The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 09-21-05 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia September 21, 2005 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) August 17, 2005 Minutes.................................................................................................(A) 2) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab) 3) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 4) Rezoning 914-05 of JCA IV White Hall, LLC, to rezone 5 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to M1 (Light Industrial) District and 15 acres from Ml District to Ml District with modified proffers. The properties are located 950 feet west from Interchange 323 off I-81, approximately 2,560 feet south of Rest Church Road, along proposed Zachary Ann Lane, in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers (PINS) 33- 9-6, 33-9-7 and 33-9-8. Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (B) DISCUSSION 5) Winchester Regional Airport Master Development Plan 6) Other FILE COPY • i MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on August 17, 2005. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Gary Dove, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: June M. Wilmot, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large; and David Shore, City of Winchester Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R_ Lawrence, Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Bernard Sucl&ital, Planner I; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk- CALL lerk CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Ml[ 1JTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission minutes of July 6, 2005 were unanimously approved as presented.. COMMITTEE REPORTS Committee reports were given by Commissioner Light on the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subconmuttee, by Commissioner Unger on the Sanitation Authority, and by Commissioner Ours on the Winchester Planning Commission. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 17, 2005 f Pagel586 -2— CITIZEN COMMENTS Chairman DeHaven reminded everyone about the educational forum on regional transportation, sponsored by the Community Consensus Coalition (CCC), scheduled for Thursday, August 25, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. at the Our Health Conference Room. Chairman DeHaven encouraged everyone to participate. PUBLIC MEETING Continuation of Master Development Plan 907-05 of Stephenson Village, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for residential -planned community use. The properties are located on the south side of Old Charles Town Road (Rt. 761) and Jordan Springs Road (Rt. 664), and are located east of Milburn Road (Rt. 662). The properties are further identified with P.I.N.s 44-A-292, 44-A-293, and 44 -A -31A in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval with Contingency Chairman DeHaven announced that this item is a continuation of Master Development Plan #07- 05 of Stephenson Village from the Planning Commission's meeting of July 20, 2005. He said this item had to be continued, due to the adjournment requirements of the Commission's By -Laws at the July 20, 2005 meeting. Chairman DeHaven stated the meeting was adjourned with a motion to table on the floor. Commissioner Gochenour withdrew her motion to table in order to continue the discussion. There were no objections and Chairman DeHaven granted Commissioner Gochenour's request. Chairman DeHaven called for any citizen who wished to speak concerning this master plan. Mr. Gary Oates, a resident of the Stonewall District, said that he spoke in opposition, at the Commission's July 20, 2005 meeting, to any change in the approved alignment of Route 37 because he built his home based on the alignment approved by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Oates said that he was the only citizen present to speak at die Commission's July 20 meeting; however, other citizens were present this evening to speak. Mr. Standish Parker Kugler, a resident at 335 Marquis Court, said that heand his wife moved to this area in 1999 to their retirement home. Mr. Kugler said that he purchased his home and property based on the information he was provided with in 1999 from the County offices regarding the proposed path for Route 3 7. He said that since that time, they have purchased additional acreage and have made improvements to their property. He said he was alarmed upon hearing that the proposed alignment for Route 37 may change, which would affect his home. Mr. Kugler asked the Commission not approve this new alignment. Mr. Benue Shwartzman, a resident at 1105 Red Bud Road, was also concerned about any realignment of Route 3 7. Mr. Shwartzman thought it was presumptuous of the developers to attempt to move the Route 3 7 corridor depicted in the Comprehensive Policy Plan because it would affect numerous residences along Red Bud Road. Chairman DeHaven announced that while there had been some behind -the -scenes discussion of realignments, there has not been a study or a public discussion of any realignment for Route 37. Mr. Allen Jobe, a resident at 230 Milburn Road; asked for clarification on what the Commission Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1587 Minutes of August 17, 2005 d was being asked to do regarding this application and Route 37. Mr. Bob Boden was opposed to any realignment of Route 37 from what was approved by the Board of Supervisors in 1999. Mr. Boden, a realtor, said that real estate listings %gill be affected if this realignment issue is raised again and property values will be impacted. He asked the Commission to consider the long-time residents and their property values as opposed to increasing the profit margin of a developer. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, the design -engineering firm representing Brookfield Homes and Stephenson Associates in this master development plan (MDP), believed that the applicants have addressed, either through plan revisions or other methods, all of the issues identified by the staff with the exception of the staff's desire for the applicant to show the Route 37 location through the project site. Mr. Wyatt said that the applicant still contends that the MDP proposed is in compliance with the proffer and the generalized development plan (GDP) that was approved with the rezoning in 2003. Mr. Wyatt pointed out that the projected corridor alignment referred to as Alternative C does, indeed, go through the area they have identified for Land Bay 3 A. Mr. Wyatt said that they would be willing to add a narrative to the MDP recognizing that based on what was approved in the rezoning, they are in compliance; however, the applicant would be willing to offer the community up to an additional 12 months to consider a realignment issue and would commit not to develop within the Phase I area that falls within this corridor until such time as either the 12 -month window has gone by or another agreed-upon date. Commissioner Light suggested that Mr. Wyatt seek a Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment, if he desired to move Route 37, Alternative C, out of this project. Mr. Wyatt replied that Route 37, Alternative C, was not on the plan submitted by the applicant for agency review and comments, nor does the MDP show it. Mr. Wyatt said the reason it does not show it is that during the rezoning process, the Route 37 Corridor was not an element of the transportation proffer, in either the form of dedicated right-of-way or construction. Furthermore, the GDP that was approved for the Stephenson Village project, which is a legislative document by the Board of Supervisors, only required the applicant to provide for the major collector road, which goes from Old Charlestown Road through this property and ultimately, through the Omps' property to Route 11. Commissioner Light asked the staff if Route 37 was in the Northeast Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, if it was in the WAT Study, and if it was in the Eastern Transportation Road Plan. In addition, he inquired if the applicant was violating the Comprehensive Plan by taking Rt. 3 7 out of the MDP. Planning Staff member, Mr. Bernard Suchicital, confirmed that Route 37 was included in all of the documents mentioned by Commissioner Light and at this time, the application was not in compliance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Commissioner Light agreed this application was not in compliance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Commissioner Light argued that this applicant went through the process knowing the status of Route 37, Alternative C; he said that everyone knew this, including the purchasers. He added that if this MDP is approved as presented, then the County has essentially removed the north -end portion of Route 37 because there is no other VDOT representation of any other area. Mr. Wyatt said that if a project gets approved without elementsof the Comprehensive Plan that are recommended, then that is the way the project is approved. Mr. Wyatt contended that the applicant is not required to construct Route 37. Mr. John Goode spoke next, explaining that he was involved in the rezoning process for this property. Mr. Goode said that back in the year 2000, when this property was depicted in the Comprehensive Policy Plan as industrial, both he and Mr. Donald Shockey met with VDOT because they were concerned how Route 37 might impact their plans for the property. He said that at that time, VDOT had no funding available and DO funding was in sight for Route 37. Mr. Goode said that subsequently in 2001. their rezoning request, which Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1588 Minutes of August 17, 2005 D was in conformity with the Comprehensive Policy Plan, was turned down. W. Goode said this current R4 plan calls for a Comprehensive Policy Plan road, which they are going to construct, however, nothing is in the plan about Route 37; Mr. Goode suggested they may not have been granted approval had Route 37 been depicted in their plan at the time. Mr. Goode said that no one knows for certain whether Route 37 will have funding. Mr. Goode contended that in 2001, when their industrial zoning was turned down, they learned that a rezoning and the ordinance took a higher authority than the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Goode said that they have a rezoning which does not have Route 37 in it; that is not what the applicant had promised, and they were not going to place something on their plan that, in affect, they left off in the entire year-long process. Commissioner Morris next asked for clarification on one of the staff's issues concerning the major collector road. Commissioner Morris asked the staff if the bicycle path would be included in VDOT's right-of-way. Planning Director, Eric R Lawrence, stated that staff identified the bicycle path as an issue because they did not find the graphics on the initial master plan submission. Mr. Lawrence said that since that initial submission, staff has determined that a bicycle lane would be on each side of the major collector road; a sidewalk or walking trail will be provided outside of the right-of-way. Returning to the subject of Route 37, Commissioner Thomas said that he did not recall the planned Route 37 location being an issue during either of the rezoning discussions for this property. He said he was surprised to see it in the staff's report; he thought Comprehensive Plan issues were more appropriately dealt with at rezoning. Mr. Lawrence raised two points to be considered: He said that when this rezoning was being considered, the County was concurrently evaluating expansion of the UDA (Urban Development Area) modifications to the Northeast Land Use Plan. He said that through that land use exercise, the resulting plan was an expansion of the UDA, introducing the opportunity for residential rezoning. He said Route 37 was preserved on the Northeast Land Use Plan, which is in the Comprehensive Policy Plan today; therefore, the corridor was always in the plan, even following the land use study exercise. Mr. Lawrence's second point was that through the R4 (Residential Planned Community) District rezoning of the property, the applicant asked to defer the master development plan (MDP) until a future date. Essentially, in lieu of the MDP associated with rezoning, the applicant offered a GDP (Generalized Development Plan) showing land bay areas and proffered elements and when the MDP was submitted, it would depict how the whole property was laid out. Mr. Lawrence said that according to Code definition, the applicant is required to show all of the roads, the environmental areas, and all of the details of the project on the MDP. Commissioner Thomas replied that he understood the process; however, he was concerned that the process could have proceeded to this point without having at least something in the record that would have stated that Alternative C for Route 37 would need to be included. Commissioner Thomas recalled there being a time when Route 37 was totally taken off the table. Mr. Lawrence said the only change in Route 37 in the last 12 years was that it was not on the funding list in the Primary Road Plan for a year; he said it has always been in the Comprehensive Policy Plan, the Eastern Road Plan, the WATS Plan, and it is still in the MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) Plan. Commissioner Light asked the Commission's legal counsel if the Planning Commission should accept a master plan which does not show Route 37. Mr. Lawrence Ambrogi, the Planning Commission's legal counsel, stated that in his opinion, the Commission does not have to accept the MDP; he believed the Commission had the right to require that something of this magnitude be shown and be precise. Mr. Ambrogi said that the Comprehensive Policy Plan is a very strong guide that should be followed as closely as possible and although the rezoning does prevail, a major factor in this MDP is missing. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1589 Minutes of August 17, 2005 M W 8 F T -5 - Other Commission members had questions about the status of Route 37 and the possible outcome for considering this MDP without Route 3 7. Mr. Lawrence stated that if the County wants Route 3 7 in the Comprehensive Policy Plan, the County needs to determine its corridor and hold firm. Specifically, if Alternative C is the adopted corridor, the County needs to hold firm to that position until a new location is identifi,.d. Mr. Lawrence said that if Route 37 is not on the MDP, then it won't be shown throughout the subdivision process and the corridor will not be reserved and protected for future use. Considering all that had been discussed, Commissioner Light moved to deny the MDP; however, this motion died due to the lack of a second to the motion. Commission members believed that the MDP needed to meet Comprehensive Policy Plan requirements before it goes any further; however, other members questioned how the applicant's plan could have proceeded to this point without Route 3 7. They pointed out that this MDP is in conformance with the Board of Supervisors' rezoning, with the guidance that was given at the time, and the proffers. Commissioner Thomas next made a motion to recommend approval of MDP #07-05 with the developer's offer to work with the community for at least the next 12 months to confirm the location ofRoute 37 during this time frame. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Master Development Plan 907-05 of Stephenson Village, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for residential - planned community use with acceptance of the developer's offer to work with the community for at least the next 12 months to confirm the location of Route 37 during this time frame. YES (TO REC. APPROVAL): Straub, Morris, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Triplett, NO: Watt, Unger, Light, DeHaven ABSTAIN: Gochenour (Note: Commissioners Manuel and Wilmot were absent from the meeting.) A request for a Subdivision Exception is being sought by Artz & Associates, on behalf of Deborah Dorman Dutcher, property owner, regarding Section 144-31.13.1 of the Frederick County Code. Under Section 144-5, the applicant is requesting an exception to the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the existing Dutcher property to be further subdivided, and reduce the existing 74% Rural Preservation Lot to 40% of the original parcel. The subject property, zoned RA (Rural Areas) District, is located at the intersection of Dover Lane and Chapel Road, approximately 100 feet west of the Route 627 intersection with Route 758. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 83-A-106 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Denial Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R Cheran, reported that the recorded plat for this rural preservation subdivision shows 58 acres being the rural preservation tract; this plat was recorded June 16, Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1590 Minutes of August 17, 2005 Q. 1992 with Lot 4 being identified as the rural preservation tract of a rural preservation subdivision, approved by Frederick County on June 3, 1992. He said that by Code, the preservation tract must stay intact, and cannot be changed through any land use applications. Mr. Cheran said the applicant submitted they were unaware of the ordinance provision prohibiting future division of this parcel and are seeking the Board's permission, via an exception, to reduce the 74% parcel to 40%, the minimum size requirement for a preservation parcel. He said that such a Board action would enable the creation of additional lots, but in no case would it exceed the density of the parent tract. Mr. Cheran stated that the staff contends that once the preservation parcel has been established, it may not be further subdivided without appropriate rezoning approval. Mr. Cheran stated that the Board of Supervisors may grant the requested exception, if the applicant is able to illustrate the 74% preservation tract was done in error. Commissioner Ours stated that the zoning ordinance seems to be ambiguous and might be interpreted in two ways. He suggested that it could be interpreted to mean that something could be done further with the original land set in preservation as long as it didn't affect the original tract. Commissioner Light asked if the wording, "Rural Preservation. Lot," is an identified stamp that is placed on the plat indicating the preserved lot. Mr. Cheran replied yes; he said the stamp is required on all sketch plans and identifies the lot for potential buyers, potential sellers, and is recorded in the court house with the stamp. Mr. Michael Artz, of Artz & Associates, representing Mrs. Deborah Dorman Dutcher, came forward to ask the Commission to interpret the intent of Section 165-54(1), Paragraphs A, B, and C of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Artz said this is the section that addresses the creation of the rural preservation lot subdivisions and specifically defines the parameters for the 40% preservation lot. He explained that in 1992, this four -lot subdivision was created and 74% was set aside as the rural preservation lot and, he believed, Mr. and Mrs. Dutcher were informed at that time that they could come back at anytime in the future and further subdivide that parcel. Mr. Artz said that in April of this year, he was hired by Mrs. Dutcher to do just that. He said that drainfreld sites were located, a preliminary sketch plan was prepared, it was submitted to four different agencies for review, and it was submitted to the Planning Department with a check. He said the subdivision was denied by the Zoning Administrator under Paragraph C, "No future division of this portion of the parent tract will be permitted," and the check was returned. Mr. Artz said the case went to the BZA (Board of Zoning Appeals) and was denied. He said he still disagrees with the interpretation of this section of the code and that is why he is before the Commission. Mr. Artz believed there has been a change in the interpretation of this section of the code by the various zoning administrators over the past 14 years since this section of the code was written. He said that Mr. Wayne Miller, who was the Zoning Administrator in 1992 and who approved this subdivision, testified at the BZA that if he were Zoning Administrator today, he would grant approval. Mr. Artz said that had Mrs. Dutcher known this was going to be the case in 1992, she would have done something differently. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Paul F. Kisak, adjoining property owner on Lot 3, said that both he and his wife were present to speak in opposition to the request to reduce the rural preservation lot from 74% to 40%. Mr. Kisak said that he was granted proxy to represent 57 of the neighbors who live in this district and the surrounding property, which represents 94% of the residents within a one -mile radius of the property under consideration. Mr. Kisak read the preamble of the petition signed by the 57 residents of the neighborhood who were in opposition to this exception request. He also submitted a copy of his sales contract, dated March 26, 1992, when he purchased a house and 15 acres from Mrs. Donnan Dutcher, and he read sections of the contract where the seller agrees not to subdivide or Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 17, 2005 NageISyl -7 - develop the remaining land. Mr. Kisak said that contrary to Mr. Artz's statements, he believed Mrs. Dorman Dutcher knew about the rural preservation restriction because she signed the sales contract over 10 times. Mr. Kisak supported the previous denials by Mr. Cheran, the Planning Staff, and the BZA. He said he was prepared to provide four to five affidavits, from the property owners involved in the subdivision of the original property, that they were told by the seller that the rural preservation lot could not be developed. Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. Kisak if his original 15 -acre lot, Lot 3, had been subdivided since he purchased it. Mr. Kisak replied yes; he said it is now a 9.1 -acre lot and a 5.0 -acre lot and a house was built on the lot. In addition, Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. Kisak if he was given the right of first refusal on the property under consideration, Lot 4, as stated in the sales contract. Mr. Kisak said he was not given that opportunity. Mrs. Kathryn Anne Kisak, wife of Mr. Paul Kisak, said that she and her husband did considerable homework before they purchased their property and they purchased this property contingent on the disposition of this particular Lot 4. Mrs. Kisak said that she and her husband spoke with Mr. Miller and others in the Planning Department in 1992 and were given different information than what is being presented by Mr. Artz today. Mrs. Kisak referred to the letter her husband submitted, dated June 1, 2005, from the homeowners of the lots adjacent to Lot 4. Mrs. Kisak said they went to the courthouse and looked at the plats and they did not see any notations on the plat or the written survey indicating that this lot was in excess of a minimum 40% or that there were plans to do something additional with this land. She added that according to the Zoning Code pertaining to rural preservation lots, the rural preservation lot must be designated, and this was obviously designated as a rural preservation lot consisting of 58 acres. Commissioner Ours asked Mr. Ariz to explain the development plans for Lot 4. Mr. Artz stated that the preliminary sketch plat proposes to construct a new subdivision street road, that would eventually be dedicated to the Commonwealth of Virginia, with approximately 12 lots; seven lots on the western side and five lots on the eastern side are planned, with the rural preservation lot in the rear. He said the rural preservation lot would be 40.1% of the original tract size. He added that lot sizes would range from a minimum of two acres up to 2'/a acres. Commissioner Thomas said that as the Chairman of the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) for a number of years, he understood there were some challenges existing within the wording of the zoning ordinance because of its size and the number of amendments that have been made over the years. He agreed this section of the ordinance needs to be placed on the DRRS's work plan for the coming year for clarification. Speaking as a long-time member of the DRRS, he said that when this ordinance was initially discussed and written, the intent was to preserve 40% as the rural preservation lot. He said if someone wanted to preserve more, and understood what they were doing, that was certainly their prerogative; but as far as the DRRS and implementation, the intent was that 40% remained as the preservation lot. Commission members noted that their role was not to enforce contracts or purchase agreements between property owners, but it was the Commission's role to enforce the ordinance. However, Commission members found it difficult to ignore the sense of trust that came about on the part of the neighbors that there would be no further development on this particular lot. A motion was made by Corninissioner Unger to recommend denial of the request for exception. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Watt and passed by a majority vote. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1592 Minutes of August 17, 2005 0 N N FT BE IT RESOLVED, By a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend denial of a request for a subdivision exception sought by Artz & Associates, on behalf of property owner, Deborah Dorman Dutcher, under Section 144-31.B.1 of the Frederick County Code, to allow Lot 4, designated as a rural preservation lot consisting of 58.847 acres, to be further subdivided, reducing the existing 74% rural preservation parcel to 40% of the original tract. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO REC. DENIAL): Straub, Gochenour, Watt, Unger, Morris, Light, DeHaven, Ours NO: Thomas, Kriz, Triplett (Note: Commissioners Manuel and Wilmot were absent from the meeting.) Upon motion made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Ours, the Commission unanimously agreed to make the three documents submitted by the adjoining property owner, Mr. Paul F. Kisak, a part of the official record. Those documents included a copy of a sales contract, a copy of a petition, and a draft letter dated June 1, 2005 from adjacent homeowners. Subdivision Request 926-05 of Stonebrook, LC, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for one single- family detached traditional lot, zoned RP (Residential Performance) District. The property fronts on the western boundary of Jones Road (Rt. 621), approximately 0.05 miles north of the intersection with Stonebrook Road (Rt. 1109) and Greenfield Avenue. The property is further identified with P.I.N. 62-A- 51 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Zoning and Subdivision Administrator Mark R Cheran reported that this property was created in 1973, prior to the master development plan (MDP) requirement adopted by Frederick County. Mr. Cheran said this proposed subdivision will create one single-family detached rural traditional lot consisting of a minimum 100,000 square feet in size. He said the subdivision appears to satisfy all agency and ordinance requirements and access to the lot will be via Greenfield Drive. Mr. Cheran explained that the Commission will be granting the staff administrative approval authority with a waiver of the master development plan requirements. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering was representing this application. Commissioner Gochenour said that it appears the storm water pipes located on Greenfield Road are directed towards this lot. Mr. Wyatt said that when an entrance is created off of Greenfield Road, an additional culvert will be added to redirect the storm water away from the structure to be built on the property. Ultimately, the drainage would work its way down through the property to the Opequon Creek. There were no public comments. Frederick County Planning Commission_ Page 1593 Minutes of August 17, 2005 0 0 E 1 Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby grant the staff administrative approval authority, with a waiver of the master development plan requirements, for Subdivisicn Request 426-05 of Stonebrook, LC, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for one single-family detached traditional lot, zoned RP (Residential Performance) District. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO REC. APPROVAL): Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Thomas, Light, Morris, Unger, Watt, Straub, DeHaven NO • Gochenour (Note: Commissioners Manuel and Wilmot were absent from the meeting.) Subdivision Request 427-05 of Jireh Enterprises, LLC for warehousing use. The property is located off of Ebert Road (Rt. 663), three miles north on Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11). The property is further identified with P.I.N. 44 -A -6A in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Approval Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R- Cheran, reported that this request is for subdivision of a 15.740 -acre lot into two lots consisting of 5.436 and 10.304 acres; he said the 15.740 -acre lot had been zoned M2 when Frederick County adopted zoning in 1967. Mr. Cheran stated that the proposed subdivision is located within the SWSA and the Northeast Land Use Plan, as indicated in the 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Cheran added that this proposed subdivision meets the requirements for a waiver from the master development plan requirements; he further added that the staff is seeking administrative approval authority for this subdivision. .Commissioner Straub asked if Ebert Road would be changed or widened. Mr. Cheran replied that the applicant has dedicated a strip of property for VDOT right-of-way, but he could not verify that other property owners in the area have also dedicated property for that purpose. Mr. Larry Short, the property owner, was available for any questions from the Commission. There were no public comments. No issues or concerns were raised by the Commission. Upon motion made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Subdivision Request 427-05 of Jireh Enterprises, LLC for the subdivision of a 15.740 -acre lot into two lots, consisting of 5.436 and 10.304 acres, for warehousing use and does hereby recommend granting the staff administrative approval authority to sign the plats. (Note: Commissioners Manuel and Wilmot were absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1594 Minutes of August 17, 2005 R T'` -10 - PRESENTATION OF THE WINCHESTER -FREDERICK COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) VISION PLAN No Action Required Planning Director, Eric R Lawrence, introduced Mr. John Bishop, the Transportation Planner for the Winchester -Frederick County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), who was available to give the Planning Commission an update on the MPO's Transportation Plan. Mr. Bishop provided an overview of the committees and jurisdictions that comprise the MPO, the Federal requirements, and the formulation of the Final Vision Plan. Mr. Bishop provided the Commission with the dollar amounts designated for Inter -state funding, Primary funding, and Urban funding. He commented that greater portions of road improvement projects are now developer funded. Commissioner Morris asked what was being done to assure the different localities are working together with the MPO's transportation planning efforts. Mr. Bishop replied that the Technical Advisory Committee, which is made up of technical employees throughout the community, and the Policy Committee are providing the information on which the MPO bases its decisions. Mr. Bishop said that Commissioners should not see a big difference between the MPO's Vision Plan and the County's current planning efforts. He said the main area of difference is that localities will be required to think at a regional level, not just at a local level. Commissioner Morris inquired if all of Frederick County was included in the MPO and Mr. Bishop replied that only the urbanized portion of Frederick County is included. Chairman DeHaven commented that the big challenge for Frederick County is to take the MPO's core plan, which is meshing with cross - jurisdictional lines, and expand it out beyond their scope, while making sure it is updated and cohesive. Commissioner Straub spoke about the procedure Frederick County has followed in the past, where the staff would present the road improvement plans to the Planning Commission and the Board, and then representatives would go to the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) to ask for allocations of money. She asked if this procedure would now be the job of the MPO. Mr. Lawrence replied that there are many rural roads designated within the County's Secondary Road Plan, for example, that are outside of the boundaries of the MPO; therefore, the County will need to continue to follow the same exercise they have followed in the past. Commissioner Thomas asked about the level to which the MPO was going to analyze the road plans for the various jurisdictions; he asked if there would be traffic studies, level of service studies, and if any studies would be conducted by route or intersections levels. Mr. Bishop said that a regional model is used and although it isn't as perfect as some software for doing specific intersection analysis, it does a good job identifying a really poor intersection and those intersections will show up in the vision plan. Commissioner Unger inquired about the controversy over Route 37; he asked whose responsibility it should be to keep that route in the forefront. Mr. Bishop did not think the long-range plan was meant to be a vehicle for promoting a particular alignment. Mr. Lawrence commented that funding for the engineering is a significant first step; he said that as development approaches, the engineering will have been completed and the developers can construct the roads. Chairman DeHaven pointed out that the corridor will have to be designated and preserved, or there simply is no chance of building the road. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 17, 2005 Page 1595 -11— REVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S BY-LAWS PERTAINING TO 11:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT Chairman DeHaven asked the members of the Commission if a discussion was warranted to amend the mandatory 11:00 p.m. adjournment time required by the Planning Commission's adopted By -Laws. Some members suggested the possibility of a temporary meeting extension enacted on a case-by-case basis; however, other Commissioners did not see the point of circumventing the by-laws. The consensus of the Commission members was that the current by-laws function quite well and no change was necessary. OTHER Planning Director, Eric R Lawrence announced that a tour of the County's rural community centers is being organized by the Planning Staff for next Tuesday afternoon, August 23. He said that anyone who is interested in attending should contact the staff before the end of the week in order for the staff to make sufficient transportation arrangements. Commissioner Ours announced that Frederick County is holding a public hearing with Adelphia Cable, soon to be doing business as ComCast, for tomorrow evening, Thursday, August 18, at 6:30 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors' meeting room. He said that if anyone would like to snake comments about the cable franchise in Frederick County, they are invited to speak at that time. Chairman DeHaven announced that the Citizens Planning Education Association's new schedule for the remainder of this 2005 and for 2006 is now available. Chairman DeHaven said that he had additional copies if anyone was interested. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Eric R Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1596 Minutes of August 17, 2005 `r REZONING APPLICATION #14-05 JCA IV WHITEHALL, LLC Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: September 8, 2005 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director 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: 09/21/05 Pending Board of Supervisors: 10/12/05 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 5.00 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to M1 (Light Industrial) District and 15 acres from M1 (Light Industrial) District to M1 (Light Industrial) District with modified proffers. LOCATION: The property is located approximately 950 feet west from interchange 323 off I-81, approximately 2,560 feet south of Rest Church Road, along proposed Zachary Ann Lane. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 33-9-8,33-9-7, and 33-9-6 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District and Ml (Light Industrial) District. PRESENT USE: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: B3 (Industrial Transition) South: RA (Rural Areas) East: Interstate 81 /M 1 /RA West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Vacant Use: Residential Use: Business Park/Residential/Vacant Use: Orchard PROPOSED USES: M1 (Light Industrial) District Uses - Caterpillar Maintenance and Sales Facility Rezoning #14-05 - JCA IV Whitehall, LLC September 8, 2005 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable impact on Routes 669 and Rest Church Road. This route is the VDOT roadway which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the JCA IV Whitehall, LLC Rezoning/TIA application dated July 18, 2005, revised August 5, 2005, addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. 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. Fire Marshal: Water Supply (i.e. fire hydrants) will need to be addressed when site plan is submitted. Plan approval recommended. Public Works Department: Please see attached letter dated July 26, 2005 and signed by Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P. E., Director of Public Works. Frederick County Inspections: (No comment sheet received) Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: Water and sewer must be brought to the site from the east side of I-81. Sanitation Authority: No comment. Frederick -Winchester Health Department: The Health Department has no objection to the request as long as public water and sewer are provided. Department of Parks & Recreation: No comment. Department of GIS: (No comment sheet received) Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided that states no residential units will be part of the rezoning, there will be no impact to the school population upon build -out. Winchester Rel4ional Airport: The proposed rezoning request has been reviewed and it appears that it will not impact operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. Frederick County Attorney: (No comment sheet received) Historic Resources Advisory Board: Upon review of the proposed rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic properties and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by the HRAB. Rezoning #14-05 — JCA IV Whitehall, LLC September 8, 2005 Page 3 Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History On December 12, 1990, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors approved Rezoning application #009-90 of Whitehall Business Park for the rezoning of 15.03 acres from RA (Rural Area) to M-1 (Light Industrial) and 34.25 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B-3 (Industrial Transition). This was a proffered rezoning application (a copy of the original proffers is included in this agenda package). A Master Development Plan, MDP #003-96, was subsequently approved for the development of the Whitehall Business Park on June 6, 1996. The Master Development plan identified the development of the Whitehall Business Park within two phases and also envisioned the creation of eight lots. The first five lots were identified as being within the B3 (Industrial Transition) District and the remaining three lots, lots six, seven, and eight, within the M1 (light Industrial) District. Lots six, seven, and eight totaling 15.03 acres are one part of this rezoning application. It is the applicants desire to modify the proffers associated with these three parcels and is therefore requesting a rezoning from M1 (Light Industrial) to M1 (Light Industrial) with modified proffers. In addition, the applicant is requesting the rezoning of five acres from RA (Rural Areas) to M 1 (Light Industrial) District with proffers. On July 8, 2005, a Boundary Line Adjustment Plat was approved by Frederick County that added five acres to lot 8 of the Whitehall Business Park. The five acres was adjusted from the adjoining parcels 33-A-89 and 33-A-90 owned by Fruit Hill Orchard, LLC. As shown on the exhibits accompanying this rezoning application, the addition of this five acre piece of land created a more regularly shaped lot and a lot which is more developable under the M 1 (Light Industrial) zoning classification. The net result of this rezoning application would be a 20.035 acre parcel that is zoned M1 (light Industrial) with new proffers. 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. 1-11 T nv7d T Tcv The parcels comprising this rezoning application are located within the County's 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. In addition, the JCA IV Whitehall, LLC property is located within the area encompassed by the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan. Rezoning #14-05 — JCA IV Whitehall, LLC September 8, 2005 Page 4 The Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan envisions commercial land uses on the property. The JCA IV Whitehall, LLC Property application proposes a rezoning of light industrial/commercial land use which provides for a large area of commercial opportunity in conjunction with the Interstate 81 and Exit 323. A goal of the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan is to provide for interstate business development opportunities to take advantage of the interstate and its interchanges. In addition, the Plan encourages industrial uses to locate within master planned areas. The Comprehensive Plan further identifies that new industrial uses should be located near interchanges and in the vicinity of existing industrial areas and parks where appropriate access and facilities are available. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to provide for quality business and industrial areas. The addition of the five acres of RA (Rural Areas) land into the Whitehall Business Park under the M1 (Light Industrial) zoning classification would be consistent with the existing Whitehall Business Park development and would further the land use goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Transportation The Frederick County Northeast Land Use Plan provides the guidance regarding future arterial and collector road connections in the Northeastern portion of the County by identifying needed connections and locations. 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). 3) Site Suitability/Environment The 20 -acre site has approximately 1940 feet of frontage along Interstate 81. Located about 350 feet south of the intersection of Rest Church Road (Route 669) and Zachary Ann Lane, and in the immediate vicinity of Exit 323 of Interstate 81, the subject property is ideally located to take advantage of the business development opportunities provided by the interstate. The development of such an opportunity is an objective of the Northeast Land Use Plan. The acreage that makes up this property does not contain areas of steep slopes. The property does contain areas of mature woodlands, primarily on lot 8. Efforts have been made by the applicant in the Proffer Statement to minimize the disturbance of areas of mature woodlands along the southern perimeter of the property and along the Interstate 81 frontage. The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey does not identify potentially significant historic resources or historic district on, or within, the proximity of this acreage. Rezoning # 14-05 — JCA IV Whitehall, LLC September 8, 2005 Page 5 4) rotentiai -111 ipacts Potential Impact Summary. In evaluating the JCA IV Whitehall, LLC rezoning application it is very important to recognize that 15.03 acres are presently zoned Ml (Light Industrial). The impacts associated with this acreage were generally addressed with the County's approval of Rezoning Application #009-90 for the Whitehall Business Park and the subsequent development of the 52 acre Whitehall Business Park. The applicant is proposing to construct a Caterpillar Maintenance and Sales Facility which will be located on the area of the property that is presently zoned Ml (Light Industrial). The addition of the five acres would enable a greater amount of flexibility in the design and layout of the site and facility. While the impacts associated with the entire project should be evaluated, the greatest change in land use is with the proposed change of five acres from RA (Rural Areas) to M1 (Light Industrial). The application does not specifically proffer a use or building square footage for the five acres. With this in mind, the maximum possible business and industrial intensity, based on trip generation and fiscal impact on capital facilities identified in the rezoning application package that could be generated by this five acre parcel is approximately 24, 750 square feet of general office use per acre of use. This would total 123,750 square feet of General Office Use. The Fiscal impact model was run based upon the development of the twenty acre parcel in its entirety to provide the County and the applicant with an overall understanding of the impact of the project. Consideration should be given to the impacts of this rezoning request with particular attention to the five acres that is requested to be modified from RA(Rural Areas) to Ml (Light Industrial). A. Transportation The applicant has evaluated the transportation impacts associated with this rezoning application and the development of the property. In conjunction with the Virginia Department of Transportation it was determined that a more detailed Traffic analysis would not be required. This determination was primarily based upon the limited scope of the rezoning application, the improvements provided with the development of the Whitehall Business Park, and the recently completed improvements to Rest Church Road (Route 669) and its interchange with Interstate 81. The applicant has addressed the intersection of Rest Church Road (Route 669) and Zachary Ann Lane. In addition, the applicant has identified improvements that will be made to Zachary Ann Lane to address the concerns of the Virginia Department of Transportation. All of the transportation improvements identified in the proffer statement will be implemented prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the proposed facility. The Master Development Plan for the Whitehall Business Park envisions Zachary Ann Lane running to the northern limits of Lot 8. The development of the rezoned property will involve extending Zachary Ann Lane to their property which is at the northern limits of Lot 6. This modification to Zachary Ann Lane proposed by the applicant will be achieved in conjunction with the Master Development Plan process. The addition of this acreage to the Whitehall Business Park will entail a modification to the Master Development Plan. Rezoning #14-05 — JCA IV Whitehall, LLC September 8, 2005 Page 6 B. Sewer and Water New commercial land uses located within the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan are recommended to be developed with public water and sewer service. Individual package treatment plants are prohibited as a means to accommodate new commercial development. Unlike the original Whitehall Business Park rezoning application for this property, this current application, RZ14-05, provides for the development of, and connection to, the public water and sewer system in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has been participating with the Sanitation Authority to make the extension of water and sewer to the Whitehall Business Park possible. It is anticipated that the five acre portion of the rezoning application could generate approximately 18,595 gallons per day of sewage flow and 37,190 gallons per day of water usage. However, it should be recognized that the building that is anticipated to be constructed on the site will be located entirely on the portion of the property that is currently zoned M1 (Light Industrial). Wastewater generated by this project will be treated at the Opequon Waste Water Treatment Plant. The applicant has stated that they will be using a water reclamation system for operations associated with this development. C. Community Facilities The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model is a tool that is used to identify the capital costs associated with various types of development proposals presented to the County. The projected costs to Fire and Rescue, Public Schools, Parks and Recreation, Library, Sheriff's Office and for the Administration Building are calculated and provided to the applicant for their consideration. As noted previously, the Fiscal impact model was run based upon the development of the twenty acre parcel in its entirety to provide the County and the applicant with an overall understanding of the impact of the project. The Fiscal Impact Model output for this project indicates a net positive fiscal impact. However, in recognition of the impacts that may be realized by the community to the Fire and Rescue services, the applicant has proffered a contribution in the amount of $0.015 per square foot of structural development on the property. 5) Proffer Statement — Dated August 8, 2005 (Revised August 18,2005) The proffers provided with the JVA IV Whitehall, LLC. rezoning application replace those which previously applied to the 15.03 acres presently zoned M1 (Light Industrial). The original proffers were previously proffered with Rezoning #009-90. This proffer statement is applicable to the entire 20.035 acres, including the five acres of RA (Rural Areas) zoned land. A) Transportation The applicant has not provided a generalized development plan for this application as no new road connections are to be provided. However, an exhibit has been offered that illustrates the proffers in general. The applicant has proffered to address the road configuration at the intersection of Rest Church Road and Zachary Ann Lane to the satisfaction of VDOT, to Rezoning # 14-05 — JCA IV Whitehall, LLC September 8, 2005 Page 7 construct and pave Zachary Ann Lane from Rest Church Road to Lot 6 of the Whitehall Business Park, and to add additional improvements to Zachary Ann Lane.. B) Water and Sewer The applicant has proffered to extend public water and sewer service from the east side of Interstate 81 to their development to the satisfaction of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. C) Landscgping and Tree Preservation The applicant has proffered to provide a 50'woodlands buffer along the southern property line of the property to be rezoned. In addition, the applicant has proffered to maintain a variable width buffer for the purpose of maintaining existing trees along the Interstate 81 frontage of Lot 8. D) Monetary Contribution The applicant has proffered a monetary contribution in the amount of $0.015 per building square foot to Frederick County to offset the impacts generated on Frederick County's Fire and Rescue Services. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 09/21/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The JCA IV Whitehall, LLC. rezoning application is generally consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report. The Planning Commission should ensure that any impacts associated with this rezoning request have been fully addressed by the applicant. Following the requirement for a public hearing, 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. OUTPUT MODULE APPLICANT: Albin Tractor Net Fiscal Impact LAND USE TYPE Industrial Costs of Impact Credit: Credits to be Taken for Future Taxes Paid (NPV) Total Potential Adjustment For REAL EST VAL $8,133,927 Required (entered in Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Future CIP/ Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per FIRE & RESCUE = 1 Capital Facilti!es col sum only) Oper Cap Equip Expend/Debt S. Taxes. Other (Unadiusted) Cost Balance Facilities Impact Dwelling Unit Fire and Rescue Department $43,318 $0 $0 $43,318 #DIV/0! Elementary Schools �' $0 ---- _-_- Middle Schools $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 #DIV/01 High Schools $0 ---- ---- Parks and Recreation $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 #DIV/0! Public Library $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 #DIV/0! Sheriff's Offices $0 $1,870 $0 $0 $1,870 $1,870 $0 #DIV/0! Administration Building $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 #DIV/0! Other Miscellaneous Facilities $0 $4,483 $4,949 $9,432 $9,432 $0 #DIV/0! SUBTOTAL $43,318 $6,352 $4,949 $0 $11,302 $11,302 $32,016 #DIV/0! LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT $778,163 $778,163 $778,163 778163 #DIV/0! NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT r$0 #DIV/0! INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Included 1.0 INDEX: "1.0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Co Avg: 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = 1.000 PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Co Avg 1.342 ---------------------------------------------- METHODOLOGY: 1. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model. ----------------- ---------------------- ----------------------- -------------------- 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input in row total of second column (zero if negative); included are the one-time taxes/fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated in fiscal impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include ---------------------------------------------- include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- NOTES: Model Run Date 08/05/05 --------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------- -------------------- I I Project Description: Assumes 120,000 square feet on 20 acres zoned M1 District. Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. 33 5 CORRICR 33 A 90 FRUIT HILL ORCHARD, INC 15 Acres M1 to M1 w/ Modified 33 A 89 Proffers FRUIT HILL ORCHARD, INC 5 Acres RA to M1 33 A 100 33 A 91 JOHNSON, CHERYL D ETALS 33 A 97 COOHE, CHARLESA. 33 A 95 JOHNSON, TIMOTHY WILLIAM 33A 96A rnRFRrws uRn_ure r_ 33 A 96 33 A 101C CLARK, PAUL E SR & SHIRLEY CLARX, PA3ULA 1010 ESR$ SHIRLEY 33 A 101 DEHAVEN, MANUEL C. REZ # 14 - 05 N JCA IV W E (33-9-6,7,8) S 0 125 250 500 Feet y SHANHO_FLICK, SH ENNINGS; THOMAS ROY & 133AYq 33A 1 COOKE, BET*"'.* 33A! ASON; EDWARD E & BREND KERNS, VfNSKOS", R/CHgRD,, 33A 1 19 ILLIP WENDELL & KIMBERLY F 33A 1 18 IN 33A cwn; mu. COOK, 3A 1 16 HOWA� L JR 33A 1 15 98 DEHAVEN, MANUEL C. B PEARL A 33A 1 14 / FERREBEE, JUNIOR A.& EDITH W! BRAND , 1 13 T EDWARD F. 8 33q ' 2 BRANNON, A(Oq 8. 33A 1 11 77 PAYNE, MARION D. SR. &BETTY 33q R, 1 fo BAKE GLORIAJA ✓ RqR lf1 9 Y, BgLLASR. 33A 1 8 C00_K, MICHAEL 0.8 BETTY L. 33 A 104 ' 33A1 7 DEHAVEN, MANUEL C. BAUGHERTY, WILLIAM B JR 33A 1 6 DAUGHERTY, WILLIAM B JR 33A , SCRIVENE S R, ANNIE B, ELLIS,3A f STfWARTG. H'HRf333A1 3 SHIRLEY',,. 33A 1 2 IONNELL, WILLIAM E & BRENDA G 33A 1 1 NNELL, WILLIAM E & BRENDA 33 A 102 OF DAVID LEE LEONARD, SR 33 A 103 POWERS, BRENT K Map Features a� Bridges Application i Parcels U � #*"N/ Retaining Walls , SWSA L Buildings Road Centerlines S Urban Development Area Tanks � /V 9 PCFN.+ 0p'v ti �' N p33 `yN A 66 Oy>�'pa 3 33 12 13 GRAY, DAVID K.8 BRENDA S. 16 o NATES,MARKCi, 33 A 100 33 A 91 JOHNSON, CHERYL D ETALS 33 A 97 COOHE, CHARLESA. 33 A 95 JOHNSON, TIMOTHY WILLIAM 33A 96A rnRFRrws uRn_ure r_ 33 A 96 33 A 101C CLARK, PAUL E SR & SHIRLEY CLARX, PA3ULA 1010 ESR$ SHIRLEY 33 A 101 DEHAVEN, MANUEL C. REZ # 14 - 05 N JCA IV W E (33-9-6,7,8) S 0 125 250 500 Feet y SHANHO_FLICK, SH ENNINGS; THOMAS ROY & 133AYq 33A 1 COOKE, BET*"'.* 33A! ASON; EDWARD E & BREND KERNS, VfNSKOS", R/CHgRD,, 33A 1 19 ILLIP WENDELL & KIMBERLY F 33A 1 18 IN 33A cwn; mu. COOK, 3A 1 16 HOWA� L JR 33A 1 15 98 DEHAVEN, MANUEL C. B PEARL A 33A 1 14 / FERREBEE, JUNIOR A.& EDITH W! BRAND , 1 13 T EDWARD F. 8 33q ' 2 BRANNON, A(Oq 8. 33A 1 11 77 PAYNE, MARION D. SR. &BETTY 33q R, 1 fo BAKE GLORIAJA ✓ RqR lf1 9 Y, BgLLASR. 33A 1 8 C00_K, MICHAEL 0.8 BETTY L. 33 A 104 ' 33A1 7 DEHAVEN, MANUEL C. BAUGHERTY, WILLIAM B JR 33A 1 6 DAUGHERTY, WILLIAM B JR 33A , SCRIVENE S R, ANNIE B, ELLIS,3A f STfWARTG. H'HRf333A1 3 SHIRLEY',,. 33A 1 2 IONNELL, WILLIAM E & BRENDA G 33A 1 1 NNELL, WILLIAM E & BRENDA 33 A 102 OF DAVID LEE LEONARD, SR 33 A 103 POWERS, BRENT K Map Features Bridges Application /V Culverts Parcels Lakes/Ponds ^/ Dams Streams #*"N/ Retaining Walls , SWSA L Buildings Road Centerlines S Urban Development Area Tanks '9 /V Trails 33 A 100 33 A 91 JOHNSON, CHERYL D ETALS 33 A 97 COOHE, CHARLESA. 33 A 95 JOHNSON, TIMOTHY WILLIAM 33A 96A rnRFRrws uRn_ure r_ 33 A 96 33 A 101C CLARK, PAUL E SR & SHIRLEY CLARX, PA3ULA 1010 ESR$ SHIRLEY 33 A 101 DEHAVEN, MANUEL C. REZ # 14 - 05 N JCA IV W E (33-9-6,7,8) S 0 125 250 500 Feet y SHANHO_FLICK, SH ENNINGS; THOMAS ROY & 133AYq 33A 1 COOKE, BET*"'.* 33A! ASON; EDWARD E & BREND KERNS, VfNSKOS", R/CHgRD,, 33A 1 19 ILLIP WENDELL & KIMBERLY F 33A 1 18 IN 33A cwn; mu. COOK, 3A 1 16 HOWA� L JR 33A 1 15 98 DEHAVEN, MANUEL C. B PEARL A 33A 1 14 / FERREBEE, JUNIOR A.& EDITH W! BRAND , 1 13 T EDWARD F. 8 33q ' 2 BRANNON, A(Oq 8. 33A 1 11 77 PAYNE, MARION D. SR. &BETTY 33q R, 1 fo BAKE GLORIAJA ✓ RqR lf1 9 Y, BgLLASR. 33A 1 8 C00_K, MICHAEL 0.8 BETTY L. 33 A 104 ' 33A1 7 DEHAVEN, MANUEL C. BAUGHERTY, WILLIAM B JR 33A 1 6 DAUGHERTY, WILLIAM B JR 33A , SCRIVENE S R, ANNIE B, ELLIS,3A f STfWARTG. H'HRf333A1 3 SHIRLEY',,. 33A 1 2 IONNELL, WILLIAM E & BRENDA G 33A 1 1 NNELL, WILLIAM E & BRENDA 33 A 102 OF DAVID LEE LEONARD, SR 33 A 103 POWERS, BRENT K COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 July 26, 2005 FAX: 540/678-0682 Mr. David E. Lellock, P.E., L.S. Urban Engineering and Associates, Inc. 600 Pegasus Court, Suite 101 Winchester, Virginia 22602 RE: Rezoning Application for JCA IV Whitehall, LLC Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mr. Lellock: We have completed our review of the proposed rezoning of approximately five (5) acres from RA to M-1 and offer the following comments: Refer to page 1, Introduction: Indicate who will be responsible for improving Zachary Ann Lane from Route 669 (Rest Church Road) to Lot 6. These improvements shall be implemented prior to granting a building permit for the proposed facility. 2. Refer to page 2, Sewage Conveyance and Water Supply: The discussion indicates that Urban Engineering will design an eight (8) inch sanitary sewer line and a 12 inch water line to serve the proposed site. Indicate who will be responsible for constructing these utility lines. 3. Refer to page 2, Drainage: Indicate if oil separators will be implemented as part of the stormwater collection system to prevent the off-site migration of petroleum products. 4. Refer to page 2, Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: Complete the calculation to determine the impact on our regional landfill facility. Also, indicate who will be responsible for the collection and transport of the solid waste. I can be reached at 722-8214 if you have any questions regarding the above comments. Sincerely, Harvey trawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works HES/rls cc: Planning and Development C:\Program Files\wordPerfect Office I1\Rhonda\JCAIvNVIIITEHALLCATEPILLARREZC0M.wpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 REZONING: PROPERTY RECORD OWNERS: APPLICANT PROJECT NAME: ORIGINAL PROFFER DATE: REVISION DATES Preliminary Matters Alban Tractor Proffer Statement RZ# 014-05 Rural Area District (RA) to General Industrial District (Ml) with proffers Manufacturing District (M-1) to Manufacturing District (Ml) with Modified Proffers 5 Acres Portion of Tax Parcels 33-((A))-89 and 33-((A))-90 15.035 Acres Tax Parcels Portion of 33-((9))-8, 33-((9))-7, 33-((9))-6 JCA IV White Hall, LLC. James C. Alban IV Managing Member JCA IV White Hall, LLC. Alban Tractor White Hall August 8, 2005 August 18, 2005 Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, (1950, as amended),(the "Code") and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance") with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicants hereby proffer that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application #014-05 for the rezoning of 5.0 -acres+/- from the Rural Areas (RA) District to General Manufacturing (M1) District and 15.035 acres from Ml to M1 with modified proffers. With modified proffers for lots 6, 7 and 8 (previous RZ# 009-90 Dated November 21, 1990). Development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except that such term and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no bonding effect whatsoever. Upon approval of such rezoning, these proffers shall be binding upon applicants and their successors and assigns. Prepared by: _I I 1 Urban Engineering & Associates The subject property, identified as White Hall business Park, and more particularly described as the lands owned by JCA 1V White Hall, LLC. Previously, a portion of Tax Maps 33-((A))-89 and 90 obtained by friendly boundary line adjustment from Fruit Hill Orchard, LLC and further described by Instrument 4050015193. This is adjacent to 3 lots currently owned by JCA IV located in the White Hall Business Park currently zoned M-1. These lots are more particularly identified as Tax Map # 39-((9))-6, 7 & 8. Transportation The applicant hereby proffers to work with VDoT to develop a lane striping plan to improve traffic conditions at the existing entrance at Rest Church Road and Zachary Ann Lane. Also, the developer agrees to the following improvements to Zachary Ann Lane: 1) Construct and pave Zachary Ann Lane from Rest Church Road (Rt.669) to Lot 6 of the White Hall Business Park. This is to be accomplished according to plans prepared by Ebert and Associates and approved by VDoT in 1997 to current VDoT standards. 2) Add curb and gutter to the edge of pavement shown on the plans prepared by Ebert & Associates from the intersection of Rest Church road to a point to be determined by VDoT to help discourage truck parking and not require the addition of storm drain structures. 3) Place No Parking signs along both sides of Zachary Ann Lane from the entrance on Rest Church Road south to the end of the adjacent property currently owned by Flying J. These improvements shall be implemented prior to issuance of occupancy of the proposed facility. Water and Sanitary Sewer The Applicant hereby proffers to extend public water and sewer services from a point on the eastern side of interstate 81 near Duncan run to their area of development. These services have been designed by Urban Engineering and approved by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. Landscaping and Tree Preservation The Applicant agrees to continue the 50' buffer previously shown on Lot 8 of the Preliminary Master Development plan prepared for the White Hall Business Park along the southern 50' of the property to be rezoned. In addition the applicant agrees to leave an additional tree buffer along lot 8 abutting Interstate 81. This buffer would be a minimum .of five feet to a maximum of twenty feet wide. The actual width will be determined during final engineering of the site so as to obtain a 3:1 slope and without the use of retaining walls to allow maximum utilization of storage area. Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The Applicant herby proffers that in the event rezoning application # 014-05 is approved, the applicant or his legal successor, heir, or assign, will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia the following amount: $0.015/building square foot This payment, potentially totaling $1,950 is intended to offset the additional cost to Frederick County, and more specifically Frederick County Fire and Rescue, due to an increased demand on public services. August 18, 2005 Alban Tractor Proffer Statement 2 of 3 Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the Applicant and Owner. In the event the Frederick County Boards of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted By:— 'A -- u s-- —770�� James C. Alban IV Managing Member JCA IV White Hall, LLC. State of Maryland City/Cotte of `�� o=!!� To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ��6day of 20W 5 by My Commission Expires Notary Public August 9, 2005 Alban Tractor Proffer Statement 3 of 3 N/F FRUIT HILL ORCHARD, INC. 33 ((A)) 89 /I N/F FRUIT HILL ORCHARD. INC. 33 ((A)) 90 ±2560' TO REST CHURCH ROAD f� N/F DAVID K. do BRENDA S. GRAY 33 ((A)) 88 N 1 120 r a� 3 O a In z a N Z EXISTING LOT 8 VARIABLE BUFFER AREA TO MAINTAIN EXISTING WOODLANDS (5' MINIMUM TO 20' MAXIMUM) m EXISTING ' EXISTING LOT 6 LOT 7 e 9 1436.08'- • S19'26'2O"W 505.69 INTERSTATE 81 R/W GRAPHIC SCALE ( IN FM) I Inch - IW IL N/F PROFESSIONAL MOBILE HOME BROKERS, INC. 33 ((9)) 5 JCA IV WHITE HALL, LLC. Rezoning Plat Proffer Exhibit August 10, 2005 PREPAREDBY Urban Engineering & Associates, Inc. CIVILENGINEERS-LANDSCAPEARCIBTECTS LANDSURVEYORS Win6—,,VA - h-1540),150-0211 GRAPHIC SCALE ( IN FEET ) I mon - Iso It. JCA IV WHITE HALL, LLC. Items to vacated Exhibit August 10, 2005 PREPARED BY Urban Engbieering & Associates, Inc. CIVE.ENGWEERS•lANDSCAPE ARC)ETECPS LAND SURVEYORS Wi.h w,YA - Ph -(540)450-0211 Impact Analysis Statement JCA IV Stonewall Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia Tax Map Parcels 33-((A))-89, 33-((A))-90 33-((9))-6, 33-((9))-7, & 33-((9))-8 5.000 Acres+/- (To Be Rezoned) 15.035 Acres +/- Modified Proffers Total Site Area 20.035 Acres Applicant: James C. Alban IV President — Alban Tractor Managing Member of LLC. Owner: JCA IV White Hall, LLC. Submitted: July 8, 2005 Revised: August 5, 2005 August 9, 2005 August 18, 2005 Prepared By: Urban Engineering & Associates, Inc. 600 Pegasus Court, Suite 101 Winchester, VA 22602 Contact Person: David E. Lellock, PE, LS Phone: 540-450-0211 Impact Analysis Statement - JCA N Introduction The purpose of this Impact Analysis is to assess the impacts resulting from the rezoning of 5.00 acres+/- parcel from RA (Rural Areas) to M1 (Industrial — Light District) and 15.035 acres+/- from Ml (Industrial — Light District) to M1 (Industrial — Light Industrial) with modified proffers. This rezoning is a portion of property obtained by friendly boundary line adjustment from two parcels of land, a 107.67 acre site (33-A-90) and a 110.00 acre site (33-A-89), owned by Fruit Hill Orchard, LLC. (Owner) and lots 6, 7 & 8 owned by JCA IV White Hall, LLC. A Caterpillar Maintenance & Sales Facility is proposed by Alban Tractor Co. Inc.; James C. Alban (Applicant) for this site and the adjoining site, already zoned Ml. This site is located within the county's Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and adjacent to the approved White Hall Business Park. Please see attached Alban Tractor Co. letter for additional back ground. This site is located within the county's Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and adjacent to the approved White Hall Business Park. Access to the site will be provided from Zachary Ann Lane, approximately 950 feet west of Interchange 323 on I-81 then approximately 2560 feet south along Zachary Ann Lane The location of the site and the area to be rezoned are shown on the attached "Location Map". Site Suitability The 5.00 acre+/- parcel (hereby referred to as "site") is primarily open fields with approximately 1.4 Acres of woodland. The attached "Suitability Map Exhibit" shows soil types and locations of nearby streams and wetlands. According to Frederick County GIS Data, Tax Maps 33, there are no flood plains or wetlands on the site. The slopes on the site range from 1%-12.5%. Therefore, the site contains no steep slope areas greater than 15 Surrounding Properties North: RA (Rural Areas), Orchard South: RA (Rural Areas), Residential East: M 1 (Industrial —Light District); Business Park West: RA (Rural Areas), Orchard 2of5 Impact Analysis Statement - JCA N The site is surrounded by parcels zoned RA (Rural Areas), Ml (Industrial — Light District) and B-3 (Business Industrial Transition District). One of the RA zoned parcels to the south is used for residential purposes. The RA parcels to the West and North are used for an orchard. The distances between the boundary of the site and nearby residences and other structures are shown on the attached "Existing Building Location Map". A Caterpillar Maintenance Sales Facility is proposed for this site and the adjoining 15.035 acre M1 parcel to the east. It is expected that impacts from this use on adjacent properties will be minimal. Expected impacts may include noise from users of the facility and glare from site lighting. Noise impacts could be minimized by keeping the shop bay doors closed in the climate controlled facility. Glare impacts could be minimized by providing proper screening and careful selection and arrangement of lighting. Lighting shall be arranged and hooded to confine all light rays entirely within the site boundaries. Final details of these measures will be determined at Site Plan Review. Traffic The current entrance on Rest Church Road has approximately 64' of pavement at the entrance onto the approved plans for Zachary Ann Lane. The total original approved area for White Hall Business Park was +/- 52 acres. With the addition of the 5 acres to be rezoned, the total acreage will be +/- 59 acres, and increase of only approximately 9%. Also, since this facility deals with a specific type of client, it is not expected to generate large volumes of traffic on a daily basis. The developer would agree to work with VDOT to develop a lane striping plan to help improve the traffic condition at the existing entrance on Rest Church road and Zachary Ann Lane. Also, the developer would agree to pave Zachary Ann Lane as shown on the approved plans to the property being rezoned. In addition curb and gutter will be provided to a point to help discourage truck parking and not require the addition of storm drain inlets. Finally, the developer would agree to place No Parking signs along both sides of Zachary Ann Lane from the entrance onto Rest Church Road south to the end of the property currently owned by Flying J. These improvements shall be implemented prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. Sewage Conveyance and Treatment This site will be served by an 8" sanitary sewer line designed by Urban Engineering and approved by all agencies and to be constructed by developer of this project. The total site of development is +/- 20 Acres. The maximum square footage allowed for the M-1 zoning is 495,866 Sq.Ft. Based on this area as a gross Sq. Ft. and a usage of 150 gpd/ 1,000sq. ft. of floor space the projected maximum sewer flow may be 74,380 gpd. The portion of the site currently zoned M-1 (+/-15 acres) would contribute approximately 3 of 5 Impact Analysis Statement - JCA IV 55,785 gpd based on maximum floor area and the area requested to be rezoned to M-1 (+/-5 acres) would contribute approximately 18,595 gpd. The potential building that will be constructed on this site will be located entirely on the portion that is currently zoned M-1. and may be as large as 140,000 sq.ft. Using the same assumptions as above this facility may produce approximately 14,000 gpd of sewage flow. This is less that what could be expected from a maximum density for the +/-5 Acres requested to be rezoned. Additional, similar Alban Tractor Co. Inc. facilities use approximately 4,000 gallons per day. The developer will also be using a water reclamation system for a potential truck wash building and other washing operations associated with this development. Therefore, additional reduction of sewage flows could be expected. Finally, the applicant will install public sewer to this facility with a potential cost of approximately $250,000. Water Supply The site will be served by a 12" water line designed by Urban Engineering and approved by all agencies and to be constructed by the developer of this facility. . The total site of development is +/- 20 Acres. The maximum square footage allowed for the M-1 zoning is 495,866 Sq.Ft. Based on this area as a gross Sq.Ft. and a usage of 300 gpd/1,000sq.ft. of floor space the projected maximum water usage may be 148,760 gpd. The portion of the site currently zoned M-1 (+/-15 acres) would contribute approximately 111,570 gpd based on maximum floor area and the area requested to be rezoned to M-1 (+/-5 acres) would contribute approximately 37,190 gpd. The potential building that will be constructed on this site will be located entirely on the portion that is currently zoned M-1 and may be as large as 140,000 sq.ft. Using the same assumptions as above this facility may produce approximately 28,000 gpd of sewage flow. This is less than what could be expected from the +/-5 Acres requested to be rezoned. Additional, similar Alban Tractor Co. Inc. facilities use approximately 4,000 gallons per day. The developer will also be using a water reclamation system for a potential truck wash building and other washing operations associated with this development. Therefore additional reduction in water consumption could be expected.. Finally, the applicant will install public water to this facility with a potential cost of approximately $250,000. Drainage The site currently drains to a point on Duncan Run where it intersects I-81. Storm Water Management Facilities will be designed per Frederick County standards to reduce post development flows to pre -development flows. A water reclamation system will be used for wash operation on site as well as an oil recycling program will be implemented. An oil separator will be used in the equipment and truck wash areas. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities The impact on solid waste disposal can be projected from an average annual business consumption of landfill volume figure of 5.4 cubic yards per 1,000 sq. ft. of commercial floor area. (This number can be found in the Civil Engineering Reference Manual, 4t' edition) 4 of 5 impact Analysis Statement - JCA Tv The maximum allowable floor area is 495866 Sq.Ft. Based on the production stated above the total site could produce 2678 CY per year. This would breakdown to 2008 CY for the area currently Zoned M-1 and 670 CY for the 5.0 Acres+/- for area requested to be rezoned. By applying the 5.4 CY per 1000 Sq.Ft. to the potential floor area proposed with floor area of 130, 000 Sq.Ft. an annual production of 702 CY of solid waste could be expected. This is less than what could be expected by the total site and even the 5.0 Acres+/-. Furthermore the current facility operated by Alban Tractor in Frederick County currently has a 6 CY dumpster that is emptied every week by Allied Waste. Projecting this out over 52 weeks per year, the total expected would be approximately 312 CY. This is less than what could potentially be expected from a maximum development, based on the allowable square footage per the current zoning regulations. Alban will transfer their contract for the current facility to the proposed facility for this rezoning. Historic Site; and Structures According to information obtained from the National Register of Historic Places and the Virginia Division of Historic Resources websites, there are no historic sites or structures on the parcel to be rezoned or on adjacent parcels. Impact on Community Facilities Based on fiscal impact model run by the Frederick County Planning and Zoning Department is was found that the development of this project would have a net positive effect on the economy of Frederick County. Even though the model run by Frederick County shows no need for cash proffers, the applicant is willing to make a contribution to the Frederick County Fire and Rescue to offset initial costs incurred by this development. The applicant plans to preserve a buffer of existing trees on the south and southeastern portion of the property to reduce the visual impacts of an outdoor storage area. Finally, sales are projected to be approximately $31 million and employment of approximately 55 people. Since we are proposing no residential use, impact to schools will be minimal. of 5 e ES7 CHV a n RC w qua - EXISTING ' y `a rY FLYING J (. i G n FACILITY I O + •n h Co it e r/' N<- - -PROP OSED BUILDINGS l SIVE j PROPOSgD M1 ' ZONING EXISTING RA 'I r I 7' O A U G a C7 p z k ti¢O� 8 LEGEND AREA TO BE REZONED i a 647 4 63 ., r a x fs4000 �, 1 b II 4a. 12C 62].1 N•' ry � � (��j(� f ppb � r + ,` '� � � % t� /^ , J,•, 61•.3 639 612,4 b, a.3 N s y a r � t 614.1 � 609.1 137 1 /61' O. ''>1• � e,>.6 6 cart !� i. (( 1 71 7' `•, ♦'•.� f f '/ � � � ' 626. 2 516.5 *** ALL DISTANCES TO SITE BOUNDARYSl E Al _ PROP SED M1.t''' % f�J�/o l� 5263 Ml P RCEL J N y .—lze.: bzxs 6z3.] ;' v cUC c70 376'4 4 r +• r 1r F"av z + + 504' �� / o ° ❑ II LEGEND *** INFORMATION TAKEN FROM FREDERICK COUNTY GIS INFO AREA TO BE REZONED slow y OF I LollEXISTING FLYING J � FACILITY lid STING Mba - ROPO NG j� EXIT 323 ZONING PARCELIV c �j\N a op op ~ �0� ri \\. sir �\i OF 03/11/2AH5 14:53 54CI4500210 URBAN ENGINEERING PAGE 02/05 AUG 2 2005 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK ('0UNTY, VIRGINIA To beconipleted by Planning Siq.#." king Amendme it Njimber Hearing Date 00 Fee Amount Paid 5�5-01 Date Received /� � f�� . BBS Hearing DateJO Tile foijonj.>i1jg itifin-mationshall lye providt-'d /?I.' the alyYlicam: All }parcel Idetitification numbers, deed Book. and page numbers ii -my be obtained from the Office of the Commissiouer of Revenuee Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester - I. Applicant: Namc: JCA IV White Nall, -LLC, Address: 3531 Pulaski Highway Baltimore MD 21237 Contact: Robert Marano 2, property Owner (if different than above) ,I'ejepho .1je- 410-780-7200 Name: Telephone: Addross: 3. Contact person if Ober than above Name: David E. Lellock Telephone: 540-450-0211 .1 - 1 4, Checklist: Check the follow -11-1, iteins that have been included with this applicalim. Location 111-31) Agency Comments Phil Fees Deed W propeily Impact Analysis Statement Vel. f1cit'oli, I I of taxes paid Proffer. Statement 11 08/11/2005 11:53 5404500210 URBAN ENGINEERING PAGE 03/05 5, The Cade of VirOnja allows ars to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to, rezoning applications. Please list beloxv all owners or panics in intere.-st of tl�e. land to be rezoned: JCA lV Whitehall, LLC. Oa A) Current Use of the Property, Vacant; Zoned RA B) Proposed Use of the Property-: Caterpillar Maintenance and Sales Facil i, Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER See Attachment "A" USE ZONINA, 8. T.,o ation.- The property is located of (giveexactlocation based on. nearest road and distance froth nearest Intersection, wising road names and route mv..11bers): Approximately 954 feet vilest from Interchange 323 on 1_81 then approximately 2560 south along proposed Zachary Ann Lane 1' 0d/'11/20F15 14:53 54045010210 URBtihd ENGINEERING PAGE 04/05 [nforrnation to be Submitted for capital Facilities Impact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is :necessary for the applicant to provide information cmicerniug the specifics of the proposed. use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximun3 possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Pare 9 of the application pa.cka.gc. 4. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 33� � Districts Magisjerial: Stonewall Fire. Service: Clearbrook - Rewue Serv)cc_Clearbrook lligh School: James Wood Middle School: James Wood Elementarg, School:_ Stonewall 10. ;honing Change- List the acreage included in each new zoning category beitlg requested. Acres1. Current ZoninaZoning Requested 5.00 FIA M-1 15.035 Art -1 M-1/ No Change 20.035 Total acreage for be rezoned I L The followmg, infor-111ation shtruld he provide([ according to the type of rezoning proposed : Number of Units Proposed f ed Single Family homes: Townhome: Non -Residential Lots: Mobile I -Ionic Multi -Faintly: Hotel Rooms: S_quqrp Footage. of Proposed (mases 0ffiice: Service Station: Detail. Manufacturin(T: Restaurant:. Warehouse: � 120,000 Other: 08/11/2005 14:53 12. Signature: 5404500210 URBAN ENGINEERING PA -E 05/05 I (we), the undersigned, do hcrcbv respectfully make application and petition the. Frederick C"ounly Hoard of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning 121ap of Frederick County, Virg.1ma_ I (wc) autl-rorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (,.vo 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 Con7n'rissiOnt public hearing and iht. Hoard of Supers isors` public hearing and maintained so as to be visible frorn the road right-of-way until the hearing=. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are tine and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Owner(s): _ 14 Date: -LI44,4 Date: Late: l! -LA-� tj Date: ATTACMENT "A" Adjoining Property Information JCA IV White Hall, LLC Sheet 1 of 2 Parcel ID Number Use Zoning Name Address 33-A-88 RA David K. & Brenda S. Gray P.O. Box 40 Clearbrook, VA 22624 33-A-89 & 33-A-90 RA Fruit Hill Orchard, Inc. P.O. Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22604 33-9-1 B3 CFJ Properties - DBA Flying J Travel Attn: Tax Dept. P.O. Box 150310 O den, UT 84415 33-9-4 M1 A B White Hall, LLC % 8531 Pulaski Highway 33-9-6; 33-9-7 M1 JCA IV White Hall, LLC 8531 Pulaski Highway & 33-9-8 Baltimore, MD 21237 33-5-21 & 33-5-22 RA Robin L.V. & Joan F. Kibler 172 Ruebuck, Road Clearbrook, VA 22624 33-5-23 RA Roy A. Cooper 224 Ruebuck Road Clearbrook, VA 22624 33-5-24 RA Greggory S. Grove 280 Ruebuck Road Clearbrook, VA 22624 23-A-17 RA The Interstate Orchard, Inc. P.O. Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22604 23-A-14 RA Edward L., Jr. & Nancy Lee Bulter 1333 Rest Church Road Clearbrook, VA 22624 23-A-13 RA Edward L. Butler, Jr. & ETAL 1333 Rest Church Road Clearbrook, VA 22624 23-8-14 RA Basma Khalid 1287 Rest Church Road Clearbrook, VA 22624 23-8-15 RA Kevin L. & Tammy F. Enns 114 Ruebuck Road Winchester, VA 22624 33-A-100 RA Manuel C. Dehaven 4273 Martinsburg Pike Clearbrook, VA 22624 33-A-101 D RA Paul E., Sr. & Shirley Clark 4317 Martinsburg Pike & 33-A-101 C Clearbrook, VA 22624 33-A-101 B RA Burkhart Properties, LLC P.O. Box 37 Clearbrook, VA 22624 Sheet 1 of 2 ATTACMENT "A" Adjoining Property Information JCA IV White Hall, LLC Parcel ID Number Use Zoning Name Address 33-A-97; 33-A-98; 33-A-99 & 33-A-101 A M1 Riemer Electra Steam, Inc. P.O. Box 37 Clearbrook, VA 22624 33-A-96 & 33 -A -96A RA Robert W. & Virginia G. Compton 4455 Martinsburg Pike Clearbrook, VA 22624 33-A-95 RA Timothy William Johnson 4469 Martinsburg Pike Clearbrook, VA 22624 33-9-5 B3 Professional Mobile Home Brokers 1790 Berryville Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Sheet 2 of 2 g� a_U5: ill: 7EP.M O� O Gd ` k- 9 o 1 �1� a � a Ct U LJ _ '" e `J a VICINITY MAP SCALE : 1"=2000' _NOTARY: ACKNOIbLEDGED BEFORE ME I (� THIS DAY 01_2005. I MY COMMISSION EXP!RES-� I\ OiARY: `aCKNOWLEDG BEFORE ME "HIS �DAY OF:_0 4Y COMM1 N EXPIR � OTARY kJHI, NEY A- GIFF40FID NOtery Public � J t'ocmWwe;41no1Niassadvisatts MY Ocmmission Expires m K J 540 587 ,2167.` 3 aye G� ROP �o -PG RO � O A z� 0� Z FL . �w m � A_ J 4- ROU7> 671 `m �o 4R HILL ROAD AREA TABULATION: (ORIGINAL AREA) LOT 8 = 5,03564 ACRESt(219,352 SO.FT.f) (ADJUSTED AREA) PARCEL 89 = 3.43400 ACRESf(149,585 SO.FT.t) (ADJUSTED AREA1 pgRlgn 1 5660111 crRKci rc OFT +) LOT 8 TOTAL AREA = 10.03564 ACRESt(437,152 SO.FT.t) OWNERS CERTIFICATE FRUIT HILL ORCHARD, INC. (GRANTOR) DOES HEREBY GRANT AND GONVEY ONTO JCA IV WHITE HALL, LLC. (GRANTEE) THE FIVE (5) ACRE BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT HEREIN DESCRIBED. THIS BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT OF THE LAND OF JCA IV WHITE HALL, LLC. AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT IS WITH FREE CONSENT Al, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRES OF THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS. FRUIT HILL ORCHARD, INC. C.ROBERT SOLtNt%HUER (OFFICER) DATE (AA,6, JCA IV ITE HALL, LLC, DATE 4 APPROVALS: an. ca, 2008 REVIEWED AND CERTIFIED AS EXEMPT FROM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE , ALLOWING BOUNDAR ADJUSTMENTS AND MAY BE COMMITTED 0 RECORD SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATOR —' D TE SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: HEREBY CFF. ;F T,yA'I THE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS PLAT IS BASED ON AN ACTUAL FIELD SURVEY MADE UNDER 4Y SUPERVISION �)i`l DECEMBER 3, 2004, AND THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. IT IS THE SAME LAND 'ON VEYED To JCA IV WHITE HALL, LLC. AS RECORDED AMONG THE LAND RECORDS OF FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA, IN VsJROA�ECi,T_ �,'.:�;�n02�2s y .o YID E.; LELLOCI< L`` V2488 FEAT SHOWING BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT LAND OF JCA W !'SHITE HALL, LLC. :CJS � R��'l1=NT ni75D0102524 STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDEP!cK COUNTY, VIRGINIA -ALE: HTE: 5/9/2005 [?AWN RY. MTD FX MAP '#33 ((� j g REVISED: 6/16/2005 CHECKED BY. DEL I AT w, TE *L No. s No. 2488 � t S°mAt- SHEET 1 OF 3 URBAN ENGINEERING & ASSOC., INC. gVlL SNOtHE6Ry v L1NGeC�PS M7Cil7TfiL7S � L4lvD SLRc$y0gg 000 PSOASus ctiu Sun :01 W1WHEsTER va PZ502 e'- 9-05: iC: 56ANA 9 01' �- 540 667 267; 4 AT�HLINE SEE SHEET 3 bF 3 � �l g. , 1 IR} IPSIy]2291 ul s6lg �251eR ' FRS IT HILL ORCHARD, INC. l!z PORTION OF 11 jftF ii l� cn�� T&X *'IAP #33 ((A)) 38 to DEED BOOK 073 PAG' 4B3 1 ,`p \ \�.\ r1� ®� , 110.00000 ACRES± 1� , 0,F - 5 oc'2 to 9 a (ORIG]NALAREA)\ �bcF�eY</ dr/ ��tSt�t UO qWc 100.56600 ACRES± (REMINDER AREA) ,,,, 1 1 I LOT a z TAX MAP #33 ((9)) 8, �' � 1 6.03664 ACRES# (219,352 SQ.FT.±) 1 \ (ORIGINAL AREA) ' 4 10.03664 ACRES± \(ADJUSTED AREA) LOT 8 l� 11 tr 3.43400 ACRES± r (149,565 SQ -FT.±) 1 (ADJUSTED AREA) dQTES: ; 1 ZONE LINE: M-11 BOUNDARY INFOPk,ATION, .AS SHOWN \ 1 IEREON, !:WAS TAKEN SROM 'ALTA/ASCM J1 ZONE LINE:IRA- 1\ PROPERTY LINEN AND TITLE SURVE- THE RAINBOW, 1 HEREBY ROUP, A VIRGINIA PARTNERSHIP" 1' 1 ��VACATED 1 ERFORMED BY THI_ OFFICE AND DATED ECEMBER 6, 2004. . THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON IS OCATED WITHIN ZONE "C", AREAS ROPERTY LINE \ IRF FMINIMAL FLOODING, AS SHOWN ON HEREBY ROEDEDiNSURANCC RICK COU NT` -.v RAIN A OF ` HEATED 1\l�15-�0g15 2\S OMMItNITY PANEL NL:MBER 510063C 1BAL1 NTg152A 050 B. EFFECTIVE `.ATE: JULY 17, 1978 �RF IRON PIPES WILL EE SET .AT ALL W 22�j1 ii2J OP,NERS NOT PF. ':'^USLY I.10NUMENTED NT -54\q1 N1.� Jc 366 PDN APPROVAL C' 'HIS PLAT. IPS 1.F+t 1. H- Y fay i C) 8t3 NO BUILDINCS APE LOCATED UPON aaa'U DT 8.2911 L;. N '13 A10\ `1 —� BUILDING SETBACKS BUILDING S LEGEN Q IRFI IRON ROD FOUND IPF IRON PIPE FOUND IPS IRON P'PE SET ZONE: RA FRONT = 60' SIDE = 50' REAR - 50' ETBACKS ZONE: M-1 FRONT 75' SIDE = 25' REAR = 25' 0' 100' 200' 300' 0,,114440#00 T 6 � , ,• LTH pp .,� PLAT SaOVVING SCALE: 1"-= 100' OUNDARY 1_iNE ADJUSTMENT p L-n,r % � OF + AVIb E. LE LOCK JCA IV WHITF HALL, LLC. INSTRUMENT #050002524 m No. 2488 u TAX MA z; #33 ((9)) 8 s4. (7I1� log STONEWALL WGiSTERIAL DISTRICT 'b�r11ND vii° s�� FRF-nFAICK INTY VIRGINIA 6�.. .01 'ALE: ATE: 5/9/200 REVISED: 6/16/05, 6/28/05 2AWN BY: h4T CHECKED BY: DEL IX MAP P SHEET 2 OF 3 URBAN ENGINEERING & ASSOC., INC. CIVIL ERQINSERS < LANDSCAPE tRCR17'6'C7S - L4NU SURVgyU1S 000 PEGASUS HURT SUITE Ipl NWHESTER YA oaaOP ZONE: RA FRONT = 60' SIDE = 50' REAR - 50' ETBACKS ZONE: M-1 FRONT 75' SIDE = 25' REAR = 25' 0' 100' 200' 300' 0,,114440#00 T 6 � , ,• LTH pp .,� PLAT SaOVVING SCALE: 1"-= 100' OUNDARY 1_iNE ADJUSTMENT p L-n,r % � OF + AVIb E. LE LOCK JCA IV WHITF HALL, LLC. INSTRUMENT #050002524 m No. 2488 u TAX MA z; #33 ((9)) 8 s4. (7I1� log STONEWALL WGiSTERIAL DISTRICT 'b�r11ND vii° s�� FRF-nFAICK INTY VIRGINIA 6�.. .01 'ALE: ATE: 5/9/200 REVISED: 6/16/05, 6/28/05 2AWN BY: h4T CHECKED BY: DEL IX MAP P SHEET 2 OF 3 URBAN ENGINEERING & ASSOC., INC. CIVIL ERQINSERS < LANDSCAPE tRCR17'6'C7S - L4NU SURVgyU1S 000 PEGASUS HURT SUITE Ipl NWHESTER YA oaaOP LOT 8 1.s1I800 ACRES± (68•415 SQ.FT-t) (ADJUSTED AREA) 540 667 t 5b. C \t �Jc:F=`.,•j t`:T'Z�i, i � � IAF r' t t r�9tetL 1 ' 1 KFS~ t \ V0 3 1 1 So �:d .61 LOT e \ \ TAX MAP ((9)) G 1 d 3 ^ �t 1- z t t -•' 1 ZONE LINE: \M OPA IP t t �t�•9n \ 1 2167;# 5 oy� ZONE LINE: RA �n y \ FRUIT HILL ORCHARD, INC. PORTION OF TAX MAP '#33 ((A 80 I � �tt Z 1 � DEED BOOK 305 PAGE 242 I ��Gt�\ LOT 7 } �. ZONE: RA �� tr+� t TAX MAP#33 ((ft)) 7 0 107-67000 ACRES± 'r C' t?�, (ORIGINAL AREA) �\ \ 1 108-10400 ACRESf (REMINDER AREA) 1 cis g lim 1 t AA \t \ 1 1\ 1 1 MA LINE 5 � 1 EE SHEET 2 4F 3 — �� 1 \� IRF IP 1 � � –' \ 311• 200' 300' 11 \ --; IRf 160`'31` IRF SCALE. 1" = 100' FI_.-� sHolwiraG 0 OF DUNQARY L JE ADJUSTMENT I CA IV 1�f DOF DAVID >i ' C SITE HALL, LLC. K INSTRLJ_ - `NT #050002524 No- 2488 ► TAX MAP #33 ((9)) 8 I,TONEWALL ,MA.GISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK- OUNTY, VIRGINIA �s��A ��vi° - ,14 20' — SHEET 3 OF TE: 4 '9'0:':` I REVISED: 6/16/05, 6/2g/05 URBAN ENGINEERING & ASSOC. , INC. AWN BY: `D CHECKED BY: TJS Cim Fxc�NEeRs a LAN (MAT Z _ DRCAPE ARIIMZC = LIND SIRVEYDRB _ t} 3 (i, 3 000 FSUASUS COURT SUITE tot �T DEFD 121 x7 -RESTER VA 22002 a- - - - ,.��,�AM ViItUINiP. FREDERICK MlJT4TY' SCl'. [bas iusrlumwt of writing was produced tothe F � Z -(lam✓ at �—PYI� and with c,, ificaie of acknowledgement thereto annexed T i?upeed lry $ea 58.1-802 of was admitted to record. jy utd 58.1-801 bft-lx n paid, if assessable 540667 2167:v 6 ul r November 21,1990 Frederick County Board of Supervisors Frederick County Planning Commission 9 Court Square - Winchester, Virginia 22601 Reference; Whitehall Business Park Rainbow Group Property I-81 & Rt. 669 Frederick Co., Va. We the undersigned, sole .owners of land to be rezoned under rezoning request number 009-90, referred to as the .Whitehall Business Park rezoning, and the applicant for said rezoning, hereby; voluntarily -Proffer the following conditions. The conditions proffered shall be hinding upon the -hens, eicecutara, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest of both the applicant and owners. In the event the 'Frederick -County Board of Supervisors grants said rezoning and accepts these conditions, the following proffered conditions ghall- apply to the.land rezoned in addition t'o other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code: Theie will be two ponds pfovided to serve as -sources of water supply for fire protection; one towards the northern portion and one towards the southern portion of the property. An easement will be provided to guarantee access of the loca'1 fire departments to the water supply. One well shall be provided with each"p6nd'to maintain a -year-round water level. The design of easements and ponds shall be agreed to by the Fire Marshal and The Rainbow.Group. for adequacy as a source of water for fire protection, 'The approximate location of'ponds' shall be shown on the master development plan before any site plan is approved. At least one pond shall be provided before any occupancy permit is issued on the site. The second pond shall be provided as shown on the master development plan when the •site containing said pond is developed. Deeds shall specify -that property owners will maintain ponds for fire protection. 4. A storm water management system will be described on the master development plan. The ponds may be -used for detention if appropriate. S. Buildings shall be shown on the site plans Iodated between outdoor storage areas and boundaries of the property adjacent to Interstate 81. 6, A master development plan will be submitted for approval by the County before any site plans or 8"al:; islons are submitted, 7. A complete opaque vegetative*dr other screen shall be provided, before any occupancy permit is issue&;•on the site -between, the primary entrance from Route 66.9 and adjoining properties containing residential uses. The screening shall be designed to not interfere with sight distance on Route 669, 8. Each separate .lot shall be provided direct access to a road dedicated for state maiAtinkKde. Thb• acaess--road-.or- roads .Hall be constructed at the,time each lot is developed. No occupancy permit shall be approved on any lot until plans for the road have been approv_ed'by the V*' giriia Department of Transportation, the road has been cons'truct'ed to said 1st and the road has been dedicated to said lot for acceptance by .the Virginia Department of Transportation. 9, Deeds for each lot shall establish a property owners association according to the requirements of the'Frederick " County Code. 3, The Rainbov Group and/or -Assigns will record architectural and" development standards/restrictions/covenants and enforce all RAINBOW GROUP: recorded standards. These shall 'include provisions for minimum Architectural standards, site maintenance, landscaping and facility.maintenance. These will include a requirement for an architecturally designed front facade visible•from Interstate 81, Loading areas shall be on the west side of buildings. Henry W Buettner, Jr.' Ronald S. Simkhovitch Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Director Deptment of Panning and Development 17 N. Kent Street Suite 202 Winchester. VA 22601 August 18, 2005 RE: Alban Tractor Rezoning (RZ# 014-05) Dear Mr. Ruddy, Henry C. Buerttner, Jr 1908 S. Loudoun St. Winchester, VA 22601 I am in full support of the requested modification of the original proffers (RZ# 009-90) for lots 6, 7 and 8 of the White hall Business Park. The subject modifications are part of RZ# 014-05 Sincerely Henry C. Buettner, Jr. Managing Member Rainbow Group, LLC Cc: Robert Marano — Alban Tractor Co. Inc. David E. Lellock — Urban Engineering & Assoc. I- /-L'-: _:i. -F'I.I V U 1. f• LV V I L . I T 1 111 � � I C U � 1 1 u L i U. Street Traffic Studies, Ltd. May 13, 2002 .Bob Marano Alban Tractor 8531 Pulaski highway Baltimore, Maryland 21237 Dear Mr, Marano: RE: Westphalia Road @ MD 4 Based on our discussions, it is our understanding that Alban - Cat is proposed to construct a new truck service facility on the property located in the northeast quadrant of the MD 41 Westphalia Road intersection in Prince Georges County, Maryland, The site will access directly to 'Westphalia Road which in turn connects to MD 4 by way of an existing signalized intersection- As nter section_ As you are aware, the development density ofthe subject property has been limited as detailed within the Preliminary Plan resolution (Preliminary Plat 4-93085, PGCPB No. 94-158) to "980,400 square feet light service industrial space and 35,000 square feet commercial office space or different uses generating no more than 974 AM peak hour trips and 974 PM peak hour trips as specified in PGCPB Resolution No. 94-158." Because the proposed truck service facility is a use that has not been previously studied, additional studies are necessary ian order to predict the expected trip generation characteristics, as they would apply to the trip cap placed on the property. Based on our discussions, the existing ALBAN site in Sterligg, Virginia was identified as a fac"1=a_-�; vent similar in size and use to the one proposed for the Westphalia Road site. A traffic data collection program was developed to analyze the Sterling site which include mechanical counts for the each of the two driveways serving the site along with peak period manual classification counts for the driveways. Copies of the data summaries a1e included for your review and use. It was anticipated that the ALBAN facility would be a relatively low peak period traffic gerrmtor_ 'Phis assumption was confirmed through the data collection process_ Based on our review of the data collected, averaged over a two day period, the AL13AN site was found to generate 61 morning and 22 evening peak hour trips. This morning site traffic was evenly split between inbound and outbound traffic while the evening peak hour traffic was predominantly outbound in nature_ 400 Crain highway, N -W, - Glen Burnie, Maryland 21061 T 1o„h,,.,, Al 111 con <cnn . FAY Al A SQO (.(.'411 IU Ir (r GVVI G I -TI III V 4 1 l I I W I { V y r Jl L L Vr IYvr i Tri l� :1 May 13, 2002 Page Two Further review of the data collection confirms that the majority of the mooting traffic associated with the site occurs early, beginning as early as 5:OOAM and declines prior to the morning peak hour of the adjoining roadways. The evening peak traffic peak for the site actually occurs in the early afternoon, again prior to the peak hour peaks of the adjoining highway. The classification counts conducted for the Sterling site confirmed that the majority of the vehicles accessing the site were passenger vehicles, small trucks, or the tractor portion of a tractor trailer rig_ Very few large trucks, less than eight during the peak period study period, were re -corded as part of the vehicle classification studies. In sur unary, based on the studies conducted, the proposed ALBAN truck facility at the Westphalia Road site wmdd be expected to generate relatively low peak hour traffic volumes, on the order of 65 morning and 25 evening peak hour trips. Ifyeu have any questions or require additional information, please let me know. Sincerely, vid A. Nelson, P_E_ President CC: Thomas "er - Gibbs and IWIcr Attachments