PC 09-17-08 Meeting AgendaADEN] FILE COPY
FREDERICK COUNTY PLA
The Board
Frederick County Admi._____
Winchester, Virginia
September 17, 2008
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER
TAB
1) Adoption of Agenda: Pursuant to established procedures, the Planning Commission
should adopt the Agenda for the meeting................................................................ (no tab)
2) August 6, 2008 Minutes................................................................................................... (A)
3) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab)
4) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab)
PUBLIC HEARING
5) Rezoning 907-08 of the Unger Property, submitted by Painter -Lewis, PLC, to rezone .49
acres from the B2 (General Business) District to the B2 District, with proffers, and .85 acres
from the RP (Residential Performance) District to the B2 District, with proffers, for
Commercial Use. The properties are located on North Frederick Pike (Route 522) between
Westminster Canterbury Drive and Hickory Lane in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and
are identified by Property Identification Numbers 53A -A-5 and 53A -A-6.
Mrs. Perkins.......................................................................................................
PUBLIC MEETING
6) Rezoning #05-08 of BPG Properties, Ltd./1-81 Distribution Center, submitted by BPG
Properties, Ltd., to rezone 59 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B3 (Business,
Industrial Transition) District, with proffers, for Office and Warehouse Uses. The properties
are located approximately 0.61 miles north of the Route 11 intersection with Cedar Hill
(Route 671), bounded on the west by Interstate Route 81 and on the east by Martinsburg
Pike (Route 11) in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and are identified by Property
Identification Numbers 33-A-109 and 33-A-110.
Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (C)
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
7) Ordinance Amendment - New Office -Manufacturing Park District. Revisions to the
Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to add a new zoning district to implement the mixed
use industrial/office land use classification of the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (D)
$} Ordinance Amendment - Buffer Requirements Adjacent to Rail Road Lines.
Revisions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance pertaining to buffer and screening
requirements adjacent to rail road lines.
Mrs. Perkins....................................................................................................
9) Ordinance Amendment - Age -restricted multi -family housing. Revisions to Section
165-58 (RP Residential Performance) District of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance
to add age -restricted multi -family housing.
Mrs. Perkins....................................................................................................................... (F)
10) Other
•
J
:�
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERTC:K COUN'T'Y PLANT UNG COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on August 6, 2008.
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon
District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall
District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Lawrence R Ambrogi, Shawnee
District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Gary Lofton, Board of
Supervisors Liaison; and Roderick Williams, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; Richard Ruckman, Stonewall District; and Charles E.
Triplett, Gainesboro District.
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director, Mark
R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director -Transportation; and Renee' S.
Arlotta, Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Upon motion made by Commissioner
Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for the
August 6, 2008 meeting.
MINUTES
Upon motion made by Con-amssioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Oates, the meeting
minutes of June 18, 2008 were unanimously approved as presented.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Transportation Committee — 07/28/08 Mtg.
Commissioner Kriz provided details on the following agenda items discussed by the
Transportation Committee: 1) Route 11 North Planning Update; 2) 2004-2010 Interstate, Primary, and Secondary
Road Plans; 3) Request by Stephens City for speed limit reductions along certain sections of Route 11; and 4)
Request by Warren County for truck restrictions. Commissioner Kriz also reported on the August 5, 2008 Work
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2300
Minutes of August 6, 2008
no I R
-2 -
Session by the Transportation Committee which focused on red-light cameras.
Natural Resources Committee
Commissioner Kriz reported that the Natural Resources text for the Comprehensive Policy Plan
is moving along and should be ready within the next couple months.
NAICS Work Group — 07/31/08 Mtg.
Commissioner Oates reported that the NAICS Work Group is continuing work on the M1
Section of the ordinance and the staff has prepared a matrix of work completed to date.
Conservation Easement Authority (CEA)
Commissioner Watt announced a meeting on August 12, 2008, at 6:00 p.m., at Wayne and Sam
Snapp's Farm to inform the public on Conservation Easements. He said if anyone has questions, please contact
Diane Kerns.
Rural Areas Working Group — 07/31/08 Mtg.
Commissioner Manuel reported on the first meeting of the Rural Areas Working Group. He said
this was an organizational meeting and the group reviewed previously -expressed issues and solutions. He said the
group will also consider new ideas from elected officials and the public and subsequently, an ordinance revision
will be drafted and forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.
Area Land Plans Group and Transportation Committee Joint Work Session — 08/01/08 Mtg.
Commissioner Oates reported that the members of the Area Land Plans Group and the
Transportation Committee discussed road plans, planned uses, and the possible relocation or expansion of the
Brucetown and Hopewell Roads intersection."
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of August 6, 2008
Page 2301
C ITIZEN COMMENTS
Chairman Wilmot called for public comments on any subject not on the Commission's agenda
for this evening. No one came forward to speak.
PUBLIC HEARING
Conditional Use Permit 907-08 for Martin Deiseroth for a Cottage OccupationfHome Office at 1471
Shockeysville Road (Rt. 671). This property, zoned RA (Rural Areas), is identified with P.I.N. 07-4-3-4 in
the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Approval with Conditions
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported that this use will take place in
the applicant's residence; no other structures associated with the use are located on this site. He said there will
only be one employee, the owner, who will be providing accounting services. Mr. Cheran stated that based on the
limited scale of the proposed use and the review agency comments, it appeared the use will not have any
significant impacts on adjoining properties. Mr. Cheran next read a list of recommended conditions, should the
Planning Commission find the use to be appropriate.
Mr. Martin Deiseroth was available to answer questions from the Commission.
Chairman Wilmot called for public comments-, however, no one came forward to speak.
Chairman Wilmot then closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
No questions or issues were raised by Commission members.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Oates,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit 407-08 for Martin Deiseroth for a Cottage Occupation/Home Office at 1471
Shockeysville Road (Rt. 67 1) with the following conditions:
All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
No more than one employee allowed with this conditional use permit, other than members of the family
residing on the premises. No more than ten customers per week.
Any proposed business sign shall conform to cottage occupation sign requirements and shall not exceed
four square -feet in size.
4. Any expansion or modification of facilities will require a new conditional use permit. --
(Note: Commissioners Kerr, Ruckman, and Triplett were absent from the meeting.)
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of August 6, 2008
Page 2302
-4 -
Conditional Use Permit 908-08 for Shenandoah Gas for an extension of a previously -approved monopole
structure, located at 350 Hillandale Lane, from 120 feet to 180 feet This property, a 10.9 -acre site zoned
MI (Light Industrial), is identified with PIN 963-A-2 in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Approval with Conditions
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported that this proposed conditional
use permit (CUP) is for an extension of the existing monopole -type tower from 120 feet to 180 feet. Mr. Cheran
stated that the 180 -foot tower '"'ill have setbacks of approximately 300 feet from Hillandale Lane (Rt. 651), 152
feet from the rear property line, 337 feet from the right property line, and 595 feet from the left side property line.
The setbacks were calculated with CUP # 11-02 in order to meet future extension of this tower from 120 feet to
180 feet. He noted that CUP # 11-02 was approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors onNovember
13, 2002. Mr. Cheran said the zoning ordinance specifies that a CUP for a commercial telecommunications tower
may be permitted provided that residential properties, land use patterns, scenic areas, and properties of significant
historic values are not negatively impacted.
Mr. Cheran next read a list of recommended conditions, should the Planning Commission find
the use to be appropriate.
Cormnissioner Unger inquired if additional setbacks were needed for the extended structure. Mr.
Cheran replied no; he said the setbacks and fall ratio for CUP 411-02 were calculated to meet the extension of the
structure to 180 feet.
A representative for Shenandoah Gas was available for questions from the Planning
Commission.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing for citizen comments. No one came forward to
speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Chairman Wilmot asked the staff if the applicant agreed to the requirements of the Winchester
Regional Airport. Mr. Cheran replied the applicant is meeting all the requirements from the Federal Aviation
Administration (FFA), including the comments on lighting.
Commissioner Manuel made a motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit with
the conditions recommended by the staff. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Ambrogi and
unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit #08-08 for Shenandoah Gas for an extension of a previously -approved
monopole structure, located at 350 Hillandale Lane, from 120 feet to 180 feet, with the following conditions:
All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
The telecommunication tower shall be available for collocating personal wireless services providers.
In the event a telecommunication tower is not erected within 12 months of the approval of this
conditional use permit, then the conditional use permit will be deemed invalid.
4. The telecommunications tower shall be removed by the applicant or property owner within 12 months of
abandonment of operation.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of August 6, 2008
Page 2303
Any expansion or modification of this use will require a new conditional use permit.
Approval of this conditional use permit will void CUP 411-02 of Shenandoah Gas for a 120 -foot
monopole structure.
(dote: Commissioners Kerr, Ruckman, and Triplett were absent from the meeting.)
Rezoning 904-08 of Red Hawk Estates, submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.C., to rezone 85.3 acres from RA
(Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, with proffers, for up to 240 residential
units. The properties are located north and south of Sulphur Spring Road (Route 656) and east of
Greenwood Road (Route 655). The properties are further identified with P.I.N.s 65-A-86, 65 -A -86B, 65-
A-98, 65-A-102, and 65-A-1 02A.
Action — Tabled for 45 Days
Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported the request is for residential rezoning for
up to 69 single-family detached and 170 townhouses. Mr. Ruddy said that property is within the Urban
Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). He said the Comprehensive Policy
Plan's Eastern Frederick County Long -Range Land Use Plan provides no specific guidance as to the future land
use designations in this area; however, the use of adjacent land is a significant consideration. Mr. Ruddy next
reviewed the transportation issues in this particular area. He then described how the applicant is proposing to
generally develop and access the property. Particularly, Mr. Ruddy noted the applicant is proposing to dedicate
right-of-way and construct four lanes of Chaining Drive to the ultimate section across their property only and to
construct two lanes from this point out to Route 50. No improvements are proposed for Sulphur Springs Road.
Mr. Ruddy pointed out that Sulphur Springs Road, in conjunction with Greenwood Road, has been a long-
standing County transportation priority and is currently at the top of the Secondary Road Improvement list. Mr.
Ruddy suggested careful consideration of the proposed trigger mechanisms for transportation improvements.
In conclusion, Mr. Ruddy stated that while the property is located in the UDA, the residential
land use proposed in this rezoning should be carefully evaluated in consideration of the surrounding land uses.
The staff believed many of the impacts associated with this rezoning request had not been mitigated. In
particular, Sulphur Springs Road and Channing Drive; existing County facilities, such as the shooting range;
development impact model values; and the proffer statement language were recognized concerns.
Mr. R. J. Turner of Turner Enterpri ses, LLC, was the owner and applicant for Red Hawk Estates
rezoning application. Mr. Turner introduced the following members of his team: Mr. Barry Carpenter, Land
Planner, with Sympoetica; Mr. John Lewis, Engineer, with Painter -Lewis, PLC; Mr. John Callow and Mr.
Micahel C. Glickman with PHR&A, Traffic Impact Analysts; and Stephen L. Pettler, Jr., Legal Counsel, with
Harrison & Johnston, PLC.
Mr. Stephen L. Pettler, Jr., with Harrison & Johnston, PLC, Legal Counsel, came forward to
provide an overview of the project and to address a number of points that were raised. Mr. Pettler said the new
fiscal impact model numbers will be incorporated in future proffer statements as the application moves through
the rezoning process. In addition, the applicant and Arcadia have an oral understanding regarding the
transportation infrastructure and a written agreement is currently being negotiated. Mr. Pettler described which
lanes of Channing Drive were anticipated to be constructed and to which points. He also clarified the issues
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of August 6, 2008
Page 2304
Q.
involving the shooting range and presented an email noting that the Sheriff is satisfied with the monetary proffer
addressing the shooting range.
Commissioner Kriz wanted further clarification on the construction ofthe road through Arcadia.
Mr. Pettler replied that Mr. Turner is proffering to build two lanes for the entire distance and will not construct
il co��.pi—on; Arcadia will have the. responsibility for the other two lanes,
any "townhouses on the property unt
assuming everything is worked out to the satisfaction of all parties.
Mr. Barry Carpenter of Sympoetica, a community plamling and design firm, described the
concept plan and the generalized development plan for the Commission. Commissioner Oates commented that
the only existing business in this area is the landfill and Perry Engineering; he said it appeared the applicant was
depending on the adjoining Arcadia to supply the business through their town center. Commissioner Oates said
he had trouble visualizing this proposal as anything other than a typical subdivision and not new urbanism.
Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. Carpenter for clarification of a reference on the plan to
"improved" Sulphur Springs Road; he inquired if the applicant was constructing the travel lane with curb, gutter,
and sidewalk illustrated on the plan. Mr. Carpenter replied that the applicant was not anticipating making those
improvements along Sulphur Springs Road.
Mr. John Callow, Vice -President of PHR&A, the transportation engineers, stated that the staff
had strongly encouraged the applicant to dedicate the right-of-way and subsequently, the construction of
Channing Drive. Mr. Callow said this was an enormous undertaking for the few 200-230 homes generating 2,000
trips per day; he said they were committed to building a road section that would accommodate 30,000-45,000
trips per day. He spoke about the cost of constructing that section and the two lanes through Arcadia. Mr_
Callow believed the greatest expense in road construction is the mobilization of the equipment; therefore, he
anticipated the entire road would be constructed all at once. -
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing to citizen comments. The following persons came
forward to speak:
Mr. John Shuman, 1365 Greenwood Road, was concerned about roads and safety. Mr. Shuman,
a resident since 2000 and a member of Greenwood Fire Company, said four people have been killed in automobile
accidents along this winding road. Mr. Shuman said he was not against the project; however, he believed the
priority should be for the roads to be improved and completed. Mr. Shuman said the priority for the area between
Route 7 and Route 50 should be crossover roads, not just part way to Senseny Road, but complete crossover
roads from one section to another until Route 37 is constructed.
No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the
public hearing.
Mr. Gregg Hoffman, VDOT representative, came forward to answer questions from the
Commission. Commissioner Thomas stated that the proffer language would seem to allow a substantial number
of houses to be constructed in the southern pod and traffic could be funneled up to Sulphur Springs Road before
the Channing Drive connection is made at Route 50. He asked Mr. Hoffman if Sulphur Springs Road would be
able to handle the additional traffic at that point. Mr. Hoffman said the road could probably handle a hundred
units, but not much more. Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. Hoffman if he could foresee any challenges at the
Route 50 intersection with constructing two lanes of the four -lane section first and then connecting into Route 50.
Mr. Hoffinan didn't anticipate a problem with two lanes.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of August 6, 2008
Page 2305
-7—
Mr. John Bishop, Deputy Director -Transportation, came forward to answer questions from the
Commission. Commissioner Manuel commented that the TIA was almost two years old and he asked Mr. Bishop
if it was cause for concern. Mr. Bishop replied the only development activity in this area that might impact the
applicant's TIA was the Governor's Hill project, which has been in flux. Therefore, the staff did not request
another TIA.
Transportation issues were a primary concern for the Commission. Commissioners stressed the
importance of completing road infrastructure improvements before the construction of housing, especially the
Charming Drive connection through the al)- icant's property and the adjoining Arcadia property, in order to get
the traffic out to Route 50. Without a written agreement between the owners of Red Hawk Estates and the
Arcadia property regarding which party was responsible for their particular transportation component, members
of the Commission believed there were no guarantees the road would be completed satisfactorily. In addition,
they were not comfortable with tying the completion of the road to building permits and suggested the applicant
use a date for completion or coincide it with the Sulphur Springs Road improvements. Commissioners said a
number of presumptions were taking place by this applicant with regard to Arcadia, particularly, when Arcadia
would develop and what type of development would take place. Commissioners also commented they had trouble
visualizing this project as anything other than a typical residential subdivision because it seemed to be relying on
the Arcadia project for the commercial/business component of a new urbanism development. Furthermore, no
improvements along Sulphur Springs Road or the intersection of Route 50 were planned by the applicant.
Another issue of concern for the Commission involved the appropriateness of a residential development next to an
outdoor shooting range and the need for a disclosure to future home buyers. The monetary contribution by the
applicant towards a new indoor facility appeared to be wholly inadequate. Commission members believed it was
premature to send this application to the Board of Supervisors because so many of the underlying critical
components of this project were not yet solidly in place.
A motion was made by Commissioner Manuel for denial. This motion was seconded by
Commissioner Oates, but the motion was defeated by the following vote:
YES (TO DENY): Manuel, Oates, Wilmot
NO: Unger, Watt, Ambrogi, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Mohn
(Note: Commissioners Ruckman, Triplett, and Kerr were absent from the meeting.)
A new motion was made by Commissioner Thomas to table the rezoning for 45 days to allow the
applicant to further coordinate with Arcadia and to work on the issues raised. This motion was seconded by
Commissioner Ours and passed with a majority vote.
BE IT RESOLVED, that by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby table
Rezoning 404-08 of Red Hawk Estates, submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.C., to rezone 85.3 acres from RA (Rural
Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, with proffers, for 45 days to allow the applicant more
time to address the issues raised by the Commission and the staff.
The majority vote was as follows:
YES (TO TABLE): Unger, Watt, Ambrogi, Wilmot, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Mohn
NO: Manuel, Oates
(Note: Commissioners Ruckman, Triplett, and Kerr were absent from the meeting.)
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of August 6, 2008
Page 2306
Rezoning Application 905-08 of SPG Properties, Ltd./ 1-81 Distribution Center, submitted by BPG
Properties, Ltd., to rezone 59 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B3 (Business -Industrial Transition)
District, with proffers, for office and warehouse uses. The properties are located approximately 0.61
miles north of the Route 11 intersection with Cedar Hill (Route 671), bounded on the west by I-81, and on
the east by Martinsburg Pike (Route 11). The properties are further identified with P.I.N.s 33-A-109 and
33-A-110 in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
Action — Tabled for 45 Days
Commissioner Oates announced for the record that he abstained from the original discussion of
this application last winter because of work he did for the property owner and a discussion of a real estate
transaction with him a_number of years ago. Commissioner Oates said he consulted with the Planning
Commission's legal counsel and was advised it would be okay for him to participate in the discussion this
evening.
Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that this land use designation is
consistent with the County's land use designation in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Ruddy said the Eastern
Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan includes this portion of the County; the Northeast Land Use Plan
calls for Martinsburg Pike to be improved to a four -lane facility; the plan also recognizes that any new project
should ensure that a Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better is maintained upon area roads and intersections.
He said the HRAB comments and mitigation of the corridor appearance and improved aesthetic qualities have
been addressed with this application to a greater extent than previously. The applicant has proffered a significant
amount of landscaping along the frontage of Route 11, in addition to a hiker/biker path. Landscaping, consisting
of shade trees along the frontage of I-81, has also been proffered. He said the applicant has made commitments
on the square footage of the use and the type of use and the applicant has prohibited a variety of uses normally
allowed in the -B3 District. Mr. Ruddy said some uses that would generate trips, such as food stores and hardware
facilities are still allowed. The applicant has proffered a GDP (Generalized Development Plan) which identifies
the site layout and large buildings. Flexibility has been written into the proffers, allowing one or multiple
buildings. Mr. Ruddy said the staff review and agenda were assembled based on the proffer statement submitted
with the application. He said following the circulation of the proffer statement, the applicant modified the proffer
statement to address some additional uses, but also to address comments made by legal counsel, Robert Mitchell,
and were circulated to the Commission on July 19 and July 20, outside of the agenda package prepared by the
staff. Mr. Ruddy next talked about the transportation program. He said the applicant has proffered monetary
contributions and has clarified to the satisfaction of VDOT and the County all of the trigger mechanisms and the
approach to addressing the transportation improvements associated with this site. He noted the monetary value
for improvements has been proffered, rather than actual construction of improvements by the applicant to obtain
the LOS C.
Deputy Director -Transportation, John A. Bishop, stated the over-riding issue raised when this
property was considered for a different zoning designation was the form of the cash transportation proffer. Mr.
Bishop said there were various levels of transportation proffer that were triggered by trip counts. He said staff
bad concerns about this due to the long-term nature and the bureaucracy it would create. He said the applicant has
since modified this to a $350,000 cash proffer and also the willingness to do a signalization agreement. The
proffer has been further modified --during the first review there was lack of clarity of specifically how much
right-of-way was to be proffered for the ultimate section of Route 11 _ Mr. Bishop said he, as well as VDOT
representatives, have spent considerable time with the applicant and their engineers going over the planned road
system for Route 11 and what would be needed; he said they are satisfied now that the ten foot being proffered
will meet those needs. The ten -foot bike lane remains the same as the previous proffer, while the entrances
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of August 6, 2008
Page 2307
proposed have been reduced to one. Another issue that was important to staff and VDOT was the alignment of
the entrance with Branson Spring Road. This is not taking place; however, because of right-of-way constraints
and the inability to install a right -tum lane. Mr. Bishop said the applicant has proffered to put the entrance 700 -
feet south of Branson Springs Road and utilize this as a temporary entrance until such time as the properties to
the north develop.. He said the County would oversee the development, so the entrance could be made available at
Branson Springs and this applicant has indicated a willingness to take part through their proffer.
Mr. Bishop said another issue discussed which is not a part of the proffer package involves the
Northeast Land Use Plan Update and the transportation network, which includes an extension of Branson Springs
Road across I-81 as a new crossover. He said this was pointed out to the applicant, however, the applicant has
chosen not to recognize this issue at this time. Mr. Bishop next explained how this would impact the applicant's
property. In addition, the applicant has made an effort to proffer out a number of uses; however, two uses that
were not proffered out were hardware stores, which would allow a Home Depot, and food/grocery stores.
Commissioner Oates questioned the background traffic counts; he noted the Easy Living Mobile
Home Park and the Clearbrook Business Center, which adds approximately another 15,000 trips to the
background traffic. Conunissioner-Oates advised that a consistent list for applicants be prepared so that everyone
is using the same amount of background traffic. Mr. Bishop said one item the staff focused on during the first
review was the fact that the wrong trip generation was being used for Rutherford Farm. He said the staff and
VDOT have worked with the applicant and this has been taken care of, along with some other small issues.
Commissioner Thomas commented on the truck traffic generation numbers and the direction of
travel for trucks and vehicles. He questioned how the traffic impact could be mitigated when there is not enough
room for a left -tum lane; he said there's not much stacking room for 18 -wheelers south from Rest Church Road
on Route 11. He said there's no way for.the developer to deal with it because the right-of-way is unavailable. He
said the County or the State would have to take action to acquire the property to be able to build a left -turn lane
and enough stacking distance on a double left -turn lane for stacking. Commissioner Thomas questioned if there
was not enough property to fix the problem geometrically or structurally, if there was a non-structural way to fix
it through some type of traffic management plan.
Mr. John H. Foote of Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley, Emrich & Walsh, P.C., was representing BPG
Properties, Ltd., the applicant in this rezoning. Mr. Foote introduced the following members of the project team
who were also representing the applicant: Mr. Michael J. Coughlin of Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley, Emrich & Walsh,
P.C.; Mr. Daniel M. DiLella, Jr. and Mr. John Knott, principles with BPG Properties, Ltd.; Mr. John Callow and
Mr. Michael Glickman, traffic engineers with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, P.C. (PHR&A); Mr. Denny
Dunlap with Triad Engineering; and Mr. Peuro Russo, intern with BPG Properties, Ltd. Mr. Foote noted that the
land use proposed was compatible with Frederick County's Comprehensive Policy Plan; he also referred to the
revised proffer statement, dated July 21, 2008. He discussed the revisions within the proffer statement which
included: 750,000 square feet of permitted use located within one building or within multiple buildings; one
entrance to the property with availability for access by adjoining property and inter -parcel connection; removal of
food stores and hardware stores as permitted uses; utilization of Ml side yards and setbacks; enhanced
landscaping; modifications to modeling for traffic generation by Rutherford farm and background traffic with
growth rates; and the use of ITE trip generation numbers for traffic modeling.
Mr. Foote said the applicant has estimated the cost of background improveincnts to be $3.1
million and the percent of impact from this project to be 7.1% on trip generation, which totaled $220,000. He
said their $350,000 contribution covers traffic signalization; a share in the construction of the
HopewellBrucetown road; and the left -turn lane at Rest Church Road.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of August 6, 2008
Page 2308
-10 -
Mr. Michael Glickman, traffic engineer with PHR&A, came forward to explain the applicant's
determination that this project's truck traffic portion was 7.1% of all the existing traffic on Route 11, although it
is higher at the interchange ramps. Mr. Glickman stated that peak -hour traffic counts, which include employee
traffic, were used in their analysis, rather than daily truck percentages. He said there is an even distribution of
truck traffic during the day with a warehouse use.
Commissioner Thomas disagreed that the number of employees entering and leaving the site
would be a big factor in the trip generation because they would be exiting north and south on Route 11; however,
he did believe the number of tractor trailers was paramount because the destination for a tractor -trailer was solely
I-81, north or south. Commissioner Thomas was concerned about a realistic projection on the impact at Rest
Church Road.
(Note: Commissioner Watt left the meeting at this point.)
Mr. Daniel L. DiLella of BPG Properties came forward to add his thoughts to the discussion on
truck traffic generated by the proposed use. He did not believe the numbers of trucks generated by the proposed
use would be as high as the Commission anticipated them to be. He said they conducted actual trip counts at
other facilities, for example the 720,000 square -foot Home Depot facility, and the truck traffic count was 22
during a peak hour. He believed the reality of the proposed facility would not be the counts indicated by ITE.
Chairman Wilmot next opened the public hearing for citizen continents and the following person
came forward to speak:
Mr. George Sempeles, a property owner in the Stonewall District, said he was in favor of growth
and development along Route 11 North. He believed this area needed business growth in order to fund the road
improvements needed at the Brucetown interchange and the Route 11 /Rest Church entrance. Regarding the issues
involving truck traffic, he commented that the new FBI Records Management site will not generate truck traffic,
thereby reducing the amount of background traffic. He said his ITE changed dramatically with the transition from
an industrial park to the records center for the FBI. Furthermore, he pointed out an additional 12 -foot right-of-
way reserved along his side of the road for a left -turn lane within the corridor between Clearbrook and Rest
Church, which could be used to accommodate traffic.
No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the
public hearing.
Mr. Greg Omp and Mr. Jerry Copp, VDOT representatives, came forward to answer questions
from the Commission. They discussed the practical application versus ITE trip generation numbers in
determining the anticipated truck traffic and car traffic generated by the proposed use.
The inadequacy of transportation infrastructure in this area and concerns about the impact of
additional truck traffic from the proposed use in addition to existing background traffic continued to be discussed
by the Commission. They questioned whether the applicant's monetary contribution towards transportation
infrastructure was sufficient and whether the traffic impacts from the proposed use were adequately addressed.
The lack of sufficient right-of-way'at this location to geometrically or structurally remedy the situation was
discussed.'
Commissioner Oates commented there had been some successful rezoning projects in this area
and a couple things those successful projects had in common were the installation of a split -rail fence along the
corridor and each of the projects not only agreed to dedicate the ten -foot right-of-way along Route 11, but to build
their section of the 12 -foot lane across the entire frontage. He said the Comprehensive Policy Plan calls for Route
11 to be a four -lane divided highway. He suggested this project's applicants should consider following suit with
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of August 6, 2008
Page 2309
these provisions. Since Commissioner Oates was familiar with this area and it's traffic, he disagreed with two-
thirds of the traffic going to Rest Church to access I-81; he said he would travel right on Route I1 towards
Hopewell and then to 1-81 south; he said it would be quicker than trying to make lefts. Commissioner Oates
agreed with eliminating hardware and food stores as an allowed use. In conclusion, Commissioner Oates said the
Planning Cor-nmission's Bylaws state that if revised proffers arc not received prior to the agenda mailing, the
Commission should table the application i1n order to provide time for the public to review the new proffers.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Kriz,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby table for 45 days Rezoning
Application 405-08 of BPG Properties, Ltd-/ I-81 Distribution Center, submitted by BPG Properties, Ltd., to
rezone 59 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B3 (Business -Industrial Transition) District, with proffers, for
office and warehouse uses, in order to provide the public with an opportunity to review the revised proffers that
were submitted after the agenda mailing and to give the applicant the opportunity to refine the application based
on the issues raised. The vote was unanimous for tabling.
(Note: Commissioner Watt was absent for this vote; Commissioners Ruckinan, Triplett, and Kerr were absent
from this meeting.)
Draft Update of the 2008-2009 Frederick County Secondary, Primary, and Interstate Road Improvement
Plans. The Secondary, Primary, and Interstate Road Improvement Plans establish priorities for
improvements to the secondary, primary, and interstate road networks within Frederick County.
Comments from the Transportation Committee will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and the
Board of Supervisors. Ultimately, the priorities adopted by the Board of Supervisors will be forwarded to
the Commonwealth Transportation Board for consideration.
Action — Recommended Approval
Deputy Director -Transportation, John A. Bishop, presented Frederick County's 2009-2010
Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Improvement Plans. Mr. Bishop reported no changes to the Interstate
and Primary Road Improvement Plans; however, he pointed out a number of projects have been added or removed
from the Secondary Road Improvement Plan, due to completion or in recognition of County priorities. Mr.
Bishop began his review with the Major Road Improvement Projects, noting Sulphur Springs Road, the County's
number one priority, which is a fully -funded secondary project moving forward in preliminary design. He noted
that Brucetown Road was promoted just recently to Item 42, as a result of discussions by the Transportation
Committee and the Board of Supervisors to prioritize some of the secondary needs. He said the remaining
projects, East Tevis Street, Senseny Road, Warrior Road, the Spine Road Connection, and Iverlee Way are carried
over from last year.
Regarding the Hardsurface Road Improvement Projects, Mr. Bishop commented that this section
experienced most of the recent cuts. He said the final three projects, Ridings Mill Road, Wane Springs Road, and
Woodbine Road have all lost their funding for the next six years. The staff is recommending these projects
remain on the scheduled list and as some of the funding is. returned over the next few years, those would still be
the next projects to be funded. Mr. Bishop noted the addition of Glaize Orchard Road, Project 421, in the
Secondary Road Improvement Plan, and the top priority of the Incidental Construction Plan, the Stephenson Road
Drainage Improvement Project, had recently been completed and will be removed from the list. Blossom Drive,
right -turn lane, may also be completed and removed from this list. He said the largest addition is Item # 10, Pack
Horse Road, which is another drainage improvement project.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2310
Minutes of August 6, 2008 M 0
-12 -
Commissioner Unger inquired about Germany Road; he said the road is graded almost every
time it rains, creating a mud hole. He though VDOT might save money if they were to tar and chip the road. In
addition, he said there was very poor drainage at the end of Germany Road and during winter months, when water
runs down the road across Marlboro Road, it freezes and causes traffic accidents. Commissioner Unger asked
about the possibility of installing a culvert across Marlboro.
Mr. Jerry Copp, VDOT's Resident Engineer, said he would take a look at the drainage problem
on Germany Road. Mr. Copp next explained about the increased costs of materials associated with road
improvements.
Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman
Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Kriz,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of the draft update of the 2008-2009 Frederick County Secondary, Primary, and Interstate Road
Improvement Plans, as recommended by the Transportation Committee.
Committee Appointments
Chairman Wilmot announced the appointment of Ms. JoAnne Leonardis, who is currently on the
Community Facilities Standing Committee of the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS), to
the Comprehensive Plan Standing Committee. Chairman Wilmot added that Maya Sparks -White, who
specializes in Greenways and Habitats, would like to contribute on an email basis.
ADJOURNMENT
vote.
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. by a unanimous
Respectfully submitted,
June M. Wilmot, Chairman
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Frederick County Planning CommissioN
N
Page 2311
Minutes of August 6, 2008
C�
•
REZONING APPLICATION #107-08
UNGER PROPERTY
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: September 4, 2008
Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this
application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues
concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report
Reviewed
Planning Commission: 09/17/08
Board of Supervisors: 10/08/08
Action
Pending
Pending
PROPOSAL: To rezone .49 acres from B2 (General Business) District to B2 with proffers, and .85
acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to B2 (Business General) with proffers.
LOCATION: The properties are located on North Frederick Pike (Route 522) between Westminster
Canterbury Drive and Hickory Lane.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall
PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 53A -A-5 and 53A -A-6
PROPERTY ZONING: B2 (Business General) and RP (Residential Performance)
PRESENT USE: Commercial and Residential
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
North: B2 (Business General)
South: RP (Residential Performance)
East: B2 (Business General)
RP (Residential Performance)
West: B2 (Business General)
Use: Commercial — Stonewall Plaza
Use: Residential
Use: Commercial — Continental Restaurant
Use: Residential
Use: Commercial
PROPOSED USE: Commercial Use (13,225sf Pharmacy)
Rezoning #07-08 — Unger Property
August 14, 2008
Page 2
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Department of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this
property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 522 North and 1318. These routes
are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is
not satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Unger Property Rezoning application dated
July 15, 2008 address transportation concerns associated with this request. We offer the following
comment: We feel the proffer statement should include closing the first crossover to the south and
provide a left turn lane at the second crossover to the south to accommodate U-turns. Before
development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs,
drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual Seventh Edition for
review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way
dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work
performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued
by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage.
Staff Note: The revised proffers for the rezoning address the closure of the crossover as well as the
turn lane.
Fire Marshall: Plan approval recommended.
Department of Public Works: We have no comments at this time. We reserve the right to perform a
detailed review of the site plan submitted for the proposed commercial property.
Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments.
Sanitation Authority Department: There is adequate sewer and water capacity to serve this site.
Department of Parks & Recreation: No comment.
Health Department: Health Department has no objections to the rezoning request.
Winchester Regional Airport: The proposed development plan will not have an impact on operations
at the Winchester Regional Airport. While the proposed site lies within the airport's airspace, it does
fall outside of the airport's Part 77 close in surfaces.
Frederick County Public Schools: We offer no comments.
Attorney Comments: It is my opinion that the Proffer Statement would be in a form to meet the
requirements of the Frederick Country Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, and would be
legally sufficient as a proffer statement, subject to the following: Introductory paragraph— Concerning
subsequent amendments or revisions to the proffers, to read more clearly, "and such are approved by the
Board of Supervisors" should read "and such subsequent amendments or revisions to such conditions
are approved by the Board of Supervisors". Also, the reference to "TM#s 53A -A-6" should not include
the plural "s" and, in the last sentence of the paragraph, "owner" should be plural. Proffer I — The
Rezoning #07-08 Unger Property
August 19, 2008
Page 3
proffer should state that the use and development of the subject property shall be in conformity with the
Generalized Development Plan (GDP) dated 7/8/08, identified as "GDP", and which is att-n "A to the
proffer statement, and should then indicate the matters that the GDP reflects. Proffer 2b — To avoid any
later ambiguities, the references to the parcels served by the entrance should be generic, that is, to the
subject parcel and to TM# 53A -2-C (or, if greater specificity was intended or desired concerning the
neighboring property in particular, the proffer could state "...to the subject parcel and to the commercial
establishment [or, for more specificity, "the restaurant] on TM# 53A -2-C..."). Proffer 3 — For
consistency with the terminology of the Zoning Ordinance, the applicant may wish to change
"pharmacy" to "drugstore". For clarity, the reference to square footage and improvements would read
better as "containing a floor area of approximately 13,225 square feet and associated improvements... ".
The last part of the proffer should state that the structure/improvements will be constructed in
conformity with the GDP. Proffer 5 — The GDP does not show the referenced easements. Closing
paragraph — The reference to "owner" should be plural. The final version of the rezoning application
form will need to indicate the capacity in which the signatory for the applicant is acting (e.g., title) and,
as well, the form and the proffers will need to be signed by both owners. I have not reviewed the
substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for this specific
development, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by staff and the Planning
Commission.
Staff Comment. The County Attorney's comments have been addressed by the revised proffer
statement.
Planning Department: Please see attached letter dated July 31, 2008, and signed by Candice E.
Perkins, Senior Planner.
Planning &_ Zoning:
1) Site History
The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) depicts the
zoning of both parcels as B-2 (Business General) District. In 1980, parcel 53A -A-6 was
included in the County's comprehensive downzoning and was changed from B2 to R-3
(Residential Limited) District. The zoning changed to RP (Residential General) District on
September 28, 1983 when the R1, R2, R3, and R6 zoning districts were reclassified.
2) Comprehensive Policy Plan
The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as
the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public
facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to
protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a
composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County.
[Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1]
Rezoning #07-08 — Unger Property
August 19, 2008
Page 4
Land Use
The subject properties are within the limits of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The
Sewer and Water Service Area defines the general area in which more intensive forms of
planned commercial, and industrial development will occur.
The properties are within the limits of the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan.
The plan shows this area with a commercial land use designation. The applicant is requesting a
rezoning to the B2 (Business General) Zoning District and therefore this request is in general
conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Transportation and Site Access
The subject site is currently accessible via North Frederick Pike (Route 522). As shown on the
Generalized Development Plan (GDP), the proposed use is a CVS Pharmacy that will be
developed on four parcels of land. The GDP shows the ultimate access for the site as being
from one entrance on Westminster -Canterbury Drive (Route 1318) and a right in/right out on
North Frederick Pike (Route 522). The new entrance on Route 522 will be a shared entrance
with the adjacent Continental Restaurant property. The proffers for the rezoning account for the
closure of the existing entrances on the Continental Restaurant property and the construction of
a new shared right -in /right -out entrance on Route 522 as well as the construction of a new right
out on the Continental Restaurant site as shown on the GDP. The proffers and GPD account for
the construction of a sidewalk along Westminster -Canterbury Drive and a ten foot
bicycle/pedestrian path along Route 522. This application also accounts for the closure of the
crossover on Route 522 and Hickory Lane as well as the construction of a left turn lane at the
second crossover to the south of the site on Route 522.
3) Site Suitability/Environment
No flood plains, lakes or ponds, wetlands, sinkholes, steep slopes, or other environmental
features have been identified.
The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that the soils
comprising the subj ect parcel fall under the Frederick-Poplimento Loams soil association (14B).
These soil types are gently to strongly sloping, well -drained, and deep.
4) Potential Impacts
A. Transportation
Waiver Request
In conjunction with this rezoning application, the applicant is requesting an entrance spacing
waiver on Route 522. As shown on the GDP, the applicant is proposing to have a right-in/right-
out entrance on Route 522 which is less than 200 feet from the existing entrance on the adjacent
property (The Continental Restaurant).
Rezoning #07-08 — Unger Property
August 19, 2008
Page 5
In accordance with Section 165-2913(1), the Planning Commission may allow other means of
motor vehicle access which do not meet the requirements set forth in 165-29, which is the
section of the Zoning Ordinance that establishes entrance spacing requirements. The approval
of this waiver request would allow this property to develop a pharmacy use with a new entrance
that would be adjacent to the existing entrance on the Continental Restaurant property. If the
rezoning application and the waiver request are granted, then the site will develop as a
pharmacy consistent with the GDP.
5) Proffer Statement — Dated July 15, 2008, Revised August 6, 2008 and September 3, 2008
A) Generalized Development Plan
• The use and development of the property shall be in conformance with the
Generalized Development Plan.
B) Improvements to Route 522 and Route 1318
• Design and construction of a right turn lane eastbound into the site along the
frontage of the site and extending along the frontage of PIN 53A -2-C
(Continental Restaurant).
• Design and construction of a right in/right out entrance from Route 522 to serve
the subject parcel and PIN 53A -2-C (Continental Restaurant).
• Design and construction of a right turn lane northbound on Route 1318 at its
intersection with Route 522.
• Design and construct a right out exit from PIN 53A -2-C (Continental
Restaurant).
• Design and construction of the closure of the crossover on Route 522 at Hickory
Lane.
• Design and construction of a left turn lane at the second crossover to the south
on Route 522.
• Design and construction of a 10 foot wide asphalt bicycle/pedestrian path along
the Route 522 frontage and a sidewalk along the Route 1318 frontage as shown
on the GDP.
C) Parcel Usage
• The use of the site is limited to a pharmacy containing 13,255 square feet and
improvements shall be constructed as shown on the GDP.
D) Monetary Contribution
• $1,000 to Fire and Rescue
E) Inter -Parcel Circulation and Access
• An Interparcel access easement shall be created for the benefit of PIN 53A -2-C
(Continental Restaurant) as shown on the GDP.
F) Inter -Parcel Circulation and Access
Rezoning #07-08 - Unger Property
August 19, 2008
Page 6
o An Interparcel access easement shall be created for the benefit of PIN 53A -2-C
(Continental Restaurant) as shown on the GDP.
G) Drainage Improvements for Westbury Commons
• The applicant agrees to design and install drainage structures which will collect
the storm water discharge from the stormwater management facility on the
Westbury Commons site and convey the discharge to the Route 522 drainage
system. These drainage structures will be installed only under the conditions
that 1) the property owners of Westbury Commons grant reasonable access to
the property and 2) said access is granted prior to the commencement of
construction of the proposed pharmacy. The applicant agrees to create a 10'
drainage easement for the benefit of Westbury Commons running through the
site to allow for the conveyance of storm water runoff from Westbury Commons
to the Route 522 drainage system.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 09/03/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
This is an application to rezone two parcels totaling 1.34 acres from the RP (Residential Performance)
and the B2 (Business General) District to the B2 District with proffers to accommodate a proposed
pharmacy. The land use proposed in this application is consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan,
as described in the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan.
A recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning this
rezoning application would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately
address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission.
July 31, 2008
Mr. John Lewis
Painter -Lewis, P.L.C.
817 Ceder Creek Grade, Suite 120
Winchester, Virginia 22601
RE: Proposed Rezoning of the Unger Property
Dear John:
COU cif FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
1 have had the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application for the Unger Property. This
application seeks to rezone .85 acres from the RP (Residential Performance) to the B2 (Business
General) District. Staff's review comments are listed below for your consideration.
Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. The site is within the limits of
the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. The plan shows the area
where this site is located with a commercial designation. The proposed B2 Zoning is a
business use and is generally consistent with the Eastern Frederick County Long Range
Land Use Plan as it relates to this area.
2. Rezoning Application. The rezoning application provided is incomplete; section five of
the application needs to be completed.
3. Additional Property. Parcel 53A -A-5, which is owned by the Ungers and is part of the
proposed CVS development, should also be included with this rezoning.
4. Bike Path. Route 522 is identified on the Frederick County Bicycle Plan as a short term
destination. A bicycle/pedestrian path should be provided along the frontage of the site.
5. Deed and Plat of the Property. The deed provided with the application references a site
that is over one acre in size, but the rezoning is for a .85 acre property; indicate if this is
the correct deed. A recorded plat of the property also needs to be included with the
application.
6. Proffer 5. Proffer 5 references the name of the adjacent property (the Continental
Restaurant); the proffer should be revised to reference the PIN of the adjacent property.
7. Transportation Proffers. As indicated by VDOT, the proffer should also guarantee the
closure of the crossover in the Route 522 median and the construction of the left turn lane
at the second crossover.
8. Transportation Improvements. Proffer 2 should be revised to state that the
transportation improvements must be completed prior to the issuance of any certificate of
occupancy. Proffer 2a does not reference the sidewalk that is shown on the GDP. Proffer
2 should be revised to include the completion of the sidewalks/bicycle paths shown on
the GDP.
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Page 2
Mr, John Lewis
RE: Proposed Rezoning of
The Unger Property
July 1, 2008
9. Exhibit 2 and GDP. There is a property shown between the Continental and the CVS
site that is shown on exhibit 2 and the GDP; reference the ownership of this parcel.
10. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency comments from the following
agencies: Historic Resources Advisory Board, Virginia Department of Transportation,
Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marshall,
Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation, Frederick County Sanitation
Authority, Frederick -Winchester Health Department, the local Fire and Rescue Company
and the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority. The proposed proffers have been
forwarded by staff to the Frederick County Attorney. Once attorney comments are
received by the Planning Department, they will be forwarded to your office. Attorney
comments are required for acceptance of the rezoning application.
11. Special Limited Power of Attorney. Provide a power of attorney for the property
owners.
12. Fees. The fee for this application includes a $5,000.00 base fee plus $200.00 per acre,
and a $50.00 public hearing sign fee. This is based on fees as of April 28, 2008. Fees
may change.
All of the above comments and reviewing agency comments should be appropriately addressed
before staff can accept this rezoning application. Please feel free to contact me with questions
regarding this application.
Sincerely,
f,
Candice E. Perkins, AICP
Senior Planner
Attachments
cc: Vern and Frances Unger, 5179 Barley Drive, Stephens City, VA 22655
CEP/bad
m ■ 7 Jnger Property
o 1� ,
f— 42 A 1980
WINSTONE LLC Rezoning
r1 REZ 07 - 08
PIN: 53A -A- 5, 53A -A- 6
A a
PATEL G
■ 53D 3 - 1 4
MP LLC \\\
�.
53D 3`4``
MP LLC
i
53A A 5
53 UPPER
UNDER /N�FR \�/r � � .� � te''''a ; hc..• >, �
/ \
�� CRUST LLCOF
,
rl
53 ADI ., r _ 5e J' P �� \�\
`i UPPER \-'�
CRUST LLC UNGER \ C Z2p
*�
�� Harvest CO
p- munities, Inc i t143 ?�/
J ! i /f/AA � ?�
BFq S3q
WeSR*4
CRY; pL / j ; gtYNN F CoA
b FR<
E �
I ja
0 250 500 1,000 Feet
t ccqqRtj1x6,
•
JJJJ
4.1 WA
~g
r-
Case Planner: Candice
Application
Zoning
1,12 (Indust -1. G.—A Districn
- Urban Dc. clo
♦ � pmenl Area
41M BI (Bwmess. Neighborhood District)
4M hfHl IM1lobile Home Communrt, District)
SWSA
r B tB s ncss Gcnerd Dist o
M) MS (Pfd I Support Districn
4M Bl (B ncs hidiiwirl Tnins.il.n D t
t) 4M R4 (R sidu,oal Planned Comment Distric()
4W EM Distncf)
R5 (R d (I Rc i,st ou,il Com ntt= D s,,ci)
4M HEIHighcr Ed—,,-, Dsvct)
RAR ,lA - Dsirict)
KI l Oiid.strml, Light Distnet)
_
R11kit-dcntial Pc,f.— icc District).
UNDER PROPERTY TIS #553A -A-6
Route 522 -North Frederick Pike
Rezoning #:
Property:
Recorded Owner
Proffer Statement
0.85 acres
PARCEL ID: 53A -A-6
Frances A. Unger
Applicant: Painter -Lewis, PLC
817 Cedar Creek Grade, Suite 120
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Project Name: Unger Property Tm # 53A -A-6, 53A -A-5
Original Date
of Proffers: July 15, 2008
Revision Date(s): August 6, 2008
September 0, 2008
Prepared by: PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C.
817 Cedar Creek Grade, Suite 120
Winchester, VA 22601
Tel.: (540) 662-5792
email: office@painterlewis.com
Job Number: 0803001
PROFFER STATEMENT
PARCEL ID: 53A -A-6, 53A -A-5
Pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, the
undersigned applicant proffers that in the event that the Board of Supervisors of Frederick
County shall approve Rezoning Application # for the rezoning of parcels TM# 53A-
4-6 frnm RP to R> and 53A -A-5 from R? to R) With proffers the use and development of
the subject property shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions set forth in
this proffer except to the extent that such conditions may be subsequently amended or
revised by the applicant and such subsequent amendments or revisions to such conditions
are approved by the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the Code of Virginia and the
Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. These proffers shall be binding on the owner and
their legal successors or assigns.
PROFFERS
1.) Generalized Development Plan
The use and development of the subject property shall be in conformity with the
Generalized Development Plan, identified as "GDP" and dated 09/03/08 and which is
attached to the proffer statement. The GDP is for the purpose of identifying the general
configuration of the proposed commercial development, the use of the site, the location of
interparcel access easements, and construction improvements to Route 522 and Route
1318.
2.) Improvements to Route 522 and Route 1318
The applicant will make the necessary road frontage improvements, as required by Virginia
Department of Transportation, to Route 522 and Route 1318 in support of the proposed
development. The improvements will be designed and submitted for approval to the
Virginia Department of Transportation and Frederick County Planning during the site plan
review process. All improvements listed below and approved by VDOT will be constructed
prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the proposed pharmacy.
The improvements will include:
a) The design and construction of a right turn lane eastbound into the site with an
extension along the frontage of the parcel identified by PIN 53A -2-C (Continental
Restaurant),-
b)
estaurant);b) The design and construction of a right in/right out entrance from Route 522 to serve
the subject parcel and the parcel identified by PIN 53A -2-C via a permanent access
easement;
c) The design and construction of a right turn lane northbound on Route 1318 at its
intersection with Route 522;
d) The design and construction of a right out exit from the parcel identified by PIN
53A -2-C;
e) The design and construction of the closure of the median break at Hickory Lane;
P, The design and construction, of a left turn lane at the second crossover to the south
on Route 522.
g) The design and construction of a 10' wide, asphalt bicycle/pedestrian path along
the Route 522 frontage and sidewalk along the Route 1318 frontage as generally
depicted on the GDP.
page 2
PROFFER STATEMENT
PARCEL ID: 53A -A-6, 53A -A--5
3.) Parcel Usage
The applicant agrees to limit the use of the parcel to that of a pharmacy containing
approximately 13,225 square feet and associated improvements that will be constructed as
generally shown on the GDP.
4.) Monetary Contribution to Frederick County Service Organizations
The applicant will donate or will cause to be paid to the Treasurer of Frederick County for
the benefit of the Round Hill Community Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company the sum of
$1,000.00 for impacts to fire and rescue services_ This sum will be paid upon the receipt of
the first building permit issued for the site.
5.) Inter -parcel Circulation and Access
The applicant agrees to provide an interparcel access easement for the benefit of the
parcel identified by PIN 53A -2-C located to the east of the site. The general location of the
easement is shown on the GDP. The easement will be created with the first site plan for
the development of the site.
6.) Drainage Improvements for Westbury Commons
The applicant agrees to design and install drainage structures which will collect the storm
water discharge from the storm water management facility on the Westbury Commons site
and convey the discharge to the Route 522 drainage system. These drainage structures
will be installed only under the conditions that 1) the property owners of Westbury
Commons grant reasonable access to the property and 2) said access is granted prior to
the commencement of construction of the proposed pharmacy. The applicant agrees to
create a 10' drainage easement for the benefit of Westbury Commons running through the
site to allow for the conveyance of storm water runoff from Westbury Commons to the
Route 522 drainage system. The easement will be created with the first site plan for the
development of the site in the event of the conditions listed above. The approximate
location of the proposed 10' drainage easement on the site and the approximate
configuration of a temporary construction easement on the property of Westbury
Commons is shown on the GDP.
page 3
PROFFER STATEMENT
PARCEL ID: 53A -A-6, 53A -A-5
The conditions proffered above shall be binding on the heirs, executors, administrators,
assigns, and successors in the interest of the owner. In the event that the Frederick
County Board of Supervisors grant this rezoning and accepts these proffers, then these
proffers shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to the other requirements of the
Frederick County Code.
Submitted By:
Frances A. Unger
City/County of W i rich esi e r , Commonwealth Of Virginia.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
Ce , 200 _
ajA,A&'
N t ry Public p
Notary Registration number: 01391--1 q
My commission expires
10-31-1I
page 4
" J � ; ' � �
•`sem``
I .
Lo
a
-� U.S.
ND
_z
FREDERIZ RUTE522CKPEKE <w Ir
NpRT//eOVND LoNNES US:RDTHFR2�WRIC0SKOU�LI�pUN
N Y
ES _ RIGHT TURN LANE
-
_,
- '��f )
_ SHARED ENTRANCE Lo LL -1 BICYCLE/PED PATH _` LEFT TURN LANE
„l _ .. -
_
-- ' RIGHT OUT EXIT
_
LL
Lu
_ 1 -
_
! - __
RIGHT TURN LANE i 1 ,"/ -.l - _ O
Ld
i
b,_ v
i f
M
�t
r
Ld
-:ate
ACCESS EASEMENTN
�� 1 r'yi I /. !-- Iv //�► ---� — a.� N E
-PIN 53A—A-5 __._-�� a� o rV-)PIN 53A -2—C
SIDEWALK ► 1 i " �+ co M 0
O Ln
MEDIAN CLOSURE I cn N I
Qo
f°
' 1 f R t MV2Xn�r u, _I N OJ' J i rr.— !r ; pill,
►
1 ►� r7 1PIN, 53-4-2=D a f I•u i .' 'O_, o
LUr113,225 1 F.
S / 1 I I-10
o
v ~
IZ w
PIN 53 A-6 -' I i
�� 00
► �a /
MAW
C)CLI
Q
-�
1 1► °� ► / \`\� -!� f „ ' ,1 / da J ''!
► 1 �_
1 ► - PIN 53-4-3—D1 ",, ,j r= w
TS / o ; DRAINAGE EASEMENT w
c7
moi` _ SURVEY: C. I.:
vF P -L NA
/
i � �/ DRAWN BY: JOB NO.:
► f' WESTBURY COMMONS PROPOSED TEMPORARY / SEM 0803001
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT SCALE: DATE:
--
1 "=60.0' 09/03/08
SHEET:
1MPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT I
A PROPOSED REZONING
for
UNGER PROPERTY TM #53A -A-6, #53A -A-5
Route 522 -North Frederick Pike
Stonewall Magisterial District
Frederick County, Virginia
September 3, 2008
Prepared for: Frances A. Unger
5179 Barley Drive
Stephens City, Virginia 22655
Prepared by: PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C.
817 Cedar Creek Grade
Suite 120
Winchester, VA 22601
Tel.: (540)662-5792
email: office@painterlewis.com
Job Number: 0803001
UNGER PROPERTY TM #53A -A-6, 53A -A-5
IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
section
oacie
i.
INTRODUCTION
3
A.
SITE SUITABILITY
3
B.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
4
C.
TRAFFIC
4
D.
SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT
5
E.
WATER SUPPLY
5
F.
DRAINAGE
5
G.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
5
H.
HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES
5
I.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
6
J.
LOT CONSOLIDATION
6
page 2
UNGER PROPERTY TM #53A -A-6, 53A -A-5
i. INTRODUCTION
Frances A. Unger (the Owner) proposes to rezone two parcels of land located along
Route 522 between Westminster -Canterbury Drive and Hickory Lane in Frederick
County, VA. One parcel is currently zoned RA and is identified by Tax Identification
Number 53A -A-6. The parcel contains 0.85 acres. The second parcel is identified by
Tax Identification Number 53A -A-5. This parcel is zoned S2 and is included by
reference in the proffers associated with this rezoning request. The location of these
parcels is shown on Exhibit 1 on the following page. It is the Applicant's desire to have
these parcels rezoned to B2, Business General District with proffers. The intended
purpose of the rezoning request is to enable the owner to develop the land for
commercial purposes. These parcels will be combined with adjoining parcels #53-4-2-D
AND 53-4-3-D1 to create a single parcel that will be developed for use as a drug store.
A. SITE SUITABILITY
The subject parcels are currently used as a residence and a grocery. The parcels are
located to the east of the Route 37 West Land Use Plan according to the Frederick
County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The stated goal of the area study is to balance the
economic development opportunities associated with the existing development activities
while limiting development potential west of Route 37. The parcel is to the east of Route
37, within an area that already contains significant commercial development. The parcel
is also within an area that contains significant residential development.
The parcel is contained within the Eastern Frederick County Long Range land Use Plan
and is identified for commercial development. The site is within the boundaries of the
Sewer and Water Service Area as well as the Urban Development Area.
A conceptual plan for the parcels once combined with the two adjacent parcels, has
been developed and is shown as Exhibit 2. Combining the four parcels will provide
frontage and access from both Route 522 and Westminster Canterbury Drive. The
implementation of the conceptual plan will require the demolition of the existing
buildings on the site.
100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
FIRM Community Panel Number 510063 0105 shows that the subject parcel is not in
the floodplain.
WETLANDS
No wetlands have been identified on the site.
STEEP SLOPES
Steep slopes, as defined by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, do not occur within
the boundaries of the proposed rezoning area.
page 3
0
'j
/V Sha
k
0 Co.Atlhen
0 Restad? ran
co C-) P
Q,
Co 0
Westbury mrnons 4(
Su lv4sion
.i QJ
J
DRAWN BY:
ITER-LEWIS, P.L.C.
PAI N
817 Cedar Creek Grade, Suite 120
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601
L
TELEPHONE (540) 662-5792
FACSIMILE (540) 662-5793 AM EMAIL: office@painteriewis.com
TM#53A-A-6,53A-A-5
North Frederick Pike
FREDERICK COUNTY, VA
3CALE: 1"=200' DRAW BY: SEM
DATE: 07-0EI-081 JOB 10803007
IPROPERTY EXHIBIT SHEET:
EXHIBIT 1
UNGER PROPERTY TM #53A -A-6, 53A -A-5
MATURE WOODLANDS
No mature woodlands are located within the boundaries of the proposed rezoning area.
Some mature specimens exist on the perimeter of the site and some of these trees will
be preserved during the construction of future commercial facilities.
SOILS
The soils on the site are in the Frederick-Poplimento associations. The USGS Soils map
shows the predominant soil types on the site are Frederick-Poplimento Loams (1413)
and Frederick-Poplimento Rock Outcrop Complex. These soils are gently to strongly
sloping, well -drained, and deep.
B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
The subject parcel is bordered by parcels that are zoned either RP or B2. The
surrounding parcels include TM#s 53A -2-D-3, 53A -2-D-2, 53A -2-D-1, 53A -2-C, 53-4-2-
D, 53-4-3-D1, and 5313-5-11B. The locations of these parcels are shown on Exhibit 2.
The zoning, owner, and use of each parcel is shown in the table below.
Tax Map No.
Owner
Ex. Zoning
Ex. Use
53A -2-D-3
Almira Kipps
RP
Res.
53A -2-D-2
Gerald & Jami Wrenn
RP
Res.
53A -2-D-1
Robert Clark
RP
Res.
53A -2-C
Robert Hassinger
B2
Com.
53-4-2-D
Upper Crust, LLC
B2
Com..
53-4-3-D1
Upper Crust, LLC
B2
Com..
5313-5-11 B
Harvest Communities, Inc.
RP
Res.
The proposed commercial project has been designed to reduce impacts to the
surrounding parcels by incorporating the design standards of the Frederick County
Inning r)rrrdinance. Appropriate bluffers and screening�nrill be Fn,rn�i.--- hefinreen tthe
e
proposed commercial land and the existing residential land in order to mitigate the
potential noise and lighting glare. The Conceptual Development Plan shown as Exhibit
2 shows the arrangement of buffers and screening along the existing residential parcels.
C. TRAFFIC
No Traffic Impact Analysis was performed for this rezoning. The future use is known for
the site and a preliminary review by the Frederick County Department of Planning and
Development and by VDOT has already been completed. The total build -out of the site
is approximately 13,225 square feet of pharmacy retail space with drive through
window. According to the Seventh Edition of the ITE Manual, this type of development
will generate 1,166 average daily trips. The applicant has proffered that the pharmacy
will be the use for the parcel.
page 4
UNGER PROPERTY TM #53A -A-6, 53A -A-5
It is the intention of the applicant to provide improvements to Route 522 in the vicinity of
the site in accordance with input from Frederick County and VDOT. As shown in Exhibit
2, and as reiterated in the Proffer Statement, frontage improvements are proposed for
adjacent parcel #53A -2-C. These improvements are clearly defined in the Proffer
Statement. A Memorandum of Understanding has been signed by the owner of the
adjacent parcel to indicate his willingness to participate in the construction of the
proposed improvements. A copy of this memorandum follows Exhibit 2.
D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT
The site is inside the limits of the Frederick County UDA/SWSA line. The development
will be serviced by the county sewer system. Sewer is currently in the Route 522 right of
way and can be extended to serve the site.
E. WATER SUPPLY
The site is inside the limits of the Frederick County UDA/SWSA line. The development
will be serviced by the county water supply system. Water is in both the Westminster
Canterbury Drive and Route 522 rights of way and can be extended to serve the site.
F. DRAINAGE
The site lies within a small watershed which contains predominantly residential
development. The watershed discharges to the drainage system in the Route 522 right
of way. Please refer to Exhibit 3. According to the Frederick County Department of
Public Works, storm water discharge from the Harvest Communities, Inc. housing
development has contributed to some localized flooding of a property located to the east
of the site. The Frederick County Department of Public Works has requested that the
storm sewer system proposed for the pharmacy project be modified to pick up some of
the upstream runoff and convey it directly to the Route 522 storm sewer system. If the
permission of the owners of Harvest Communities, Inc. can be obtained, remedial work
will be performed in conjunction with the construction of the pharmacy to improve the
drainage system in the immediate area.
It is important that the quantity and quality of storm water runoff from the site be
preserved or enhanced through the development of the site. Any development on this
site can be expected to increase stormwater runoff. Storm water management facilities
will be constructed as part of the development of the site to provide peak runoff
attenuation as well as nutrient and sediment removal.
G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
The nearest citizens' trash convenience facility is located near the site on Route 522
approximately 1 mile west of the subject parcel. In general, the collection of solid waste
from the proposed commercial development will be accomplished by a private hauler. It
is estimated that the development will generate approximately 27 pounds of solid waste
page 5
O
w 87-00'
m
o
1
1
I' I NMP, LLC
53D_
UZONED BZ _1
0 �6 VACANT
►
INS
# p ACRES
700j;'122
i
1
1
"Ba j4•30w 121.15•
401.15• TOTAL
P.I.NM 53LLC
D
ZONED. e� 4
USE
1.31 VACANT
INS T# 0 ACRES
001123
® _
Q
_
C1 S -_Rai E R2 ERICK to _J
SoTHB�(Ptj L/C)
Lo
NN
a _ LANES - —
I%Lu
1 -
s
z U
546 LjLo
�- --
'.
----- r 9.761
�v
W
1 ! ► iSa�22•,6 w LL
E saw. S6g 227s� O
c
If 568.22.161 TO,.
`A -2'C
!
RED B2
ES
2RANT -
"mI
A RES
■�
0-
li�g
�E
^,
TNT
m
N
j) io 3
C)
N N N
(.D (.0
N64'26
'amu
O /1 �
-,tQ
j,k,
278.83'
`1
\
Ln
CLARKARo—D_ 1
,
�-
o E-
US BERT
E? RP L.
Lul
-0
-c
0 .0 o
ES/' ENTIAL
F..1
a)
v
0
o
f E
Lli■
a.
WRE 53 c�
B2 }--- - - NN GERALLD 2_D_2 z �
Aw
ONE
-J LLI
-- - -
Us E. ES�' . Rp & RAMI E � z
- - - E
DEN
TIAL ► z c�
t o
oil
SURVEY: C.L:
3, Yl, 67 53 COUNTY 5'
Tm,z•E,w 34z.9o• - - - - d klp_2'p-3 -
53B-5-1 1 B T.M. 53A—A-6 53A—A— ZONEp LMIRA DRAWN BY: JOB NO.:
COMMUNITIES, INC. � USE: RES/p RPSEM AL SCALE: 0803001
ZONED: RP TO BE REZONED ENTI
COMMON SPACE _ _ _ 1 "=50.0' 09/03/08
SHEET:
1 0
s`' 1 EXHIBIT 2
M. TYSON GILPIN, JR.
ATTORNEY"
'17 S. LOUDOUN STREET
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601
VOICE (540) 678-1940
FACSIMILE (540) 678-9920
E-MAIL mtgilpinG�verizon-cr
August 11, 2008
Mr. Robert Hassinger
c/o Continental Restaurant
1361 North Frederick Pike
Winchester, VA 22603
RE: MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Unger Property Rezoning/Continental
Restaurant Property PIN 53A -2-C
Dear Mr. Hassinger,
It is requested that you endorse this letter to indicate your good faith intention to proceed
with the negotiations on the subject rezoning with an open mind. It is understood that the
proposal contained herein when endorsed by you is non-binding and has no legal effect.
No parties are bound by the terms and conditions contained herein and acknowledge that
there may be additional terms and conditions or modifications to the terms contained
herein, or no final agreement at all.
Any party will be free to terminate its negotiations any time prior to execution by all
parties of a mutually acceptable contract, with no legal obligations of any parry to
execute any contract or to continue negotiations.
it is the intention of the parties not to impair the market value or the economic viability of
the Continental Restaurant or lot PIN 53A -2-C. A plat denoted HASSINGER
PROPERTY EXHIBIT IMPROVEMENT PLAN, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRIGNIA
dated 8/6/08 is attached as Exhibit A, which reflects generally the easements, boundary
adjustments, and improvements contemplated.
PROPOSED CONDITIONS
1. A common entrance from Route 522 will be constructed to serve your property
and the proposed pharmacy.
2. VDOT and Frederick County will require that the Route 522 frontage along your
property be improved with curb and a bike path. The existing pavement that is
within the VDOT right-of-way will be removed and replaced with lawn.
3. A separate entrance will be constructed to serve your property from the common
entrance.
4. The existing pylon sign on your property will remain in its current location and
condition.
5. A boundary line adjustment will occur between your property and the adjacent
property. Approximately 4,100 square feet of land will be added to your property.
6. A permanent ingress/egress easement will be put on record for the benefit of your
property.
7. The developer will apply for permission to construct the exit only driveway
during the rezoning process. It appears that both VDOT and the county may be
willing to accept this exit.
8. The physical improvements will be made at no cost to you.
If in agreement to proceed with negotiations, please endorse the copy of this letter
enclosed where indicated below and return the copy to me.
I only represent Painter -Lewis, P.L.C., the developers and proposers of these conditions
and improvements, and not yourself You should obtain legal counsel for yourself if you
have any legal questions.
LM -
AGREED:
-L- -
Robert Hassinger
PAINTER-LEWIS, P_L.C.
M. Tyson Gilpin, Jr., Esquire
Counsel for Painter -Lewis, P.L.C.
217 S. Loudoun Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Tel: (540) 678-1940
Fax: (540) 678-9920
SB #12619
UNGER PROPERTY TM #53A -A-6, 53A -A-5
per acre per day that will be transported to the landfill. Tipping fees are currently $45
per ton for commercial haulers. No additional solid waste disposal facilities will be
required for the proposed development. It is estimated that $225 in tipping fees will be
paid to dispose of 5 tons of solid waste annually.
H. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES
The subject property does not contain any historic/archeological sites identified in
Frederick County and Virginia Department of Historic Resources records. None is on
the National Register of Historic Places or the Virginia Landmarks register.
None of this site is located within any Civil War battlefield identified in the National Park
Services, Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, published in
1992. The site is located between Fort Milroy and Star Fort but is not identified as core
battlefield area. See the Civil War Battlefields and Sites exhibit on the following page.
There are several historic sites within 1 mile of the site, of these three (3) are identified
as potentially significant. The complete list of historical sites within a 1 mile radius of
the site and map can be seen on Exhibit 4.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
DEVELOPMENTAL IMPACT MODEL
The new Developmental Impact Model (D.I.M.) is utilized primarily for residential
rezoning requests. It is anticipated that the capital facility impacts of commercial and
industrial rezoning request are ultimately fiscally positive to the County by policy.
Accordingly, the D.I.M. does not apply a fiscal impact to commercial rezoning.
EMERGENCY SERVICES
Police protection is provided by the Frederick County Sheriff's Department. The nearest
fire and rescue facility is the Round Hill Community Volunteer Fire and Company
located on Route 50 in Frederick County. No additional fire and rescue facilities will be
required for the area proposed to be rezoned. The Frederick County Capital Facilities
Impact Model calculates that there will not be any projected capital cost for emergency
service facilities attributable to this development. The owner recognizes the importance
of emergency services, and proposes to proffer a monetary contribution to the local
emergency responder. See the attached Proffer Statement.
J. LOT CONSOLIDATION
The Generalized Development Plan in Section 7 shows the total site proposed for the
pharmacy in a consolidated form. Consolidation will eliminate interior lot lines.
page 6
Fre �
� o'er. •� o
� c
YF
Sunnyside Plaza
APPROX. DRAINAGE AREA
o PPROX. D INAG�AR
APPROX. PTH 0 \s \
FLOW TH AND
FROM T E SITE
voc \�
a
o 30
80
I /\ f
\ Q
Z
lb'\ Q =>
x
Lq
W O
\� Q _Z U
n Q
to Q:� Lil
Q
Lv
w F- a'
LL-
% . o
A N
e
J� r\ C_�
'14 7 N
v '0
0
� Lo '02
coo c
aYi
> a,
V c
t ri
ewer/ck �v� E o
A"k � �° s 0
/ @ 0 U N O U
W
o
3
Z to
F � w
/ U W
SURVEY:
/ COUNTY 5
DRAWN BY: JOB NO.:
SEM 0803001
200 0 200 SCALE: DATE:
\
1"=200,0' 07/08/08
SHEET:
Scole 1" 200 ft EXHIBIT 3
III CIVIL WAR SITES
Frederick County Pmnning S Development ; Civil War Battlefields and .bites
1Jinchester, Virgireo
(As Defined by the NPS Shenandoah Valley Civil War Sites Study)
12-10-97
5
High School 09/7 James Wood
Sunnyside
PlQZ13
n.
LE
E RADIUS FROM SITE
HISTORICAL PROPERTY KEY
U-)
I
a-
< Z
10 - HOUSE NEAR STINE'S CHAPEL (DEM)
79
- HOUSE, RT. 739
<
68
- LEWIS HOUSE
70
141
- BOND HOUSE"
- WAVELAND"
>
- ------
.8
148
- UNIDENTIFIED
LO
0
322
- STARFORT
(6
0_0
520
521
- SUNNYSIDE GROCERY
- BROWN HOUSE<
521
- BROWN HOUSE
I
_j
< y
524 - LIBERTY HALL" C-)
525 - MCDONALD HOUSE —X
526 - CARPER HOUSE U-) 0 Lid
527 - MARTIN HOUSE" F- 0
528 - CLARK HOUSE V) ui
530 - HOUSE, RT. 522
531 - HOUSE, RT, 522 U_j Li
532 - YEAKLEY HOUSE
F N E 533 - HOUSE, RT. 522
559 - HOUSE, RT. 679
583 - MARTIN HOUSE
1410 - FRUIT HILL FARM**
V20 - UNIDENTIFIED
-1- _ L ---I-- . __.. i \\
kR-L.Y-- 20TH CENTURY
ISTORIGAL- -AREA%
&&I BORO
7R6l
STONEWALL
-4
ri
SITE 147
X524
4"!
CITY OF WINCHESTER
MILE RADIUS FROM SITE
NOTE: ** CL E
INDICATES A POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT 0,
Its SITE AS DENOTED BY THE RURAL'0
""_ RURAL LANDMARK _N
FREDER�JCKCNODu�NTyKS
SURVEY REPORT OF Cn V) U-)
uj
4
cc E -o
Lu -6 U
a) U 0
S E
-
;0
IL
•
0
z V)
LIj
c) Z
LLJ
k,
SURVEY: C. I.:
COUNTY 5
DRAWN BY: JOB NO.:
SEM 0803001
F WINCHESTER SCALE: DATE,
1"--200,0' 07/08/08
ISHEEP: EXHIBIT 4
REZONTNG APPLICATION FORM
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
7'0 be completed by Planning Staff
?oning Amendment imber
'C Hearing Date tJ
e�
Fee Amount Yard $ 5 / S
Date Received _ h t G
B08 Hearing Date ��4- �Z ` u
The follou ing information shall be provided by the applicant.,
All pared identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of
the Commissioner of Revenue, Deal Estate Division, 107 North Dent Street, Winchester.
L Applicant:
Name: &M -Le �iPdi_ G
Address:
Telephone: S Q LA0 - S'7 q al
2. Property Owner (if different than. alcove)
Name: iCCS U e " Telephone: ��- 59
Address: 51
3. Contact person if other than above
Name: NA Telephoner
4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application.
Location map Agency Comments
Plat: Fees
Deed to property Impact -Analysis Statement
Verification of taxes paid Proffer Statement
10
5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to
rezoning applications.
Please list. below all owners or parties in interest_ of Ibe.land to be rezoned:
S v V)(A-<--
6. A) Current Use of the Property: I' Ids el Lfi GLI
B) Proposed Use of the Property-
7. Adjoining Property:
PARCEL ID NUMBER
5 --5.A- 9- D 3
D-1
G
63A A.
5- —(A—a—D
e5E5, q——�►
53j3 - 5 - t 18
USE
t� ide n f
ResiclPn,�iai
C�nrne.irra a�
ommexf t O
Cbm=raai
Pcs;dentai
ZONING
P -P
pa
8a
6a
RP
8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance
from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers):
5)a hem eery
11
9. The following information should be provided ac0r-ding to the type of rezoning
proposed :
Number of Units Proposed
Single Family homes: Townhome: Multi -Family:
Nota -Residential Lots: Mobile Home.: Hotel Rooms:
Square Footage of proposed Uses
Office: Service Station:
Retail: 13, ;t25 s•7. Manufacturing:
Restaurant: Warehouse:
Cather:
10. Signature:
I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick
County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning trap
of Frederick County, Virginia. I (-Yve) authorize Frederick County officials to enterthe
property for site inspection purposes.
I (Mle) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at
the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing
and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road:
right-of-way until the hearing.
I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and
accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge.
Applicant(s): f Date: (-
Date:
Ovmer(s); 7� -sem �� �- �lrn _ Date: ( -4- -6g
Date:
12
Know All Men. By Those Present: That I (We)
(Name) Uer~nan Ir. Frances Uwj ey (Phone) 540
(Address) 61-1q t rI 4 [give, , 515�y, � z)S t.� VA ���Sa
the ow mer(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land (``Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in
the CIerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by
Instrument No. on Page �r,-q ,and is described as
Parcel:; (,�, Lot: ,4 Block: 63,A"Section: Subdivision:
do hereb-y i ake, constitute and appoint:
(i` am e)
(Address) iM C�11117r ' +�e� V'i � ��(ilri n � s VA 30�yjl
To act as my true and lawf it attorney -in -fast for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power
and authority I (eve) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above
described Property, including:
Rezoning (including proffers)
Conditional Use Permit
Master- Development Plan (Preliminary and Final)
Subdivision
_ Site Plan
Variance or Appeal
Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendjuent
i1,1y attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to Make amendments to
previously approved proffered conditions except as follows:
This authorization shall expire one year fi-oin the day it is signed, or until it is othenxise rescinaea or
modified.
In witness thereof, I (eve) have Hereto set my (our) hand and seal this LP day of- k. "200&;-,"``
Signature(s)
State of Virginia, City/County of �� i it / �/1.t t�.y , To -wit: = —
I, \11 �' Ll1 Fries a Notary Public in and for the jui�s'ic =:dn
aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personally appeared befog'-, me'
4r.
and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this day of 0 200 f
�1q My Commission Expires: 3 f
N r Public
Re. teed 3/17/08
Unger Property
TM# 53A -A-6 Rezoning
Street Addresses of Properties w/i 300 feet
Name and Property Identification Number
Owner Address
Name: Unger, Vernon B. & Frances
5179 Barley Drive
Property # 53A -A-5
Stephens City, VA 22655
Name: Kipps, Almira
106 Hickory Lane
Property # 53A -2-D-3
Winchester, VA 22603
Name: Upper Crust, LLC
112 A Bruce Street
Property # 53-4-3-D
Winchester, VA 22601
Name: Upper Crust, LLC
112 A Bruce Street
Property # 53-4-3-D1
Winchester, VA 22601
Name: Wrenn, Gerald A. Jr. & Jami EI
104 Hickory Lane
Property # 53A -2-D-2
Winchester, VA 22603
Name: Clark, Robert
102 Hickory Lane
Property # 53A -2-D-1
Winchester, VA 22603
Name: Harvest Communities, Inc
147 Creekside Lane
Property # 5313-5-11 B
Winchester, VA 22602
Name: Hassinger, Robert
108 Lisa's Drive
Property # 53A -2-C
Winchester, VA 22603
Name: MP, LLC
1205 Caroline Street
Property # 5313-3-1
Winchester, VA
Name: MP, LLC
1205 Caroline Street
Property # 53D-3-4
Winchester, VA
•
•
C
REZONING APPLICATION #05-08
BPG PROPERTIES, LTD/I-81 DISTRIBUTION CENTER
Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors
Prepared: September 2, 2008
Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director
STAFF UPDATE FOR 09/17/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING•
The Applicant previously provided the Planning Commission with a revised proffer statement prior to
your 08/06/08 meeting. In this revision, the Applicant attempted to address those issues identified in
the staff report and those items identified by Mr. Bob Mitchell during his legal review dated July 18,
2008. Following this Commission meeting, the Applicant further revised their proffer statement in an
effort to address the issues identified by the Planning Commission. The date of this latest revision to
the proffer statement is August 25, 2008.
In summary, the changes to the substance of the proffer statement are as follows.
The Applicant has proffered out additional land uses including Food Stores or groceries and Building
materials, hardware, garden supply, mobile home dealers and retail nurseries. It was previously
recognized that such uses could generate higher vehicle trip counts than originally anticipated by this
request.
Changes to the Applicant's transportation program include a commitment to no more than one entrance
to the property. However, provisions have been made for the closure of this entrance in favor of a future
entrance aligned with Branson Springs Road which is to be constructed by others. A contribution up to
50 percent of the cost of this entrance and signalization, up to an amount not to exceed $125,000.00 has
been made. Proffers 3.3 and 3.4 regarding the potential for this relocated entrance to the property
appear to warrant additional attention due to the specific language and a concern that the cap of
$125,000.00 may not ultimately achieve a 50 percent share of the ultimate cost of the project.
The Applicant has increased their monetary contribution by $200,000.00, to $550,000.00 from
$350,000.00, for transportation improvements in the Route 11 north corridor. The County Attorney's
concern regarding the timing of this contribution at issuance of building permit rather than at the time of
a Certificate of Occupancy for a use on the property remains valid.
The Applicant has proffered to provide additional tree plantings along the properties frontage with
Interstate 81 and has also proposed the construction of a split rail fence along the properties' Route 11
frontage.
In general, the more detailed comments previously offered by Mr. Mitchell appear to remain
unaddressed. Any additional comments provided by the County Attorney will be forwarded to the
Commission.
Rezoning #04-08 -- BPG/I-81 Distribution Center
September 2, 2008
Page 2
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this
application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues
concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report.
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission: 08/06/08 Tabled 45 days by Commission
Planning Commission: 09/17/08 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 09/24/08 Pending
PROPOSAL: To rezone 59 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B3 (Business, Industrial
Transition) District, with proffers.
LOCATION: The properties are located approximately 0.61 miles north of the Route I 1 intersection
with Cedar Hill (Route 671), bounded on the west by Interstate Route 81 and on the east by Martinsburg
Pike (Route 11).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 33-A-109 and 33-A-110
PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas)
PRESENT USE: Residential and agricultural
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
North: RA (Rural Areas)
Use: Residential/Agricultural
South: RA (Rural Areas)
Use: Residential/Agricultural
East: RA (Rural Areas)
Use: Residential/Agricultural
West: RA (Rural Areas)
Use: Residential/Agricultural
PROPOSED USES: Office and Warehouse Uses
Rezoning 404-08 — BPG/1-81 Distribution Center
September 2, 2008
Page 3
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Department of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this
property appears to have a significant measurable impact on Route 11. This route is the VDOT
roadway which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the
revised transportation proffers offered in the BPG Properties/I-81 Distribution Center Rezoning
Application dated June 19, 2008 addressed transportation concerns associated with this request. We
have the following comments: 1. The opportunity to realign their proposed entrance with Branson
Springs Road in the futures will have a positive impact on the overall traffic movement on Route 11.
2. These proffers provide for the necessary entrance/turn lane improvements at the initial entrance in
accordance with VDOT requirements at the time of site plan review. 3. While the Department
recognizes that there are traffic impact deficiencies at both the Route I1 and Rest Church Road
intersection and Route 11 and Brucetown/Hopewell Road intersection, it appears the best solution is to
accept a monetary contribution from the applicant. This would allow Frederick County and VDOT to
make future decisions on the appropriate use of these funds.
Frederick County, Deputy Director -Transportation: It appears that your updated TIA addressed my
previous concerns regarding background traffic. While it continues to be my position that the ideal
entrance for this site would align with Branson Spring Road, it appears that you are attempting to meet
this goal with your proffers. While it is generally the preference of staff that physical improvements be
put in place as opposed to cash proffers, the right-of-way issues in this situation and the fact that the
greatest needs are on property not controlled by your client make the cash form of proffer appropriate in
this case. I would again note that there is a draft transportation plan in process right now that calls for
the extension of Branson Spring Road across the northern portion of your client's property. I would ask
that your client consider making accommodations for this future roadway.
Fire Marshall: Plan approval recommended.
Clearbrook Vol. Fire Dept.: As long as the design has the standard fire codes.
Department of Inspections: No Comment.
Department of Public Works: No comments received for this application. COMMENTS of 2007
APPLICATION: 1. Refer to C. Site Suitability: The site description indicates that the area is underlain
by carbonate sedimentary bedrock resulting in karst terrain. Indicate if the karst terrain contains
sinkholes or potential piping channels. Also, indicate if the site is marked by numerous rock outcaps
which will, most probably, require blasting to accommodate site development. 2- Refer. to. the Traffic
Impact Analysis. The proposed trip generator summary included on page 8 of the Traffic Impact
Analysis (TIA) reflects the number of trips associated with 150 employees. However, the TIA has
conveniently avoided the amount of truck traffic associated with the proposed distribution center.
Considering the nature of the development, evaluating the truck traffic is critical in determining the real
impact on the road network. Revise the TIA accordingly and resubmit. 3. Refer to F. Site Drainage:
Elaborate on the statement "low impact type stormwater management techniques". We anticipate that
the stormwater runoff will be dramatically increased because of the proposed development including
739,000 square feet of warehouse space, 11,000 square feet of office space, and numerous acres of
Rezoning #04-08 — BPG;I-81 Distribution Center
September 2, 2008
Page 4
pavement. Therefore, we anticipate that onsite storm water management will be required to mitigate
offsite impacts. This mitigation may also require quality as well as quantity control considering the
potential for the transport of hydrocarbon contaminated runoff from the parking areas. Indicate how
this potential environmental impact will be addressed in the design phase of the subject project.
Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments.
Sanitation Authority Department: We will provide sewer and water service to this site.
Department of Parks & Recreation: The Parks and Recreation Department would recommend the
proffer statement include a ten foot trail on an adequate easement which to construct the trail. The trail
design should meet VDOT and ASHTO guidelines.
Health Department: The Health Dept. has no objection under the following conditions: 1. All
buildings on site are to be served by the public water and sewer system as approved by the Frederick
County Sanitation Authority. 2. All wells are to be abandoned according to the Private Well
Regulations. 3. All septic tanks are to be pumped by an approved septic hauler and abandoned by
filling with sand or gravel. 4. Permits are to be obtained from the Health Dept. for a proposal for a
motel, hotel or restaurant. 5. All designs submitted should provide for protection of the Branson Spring
from any contaminants or drainage due to the proposed future construction.
Winchester Regional Airport: We have reviewed the proposed rezoning application and determined
that the proposed development plan will not have an impact on operations at the Winchester Regional
Airport. While the proposed site lies within the airport's airspace, it does fall outside of the airport's
Part 77 close in surfaces; therefore, special conditional will not be requested.
Frederick County Public Schools: We offer no comments.
Historic Resources Advisory Board: The HRAB considered this rezoning proposal during their
meeting of January 16, 2007. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the Frederick County
Rural Landmarks Survey Report and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, as well as
information provided by the applicant. At that time, the HRAB felt that the proffers associated with
historic preservation and recognition was adequate, but made two recommendations which included:
1. Since the last time a survey was done in 1990, the I-IRAB felt that the applicant must fill out a
preliminary Information Form (PIF) from the Department of Historic Resources (DHR) for the
Nathaniel Branson House, which is located on the property.: proposed to be .rezoned.. ,The. PIF will
determine if the Nathaniel Branson House can receive state recognition for its historical value.
2. The HRAB requested that a landscaped berm be placed along the frontage of the property, so that the
viewshed of the Alexander Branson House (across Route 11) would not be negatively impacted by
the placement of a 739,000 square foot industrial structure.
Attorney Comments: Please see attached comments dated July 18, 200,8
Rezoning #04-08 — BPG/1-81 Distribution Center
September 2, 2008
Page 5
Planning & ZoninV,:
1) Site History
The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Inwood Quadrangle) identifies the subject
parcels as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). The County's agricultural zoning districts
were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an
amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding
revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A-1
and A-2 zoned land to the RA District.
The Applicant previously attempted to rezone these properties in 2007. Rezoning Application
RZ#07-07 was denied by the Board of Supervisors on September 12, 2007. For the purposes of
this current application, the request for a different zoning classification, B3 rather than Ml, is
substantially different from the previous request and may be processed by Frederick County
pursuant to Section 165-11 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance.
2) Comprehensive Policy Plan
The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as
the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public
facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to
protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a
composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County.
[Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-]J
Land Use
The parcel comprising this rezoning application is located within the County's Sewer and Water
Service Area (S WSA) and the site is within the limits of the Northeast Land Use Plan. The plan
designates the site for business use. The commercial / industrial transition land use proposed in
this rezoning is consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan. The plan states that `Business and
commercial land uses are proposed along the Martinsburg Pike corridor, on the east and west
side of Interstate 81 exits 317, 321 and 323. It is envisioned that commercial uses which cater
to the interstate traveler will be developed along the three Interstate 81 interchanges, while
retail, service and office land uses_will occur along the Martinsburg Pike corridor".
Transportation
Plans for new development should provide for the right-of-ways necessary to implement
planned road improvements and new roads shown on the road plan should be constructed by the
developer when warranted by the scale, intensity, or impacts of the development. Existing roads
should be improved as necessary by adjacent development to implement the intentions of the
plan (Comprehensive Plan 7-6).
Rezoning 904-08 — BPG/I-81 Distribution Center
September 2, 2008
Page 6
The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan does include this portion of the
County. The Northeast Land Use Plan calls for Martinsburg Pike to be improved to a four -lane
facility. The Plan also states that proposed industrial and commercial development should only
occur if impacted roads function at Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better. This
application does not provide that Level of Service. The Frederick County Bicycle Plan
designates Route 11 as a short-term designated route.
Site Access and design.
The Northeast Land Use Plan discourages individual lot access on the Martinsburg Pike
corridor, encourages inter -parcel connections, and recommends adequate screening from
adjoining land uses and recommends greater setbacks and buffers and screening along
Martinsburg Pike. This development has proffered commercial entrance limitations on
Martinsburg Pike from the property. The project has also proposed interparcel connectivity
with the adjacent parcels to the north. It may be anticipated that additional development
opportunities on the adjacent properties may occur in the future. Pedestrian accommodations
have been provided along the projects frontage with Route 11.
3) Site Suitability/Environment
The site does not contain any environmental features that would either constrain or preclude site
development. There are no identified areas of steep slopes, floodplains or woodlands. This
area is also known for karst topography. The Frederick County Engineer has identified that a
detailed geotechnical analysis will be needed as part of the detailed site plan design.
The HRAB made two recommendations based upon the presence of the Nathaniel Branson
House on the property. The HRAB felt that the applicant must fill out a Preliminary
Information Form (PIF) from the Department of Historic Resources (DHR) for the Nathaniel
Branson House, and the HRAB requested that a landscaped berm be placed along the frontage
of the property, so that the viewshed of the Alexander Branson House (across Route 11) would
not be negatively impacted by the placement of a 739,000 square foot industrial structure. The
application provides for additional landscape screening along Route 11 in an effort to tailor
corridor improvements, beyond those customarily required by ordinance, to effectively enhance
the corridor appearance of Route 11 and address the comments offered by the HRAB.
4) Potential Impacts
Proposed Uses. The applicant has -proffered that the property shall be developed with not more....... ,..., ,
than seven hundred fifty thousand (750,000) square feet of permitted uses. It should be further
guaranteed that additional land uses that may make up this square footage should be
limited, such as the limitation that the applicant placed on office uses, to ensure the impacts can
be appropriately measured.
A. Transportation
Traffic hnpact Analysis.
The traffic impact analysis (TIA) prepared for this application was amended from the TIA that
Rezoning #04-08 — BPG/I-81 Distribution Center
September 2, 2008
Page 7
was prepared for the original rezoning request. The structure of the TIA is now acceptable to
the County and VDOT as it is consistent with acceptable practices. The TIA still shows impacts
at the evaluated intersections that have not been, or cannot be, addressed by the applicant.
As you may recall, the TIA previously evaluated two scenarios. The amended TIA models the
proffered land use scenario.
The TIA indicates that Level of Service C conditions or better will be maintained on study roads
and intersections with the completion of several area improvements including improvements at
the intersection of Route II/Hopewell Road/Brucetown Road and improvements at the
intersection of Route 11 /Rest Church Road. None of the above improvements identified in
the TIA have been addressed by this application. The applicant has proffered to enter into a
signalization agreement with VDOT.
Transportation Program.
The applicant's transportation program is limited to providing for the required access to the site
via deceleration lanes and providing for a monetary contribution towards area transportation
improvements that would be completed by others in the amount of $350,000. The applicant has
proffered to enter into a signalization agreement with VDOT. As was the case previously, the
necessary improvements identified in the TIA have not been addressed by this application. In
addition, the Applicant's transportation program does not provide for or advance the County's
Eastern Road Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan, in particular, the widening of Route 11.
As previously noted, interparcel connectivity should be a consideration with this application.
Particular attention has been paid to the property to the north of this project. The extension of
Branson Springs Road to the west through this site and over Interstate 81 is a concept that has
recently been discussed and should continue to be evaluated with this project and as The
Northeastern Frederick Land Use Plan is being reevaluated.
Additional comments from Mr. John Bishop, Frederick County Transportation Planner are
summarized as follows.
1. Applicant should be preparing their site to make for an easy transition to an entrance
area that aligns with Branson Springs Rd.
2. , Access should be.granted to the entrance mentioned in the bullet above for the
Property to the north.
3. Right -away should be considered for an extension of Branson Springs along the
northern portion of the property.
4. Cash proffer amount is improved.
Rezoning #04-08 — BPG/I-81 Distribution Center
September 2, 2008
Page 8
C. Design Standards
The Northeast Land Use Plan recommends adequate screening from adjoining land uses and
recommends greater setbacks and buffers and screening along Martinsburg Pike. The site is
surrounded on all sides by RA (Rural Areas) zoned property, which is either in agricultural or
residential use. While it is possible that these uses may change in the future, in line with the
Northeast Land Use Plan, for the moment, screening should be addressed.
The project's location on a major corridor warrants particular attention. This has been provided
for in this latest version of the application. Some additional clarification to allow for an
improved landscaped area should be worked into the application. Consideration should also be
given to screening along Interstate 81. The applicant has discussed addressing this issue and
should incorporate this into the proffer statement.
D. Community Facilities
The development of this site will have an impact on community facilities and services.
However, it is recognized that commercial uses generally provide a positive impact on
community facilities through the additional generation of tax revenue. This application
addresses the impacts to Fire and Rescue services by providing a monetary contribution in an
amount of $10,000.
Proffer Statement — Dated June 19, 2008.
A) Generalized Development Plan
A Generalized Development Plan has been provided by the applicant. Staff would suggest that
the flexibility written into the paragraph introducing the GDP may be too flexible and should be
addressed.
B) Land Use
The applicant has provided that the amount of office space on the property will be incorporated
into the primary use structure. Further, the applicant has proffered the development of no more
than 750,000 square feet. It would be advisable to further guarantee the development of the site
will be for one building only, consistent with the GDP.
The applicant has proffered out specific land uses.
The Applicant has proffered a ten foot wide landscape strip along Route 11 including a variety
of landscape plantings. This proffer should be expanded to allow for a broader area of
planting in the area set aside between the right-of-way and the parking setback. The applicant
has proffered to employ the M1 district setback and yard requirements for the development of
this site.
Rezoning #04-08 — BPG/I-81 Distribution Center
September 2, 2008
Page 9
The applicant has limited the fayade materials of the buildings fronting along Route 11 and
Interstate 81 to a variety of materials.
Proffer 7 is redundant as they are required by current ordinance.
C) Transportation
The Applicant's proffered transportation improvements include the dedication of an additional
ten feet of right-of-way for future improvements to Route I I to be done by others. Right turn
deceleration lanes have been proffered. The proffered right turn lanes are the minimum that
would be required by VDOT during the development of the site.
The Applicant has proffered to enter into a signalization agreement with VDOT and has
proffered a $350,000 monetary contribution at the time of Certificate of Occupancy for
unspecified improvements within the Route 11 corridor. Such improvements would be done by
others.
The Applicant has proffered to construct a ten foot wide asphalt multi -use trail along their
frontage on Route 11.
In general, the transportation proffer is much simplified from that previously offered. The
mechanism for obtaining the transportation proffer is improved and the dollar value of the
proffer is more than before. However, it should be carefully evaluated to ensure that the
amount is sufficient to address and mitigate the transportation impacts associated with this
request. An update to the County's Development Impact Model is presently being prepared.
This will be a very important tool to evaluate what may be the appropriate transportation
contribution for development projects.
D) Community Facilities
The Applicant has proffered $10,000 to Frederick County for use by Clearbrook Volunteer Fire
and Rescue.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 08/06/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The B3 land use proposed in this rezoning is consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan. Many of the
impacts associated with this rezoning request have been mitigated by the Applicant. However, careful
consideration of the transportation impacts associated with this request and the proffered monetary
contribution aimed at mitigating the impacts should occur. Transportation improvements have not been
provided that would achieve a level of service C or address the Comprehensive Plan.
Rezoning #04-08 — BPG/I-81 Distribution Center
September 2, 2008
Page 10
PLANNING COMMINSI®N SUMMARY AND ACTI®N OF THE 08/06/08 MEETING:
The applicant's team provided their cost estimates for transportation improvements based on the impact
of background traffic versus the percentage of impact generated from their project. They calculated
their share for background transportation infrastructure improvements to be $350,000 which would
cover traffic signalization, a share in the construction of the Hopewell/Brucetown intersection, and the
left -turn lane at Rest Church Road. The applicant's team pointed out revisions to their proffer which
included a maximum of 750,000 square -feet of permitted use located within one building or within
multiple buildings; one entrance to the property with availability for access by adjoining property and
inter -parcel connections; the removal of food stores and hardware stores as allowable uses; utilization of
Ml side yards and setbacks; enhanced landscaping; modifications to trip numbers from background
traffic with growth rates; and the use of ITE trip generation numbers for traffic modeling.
A property owner in the Stonewall District, Mr. George Sempeles, spoke during the public comment
portion of the hearing; he was in favor of growth and development along Route I 1 North. He believed
this area needed business growth in order to fund the road improvements needed at the Brucetown
interchange and the Route 1 I/Rest Church entrance. Regarding the issues involving truck traffic, he
commented that the new FBI Records Management site will not generate truck traffic, thereby reducing
the amount of background traffic. Furthermore, he pointed out an additional 12 -foot right-of-way
reserved along his side of the road for a left -turn lane within the corridor between Clearbrook and Rest
Church, which could be used to accommodate traffic.
Commissioners raised issues involving the inadequacy of transportation infrastructure in this area and
their concerns about the impact of additional truck -traffic from the proposed use in addition to existing
background traffic. They questioned whether the applicant's monetary contribution towards
transportation infrastructure was sufficient and whether the traffic impacts from the proposed use were
adequately addressed. The lack of sufficient right-of-way at this location to fix the infrastructure
geometrically or structurally was discussed and the possibility of a traffic management plan was raised.
A member of the Commission commented about a few of the successful rezoning projects in this area
and a couple of things those projects had in common were the installation of a split -rail fence along the
corridor and each of the projects not only agreed to dedicate the ten -foot right-of-way along Route 11,
but to build their section of the 12 -foot lane across the entire frontage. It was noted that the
Comprehensive Policy Plan calls for Route 11 to be a four -lane divided highway. It was suggested that
this project's applicants should consider following suit with these provisions. Commission members
agreed with the need to eliminate hardware stores and food stores as an allowed use. The
Commissioners pointed out that their Bylaws state that if revised proffers are not received prior to the
agenda mailing, the Commission should table the application in order to provide time for the public to
review the new proffers.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to table the rezoning application for 45 days in order to
provide the public with the opportunity to review the revised proffers that were submitted after the
agenda mailing and to give the applicant the opportunity to refine the application based on the issues
raised.
Rezoning #04-08 — BPG/I-81 Distribution Center
September 2, 2008
Page 11
(Note: Commissioner Watt was absent for this vote; Commissioners Ruckman, Triplett, and Kerr were
absent from the meeting.)
STAFF UPDATE FOR 09/17/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
Please see front page of this report.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 09/17/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
Staff's conclusions for this meeting remain generally the same as our previous conclusion. The B3 land
use proposed in this rezoning is consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan. Many of the impacts
associated with this rezoning request have been mitigated by the Applicant. However, careful
consideration of the transportation impacts associated with this request and the proffered monetary
contribution aimed at mitigating the impacts should occur. It is recognized that the Applicant has
increased their monetary contribution for transportation. However, transportation improvements have
not been provided that would achieve a level of service C or address the Comprehensive Plan.
The Plannin,a Commission held a public hearing for this request at your 08/06/08 meeting.
Followinz the public meeting, a recommendation
by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning this rezoning application
would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns
raised by the Planning Commission.
HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL
A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
July 18, 2008
HAND -DELIVERED
Michael T. Ruddy, AICP
Deputy Director
Frederick County Department of Planning &
Development
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Re: 1-81 Distribution Center (BPG Properties, Ltd.)
Proposed Proffer Statement
Dear Mike:
PLEASE REPLY TO:
P. O. Box 646
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-0848
I have reviewed the above -referenced proposed Proffer Statement, with a
revision date of July 3, 2008. It is my opinion that the Proffer Statement is generally
in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the
Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments:
1. The third unnumbered paragraph of the Proffer Statement references
the Generalized Development Plan (GDP). It should be noted that the proffer for the
development to be in general conformance with the GDP is subject to certain
conditions, including "revisions required in the event the Applicant elects to construct
multiple buildings on the Property". I would recommend that this condition be limited
to changes in the location of structures and parking on the site, so that the entrance,
buffers, setbacks, etc., shown on the GDP would still apply in the event multiple
buildings are constructed on the site.
ATTORNEYS
AT LAW
WILBUR C. HALL (1892-1972)
7 S 307 EAST MARKET STREET
9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET
THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924-1999)
SAMUEL G. ENGLE
LEESBURG, VIRGINIA
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
O. LELAND MAHAN
TELEPHONE 703-777-1050
TELEPHONE 540-662-3200
ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR.
FAX 540-662-4304
JAMES A. KLENKAR
E-MAIL lawyers@hallmonahan.com
STEVEN F. JACKSON
July 18, 2008
HAND -DELIVERED
Michael T. Ruddy, AICP
Deputy Director
Frederick County Department of Planning &
Development
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Re: 1-81 Distribution Center (BPG Properties, Ltd.)
Proposed Proffer Statement
Dear Mike:
PLEASE REPLY TO:
P. O. Box 646
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-0848
I have reviewed the above -referenced proposed Proffer Statement, with a
revision date of July 3, 2008. It is my opinion that the Proffer Statement is generally
in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the
Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments:
1. The third unnumbered paragraph of the Proffer Statement references
the Generalized Development Plan (GDP). It should be noted that the proffer for the
development to be in general conformance with the GDP is subject to certain
conditions, including "revisions required in the event the Applicant elects to construct
multiple buildings on the Property". I would recommend that this condition be limited
to changes in the location of structures and parking on the site, so that the entrance,
buffers, setbacks, etc., shown on the GDP would still apply in the event multiple
buildings are constructed on the site.
HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL
Michael T. Ruddy, AICP
July 18, 2008
Page 2
2. Proffer 2 proffers out certain otherwise permitted uses on the
Property. Staff should review the proffered -out uses to determine if all of the uses
appropriate to be proffered out are included, taking into consideration the Applicant's
possible intended uses of the Property. It also should be noted that in Proffers 2. 1,
2.2, and 2.3 all uses in the related SIC category have been proffered out, while in the
remaining proffered -out uses all of the associated uses in the related SIC category
have not been proffered out.
3. In Proffer 3. 1, 1 would recommend changing the word "provide" to
"construct". Further, it is noted that the entrance improvements proffered are those
"consistent with Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) requirements". This
language has been substituted for the previous draft of the Proffer Statement which
specifically provided for a right turn deceleration. lane. Staff should determine
whether the revised language is preferable.
4. In Proffer 3.2, regarding the entrance to the property, it is not clear to
me from the Proffers (it may be clear to staff) what would be in place upon the
construction of the Future Entrance. Is the plan to have this Property and the
adjoining property to the north served off of a right-of-way on the Applicant's
property, and that it will be the responsibility of that adjoining property owner to
construct the entrance? If this is the anticipated plan, it would seem to me that the
matters of the buffers along the north property line, as shown on the GDP, will need
to be addressed with respect to an entrance and access easement being located at the
north end of the property.
5. Proffer 3.3 references a signalization agreement, but does not indicate
the location for the signal.
6. In Proffer 3.4, in the second sentence I would recommend the
Applicant substituting the words "the first" for the words "any final".
HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN 5, MITCHELL
Michael T. Ruddy, AICP
July 18, 2008
Page 3
7. In Proffer 3.5, concerning the $350,000.00 cash proffer, it should be
noted that the proffer will not be paid until the first Certificate of Occupancy is issued
on the Property. Proffers are customarily paid at the time of the issuance of the first
building permit (as is the proffer for fire and rescue in Proffer 4).
8. In Proffer 4, concerning the proffer for fire and rescue, I would
suggest the Applicant use the words "for fire and rescue purposes" in place of the
words "to assist in funding fire and rescue operations in the County".
9. With respect to Proffer 5, concerning site landscaping, staff should
determine whether the proposed landscaping meets the goals for landscaping in the
Route 11 corridor.
10. In Proffer 5.2, concerning planting of street trees on the west side of
the Property adjoining the Interstate 81 right-of-way, staff should determine whether
the proposed spacing of the street trees is adequate.
It should be noted that I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to
whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the rezoning of this specific
property, whether other proffers would be appropriate, as it is my understanding that
that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission.
If there are any questions concerning the foregoing comments, please contact
me.
qery y yours,
Roe T. Mitch 1, Jr
RTM/glh
0
0 250 500 1,000 Feet
-4
1-81 Distribution C
ReZoning
REZ 05 - 08
PIN: 33 - A - 109, 33-A- 110
Future Rt37 Bypass
Zoning
MZ (Industrial, General District)
Application
4� BI(Business. Neighborhood District)
4� MH I(Mobile Homc Community -District)
Urban Development Arca
4M B' (Business. General Distrist)
- MS (Medical Support District)
d �'y;P SWSA
• B3 (Business. Industrial Transition District) -40. R3 (Residential Planned Community District)
4! EM (Extractive Manufacturing Dita-1)
R5 (Residential Recreational Community District)
40 HE (Higher Education District)
) RA (Rural Arca District)
4W M I(Industrial. Light District)
RP (Residential Perfannance District)
PROFFER STATEMENT
REZONING: RZ #07-07 RA to B-3 (Industrial Transition)
PROPERTY: ±59 Acres, Tax Map Parcel No.'s 33-A-110; 33-A-109
RECORD OWNER: Estate of Roy Riley Boyce, Jr. and Kay Marie Boyce
APPLICANT: BPG Properties, Ltd. and/or its assigns
PROJECT NAME: I-81 Distribution Center
PROFFER DATE:
REVISION DATE
REVISION DATE
REVISION DATE
June 19, 2008
July 3, 2008
July 21, 2008
August 25, 2008
The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property
("Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions,
which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that
the above referenced rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these
proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are
contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning
which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors' (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate
court.
The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience of
reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any
provision of the proffers. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its
meaning all present and future owners and successors in interest.
The development of the Property shall be in general conformance with the plan entitled
"BPG Properties, Ltd., Frederick County, Virginia, Generalized Development Plan" dated June
19, 2008, (the "GDP"), subject to reasonable changes approved by the County in connection
with Master Development Plan and Final Site Plan review, including revisions required for final
engineering considerations, code and regulatory compliance, and revisions required in the event
the Applicant elects to construct multiple buildings on the Property.
The Applicant hereby proffers the following:
Land Use Restrictions.
1.1. The Property shall be developed with not more than seven hundred fifty thousand
(750,000) square feet of permitted uses, as those uses are modified hereby, which
750,000 square feet and permitted uses shall be located entirely within one
building or within multiple buildings on the Property.
BPG Properties
Proffer Statement
Page 2 of 7
1.2. Office uses may be employed on the Property only as accessory uses and shall be
located entirely within the structure(s) for the primary use(s). In no event shall
there be stand-alone office buildings on the Property.
1.3. The Applicant shall employ the yard and setback requirements for uses as provided
in the Ml District, rather than those otherwise applicable to the B3 District.
2. Proffered -Out Uses. The following uses shall not be permitted on the Property.
2.1 Transportation By Air and all Uses Classified as SIC 45
2.2 Transportation Services, and all Uses Classified as SIC 47
2.3 Automotive Dealers and Gasoline Service Stations and all Uses Classified as SIC
55
2.4 Restaurant, except food services as may be provided to service employees on site
2.5 Amusement and recreation services operated indoors
2.6 Drive-in motion picture theaters
2.7 Local and suburban transit and interurban highway passenger transportation
2.8 Outdoor ad services
2.9 Automobile recovery service -
2.10 Automotive repair, services and parking
2.11 Automobile repossession service
2.12 Product sterilization service
2.13 Repossession service
2.14 Automotive repair, services and parking
2.15 Building materials, hardware, garden supply, mobile home dealers and retail
nurseries, provided that this proffer does not exclude from the Property warehouse
facilities that store and distribute goods associated with these uses.
2.16 Food stores or groceries.
3, Transportation Mitigation.
3.1. At the entrance to the Property, the Applicant will provide entrance improvements
consistent with Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) requirements.
3.2. There shall be no more than one entrance to the Property. The first such entrance
shall be constructed along Route 11 in the general location identified on the GDP
as the "Initial Entrance," which shall be separated at least 700' from the
intersection of Branson Spring Road and Route 11, unless otherwise approved by
Frederick County and VDOT.
3.3. The Initial Entrance shall be closed by the Applicant, at its expense, within thirty
(30) days after all of the following conditions have been met: i) an entrance to the
Property has been constructed by others in the general location identified on the
GDP as "Future Entrance" and ii) a right turn and deceleration lane meeting
VDOT requirements has been constructed by others into the Future Entrance.
The Applicant shall grant any necessary construction, grading and access
BPG Properties
Proffer Statement
Page 3 of 7
easements over the Property necessary for the construction of the Future Entrance
and an associated right turn lane into such Entrance, provided that the Applicant
expressly approves of the plans for improvements associated with the Future
Entrance, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld.
3.4. At such time as the Future Entrance is constructed as provided herein, the
Applicant shall close the Initial Entrance and shall pay fifty (50) percent of the
total audited costs incurred in constructing the Future Entrance to VDOT
standards, which may include signalization thereof, such payment not to exceed
$125,000.00. The "not to exceed" value of $125,000.00 is subject to the Escalator
Clause set forth below and represents the Applicant's estimate of fifty (50)
percent of the total costs of replacing the Initial Entrance and constructing a right
turn lane deceleration lane and traffic signal at the Future Entrance's intersection
with Route 11. The payment required by this Proffer 3.4 shall be made to the
party designated by the Zoning Administrator for the construction of the Future
Entrance upon written demand of the Zoning Administrator and within thirty (30)
days after the following conditions have been met: i) the Future Entrance is
opened for public use, though not accepted into the State System of Secondary
Highways, and ii) the party responsible therefor provides the Zoning
Administrator satisfactory proof of its audited costs.
3.5. The Applicant shall grant an access easement over the Property to and for the
benefit of the adjoining parcel to the north of the Property to accormnodate access
to the Future Entrance.
3.6. The Applicant shall enter into a signalization agreement for the Initial Entrance
with VDOT as a condition of final site plan approval.
3.7. The Applicant shall dedicate right-of-way along the Property's Route 11 frontage
that is ten (10) feet wide from the existing edge of right-of-way. Such dedication
shall be made prior to the approval of any final site plan for development of the
Property. The Applicant shall construct a ten (10) foot wide asphalt trail outside
of but adjacent to said right-of-way, and dedicate an easement to the County for
public purposes for such trail, upon written request by the County. The
maintenance of the asphalt trial shall be the responsibility of the owner of the
Property or a property owner's association created for such purpose, unless and
until the County affirmatively assumes maintenance of the trail in writing.
3.8. The Applicant will contribute to Frederick County the sum of Five Hundred Fifty
Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($550,000.00) to be used for improvements in the
Route 11 north corridor, payment to be made at the time of issuance of the first
Certificate of Occupancy for a use on the Property. Such funds may be used by
the Board in its discretion for transportation improvements.
4. Fire and Rescue.
BPG Properties
Proffer Statement
Page 4 of 7
The Applicant shall contribute the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) to
Frederick County at the time of issuance of the first building permit for the Property, for use by
the Board in its discretion, to assist in funding fire and rescue operations in the County.
5. Site landscaping.
5.1. The Applicant shall provide a landscape strip within the area between the asphalt
trail identified in Proffer 3.7 and the parking area identified on the GDP that is a
minimum of ten (10) feet in width (the "Route 11 Buffer")., The Route 1.1 Buffer
shall be comprised of three street trees (per Zoning Ordinance §165-36.B.1, or
equivalent) per one hundred linear feet, and twenty-five shrubs per one hundred
linear feet. These plantings shall be in addition to those required by the County's
buffering and screening requirements. If no berm or hedgerow along the Route
11 frontage is otherwise required, the Applicant agrees to install a three foot berm
or hedgerow along the Route 11 frontage within the Route 11 Buffer.
5.2 The Applicant shall plant street trees (per Zoning Ordinance §165-36.B.1, or
equivalent) in the area between the rear parking area the Property's western
property line at a rate of no fewer than one tree per forty (40') linear feet.
6. Architectural.
Facing materials of buildings facing Route 11 and Interstate 81 shall be primarily of
concrete masonry unit, brick, architectural block, Dryvit or other simulated stucco, or real or
simulated wood or glass.
Site development requirements.
7.1. All utilities will be underground.
7.2. Stormwater management facilities will be maintained by the Applicant.
7.3. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for a building on the Property, the
Applicant shall construct a split rail fence no more than five feet in height along
the Property's Route 11 frontage in a location to be determined by the Applicant
in consultation with the County.
8. Deed.
The Applicant proffers and agrees that any deed conveying the Property shall affix as an
attachment and incorporation into said deed, a full copy of these proffers in order to fully advise
any subsequent purchaser of these proffered terms and conditions.
9. Escalator.
In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement are paid to
Frederick County within eighteen (18) months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by
BPG Properties
Proffer Statement
Page 5 o'17
the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary
contributions set forth in this Proffer Statement which are paid to the County after eighteen (18)
months following the approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban
Consumer Price Index ("CPI -U") published by the United States Department of Labor, such that
at the time contributions are paid they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI -U
from that date eighteen (18) months after the approval of this rezoning to the most recently
available CPI -U to the date the contributions are paid, subject to a cap of 6 percent (6%) per
year, noncompounded.
[SIGNATURES AND NOTARIES APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGES]
BPG Properties
Proffer Statement
Page 6 of 7
BPG PROPERTIES, LTD.
By: BPG-GP, LLC, its General Partner
By: �/
Naim: Barry Howard
Its: Chairman of the Board
STATE OF
COUNTY/CITY OF S/«���J , To -wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thisW.LgAay of
2008, by Barry Howard, as Chairman of the Board of
BPG-GLLC, General Partner of BPG Properties, Ltd.
NOTARdf PUBLIC
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
My commission expi es: NOTARIAL SEAL
CHERYL WALAASLEY, Notary Public
Registration Numbe City of Philadelphia, Phila. Courq
M Commission Expires Jul 18, 2009
[SIGNATURE AND NOTARY APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
BPG Properties
Proffer Statement
Page 7 of 7
ESTATE OF ROY RILEY BOYCE, JR.
By:i� 7
Name: Kay M. oyce
Title: Executor 1�
`L
Kay Marie B yce
STATE OF Vim&
C_014 Y/CITY OF oNi s-'L�E , To -wit:
�a
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thiso26 day of
-Lie, ¢ate, " , 2008, by Kay M. Boyce as Executor of the Estate of Roy
Riley Boyce, Jr.
NOTARY PUBLIC
LORETTA M. WILSON
My commission expires: Au&us; 3� oon ? Notary Public
6 Commonwealth of Virginia
_ Reg. #363436
Registration Number: ��� �% My Commission Exps. Aug. 3i, 2008
1-81 (R/W VARIES)
S� PSE
GR\0
I ! I
I 1 I
1 10' WIDE PROFFERED
LANDSCAPE SCREEN
U.S. RT. 11 (80' WIDE)
INITIAL FNTRANCF
Q Z
Z_ Q
0 C5
J� 0 CL
W
Ui
w� N
J Z
Ldo
o� W a_
irY z O
av W J
a.�>
Ld W
o
Drawing
Number.
GDP
bNo.:07-06-0072
-- -- --
_..—..—..—..—
------ --
— 25'SELBACK -- -- -- -- --
-- -- -- --_--r
Fr
I
SWMB
1
I
I I
I
TRAILER PARKRdG
I
VI
I
5 B
I 1
I I
DICT
I -
m
T
z -4
I�IcDi !
–i<
` T !
m m
c IIM
POSSIBLE BUILDING FOOTPRINTm
>
Im m
I
ID r
'
Z
D
cn
M
M I
I
Z
I
1
I
I I
1
I' `
I
77r
1 . � 1
I
I
TRAILER PARKING
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 V I I I!-1
I
I 1
1 � 1
�on�ncCn ins onnl
I ! I
I 1 I
1 10' WIDE PROFFERED
LANDSCAPE SCREEN
U.S. RT. 11 (80' WIDE)
INITIAL FNTRANCF
Q Z
Z_ Q
0 C5
J� 0 CL
W
Ui
w� N
J Z
Ldo
o� W a_
irY z O
av W J
a.�>
Ld W
o
Drawing
Number.
GDP
bNo.:07-06-0072
WALSH COLUCCI
LUBELEY EMRICH
& WALSH PC
Michael J. Coughlin
(703) 680-4664 Ext. 113
mcoughlin@pw-thelandlawyers.com
Fax: (703) 680-2161 June 19, 2008
Eric Lawrence
Fred. Co. Dept. Of Planning & Development
North Building, 2°d Floor
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia
Re: Agency Comments on the BPG Properties, Ltd. Rezoning Application
Dear Eric:
Below you will find a chart that reflects the agencies we submitted our application materials to,
their comments, and the Applicant's response.
COMMENTS
RESPONSE
Fire Marshal:
Thank you.
Recommend Approval
Frederick County Public Schools:
Acknowledged.
We offer no comments.
Frederick County Sanitation Authority: Will provide
Acknowledged.
sewer & water to this site.
Frederick— Winchester Health Department:
It is the Applicant's understanding that
No objection under following conditions.
are to be served by the public water
these regulatory requirements are
applicable to the project irrespective of the
1. All buildings on site
and sewer system as approved by the Frederick County
Proffer Statement, and so these conditions
have not been drafted into the Proffer
sanitation authority.
2. All wells are to be abandoned according to the Private
Statement.
Well Regulations.
3. All septic tanks are to be pumped by an approved septic
hauler and abandoned by filling with sand or gravel.
4. Permits are to be obtained from the health department for
any proposal for a motel, hotel, or restaurant.
5. All designs submitted should provide for protection of
the Branson Spring from any contaminants or drainage due
to the proposed future construction.
Also attached 12/14/06 comments.
PHONE 703 680 4664 1 FAX 703 68o 6067 : WWW.THELANDLAWYERS.COM
4310 PRINCE WILLIAM PARKWAY, SUITE 300 1 PRINCE WILLIAM, VA 22192
ARLINGTON OFFICE 703 528 4700 1 LOUDOUN OFFICE 703 737 3633
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Acknowledged.
Winchester Regional Airport:
No new comments received. No objection previously.
Company 13 — Clearbrook Vol. Fire Dept.:
Acknowledged.
No new comments received.
Prior comments: As long as the design as the standard fire
codes.
Fredericksburg —Winchester Service Authority:
Acknowledged. Capacity numbers were
provided reviously and are included in
No comments but also attached 12/21/06 comments
sewer capacity numbers.
the Applicant's Impact Statement.
regarding water and
Historic Resources Advisory Board, c/o Eric Laurence:
Since the last time a survey was done in 1990, the
This comment was previously
HRAB felt that the applicant must fill out a
Form (PIC) from the
addressed as follows: BPG
Preliminary Information
Department of Historic Resources (HR) form the
contracted ECS Mid -Atlantic to
complete and submit a PIF to the
Nathaniel Branson House, which is located on the
property proposed to be rezoned. The PIF will
Department of historic Resources.
A copy of the report dated May 1,
determine if the Nathaniel Branson House can
for its historical value.
20076 was sent directly to HRAB
received state recognition
and DHR.
The HRAB requested that a landscaped berm be
placed along the frontage of the property so that the
Branson House (across
. The Applicant has addressed this
viewshed of the Alexander
Rt. 11) would not be negatively impacted by the
comment in Proffer 5.
placement of a 739,000 sq. ft. Industrial structure.
Proffer 3.4 addresses this comment and
Frederick County
has been modified to require the Applicant
Department of Parks & Recreation:
Recommend proffer statement include a 10' trail on an
to dedicate an easement to the County for
in the location of the trail.
adequate easement which to construct the trail — should meet
public purposes
VDOT & ASHTO guidelines.
Robert T. Mitchell, County Attorney:
No comments received on the Proffer Statement.
Fred. Co. Dept. of Planning & Development, Mike
We suggest that no further revision to
Proffer 5 is necessary and that the
Ruddy:
Proffer 5: While this is consistent with that previously
applicant will be able to increase the width
landscape area, at its discretion,
proffered, I would suggest you insert the word
"a ten (10) foot
of the
beyond 10' during the site plan process
"minimum" in the first sentence before
to the landscaping to be
with the proffers as drafted.
wide landscape strip" enable
spread out within the minimum 25' area between the
With respect to landscaping along the
R.O.W and the parking lot.
Property's 1-81 frontage, the Applicant has
not had sufficient time to evaluate this
I would also suggest you consider providing some form request but will offer a response as soon as
of landscaping along the properties frontage with
possible.
Interstate 81 in an effort to improve the appearance
along this corridor and help break up the mass of such
a large facility and potential trailer parking area. This
should in no way be as intensive as that which you
have proffered along Route 11, but some consideration
should be warranted.
Frederick County Department of Public Works:
No comments received and unable to locate comments from
previous submittal.
PJiatthew B .Smith, Staff Engineer Acknowledged.
Edinburg Residency
Virginia Department of Transportation:
The documentation within the application to rezone this
property appears to have a significant measurable impact on
Route 11. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been
considered as access to the property referenced.
VDOT is satisfied that the revised transportation proffers
offered in the BPG Properties/1-81 Distribution Center
Rezoning Application dated June 19, 2008 addresses
transportation concerns associated with this request. We
have the following comments:
• The opportunity to realign their proposed entrance
with Branson Springs Road in the future will have a
positive impact on the overall traffic movement on
Route 11.
• These proffers provide for the necessary
entrance/turn lane improvements at the initial
entrance in accordance with VDOT requirements at
the time of site plan review.
While the Department recognizes that there are
traffic impact deficiencies at both the Route 11 and
Rest Church Road intersection and Route 11 and
Brucetown/flopewell Road intersection, it appears
the best solution is to accept a monetary
contribution from the applicant. This would allow
Frederick County and VDOT to make future
decisions on the appropriate use of these funds.
Before development, this office will require a complete set
of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage
features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip
Generation Manual Seventh Edition for review. VDOT
reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs,
including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and
off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work
performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered
under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office
and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage.
Thank you for allowing us the o ortunity to comment.
Acknowledged.
John Bishop, ,'Deputy Director — Transportation:
Regarding the Transportation Impact Analysis:
With regard to the extension of Branson
Spring Road, the Applicant requires
It appears to me that your updated TIA addresses my
additional information before determining
the impact of aright -of --way reservation or
traffic.
previous concerns regarding background traf
dedica on for this extension.
Regarding the Application and Proffers:
The Applicant is open to discussing this
item further, but is concerned that there
While it continues to me my position that the ideal entrance
will be considerable right-of-way
necessa to accommodate an extension of
for this site would align with Branson Spring Road, it
to meet this goal with your
Branson Spring over I-81
p g
appears that you are attempting
proffers.
While it is generally the preference of staff that physical
improvements be put in place as opposed to cash proffers,
the right of way issues in this situation and the fact that the
greatest needs are on property not controlled by your client
make the cash form of proffer appropriate in this case.
I would again note that there is a draft transportation plan in
process right now that calls for the extension of Branson
Spring Rd across the northern portion of your Client's
property. I would ask that your client consider making
accommodations for this future roadway.
Thank you for your review of these matters.
Best regards,
WALSH, COLUCCI, LUBELEY, EMRICH &
WALSH, P.C.
Alll--�
Michael J. Coughlin
A. Site Background and History
The I-81 Distribution Center property consists of 2 parcels with PIN #'s 33-((A))-109
& 33-((A))-110. The 59.077 acres of land are located as shown on the attached
Figure 1 Location Map. The site lies outside the Urban Development Area of
Frederick County. (See Figure 2).
The site had historically been used for agriculture. Principle access is provided by
U. S. Route 11 "Martinsburg Pike".
S" s
B ^�
i
ire";@ p f
} ct 44
a �
c
er`J+� "J� f�► �, 4 'F�.� Mkt-•_ k'�M p..
¢ C
G
e"IFY
if
r
L q A.
m �
I-81 DISTRIBUTIOT
N CENTER AS Date,10/24/06 Job No,O7-06-0072 Ptete
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Drawn by Gadd file nd.t Number,
MAP
DOH
TRIAD ENGUIEERING, INC. LOCATION MAP Checked by LnCATIONMAP.DWG Scale' N/A FIGURE 4
�-ITCHESTER, VIRGINIA
nid
22 4
S¢3nil,S _+ \
,�� �'��: esti ra �. � ,, _ _� I 'me� � .�! ,,• , �
3 32
P / .. •r. ' �A
522 �
� `` k�
Fr
H�ayfie€d — y ppm ,,h,� `--� •- _ai ` �' �F'1 i 1
� -•�- _ '� `� c�',, , ; � $�, _ ';a�_� � ski :ti_�` .tom - __Leefiown '�
JL
Ei
k �ocdaf SpnlYq
... s
a
. r
6u r
_:.•.; h .
a }°i7 m
F)3'. f! t n
M+ r a I z
k 14
"qUk § / 3
Al
84 SO
4 �a
?I' 1-81 DISTRIBUTION CENTER RED Datea 10l24l06 glob Nm, 07— 06-0072 KOM
r FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA wm.n y ek ss
TSV"� R URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA Cac1N Re n®,m �pg���
k/' TM. VMS" Che Y lk2�AP4DEVF)(kiI�IY' SC0.l�B N®�
B Location and Access
The sites has 2077' frontage on U. S. Route 11 "Martinsburg Pike" which will be the
principle access to the development parcel. Figure 3 shows the location of the site with
respect to area transportation planning.
The site will utilize U. S. Route I I for this rezoned use.
There will be one (1) access point for the site as depicted on the GDP and as reflected in
the Proffer Statement. The "Initial Entrance" will be 700' south of Branson Spring Road
and the "Future Entrance" will be aligned with Branson Spring.
Since the site is located within the I-81 corridor and is situated between exits 321 and
323, traffic to and from the site will be provided with options. Refer to Traffic Impact
Analysis by PHR&A for existing and anticipated traffic movements.
- -�'- "1 -7 ' _- "- - - ":� - �r -�i -mf -Lly
0=�V--Q -'-, �' Wv--, .—: , . ^� 7-pEW3 '�-4W�"PA M.2� A--� -=.: �- 7":�
gj� go
IT.
,,(-- 739 1 66
679
FUNDS TO BE RECO14FIGURE
PROVIDED BY CONNECTION
WINCHESTER
MEDICAL
CENTER
Winchester
7;3 659rr
F E'
REMOVE ROAD
- ';Z61
6a 56 657
Y 6
.652
728
W Frederick
REMOVE
INTERCHANGE
County
651
37
REMOVE
'A
644-
-44
Stephens
&11 ty 847
636
SNDY AREA --IARl
ON
Em"Na 1 '..'
—nom. . Tor
FACILR RE—FRM4 WNIUED
ROADWAY CO ECWNMOWD
-T-- )bm —Y
YEW muul-rlr
ii
AL A-54-
U2 U4 U44
IL
f.'o .r
1-81 DISTRIBUTION CENTER
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
liate,W24/06 rJob Nc,E07-06-0072 ptau
lkwbal
['add file no.: Figure
iATTs.sTLnrYnRI3IJT4 Scatel `9
C. Site Suitability
The project and general geographic area is underlain by carbonate sedimentary
bedrock which results in karst terrain. Topographic mapping for the site indicates a
site typical of the karst terrain with gentle slopes and reasonable level plain areas.
Typical of other properties within the area, this site is generally suitable for the
proposed facility.
A site characterization showing important environmental features is included in
Figure 4. The following chart provides an area summary:
I-81 Distribution Center Site Characteristics
Total Project Area
59.077 Acres
Area in Flood Plain
0.00 Acres
Area in Woodlands
0.00 Acres
Area in Steep Slopes
0.00 Acres
Area in Wetlands
0.00 Acres
Lakes & Ponds
0.00 Acres
The property is planned for a warehouse facility with an approximate building area of
750,000 square feet and parking for 100 +/- cars, 200 trailers, and 150 loading docks.
Vww
4
} ` T
j.
J",
X�
JV
Y�
41
F
4
r
0,} y r
P _
14
.tea; - '9'i, �.. )1] Y� �'�a�A, ��♦i' F i,il
TRIAD ENGINEERM, INC.
WINCHESTER, VIRGMIA
I-81 DISTRIBUTION CENTER
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
TAS Dateil0/24/06 Job No.07-06-0072 Plate
Drawn �� Nunber,
DON Cadd file no., FIGURE a
Checked by SITECHARACT.DWG Scaler=N/A
D. Traffic
The transportation impact analysis prepared for this project shows that under the
conditions provided, traffic generation from this site is acceptable and manageable
considering the overall development of the U. S. Route 11/I-81 corridor. Under the
conditions imposed by this rezoning, this roadway system will continue to function at
a level of service of "C" or better during the 2010 background and build -out
conditions, respectively.
As is stated in the Traffic Impact Analysis, the development of this site to
accommodate a 750,000 +/- square foot warehouse facility does not significantly
affect the existing or proposed roadway system.
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Patton Harris
Eng neers. Surveyors.
P"R+A
1 -1
Rust & Associates
Planners. Lcndsccpe Architects.
10212 Governor Lane Blvd, Suite 1007
Williamsport, Maryland 21795
Phone: 301223.4010
Fax 301.223.6831
Memorandum
To: Board of Supervisors
Organization/Com pany: Frederick County, Virginia
From: Michael Glickman, PE
Date: February 22, 2008
Project Name/Subject: An Addendum to. A Traic ImbactAnalysis ofI 81 Distribution Center
PHR+A Project Number: 14596-1-0
Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR+A) has prepared this memorandum as an addendum to the
proposed I-81 Distribution Center located along the west side of Route 11, south of Rest Church
Road, in Frederick County, Virginia. In accordance with Frederick County comments relating to the
PHR+A traffic impact study titled: A TraIic WactAnalvsis of I-81 Distribution Center, dated May 30,
2007, this document presents revised traffic analyses to reflect modifications in background and
proposed development trip generation. Accordingly, PHR+A has revised the background and
build -out conditions analyses to include:
a The recently approved Rutherford Crossing development as a
Background Development with the revised and approved TIA counts
(see page 2);
Use of ITE Code 150, for square footage calculation of trip
generation;
Limitation of development potential to 750,000 square feet of
development using ITE Code 150. Office uses will be ancillary to the
primary use, and is accommodated by ITE Code 150;
This report constitutes a Worst Case Scenario analysis. All methodology remains consistent with the
aforementioned May 30, 2007 study. PHR+A has provided analyses for 2010 background and
build -out conditions.
2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
Using the 7`'}•;,Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Tn)2 Generation Report
PHR+A has provided Table 1 to summarize the 2010 "other developments" trip generation.
Figure 1 shows the 2010 background developments AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes and ADT
(Average Daily Trips) at each of the study area intersections. Figure 2 shows the corresponding
background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All Synchro levels of service
worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this memorandum.
Page 1 of 9
Patton Harris Rust & associates Memorandum
To: VDOT
Page 2of9
Table 1
2010 Background Developments
Trin Generation Summary
Code Land Use
Amount
AM Peak Hour
In Out
Total
In
PM Peak Hour
Out
Total
ADT
Sempeles Property (Partial Build -out)
74
409
106
398
503
3,719
130 Industrial Park
598,950 SF
336
40
102
188
203
391
4,271
820 Retail
49,000 SF
62
Total
398
113
511
293
601
894
7,990
Clearbrook Properties (Full Build -out)
20
23
180
120 GA Heavy Industrial
120,000 SF
54
7
61
3
53
34
87
1,017
932 11-T Restaurant
8,000 SF
48
44
92
Total
102
52
153
56
54
110
1,197
Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park (Full Build -out)
130 Industrial Park
215,000 SF
152
33
186
164
208
1,814
862 Home Impr. Superstore
117,000 SF
76
65
140
133 5
152
287
3,581
815 Discount Store
127,000 SF
73
34
107
321
321
643
7,115
814 Specialty Retail
187,147 SF
139
89
228
207
264
471
8,044
932 H -T Restaurant
5,000 SF
30
28
58
33
81
21
75
55
156
636
2,233
934 Fast Food w/ DT
4,500 SF
122
117
239
32
20
52
610
932 H -T Restaurant
4,800 SF
29
27
55
37
23
60
699
932 H -T Restaurant
5,500 SF
33
30
63
83
48
31
79
915
932 H -T Restaurant
7,200 SF
43
40
22
51
94
94
188
1,004
912 Drive-in Bank
4,100 SF
28
Total
725
485
1,210
1,031
1,165
2,197
26,652
North Stephenson Tract OMPS Property (Full Build -out)
110 Light Industrial
800,000 SF
752
103
855
118
863
981
5,874
Total
752
103
855
118
863
981
5,874
Stephenson Village (Partial Build -out)
232
310
255
144
399
4,290
210 Single -Family Detached
429 units
77
103
123
100
49
149
1,573
220 Apartment
240 units
20
26
125
150
127
62
189
3,393
230 Townhouse/Condo
390 units
80
78
44
123
1,064
251 Elderly Housing - Detach
266 units
29
51
3
7
251
253 Elderly Housing - Attach
72 units
3
2
5
4
Total
155
513
667
564
302
866
10,570
Other Developments
730 FEMA
350 employees
190
24
2
86
277
2, 713
812 Building/Lumber Store
15,000 SF
26
13
399
33
3 37 7
70
63399
Total
216
37
253
119
228
347
3,352
Total of all Developmentsi Developments
2,347
1 302
3 649
2,181
3,213
5,394
55,635
Engineers * Surveyors , Manners a Landscape Architects
Patton Harris Rust & Associates Memorandum
To: MOT
Page 3of9
Figure 1 2010 Background Traffic Conditions
Engineers • Surveyors a Planners • Landscape Architects
Patton Harris Rust & Associates
M-em®random
To: VDOT
Page 4of9
1 JZ N—1
Figure 2 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service
(Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects
t�
eV
O�
Signalized �
¢�
Intersection
LOS=B(B)
B(c)
No Scale
�$)�
�►
(g)13
c
Signalized "Suggested
Intersection Improvements"
Signalized o
Intersection
LOS=BIC) Signal1zation
LOS=B(B)
Res hurch
Road
U w�
�w
Signalized
iA)Q(B)
"New Intersection"
Intersection WB - 4th Leg
LOS—B(C) EB - I Left
o
w�
Site
Drive # 1
M)c
* ro
SITE
�' �r
v oSite
--!Site_
1
� o
Drive
Unsignalizedc
Intersection o
Signalized uggested
Intersection Improvements"
C]
LOS=C(C) Signalization
EB - I Right
WB - 1 Right
1)!_
Alignment of Hopewell R
Brucetown Rd
Ho ewe]] Road
UU
NOY C(O
y�
A Unsignalized
Brucetown Road
s
"yes
Intersection
U
11
(,4)A �
Un 0
"efy 4
exsection
Intersection 40
Qc.
B�cetc
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
11 *
Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement
1 JZ N—1
Figure 2 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service
(Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects
Patton Harris Rust & Associates Memorandurn
To: VDOT
Page 5 of 9
TRIP GENERATION
Using the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trig Generation Report,
PHR+A has prepared Table 2 to summarize the revised trip generation associated the proposed I-
81 Distribution Center.
Table 2
Proposed Development: I-81 Distribution Center
Trip Generation Summar
Code Land Use Amount
AM Peak Hour
In Out Total
PM Peak Hour
In Out Total
ADT
150 Warehousing 750,000 SF
285 63 347
80 240 320
3,110
Total
1 285 63 347 1
80 240 320
1 3,110
TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT
The distribution of trips remains consistent with the May 30, 2007 report. Figure 3 shows the
development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments at each of the study area
intersections.
2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS
The I-81 Distribution Center assigned trips (Figure 3) were added to the 2010 background traffic
volumes (Figure 1) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figure 4 shows the 2010 build -out ADT
and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at each of the study area intersections. Figure 5 shows the
respective 2010 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All Synchro levels
of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this memorandum.
Engineers a Surveyors a Planners o Landscape Architects
Patton Harris Rust & Associates Memorandum
To: VDOT
Page 6of9
A"I%"
Figure 3 Development -Generated Trip Assignments
Engineers 9 Surveyors o Planners a Landscape Architects
N �¢
M �
10
No Scale
13(48)
M
N
cn 0
��4\
0)171
Rest Church Road
o ry I
m
�4 0
�c
(96)
I3
(32)714 (48)
a
L
(36)9
Site
v
Drive ##
'
b
SITE
11 "
Site
Dtive # 2ty&
(168)44
--► ` `
o
�4
die/?
(36 )9
O
p� 13(48)
fi4J�
no ewell Road�}
4
ow
av
Bmcetown Rod
Rrucetown Roa �sr 44%%
(16)5y��
13(48)
pfd
6 0.
O
7�
Note: Alignment of Hopewell RoadBrucetown Road AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
Ais
assumed.
A"I%"
Figure 3 Development -Generated Trip Assignments
Engineers 9 Surveyors o Planners a Landscape Architects
Patton Harris Rust & Assacintes
Memorandum
To: NTDGT
Page 7of9
Figure 4
Note: Alignment of Hopewell RoadBrucetown Road AM Peak Hour(PM Peak_ Hoi
is assumed.
2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions
Engineers a Surveyors a Planners a Landscape Architects
Patton Harris Rust & kssociartes Memorandum
To: «OT
Page 8 of 9
ZSignalized
Intersection
LOS=C(C) Vy O
Is
No Scale. B(C)
Signalized "Suggested
RESt ChUre h Road
Intersection Improvements"
LOS=B(B) Signalization
Fs"q
LOS=B(C)
Oight
EB -I Lett
��
inight out
R(B)
(70)c0.10
SITE
Site
Wok
4D—iW#Z
U�
o.
A(A)A
UnsignaGzed
Intersection �
A
Intersection
4
w
LOS=B(B)
R(C)
B)g 4
�. Nb
Signalized
"New Intersectio
ntersection
WB -4th Leg
LOS=B(C)
EB -I Lett
��
v"gllpr C'rn
(70)c0.10
Intersection n
LOS=A(B)
Signalized "Suggested
Intersection Improvements"
LOS=C(C) Signalimtion
EB - I Left + I Right
WB - 1 Right
Alignment of Hopewell RdJ
Brucetown Rd
C(C)
(C)c11-1-4
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
* Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement
1 �ff `tel
116
Figure 5 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service
Engineers • Surveyors a Planners a Landscape Architects
Pla: ton Harris Baas! & As°zoc��tes Me17C1®?'andUill
To: VDOT
Page 9 of 9
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Synchro analysis results, all suggested improvements are a direct result of
Background Traffic Conditions, with the exception of a single eastbound left turn lane on
Brucetown Road (and the site -related improvements). The Development Generated Impact to
study area intersections is minimal.
The reconstruction and alignment of the Hopewell/Brucetown/Route 11 intersection is an
important road improvement for the corridor, because it is the only intersection in which failing
movements can be identified over time.
All the study area intersections will maintain the county -requested level of service "C" or better
during 2010 build -out conditions. Background Developments should be required to resolve the
impacts generated by their respective projects.
Table 3 summarizes the improvements required during 2010 build -out conditions per the revised
analysis as well as per the May 30, 2007 study.
Table 3
1-81 Distribution Center
Comparison of Improvements Required
MIn R,.;11_ .,t Taft:.. rn„a;e;n
* Improvements required during XlU Background t-ondlaous
Engineers a Surveyors e; Planners • Landscape Architects
Improvements required to maintain overall LOS "C" or better
No.
Intersection
Direction
Revised 2008 Analysis
May 30,7A07
Analysis
Scenario A
Scenario B '
Fast bound
I
Rest Church Road
Westbound
- No haprovements
No Improvement
- No Improvements
and 1-81 SB ramp
Nonhbound
Southbound
Eastbound
2
Rest Church Road
Westbound
_ No Improvements
- No Improvement
- No Improvements
and 1 -BI NB ramp
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
- I leftt-tom lane*
- I left -tum lane*
- I leftamn lane'
Route I 1 and Rest
Westbound
- Fourth Leg*
Fourth Leg*
- Fourth Leg*
3
Church Road
Northbound
-
-
Southbound
-
Fastbound
4
Roate 11 sod Site-
Westbound
-New huersecpon (Unci alined-right-in/ri ht -out
8 )
-New Intersection nsi tzed-ri ht-idri [-out
N g� g gh )
-New lntemedion nst alined-ri h1-utlri hl -out)
(U ign g g
Dri—#]
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
5
Reale 11 & She-
Westbound
- New lalerseetlon
Signalizalion
New inle,r tion (Unsignalized)
- New Intersection
Signalization
Drive #2
Northbound
Southbound
Route 11 and
Eastbound
I right -turn lane* & 1 left -turn lane
- 1 lefl-hen lane' & t right -mut lane*
- 1 left -[urn lane* & I right -tum lane*
Hop -11
Westbound
- 1 right -tum ]me-Signalization*
- 1 right -Nm lane*
Sigoalizatioa*
- 1 right -tum lane'
Sig-limtion*
5
Rdad/BrueetOWn
Northbound
-
& Aligeat*
mn
- 1 right -Nm lane*
& Alignment'
1 right -tom lane*
& Aligent"
nm
Road
Southbound
-
- I right -tum lane'
- I right -mm lane*
Fastbound
7
Hopewell Road
Westbound
- No hnp,0,eo1Col5
- No Improvement
- No Improvements
and I-81 NB ramp
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
-
8
Hopewell Road
Westbound
Sigtalizalion*
-Nolmprovements
No hnlao-rants
and 1-81 SS ramp
Northbound
-
Southbound
-
* Improvements required during XlU Background t-ondlaous
Engineers a Surveyors e; Planners • Landscape Architects
.ion Harris Rust & Associates
:engineers. Survevors. Planners. Landscape Architects.
10212 Governor Lane Blvd., Suite 1007
+ Williamsport, MD 21795
T 800.616.8286
T 301.223.4010 Memorandum
F 301223.6831
To: Lloyd Ingram
Organization/Company: VDOT
From: Michael Glickman, P_ E.
Date: May 30, 2007
Response to March 222; 2007 VDOT comments regarding the report
titled: A Tra& Irialiact -4nalyrii- o( the 1-81 Distribution Ceni�r, dated
Project Name/Subject: December 1, 2006.
"
Patton Harris Post & Associates
Memorandum
Page 2
`'DOT Comment #3: Referencing Figure 2, Page 3, please explain why the Average Daily Trips (ADT's)
in this future are consistently higher the 2005 AADTs, based on VDOT traffic counts.
PHR+A Response: The Average Daily Trips shown in Figure 2 are based upon the 2006 PHR+A
peak hour traffic counts and "k" factor of 9.2°%0. PHRA-A calculated n" factor from 24-hour tube
counts.
VDOT Com lrient #4: Referencing Table 1, Page 5, it states "Sempeles Property-" and Stephenson
Village" will be partial built -out by 2010. Please explain what "partial" means related to the amount of
tra_c to be generated during background conditions for the subject application_
PHR+A Response: The full build -out of the developments of Wpeles Proper and Stephenson
Village will be Y ear 2012 and Year 2015, respectis-ely_ The sm-d scope of tlae 1-81 distribution
Center is limited to Year 2010. Therefore, PHR+A has assumed the Phase 1 completion of
Stephenson Village and 50% completion of the Se peles_
VDOT Comment #5: Please provide detailed information about background conditions traffic
distribution.
PHR+A Response: PHR+A will provide Figures showing trip assignments for each background
development in the revised TIA_
VDOT Comment #6: The Rest Church Road/I-81 NB Ramps lane config—uration in the HCS report does
not match Figure 3. Please explain.
P HR+A Response: The HCS file contained m input inaccumc'_ RevisangtheFICSfiles,perthe
Figure 3 lane geometry at the intersection of Rest Church Road,/1--81 NB Ramps, does not result m
a change to movement/approach/overall LOS_
VDOT Comment #7: Please provide complete HCS Report for Background Conditions and 2010 Built -
Out conditions.
PHR+A Response: Complete HCS report will be provided in the revised TIA.
VDOT Comment #8: Referencing Figure 6, Page 9, the applicant has assumed 40% traffic coming from
I -81N and another 40% form I -81S. Please explain why half of the vehicles from I -81N use exit 321 and
the other half use exit 323.
PHR+A Response: The proposed site is located approximately equidistant between Exit 321 and
Exit 323 along the east side of 1-81. For conservative purposes, PHR+A assumed vehicles from I -
81N and I --81S would utilize both exits to access the property.
Engineers a Surveyors a Planners a Landscape Architects
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the
1-81 Distribution Center
(Formerly the Clearbrook Distributlon Center)
Located in:
Frederick Cou-uty. Virginia
Prepared for.
Berwind Property Group, Ltd..
1500 Market Street
3000 Center Square Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Prepared b,%-
Patton Harris Rust & Associates, p_c
Engineers. Surveyors. Planners_ LandscapeArclutects.
10212 Governor Lane Blvd, Suite 1007
Williamsport, Maryland 21795
pig T 301.223.4010
1 F 301.223.6831
May 30, 2007
(Revised from December 1, 2006 submission)
OVERVIEW
Report Summary
Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR+A) has prepared this document to present
the traffic impacts associated with the proposed I-81 Distribution Center (formerly
submitted as the Clearbrook Distribution Center) located along the north side of Hopewell
Road, west of Route 11 (Martinsburg Pike), in Frederick County, Virginia PHR+A has
provided analysis for two (2) alternate build -out conditions. Scenario A assumes that the
proposed project will include 750,000 square feet of Warehouse. Scenario B assumes the
proposed development of 220,000 square feet of office. Access to the site will be provided
via two (2) site -driveways along the west side of Route 11 (Martinsburg Pike); the northern
entrance is to be "right-in/right-out" only. The project is to be built -out over a s7-+gle
transportation phase by the year 2010. Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the location of the
proposed I-81 Distribution Center with respect to the surroundi� road -ay network -
Methodology
The traffic impacts accompanying the I-81 Distribution Center were obtained
through the following sequence of activities:
• Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the study area,
O Calculation of trip generation for the proposed I-81 Distribution Center, -
o Distribution and assignment of the I-81 Distribution Center &&-avelopment-generated
trips onto the completed roadway network,
0 Analysis of capacity and level of service using the latest ve,sion of the highway
capacity software, HCS+, for existing and future conditions_
A Trak Impact Analysis ofthe I-81 Distribution Center
_ Project Number: 14596-1-0
H- + May 30, 2007
Page I
EXISTING CONDITIONS
PHR+A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the
intersection of Route 11 (Martinsburg Pike)/Hopewell Road/Brucetown Road, Hopewell
Road/ I-81 northbound ramps, Hopewell Road/ I-81 southbound ramps, Route Il/ Rest
Church Road (Route 669), Rest Church Road/ I-81 northbound ramps and Rest Church
Road/ I-81 southbound ramps. ADT (Average Daily Traffic) was established along each of
the study area roadway links using a "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes
to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 9.2 % based on the published Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) traffic count data Per the VDOT comments for the adjacent
development of Clearbrook Properties, PHR+A has balanced the existing traffic volumes
proportionately at all the study area intersections.
Figure 2 shows the existing ADT (Average Daily Trips) and Al1UPINi peak hour
traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area Figure 3 illustrates the
respective existing lane geometry and levels of service. All trame count data and HCS -1
levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this r r*
A Trac Impact Analysis of the I-81 Distribution Center
+ Project Number: 14596-1-0
AMay 30, 2007
P��Page 2
No Scale
Cedar HIII
0
o
Rd
2 1z
- Rest
i
l?d ' ��Eln� isht Vi,,
` A Butt Bran
�. 9cureb�rrn
O
Figure 1 Vicinity Map - I-81 Distribution Center, Frederick County, Virginia
A Traffic Intact Analysis of the 1-81 Distribution Center
+ Project Number: 14596-1-0 i --,A
May 30, 2007
Page 3
/ b m/
V 'ti
c-• e �(�r6)16g 20, ( S�8)
1\O ..�31..
-
E
C
N
cn
kest Church Road
Rl
(S4 )720
G
n N
0
2
6
9)731�s� ar i2198)
(174 )163 3
h1
_
_Site
Drive j
SITE
_ Site
Drive #
^ O
72(12])
(S5)67 85(87)
(24)29 a
E
O �
Cn
IN
Figure 2
P�1Z /`.
r � ism
` 62{47)
ruc"O 46)
W17 Uv
(41)54s��
(67)-52 7r
h
]1 x a
AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
Existing Traffic Conditions
A Traffic bnpact Analysis of the I-81 Distribution Center
Project Number: 14596-1-0
May 30, 2007
Page 4
a
� a
Signalized
Intersection p Signalized G
LOS-B(B) ��� Intersection
�g LOS=B(B)
at'�y �($j viva
No Scale (4)44�dPol)
p 0
C4 �
Rest l, }' Rte_
i
Z Signalized
Intersection
6/
LOS --A113)
1111, �.
/_
Site.
Drive ' j
SITE
- Site
Drive # 2
R
G Unsignalized
O Intersection
R,
3�
floAm-ell Road
+ Unsignatu d
Inttrsectiaea
� n
Brucetow-n Road 8 l' f �.
R`,aD'oa
(U}C 00V
E �
Unsignalized
Intersection 11
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
* Denotes UnsignaUed Critical Movement
Denotes two-way left turn lane 1
Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Levels of Service
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the I-81 Distribution Center
R+A Project Number: 14596-1-0
May 30, 2007
5 5
2010 TRAFFIC ANALYSES
PHR+A has provided analysis for two (2) alternate build -out conditions. Scenario
A assumes that the proposed project will include 750,000 square feet of Warehouse.
Scenario B assumes the proposed development of 220,000 square feet of office.
2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
Based upon the VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) historical average
daily traffic data (between _years 2002 and 2004) for Route 11 within the vicinity of the site,
a growth rate of 3.5 % was calculated and applied to the existing traffic volumes (shown in
Figure 2) to obtain the 2010 base conditions. Additionally, PHR+A included specific
future developments located within the vicinity of the proposed site. Using the 7"' Edition
of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report_ PHR+A has
provided Table 1 to summarize the 2010 "other developments" trip generation_ Tables A-
1 through A-6 are provided 'in the Appendix section of this report to sho— the tnp
ass]=ent volumes for each background development
Figure 4 shows the 2010 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes
at key locations throughout the study area network. Figure 5 shows the respective 2010
background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service- AlI HCS+ levels of
service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report.
Table 1
2010 Background Developments
Trin Generation Summalti"
Code Land Use
Amount
In
AM Peak Hoor
0v1
Total
1.
PAI Peak Hoo.
Our
Total
ADT
5empeles Property (Partial Ruildoat)
130 Industrial Park
598,950 SF
336
74
409
lfi6
398
503
3_719
829 Retail
49,000 SF
62
40
10_
i88
203
391
4= 1
Total
398
113
511
t
143
x61
894
9"
Clear3ruok Properties (Fn0 Butld-ant)
120 GA Heavy 1ndusni_al
120,000 SF
54
7
61
_
20
23
! 8o
932 H -T Restaurant
8,000 SF
48
44
92
53
34
87
1-017
Total
102
52
153
56
54
110
1-197
1lutherford's Farm Industrial Park (Full
Buildout)
130 Industrial Park
1,400,000 SF
1.022
224
1,246
770
1,018
1,288
9,744
820 Retail
20,000 SF
36
23
60
104
113
216
2 386
Total
1,058
247
1,306
374
1,131
1,504
12,130
North Stephenson Tract OMPS Property
(Full Buildout)
110 Light Industrial
800,000 SF
752
103
855
118
863
981
5,874
Total
752
103
855
118
863
981
5,874
Stephenson Village (Partial Build -out)
210 Single -Family Detached
429 units
77
232
310
255
144
399
4,290
220 Apartment
240 units
20
103
123
100
49
149
1,573
230 Townhouse/Condo
390 units
26
125
150
127
62
189
3,393
251 Elderly Housing - Detach
266 units
29
51
80
78
44
123
1,064
253 Elderly Housing - Attach
72 units
3
2
5
4
3
7
251
Total
155
513
667
564
302
866
10,570
A Trac Impact Analysis of the I-81 Distribution Center
P-Lj+A
Project Number: 14596-1-0
May 30, 2007
Page 6
Figure 4 2010 Background Traffic Conditions
A Traffic Impact Analysis of'the I-81 Distribution Center
Project Number: 14596-I=0
May 30, 2007
Page 7
No Scale
Rest C],
/ E
li ns ign� Itzec
O Intersection
7-
Road
n
0
�C
(414
Signalized
O
Intersection ,n i
11
H�cetovv R -ad
Lnsignalized �
Intersection d
t�� � k
L�
e
A
Signalised G
Intersection O
LOS—B(B)
BMJ
(C)gQ.W.04 t\
C)
/ AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
* Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement
Denotes two-way left turn lane
Figure 5 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the I-81 Distribution Center
P,4+—A Project Number:14596-1-0
May 30, 2007
Page 8
TRIP GENERATION
Using the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trill
Generation Report, PHR+A has prepared Tables 2a and 2b to sunuriarize the trip
generation associated the proposed I-81 Distribution Center for Scenario A and Scenario B,
respectively .
Table 2a
Proposed Development: I-81 Distribution Center
Scenario A: Trip Generation Suminary
Code Land Use Amount
AM Peak Hour
In Out Total
Phi Peak Hour
In Out Total
ADT
150 Warehousing (750,000 SF)� 150 employees
79 31 110
44 81 124L7566
2,448
Total
79 31 110
44 81 124
' Assumed a worst -cast of I m-nploye—_ per SUUU square ie
Table 2b
Proposed Development: 1-81 Distribution Center
Scenario B: Trip Generation Summary
Code Land Use Amount
AM Peale Hour
In Out Total
PM Peak Hour
In Out Total
ADT
710 Office 220,000 SF
310 42 352
55 270 325
2,448
Total
1 310 42 352
1 55 270 325
1 2,448
TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGN'rIENT
The distribution of trips, shovm in Figure 6, was based upon local travel patters
for the roadway network surrounding the proposed 1-81 Distribution Center site_ Figures
7a and 7b show the respective development -generated ANI/PM peak hour trips and ADT
assignments for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively_
2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS
The I-81 Distribution Center assigned trips (Figures 7a and 7b) were added to the
2010 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figures
8a and 8b show the 2010 build -out ADT and AMIPM peak hour traffic volumes at key
locations within the study area for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. Figures 9a
and 9b show the respective 2010 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of
service for Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively_ All HCS+ levels of service
worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report.
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the I-81 Distribution Center
P-u--T+A
Project Number: 14596-1-0
May 30, 2007
11 1 Page 9
40%
No Scale
Rest Church Road
Site_
Drive 1
SATE
Site
Drive # 2
11�
Ho ewell Road
Brucetown Road
40% 10%
R TP+n
Figure 6 Trip Distribution Percentages
P H R+A
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the I-81 Distribution Center
Project Number: 14596-1-0
May 30, 2007
Page 10
R
�ro
No Scale 6(1
40
o
Rest Chgreh Road ; a
e
G
r. O
�,® 12f32j
(17)32 +� 6(16) a v
Site
Drive m ]
0
SITE 11
Site
Drive+
2
(12)5
n
J
11�i''6/16)
No ell Road
f t ,mac
p i ruceto"
was 6(16) c x
F
m s
O BIt1CCfp N'B "+f.�
Cn (9)16ir�.
Fz.s,
x
A AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
PT -P
T +/
A Trak Impact Analysis of the I-81 Distribution Center
+ Project Number: 14596-1-0
May 30, 2007
PI -4
I I Page 11
N �
No Scale 44tX8(54) b
a �
oil�G S
O 7#
Ln
(33)186
Rest Ch
arch
Road v
G
VG
O
17(1 p8) F x
o;.%Mb{W *ftft8(54)124
`.
O iy/
b
_ Site
h o^
SIVE �1
Site
(189)30 g
(40)6--t.
Q A
J
r .r
HOS et1 Road 1 oS
Erueeto
0
c
� 8(5.4) �
rLce(oWn %o �
O (ll )62 y
f
4
1 ANI Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
1
Figure 7b
Scenario B: Development -Generated Trip Assignments
A Trak Impact Analysis of the I-81 Distribution Center
Project Number: 14596-1-0
PHB + 12 May 30, 20
Page 12
A Traffic Tnivact Analysis of the 1-81 Distribution Center
+ Project Number: 14596-1-0 k -A
May 30, 2007
Page 13
n
4
8i' -
b
C"
N
No Scale
308)2!6 �� 288 (2 91)
34)
�%188
� a.
ewe
O
19(47
�8a37
esrCbum
(379)15 10 )
�.. (298)2 4�.r�7 (47)
b Rom
r (l12)>;4
a
L
ry
(14gTjg4 �ti33)
(333)400
r
z t
site r,
a
e#i
o
SITE 1� a
sire
Drive #2-
z((72z
(57)22
�
n
O1.
11 tiB.39)22
L7-9 )
He 011 Road
t'
g
Brucetoar.
r
}
c
(263)4:.. 2 (141
o
_�
7¢(56)
O
1 .
(120),1x(62)
q
0)IS.� R ri
(49
I ` AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour)
p-.- T-P+A
A Traffic Tnivact Analysis of the 1-81 Distribution Center
+ Project Number: 14596-1-0 k -A
May 30, 2007
Page 13
Figure 8b
Scenario B: 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions
A Trak Impact Analysis of the I-81 Distribution Center
Project Number: 14596-1-0
PHRA
14 May 30, 20
Page 14
Z-- A \
G Unsignalizec
C) Intersection
L nsignalized
4 Intersection
Drrve #t
SITE
S;Ie
Dn� v
Signalized ^New Interscetioo"
\
nterseettm EB - l Lcfr
Signalized 4
Intersection 1
Signalized GO
Fourth Len
k
LOS=B(B)
Intersection
LOS--B(B)
C:
Intersection
No Scale
B,ceroWn 17
*Q,)F
8B)
(
11
(A��
)A - a
�► ��'ti
Right in / Right out
0
�C,
Rest Church
®
Road
Z-- A \
G Unsignalizec
C) Intersection
L nsignalized
4 Intersection
Drrve #t
SITE
S;Ie
Dn� v
Signalized Improvemel".
Internee ion signaiization
LOS=H(B) Interscttian }dig.t =
EB - 1 Lett l Right
NVR -I Right
NB - 1 Right
SR -I Rist
.11Road
Signalized ^New Interscetioo"
\
nterseettm EB - l Lcfr
LOS—QQ ""_B - 1 Tbn
1
Fourth Len
U
Unsignalized
C:
Intersection
B,ceroWn 17
*Q,)F
ir4?
p
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
I l *
* Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement
Denotes two-way left turn lane
Signalized Improvemel".
Internee ion signaiization
LOS=H(B) Interscttian }dig.t =
EB - 1 Lett l Right
NVR -I Right
NB - 1 Right
SR -I Rist
.11Road
Ckc)
472
Btucetown Road
(CJC Ii r
Unsignalized
C:
Intersection
B,ceroWn 17
*Q,)F
p
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
I l *
* Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement
Denotes two-way left turn lane
Figure 9a Scenario A: 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service
A Traffic Impact Analysis o{the I-81 Distribution Center
Ph
+ Project Number: 14596-1-0 A
May 30, 2007
Page 15
A..O-tl ignalizec
ersection
),4t�,
Road
40��,,
m
Unsignalized
Intersection n
�gtralized
Intersection
LOS—R(C)
13
Dnve #
SITE
Site
It 71
BruceiDwn Road
Unsignalized
Intersection
*
t
c town koa iR��
P�
Sisnalized "Nm Intersection"
o�
LAS C(C) R73-1 Thor
Fourth Lc-_
Signalized fi
Oro
Intersection ��
Signalized
Intersection
O
LOS---B(B)O
LOS--B(B)7•
No Scale
ti?� �)
)B
*Sao
AM0,
11
rofi4•
Right in / Right out
O
a
G
C2
n
T
`
Rest Ch
arch Rom
A..O-tl ignalizec
ersection
),4t�,
Road
40��,,
m
Unsignalized
Intersection n
�gtralized
Intersection
LOS—R(C)
13
Dnve #
SITE
Site
It 71
BruceiDwn Road
Unsignalized
Intersection
*
t
c town koa iR��
P�
Signalized Imprmernews"
atersectiea SgnaFrmtiaa
L )S=Q )' laterseetioe _xlianmcffi
EB - I Left+ 1 Rion
RB-1Rtut
_ IAB - I Right
SE - 1 I atm
Sisnalized "Nm Intersection"
atersettion EB -1 Left
LAS C(C) R73-1 Thor
Fourth Lc-_
V
U
4
11
Signalized Imprmernews"
atersectiea SgnaFrmtiaa
L )S=Q )' laterseetioe _xlianmcffi
EB - I Left+ 1 Rion
RB-1Rtut
_ IAB - I Right
SE - 1 I atm
ANI Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
* Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement
Denotes two-way left turn lane
Figure 9b Scenario B: 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the I-81 Distribution Center
Project Number: 14596-1-0
+ May 30, 2007
PHP
Page 16
Cly
U
ANI Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
* Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement
Denotes two-way left turn lane
Figure 9b Scenario B: 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service
A Traffic Impact Analysis of the I-81 Distribution Center
Project Number: 14596-1-0
+ May 30, 2007
PHP
Page 16
CONCLUSION
Assuming the suggested improvements, all the study area intersections will
maintain overall levels of service "C" or better during 2010 build -out conditions for both
the scenarios. Based upon HCS+ analysis, the following describes the recommended
roadway improvements for each of the study area intersections during each scenario:
a Route 11 / Hopewell Road/Brucetown Road: Alignment of the intersection, traffic
signalization, one (1) eastbound left -turn and one (1) eastbound right -tum lane, one
(1) northbound night -turn lane, one (1) westbound right -turn lane and one (1)
southbound right -turn lane will be required to maintain levels of service "C" during
2010 background and build -out conditions for Scenario A and Scenario B.
a Route 11 / Rest Church Road- Along with the additional westbound leg, this
intersection would require one (1) eastbound left- lane, one (1) westbound thru
lane, one (1) northbound right -turn lane and one (1) southbound left -turn lane to
maintain levels of service "C" during 2010 background and build -nu -t conditions for
Scenario A and Scenario B_
Y Route 11 / Site -Drive #l: This is a new right in/right out only intersection for
Scenario A and Scenario B of 2010 build -out conditions.
Route 11 / Site -Drive #2: This is a new intersection. It will require a southbound
right -tum lane in Scenario A and traffic signalization and a southbound right -tum
lane in Scenario B of 2010 build -out conditions.
Pedestrian and Bike accessibility will be addressed during Site Plan time.
NOTE: The aforementioned improvements have yet to be fimdei
A Trak Impact Analysis of the I-81 Distribution Center
PH+ Project Number: 14596-1-0
May 30, 207
1
Page l7
E. Sewage Conveyance and Water Supply
The 1-81 Distribution Center site exists within the designated SWSA of Frederick
County (see Figure 5). The FCSA has confirmed that they will provide water and
sewer service to the site.
A newly constructed 6 -inch sanitary forcemain has been installed along the easterly
side of Route 11. An on-site sanitary pumping station will be constructed for direct
connection to the forcemain. There are no known limiting factors for the conveyance
of sewage and sewage treatment from this property. Capacity and daily usage will be
addressed at the time of site plan submission.
Potable water and fire protection will be supplied via the 12 -inch water line located
along the easterly side of Route 11.
The impact of the additional use created by this rezoning is acceptable and
manageable. Figure 6 shows the locations of utility infrastructure planned in this
phase of development.
SWSA
If-::
®m
IN
4 Lua
- i
b� F
SWSA
Sys
'� 34
Pke,
n• e
It
■mp I-81 DISTRIBUTION CENTER
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
TRIAD ENGDEERING, MC. S W SA
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
TAS Imutetl0/24/06 Job N®.Dy-06-0072 plate'
Drawn by Plumber,
DOH Cadd file no.r FIGURE 5
Checked by SWSAMAP.DVG SsaletN/A
F. Site Drainage
Figure 7 shows the natural drainage pattern that exists on this site. The lack of
concentration of the drainage allows the designer to utilize low impact type
stormwater management techniques. Design criteria will protect the natural swale
areas to the maximum extent possible. Disturbance will be primarily by right angle
road or driveway crossings. Adequate channel, inlet, and culvert calculations will be
provided during the design phase of the project to ensure direct runoff is contained
within the channel and post development velocities protect the existing ditches along
Route 11.
TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC.
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
-e-
to
jr
011ie,
wl +
1-81;
DISTRIBUTION CENTER
DUE F DILIGENCE REPORT-CLEARBRIMIK Dra I wn by DoLte,07/19/06 Job NO,07-0600072 Plu
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Numb—
Dow Cadd file no,`SITE DRAINAGE LAYOUT C)�`ckL-d by SITEDRAINAGE.ING SCOL -11'=500' FIGURE 7
G. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
Approximate designated dumpster locations are shown on Figure 8. During the
design process, appropriately screened dumpster locations will be determined.
Contractual arrangements will be made with a Waste Management Service to
properly dispose of the solid waste. The following table provides an estimate of
increase in tonnage presented by this project at build -out.
Unit Type Amount
uantit
Warehouse 739,000
Office 11,000
I-81 Distribution Center Rezoning
Solid Waste Generation Summary
Frederick County, Virginia
Unit Unit Value Total
#/S Ft
Sq Ft 0.01 7,390
Sq Ft 0.05 550
Total Waste (#'s)/day = 7,940
Estimated Solid Waste = 3.97 (tons)/day
H. Historic Sites and Structures
A search for historical structures on the subject property was conducted through the
Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR). A maps only archives search
utilizing the DHR cultural inventory for archaeological sites and architectural
structures revealed one potential historical structure, identified as File No. 034-0926
(Nathaniel Branson House), on the subject site.
This property was then evaluated for its eligibility for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places (NRNP). Based upon the criteria established for evaluation of the
property for its potential eligibility for NRNP listing, the property was evaluated for
its historic and architectural significance.
Based upon the NRHP criteria and the information collected from the physical
inspection and documented research on the property, the Nathaniel Branson House
property is not recommended eligible for listing in the NRNP. The property is NOT:
a. associated with an important event in history
b. associated with a person significant in history
c. reflective of a distinctive character of building type, period or method of
construction
d. associated with a works of a master or has high artistic value, or represents a
significant and distinguishable entity, or yield important information to
prehistory or history
Therefore, this property is not recommended eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places.
I. Impact on Community Facilities
The Frederick County Development Impact Model (DIM) has not been run for this
project as per E-mail with Ms. Susan Eddy on October 27, 2006.
Proffers have been offered which will mitigate the effects of impacts on the county.
Monetary contributions for fire and rescue are included in the Proffer Statement.
t_L
M
-SETBACK
m
�
rq
m00
WfPAD
.......
'A
H
TRAILER PARKINGDUMPSTER
! (12k55'hP.)
W/PAD I !
7z
`
A
Z
My ""A"
w
f
b
z C
(n
-
200' TRUCK COURT
/
z
!
m
�
GI
y �
y/(n
Q
739,000 S.F. WAREHOUSE,C
11,000 S.F. OFFICE SPACE
65 SPACES WAREHOUSE
44 SPACES OFFICE SPACE
PROVIDED= 118 SPACES /
PgOPO EO WA '
.... ..... ._. PROPOSE PUMP ! �9
h A ty STATION 0 -. .. _ d Z
Q P z yl
� � I D�'- 200' TRUCK COURTCA } N
cn
ro
r f 1 2
Wrr,"' I TRAILER PARKING !
aO C J (12k55' TYP.)
IL
O755
Pfl POSED ETBACK
(7 Z L
_ —� _ _ — _ — _ s
CD Q, �--- -- Sid sprit --
G6' FORCE MAIN•/ ° 12" WATER LINES �t+ 7 �'
O STORMWATER
4 MANAGEMENT POND
REZONING APPLICATION FORINT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGMA
b be completed by Planning Staff:
Fee. Amoun! Paid $
oning Amendment Numl er Date.Requived
C Hearing. Date �A 1308 - Hearin Date_
The following information shall be provided by the applicant, -
All parcel identification. numbers, deed book and page numbers may beobtainedfrom the Office of
the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, 'Winchester.
X. Applicant:
Name, BPG Properties, Ltd.
Telephone; (703) 680-4664
Address: c/o Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley, Emrich & Walsh, PC
4310 Prince William Parkway, Ste 300, Prince William, VA 22,192
2. Property Owner (if different than above)
Name: Estate of Roy Riley Boyce, Jr. Telephone:. (540) 550-5027
Address: PO Box 67
ClearbrookVA 2262.4
3. Contact person if other than above
Name: Michael J. Coughlin Telephone- .(703) 680-4664
4.Checl.dist: Check the fbIloyMig items that have been included with this application.
Location map X Agency Comments X
Plat X Fe68 X
Deed to property X Impact Analysis Statement X
Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X
10
5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to
rezoning applications.
Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned:
Estate of Roy Riley Boyce, Jr._
BPG Properties, Ltd.
G. A} Current Use of the Property: Agricultural with existing residence
Ti) Proposed Use of the Property 750, 040 square feet of warehouse and ancillary
uses permitted by the Proffer Statement.
7. Adjoining Property:
PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING
33 -A -86A, 86B, 87B, 111 Residential RA
33--A-87, 108, 112 Agricultural RA
-33-- 12-24 Agricultural RA
33 -A -105B Commercial M-1
8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance
from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers):
Approximately 0.61 +/- miles north of the Route 11
intersection with state route 671 (Cedar Hill). Bounded
on the west by Interstate Route 81 and on the east by
Route 11 (Martinsburg Pike).
11
9. The following information should be provided according to the type, of rezoning
proposed
Number of Units Proposed
Single Family homes- N/A Townhome: N/A Multi -Family: N/A
Non -Residential Lots: — NIA Mobile Home: N/A Hotel Rooms: N/A
Square Footage of Proposed Uses
Office: N/A Service Station: N/A
Retail: N/AManufacturing: N/A
Restaurant: N/A Warehouse: 750,U00
Other: N/A
10. Signature:
I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully -make application and petition the Frederick
County Board of Supervisors to ainend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map
of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the
property for site inspection purposes,
I (we) understand that the sign issued When this applicallon is submitted. mustbe placed at
the front property line at.least seven days .prior to: the Plann'g Commiseton publicBearing
and the Board of Supervisois'public hearing and maintained so as to be visible., from the road
right�of-way until the hearing,
I (we) hereby certifyaccompanying . that this :application and its accom any-ing materials are true and
accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge.
Applicant(s): Date:
J
5 (-TU-.
!71) 1 14 er Date:
Owner(s)- Oq je—Q e�q'ke Date:
0
Date.,
17
Adjoining Property Owners
Rezoning
Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property
abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public
right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The
applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the
parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of
Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the Frederick County
Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street.
Name and Property Identification Number
Address
Name DMdd IM
P O Pox 174
0MA=k, VA 22-62A
Property # 33-4-111
Name Charles W ertibff Sr & ibhrr--- aEpard
2897 Pbrdxdjzg pike
aemtrock, VA 22656
Property # 33-A-112
Named S. CUM
4123 Mati urg pike
C1 cr VA 22624
Property # 33-A-108
Name Kay M. DC5�
P O Bcm 67
C1em±rakr VA 22624
Property # 33—A -86A
Name Yay m. Rc7,�
P O BtK 67
CbmAxt:xcr VA 22624
Property # 33- A -86B
Name Dmdd C. Cbak
4030 Mr! -i r& urg Pike
Clem± 22624
Property # 33-A787B
Name GLen E. & July S. R smll
2619 wxdsicb Rxd
CLea±mckr VA 22624
Property # 33-A-87
Name .F,irfield Faun cf Er¢I. Cb. F
2897 Nt3xdn&urg Pike
StqtErfM, VA 22656
Property # 33-12-24
Name Mart ink ig Pike As=., IEC
4150 Mntin§xirq Pike
C.eaAmpok VA 22624
Property # 33 -A -1 05B
14
Vi « � )
I.il 1a9.23" M&
cn
>
Tu 33
PNCL
50.14U AC3
802 O SOO 1000 1600
SCALE: 1 "®600'
IPF = IRON PIN FOUND
IRS = IRON ROD SE(
SEE SHEET 3 OF 3 FOR CURVE TABLE.
PARCEL 109 = 18.9306 AC.f
PARCEL 110 = 40.1464 AC.f
TOTAL AREA = 59.0770 AC.t
c;URRENT OWNER: ROBIN HULL & KAY MARIE MORRISON
RI::I : WI= #0300070235
I1vA 33 ((A)) PRCLS 109 & 110
1IIIS SURVEY HAS BEEN PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF
A TILE REPORT. THEREFORE, THIS PLAT MAY NOT INDICATE
ALA. ENCUMBRANCES ON THE PROPERTY.
111E EXISIENCE OF VEGETATED OR TIDAL WETLANDS WAS NOT
DL 1 ERMINED DURING THIS SURVEY.
AI -11:=: EXACT LOCATION OR EXISTENCE OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
W/s,S RIOT ESTABLISHED DURING THIS SURVEY.
l,LTx ()
U DAVID F, SPRIGGS
No, 1853
'2 Suoa�
AUGUST 14, 2006
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY AND ANY INFORMATION SHOWN
HEREON IS BASED ON AN ACTUAL FIELD RUN SURVEY MADE UNDER MY
SUPERVISION AND THERE ARE NO APPARENT ENCROACHMENTS OTHER
THAN THOSE SHOWN OR NOTED.
BOUNDARY SURVEY ON THE PROPERTY OF
ROBIN HULL &
KAY MARIE MORRISON
STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
DATE: AUGUST 14, 2006 SCALE: -I" = 500'
CRIAD
TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC.
200 AVIATION DRIVE WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
(540) 667-9300 FAX (540) 667-2260
MATCH LINE - SHEET 3 OF 3
MANHOLE----,,,
�y FRAMELIED a ��
BARN 2 STORY
L2 BRICK
h HOUSE GRAVEL
D/W
U to /O !
TM 33
00 PRCL 110
r /
40.1464 AC. C'4
VIRE
t A
/FENCE.
IRS
IRS �
518.31'55"W
142.22' FENCE (�
�•`3 3hv POST FENCE WIRE
H' g,s\ ` >p 3 REMAINS FENCE �N J
6 4
N/F 8
CHARLES W. 8c FENCE DONgCD /,,-,,- .84'
JOLINE S. ORNDOFFPOST L S QEF IRS Icy
=
577/694 e�'gGG
L / �
'y
S67'35'13"E — 905.20' or;
TO SET STONE FND. r >�
SEE SHEET 3 OF 3 FOR CURVE TABLE.
200 0 200 400 gam,_
SCALE:
NM
1, E
&I'TH oF�
DAVID F. SPRIGGS
No. 1853
AUGUST 14, 2006
BOUNDARY SURVEY ON THE PROPERTY OF
ROBIN HULL &
KAY MARIE MORRISON
STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
DATE: AUGUST 14, 2006 SCALE: 1" = 200'
TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC.
200 AVIATION DRIVE WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
(540) 667-9300 FAX (540) 667-2260
CURVE DELTA ANGLE ARC LENGTH RADIUS TANGENT CHORD DIRECTION CHORD LENGTH13'38
Cl 07'03'33" 701.03 5690.00 350.96 5'12"W 700.59
IPF N28'12'06"W — 2164.80' C2 02'52'17" 285.15 5690.00 142.60 S18'36'07"W 285.12
` a TO SET STONE FND. _
r) `-Ss84 ,
/ JQ4�hf BOARD N/F
FENCE DONALD S. CLINE '
IRS WIRE
WB 97/507 i
z / FENCE r
7 „
f �+ -------FENCE IPF -4� 37
r REMAINS TM 33 ((A)) 2 6z'
�r C/L METAL FRCL 109 IRS r i V 0
er �Nf TOWER 18.9306 AC.t WIRF NCE /off F
100 �� ` DINE C/L METAL
�" ��� ` TOWER C L NO. V U DAVID F. SPRIGGS
- _ ` ` r / A• No. 1653
,POWER CO. R/W
245/308 4t
F� C/L METAL �� W —� rr�e/���1
VEPCO R/�0
TOWER `, 308/47 �.HE , , Ur r
(c
)) TM 33 A _ AUGUST 14, 2006
2 PRCL 1 1 O BOUNDARY SURVEY ON THE PROPERLY OF
FECV NCE
REMAINS
0.1464 AC. REMAINS 40,` ROBIN HULL &
APPROX. R/W\ �' ,`� KAY MARIE MORRISON
WB 33/254 `� VHC
r
SHED, MON. FND r STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
h FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
REMAINS FENCE WELL` N7 97 '06 W u �� DATE: AUGUST 14, 2006 SCALE: 1 " = 200'
IRS `.�?a .r�r�0 I-AD MATCH LINE -SHEET 2 OF 3 ' iRs3
TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC.
r�ro qD 200 AVIATION DRIVE WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
aoo o aoo qoo eoo Qrr (540) 667-9300 FAX (540) 667-2260
SCALE: 1"-200'
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
To: Frederick County Planning Commission
From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner &4
Subject: Discussion—New Office -Manufacturing Park District
Date: September 2, 2008
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
Staff has been working on a new zoning district which is intended to implement the new Route 277
Land Use Plan that was adopted by the Board of Supervisors. This district would implement the
mixed-use industrial/office land use classification of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The OM Park
District is designed to provide areas for research and development centers, office parks, and minimal
impact industrial and assembly uses. While the catalyst for this district was the identified land use in
the Route 277 study, it has the potential to be applied in other areas designated for industrial uses.
The primary uses that would be permitted in this district consist of target business as determined by
the Economic Development Commission. Design and development standards have also been
introduced with this proposed new ordinance. These standards include minimum district sizes,
standards for building materials, screening requirements for loading areas, as well as the prohibition
of outdoor storage areas.
The NAICS work group (a Subcommittee of the DRRS) has reviewed this draft ordinance on three
occasions and endorsed the ordinance on May 13th. The DRRS first discussed this draft ordinance on
May 22, 2008. The DRRS suggested minor changes and requested that the ordinance be brought
back once comments were received by the Industrial Parks Association (IPA). The draft ordinance
was sent to the IPA and they had no comments on the proposed ordinance. The Development
Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) considered this item again at their August 2008
meeting. The DRRS had minor text changes and ultimately suggested that the ordinance be sent to
the Planning Commission for discussion. Also included with this new Zoning District are changes to
the Accessory Use regulations currently in the Zoning Ordinance. The DRRS discussed the
Accessory Use/Secondary Use Regulations changes at their May 2008 meeting and recommended
that it be sent to the Planning Commission for discussion, along with the proposed Office -
Manufacturing Park District.
The attached documents show the proposed new district, as well as the proposed dimensional and
intensity requirements for the new district. This item is presented for discussion. Comments and
suggestions from the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.
Attachments: 1. Proposed Ordinance and Definitions.
2. Proposed Dimensional and Intensity Requirements for the District.
3. Secondary Use Regulations.
CEP/bad
107 forth Dent Street, Suite 202 m Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
A t"t'AC.-UNIEl' T t
DRAFT - OM PARK DISTRICT — September 2, 2008
Office -Manufacturing Park District
Office -Manufacturing (OM) Park District. The intent of this district is to implement the mixed
use industrial/office land use classification of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The OM Park
District is designed to provide areas for research and development centers, office parks, and
minimal impact industrial and assembly uses. Uses are allowed which do not create noise,
smoke, dust or other hazards. This district shall be located in a campus like atmosphere near
major transportation facilities.
Permitted Uses Standard Industrial
Classification
(SIC)
Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing 25
Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing 283
Industrial and Commercial Machinery 35
And Computer Equipment Manufacturing
Electronics and other Electrical Equipment 36
And Components Manufacturing
Excluding uses in italics:
Storage batteries 3691
Primary batteries 3692
Aircraft and Parts Manufacturing 372
Medical Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing 38
Publishing Industries 27
Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastics Manufacturing 30
Excluding uses in italics:
Tires and Inner Tubes 3011
Fabricated Metal Products 34
Employment Services 736
Computer Programming, Data Processing, and 737
Other Computer Related Services
Legal Services 81
Engineering, Accounting, Research 87
Management, and Related Services
Medical Laboratories 8071
Public Administration
Business signs
Signs allowed in §165-30B
Freestanding building entrance signs
Multi -tenant complex signs
Electronic Message signs
DRAFT - OM PARK DISTRICT - May 29, 2008
91-97
Secondary or Accessory Uses.
The following uses shall be permitted by right in the OM Park District, but only in conjunction
with, and secondary to, a permitted principle use in accordance with section 165-26.
Secondary Uses Standard Industrial
Classification
(SIC)
Insurance Carriers and Services 63-64
Commercial Banks 602
E An;"] in Places 58
ating an 1 g
Except the following:
Restaurants with drive-through uses
------
Food Services Contractors
5821
Caterers
5821
Mobile Food Services
------
Drinking Places
5813
Office Machinery and Equipment
7359
Rental and Leasing
Physical Fitness Facilities for employees
7991
Child Day Care Services
8351
Office Machine Repair and Maintenance
7629
Dry Cleaning and Laundry Services
721
Except the following:
Linen supply
7213
Dry Cleaning Plants
Industrial launderers
Design Requirements.
AT IACWN EN Y t
DRAFT OMPARKDISTRIC'T - May 29, 2008
7216
7218
A. Minimum Size. No OM Park District rezoning shall be approved for less than ten (10)
contiguous acres.
(1) There shall be no minimum lot size.
(2) There shall be no minimum lot width or depth.
B. Development Standards. The following standards shall apply in the OM Park District.
(1) This district shall be planned and developed with a harmonious coordination of uses,
architectural styles, landscaping, parking, signs and outdoor lighting.
(2) This district shall be developed with a campus like atmosphere and near major
transportation facilities.
(3) Any building shall be faced on all sides facing road right-of-ways with durable,
attractive, high quality materials, comparable to clay brick, stone, wood, architectural
concrete masonry unit (e.g., regal stone, split face, precision,ground face) or precast
concrete panels.
(4) Loading docks or loading entrances shall be blocked from view from public streets,
by utilizing board -on -board fencing, masonry walls, or evergreen tree plantings.
(5) Outdoor storage shall be prohibited.
(6) All OM Park districts shall have access to a state road.
ATTACHMENT 2
§165-83. Dimensional and intensity requirements.
A. The following table describes the dimensional and intensity requirements for the business and industrial
Districts:
Requirement B1
Front yard setback on
50
Primary or arterial. highways
(feet)
B2
Front yard setback on
35
Collector or minor streets
M2
(feet)
50
Side yard setbacks (feet)
--
Rear yard setbacks (feet)
--
Floor area to lot area ratio
.03
(FAR)
75
Minimum landscaped area
35
(percentage of lot area)
25
Maximum height (feet)
35
District
B2
B3
OM
M1
M2
50
50
50
75
75
35
35
35
75
75
--
15
15
25
25
--
15
15
25
25
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
15
25
15
25
15
35
35
60
60
60
ATTACHMENT 3
§ 165-26. Secondary or Accessory uses.
When permitted secondary or accessory uses that are normally or typically found in association
with the allowed primary use shall be allowed on the same parcel or lot as the primary use.
Secondary uses shall meet the requirements of this section as well as any particular standard
imposed on such use.
A. Agricultural accessory uses. The selling or processing of agricultural products
produced on the premises shall be considered to be accessory to an agricultural use.
On bona fide, operating farms, temporary or permanent housing for workers actively
working on the faun shall be an allowed accessory use.
B. Accessory dwellings. One accessory dwelling shall be allowed with any single-
family dwelling as long as the following conditions are met:
(1) The floor area of the accessory dwelling shall be no more than 25% of the
gross floor area of the primary residential structure on the lot.
(2) In the RP Residential Performance, MHl Mobile Home Community and R4
Residential Planned Community Districts, accessory dwellings shall only be
allowed if they are attached to the primary residential structure.
(3) In no case shall a mobile home be allowed as an accessory dwelling in the RP
Residential Performance District. R4 Residential Planned Community
District and R5 Residential Recreational Community District. [Amended 6-
9-19931
C. Dwellings in a business. One accessory dwelling shall be allowed with any business
or industrial use only so long as it is occupied by the owner of the business or
industry, an employee or a watchman.
D. Child day-care services. Child day-care services and facilities shall be allowed in
the Ml Light Industrial District as an accessory use to any allowed use or group of
allowed uses in an industrial park. [Added 8-8-19901
E. In no case shall a mobile home or temporary trailer be allowed as an accessory use,
unless it used for temporary or permanent housing on a bona fide, operating farm.
[Added 6-9-19931
F. Secondary Uses in the Bl, B2 and B3Districts. The square footage or area
occupied by secondary uses cumulatively shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent
of the gross floor area of the related principle use. In the B3 District no more
than fifteen (15) percent of the gross floor area of the principle use may be used
for accessory retail sales and in no case shall the accessory retailing component
exceed 2,000 square feet. The square footage devoted to accessory retail sales
shall be included in calculating the 25 percent limit on secondary uses.
G. Secondary Uses in the OM Park, MI and M2 Districts. The square footage or
area occupied by secondary uses cumulatively shall not exceed twenty-five (25)
percent of the gross floor area of the related principle use. Retail as an accessory
use shall not be permitted in the OMPark, MI or M2 Districts.
COUNTY of FREDER1iCX
Department of Planning and Development
�y� T� /� 540/665-5651
1` O 1" J lid FAX: 540/665-6395
To: Frederick County Planning Commission
From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner C'
Subject: Discussion— Buffer Requirements Adjacent to Rail Roads
Date: September 2, 2008
Per the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Zoning District Buffers are required to be provided
when property is developed adjacent to other uses or other zoning districts per §165-37D(I)b. The
section of the ordinance does not, however, address buffering requirements when the zoning districts
are separated by a rail road line. Staff has been directed to prepare a revision to the Zoning
Ordinance to address properties adjacent to rail road lines. The proposed text would be added to
§ 165-37D and is proposed to state the following:
§165-37D. Buffer and Screening Requirements.
§165-3 7D
(11) Whenever land is to be developed in the BI, B2, B3, MI or M2 Zoning Districts that is
adjacent to a rail road line that has property zoned Bl, B2, B3, MI or M2 on the opposite
side of the railroad line, Zoning District Buffers shall not be required When residential
zoning districts are located on the opposite side of the rail road line, Zoning District
Buffers as required by §165-37D(1)b shall be provided. In the event that a Zoning District
Buffer is required, the distance of the railroad line maybe counted towards their required
Zoning District Buffer distance.
The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DDRS) at their
meeting on August 28, 2008. The DRRS had minor changes to the wording of the proposed text and
ultimately recommended it be sent to the Planning Commission for discussion.
This item is presented for discussion. Comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission
will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.
Attachments: 1. Proposed Ordinance Revision (§165-37D).
CEP/bad
197 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22603-S990
ATTACHMENT 1
§ 16.5-37. Buffer and screening requirements. [Amended 6-13-19901
D. Zoning district buffers. Buffers shall be placed on land to be developed when it adjoins
land in certain zoning districts.
(1) Buffers shall be provided on the land to be developed according to the categories in
the following tables:
(a) Buffer categories:
Distance Buffer Required
Zoning of Land
To Be
Inactive
Active
RP
RP
Screening
(Minimum)
(Maximum)
Total
Category Provided
feet
feet
(feet)
A
Full screen
---
---
---
A
Landscape screen
---
---
---
A
No screen
25
25
50
B
Full Screen
25
25
50
B
Landscape screen
75
25
100
B
No screen
150
50
200
C
Full screen
75
25
100
C
Landscape screen
150
50
200
C
No screen
350
50
400
(b)
Buffer categories to be provided
on land to be
developed according to the zoning
-
of the adjoining land: [Amended
9-12-20011
A
A
Zoning of Land
To Be
MHl
Developed
RP
RP
-
R4
-
R5
-
MH 1
C
B1
B
B2
B
B3
C
M1
C
M2
C
EM
C
MS
C
Zoning of Adjoining Land
R4
R5
MHl
B1
132
B3
Ml
M2
EM
MS
-
-
-
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
-
-
-
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
-
-
-
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
-
B
B
B
B
A
A
C
B
B
B
-
-
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
-
-
A
A
A
A
B
C
C
C
B
B
-
-
-
-
C
C
C
C
B
B
-
-
-
-
C
C
C
C
B
B
B
B
-
-
C
C
C
C
B
B
B
B
-
-
C
C
C
C
B
B
B
B
B
C
-
ATTACHMENT 1
(2) If a lot being developed is adjacent to developed land which would normally be
required to be provided with a buffer but which does not contain the buffer, the
required buffer shall be provided on the lot being developed. The buffer to be
provided shall be of the larger category required on either the lot being developed or
the adjacent land. Such buffer shall be in place of the buffer normally required on the
lot being developed. The buffer may include required setbacks or buffers provided on
the adjacent land.
(3) Whenever land is to be developed in the BI (Neighborhood Business) or B2
(Business, General) Zoning District that is adjacent to land primarily used for
residential use in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District, a B Category buffer shall be
provided on the land to be developed. The Board of Supervisors may grant a waiver
to reduce the required buffer distance requirements with the consent of the adjacent
(affected) property owners. Should a waiver be granted by the Board of Supervisors,
the distance requirements of § 165-37D(1)(a) may be reduced, provided the full
screening requirements of this section are met. [Amended 3-9-20051
(4) Whenever land is to be developed in the B3, M1 or M2 Zoning District that is
adjacent to land primarily used for residential purposes in the RA Rural Areas Zoning
District, a C Category buffer shall be provided on the land to be developed.
(5) Whenever land is to be developed in the MS Zoning District that is adjacent to land
primarily used for residential purposes in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District, a C
Category buffer shall be provided on the land to be developed.1 Whenever land is to
be developed in the MS Zoning District that is adjacent to all other land zoned RA
(Rural Areas) Zoning District, the requirements for buffer and screening shall be
provided in accordance with § 165-102 of this chapter. [Amended 9-12-20012]
(6) The Planning Commission may waive any or all of the requirements for the zoning
district buffers on a particular site plan when all uses shown on the site plan are
allowed in the zoning district in which the development is occurring and in the
adjoining zoning districts.
(7) [Added 4-12-19951 Where B3 (Industrial Transition) zoning adjoins B2 (Business
General) zoning on land contained within a master development plan, the Planning
Commission may allow for specific modifications in screening requirements.
(a) Such modifications shall be allowed at the Commission's discretion, provided
that all the following conditions are met.
[ 1 ] The property line for which the modification is requested is internal to the
land contained within the master development plan.
[2] A specified use is proposed on the parcel for which the modification is
requested.
ATTACHMENT 1
[3 ] The modification shall not involve a reduction to required buffer
distances.
[4] The proposed components of the buffer are clearly indicated on a site
plan for the parcel.
[5] The site plan is reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission.
(b) The approval of modified screening shall apply only for the specified use
approved. Any change in use of the parcel including additions for site alterations
will require review by the Planning Staff and may require review by the Planning
Commission and may result in the Commission revoking the modified screening
approval.
(8) [Added 3-13-19961 Land proposed to be developed in the M1 Light Industrial
District and the M2 Industrial General District may be permitted to have a reduced
buffer distance that is consistent with the required side or rear building setback line,
provided that the following requirements are met:
(a) The property to be developed with a reduced buffer distance is part of an
approved master planned industrial park.
(b) There are no primary or accessory uses within the reduced buffer distance
area, including driveways, access drives, outdoor storage areas, parking
areas, staging areas, loading areas and outdoor dumpster areas. All-
weather surface fire lanes necessary to meet the requirements of Chapter
90, Fire Prevention, of the Code of Frederick County, Virginia, shall be
exempt from this performance standard.
(c) A full screen is required to be created within the reduced buffer distance
area which shall be comprised of a continuous earth berm that is six feet
higher in elevation than the highest elevation within the reduced buffer
distance area and a double row of evergreen trees that are a minimum of
six feet in height and planted a maximum of eight feet from center to
center.
(9) Proposed developments required to provide buffers and screening as determined by §
165-37D(1)(b) of this chapter may be permitted to establish a common shared buffer
and screening easement with the adjoining property. The common shared buffer and
screening easement shall include all components of a full screen which shall be
clearly indicated on a site design plan. A legal agreement signed by all appropriate
property owners shall be provided to the Department of Planning and Development
and shall be maintained with the approved site design plan. This agreement shall
describe the location of the required buffer within each property, the number and type
of the plantings to be provided and a statement regarding the maintenance
ATTACHMENT 1
responsibility for this easement. The required buffer distance may be reduced by
50% for a common shared buffer easement if existing vegetation achieves the
functions of a full screen. [Amended 6-12-19961
(10) When a flex -tech development is split by a zoning district line, the Planning
CoM.- .-mission ay allow for a reduction of�the distance buffer and the relocation of
�vaau
the screening requirements. Such modifications shall be allowed at the
Commission's discretion, provided that all of the following conditions are met:
[Added 2-11-19981
(a) The zoning district boundary line for which the modification is requested is
internal to the land contained within the master development plan.
(b) The required landscape screen is relocated to the perimeter of the flex -tech
development. This relocated, landscape screen shall contain the same
plantings that would have been required had the screen been placed along the
zoning district boundary line.
(11) Whenever land is to be developed in the Bl, B2, B3, MI or M2 Zoning Districts
that is adjacent to a rail road line that has property zoned BI, B2, B3, MI or
M2 on the opposite side of the rail road line, Zoning District Buffers shall not
be required. When residential zoning districts are located on the opposite side
of the rail road line, Zoning District Buffers as required by §165-37D(I)b shall
be provided. In the event that a Zoning District Buffer is required the distance
of the rail road line may be counted towards their required Zoning District
Buffer distance.
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
MEMORANDUM ;FAX: 540/665-6395
To: Frederick County Planning Commission
From: Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner
Subject: Discussion — Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
Age -Restricted Multifamily Housing
Date: September 2, 2008
In 2007, Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR&A) submitted a Zoning Ordinance text amendment
to the County to enable age -restricted multifamily housing in the RP (Residential Performance)
District. This request has been discussed on numerous occasions over the past two years. The
requested changes are based on a desire to incorporate elevators in a cost effective manner by
permitting taller buildings, with more units per building, and a higher density than allowed in the
garden apartment housing type. The principle change to the ordinance would be the introduction of a
new housing type in the RP District called age -restricted multifamily housing. This would be added
to the list of allowed RP housing types. The proposal calls for the new housing type to be permitted
only with proffered age -restricted housing.
Recent discussions on the proposed ordinance have revolved around height and the setback from
existing residential uses. The proposed ordinance was discussed at the August 5, 2008 Joint Work
Session with the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission. At the work session, the main
issue was the proximity of the building to adjacent residential uses. A waiver option to increase the
height of the building was discussed at the meeting. After the Work Session, the ordinance was
revised to include a waiver option for the building height and was presented to the DRRS on August
28, 2008. The DRRS discussed the height issue extensively and ultimately endorsed the ordinance
as presented.
Background
The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DDRS) at their
meeting on February 22, 2007. The DRRS was supportive of the text amendment with some
modifications. The main concern of the DRRS was parking and the number of habitable floors. This
item was then discussed by the Planning Commission on April 4, 2007. Commission members
raised the issue of compatibility with adjacent existing single-family neighborhoods. Since there are
only eight existing developments that could seek to utilize this housing type, some Commissioners
felt reasonably comfortable with it. They noted that the Commission would have the opportunity
during the rezoning process for future requests to determine if the location and height were
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The item was then discussed by the Board of
Supervisors on April 25, 2007. Concerns regarding the number of habitable floors and the height
were raised, as well as concerns about placing this type of use adjacent to existing residential uses.
107 North Dent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Planning Commission
Re: Age -Restricted Multifamily Housing
September 2, 2008
Page 2
Changes were made to the ordinance after the BOS meeting, but consensus on the revisions was not
achieved. The item was again presented at the Planning Commission Retreat in I Lua-T 2008 and
Board members expressed hesitation regarding the height of the structures when adjacent to existing
residential units.
The proposed text amendment has since been revised and was presented to the DRRS in April and
May of 2008. At the April meeting, the DRRS suggested that the height of the structures not be
reduced and remain at 60 feet and that the number of habitable floors remain at four to encourage
pitched roofs instead of flat roofs. The DRRS also suggested that the side and rear perimeter
boundary setbacks begin at 40 feet in height instead of 35 feet, since garden apartments can be up to
40 feet in height by right. The DRRS also discussed the parking space requirements and requested
that they be modified to include more spaces for the larger units. Revisions were also made to the
definition of age -restricted to include the State Code reference. The revisions were presented to the
DRRS at their May meeting and they recommended that the ordinance be sent to the Planning
Commission for review. The Planning Commission discussed this ordinance on June 17, 2008. The
primary concern revolved around ensuring that the parking calculations were not too high. This item
was then presented at the August 5, 2008 Joint Work Session of the Board of Supervisors and the
Planning Commission. At the work session the main issue was the proximity of the building to
adjacent residential uses. A waiver option to increase the height of the building was discussed at the
meeting, as well as topographic issues that may exist on proposed sites. After the Work Session, the
ordinance was revised to include a waiver option for the building height and was presented to the
DRRS on August 28, 2008. The DRRS discussed the height issue extensively and ultimately
endorsed the ordinance as presented. The DRRS, however, stated that height as defined by the
Zoning Ordinance may need to be modified.
The principle change to the ordinance would be the introduction of a new housing type in the RP
(Residential Performance) District called age -restricted multifamily housing. It would be added to
the list of allowed RP housing types. The proposal calls for the new housing type to be allowed only
with proffered age -restricted housing. At the present time, there are only eight developments to
which this could apply — Snowden Bridge (part), Orrick Commons, Crosspointe (part), Cedar
Meadows, Harvest Ridge, Westbury Commons, Westminster Canterbury and Willow Run (part).
As evident in the attached text, the amendment has loosely based the new housing type on the
existing garden apartment housing type (§ 165-65L). Differences from that section include: a higher
density (20 units per acre), a higher maximum number of dwelling units per building (110), a higher
maximum building height (60 feet), a reduced (five feet) setback from parking areas or driveways, a
greater (60 feet) setback from the road right-of-way, a greater (100 feet) setback from the side and
rear, and a requirement for an elevator.
Text changes are needed in a number of other sections of the Zoning Ordinance, and one section of
the Subdivision Ordinance, to ensure consistency throughout the ordinances. In general, the new
housing type was treated similarly to a garden apartment. The modified sections are listed below and
detailed in the attachments:
Planning Commission
Re: Age -Restricted Multifamily Housing
September 2, 2008
Page 3
RP Residential Performance District
§165-59. Permitted uses
§165-61. Number of uses restricted
§ 165-62. Gross Density
§165-62.1. Multifamily housing (Note: Proposed changes would apply to all
multifamily housing types)
§165-65. Dimensional requirements
Supplemental Use Regulations
§ 165-37 Buffer and screening requirements
Definitions
§165-156 Definitions and word usage
Design Standards
§ 144-24. Lot requirements
The attached documents show the existing ordinances with changes to the ordinance supported by
the DRRS (with strikethroughs for text eliminated and bold italic for text added) and a clean version
of the proposed text as it is proposed to be adopted.
This item is presented for discussion. Comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission
will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.
Attachments: 1. Existing Ordinances with proposed changes shown in blackline.
2. Proposed Ordinances (clean version).
CEP/bad
Proposed Changes — Blackline & Redline
ATTACHMENT 1
PROPOSED CHANGES WITH STRIKETHROU IIS AND BOLD ITALIC
CHANGES MADE AFTER THE PLANNING COMMISSIONRETREAT AND DRRS
MEETING IN RED AND CHANGES MADE AFTER THE JOINT WORK SESSION IN
BL UE
DRRS Endorsed — August 28, 2008
Chapter 165 - Zoning
ARTICLE VI
RP Residential Performance District
§165-59. Permitted uses.
A. All uses shall be developed in accordance with an approved master development
plan unless otherwise waived under Article -, III of this chapter.
B. Structures are to be erected or land used for one or more of the following uses:
(1) Any of the following residential structures: single-family detached
traditional rural, single-family detached traditional, single-family detached
urban, single-family detached cluster, single-family detached zero lot line,
single-family small lot, duplex, multiplex, atrium house, weak -link
tos"Tuhouse, townhouse, of garden apartment or age -restricted multifamily
housing. [Amended 10-27-1999]
(2) Schools and churches.
(3) Fire stations and companies and rescue squads.
(4) Group homes.
(5) Home occupations.
(6) Utilities necessary to serve residential uses, including poles, lines,
distribution transformers, pipes and meters.
(7) Accessory uses and structures. Accessory structures attached to the main
structure shall be considered part of the main structure. Mobile homes and
trailers, as defined, shall not be considered as accessory structures or
buildings.
(8) Required or bonus recreational facilities and public parks, playgrounds
and recreational facilities.
(9) Business signs to advertise the sale or rent of the premises upon which
they are erected, church bulletin boards and identification signs, signs for
non-profit service clubs and charitable associations (off-site signs not to
exceed eight square feet) and directional signs.
(10) Temporary model homes used for sale of properties in a residential
development.
(11) Libraries. [Added 6-8-1994]
(12) Adult -care residences and assisted -living care facilities. [Added 8-24-
2004]
ME
Proposed Changes — Blackline & Redline
ATTACHMENT 1
§165-61. Number of uses restricted.
More than one principal structure or use and its customary accessory structures or uses
are permitted in the RP Residential Performance District for duplexes, multiplexes,
atrium houses, weak -link townhouses, and garden apartments and age -restricted
multfamily housing.
§165-62. Cross density. [Amended 5-11-19941
A gross density shall be established for each proposed development, including all land
contained within a single master development plan, according to the characteristics of the
land, the capacity of public facilities and roads and the nature of surrounding uses.
Because of these characteristics, some developments may not be allowed to employ the
maximum density allowed by these regulations. The following density requirements
shall apply to all parcels as they exist at the time of the adoption of this section:
A. Subsequent divisions of land shall not increase the allowed density on parcels
of land.
B. In no case shall the gross density of any development within an approved
master development plan exceed 4-0 20 dwellings per acre for age -restricted
multifamily housing or 10 dwelling units per acre for any other housing
types.
C. In no case shall the gross density of any development within an approved
master development plan which contains more than 10 acres and less than 100
acres exceed 5.5 dwellings per acre.
D. In no case shall the gross density of any development within an approved
master development plan which contains more than 100 acres exceed four
dwellings per acre.
§165-62.1. Multifamily housing. [Added 5-11-19941
A. Developments that are less than 25 acres in size may include more than 5"'
60% multifamily housing types.
B. Developments that are more than 25 acres and less than 50 acres in size shall
be permitted to contain up to 5"' 60% multifamily housing types.
C. Developments that are over 50 acres in size shall be permitted to contain up to
48°% 50% multifamily housing types.
IWM
Proposed Changes — Blackline & Redline
ATTACHMENT 1
§165-65. Dimensional requirements.
The following dimensional requirements shall be met by uses in the RP Residential
Performance District. The Zoning Administrator shall make the final determination as to
the classification of housing types. Unless otherwise specified, all housing types shaii be
served by public sewer and water.
L. Garden 2 artmcats. "Garden apartments" are multifamily buildings where
individual dwelling units share a common outside access. They also share a
common yard area, which is the sum of the required lot areas of all dwelling
units within the building. Garden apartments shall contain six or more
dwellings in a sinZn
gle structure. Required open space shall not be included as
minimum lot area.
(1) Maximum gross density shall be 10 units per acre
(2) Dimensional requirements shall be as follows:
Minimum Lot
Area per
Number of Dwveliing Unit Off -Street
Bedrooms (square feet) Parking Spaces
Efficiency 1,300 1.50
1 1,700 2.00
2 2,000 2.25
3 plus 2,550 2.50
(3) Maximum site impervious surface ratio (on lot) shall be 0.50.
(4) Minimum lot size shall be one acre.
(5) Minimum yards shall be as follows:
(a) Front setback:
[1] Thirty-five feet from road right-of-way.
[2] Twenty feet from parking area or driveway.
(b) Side: 50 feet from perimeter boundary.
(c) Rear: 50 feet from perimeter boundary.
(6) Minimum on-site building spacing shall be 50 feet.
(7) Maximum number of dwelling units per building shall be 16.
(8) Maximum building height shall be as follows:
(a) Principal building: 40 feet.
(b) Accessory buildings: 15 feet
Proposed Changes — Blackline & Redline
ATTACHMENT 1
(�. Age -restricted multifamily housing. "Age -restricted multifamily housing"
are multifamily buildings where individual dwelling units share a common
oc+tside access. They also share a common yard area, which is the sui. z of
the required 'ot areas of all dwelling :•nits within the building. .-Ige-
r estricted multifamily housing shall only be permitted within proffered age -
restricted developments. Elevator service shall be provided to each floor of
age -restricted multfamily housing structures for use by residents and
guests.
(1) Maximum gross density shall be 20 units per acre.
(2) Dimensional requirements shall be as follows:
Min;mum Lot
Area per
Number of Dwelling Unit Off -Street
Bedrooms (square feet) Parking Spaces
.Efficiency 1,300 1.5
1 1,700 1.
2 2,000 2.0
3 plus 2,550 2.0
(3) Maximum site impervious surface ratio (on lot) shall be 0.50.
(4_,) Minimum lot size shall he three acres.
(5) Minimum yards shall he as foliows:
(a) Front setback:
[11 Sixty feet from road right-of-ways.
[21 Five. feet from parking areas or driveways.
(b) Side: 100 feet from the perimeter boundary. An additional two
feet from the perimeter boundary shall be added for every foot
that the height of the building exceeds 40 feet when the adjacent
use is single family residences.
(c) Near: 100 feet from the perimeter boundary. An additional two
feet from the perimeter boundary shall be added for every . foot
that the height of the building exceeds 40 feet when the adjacent
use is single family residences.
(6) Minimum on-site building spacing shall be 50 feet.
(7) Maximum number of dwelling units per building shall be 110.
(8) Maximum building height shall be as follows:
(a) Principal buildnab: 60 feet The maximum structure height for
any principal building shall he 40 feet. The Board of Supervisors
may waive the 40 foot height limitation provided that it will not
negatively impact adjacent residential uses. In no case shall any
principle building exceed 60 feet in height.
(b) ss-�►ry b ildilmigs Meet The maximum structure height for
any accessory buildings shall be 15 feet.
-4-
Proposed Changes — Blackline & Redline
ATTACIIMENT 1
ARTICLE IV
Supplemental Use Regulations
§165-37 Buffer and screening requirements. [Amended 6-13-19901
C. [Amended 5-11-1994] Residential separation buffers.
(2) Perimeter apartment, or --multiplex or age --restricted multifamily housing
separation buffers.
(a) Wherever possible and practical, garden apartments, and multiplex
structures and age -restricted multifamily housing structures shall not
be placed adjacent to other types of residential structures. If other
types of residential structures must be placed adjacent to garden
apartments, or multiplex structures; or age -restricted multifamily
housing structures the following buffers are required.
(b) Buffers shall be placed between the garden apartment, or multiplex
structures or age -restricted multifamily housing structures and the lot
line of the lots containing the other housing types.
(c) For age -restricted multifamily housing the full screen must include
all elements of the landscape screens with the evergreen component
planted ag a height of sig feet, and also inzch de a sia fool -high ���call,
fence, innouand or beran.
-5-
Distance Buffer Required
Screening
Inactive Active
Provided
(Minimum) (Maximum)
Total
(feet) (feet)
(fee.)
Full screen
75 25
100
Landscape screen
150 50
200
No screen
350 50
400
(b) Buffers shall be placed between the garden apartment, or multiplex
structures or age -restricted multifamily housing structures and the lot
line of the lots containing the other housing types.
(c) For age -restricted multifamily housing the full screen must include
all elements of the landscape screens with the evergreen component
planted ag a height of sig feet, and also inzch de a sia fool -high ���call,
fence, innouand or beran.
-5-
Proposed Changes — Blackline & Redline
ATTACHMENT 1
ARTICLE XXII
Definitions
§165-156. Definitions and word usage. [Ameitzded 11-13-1991]
AGE -RESTRICTED — Housing intended for and occupied by older persons (as defined
in Chapter 36-96.7 of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended). The housing must
include the publication of, and adherence to, policies and procedures which
demonstrate an intent by the owner(s) and manager(s) to provide housing for older
persons.
-6-
Proposed Changes — Blackline & Redline
ATTACHMENT 1
Chapter 144 — Subdivision of Land
ARTICLE V
Design Standards
§144-24. Lot requirements.
C. Lot Access. All lots shall abut and have direct access to a public street or right-
of-way dedicated for maintenance by the Virginia Department of Transportation
(2) Nfulfifianily Single-family small lot housing, single family attached
housing and multifamily housing. [Amended 10-27-1999]
(a) Lots in subdivisions to be used for the following housing types, as
defined by Chapter 165, Zoning, need not abut public streets:
[1] Duplexes.
[2] Multiplexes,
[3] Atrium houses.
[4] Townhouses.
[5] Weak -link townhouses.
[6] Garden apartments.
[7] Single-family small lot housing.
[81 Age -restricted multifamily housing
-7-
Proposed Ordinances (Clean Version)
ATTACHMENT
PROPOSED ORDINANCES (CLEAN VERSION)
Chapter 165 - Zoning
A D TT1- NTT
v 1
RP Residential Performance District
§1.65-59. Permitted uses.
A. All uses shall be developed in accordance with an approved master development
plan unless otherwise waived under Article XVIII of this chapter.
B. Structures are to be erected or land used for one or more of the following uses:
(1) Any of the following residential structures: single-family detached
traditional rural, single-family detached traditional, single-family detached
urban, single-family detached cluster, single-family detached zero lot line,
single-family . small lot, duplex, multiplex, atrium house, weak -link
townhouse, townhouse, garden apartment or age -restricted multifamily
housing. [Amended 10-27-1999]
(2) Schools and churches.
(3) Fire stations and companies and rescue squads.
(4) Group homes.
(5) Home occupations.
(6) Utilities necessary to serve residential uses, including poles, lines,
distribution transformers, pipes and meters.
(7) Accessory uses and structures. Accessory structures attached to the main
structure shall be considered part of the main structure. Mobile homes and
trailers, as defined, shall not be considered as accessory structures or
buildings.
(8) Required or bonus recreational facilities and public parks, playgrounds
and recreational facilities.
(9) Business signs to advertise the sale or rent of the premises upon which
they are erected, church bulletin boards and identification signs, signs for
non-profit service clubs and charitable associations (off-site signs not to
exceed eight square feet) and directional signs.
(10) Temporary model homes used for sale of properties in a residential
development.
(11) Libraries. [Added 6-8-1994]
(12) Adult -care residences and assisted -living care facilities. [Added 8-24-
2004]
§165-61. Number of uses restricted.
-1-
Proposed Ordinances (Clean Version)
ATTACHMENT 2
More than one principal structure or use and its customary accessory structures or uses
are permitted in the RP Residential Performance District for duplexes, multiplexes,
atrium houses, weak -link townhouses, garden apartments and age -restricted multifamily
housing.
§165-62. Gross density. [Amended 5-11-19941
A gross density shall be established for each proposed development, including all land
contained within a single master development plan, according to the characteristics of the
land, the capacity of public facilities and roads and the nature of surrounding uses.
Because of these characteristics, some developments may not be allowed to employ the
maximum density allowed by these regulations. The following density requirements
shall apply to all parcels as they exist at the time of the adoption of this section:
A. Subsequent divisions of land shall not increase the allowed density on parcels
of land.
B. In no case shall the gross density of any development within an approved
master development plan exceed 20 dwellings per acre for age -restricted
multifamily housing or 10 dwelling units per acre for any other housing types.
C. In no case shall the gross density of any development within an approved
master development plan which contains more than 10 acres and less than 100
acres exceed 5.5 dwellings per acre.
D. In no case shall the gross density of any development within an approved
master development plan which contains more than 100 acres exceed four
dwellings per acre.
§165-62.1. Multifamily housing. [Added 5-11-19941
A. Developments that are less than 25 acres in size may include more than 60%
multifamily housing types.
B. Developments that are more than 25 acres and less than 50 acres in size shall
be permitted to contain up to 60% multifamily housing types.
C. Developments that are over 50 acres in size shall be permitted to contain up to
50% multifamily housing types.
-2-
Proposed Ordinances (Clean Version)
ATTACHMENT2
§165-65. Dimensional requirements.
The following dimensional requirements shall be met by uses in the RP Residential
Performance District. The Zoning Administrator shall make the final determination as to
the classification of housing types. Unless otherwise specified, all housing types shall be
served by public sewer and water.
L. Garden apartments. "Garden apartments" are multifamily buildings where
individual dwelling units share a common outside access. They also share a
common yard area, which is the sum of the required lot areas of all dwelling
units within the building. Garden apartments shall contain six or more
dwellings in a single structure. Required open space shall not be included as
minimum lot area.
(1) Maximum gross density shall be 10 units per acre.
(2) Dimensional requirements shall be as follows:
Minimum Lot
Area per
Number of Dwelling Unit Off -Street
Bedrooms (square feet) Parking Spaces
Efficiency 1,300 1.50
1 1,700 2.00
2 2,000 2.25
3 plus 2,550 2.50
(3) Maximum site impervious surface ratio (on lot) shall be 0.50.
(4) Minimum lot size shall be one acre.
(5) Minimum yards shall be as follows:
(a) Front setback:
[1] Thirty-five feet from road right-of-way.
[2] Twenty feet from parking area or driveway.
(b) Side: 50 feet from perimeter boundary.
(c) Rear: 50 feet from perimeter boundary.
(6) Minimum on-site building spacing shall be 50 feet.
(7) Maximum number of dwelling units per building shall be 16.
(8) Maximum building height shall be as follows:
(a) Principal building: 40 feet.
(b) Accessory buildings: 15 feet
-3-
Proposed Ordinances (Clean Version)
ATTACHMENT 2
Q. Age -restricted multifamily housing. "Age -restricted multifamily housing" are
multifamily buildings where individual dwelling units share a common
outside access. They also share a common yard area, which is the sum of the
required lot areas of all dwelling units within the building. Age -restricted
multifamily housing shall only be permitted within proffered age -restricted
developments. Elevator service shall be provided to each floor of age -
restricted multifamily housing structures for use by residents and guests.
(1) Maximum gross density shall be 20 units per acre.
(2) Dimensional requirements shall be as follows:
Minimum Lot
Area per
Number of Dwelling Unit Off -Street
Bedrooms (square feet) Parking Spaces
Efficiency 1,300 1.5
1 1,700 1.5
2 2,000 2.0
3 plus 2,550 2.0
(3) Maximum site impervious surface ratio (on lot) shall be 0.50.
(4) Minimum lot size shall be three acres.
(5) Minimum yards shall be as follows:
(a) Front setback:
[1] Sixty feet from road right-of-ways.
[2] Five feet from parking areas or driveways.
(b) Side: 100 feet from the perimeter boundary. An additional two
feet from the perimeter boundary shall be added for every foot that
the height of the building exceeds 40 feet when the adjacent use is
single family residences.
(c) Rear: 100 feet from the perimeter boundary. An additional two
feet from the perimeter boundary shall be added for every foot that
the height of the building exceeds 40 feet when the adjacent use is
single family residences.
(6) Minimum on-site building spacing shall be 50 feet.
(7) Maximum number of dwelling units per building shall be 110.
(8) Maximum building height shall be as follows:
(a) The maximum structure height for any principal building shall be
40 feet. The Board of Supervisors may waive the 40 foot height
limitation provided that it will not negatively impact adjacent
residential uses. In no case shall any principle building exceed 60
feet in height.
(b) The maximum structure height for any accessory buildings shall be
15 feet.
-4-
Proposed Ordinances (Clean Version)
ATTACHMENT 2
ARTICLE IV
Supplemental Use Regulations
§165-37 Buffer and screening requirements. [Amended 6-13-19901
C. [Amended 5-11-1994] Residential separation buffers.
(2) Perimeter apartment, multiplex or age -restricted multifamily housing
separation buffers.
(a) Wherever possible and practical, garden apartments, multiplex
structures and age -restricted multifamily housing structures shall not
be placed adjacent to other types of residential structures. If other
types of residential structures must be placed adjacent to garden
apartments, multiplex structures, or age -restricted multifamily housing
structures the following buffers are required.
(b) Buffers shall be placed between the garden apartment, multiplex
structures or age -restricted multifamily housing structures and the lot
line of the lots containing the other housing types.
(c) For age -restricted multifamily housing the full screen must include all
elements of the landscape screen with the evergreen component
planted at a height of six feet, and also include a six -foot -high wall,
fence, mound or berm.
-5-
Distance Buffer Required
Screening
Inactive
Active
Provided
(Minimum)
(Maximum)
Total
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
Full screen
75
25
100
Landscape screen
150
50
200
No screen
350
50
400
(b) Buffers shall be placed between the garden apartment, multiplex
structures or age -restricted multifamily housing structures and the lot
line of the lots containing the other housing types.
(c) For age -restricted multifamily housing the full screen must include all
elements of the landscape screen with the evergreen component
planted at a height of six feet, and also include a six -foot -high wall,
fence, mound or berm.
-5-
Proposed Ordinances (Clean Version)
ATTACHMENT 2
ARTICLE XXII
Definitions
§165-156. Definitions and word usage. [Amended 11-13-1991]
AGE -RESTRICTED — Housing intended for and occupied by older persons (as defined
in Chapter 36-96.7 of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended). The housing must include
the publication of, and adherence to, policies and procedures which demonstrate an intent
by the owner(s) and manager(s) to provide housing for older persons.
-6-
Proposed Ordinances (Clean Version)
ATTACHMENT 2
Chapter 144 — Subdivision of Land
ARTICLE V
Design Standards
§144-24, i.ot requirements.
C. Lot Access. All lots shall abut and have direct access to a public street or right-
of-way dedicated for maintenance by the Virginia Department of Transportation
(2) Single-family small lot housing, single family attached housing and
multifamily housing. [Amended 10-27-1999]
(a) Lots in subdivisions to be used for the following housing types, as
defined by Chapter 165, Zoning, need not abut public streets:
[ 1 ] Duplexes.
[2] Multiplexes,
[3] Atrium houses.
[4] Townhouses.
[5] Weak -link townhouses.
[6] Garden apartments.
[7] Single-family small lot housing.
[8] Age -restricted multifamily housing
-7-