Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07-07 Application
' FILE COPY W� COUNTY of FREDERICK 04 Department of Planning and Development ® 540/665 -5651 a FAX: 540/665.6395 September 17, 2007 Dennie Dunlap, P.E. Triad Engineering 200 Aviation Dr. Winchester, VA 22602 RE: REZONING 907 -07 OF I-81 DISTRIBUTION CENTER Dear Dennie: This letter serves to confirm action taken by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their meeting on September 12, 2007. The Board denied your request to rezone 59 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to M1 (Light Industrial) District, with proffers. - The properties are located approximately 0.61 miles north of the Route 11 intersection with Cedar Hill (Route 671), bounded on the west by Interstate Route 81 and on the east by Martinsburg Pike (Route 11), and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 33 -A -109 and 33 -A -110 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Section 165 -11 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum period of 12 months to elapse before the consideration of another application for rezoning of substantially the same land to the same zoning district designation. Please do not hesitate contact this office if you have any questions regarding the denial of this rezoning application. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Planning Director cc: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Stonewall District Supervisor John H. Light and Gary Oates, Stonewall District Planning Commissioners Jane Anderson, Real Estate Commissioner of Revenue Estate of Roy Riley Boyce, Jr., PO Box 67, Clearbrook, VA 22602 Thomas M. Lawson, Esquire, PO Box 2740, Winchester, VA 22604 John L. Knott, III, BPG Development Co., 3000 Center Square West, 1500 Market St., Philadelphia, PA 19102 MTR/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 0 0 REZONING APPLICATION 407 -07 1 -81 DISTRIBUTION CENTER Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors Prepared: August 31, 2007 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning 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 Planning Commission: 08/15/07 Board of Supervisors: 09/12/07 Action Recommended Denial Pending PROPOSAL To rezone 59 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to Ml (Light Industrial) District, with proffers. LOCATION The properties are located approximately 0.61 miles north of the Route 11 intersection with Cedar Hill (Route 671), bounded on the west by Interstate Route 81 and on the east by Martinsburg Pike (Route 11). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER 33 -A -109 and 33 -A -110 PROPERTY ZONING RA (Rural Areas) PRESENT USE Residential and agricultural ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE North: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential /Agricultural South: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential /Agricultural East: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential /Agricultural West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential /Agricultural PROPOSED USES Office and Warehouse Uses (Maximum 150, 006 square feet of office proffered). Rezoning 407 -07 — I -81 Distribution Center August 31, 2007 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 1 1, 672 and 669. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is modestly satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the 1 -81 Distribution Center Rezoning Application dated December 12, 2006 (revised July 11, 2007). The overall development plan appears acceptable. However, there are a few outstanding transportation concerns such as: It should be noted that the applicant did not use the normal trip generation based on square footage, but instead utilized number of employees. Section 2.3: VDOT is concerned that the dollar value currently proffered will not adequately fund other projects necessary to offset the congestion occurring if /when the trips exceed 124 weekday p.m. peak hour vehicle trips per day. However, VDOT will support whatever decision is made between the developer and Frederick County. 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 Marshall: Plan approval recommended. Clearbrook Vol. Fire Dept.: As long as the design has the standard fire codes. Department of Inspections: No Comment. Department of Public Works: 1. Refer to C. Site Suitability: The site description indicates that the area is underlain by carbonate sedimentary bedrock resulting in karst terrain. Indicate if the karst terrain contains sinkholes or potential piping channels. Also, indicate if the site is marked by numerous rock outcaps which will, most probably, require blasting to accommodate site development. 2. Refer to the Traffic Impact Analysis. The proposed trip generator summary included on page 8 of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) reflects the number of trips associated with 150 employees. However, the TIA has conveniently avoided the amount of truck traffic associated with the proposed distribution center. Considering the nature of the development, evaluating the truck traffic is critical in determining the real impact on the road network. Revise the TIA accordingly and resubmit. 3. Refer to F. Site Drainage: Elaborate on the statement "low impact type stormwater management techniques ". We anticipate that the stormwater runoff will be dramatically increased because of the proposed development including 739,000 square feet of warehouse space 1 1,000 square feet of office space, and numerous acres of pavement. Therefore, we anticipate that onsite stormwater management will be required to mitigate offsite impacts. This mitigation may also require quality as well as quantity control considering the potential for the transport of hydrocarbon contaminated runoff from the parking areas. Indicate how this potential environmental impact will be addressed in the design phase of the subject project. 0 0 Rezoning #07 -07 — I -81 Distribution Center August 31, 2007 Page 3 Frederick -Winch ester Service A utho rity: Considering that this is a distribution center of known size, you would think that the applicant's engineer could provide water and sewer capacity numbers based on square footage. Sanitation Authority Department: We will provide sewer and water service to this site. Department of Parks & Recreation: No comment. Health Department: Health Dept. has no objection to the request as stated so long as existing wells or drainfields are not negatively impacted. Winchester Regional Airport: We have reviewed the proposed rezoning application and determined that the proposed development plan will not have an impact on operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. While the proposed site lies within the airport's airspace, it does fall outside of the airport's Part 77 close in surfaces, therefore, special conditional will not be requested. Frederick County Public Schools: 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. Historic Resources Advisory Board: The HRAB reviewed information associated with the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey Report and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, as well as information provided by the applicant. The HRAB felt that the proffers associated with historic preservation and recognition was adequate, but made two recommendations which included: Since the last time a survey was done in 1990, the FIRAB felt that the applicant must fill out a Preliminary Information Form (PIF) from the Department of Historic Resources (DHR) for the Nathaniel Branson House, which is located on the property proposed to be rezoned. The PIF will determine if the Nathaniel Branson House can receive state recognition for its historical value. The HRAB requested that a landscaped berm be placed along the frontage of the property, so that the viewshed of the Alexander Branson House (across Route 1 I ) would not be negatively impacted by the placement of a 739,000 square foot industrial structure. Attornev Comments: 1. The last sentence of the first paragraph must be deleted. If the Board were to deny this conditional rezoning application, and the Applicant appealed that denial to the Circuit Court, and if the Circuit Court overruled the Board and remanded the matter to the Board for reconsideration, the application which would be back before the Board by virtue of the remand from the Circuit Court would be this conditional rezoning with these proffers. If the Applicant did not wish the Board to go forward with the reconsideration with these proffers, the Applicant would have to withdraw the application at that time. 2. There is a Generalized Development Plan ( "GDP ") attached to the Proffer Statement. There should be an additional proffer added to the Proffer Statement which states that the development of the property would be in substantial conformity with the GDP. Further, it would appear that the GDP attached to the Proffer Statement is not properly identified in the last sentence of the second paragraph. The reference should be to the Generalized Development Plan dated October 23, 2006, attached to the proffers as Exhibit A. It is also noted that in the last sentence of the second paragraph reference is made to a "Conceptual Plan ", and I do not believe that that term is used in the 0 0 Rezoning 407 -07 — I -81 Distribution Center August 31, 2007 Page 4 proffers. 3. In Proffer 1, the monetary contribution should be to Frederick County, for the Clearbrook Fire and Rescue Company. 4. In Proffer 2.2. for clarity I would recommend that the word "to Frederick County" be inserted after the word "contribute ". 5. There seems to me to be no reason why Proffer 3.2 is worded as it is. First of all, the reference to the Comprehensive Plan is different from the concept in the Zoning Ordinance to determine the necessity for buffers, and may actually establish that there would be no buffer. Further, since the determination of whether a buffer will apply is to made now ( "at the time of this rezoning "), the proffer to provide buffers should be stated affirmatively, rather than by an indirect reference to proposed future uses in the Comprehensive Plan. The proffer suggests that buffers would be provided. If the Applicant is affirmatively proposing buffers (as indicated on the Generalized Development Plan) the proffer should state that a 75 -foot inactive buffer and a 25 -foot active buffer shall be provided along the north and south boundaries of the property as shown on the Generalized Development Plan. 6. Paragraph 6.1 is not a proffer and should be deleted. If the Applicant is prepared to proffer that it will comply with the recommendations of Historic Resources Advisory Board, then the proffer should be rewritten to state that. Planning Department: Please see letter dated February 1, 2007, signed by Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Inwood Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned A -2 (Agricultural General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re- mapping of the subject property and all other A -1 and A -2 zoned land to the RA District. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1 -1] Land Use The parcel comprising this rezoning application is located within the County's Sewer and Water Service Area (SW SA) and the site is within the limits of the Northeast Land Use Plan. The plan designates the site for business use. The industrial land use proposed in this rezoning is not consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan. The plan states that "Business and commercial Rezoning 407 -07 —1 -81 Distribution Center August 31, 2007 Page 5 land uses are proposed along the Martinsburg Pike corridor, on the east and west side of Interstate 81 exits 317, 321 and 323. It is envisioned that commercial uses which cater to the interstate traveler will be developed along the three Interstate 81 interchanges, while retail, service and office land uses will occur along the Martinsburg Pike corridor ". Transportation Plans for new development should provide for the right-of-ways necessary to implement planned road improvements and new roads shown on the road plan should be constructed by the developer when warranted by the scale, intensity, or impacts of the development. Existing roads should be improved as necessary by adjacent development to implement the intentions of the plan (Comprehensive Plan 7 -6). The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan does include this portion of the County. The Northeast Land Use Plan calls for Martinsburg Pike to be improved to a four -lane facility. The Plan also states that proposed industrial and commercial development should only occur if impacted roads function at Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better. This application does not provide that Level of Service. The Frederick County Bicycle Plan designates Route 11 as a short-term designated route. Site Access and design. The Northeast Land Use Plan discourages individual lot access on the Martinsburg Pike corridor, encourages inter - parcel connections, and recommends adequate screening from adjoining land uses and recommends greater setbacks and buffers and screening along Martinsburg Pike. This development has not proffered any public street entrance or commercial entrance limitations on Martinsburg Pike from the property. The project has not proposed any interparcel connectivity with the adjacent parcels to the north and south. It may be anticipated that additional development opportunities on the adjacent properties may occur in the future. Interparcel opportunities should be a greater consideration. Pedestrian accommodations have been provided along the projects frontage with Route 11. 3) Site Suitability /Environment The site does not contain any environmental features that would either constrain or preclude site development. There are no identified areas of steep slopes, floodplains or woodlands. This area is also known for karst topography. The Frederick County Engineer has identified that a detailed geotechnical analysis will be needed as part of the detailed site plan design. The HRAB made two recommendations based upon the presence of the Nathaniel Branson House on the property. The I -IRAB felt that the applicant must fill out a Preliminary Information Form (PIF) from the Department of Historic Resources (DHR) for the Nathaniel Branson I- louse, and the HRAB requested that a landscaped berm be placed along the frontage of the property, so that the viewshed of the Alexander Branson House (across Route 11) would not be negatively impacted by the placement of a 739,000 square foot industrial structure. No 0 0 Rezoning 407 -07 —1 -81 Distribution Center August 31, 2007 Page 6 tailored corridor improvements have been provided in the application, beyond those customarily required by ordinance, to effectively enhance the corridor appearance of Route 11 or address the comments offered by the HRAB. 4) Potential Impacts Proposed Uses: The application states the rezoning is for a T 9,000 square feet warehouse and 11,000 square feet of office space. While the Applicant has revised their proffer statement to limit the amount of office use to 150,000 square feet, no further limitations have been provided regarding the potential development of the site. Therefore, the maximum possible development of non office use as per the County's Ordinance should continue to be considered when evaluating this request. A significant amount of non - office use development could occur on this 59 acre site with a permitted FAR of 1.0. An intensive use of the property is desirable. However, the transportation improvements needed to accommodate the projected and potential traffic must be fully addressed by the applicant. For comparison, the proffered amount of office space is similar to that currently under construction by FEMA which is projected to have approximately 1,500 employees. A. Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis. The traffic impact analysis (TIA) prepared for this application evaluated two scenarios. Scenario A assumes the proposed project will include 750,000 square feet of warehouse. Scenario B assumes the proposed development of 220,000 of office. This is inconsistent with the proffered square footage limitation on the use of the property and does not reflect the potential worst case scenario build out of the property. Access to the site was modeled via two site driveways along the west side of Route I 1 (limitations on access to the site was not proffered). Concern has been raised regarding the trip generation figures used in the TIA. In particular, the use of employee numbers rather than the approach recommended by V DOT and the ITE. As a result, the conclusions provided in the TIA should be carefully evaluated. The County and VDOT have both expressed concerns with the TIA. The TIA indicates that Level of Service C conditions or better will be maintained on study roads and intersections with the completion of several area improvements including improvements at the intersection of Route 11 /Hopewell Road /Brucetown Road and improvements at the intersection of Route 11 /Rest Church Road. None of the above improvements identified in the TIA have been addressed by this application. In addition, the improvements to the site driveways identified in the TIA are not guaranteed to be provided. The applicant has proffered the signalization of the main project entrance and Martinsburg Pike only if a certain trip count will be met from the site. This approach provides no consideration of the volumes of traffic on Route 11 and the character of the traffic making turning movements to and from the site. Such a critical unsignalized movement should be avoided. Rezoning 407 -07 —1 -81 Distribution Center August 31, 2007 Page 7 Transportation Program. The Applicant's transportation program is limited to providing for the required access to the site via deceleration lanes and providing for a monetary contribution towards area transportation improvements that would be completed by others. If triggered by future traffic counts, a signal on Route 11 may be implemented. The necessary improvements identified in the TIA have not been addressed by this application. In addition, the Applicant's transportation program does not provide for or advance the County's Eastern Road Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan, in particular, the widening of Route 11. As previously noted, interparcel connectivity should be a consideration with this application. Particular attention could be paid to the properties to the north and south of this project. C. Design Standards The Northeast Land Use Plan recommends adequate screening from adjoining land uses and recommends greater setbacks and buffers and screening along Martinsburg Pike. The site is surrounded on all sides by RA (Rural Areas) zoned property, which is either in agricultural or residential use. While it is possible that these uses may change in the future, in line with the Northeast Land Use Plan, for the moment, screening should be addressed. The project's location on a major corridor warrants particular attention. This has not been fully provided for in the application and could be achieved through a combination of proffered commitments that may include a proffer to provide an adequate corridor enhancement buffer along the frontages of the property and a limitation on the signage on the property. Consideration should also be given to screening along Interstate 81. D. Community Facilities The development of this site will have an impact on community facilities and services. However, it is recognized that commercial uses generally provide a positive impact on community facilities through the additional generation of tax revenue. This application addresses the impacts to Fire and Rescue services by providing a monetary contribution in an amount of $10,000. 5) Proffer Statement — Dated December 12, 2006; revised June 18, 2007 and July 11, 2007. A) Generalized Development Plan A Generalized Development Plan has not been provided by the Applicant. B) Land Use The Applicant has provided that the amount of office space on the property will be no greater than 150,000 square feet. No limitation has been provided for non office land uses light industrial uses that would be permitted within the M 1 Zoning District. 0 0 Rezoning #07 -07 —1 -81 Distribution Center August 31, 2007 Page 8 The Applicant has proffered a 10' wide landscape strip along Route 11 including a variety of landscape plantings. This proffer does not appear to provide any additional corridor enhancements beyond what would typically be required by Ordinance for parking lot landscaping. The Applicant has limited the fagade materials of the buildings fronting along Route I 1 and Interstate 81 to a variety of materials. Proffers 5.1 and 5.2 are redundant as they are required by current ordinance. C) Transportation The Applicant's proffered transportation improvements include the dedication of an unspecified amount of right -of -way for future improvements to Route 11 to be done by others. Right turn deceleration lanes have been proffered. The proffered right tuna lanes are the minimum that would be required by VDOT during the development of the site. The Applicant has proffered $100,000 at the time of Certificate of Occupancy for unspecified improvements within the Route 11 corridor. The proffer statement also provides for a potential contribution in the amount of $50,000 based upon the potential that the vehicle trips may exceed a specified number (124). A second trigger has been provided which would provide for the signalization of an entrance to this site, or a comparable cash contribution, in the event that the vehicle trips exceeded a specific number (325). In general, this approach to addressing the transportation impacts generated by this development is extremely undesirable. The Applicant has proffered to construct a 10' wide asphalt multi use trail along their frontage on Route 11. D) Community Facilities The development of this site will have an impact on community facilities and services. However, it is recognized that commercial uses generally provide a positive impact on community facilities through the additional generation of tax revenue. This application addresses the impacts to Fire and Rescue services by providing a monetary contribution in an amount of $10,000. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 08/15/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The land use proposed in this rezoning is not consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan. Further, the impacts associated with this rezoning request have not been mitigated by the Applicant, in particular, transportation improvements have not been provided that would achieve a level of service C or address the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, site design and corridor appearance considerations have not been adequately addressed. 0 0 Rezoning_ 407 -07 — 1 -81 Distribution Center August 31, 2007 Page 9 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 08/15/07 MEETING The applicant's representative, Mr. Ty Lawson, P.C., responded to the staffs statement that the application was not consistent %vith the Comprehensive Policy Plan by pointing out that existing uses on the west side of Route I I and the cast side of I -8I were comprised ofan overlap of commercial and industrial uses and, therefore, this area could be considered as a transitional area. He spoke of the County's desire to have readily available facilities for potential M I users and his client's preference for M I zoning, rather than 133. He noted that M I uses produce less traffic impacts than 133 uses. He said his client did not intend to build office facilities, other than ancillary offices for an industrial use and, therefore, had placed a cap in their proffer for permitted square footage o1 "office use. Mr. Lawson stated that they chose warehouse and office uses for their tragic modeling and, in addition, they conducted actual traffic counts of existing facilities, such as Home Depot and Target. The applicant's transportation analyst. Mr. Mike Glickman of PHRRA, spoke about the applicant's trip generation results and he explained why other methods besides square footage, such as acreag-e or employees, were valid in the modeling studies. Mr. Glickman said his client strongly disagreed this site would generate the numbers of trips indicated by the use of square footage modeling. Commission members expressed concern that none ofthe transportation improvements identified in the TIA had been addressed by the application to provide a LOS Category C on impacted roads; nor did the applicant's transportation program provide for or advance the CouIAN "S Eastern Road Plan element of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, specifically, the widening of Route 1 I. "fhe applicants two site driveways were raised as an issue because the NELUP discourages individual lot access onto Route 1 I. Commission members questioned the applicant's T[A because it used employee counts. ratherthan square footage for trip generation lig-ures, and may not accurately reflect the potential worst -case scenario. Furthermore, no additional limitations had been provided regarding the potential development of the site other than it cap on the square footage of office use. Some Commissioners commented that recently- rezoned properties and background traffic from West Virg-inia should be included in the applicant's calculations. "they inquired about the proposed tractor - trailer count for the site. Members of the Commission noted the applicant had not offered any information on signs, nor had any M I uses been proffered out. A Commissioner expressed the need for a regionalized transportation plan for the Route I I corridor, so future applicants are aware of what the County's expectations are for transportation improvements. There were no public comments. By a majority vote. the Plannin Commission recommended denial of the rezoning for the 1 -81 Distribution Center for the following reasons: 1) the application fails to address the Comprehensive Policy Plan; 2) the application fails to adequately address the design standards within the corridor: and. 3) the applicants TIA and transportation improvements do not adequatey mitibate impacts to the Route I 1 corridor. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO REC. DENIAL) Mohn, Triplett, Ours, Wilmot, Light. Morris, Unger NO: Manuel ABSTAIN Oates (Note: Commissioners Watt. Thomas. Kriz, and Kerr were absent from the meeting.) 0 0 Rezoning #07 -07 —1 -81 Distribution Center August 31, 2007 Page 10 STAFF UPDATE FOR 09/12/07 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING: The Applicant met with Staff on Thursday, August 30, 2007 to discuss their rezoning request. Al this meeting the Applicant indicated that they were in the process of preparing a revised proffer statement that will be presented to the Board of Supervisors. This meeting was followed up with a Memorandum which outlined how the proffer revisions addressed a variety of items (a copy of this memorandum is included for your information). At this time, staff does not have an updated, signed, and notarized proffer statement for review. At such time one is provided to Staff, it will be immediately forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. In the meantime, consideration of this application should still be based upon the proffer statement (revision dated July I I, 2007) included in your agenda. In relationship to this application and discussion that occurred at the Planning Commission regarding the economic impacts of such a project, the following evaluation is provided for your information. An evaluation of the positive fiscal impacts (tax benefits) of similar projects performed by the EDC has indicated an average return per acre of over $6,500.00 over three years. It could be anticipated that a project locating on a fifty -nine acre site may generate approximately nearly $400,000.00 over a similar time period. The cost of the transportation improvements identified in the application as being necessary to achieve an acceptable level of service at the intersections identified will far exceed the amount generated by development on this site and will far exceed the ($150,000.00 initially /monetary contribution) proffered with this project. As the Board is aware, the positive fiscal attributes of commercial and industrial projects have customarily been used to offset impacts associated with residential land uses. It would be undesirable to utilize the positive fiscal benefits of a commercial or industrial project to address the transportation impacts generated by a particular project. The Comprehensive plan seeks to ensure that projects for which a rezoning is being requested, such as this one, provide for an acceptable level of service on area roads. The expectancy is for a rezoning application to address their particular transportation impacts and ensure that an acceptable level of service is achieved. An updated, signed, and notarized proffer statement, dated September 5, 2007, was provided to staff immediately prior to the mailing of the Boards agenda. This has been included in your agenda package. The staff report has not been modified based upon this last minute submission. However, Staff offers the following brief summary of the changes. Proffer 2.2 has been modified to increase the initial dollar amount contributed to Frederick County for improvements in the Route 11 corridor to $150,000.00 from $100,000.00. Proffer 2.6 has been added which proffers a contribution in the amount of $250,000.00 to Frederick County for improvements in the Route 11 corridor in the unlikely event that the property generates over 510 weekday PM peak hour vehicle trips per day. Proffer 2.8 has been added which limits the number of entrances along Route 11 to no more than two. Proffer3.1 has been modified in an effort to more thoroughly address the provision of landscaping and buffering along the properties Route 11 frontage. • To: Mike Ruddy From: John Knott CC: John Bishop Chuck DeHaven Dan DiLella, Jr. John Knott Ty Lawson Dick Shickle Date: 8/31/2007 Re: Proffer Revisions, Meeting Follow -Up Thank you for taking the time to meet with us, yesterday. As you know we also had a meeting with Dick Shickle after we met with you, John and Chuck. I would like to reiterate our overall intent to work openly with the County as we move forward in an attempt to address your concerns. Since our meeting yesterday, Mike Glickman (PHRA) and John Bishop communicated about the trip count calculations, and are in agreement that the calculations used by PHRA are correct. And therefore the PM Peak Trips that we state in our Proffer and our presentation to the Board are accurate calculations (reference email from John Bishop on 8/31/07). Regarding our overall discussions, Ty Lawson is preparing a revised Proffer Statement that will address the following items: 1. We are increasing the initial Proffer for transportation improvements along Rt. 11 from $100,000 to $150,000 (Proffer 2.2). This amount, equal to the cost of a traffic signal, gives the County the ability to use the Proffer for a specific item (a traffic signal) if they choose to do so. 2. We will include language in Proffer 3.1, the landscaping Proffer, (and any others that this may apply to) that specifically states that the Proffer is "in addition to what is required by the County Ordinance(s) ". 3. We will include a New proffer that provides for "no more than two (2) vehicular entrances to our site from Route 11". 4. We will include a New proffer that addresses installation of a 3' berm or hedgerow along the Rl. 11 frontage in case our site development plan is not required to install that berm or hedgerow by County Ordinance(s). 1 0 10 5. We will include a New proffer that addresses the placement of County Ordinance required site landscaping. It is our intent to place a percentage of the site landscaping along the RL 11 frontage to provide for additional screening. We want this to be clear to the Staff and to the Board. 6. We will include language to confirm that the Proffer will transfer to any and all future owners of the site. This is a concern brought to our attention by Mr. Shickle that we intend to address. 7. We will include language that addresses the administration of the Trip Count Triggers that relate to Proffer 2.3. Ty is working on the language today. Our intent with this memo is to communicate the items we are including in the revised Proffer Statement. We would like you to have this information as you work on creating your report for the Board of Supervisors. Ty is currently working on the revised Proffer language, and a fully signed and notarized Proffer Statement will be delivered to you by September 5"'. Please call or email at anytime with and comments or questions. Thank You, J h L. Knoll III Development Manager BPG Properties, Ltd. iknottPbpgltd -com 215- 575 -2436 (work) 215- 200 -5729 (cell) • Page 2 Frederick County, VA PD&6vJAY ESTATES 33 12 Pi FA RFIELD FARM OF FREDERICK CO,LLC Location in the Lountj Map Features O Hamlats �M Future Rt37 Bypass 0 Application D Almon 6 LakaslPOnds — strearea as' uil Bdings .1.0a Primary Sewndary '� Teroiary .0 Urban Development Area N SWSA Topography (S' interval) Re- Zoning REZ #07 -07 Application I -81 Distribution Center jEruc etown o Parcel ID: 33 -A- 109,110 FAIRFIELD FARM OF FREDERICK CO,LLG ti ezo Location in Surrounding Area o izs zso sa eet e ra _ STIMMEL,JAMES'Ae CAROLYNW �� q �turKeglzun © Case Planner. Mike Map Document: (N:\ Planning_ And Development \_1_Locator_Mps\ 181_ DistributionCenter _REZ0707_071207.mxd) 7/12/2007 -- 3:01:11 PM Frederick County, VA Location in Surrounding Area GK — 0 125 250 S eat © Case Planner. Mike Location in the County Map Features Re- Zoning REZ # 07 - 07 Application I -81 Distribution Center Parcel ID: 33- A- 109,110 O Hamlets Zoning M Future M37 Bypass . B1 (Business, Neighborhood DialdcQ Q Application a B2 (Business, General Distnc) O All Asia B3 (Business, Industrial Transition Distl O Lakca tends EM(Ertractive Manufacturing District) ^— Streams es HE (Higher Education Distinct) Buildings all M I(Industdel, tight District) Streets am M2(Industdel, Gen eral plains) — primary • MH1(Mobile Home Community District) — Secondary • MS (Medical Supped Dial — Ter iary all R4 ( Residential, Planned Community Distdc .s Urban Development Are R5(Residentel Recreational Community Dl M SWSA RAZ(Ruml Area Zone) RP (Residential Performance Districe Map Document: (N:\ Planning_ And_Developmenl\_1_Locator_Mps\ 181_ DistributionCenter _REZ0707_071207.mxd) 7/12/2007 -- 3:01:11 PM Frederick County, VA Re- Zoning REZ # 07 - 07 Application I -81 Distribution Center Parcel ID: 33 -A- 109,110 Location in Surrounding Area CR � 0 125 250 SOyOeet Q� © Case Planner: Mike Location in the Lountq Map features O HamCls ^s Future Rt37 Bypass Q Application D AlrpaG D Lakes /Ponds Stream as Buildings Strsatz I Primary ear Secondary I Tertiary Qa Urban Deuelopmeni ar Si Lone Ranee Land Use Rural Community Center Residential Business ® Industrial ® Insiourfonal w9 Recreation ® Hiiii ® Mixed -Use ® Planned Unit Development Map Document: (N:\ Planning_ And_Development\_1_Locator_Mps\ 181_ DistributionCenter _REZ0707_071207.mxd) 7 /12/2007 -- 3:01:11 PM Frederick County, I -81 Distribution Center Location in the county Map Features O Hamlets eN Future Rt37 Bypass 0 Application D A'vpod 8 Lakee,Pamds Streams stmets Pmnary Secondary ti Temiary :a Urban Development Area ar SMA Topography (5' Interval) Parcel ID: 33 -A- 109,110 0 125 250 50 Map Document: (N: \Planning_And_Development\ 1_Locator_Mps\ 181_ DistributionCenter _REZ0707_071207.mxd) 7 /12/2007 -- 3:01:11 PM • • REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff.- Fee Amount Paid $ q0-5 f Zoning Amendment Nu her Date Received .7 6 0 C Hearing Date BOS Hearing Date e The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: BPG Properties, Ltd. Telephone: (215) 575 -2436 Address: C/O Triad Engineering, Inc., 200 Aviation Drive Winchester, VA 22602 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Estate of Roy Riley Boyce, Jr. Address: PO Box 67 VA 22624 3. Contact person if other than above Name: John L. Knott. III Telephone: (540) 550 -5027 Telephone: (215) 575 -2436 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map / Agency Comments Plat i Fees ,i Deed to property Impact Analysis Statement Verification of taxes paid V Proffer Statement 11 • 5. The Code of Virginia allows as to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: Estate of Roy Riley Boyce, Jr. BP Properties, Ltd. 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Agricultural with existing residence B) Proposed Use of the Property: 739,000 sf warehouse wi th 11,000 sf office 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER 33- A -86A, 86B, 87 33 -A -87, 108, 112 33 -12 -24 33- A -105B USE 1 Residential Agricultur Agricultur Commercial ZONING RA RA RA M -1 S. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): Approximately 0.61 +/- miles north of the Route 11 intersection with state route 671 (Cedar Hill). Bounded on the west by Interstate Route 81 and on the east by Route 11 (Martinsburg Pike) . 11 • 9. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: NIA Townhome: N/A Multi - Family: N/A Non - Residential Lots: N/A Mobile Home: N/A Hotel Rooms: N/A Square Footage of Proposed Use Office: 11,000 Service Station: N/A Retail: N/A Manufacturing: N/A Restaurant: N/A Warehouse: 739,000 Other: N/A 10. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right -of -way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s): <;, 1 �L . v' m �� — Date: -8PG Properties, Ltd. Date: Owner(s): Date: Date: 13 Adjoining Property Owners Rezoning 0 Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right -of -way, a private right -of -way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name and Property Identification Number Address Name D Iee P O Box 174 Property # 334,111 Name Charles W Cuff Sr & Jaline axUard 2897 Mxr� Pile Cbearb t VA 226 Property # 33-A -112 Named S C1 4123 Mar� Pike Cknrt dc, VA 22624 Property # 334,108 Name Yay 11L Bcym P O Bac 67 CLeaitx k 1 vA 22624 Property # 33-A 6 Name Y M. BuXe P 0 Bye 67 CLeEx k VA 22624 Property # 334,868 Name DT,7id C. cbck 4030 M3 ft� Pike VA 22624 Property # 33-A 878 Name Qen E. & July S. ldsmn 2619 Vbahirb FCad CLam±edc, VA 22624 Property # 33-A-97 Name Fbir field Faun cE Fred. m iw 2897 Mu indairg Pike Si y VA 22656 Property # 33 -12 -24 Name MxrF;ndalrg Pi1{e A-Mc., JIC 4150 Mntkisbirg Pi1p CLeadgock VA 22624 Property # 33- A-105B 14 . D74 ADOPTED, this 12th day of September, 2007. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Absent Bill M. Ewing Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS R EZONING #07-07 OF 1-81 DISTRIBUTION CENTER: SUBMITTED BY TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. TO REZONE 59 ACRES FROM RA (RURAL AREAS) DISTRICT TO MI (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT WITH PROFFERS, FOR OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE USES. THE PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 0.61 MILES NORTH OF THE ROUTE 11 INTERSECTION WITH CEDAR HILL (ROUTE 671) BOUNDED ON THE WEST BY INTERSTATE ROUTE 81 AND ONTHE EAST BY MARTINSBURG PIKE fROUT'E I D. ARE Deputy Director of Planning and Development Michael Ruddy appeared before the Board regarding this item. He advised this was a proposal to rezone 59 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to MI (Light Industrial) District, with proffers. The property is located on Route 11 North in the Stonewall Magisterial District. The applicant proposed office and warehouse uses. The subject parcels are located within the boundaries of the Sewer and Water Service Area and the Northeast Land Use Plan. The Northeast Land Use Plan designates this area for business use. Deputy Director Ruddy stated this proposed application does not provide a level of service C or better for the surrounding intersections/roadways. He went on to say the Land Use Plan discourages single lot access. The applicant's proffer statement limited office uses of 150,000 square feet and warehouse uses of 739,000 square feet. The project's Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared using two scenarios: A) Assumed project will include 570,000 square feet of warebouse. B) Assumed the proposed development of 220,000 square feet of office. Both the county and VDOT have expressed concerns with the Traffic Impact Analysis as it indicates a Level of Service C or better will be maintained on the study roads and intersections; however, none of the proposed/necessary road improvements have been addressed by this application. Mioote Book Number 33 Buard of Supervisors Regular Meeting of09/12107 07E Deputy Director Ruddy then reviewed the proffer statement. He stated the applicant has capped the land use on the property, but did not proffer a generalized development plan. Right of way for Route 11 has been dedicated and right turn deceleration lanes into the site have also been proffered. $150,000 towards Route 11 corridor improvements will be contributed to the county at certificate of occupancy. He noted that other transportation proffers would be triggered by traffic count. Deputy Director Ruddy went on to say the applicant's approach is undesirable and does not adequately address the projects impacts. He stated the Planning Commission recommended denial of this application for the following reasons: 1) The application fails to address the Comprehensive Policy Plan. 2) The application fails to adequately address the design standards within the corridor. 3) The applicant's TIA and transportation improvements do not adequately mitigate impacts to the Route 11 corridor. He concluded by noting that the applicant had submitted revised proffers, which satisfied the landscaping requirements. Deputy D of Planning/Transportation John Bishop reviewed additional outstanding items as they related to transportation. He stated the Traffic Impact Analysis lacked a "worst case" scenario, there was inaccurate information used regarding the background traffic, and combined uses were not modeled He went on to say that regardless of what had been previously mentioned, the Traffic Impact Analysis' impacts are not met. Deputy D Bishop stated staff did not support the trip proffers and the ongoing efforts that would be required to monitor them. Staff s preference was the flexibility of cash versus the signal approach. He stated a signal was preferable at intersections as opposed to a single use entrance. The applicant was modifying to work on VDOT warrants. Ty Lawson, Attorney for the applicant BPG Properties Ltd., appeared before the Board along with Dan Dilello, Vice- President of BPG Properties, Ltd. Mr. Dilello provided the Board with an overview of the company and reviewed the proposed site plan for this project. He then reviewed the benefits of this project, which included: — Provide shovel ready Ml zoned property. — $37+ million class A facility. — $200,000 in annual real estate taxes. Minute Book Number 33 Board ar5upervisors Regular Meeting of 09/12/07 076 ' I I — Job creation. — Proffer of $260,000 combined for traffic impacts, etc. Mr. Lawson reviewed the proffer statement, which included: — $10,000 contribution to Frederick County and Clewbrook Fire and Rescue- - Construct two right turn deceleration lanes, right of way dedication for Future Route 11 widening. — $150,000 for Route 11 improvements. — Install trip counters, real time trip counters. — $50,000 to Frederick County for Route 11 improvements, if evening peak trips exceed 124. — $150,000 or the cash value of to Frederick County for a traffic signal for Route 11, if evening peak trips exceed 325. — $250,000 to Frederick County for Route 1 I improvements, if evening peak trips exceed 510. — Limited development up of 150,000 square feet of office and 750,000 square feet of warehouse /distribution. — No more than 2 vehicular entrances along Route 11. — 10' landscaping strip with trees and shrubs; 3,f berm or hedgerow (if not required by site plan); and placement of 230 trees along Route 11. — Construct bike and pedestrian trail. — Facade materials. — All utilities will be underground. — Storm water management maintained by the applicant. The potential value ofthe proffers is $610,000. Mr. Lawson went on to say the proposed MI zoning was consistent with the surrounding zoning. He stated the applicant did consider B3 zoning; however, Frederick County was in need of M 1 zoned land instead of B3. Chairman Shickle asked Mr. Lawson why the applicant selected land that was designated for B3 use in the Comprehensive Plan to develop as MI. Mr. Lawson responded the applicant was looking for property in the 1 -81 corridor and was not looking at whether it was designated B3. He went on to say the applicant thought this location was desirable. Vice- Chairman Fisher asked why the last sentence in proffer 2.1 was added. Minute Book Number 33 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of69/13/07 077 Mr. Lawson responded it was to give an idea of what the applicant was talking about. He stated the design for the Route 11 corridor was not complete; however, the applicant would be fine with a 30zE right -of -way. Scott Alexander, VDOT Assistant Residency Administrator, appeared before the Board. Chairman Shickle asked Mr. Alexander for VDOT's position on the conflicting numbers in the traffic impact analyses. Mr. Alexander responded that both presentations (i.e. the county's andthe Applicant's) were right. He stated VDOT was at odds with the methodology used in the applicant's Traffic Impact Analysis. He went on to say they had issues with the analysis; however, they could "buy off' on it with the caveats in the proffers and certain thresholds. Chairman Shickle asked Mr. Alexander where VDOT's analysis numbers would have come in, had they performed the Traffic Impact Analysis. Mr. Alexander responded that VDOT would have been closer to the county's numbers. He went on to say the amount of dollars proffered would not go a long way to improve the intersections. He concluded by saying that VDOT is strict about meeting warrants and warrant analysis. Chairman Shickle convened the public hearing. Kirk Matthews, Red Bud District, appeared before the Board regarding this item. He stated the Board was seeing this request after it had been rejected by the Planning Commission and the proffers had been tweaked. He stated that it seemed like "we" were going out of the process and he would like to see the integrity of the system upheld He wanted the Board to look at this application and send it back to the Planning Commission. He concluded by asking who would be charged with monitoring the trip counters, the county or the developer? There being no further comments, Chairman Shickle closed the public hearing. SupervisorDeHaven stated despite 18 months of study, this proposal was not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and did not address the Eastern Road Plan_ Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Van Osten, the Board denied Rezoning #07 -07. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Minute Book Number 33 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/12/07 M Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove - Absent Bill M. Ewing Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye OTHF,R PLANNING ITEMS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #08 -07 OF SHOCKEY BROTHERS - APPROVED Senior Planner Candice Perkins appeared before the Board regarding this item. She advised this was a Master Development Plan to develop 24 acres of B2 (General Business) District zoned land in the Stonewall Magisterial District. The site would be accessed via one entrance off ofNorth Frederick Pike. The applicant was requesting a waiver of § 144 -24C of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the property to be subdivided with private roads. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the waiver request with only one other exit onto Route 522. She concluded by saying this master development plan was consistent with the zoning ordinance and with the waiver could be administratively approved. Evan Wyatt, Greenway Engineering, stated the purpose of the waiver at the master development plan stage versus the subdivision stage because the waiver is setting up for future subdivision of the property. Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Van Osten, the Board approved the waiver of the § I44 -24C of the Subdivision Ordinance. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Absent Bill M. Ewing Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Upon a motion by Supervisor DeHaven, seconded by Supervisor Van Osten, the Board granted staff authority to administratively approve Master Development Plan #08 -07. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Absent Minute Book Number 33 Board of supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/1Z/07C Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co-t'rederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540 -665 -5651 Facsimile 540 -665 -6395 Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We) (Name) , f�,r E��U (Address) -- D BO AC _ a 7 C /tf- 6...x.4 V. the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ( "Property') Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Tr, (Phone) .Sf P — ,5^.SU -J "a? 7 conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Virginia, by 5 D-CL7- 9300 (Address)-,L00 .z{! Ir/ 47`/o a -/j.ttoy r � i9 L2 G'd 1 _ To act as my tnte and lawful attomey -in -fact for and' my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including: Rezoning (including proffers) ❑ Conditional Use Permits ❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site Plan My attorney -in -fact shall have the authority to oiffer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as #'ollows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until i�s otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I(we) have, hereto set my (our) hand and seal this (o day of ct t- V 2007 SiSignature(s) J o,. J ,h ��k� State of Virginia, City /Getmty of 0z tin C HC - To -wit: I, F -oRG_ M. &J-UZatJ _, allotary Public in and for thejurisdictionaforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument per appeared before me and has 6 acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this day of .Tuc Y_ , 200 . Ut 2X - m • �' �� _ My Commission Expires: & 6 U .5T 0/ oXU Notary Public LORETTA M. WILSON + Notary Public .knM1'� Commonwealth of Virginia Z0 3SVd 09ZZL990b9 170 :0L L00Z1901LO Instrument No. on Page __ and is described as PnV ms's - O - /o 3 3 - (PirA)) Parcel: Lot: Block: _ Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: i • U. General Criteria and Summary The BPG Properties, Ltd. site "I -81 Distribution Center" lies outside the UDA and within the SWSA of Frederick County, frontine on approximately 2077 feet of Martinsburg Pike (U. S. Route 11) and is adjacent to Interstate Route 81. The site is located approximately 0.61 + /- north of the Route 11 intersection with state route 671 (Cedar Hill). The applicant believes it is time for the site to be rezoned and placed into the M -1 Light Industrial District category. Appropriate proffers have been considered that mitigate the impacts of this development and offer certain regional transportation improvements that may be vital to the functioning of the VA route 11 corridor. The building placement proposed is sensitive to the terrain. W 2 9 O r Y P / 1 r / N aV)'• r, r� COO U 500 1000 1500 SCALE, 1 "-500' IPF = IRON PIN FOUND IRS = IRON ROD SET SEE SHEET 3 OF 3 FOR CURVE TABLE. PARCEL 109 = 16.9306 AC.t PARCEL 110 = 40.1464 AC.t TOTAL AREA = 59.0770 AC.t �� �y1TfI F�1 DAV F. SPRIGGS No, 1853 AUGUST 14, 2006 t..URRhNI OWNER: ROBIN HULL & KAY MARIE MORRISON 1'I-1 WI #030000235 IM 33 ((A)) PRCLS 109 & 110 IIII SIIRVLr HAS BEEN PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF a, IIH E REPORI. THEREFORE, THIS PLAT MAY NOT INDICATE =.11 I I)CIMBRANCES ON THE PROPERTY. LIIE: LXISTENCE OF VEGETATED OR TIDAL WETLANDS WAS NOT Dl. I ERMII DURING THIS SURVEY, I III I "A(, I LOCATION OR EXISTENCE OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES My ', 1101 ESTABLISHED DURING THIS SURVEY. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY AND ANY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS BASED ON AN ACTUAL FIELD RUN SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND THERE ARE NO APPARENT ENCROACHMENTS OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN OR NOTED. BOUNDARY SURVEY ON THE PROPERTY OF ROBIN HULL & KAY MARIE MORRISON STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DATE: AUGUST 14, 2006 SCALE: 1" = 500' LRIAD TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. 200 AVIATION DRIVE WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA (540) 667 -9300 FAX (540) 667 -2260 / r N N MATCH LINE - SHEET 3 OF 3 °' TM 33 PRCL J / 00 40.1464 / F ,(NIRE�� FNCE. IRS � 518'31'55 "W Ng > ° 3 142.22' CHARLES W. & FENCE JOI_IhIL S. ORNDOFF POST 577/694 MANHOLE_ FRAME BARN 2 STORY BRICK HOUSE GRAVEL DEW r / / r IQ ! Al ! ;cA)) 1 l 110 N /� AC.± h o r qj ! ti IRS FENCE r /Crj POST FENCE WIRE . ` REMAINS FENCE N/ N >0. 4 v 6 48 „ 4 / *� O ONq( O N /F a . ! 5,3 9Z3 43 2^ S67'35'13 "E — 905.20' TO SET STONE FN r ! SEE SHEET 3 OF 3 FOR CURVE TABLE. zoo o moo SCALE: I -MOO' N K O Z a o (DM P V rH of o r�P ID F. SPRIGGS No, 1853 4 AUGUST 14, 2006 BOUNDARY SURVEY ON THE PROPERTY OF ROBIN HULL & KAY MARIE MORRISON STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DATE: AUGUST 14, 2006 SCALE: 1" = 200' LIIAD TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. 200 AVIATION DRIVE WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA (540) 667 -9300 FAX (540) 667 -2260 r 0 / o , Z � o c � � , Qi ry d / h IPF N28'12'06 "W - 2164.80' TO SET STONE FND. /41 N IRS FENCE REMAINS — �� -C /L METAL x TOWER 10 p . � j m C/L METAL L w TOWER q TM 33 ((A)) ) / PRCL 110 CURVE DELTA ANGLE ARC LENGTH RADIUS TANGENT CHORD DIRECTION CHORD LENGTH C1 07'0333 I 701.03 5690.00 1350.96 S13'38'12 "W 1700.59 C2 .2'5z 11 1400.10 5690.00 114Z.6U 518'36'07 "W 1285-19 HUAKU N/F S4.J�. FENCE DONALD S. CLINE WIR\*' W13 97/507 I ; FENCE ' 1'M 33 (( F S � E 3> 2s S PRCL 1 09 IRS 18.9306 AC.± WIRE I FENCE C/L METAL METAL / � TOWER i C/L NO. VA. POWER CO. R/W 245/308 VEPCO R/W -� �;.`/� \ 308/47 �ALTEi 0� "p�1 DAVID F. SPRI6GS No, 1853 ,lJttV �'" AUGUST 14, 2006 FENCE / r BOUNDARY SURVEY ON THE PROPERTY 40.1464 AC.t REMAINS \ q�: ROBIN HULL & ` APPROX. R /W\ ���� / KAY MARIE MORRISON WB 33/254 VHC REMAINS SHED WFI I =� MATCH LINE - SHEET 2 OF 3 200 o 200 400 Boo SCALE: 1" -200' OF MON. FND ^ STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT N74'57'06 "w / y / -1 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA VA 8747, A ��/ 4! DATE: AUGUST 14, 2006 SCALE: 1" = 200' \ ` IRS ~ O _ �? N 3 LINO /9c C9 O TRIAD ENGINEERING, INC. �Zro�i j co 200 AVIATION DRIVE WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA /o; "L (540) 667 -9300 FAX (540) 667 -2260 Frederick County, Virginia Rezoning Application Materials for 1 -81 Distribution Center Stonewall Magisterial District June 2007 Prepared by: ZRIAID Triad Engineering, Inc. 200 Aviation Drive P.O. Box 2397 Winchester, Virginia 22604 Project No. 07 -04 -0535 Phone: (540) 667 -9300 Fax: (540) 667 -2260 Email: winches terCa triadeng.com www.triadeng.com 0 Table of Contents I. Application II. Summary III. Impact Analysis A. Site Background and History B. Location and Access C. Site Suitability D. Traffic E. Sewage Conveyance and Water Supply F. Site Drainage G. Solid Waste and Disposal Facilities H. Historic Sites and Structures I. Impact on Community Facilities IV. Frederick County Impact Model V. Proffer Statement VI. Agency Comment Sheets VII. Survey Plat & Deed VIII. Tax Ticket