13. Proffer 15.13 conflicts with 1.6. [Ve hate revised projfir 15.93 to state that any fislure tranporlalion analyser would ulili:�e Code 820 `retail "per the LT.F.. Trip Generatiora Manual 7'�' Edition far any retail uses other than general office. This will ensure that all future traffic studies are con.rzitent with the study prepared ai part of this application. 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. The proposed proffer would apply the escalator clause to the dale specific to the original retuning approval in 2005. regarding the current Development Impacttllodel, please see re.iponse to Comment 2. Jfv1erDezeloPmentPlan 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 must access Coverstone Drive through the commercial area. The residential layout needs to be reevaluated to ensure that it is internally connected. The revised layout includes a small land bay that will access Coversione Drive at the first entrance South of Millwood Pike. Tbis modified layout decreases environmental impacts PH by eliminating a stream and wetlands crossing for an access mad. To ensure that these R+A l 1 units are integrated into the residential land bay, the Applicant has provided a trail P connection as shown on the MDP. 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. The MDP has been revised to provide a Category B Zoning district buffer between the commercial and residential areas of the project. 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. Please refer to re ponce to Comment 3 above. 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. As stated in our response to Comment 7, we have removed the monetary value for recreation units front both the Proffer Statement and YIIDP. Other 21. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency comments from the following agencies: Virginia Department of Transportation and the local Fire and Rescue Company. Please find attached Virginia Department of Transportation comments dated October 27, 2008. 11 regards to the local Fire and Rescue Company, we {lave contacted the Millwood Station Fire and Rescue Company to obtain comments. I would note that the application package indudes a comment from the Frederick County Fire Marshal and that comments from the local Fire and Rescue Company are typicaili not required to process the rationing application. 0 22. Special Limited Power of Attorney. Provide a power of attorney for the property owners. Ack owledged. 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 $100.0C 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 P T TR \ 150 acres and $50 for each acre over 150. Acknowledged I hope that these response aid in your review of the application. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, PATTON HARRIS RUST & ASSOCIATES Patrick R Sowers 10M Enclosure cc: Carpers Valley Development LLC ..,: ,,,. .;� Governors Hill - Frederick Countv, VA Contents: I. Project Introduc II. Design and Development Standards Cohesive Design Residential Standards Commercial / Retail Standards Suggested Building Characteristics Street Standards Public Streets Private Streets Streetscape Design Landscape, Screening and Open Space Standards Modifications Design 8s Development Standards 2 Governors Hill - Frederick County, VA I. Introduction The site is intended as a mixed use residential and commerciat/office center. Significant retail uses will be complemented by a variety of other commercial and office uses as well as medium density residential uses, all of which_will he- &-Yel�pesijrj a functionallyand aesthetic unified manner. Attainment of such an integrated development program will occur through the application of uniform design guidelines and the implementation of a multi -modal transportation network, both of which will be proffered by the Applicant. The proposed rezoning will establish a neighborhood unique to Frederick County, because of its explicit provision for a balanced mix of mutually supportive uses in an area already served by public facilities and a good road system. The presence of significant retail and employment uses within the project will catalyze a synergistic relationship between land uses that will enhance the economic vitality of the area and achieve a more sustainable form of development. The Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies the planned use of the site as a mix of business /office and transitional land uses. The mixed use commercial center concept proposed with this rezoning is consistent with this land use vision, and provides for its realization in an efficient and dynamic manner. i r e� rev a N'O[S.H e��Ln�nv.rq :Iran, vnii.0 -. Design 8s Development Standards 3 Governors Hill - Frederick County, VA II. Design and Development Standards Cohesive Design Much of the success of the Governors Hill project depends on the intimate relationship between structure, parking, street and open spaces. The following topics will- be- coordinated-with- respect- to- the-cohesivellesig of -Gflvern Hill. Structure Location on lot Relationship of primary facade to the prevailing street Setbacks- Allow intimate pedestrian scale to be developed between building and street Materials Height transitions Parking On- Street importance Traffic calming effect Proper screening of vehicles if visible from street or pedestrian area Street Network Pedestrian scale Vehicular efficiency Traffic Calming Streetscape uniformity Landscape uniformity Linkages Mixtures of Uses Mixed uses within landbays allows: Greater flexibility within each landbay Greater use possibilities Core of interest and activity to extend hours of use Lot Sizes Multiple sizes encourage creative design Setback reductions to create a more human scale that focuses on the relationship between the home and the streetscape. Allowance fora variation of building setbacks to create a dynamic landscape and streetscape. Design & Development Standards 4 Governors Hill - Frederick County, VA Single Family Attached — Alley Served or without Garage Total Number of Units: 422 (Maximum for all SFA housing types) Parking: 2 Spaces Per Unit garage parallel• or o ff street Building Height: 35' maximum Building Use: Single Family Attached Units Lot Width: 18' Minimum Lot Size: No Minimum - as long as setbacks are met (allows narrower product mix) Front Setback: No less than 10' Side Setback: No less than 10' on ends Rear Setback: No less than 5' to garage in rear load condition 20' without garage u .41ky — .___.._.__ 16'.bfmnmrm Pavement Single Family Attached - Bear Load Garage 5'Mininmm Bear Building Setback to Ensement 20' w0haat Garage Budding Depth Tories 10'Mini num Front Building Setback 4'Minmium Sidewalk 6'MOtimum Planting with Trees (T without) Design 8s Development Standards 5 Pub lic arPrlvnte Str with on StreetPnrk Governors Hill - Frederick Countv, VA Single Family Attached — Front Load Garage Total Number of Units: 422 (Maximum for all SFA housing types) Parking: 2 Spaces Per Unit _- garage,._ parallel on- street, or off stre Building Height: 35' max Building Use: Single Family Attached Residential Units Lot Width: 20' Minimum Lot Size: No Minimum- as long as setbacks are met (allows narrower product mix) Front Setback: No less than 10' Side Setback: No less than 10' on ends Rear Setback: No less than 20' Swondw 10'Min.Frontyardtam tparftg apace infront ofgarage MN 'BuildingDeplk Vanes MN 10'Mia Side Setback on ends I _ I 20'Min.BearBuilding Setback Design 8s Development Standards 6 Governors Hill - Multi- Family Total Number of Units: 128 Max. # of Units per Bldg.: 24 Parking: 2 Spaces Per Unit Surface Lot or Off Street Building Height: 55' maximum Building Use: Multi - Family Units (lease or condo) Front Setback: No less than 20' Building Separation: Building Separation no less than 20' Rear Setback: No minimum Frederick County, VA z2'&.I a 20 Sgmms between Bu Ws 20'Mlnbnum Fr Building SeW 4'M"imium Si Ik 6Mmimum Plannng r!& Tre.(3'w6wa) Multi- Family smfucepn.Firtg (lorund an -sums) Design & Development Standards Governors Hill - Frederick County, VA Suggested Building Characteristics The over - arching goal of building design within Governors Hill is the creation of a unique sense of place and enduring character. As such, development within Governors Hill shall be unified through the use of complementary building facades and materials - as- well_as_naref l- attention to-thescale_and_plaeement of buildings. To achieve the desired design outcome, all new construction shall be reviewed and approved by an architectural review committee (ARC) managed by the developer. The ARC shall ensure that the following guidelines are met: Commercial/Retail Standards • Buildings shall be constructed of similar materials and conform to a specified style. Form and style should be cohesive with the remainder of the development. • B uil d ing s shall n ot exceed 60' in height Residential Standards • Individual neighborhoods within Governors Hill shall be comprised of similar style homes. This provides a sense of identity to the individual neighborhoods. • Similar construction materials shall be used for each individual housing edition, chosen by the builder. • Single Family Attached buildings shall not exceed a height of 35'. • Multi- Family buildings shall not contain more than 24 units per building and shall not exceed a height of 55'. Design & Development Standards Governors Hill - Street Design Standards A Principal goal of the street standards for Governors Hill is to shift the emphasis from merely accommodating vehicular traffic to encouraging pedestrian and bicycle movement, thus assuring a true multi -modal transportation network. The street-framework shall support- a_wide rang�of l and use and create a public infrastructure that encourages pedestrian movement, street life, and a sense of community and place. General Standards • Private streets shall be developed to VDOT structural standards, except for alleys and travelways serving parking courts. • On- street parking is encouraged in all areas. Such parking further adds to the amount of shared parking available for lot owners thereby reducing the number of spaces required on individual lots. On street parking provides the added value of creating a buffer for pedestrians using adjoining sidewalk or trail facilities. • Parallel Parking requires 7' min. designated lane on side(s) of road where parking will take place. • Sidewalks shall be a min. of 4' wide. • Planting strips between the sidewalk and streets shall be a minimum width of 6' if they are to accommodate plantings. • A Hiker/Biker trail that is a minimum 10' in width will provide additional accommodations for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. • Alleys require a min. of 20' ROW and minimum pavement width of 16'. • The street width will vary to accommodate parallel parking • Curbs along parking shall be straight; curbs along medians shall be rolled. • Curb Extensions shall be required at the end of blocks where parallel parking is present. Curb extensions will decrease distance between blocks for pedestrians at crosswalks. Such extensions will further separate parking lanes from driving lanes, thus providing an effective traffic calming measure. Demarcation of crosswalks through paint striping, textured pavement or alternative materials shall be provided at major street intersections. Design speed - for secondary streets shall be kept at 25 mph. Design speeds of 20 mph shall require a curb radius of 15' for intersections with secondary and private streets. ■ Curb cuts shall be reduced as much as possible on collectors and primary streets to improve traffic safety. Frederick County, VA Design & Development Standards 9 Governors Hill - Frederick County, VA Streetscape Design Standards The unique sense of place intended for Governors Hill will be derived largely from its streetscape, which will be defined by the intimate relationship between structure and street. The streetscape within Governors Hill will be designed Commercial / Retail Standards • Street trees shall be used to create a visual connection between the structure and the street, thus integrating commercial uses with the surrounding neighborhood. pursuant to the following:_ Street t rees along public streets shall be placed approximately 50' on center. Street of — rmture shaf c�dmate with the character of the surrounding buildings to enhance the character of the streetscape. Residential Standards • Streets trees shall be placed at approximately 60' on center. • Canopy trees with minimum caliper of 2.5" shall be used as street trees. This will provide protection for pedestrians from motorists. Street trees visually unify a neighborhood. They shall also serve as a traffic calming devices and add character to the neighborhood. On -street parking is encouraged. This too can add character to the streetscape. • Materials to be used shall be diverse yet complementary to create a sense of place. • Streetscapes shall maintain a pedestrian scale, which shall be formed by reduced front yards and inviting architectural treatments. Streets shall enhance vehicular efficiency while maintaining natural topography (when appropriate) and serving as a network for pedestrians and bicyclists. Design &, Development Standards 10 Governors Hill - Frederick County, VA Landscape, Screening, and Open Space Standards The open space and screening standards for Governors Hill are intended to set a landscape standard with a broad range of street plantings, formal greens, parking lot plantings, buffer treatments and natural parks. General Landscape Design Standards VegetationlMaterials • Provide woody plants that are respectful of the surrounding scale of both buildings and streets. • Native plant species should comprise a significant portion of all new landscape improvements. • Portions of existing vegetation, where appropriate, will be preserved and incorporated into the development. • Massing and grouping of plant material and color should be used generously at key points in the landscape to aid visibility (i.e. entry signs, directional signs, plazas, etc.). • Canopy trees shall be used in open spaces and pocket parks to naturalize and shade the area. • Ornamental trees should be used as accents to provide visual emphasis. • All evergreen shrubs (in public areas) must be winter -hardy with a min. size of 18" spread. " • Evergreen trees shall be strategically used to provide winter interest, screen w r „ objectionable views and parking, and serve as a backdrop for other plant materials. Design 8s Development Standards 11 Governors Hill - Frederick Countv, VA Openspace • A minim of 15% of all commercial area and 30% of all residential area shall be maintained as openspace. • Pocket parks should be designed as secondary focal points to Open Greens located throughout. Pedestrian and Vehicular Routes • Landscaped streets and trails shall be provided as a linking entity throughout the community. Trails shall connect neighborhoods to the commercial, retail areas and to businesses. These connections will become a critical part of the pedestrian movement in the community. • Street trees and canopy trees shall be used to control views and enhance the vis appearance of s ee — • Trees and shrubs which produce fruits and/or nuts shall not be permitted along sidewalks. • Use quality materials that will stand up to daily use and abuse and that will age gracefully. • Provide materials that may be easily maintained over time. • All planting beds should be separated from lawn areas with concrete walks, edging or curbing. Design • All landscape designs shall be coherent throughout Governors Hill. This creates a sense of community and durability and can be greatly achieved through simple design. • Plantings shall be grouped, when appropriate, versus scattered and shall incorporate minimal species mix over numerous species. • Topography will be preserved or used, when appropriate, to provide relief to the continuum of development. The combination of topography and vegetation will provide natural areas of interest throughout the project. • Project Lighting shall be designed to prohibit obtrusive light on adjacent properties. • Parking Lot Lighting shall provide adequate illumination for security. The pole fixture shall be coordinated with the design and color chosen for pedestrian fixtures (street fiirniture and signage). • Residential fixture height shall not exceed 14' • Commercial fixture height shall not exceed 24' Design 8s Development Standards 12 Governors Hill - Frederick County, VA Commercial/Retail Standards • For security and surveillance purposes plant material shall not exceed 36" and tree limbs shall be maintained so that the canopy and limbs start at 12' above ground level. • Lights in parking lots shal be downc to minimiz glare and the fixtures shall be properly deshg�ne to promote cohesive prolec' — t - esign. - • Shrub height should not exceed an un- manicured 36" high in focal point areas. All evergreen shrubs must be winter -hardy with a min. size of 18" spread. • Street trees and canopy trees shall be used to control views and enhance the visual appearance of the street. They shall also be used in parking islands to break the monotony of the parking lot and provide shade for parked cars. Landscape Practices A standard planting practice shall be used. All plants shall conform to the American Standard for Nursery Stock as published by the American Association of Nurserymen. All plants shall be approved by a Landscape Architect as `hardy' for Fredrick County. Also, the vegetation must be approved, before installation, as healthy, well- developed, and disease -free by the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) of the Owners Association. The Owners Association will ensure that lawns and plants are orderly, neat, and attractive. Watering, mowing, fertilizing, and pruning will be necessary to produce this type of appearance. Design &, Development Standards 13 Governors Hill - Frederick County, VA Modifications Justification The proposed rezoning is sought to enable development of a mixed use employment center, which is a type of planned Per Section 165 -72.0. of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, an community development that is not expressly accommodated by the applicant for R4 zoning may request modifications to provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The R4 district, however, is the only Frederick Code of Frederick County governing physical development. Such County zoning category that is suitable for the development of a mix modifications may be sought-to-enable-implementation-of a, desi and /or of land uses pursuant to a single zoning category, where innovative land use concept beneficial to the community that would not otherwise be esign — con — ce — pts — and may be created and applied: Flowever, permitted by existing ordinances. The following modifications are the R4 district is oriented toward a predominantly residential requested with this rezoning application: development program (as implied by its formal title - Residential Planned Community) and its requirements for a mixture of housing types as stated above befits a project intended to develop with Modification to Section 165 -71 of the Frederick County Zonin residential uses over a majority of its land area. g Ordinance governing the mixture of housing types required within a planned community. Current Standard No more than 40% of residentially designated areas of a planned community may develop with any of the following housing types: duplexes, multiplexes, atrium houses, weak -link townhouses, townhouses or garden apartments or any combination of those housing types. In contrast, the land use program for a mixed use employment center emphasizes reservation of greater amounts of land for commercial and business uses, which results in less area available to locate the residential density necessary to achieve a balanced mix of land uses within the project. The ordinance requirement promotes a residential mix dominated by single family detached housing types. Such housing types are less conducive to the limited residential areas of a mixed use employment center given the greater land area required for individual lots. Proposed Standard The residentially designated areas of a mixed use employment center may develop with any combination of housing types permitted by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the approved proffer statement without limitation to the percentage or ratio of any given housing type. The development of single family attached and multi - family dwellings as the predominant housing types in Carpers Valley is necessary to complement and catalyze the business and commercial uses on the site. Moreover, the availability of such housing in a planned community setting within walking distance of employment, shopping, and commercial uses will provide a positive although presently non- existent choice for current and future County residents. Design &, Development Standards 14 Governors Hill - Frederick Countv, VA 2. Modification of Section 165 -72.1). of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance governing the maximum areas permitted for commercial or industrial uses. Current Standard No more than 50% of the gross area of the pla nned community shall be use for commercial - atid industrial purposes. for residential uses. The modified standard proposed with this application will facilitate development of a mix of land uses in a planned community setting consistent with the intent of the R4 district, but with the notable distinction of elevating business and commercial land uses to the forefront of the planned development program. Proposed Standard No more than 60% of the gross area of the planned community shall be used for business and commercial purposes. Justification The proposed rezoning is sought to enable development of a mixed use commercial center, which is a type of planned community not currently accommodated by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The R4 district is the only zoning category that is available to develop a mix of land uses pursuant to a single zoning category wherein innovative design standards may be applied. However, the R4 district is intended to facilitate development of a principally residential project complemented by relatively small areas of commercial and/or industrial uses. In contrast, the land uses intended to predominate within the proposed development are business and commercial uses, with residentially designated areas comprising a lesser amount of the total land area. The mixed use commercial center concept advanced through this rezoning application requires the amount of land designated for commercial and business uses to exceed the 50% limit of the R4 district. The essential components of the proposed mixed use development program are the commercial and employment uses planned for the site, which may require significant acreage depending upon the ultimate users. However, to ensure a mix of mutually supportive land uses, a minim amount of land needs to be reserved Design &, Development Standards 15