HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-07 Comments (3)COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665 -5651
FAX: 540/665 -6395
February 1. 2007
Mr. Dennie D. Dunlap, P.E.
Triad Engineering, Inc.
P.O. Box 2397
Winchester, VA 22604
RE: Proposed Rezoning of the 1 -81 Distribution Center
Dear Dennie:
I have had the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application for the I -81
Distribution Center. This application seeks to rezone land from the RA (Rural Areas)
District to the MI (Light Industrial) District. Staffs review comments are listed below
for your consideration.
1. Northeast Land Use Plan. The site is within the limits of the Northeast Land
Use Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The plan designates
the site for business use. The plan states that "Business and commercial land
uses are proposed along the Martinsburg Pile 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 wit] occur along the
Martinsburg Pike corridor ". The proposed Ml Zoning and associated industrial
use are not consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan.
2. Northeast Land Use Plan. The Northeast Land Use Plan discourages
individual lot access on the Martinsburg Pike corridor, encourages inter - parcel
comieenons. lincl reeoinn;enQs aui;(�tlate screen:::, !ilila aujuij iiii 1nllii uses 31ii:
recommends greater setbacks and buffers and screenim 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 and future inter - parcel connectors
considered. Consideration should also be liven to screeninL along Interstate 81.
3. Northeast Land Use Plan. The plan calls for Level of Service Category C or
better for proposed industrial and commercial development. This application
does not provide that Level of Service. See TIA comments below.
107 North Kent Streei, Suite. 202 � Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000
Page 2
Mr. Dennie D. Dunlap, P.E.
RE: Proposed Rezoning of 1 -81 Distribution Centel-
February 1. 2007
4. Northeast Land Use Plan. The plan calls for improving Martinsburg Pike
(Route 11 North) to a four -lane facility. The applicant will need to work with
VDOT to ensure that this application meets the ultimate requirements for Route
11 North. This will likely include additional right -of -way and an additional lane
along Route 11.
5. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Comprehensive Policy Plan recommends a
ntmtber of design features for properties along business corridors. These
include landscaping, screening and controlling the size and number of signs.
These design elements should all be addressed in this application.
6. Impact Analysis Statement — Proposed Uses. The application states the
rezoning is for a 739,000 square feet warehouse and 1 1,000 square feet of office
space. Unless a specific use and/or floorspace are proffered, the County will
assume the maximum possible development as per the County's rezoning
application (24,750 square feet of general office use per acre in the M1 District).
The applicant will need to base all analysis on these numbers unless the proffers
ensure a lesser scale of development.
7. Impact Analysis. An accurate description of historic resources is required with
this application.
&. impact Analysis. The site contains a significant amount of soil type 3213
(Oaklet silt loam. two to seven percent slope) which is classified as prime
agricultural soil in Frederick County,
9. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). The TIA background information does not
include accurate data for Rutherford Crossing, formerly known as the
Rutherford Farm Industrial Park. Include data from the most recent Rutherford
Crossing TIA, dated September 7. 2606. A growth rate of 3.5% was used to
obtain 2010 base conditions. TIAs submitted to this County generally use a 5%
growth rate.
10. Traffic Impact analysis. The TIA proposed development trip generation was
based on the number of employees. This is unacceptable to the County. Trip
generation should be based on floorspace. Furthermore, unless a specific use
and /or floorspace are proffered, the County will assume the maximum possible
development as per the County's rezoning application (24,750 square feet of
general office use per acre in the MI District). The applicant will need to base
the TIA on the numbers above unless the proffers ensure a lesser scale of
development. Revise the trip generation before this application is submitted.
r 0
Page 3
Mr. Dennic D. Dunlap, P.E.
RE: Proposed Rezoning of 1 -81 Distribution Center
February 1, 2007
11. Traffic Impact Analysis. As stated previously, the Northeast Land Use Plan
calls for Level of Service C or better. Not only does this TIA fail to adequately
reflect the allowed use on the site, it also does not provide Level of Service C.
The TIA- suggested improvements at the intersection of Route 1I /Hopewell
Road /Brucetown Road include: a re- alignment, signalization, an eastbound left -
turn lane, an eastbound right -turn lane, a northbound ri -turn lane, a
westbound rialht -turn lane, and a southbound right -turn lane. Only a small share
of the signalization is proffered with this application. The turn lanes are not
proffered. The TIA- suggested improvements at the inLersection of Roue
1I /Rest Church Road include: a westbound leg, signalization, one eastbound
thrti -lane and one eastbound left -turn lane, one northbound right -turn lane, and
one southbound left -turn lane. Only some of these improvements have been
proffered with the Sempeles Property rezoning. The additional southbound and
eastbound lanes have not been proffered by anyone. This applicant has not
proffered any improvements at this intersection. Reconsider the proffered
transportation improvements once the TIA has been revised as per comments #9
and #10.
12. Proffer Statement. A Generalized Development Plan (GDP) is included with
this proffer statement, but it is not referenced in that document. It appears all
references are to the Site Development Plan. Show the proffered layout and
proffered improvements on one plan which is clearly referenced in the proffer
statement.
13. Proffer Statement. A contribution of $10,000 has been proffered to the
Clearbrook Fire and Rescue Squad. It is County policy to channel contributions
through County Administration, so that proffers can be monitored and
acknowledged. The monetary contribution should be to Frederick County for
pltrpOSJS Ott e I,ICarDrOOK Fire a71Ci he:Si;Ue Squad.
14. Proffer Statement. Proffer 2.2 provides a minimal amount of money that will
in no way provide meaningful relief to the traffic situation in the area. Based on
the TIA. Level of Service will be as low as F.
Ii. Proffer Statement. Proffer 23 guarantees a new TIA with later development,
but only appears to guarantee additional money if the "TIA results in projection
of an additional 200 average daily truck trips being generated by the subsequent
project ". Was the intent 200 or more Reconsider the wording. Also, the
additional $10,000 may not be anywhere near enough money to cover the
impact of the additional traffic. Consider a higher commitment tied to
0 0
Page 4
Mr. Dennie D. Dunlap, P.F.
RE: Proposed Rezoning of I -81 Distribution Center
February 1, 2007
improvements called for in the future TIA, otherwise the County has no
assurances that an acceptable level of service will be provided.
16. Proffer Statement. Proffer 3.2 proffers less than the County's Zoning
Ordinance. This is unacceptable. §165- 37D(4) of the Zoning. Ordinance
requires a Category C buffer whenever land is to be developed in the Ml
District that is adjacent to land primarily used for residential purposes in the RA
Zoning District. The proposed proffer would only provide the buffer on land
planned for residential use. Adjacent properties are shown in the
Comprehensive Policy i P lan as future comonciclal sites, hwvever, they arm
currently in residential use and the Zoning Ordinance requires the buffer.
Delete this proffer. It is inappropriate to proffer standards less than required.
Proffers impose additional, not alternative, zoning regulations.
17. Proffer Statement. Please clarify the intent of Proffer 6.1, as it appears to
proffer nothing. Consider a historic resources proffer that actually protects
historic resources.
18. Deed. Include a copy of the recorded deed. Please be advised that Frederick
County Real Estate records do not match your survey plat. Reconcile the
differences with the County Real Estate office before this application is
officially submitted.
19. Adjoiners. The list of adjoining property owners is incomplete. Add details of
properties: 33- 12 -24, 33- A -86A. 33- A -86B, 33- A -1 05B. 33- A -87B, & 33 -A -87.
20. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency comments from the
following agencies: Historic Resources Advisory Board, Virginia Department of
Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick
COLinty Fire ' rcder'ick county Dcpaitrii °11: Of narks and Rccrea!ion.
Frederick County Sanitation Authority, Frederick- Winchester Health
Department, Clearbrook Fire and Rescue Company, the Frederick - Winchester
Service Authority and the Frederick County Attorney.
21. Fees. The fee for this application includes a 53,000.00 base fee plus $100.00
per acre, and a $50.00 public hearing sign fee. This is based on fees as of
January 27, 2005. Fees may change.
0 0
Page i
Mr. Donnie D. Dunlap, P.E.
RE: Proposed Rezoning of 1 -81 Distribution Center
February 1, 2007
All of the above comments and reviewing agency comments should be appropriately
addressed before staff can accept this rezoning application. Please feel free to contact me
with questions regarding this application.
Sincerely,
Susan K. Eddy, AICP CT
Senior Planner
SKE /bad
cc: Estate of Roy Riley Boyce Jr., P.O. Box 67. Clearbrook. VA 22624
200 Dr. 00 Aviation CRIAD
Winchester, VA 22602
Phone 540 - 667 -
FAX 540- 667 -2260
www.triadeng.com Triad Engineering, Inc.
June 28, 2007
Ms. Susan K. Eddy
Senior Planner
County of Frederick
Department of Planning and Development
107 North Kent Street
Suite 202
Winchester, VA 22601 -5000
RE: Rezoning Application for the Proposed 1 -81 Distribution Center
+l- 60 Acre Parcel, Clear Brook, VA
Dear Susan,
On behalf of our client, BPG Properties, Ltd. ( "BPG "), Triad Engineering ( "Triad ") is submitting a
response letter to all agency comments received regarding the above referenced rezone
application. This response letter is accompanied by a complete rezone application for the 1 -81
Distribution Center and a revised Proffer Statement dated June 18, 2007.
We are requesting that this proposed rezoning be placed on the agenda for the County of
Frederick Planning Commission meeting and public hearing on August 1, 2007.
1. Frederick County Sanitation Authority
Comment received on December 14, 2006
FCSA stated "We will provide sewer and water service to this site'.
BPG will work with FCSA during the planning process to design proper connections to
sewer and water facilities.
2. Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department: Office of the Fire Marshall
Comment Received on December 14, 2006
The Fire and Rescue Department has no objection to the rezoning request.
The Fire and Rescue Department recommended for the following: Automatic Sprinkler
System, Automatic Fire Alarm System, Fire Lane Required, Plan Approval.
BPG agrees with the comments and plans on providing an Automatic Sprinkler System,
an Automatic Fire Alarm, and a Fire Lane per the recommendations of the Fire Marshall.
BPG appreciates the Fire and Rescue Department recommending for Plan Approval.
3. Frederick Winchester Health Department
Comment Received on December 14, 2006
The Health Department has no objections to the rezoning request, so long as existing
wells or drainfields are not negatively impacted.
Triad confirms that no existing wells or drainfields will be negatively impacted by the
proposed development of the site.
Practical Engineering and Science Solutions Since 1975
West Virginia Pennsylvania Maryland Virginia
0 0
4. Winchester Regional Airport
Comment Received on December 15, 2006
The Airport has no objection to the rezoning request.
5. Frederick - Winchester Service Authority
Comment received on December 21, 2006
The Frederick - Winchester Service Authority has no objection to the rezoning request.
FWSA will not be the provider of any services to the site.
6. Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation
Comment received on December 21, 2006
The Department of Parks and Recreation has no objection to the rezoning request.
7. Frederick County Public Schools
Comment received on January 15, 2007
The Public Schools has no objection to the rezoning request, as the potential uses will
have no impact to the school population upon build out.
8. Frederick County Attorney: Robert T. Mitchell, Jr.
Comment received on January 25, 2007
The County Attorney, Robert T. Mitchell, Jr. submitted a total of 6 comments to the
Proposed Proffer Statement ( "Proffer').
Note that the Revised Proffer Statement, dated June 18, 2007, addresses and
incorporates all of the comments from the County Attorney.
Response to Comment 1
The last sentence in the first paragraph was deleted in the June 18, 2007 version.
Response to Comment 2
The last sentence of paragraph 2 (Proffer June 18, 2007) includes the correct description.
Response to Comment 3
BPG prefers a direct Proffer to the first responders of the Clear Brook Fire and Rescue
Company.
Response to Comment 4
Proffer 2.2 is to be contributed to Frederick County (Proffer June 18, 2007).
Response to Comment 5
Proffer 3.2 (from the original Proffer submitted on December 12, 2006) was deleted.
Response to Comment 6
Proffer 6.1 was deleted.
Page 2 of 5
0 0
9. Historic Resources Advisory Board
Comment received on January 24, 2007
Response to Comment 1
BPG contracted ECS Mid - Atlantic to complete and submit a PIF to the Department of
Historic Resources. A copy of the report dated May 1, 2007 was sent directly to HRAB
and DHR.
Response to Comment 2
Sufficient visual barriers will be provided along the property boundary adjacent to Route
11 via required screening (per the zoning ordinance for M -1), landscaping (per the
subdivision and land development ordinance), and proffered landscaping improvements
(Proffer 3.1).
10. Frederick County Department of Planning and Development
Comment received on February 1, 2007
Response to Comment 1
BPG considered the recommendations in the Northeast Land Use Plan, and recognizes
that the plan is a general guide and not an ordinance.
This proposal is consistent with the general nature of the plan, as directly across Route
11, the plan calls for M -1 zoning for sites that will also access Route 11.
The proposed use for our site will fit into the overall uses in the area recommended by
the Northeast Land Use Plan.
Response to Comment 2
BPG will plan and develop the property in accordance to the Zoning Ordinance for M -1,
including the landscape and screening requirements. Included in the requirements are
perimeter landscaping and visual barriers, which would apply to Route 11 and 1 -81.
Response to Comment 3
The proposed use is a low traffic generator and is not the cause of traffic issues in the
area. Proffers 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 provide for significant transportation improvements.
Response to Comment 4
Proffers 2.1 and 3.2 provide for the Route 11 improvements suggested.
Response to Comment 5
The Site Plan Application will comply with the Zoning Ordinance with respect to
landscaping, screening and signage for M -1. Proffer 3.1 provides a significant amount of
additional landscaping along Route 11.
Response to Comment 6
BPG is suggesting a proposed use for information purposes as it relates to the rezoning
application. The proposed use is permitted under M -1, by right. Proffering a specific use
would be detrimental to the successful development of the property and would cause
economic hardship for the owner /developer.
Response to Comment 7
See HRAB response above (PIF form).
Response to Comment 8
Noted.
Page 3 of 5
0
0
Response to Comment 9
The revised TIA (dated May 30, 2007) addresses these comments.
Response to Comment 10
Based on a meeting with VDOT and Frederick County on April 24, 2007, the revised TIA
(dated May 30, 2007) and the revised Proffer Statement (dated June 18, 2007) address
these issues.
Response to Comment 11
Based on a meeting with VDOT and Frederick County on April 24, 2007, the revised TIA
(dated May 30, 2007) and the revised Proffer Statement (dated June 18, 2007) address
these issues.
Response to Comment 12
The last sentence of paragraph 2 (Proffer June 18, 2007) addresses this comment.
Response to Comment 13
BPG prefers a direct Proffer to the first responders for our proposed development.
Response to Comment 14
Based on a meeting with VDOT and Frederick County on April 24, 2007, the revised TIA
(dated May 30, 2007) and the revised Proffer Statement (dated June 18, 2007) address
these issues.
Response to Comment 15
Proffer 2.3 is reworded (Revised Proffer June 18, 2007).
Response to Comment 16
Proffer 3.2 (from the original Proffer submitted on December 12, 2006) was deleted.
Response to Comment 17
Proffer 6.1 was deleted.
Response to Comment 18
A copy of the recorded Deed is included with this Application.
Reconciliation of the Deed discrepancy referred to will occur upon closing on the subject
property.
Response to Comment 19
The application includes a complete list of adjoiners as recommended by the County.
Response to Comment 20
The application includes a complete set of agency comments.
Response to Comment 21
BPG is pleased to submit the application fee with this Application package, totaling
$9,000.
TRIAD is submitting the $50 signage fee with this Application package
Page 4 of 5
0 0
11. Frederick County Department of Public Works
Comment received on February 23, 2007
Response to Comment 1
TRIAD has advised BPG of the Karst terrain. After the proposed rezoning, a
geotechnical evaluation of the site will be conducted by TRIAD to determine potential
sinkholes.
Response to Comment 2
Based on a meeting with VDOT and Frederick County on April 24, 2007, the revised TIA
(dated May 30, 2007) and the revised Proffer Statement (dated June 18, 2007) address
these issues.
VDOT does not require a breakdown of car trips and truck trips.
Response to Comment 3
TRIAD will likely recommend a Dry Detention Pond for the storm water management of
the proposed development. This will be specifically addressed in the Site Plan
Application.
12. VDOT
Comments received on March 8, 2007 and March 22, 2007
Meeting with VDOT and Frederick County on April 24, 2007.
Based on the meeting with VOOT and Frederick County on April 24, 2007, the revised
TIA (dated May 30, 2007) and the revised Proffer Statement (dated June 18, 2007)
address the comments from VDOT. Please refer to those documents.
We appreciate Frederick County's consideration of the rezone application for the proposed 1 -81
Distribution Center.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact:
Triad Engineering, Inc. — Dennie Dunlap, 540- 667 -9300, ddunlapnn triadeng.com
BPG Properties, Ltd. — John Knott, 215 - 575 -2436, Iknott(cbbpgltd.com
PHRA— Mike Glickman, 888- 616 -8286, michael.glickman(a ) phra.com
Lawson & Silek - Ty Lawson; 540- 665 -0050, tlawsonna lsplc.com
Sincerely,
Dennie D. Dunlap, Senior Engineer
Triad Engineering, Inc.
cc: John Knott, BPG Properties, Ltd.
Dan DiLella, Jr., BPG Properties, Ltd.
Ty Lawson, Lawson & Silek
Mike Glickman. PHRA
Page 5 of 5
COUNTY of FREDERICK
I
March 23, 2007
Mr. Patrick Sowers
Patton Harris Rust & Associates
117 E Piccadilly Street, Suite 200
Winchester, VA 22601
RE: Proposed Rezoning of the Shady Elm Property
Dear Patrick:
Department of Planning and Development
540/665 -5651
FAX: 540/665 -6395
I have had the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application for the Shady Elm
Property. This application seeks to rezone 58.74 acres of land from the RA (Rural Areas)
District to the B3 (Industrial Transition) District. Staffs review comments are listed
below for your consideration.
1. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The site is designated on the Eastern Frederick
i
County Long Range Land Use Plan for industrial use. The site is within the
Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The site is within the limits of the
Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. This small area land use plan calls for
industrial uses along the CSX Railroad and specifically designates the site for
industrial use. The proposed B3 rezoning is not consistent with the
Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Shady Elm area north and south of Route 37
is a thriving industrial area, and its integrity should not be compromised with
quasi - retail uses. While the B3 District can function as a transition between
business and industrial areas, the Kemstown Business Park immediately to the
east, which is Zoned B3, already serves as the transition between the retail uses
alone Valley Pike (Rowe 11) and this planned industrial area. An Ml rezoning
would be consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
2. Comprehensive Policy Plan. A number of road improvements in the vicinity
of this site are called for in the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. These
include a new interchange of Route 37 at Shady Elm Road, Shady Elm Road
upgraded to a major collector road, and a new east/west collector road
connecting Shady Elm Road to Route 11. The County's Eastern Road Plan
further defines these road plans. Shady Elm Road is to be improved to an urban
four -lane divided section. This applicant will need to address any right -of -way
needed for this road and also address any additional paving needed along their
frontage. The new east/west collector road is planned to be an urban four -lane
divided section. The applicant is encouraged to work with the owners of the
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000
Page 2
Mr. Patrick Sowers
RE: Proposed Rezoning of Shady Elm Property
March 23, 2007
Renaissance Commercial Center, who will be constructing a section of the
collector road east of the CSX railroad line, and work with the CSX to plan for
the connection of the new road as it meets their property on the eastern border.
The applicant should address any right -of -way and road paving associated with
this road as it traverses their property.
3. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Comprehensive Policy Plan calls for Level
of Service Category C or better to be maintained on roads adjacent to and within
new developments in the County. This application does not provide that
expected Level of Service. See TIA comments below.
4. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Comprehensive Policy Plan recommends a
number of design features for properties along business corridors. These
include landscaping, screening and controlling the size and number of signs.
These design elements should all be addressed in this application.
5. Impact Analysis Statement — Proposed Uses. The application states the
rezoning is for 327,000 square feet of office and 327,000 square feet of
warehouse space. Unless a specific use and/or floorspace are proffered, the
County will assume the maximum possible development as per the County's
rezoning application (18,848 square feet of retail use per acre in the B3
District). The applicant will need to base all analysis, including the TIA, on
these numbers unless the proffers ensure a lesser scale of development.
6. Traffic Impact Analysis. The proposed development trip generation in the
TIA was based on office and light industrial floorspace. See comment 45 above
on basing the TIA on the worst case scenario as called for in the rezoning
application. Also, light industrial use is not allowed in the B3 District. While
the County is supportive of.,industria! uses in this location, a TIA for a B3
rezoning should not be based on light industrial use, which is not allowed in the
B3 District. Since the application lists the proposed uses as office and
warehouse, the TIA should reflect these uses.
7. Traffic Impact Analysis. As stated previously, the Comprehensive Policy Plan
calls for Level of Service C or better. While this application would not be the
sole cause of the poor levels of service, rezoning should not exacerbate existing
or projected failing situations. The TIA lists three intersections where
improvements are needed:
A. Route 11 /Springdale Road: Traffic signalization is required at this
intersection. The application does not address this issue.
Page 3
Mr. Patrick Sowers
RE: Proposed Rezoning of Shady Elm Property
March 23, 2007
B. Route 11 /Apple Valley Road: Additional northbound and southbound thru
lanes are required. The application does not address this issue.
C. Renaissance Driveway/Route 11: Traffic signalization and additional lanes
are required at this intersection. A new traffic signal at the intersection of
Route 11 and the new east/west collector road may be provided by the
owners of the Renaissance Commercial Center. Liaise with this property
owner on the proposed lane configuration and the timing of the traffic
signal.
The County's Eastern Road Plan does not call for improvements to Springdale
Road. Therefore, the applicant should direct their efforts to solving
transportation problems at the intersection of Route 11 and Springdale Road
and, most importantly, to upgrading Shady Elm Road and providing a new
collector road on their property.
8. Proffer Statement 2.1. As stated above, the applicant should be addressing not
only right -of -way along Shady Elm Road, but should also be addressing the
road improvements called for along their frontage.
9. Proffer Statement 2.2. The Eastern Road Plan calls for the new collector road
to be an urban four -lane divided section. The applicant should be addressing
half of this road section (with the adjacent property owner to eventually provide
the other two lanes) along the entire southern property boundary. The 800
linear feet proposed only covers half of the boundary line.
10. Proffer Statement 2.2. For good access management, access to the site should
be limited to one access point on Shady Elm Road and up to two access points
on the new collector road. The applicant is encouraged to consider limiting
access to the site to these three points.
11. Proffer Statement 2.3. Staff assumes this would be a state road built to state
standards.
12. Proffer Statement 2.4. Given that the land directly across Shady Elm Road is
subdivided for future residential purposes, it would be beneficial to also include
street trees along the frontage of Shady Elm Road.
Page 4
Mr. Patrick Sowers
RE: Proposed Rezoning of Shady Elm Property
March 23, 2007
13. Other. Include a copy of the recorded deed and a survey or plat of the parcel.
Please use the correct acreage of the site throughout the application. (Both 60
acres and 58.74 acres are used in this application.)
14. Adjoiners. The list of adjoining property owners was not included with this
preliminary application. A complete list must be included with the rezoning.
15. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency comments from the
following agencies: Historic Resources Advisory Board, Virginia Department of
Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick
County Fire Marshall, Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation,
Frederick County Sanitation Authority, Frederick - Winchester Health
Department, Stephens City Fire and Rescue Company, the Frederick -
Winchester Service Authority and the Frederick County Attorney.
16. Fees. The fee for this application includes a $3,000.00 base fee plus $100.00
per acre, and a $50.00 public hearing sign fee. This is based on fees as of
January 27, 2005. Fees may change.
All of the above comments and reviewing agency comments should be appropriately
addressed before staff can accept this rezoning application. Please feel free to contact me
with questions regarding this application.
Sincerely,
�(- e ft
Susan K. Eddy, AICP
Senior Planner
SKE/bad
cc: Venture I of Winchester, LLC, 827 Armistead Street, Winchester, VA 22601
• Page 1 of 2
efox
From: Funkhouser, Rhonda [ Rhonda .Funkhouser @VDOT.Virginia.gov] on behalf of Ingram, Lloyd
[Lloyd, Ingram @VDOT.Virginia.gov]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:47 PM
To: den nied @triad- winc.comI efox
Cc: Ingram, Lloyd, Eric Lawrence
Subject: RE: Final review /comment - 181 distribution
The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant
measurable impact on Routes 11, 669, and 672. These route are the VDOT roadways which
has been considered as the access to the property referenced.
VDOT is modestly satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the I -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.
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment.
Lloyd A. Ingram, Transportation Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
Edinburg Residency — Land Development
14031 Old Valley Pike
Edinburg, Virginia 22824
Phone #(540) 984 -5611
Fax #(540) 984 -5607
From: efox [mailto:efox @lsplc.com]
7/30/2007
0 S
Virginia Department of Transportation
Mail to: Hand deliver to:
Virginia Department of Transportation Virginia Department of Transportation
Attn: Resident Engineer Attn: Resident Engineer
14031 Old Valley Pike 2275 Northwestern Pike
Edinburg, Virginia 22824 Winchester, Virginia 22603
(540) 984 -5600
Mailing Address: C/O Triad Engineering, Inc
200 Aviation Drive
Winchester, VA 22602
Location of property: Approximately 0.61 +/-miles north of the Route 11 intersection
with state route 671 (Cedar Hi11). Bounded on the west by
Interstate Route 81 and on the east by Route 11 (Martinsburg Pike).
Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: M -1 Light Ind. Acreage: 59.0770 + /-
20
Applicant's Name: BPG Properties Ltd. Telephone: (215) 575 -2436
Notice to VDOT - Please Return Form to Applicant
BPG Properties, LTD Rezon4 (1 -81 Distribution Center) 0 Page l of l
Dennie Dunlap
From: Funkhouser, Rhonda [ Rhonda .Funkhouser @VDOT.Virginia.gov] on behalf of Ingram, Lloyd
[ Lloyd.Ingram @VDOT.Virginia.gov]
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 9:26 AM
To: dennied @triad- winc.com
Cc: Ingram, Lloyd; Eric Lawrence
Subject: BPG Properties, LTD Rezoning (1 -81 Distribution Center)
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Red
Attachments: SCN_20070308092413_001.pdf
The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant
measurable impact on Routes 11, 672 and 669. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have
been considered as the access to the property referenced.
VDOT is not satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the BPG Properties, LTD /I -81
Distribution Center Rezoning Application dated November 22, 2006 addresses transportation
concerns associated with this request.
The proposed mitigation of the traffic generated by this site is not adequate to offset the additional
traffic volumes. The intersection of Route 11 and Route 672 currently is operating at Level of
Service "D ", soon to be downgrade to an 'T ". This level of service was identified in the TIA provided
with your rezoning application. This intersection, as well as the intersection of Route 11 and Rest
Church Road, were identified by the TIA as needing improvements. Therefore, with the additional
traffic from your proposed development, it is imperative that a significant effort is put into mitigating
your impacts on these intersections.
Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance
designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh
Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right -of -way needs, including right -
of -way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work
performed on the State's right -of -way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is
issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage.
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment.
<<S C N_20070308092413_001. pdf>>
Lloyd A. Ingram, Transportation Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
Edinburg Residency — Land Development
14031 Old Valley Pike
Edinburg, Virginia 22824
Phone #(540) 984 -5611
Fax #(540) 984 -5607
7/2/2007
I -81 Distribution Center TIA - Route 11, Frederick County Page ] of 1
Dennie Dunlap
From: Funkhouser, Rhonda [ Rhonda . Fun khouser @VDOT.Virginia.gov]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 2:59 PM
To: 'John F. Callow'
Cc: Ingram, Lloyd;'dennied @triad- winc.com'
Subject: 1 -81 Distribution Center TIA - Route 11, Frederick County
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Red
A review has been conducted by Staunton District and as noted below, additional clarification is
requested as follows:
• The applicant used the number of employees for the trip generation, which assumed one
employee per 5000 square feet. There is no basis for this assertion , and therefore feel
that this is the fatal flaw. The study should use the ITE trip rate based on square
footage of the proposed facility.
• Referencing Figure 2, Page 3, please explain why existing traffic volumes in this figure
does not match the traffic counts in the appendix.
• Referencing Figure 2, Page 3, please explain why the Average Daily Trips (ADT's) in this
figure are consistently higher than 2005 AADTs, based on VDOT traffic counts.
• Referencing Table 1, Page 5, it states "Sempeles Property" and "Stephenson Village" will
be partial built -out by 2010. Please explain what "partial" means related to the amount
of traffic to be generated during background conditions for the subject application.
• Please provide detailed information about background conditions traffic distribution.
• The Rest Church Road /I -81 NB Ramps lane configuration in the HCS report does not
match Figure 3. Please explain.
• Please provide complete HCS report for Background Conditions and 2010 Built -Out
Conditions.
• Referencing Figure 6, Page 9, the applicant has assumed 40% traffic coming from I -81N
and another 40% from I -81S. Please explain why half of the vehicles from I -81N use exit
321 and the other half use exit 323.
Please forward responses so we can complete your TIA review. Should you have any questions, do
not hesitate to call.
Lloyd A. Ingram, Transportation Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
Edinburg Residency — Land Development
14031 Old Valley Pike
Edinburg, Virginia 22824
Phone #(540) 984 -5611
Fax #(540) 984 -5607
7/2/2007
w4 g " o FrE
Control number
RZ06 -0021
Project Name
1 -81 Distribution Center
Address
200 Aviation Dr.
Type Application
Rezoning
Current Zoning
RA
Automatic Sprinkler System
Yes
Other recommendation
Date received
12/13/2006
City
Winchester
Tax ID Number
33 -A -108
0
Date reviewed
12/14/2006
Applicant
BPG Properties/ Triad Engineering
State Zip
VA 22602
Applicant Phone
540- 667 -9300
Fire District Rescue District
13
Recommendations
Automatic Fire Alarm System
Yes
Requirements
Emergency Vehicle Access
Not Identified
Siamese Location
Not Identified
Emergency Vehicle Access Comments
Access Comments
Additional Comments
Hydrant Location
Not Identified
Roadway /Aisleway Width
Not Identified
Election District
Stonewall
Residential Sprinkler System
No
Fire Lane Required
Yes
Special Hazards
No
Plan Approval Recommended Reviewed By Signature I j
Yes Jeffrey S. Neal M — r
Title Y -`
Rezoning Comments
Fire and Rescue Company
Comments on rezonings will be needed from the fire and rescue company serving the location in
question. Please fill in the attached comment sheet with the name of the fire and rescue squad
serving the location and obtain the comment from that squad. A list of the County Fire and
Rescue Company follows the comment sheet.
Fire and Rescue Company
Name of Fire & Rescue Compa Address & Phone
Company 13 - Clearbrook Vol. Fire Dept 1256 Brucetown Road
Clearbrook, VA 22624
(540) 722 -2073
Applicant's Name: BPG Properties, Ltd. Telephone: (215) 575 -2352
Mailing Address: C/O Triad Engineering, Inc.
200 Aviation Drive
Winchester, VA 22602
Location of property: Approximately 0.61 +/- miles north of the Route 11 inter section
with state route 671 (Cedar Hill). Bounded on the west by
Interstate Route 81 and on the east by Route 11 (Martinsburg Pike).
Current zoning: RA
Zoning requested: M -1 Light Ind. Acreage: 59.0770 + /-
Frre om and Rescue C an c's Comments
P )
a E »
y
a
p s,
t
)
{ � � � �y �.,y} t '{-0.}m �
L ih $` R�j' '2^ 2� ':
i�.
.- S� t'vf
-iiJ .. �...F ✓1 i5 bE ��4 -+
Notice to Fire & Rescue Company - Please Return This Form to the Applicant
31
0
0
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Public Works
540/665 -5643
rAX: 540/678-0682
February 26, 2007
Mr. Dennie Dunlap
Triad Engineering, Inc.
200 Aviation Drive
Winchester, Virginia 22604
RE: 1 -81 Distribution Center, Clearbrook, Virginia
Dear Mr. Dunlap:
We have completed our review of the rezoning application for a proposed distribution
center and offer the following comments:
I . 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.
Refer to F. Site Drainage: Elaborate on the statement "low impact type stormwater
management techniques." We anticipate that the stormwater runoff will be dramatically
increased because of the proposed development including 739,000 square feet of
warehouse space, 11,000 square feet of office space. and numerous acres of 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.
207 North Kent Street � Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000
0 0
1 -81 Distribution Center, Ciearbrook, Virginia
February, 23 2007
Page 2
I can be reached at 722 -8214 if you should have any questions regarding the above
comments.
Sincerely,
1
cu. u
Harvey E. trawsnyder, Jr., P.E.
Director of Public Works
0
Rezoning Comments
Frederick County Sanitation Authority
0
Mail to: Hand deliver to:
Frederick County Sanitation Authority Frederick County
Sanitation Authority
Attn: Engineer Attn: Engineer
P.O. Box 1877 315 Tasker Road
Winchester, Virginia 22604 Stephens City, Virginia
(540) 868 -1061
Apphcant Please fill out the mfonnat�on as accurately as�possrble m order to assist the
Sanrtat1on Authorsty wrth,therr review Attach a copy of your appheation form,location> .
map, proffer, statement, impact analysis, and anyiother, pertruent iaformat�on:
Applicant's Name: BPG Properties, Ltd. Telephone: (215) 575 -2436
Mailing Address: C/0 Triad Engineering, Inc. /f % 7 /l/
200 Aviation Drive /.
Winchester, VA 22602
Location of property: Approximately 0.61 +/_ miles north of the Route 11 inter section
with state route 671 (Cedar Hill). Bounded on the west by
Interstate Route 81 and on the east by Route 11 (Marti Pike).
Current zomn : RA Zoning requested: M -1 Light Ind. Acreage: 59.0770+/ -
aw
;
Samtation Authority Comments
J
W/LG A9
:'
w n
4
,
Saniiahon Authority S�gnatiire &Da t " <���s
,' _ "CEa
a _`QC�
Notice to Sanitation Authority - Please Return This Form to the Applicant
25
0
Rezoning Comments
Frederick- Winchester Service Authority
Mail to: Hand deliver to:
Fred -Wine Service Authority Fred -Wine Service Authority
Attn: Jesse W. Moffett, Executive Director Attn: Jesse W. Moffett
P.O. Box 43 107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22604 Winchester, Virginia
(540) 722 -3579
Applicant's Name: BPG Properties, Ltd. Telephone: (215) 575 -2436
Mailing Address: C/O Triad Engineering, Inc.
200 Aviation Drive
Winchester, VA 22602
Location of property: Approximately 0.61 +/- miles north of the Route 11 inter section
with state route 671 (Cedar Hill). Bounded on the west by
Interstate Route 81 and on the east by Route 11 (Marti Pike).
Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: M -1 Light Ind. Acreage: 59.0770 + /-
Notice to Fred -Wine Service Authority - Please Return Form to Applicant
32
0
Rezoning Comments
0
Frederick - Winchester Health Department
Mail to: Hand deliver to:
Frederick- Winchester Health Department Frederick- Winchester Health Department
Attn: Sanitation Engineer Attn: Sanitation Engineer
107 North Kent Street 107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601 Suite 201
(540) 722 -3480 Winchester, Virginia
Applicant •Please f i ll out the rirformabon as accurately as possible m order to.as`s st the
Fredenck Winchester.Health Department
with them ievto Attach a copy of your
application f6tiii locatron'map proffer'statemerit, impact analysrs, and any other
la
,pertment�ifor "mation' ,
Applicant's Name: BPG Properties, Ltd. Telephone: (215) 575 -2436
Mailing Address: C/0 Triad Engineering, Inc.
200 Aviation Drive
inc ester, A 6
Location of property: Approximately 0.61 +/- miles north of the Route 11 inter section
with state route 671 (Cedar Hill). Bounded on the west by
Interstate Route 81 and on the east by Route 11 (Martin Pike).
Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: M -1 Light tnd. Acreage: 59.0770 + 1-
Frederick Winchester Health Departmeiat's:i
om, its
Nra /il, tt �{ hnz n h rri c� tha?t`ec st
s Mrtrr(" r to a t' E l�
llt rG-tP
�'ln�s
s
a
r
a*
Health Dept Signature &Date
i2141
4.1
Notice to Health Department - Please Return This Form to the Applicant
26
Rezoning Comments
Winellester Regional Airport
Mail to: Hand deliver to:
Winchester Regional Airport Winchester
Regional Airport
Attn: Executive Director Attn: Executive Director
491 Airport Road 491 Airport Road
Winchester, Virginia 22602 (Rt. 645, off of Rt. 522 South)
(540) 662 -2422 Winchester, Virginia
Apphcaut. Please fill out the irifonnation as accurately as possible rn oi•det to assist the :
Winchester Reg�onal�.4irport with thetr review Attach a copy of dour apphcatton form,:
location map,' proffer' statement;,rmpactfariahysis,`and any "otli'er' pertinent information:
Applicant's Name: BPG Properties, Ltd. Telephone: (215) 575 -2436
Mailing Address: C/O Triad Engineering, Inc.
200 Aviation Drive
Winchester, VA 22602
Location of property: Approximately 0.61 +/- miles north of the Route 11 inter section
with state route 671 (Cedar Hill). Bounded on the west by
Interstate Route 81 and on the east by Route 11 (Martin Pike).
Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: M -1 Light Ind. Acreage:' 59.0770 + /-
Wmchester Regional Airport's Comments
I�
t
l
��k Q
Cti.0
ry
s
r
Wmchester Regional Atrport s
'
Y
Notice to Winchester Regional Airport - Please Return Form to Applicant
30
0 0
WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT
seaviN� nae
rov or ma�inia
491 AIRPORT ROAD
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602
(540) 662 -2422
December 15, 2006
Dennie D. Dunlap, P.E.
Triad Engineering, Incorporated
Post Office Box 2397
Winchester, Virginia 22604
Re: Rezoning Comment
._.-
i -O f UISL ItJUtiUl. t, Ldp
Stonewall Magisterial District
Dear Mr. Dunlap:
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 conditions will not be
requested.
Thank you for your continued cooperation and consideration in the continuing
safe operations of the Winchester Regional Airport.
Sincerely,
R moo 4
Serena R. Manuel
Executive Director
0
Rezoning Comments
0
Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation
Mail to: Hand deliver to:
Frederick County Frederick County
Department of Parks & Recreation Department of Parks & Recreation
107 North Kent Street County Administration Bldg., 2nd Floor
Winchester, Virginia 22601 107 North Kent Street
(540) 665 -5678 Winchester, Virginia
Applcant Please fill out the "mformahon as accurately as possible rn order to assisfthe N _ 1 11
bepartment of Parks & Recreation with their• reviews Attach copy of your applrcation
form, location map, proffer statement;impact analysis, and any other pertinent
Info
rmation:
Applicant's Name: BPG Properties, Ltd. Telephone: (215) 575 -2436
Mailing Address: C/O Triad Engineering, Inc.
200 Aviation Drive
Winchester, VA 22602
Location of property: Approximately 0.61 +/- miles north of the Route 11 inter section
with state route 671 (Cedar Hill). Bounded on the west by
Interstate Route 81 and on the east by Route 11 (Marti Pike).
Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: M -1 Light Ind. Acreage: 59.0770 + / -
ks & Rec Signature & Date r `'!/l��7e zoE/Yj
Notice to Department of Parks & Recreation - Please Return This Form to the Applicant
23
411 V An � is
J c
= i y
Frederick County Public Schools
Coordinator of Construction
and Facilities Use
Visit us at www.frederick.k12.va.us
e -mail:
kapocsis@fredcrick.k12.va.us
us
January 15, 2007
Mr. Dennie D. Dunlap, PE
Triad Engineering, Inc.
200 Aviation Drive
P.O. Box 2397
Winchester, VA 22604
Dear Mr. Dunlap:
RE: Rezoning comments for 1 -81 Distribution Center
This letter is in response to your request for comments concerning the rezoning
application for the proposed 1 -81 Distribution Center project. 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.
Respectfully yours,
Stephen Kapocsi
Coordinator of Construction and Facilities Use
SMK/dkr
cc: Patricia Taylor, Superintendent of Schools
Al Orndorff, Assistant Superintendent of Administration
540- 662 -4518 Ext 88112 1415 Amherst Street, Post Office Box 3508, Winchester, VA 22604 - 2546 FAX 540 - 662 - 3890
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665 -5651
FAX: 540 /665 -6395
January 24, 2007
Triad Engineering, Inc.
Attn: Rennie D. Dunlap, P.E.
PO Box 2397.
Winchester, VA 22604
RE: Request for Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) Comments
i -S Distribmion Center; - ,"I S4 s3- A - iilY, I
Dear Mr. Dunlap:
The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the above referenced
rezoning proposal during their meeting of January 16, 2007. The FIRAB 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 HRAB felt that the applicant must
fill out a Prehininary 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 tile Nathaniel Branson House can
receive state recognition for its historical value.
• The HRAB requested that a landscaped berm be placed alon the frontage of the
property, so that the viewshed of the Alexander Branson House (across Rt. I I )
would not be negatively impacted by the placement of a 739,000 sq. ft. industrial
structure.
Thank you for the chance to comment on this application. Please call if you have anv questions
or concerns.
Sincerely,
Kevin T. Henry
Planning Technician
K
cc: Charles S. DeHaven, Stonewall Supervisor
Rhoda Kriz. HRAB Chairman
Susan K. Eddy. Senior Planner
}07 North i�enf. Street Suite 202 « Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000
HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL
A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
WILBUR C. HALL (1892
7 6 307 EAST MARKET 5TREEf 9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET
THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924 - 1999)
SAMUEL D. ENGLE LEE5BURO, VIRGINIA WINCHE5TER, VIRGINIA
O. LELAND MAHAN TELEPHONE 703 - 777-1050 TELEPHONE 54065Z 3 200
ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. RA% 540'662 -4304
JAMES A. KLENKAR E-MAIL Iamem@hallmanaban,mm
STEVEN F. JACKSON January 24, 2007
DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR.
Susan K. Eddy, AICP
Senior Planner
Frederick County Department of Planning &
Development
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
JAN 5 lily'
PLEAaE REPLY TO.
P. O. BOX 848
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-084B
Re: 1 -81 Distribution Center (Estate of Roy Riley Boyce, Jr.)
Proposed Proffer Statement
Dear Susan:
I have reviewed the above - referenced Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that
the Proffer Statement is generally in a fonn to meet the requirements of the Frederick
County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following
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.
0 0
HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN Fx MITCHELL
Susan K. Eddy
January 24, 2007
Page 2
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 24, 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 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 recormnend that the words "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 deternvnation of whether
a buffer will apply is to be made now ( "at the time of this rezoning "), the proffer to
provide buffers should be stated affirmatively, rather than byan indirect reference to
proposed future uses in the Comprehensive Plan. This 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.
0 0
HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL
Susan K. Eddy
January 24, 2006
Page 3
It should be noted that I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to
whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the rezoning of this specific
property, or whether other proffers would be appropriate, as it is my understanding
that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission.
If there are any questions concerning the foregoing conirnents, please contact
me.
RTM/ks