Loading...
PC 09-03-14 Meeting MinutesAPPLICATION STAFF BRIEFING FOR REZONING #02-14 HERITAGE COMMONS, LLC Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on September 3, 2014. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; Robert S. Molden, Opequon District; J. Stanley Crockett, Stonewall District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; J. Rhodes Marston, Back Creek District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Kevin Kenney, Gainesboro District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; and Charles F. Dunlap, Red Bud District. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PRESENT: Gene E. Fisher, Shawnee District; Gary A. Lofton, Back Creek District; Robert W. Wells, Opequon District; and Robert A. Hess, Gainesboro District. STAFF PRESENT: Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney; Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director- Planning; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director -Transportation; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; Renee S. Arlotta, Clerk; Kris C. Tierney, Assistant County Administrator; Ellen Murphy, Commissioner of the Revenue. APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT: Thomas (Ty) Moore Lawson, PC, Lawson & Silek, P.L.C.; Matt Milstead; Bruce A. Griffin, President, B.A. Griffin, LLC; and Stuart M. Patz, President, S. Patz & Associates, Inc., Real Estate Consultants. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairman Thomas called the September 3, 2014 application staff briefing and work session to order at 7:00 p.m. Vice Chairman Thomas provided the proposed meeting format. HERITAGE COMMONS REZONING APPLICATION SEEKING TO REZONE 150 ACRES FROM THE B2, RP, & RA DISTRICTS TO THE R4 DISTRICT WITH REVISED PROFFERS AND ORDINANCE MODIFICATIONS. The R4 (Planned Residential) District enables a mix of uses, but more importantly, enables an applicant to modify the ordinance, tailoring it to the envisioned development. Frederick County Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors Page 3142 Application Staff Briefing - September 3, 2014 -2 - PLANNING STAFF OVERVIEW OF APPLICATION Use, Modifications, u Proffers from Senior Planner, Candice E. Perluiis Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, gave a brief overview of what is being proposed and what the R4 District entails. Ms. Perkins stated this development was originally rezoned with proffers as the Russell 150 development in 2005. The proposal consisted of 96.28 acres of commercial and 54 acres of residential (297 townhouses). She said the Russell 150 rezoning contained an extensive proffer package that contained a number of assurances for road construction (including the bridge) and fiscal impacts. Ms. Perkins next showed the Russell 150 GDP on the screen. Ms. Perkins said the Heritage Commons rezoning application includes a Market and Fiscal Impact Analysis (MFIA); it proffers a maximum of 1,200 residential units (1,050 multi -family and 150 townhouses) with a density of 12.8 units per acre. The applicant's proffer does not include a square footage limit on commercial uses nor any maximums or minimums. The application would enable residential and commercial development; it would enable a mixed use `town center' which could include mixed uses in a single structure (enabled with modifications, but not guaranteed); it includes a proffered land use matrix table; and it includes a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) map to illustrate land bays. Ms. Perkins said the modification document accompanying the R4 is requesting a modification to do 100% townhouse/multi-family, as opposed to the R4 limit of 40%, to increase the residential density from the R4 limit of 4 units/acre up to 12.8 units/acre; to decrease the open space from the R4 limit of 30% to 15%; to use private streets instead of public streets; to allow commercial building heights up to 80 feet; to increase the FAR from 1.0 to 2.0; and to modify the apartment building dimensional requirements. Ms. Perkins continued, stating that while the land uses proposed with the Heritage Commons could be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, staff has identified a number of concerns with this application. She provided a brief overview of those concerns, which included: agency comments remain unresolved, including public schools and VDOT; no proffered assurances the enabled mixed-use "town center" would be constructed; and there are a number of fiscal concerns and transportation concerns. Ms. Perkins commented that a number of commissioners and supervisors attended the trip to the Woodland Park in Fairfax County hosted by the applicant. Ms. Perkins pointed out that staff reviewed the proffer packages and GDP for that development and cash proffers were provided with that development to offset residential impacts and the commercial square footage far exceeded that which is envisioned with Heritage Commons. Ms. Perkins next referred to the reviewing agency concerns that were still outstanding. She said VDOT is not satisfied with the transportation proffers for the application; Frederick County Public Schools (FCPS) expressed concern with the impact to the public schools system, the student generation figures, and the student expenditure rates shown. She noted that using the County's Development Impact Model's (DIM) adopted figures, this development could generate up to 306 students with a yearly impact of $2,770,830 (306 students x $9,055 per student). Frederick County Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors Page 3143 Application Staff Briefing - September 3, 2014 -3 - Fiscal Impacts from Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins Ms. Perkins next reported the applicant submitted a Market and Fiscal Impacts Analysis (MFIA), authored by S. Patz & Associates, dated October 2013. She said the analysis projects an annual net fiscal benefit of $4,300,000 at build -out (15 years). Ms. Perkins noted there are a number of concerns with the applicant's MFIA; many of the MFIA's assumptions are not directly tied to a proffered commitment. Specifically, Ms. Perkins pointed out the proposed development of 1,200 residential dwellings and 700,000 square feet of office/retail space may have a negative fiscal impact on the county; she said there is no proffered fiscal impact mitigation; there are no commitments on when the commercial land bays will be constructed; and the residential portion of the development could fully build out without constructing any commercial uses. In addition, the applicant's plan of utilizing future potential tax contributions of the commercial land bays to offset the residential land bays, without phasing the commercial to be built in conjunction with the residential, should be carefully evaluated. She said this reinforces the Board's policy of not considering credits as part of the capital facilities evaluation processes. Ms. Perkins said that when applied to the proffered residential mix, the County's DIM (Development Impact Model) projects negative capital fiscal impacts of $13,865,197 (using the applicant's student generation figures). Ms. Perkins stated that both the Commissioner of the Revenue and the County Treasurer provided comments and have expressed significant concerns regarding the data used in the applicant's MFIA. This was provided to the Planning Commission and the applicant on August 29. She said the analysis presumes the establishment of a new county office building on site and assumes this would be the catalyst for the development of additional commercial space. Ms. Perkins said the county office building concept would represent 1/3 of the proposed commercial use. In addition, Ms. Perkins said the MFIA models a development scenario that is not proffered. She said the commercial development proposed is speculative and could take 15 plus years to develop. The MFIA is based on a phasing plan which is not proffered and it fails to discuss the negative fiscal realities, if the housing units are front loaded. Furthermore, she said the MFIA suggests the project be developed in three five-year phases with commercial and residential mixes. She said the MFIA indicates positive impacts to offset negatives, yet the inputs in the MFIA appear inaccurate based on agency comments and it utilizes inaccurate multipliers, values, and fundamental state tax code. Transportation Impacts from Deputy Director -Transportation, John A. Bishop Deputy Director -Transportation, John A. Bishop, provided an overview of the differences between the transportation proffers currently approved for this property and those proffers being proposed with this new development. Mr. Bishop said the existing proffers currently on the books reference the use of CDA (Community Development Authority) funding and only the first paragraph of those proffers deal almost exclusively with CDA funds. He said the remainder of those proffers deal primarily with specific parts of the road system and references the CDA, but states if CDA funding is not available, the developer will build the road sections regardless. Other key points of the approved proffers included: Warrior Drive, the Tevis Street Extension, the Airport Road Extension, and the bridge over I-81 all have specifically dedicated right-of-ways and full construction to "ultimate section" with or without the CDA; there is approximately $1.0 million in cash for transportation improvements, which is based on a per-unit proffer for residential units; and bicycle/pedestrian accommodations along all of the roadways. Frederick County Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors Page 3144 Application Staff Briefing - September 3, 2014 -4 - Mr. Bishop next reviewed the applicant's new proposed proffer and said it basically consists of two paragraphs, the second of which deals almost exclusively with situations in which they will or will not participate in Warrior Drive. He said the applicant states they will participate in revenue sharing pursuant to agreements with Frederick County; however, Frederick County has not yet reached the point where those agreements have been developed. He said the new proposed proffers state the applicant's match will be paid in cash or land equivalent; however, Frederick County cannot use land as a match for revenue sharing. Mr. Bishop pointed out there are no performance triggers in the current proffer, compared to those within the previous proffers, which specifically relate to sections of roads being built either before or concurrent with the first phase of development. Mr. Bishop continued, stating that many of the details which were written out in the previous proffer have been removed in the revised proffer and reference the GDP (Generalized Development Plan); however, the GDP lacks considerable details in terms of showing specifically what is being guaranteed to be constructed. He commented that typically, a GDP does not provide deadlines or triggers. Mr. Bishop also noted there were a considerable number of entrances shown on the GDP that have not previously been contemplated or analyzed by either the Planning Department Staff or VDOT. Mr. Bishop believed it would put the staff in a difficult position if the Board were to approve a GDP as a part of a proffer package which includes these entrances, especially since Frederick County is Comprehensive Planning for better access management. Mr. Bishop said the applicant's proposed proffer specifically states that Frederick County acknowledges the proposed network roadway is substantially similar to the one approved in the previous package. However, with the lack of triggers and the severe rollback on a commitment to the Warrior Drive connection to the south, it was difficult for Mr. Bishop to say that was true; he stated the County Attorney has made previous references that a proffer package is not the appropriate place for the Board of Supervisors to be committing themselves to things. Mr. Bishop explained that prior to this application being submitted, Frederick County had been accumulating revenue sharing dollars and for this particular roadway network in general, the County has accumulated approximately $8.7 million in State funds --$6 million of which would assist infrastructure commitments associated with the previous proffers. He commented there are only a few other projects with this amount of dollars. He pointed out that despite having this much money available in matching funds, a private partner is still needed. Mr. Bishop commented a number of various revenue sharing projects are currently taking place throughout Frederick County with committed partners who provide private funds. Mr. Bishop said there were hopes someone would come forward enabling Frederick County to move this particular road project forward; however, that does not mean the County Planning Staff is proposing that Frederick County citizens provide the matching dollars. APPLICANT OVERVIEW OF APPLICATION AND FISCAL IMPACTS Presentation by Applicant's Representative, Thomas (Ty) Morre Lawson, P.C. Mr. Thomas (Ty) Morre Lawson, P.C. with Lawson & Silek, P.L.C. was present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Lawson introduced the developers, Matt Milstead and Bruce A. Griffin; and Stuart M. Patz, S. Patz & Associates, Inc., Real Estate Consultants. Frederick County Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors Page 3145 Application Staff Briefing - September 3, 2014 -5 - Mr. Lawson said the previous proffers state that all of what is shown on the plan is intended to be built with CDA money; it has nothing to do with matching funds, nor does it have anything to do with the new layout. Mr. Lawson believed the original plan failed for many reasons, not simply financial. He pointed out that the bridge design in the original plan does not meet VDOT standards. He said their bridge design has been revised with new standards and flexibility, such as openings to allow for the expansion of I-81. He said the signalized intersection in the original plan does not work because of stacking and has also been redesigned. Mr. Lawson commented they do not understand why Warrior Drive was designed to be six lanes, even though every other section is two and four lanes. Referring back to the original plan, Mr. Lawson said that design proposed old style, segregated rezoning to accommodate big box commercial. He said the proposed new GDP has mixed residential and commercial and the residential density will be 12.8 units per acre, lower than what is called for in the Comprehensive Plan. He said the R4 Zoning allows the mix of various uses and having an ordinance option to allow for a denser project would work well in this area of Frederick County. He pointed out the location proposed for a round -about which was recommended by VDOT and solves the problem of stacking. Mr. Lawson said work is continuing with the engineer, the County, and the State to determine the final layout; he said the applicant is willing to dedicate the land to allow for this round -about. Mr. Lawson said Mr. Bishop was correct in saying the plan cuts off Warrior Drive and that is essentially due to budget; there was not enough money to accomplish all of that. He commented the practical reason is that even under the original plan, it was a road going nowhere. Mr. Lawson noted that even if funds were available to build Warrior Road and the bridge, there were several parcels below them Warrior Drive would need to traverse before connecting; he supposed it could be built, but asked to what end. He said that is why they chose this layout under the new plan. Mr. Lawson believed what the applicant was proposing was a more realistic development. He said examples of the commercial uses would be a convenience store, a bank, a fast food restaurant, in addition to the multi -family. He said it provides an opportunity to do neighborhood centers with different uses on different floors. Mr. Lawson next showed some slides from the Northern Virginia area which depicted a similar type of layout the applicant was proposing. Another slide showed the Heritage Commons layout with a land bay breakdown; he pointed to the area at the front of the property where they were proposing to locate the County's administrative office building and stated they have proffered to build their own private office building adjacent to the County's office building. Mr. Lawson next talked about the school impacts. He said with this proposed development, there is a departure from what is normally anticipated in their modeling and from what one would expect in terms of school children generation. Mr. Lawson said a development of this type doesn't exist in Frederick County and there will be an explanation of why this is different and why the impacts from it are positive and not negative, as reported. He stated the residential proposed does not generate school children and is tax positive. He said there is a strong demand for this type of product. Mr. Lawson showed a video of a project Cathcart Group had done in Charlottesville, which is similar to the one planned for Frederick County. Market & Fiscal Impact Analysis from Stuart M. Patz, President of Patz & Associates, Inc. Mr. Stuart M. Patz, President of Patz & Associates, Inc., author of the applicant's fiscal impact analysis, came forward to explain a little about the proposed project and to talk about the developer, the Cathcart Group. Mr. Patz said as with Cathcart's previous projects, they emphasize attention to the project's natural elements. For the Heritage Common's project, they spoke with Frederick County Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors Page 3146 Application Staff Briefing - September 3, 2014 -6 - Shenandoah University's staff about how to best utilize the stream valley, which they believe is an asset to their project. He pointed out that everything shown in the video clip, the amenities and the furnishings, is standard and is a sample of the type of development Cathcart will do in Frederick County. He said this same high-quality development was done in Charlottesville, Harrisonburg, and West Virginia and all of their communities are 100% full and have no vacancies. In addition, in the Charlottesville community of 294 units, there are only four school children. Mr. Lawson interjected that this type of housing option is not for everyone, but there is a demand in the community for this type of life style. Mr. Lawson said this type of life style does not come with a lot of school children; he said these are people with disposable income and they want to live in an area where they can walk to restaurants, to shop, or to work. Mr. Lawson said they will provide the market data and real numbers from existing Cathcart communities to the staff, he said this is why they feel so strongly that their economic analysis is correct. Mr. Patz continued, stating that when they conduct a fiscal impact analysis of an area, they do a market analysis as well. He said the market analysis is designed to show market support for what the developer would like to do. Mr. Patz discussed various specifics of their demographic analysis and concluded that they would market to persons in Winchester and Frederick County with incomes of $40,000 and above, which relates to a minimum of $1,000 per month of rent. He said their demographic analysis concludes there is a demand in this area for new rental housing and nothing is being constructed to serve this market; he believed this market was totally underserved in this area. He said there was a need for apartments, townhouses, and commercial space. In addition, Mr. Patz stated there is a very large off-site impact resulting from any residential development. He said one is the off-site real estate taxes generated from on-site development; families with incomes of $40,000 and above will be spending money in the community. Mr. Patz said the money that goes into the retail stores, the office space and medical practices of this community is considered off-site expenditures. He said off-site expenditures from residential are three or four times the benefit of the actual real estate. Real estate generates taxes, revenues, and cost those costs compared to just real estate will show a negative. He said the estimated revenue from total build out is $7.3 million; $3.7 million in tax supported cost; and $3.6 million in net benefits. Mr. Patz said there were two issues from the staff's presentation that he wanted to specifically address. The first was that the model used did not use higher -end apartment communities, as an apples -to -apples comparison; he said the model used an average apartment complex for the County. He said the fact remains that Frederick County does not have a high-end apartment complex. Secondly, it totally eliminated the off-site impacts. Mr. Patz said retail space in this community does not exist without rooftops supporting those retail sales. He said the expenditure potential from households, both rental and ownership, supports the retail space. Without off- site impacts, the expenditures in other retail space within the community would not exist. Mr. Patz said they showed the economic benefits over three five-year periods and this data shows that for each period, assuming a certain amount of development, the economic benefit is positive. Mr. Patz stated that when they incorporated the modified comments from the Planning Staffs report which he believed were correct and he was in error, he came up with a $3.2 million benefit at the end of 15 years, not the previously stated $3.6 million. He said if he took all of the Planning Staff's comments in terms of what they asked the applicant to change, they still came out with a $3 million net benefit. Frederick County Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors Page 3147 Application Staff Briefing - September 3, 2014 In conclusion, Mr. Patz provided examples of other similar apartment complexes and the actual count of school students within those apartments. He said some within the county do have a higher student generation. But if you do an apples -to -apples comparison, comparing apartment complexes with slightly higher rents, you come up with less than a .1 student per apartment unit. Mr. Patz said they tried to be conservative and so they used a .175 and it comes out to be 184 students in the total development. Mr. Matt Milstead stepped forward and stated that Mr. Patz uses a $40,000 minimum base for his market salary for persons living in these apartments; the reality is the average salary in Frederick County is closer to $60,000. He mentioned all the additional discretionary spending that takes place off site and said that none of this is included in their model. He provided some additional figures and stated this project would generate over $9 million in additional tax revenue in Frederick County over the life of this product. He believed that even with their conservative numbers, this project still has a positive impact on Frederick County. PLANNING COMMISSION & BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISCUSSION Mr. Lawrence stated the comments made by Mr. Patz about the modified report reflected the comments made by the Planning Staff two weeks ago. He said the applicant changed that report, but he questioned whether it picked up the comments from the Commissioner of the Revenue and the Treasurer of Frederick County that were circulated on Friday. Mr. Patz replied the report did incorporate those comments. Mrs. Murphy thought Mr. Patz said he was accepting the Staff's comments, so she assumed they were incorporated. Mr. Patz noted the report read by Mr. Lawrence was dated October 2013; the report they were using this evening was an updated report dated May 2014. Mr. Patz said he would provide the updated report, if anyone needed it. Commissioner of the Revenue, Mrs. Ellen Murphy, said she spoke with the Albermarle Chief County Assessor who spoke highly of the Cathcart Group, particularly their quality development which has been well maintained and attracts buyers. She pointed out, however, that the Albemarle County project was developed without commercial. Commissioner Thomas interjected that Albemarle County has a higher median income than Frederick County. Commissioner Thomas commented there is considerable financial analysis shown by the applicant which is based on three five-year periods of proposed development; however, this development is not tied to a proffer. He said if the development proceeds differently than the assumptions made by the applicant's economist and the numbers are thrown off, it creates doubt in his mind about what the benefits will be to Frederick County. Commissioner Thomas stated that if the first and second five-year periods are built with all the residential areas, there will be very little benefit to the County. He recognized the considerable economic analysis conducted by the applicant on what is supportable; particularly, getting rooftops to support commercial, but there was no proffer which commits the developer to meet the assumptions used in coming up with the financial profile. Commissioner Thomas said this was one of his biggest concerns. He stressed again his concern that there are no proffers tying the development down to phasing, where there are so many of "X, Y, & Z" to ensure the profile of cost to Frederick County is what is shown on the applicant's analysis. Commissioner Oates referred to Mr. Bishop's comments regarding the County's available matching state funds in the amount of $8.7 million. Mr. Bishop stated the funds apply not only to the bridge, the surface road system, the northern section of Warrior Drive, and the airport extension of Tevis Street, but also to the connection which goes across the Glaize property and attaches to Route 522. Frederick County Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors Page 3148 Application Staff Briefing - September 3, 2014 -8 - Commissioner Oates commented there is a proffer currently approved for Russell 150 which almost certainly guarantees matching funds for the $8.7 million in State funds. Mr. Bishop replied those existing proffers obligate the developer to build the roads and the staff is happy to work with the applicant and utilize those funds. Commissioner Oates said under the new rezoning application, there are no proffers which guarantee any of those roads or any of the money; he asked if it would fall to Frederick County taxpayers to match it or if the funds would need to go back to VDOT. Mr. Bishop confirmed that returning the funds could potentially happen; he pointed out the new application relies on an agreement that doesn't exist, which is part of his concern. Mr. Bishop noted the staff seeks out these partnerships; he said this is the way it has been done with all previous partners for revenue sharing projects in Frederick County. He said private partners are found, the County gets State money, and roads are constructed which benefit both the private partner and Frederick County. He stated these transportation projects tend to be Comprehensive Planned roads. Mr. Bishop recognized that Warrior Drive is an expensive roadway; nevertheless, he said it is a major road which has been in Frederick County's Comprehensive Plan for many years. He said eventually, it will be able to be traversed all the way passed Sherando High School. Mr. Bishop said he could work with the applicant on simply stubbing it out or work on the possibility of getting more revenue sharing funds to help complete that section when the time is right. Unfortunately, the proposed proffer language has some references which include, "...at the applicant's discretion..." Mr. Bishop said he didn't see why the applicant could not have gone with the original proffer, add language concerning revenue sharing as opposed to CDA (Community Development Authority) language, and continue with the commitments. Mr. Bishop believed it was good for everyone to use the available State funds. He said if the funds are not used, they most likely will have to be returned. Mr. Bishop said the County would like the opportunity to work with the applicant, but Frederick County needs some guarantees. Mr. Bishop said he has no issues with the layout and alignment, but there are no details or commitments. Mr. Bishop said he received this rezoning application package from Senior Planner, Candice Perkins, on August 19, 2014 and he didn't request that the engineering firm focus exclusively on the round -about until August 21. He said while the staff was considering a round -about at this location, and the ability to access the parcel to the north, on-going work was taking place by the applicant's engineer and extra entrances along Route 522 and along Airport Road were added to the plans, but had not yet been discussed with the staff. Mr. Bishop wanted to be careful there is not an impression that those numerous extra entrances were the staff s work, because they were not. Commissioner Oates inquired if there was a TIA (traffic impact analysis) for all of those entrances on Route 522 or if there was any TIA at all. Mr. Bishop replied there was no new TIA. Commissioner Oates referred to Planning Director, Eric Lawrence, about contacting Fairfax County concerning a similar development in their area. He asked Mr. Lawrence if the Fairfax County development's GDP and proffer statement were similar to this one. Mr. Lawrence stated it was like comparing apples to oranges. Mr. Lawrence said after the applicant's tour in Fairfax last week, he contacted staff at the Fairfax County Planning Department to determine the similarities and Fairfax County provided him with the GDP and the proffers. He said there were cash proffers for schools, parks, and a baseball field with a mixed-use concept. Mr. Lawrence displayed the GDP on the screen, which had considerable detail with a town center and showed exactly how everything was going to be laid out. Frederick County Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors Page 3149 Application Staff Briefing - September 3, 2014 -9 - Mr. Ty Lawson asked Mr. Thomas if it would be appropriate for them to talk about the issues raised. Mr. Thomas suggested that the Commission and Board provide the applicant with their thoughts and some areas they are seeking additional information. He said if there is time left over, they would get more details from the applicant; however, he believed things would get bogged down if the group begins a question and answer period. Mr. Lawrence believed it was important to recognize a separation between the big picture and the actual proffer commitments. He said much of what the Commission and the Board saw on the tour with the shopping centers and photos, and the fiscal analysis presented, are not in the applicant's proffer. Mr. Lawrence said he fully supports this type of apartments in this community and he believed there was a market for them, but the proffer does not state the applicant is going to build the market -rate apartments, it simply states the applicant will construct over 1,050 apartments. Mr. Lawrence stated this needs to be kept in mind as this goes through. He advised the group not to be confused by what is being told, but look at what is being proffered. Mr. Thomas agreed and said there is a lot of discussion, but there is no commitment in the proffer for the developer to produce what is being presented. Mr. Thomas said this is where he sees the biggest disconnect. He was not questioning the quality, the developer, the layout, but what he is questioning is the commitment. He said he sees a lot of talk, but he doesn't see any black and white that this is actually what the applicant will do. Mr. Thomas remarked this is the missing part of this application. Commissioner Oates commented under these new proffers, the applicant could build 1,000 apartments for any income level and zero commercial. He agreed the proposed proffers are too loose and nothing is tied down with phasing or street schedule. Commissioner Oates stated, in addition, the County is losing roads compared with what the original application had guaranteed. He believed Frederick County was losing a lot. He noted the taxpayers will have to bear the burden of constructing what the applicant does not. Supervisor Wells agreed with Commissioner Oates' comments. Supervisor Wells stated that without the commercial development, it is not a winning situation for Frederick County. Supervisor Wells said the applicants were quoted in the newspaper stating the county office building would be a corner stone in bringing in commercial development. Supervisor Wells said he wouldn't bank on that. Supervisor Wells advised the applicant to say, "Can this development survive and do what it needs to commercially, even if the relocation of the county office building does not transpire." He said if it can't, the applicant needed to reconsider. Supervisor Wells said he still had a lot of unanswered questions. Commissioner Oates agreed with Supervisor Wells' comments. Commissioner Oates said even if the County does not relocate their building, much of the business citizens conduct with Frederick County can now be done electronically. He said he didn't need to physically go to the County Administration Building to conduct business. Commissioner Oates said the only commercial draw he could see with the relocation of the County Administration Building would be to feed the lunch crowd. Commissioner Dunlap raised a concern about Land Bay #3. Commissioner Dunlap believed the Comprehensive Plan earmarked that particular area as an employment center and this application is designating it as residential. Commissioner Dunlap believed this was not a good location for residential because Warrior Drive is running north -south parallel to I-81 and the area between that road and I-81 should be commercial. Likewise, he believed Land Bay #7 should be the same way, as well. Frederick County Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors Page 3150 Application Staff Briefing - September 3, 2014 -i0 - Commissioner Thomas said this will be a community of 2,500-3,000 plus people, which results in considerable traffic and lots of impacts. If the development remains solely residential, it results in considerable impacts to Frederick County taxpayers and there is no hook with the developer to get the commercial in there. Commissioner Mohn agreed with all of the issues raised by the Supervisors and Commissioners. Commissioner Mohn expressed concern there was no new TIA (traffic impact analysis). He said on all levels, this proposal is an intensification of what was originally envisioned for the site; it is certainly different in its composition. He felt the need to get a grasp of what that means from an impact perspective; not just fiscally, but from a brass tacks traffic perspective to assess just how effective these improvements will be and whether what is committed to at the end of the day is adequate for Frederick County. Commissioner Mohn believed a new TIA is important with this new application. Mr. Bishop responded there were things the applicant could do through proffers to keep themselves from having to do a new TIA. He said if the balance for trip generation remains, they may still be okay with the existing TIA. In response to Commissioner Mohn's question about how old the existing TIA was, Mr. Bishop believed it was dated November of 2004. Commissioner Mohn remarked that if a new TIA is not done, it might not be a bad idea to at least do some type of addendum for the new project and what the maximum assumptions might be. Commissioner Mohn said that decision was up to Mr. Bishop and VDOT to determine, but this may be a middle ground. The applicant was not opposed to doing this. Commissioner Unger referred to the applicant's comment about Warrior Drive going to nowhere, but he believed Warrior Drive was needed. He said Warrior Drive is dead-end right now, but the reason for that is it has not developed any further. He stated if this project is developed without Warrior Drive, then Warrior will never tie together correctly. Commissioner Unger strongly believed Warrior Drive needed to be incorporated within this project. He commented this same thing was done several years ago when Route 37 was removed and it took a long time to get it back on the table; he thought everyone regretted removing it. Referring back to the discussion of the TIA, Commissioner Thomas stated there will be a considerable amount of traffic generated with this development. He believed the demographics of this new proposal were significantly different than those in 2004; he thought it would be to the developer's benefit to come up with a new analysis based on the current traffic. Commissioner Thomas noted that if a motorist is trying to access a major highway at this location, there are only two connection points; if 3,000 vehicles are going to two connection points and other traffic is going in and out of the development, there will be a considerable volume of traffic; he was concerned about this detail, along with Warrior Road. He remarked that old commitments need to be examined and made sure they are incorporated. Commissioner Oates said if Mr. Bishop and VDOT come back and say a new TIA is not warranted, he would be fine with it; however, he was not ready to give up the Russell 150 package. Supervisor Fisher suggested that the developer compile a list of all the comments made this evening because he believed the impacts of this development have not nearly been mitigated, even close to what they needed to be. Supervisor Fisher said he was still trying to accept that 1,200 units are proposed off Route 522 South. Supervisor Fisher thought Ms. Murphy made a good comment about where all the jobs were going to come from to generate income levels for these units. He believed the comments made by everyone so far this evening have been right on. Frederick County Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors Page 3151 Application Staff Briefing - September 3, 2014 -I] - Ms. Murphy was interested in any changes made by the applicant that may impact the Treasurer. Mr. Lawson, the applicant's representative, believed many of the issues raised could be addressed. Mr. Lawson said he would like to hear comments from the Commission and Board about the proposed mix of housing because it was unique for Frederick County; he said the applicant is proceeding under R4 for very specific reasons. Commissioner Thomas' thoughts were that the market will assimilate what it can assimilate. He thought it was a good, unique concept; however, he questioned whether it is doable and if it is economically feasible. Supervisor Hess commented that if Frederick County were to have a development with this mix within the county, then this is probably as good a location as any. Commissioner Oates said he was fine with the mix, if the developer could mitigate the impacts; however, he would like to see more specifics on phasing. Mrs. Murphy questioned whether or not the proposed development could work without the County complex being there. ADJOURNMENT No further discussion ensued and the work session adjourned at 8:20 p.m. su itt Vice Chairman EriM. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors Page 3152 Application Staff Briefing - September 3, 2014