HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-15 Comments (2)Diane Walsh
From:
Eric Lawrence
Sent:
Wednesday, October 21, 2015 9:33 AM
To:
Diane Walsh
Subject:
FW: Artillery rezoning
From: Rod Williams
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 2:47 PM
To: 'Patrick Sowers'
Cc: Eric Lawrence; John Bishop
Subject: Artillery rezoning
Patrick,
I have now had the opportunity to review the revised proffer statement, dated October 5,
2015, for the above matter and have three items to offer in terms of ensuring that the proffer
statement would be legally sufficient as a proffer statement under state law and county ordinances:
In Proffer 2.2.1, some of the language regarding revenue sharing remains troublesome, in the
context of the legal prohibition on contract zoning. Therefore, I would suggest the rephrasing
the first sentence of Proffer 2.2.1 to read as two sentences, as follows: "Prior to the earlier to
occur of the issuance of a second building permit within Land Bay 1 or a second building
permit within Land Bay 2, the Land Bay 2 Owner shall enter into an agreement with Frederick
County by which the Land Bay 2 Owner provides for right of way acquisition, if necessary, and
the funding of the design and construction of the East-West Collector Road as depicted on the
GDP. The Land Bay 2 Owner may, pursuant to such agreement, use Virginia Department of
Transportation cost sharing funds for the design and construction costs of the East-West
Collector Road." Likewise, I would suggest the rephrasing of the current third sentence of
Proffer 2.2.1 to read as follows: "The Land Bay 2 Owner shall provide in the agreement with
Frederick County for the Land Bay 2 Owner's funding of the design and construction of the
East-West Collector Road, to cover the County match portion of the Project Administration
Agreement between Frederick County and the Commonwealth."
In the last signed version of the proffers, I noticed that the signature on behalf of NW Works
was by a director of that entity. Ordinarily, an individual director does not have the power to
enter into a binding agreement on behalf of an entity. It would appear that the signature
should be by an officer of the entity.
Finally, the document contains the word "Proposed" in its title. We would need to receive a
signed version without that word in order for it to suitable for recording.
10
Roderick B. Williams
County Attorney
County of Frederick, Virginia
107 North Kent Street, 3rd Floor
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Pam Deeter
From:
John Bishop
Sent:
Tuesday, October 13, 2015 1:39 Pvi
To:
Pam Deeter
Cc:
Eric Lawrence
Subject:
FW: Artillery Business Center - VDOT Comments to Proffer Amendment dated
10.05.2015
Attachments:
Scanned from EDNXerox.pdf
Just came in for Artillery
From: Funkhouser, Rhonda (VDOT) [mailto:Rhonda. FunkhouserOVDOT Virginia gov] On Behalf Of Ingram, Lloyd
(VDOT)
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 1:25 PM
To: John Bishop; Mike Ruddy
Cc: Patrick Sowers; Smith, Matthew, P.E. (VDOT); Ingram, Lloyd (VDOT)
Subject: Artillery Business Center - VDOT Comments to Proffer Amendment dated 10.05.2015
The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a significant
impact on Route 651 (Shady Elm Road). This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered
as the access to the property referenced.
VDOT is cautiously satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Artillery Business Center
rezoning application dated October 5, 2015 address transportation concerns associated with this
request.
If you wish to discuss these comments, please contact me.
Lloyd A. Ingram I Land Development Lngineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
Clarke, Frederick, Shenandoah & Warren Counties
14031 Old Valley Pike
Edinburg, VA 22824
voice: 540/984-5611
fax: 540/984-5607
e-mail: Lloyd.Ingram@)vdot.virginia.gov
Patrick Sowers
From: Funkhouser, Rhonda (VDOT) <Rhonda.Fun khouser@VDOT.Virginia.gov> on behalf of
Ingram, Lloyd (VDOT)<Lloyd.Ingram@VDOT.virginia.gov>
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 12:58 PM
To: Patrick Sowers
Cc: 'John Bishop'; mruddy@fcva.us; Smith, Matthew, P.E. (VDOT); Ingram, Lloyd (VDOT)
Subject: Artillery Business Center - VDOT Comments to Proffer Amendment
The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a significant
impact on Route 651 (Shady Elm Road). This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered
as the access to the property referenced.
VDOT is not satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Artillery Business Center
rezoning application dated September 2, 2015 address transportation concerns associated with this
request.
• The existing approved Artillery Business Center rezoning, dated February 7, 2008, is superior
in addressing the future transportation needs of both Shady Elm Road and the extension of
Renaissance Drive.
• A proffer is not required for the applicant to apply for Revenue Sharing funds to fulfill the
required transportation improvements.
If you wish to discuss these comments, please contact me.
Lloyd A. Ingram
Virginia Department of Transportation
c
031 Uli; / s+':.e�1 P;k:e
Edinburg, Vi,--
Fax:
i fax: 5
e-mail. Lloyd.Ingram@vdot.virginia.gov
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/ 665-5651
Fax: 540/ 665-6395
September 24, 2015
Patrick Sowers
Pennoni Associates Inc.
117 E. Piccadilly Street
Winchester, VA 22601
RE: Artillery Business Center — Proffer Amendment Request
Dear Mr. Sowers:
Thank you for the opportunity to review your proffer amendment request for the Artillery
Business Center. Please consider the following bullets as my feedback on this draft.
1. Regarding the shift of the cash proffer for transportation and the Shady Elm lane
improvements to the revenue sharing partnership to complete Renaissance Drive
from its existing terminus to Shady Elm. I think this is a good adjustment.
2. I am not supportive of removal of the current proffer to secure right-of-way across
the Carbaugh trust property.
3. The draft revenue sharing agreement attached to the proffer has issues for the
County which is being relayed through the County Attorney and is not acceptable
in its current form.
4. The draft proffers offer to enter into a revenue sharing agreement but they are less
clear as to the implications if the agreement should not be entered into. I would
suggest considering a limitation of 1 building permit prior to execution of the
revenue sharing agreement.
Thank You; - 7
John A. Bishop,
Deputy Director -Transportation
JAB/dlw
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000