The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-07 Comments/Hand Out to BOStt 4 6-a �,•3 A A • , £�� •� Rf TM➢ [� i • - 1.x :9 �_ [ � �.e e Board of Supervisors Frederick County, VA September 12, 2007 DRAFT ° " y " N�x fY ' c. "G �,'..y .. t g`k'a zs tN`,d'4y T 4, Y e.fd�, bh -Y _' - }' r;. .tee. �.. � � _. ... 'Sa"_ �.. .,a - ..� � s t yam_._.". f.. iNiY ��,.��_r � f. Headquartered in Philadelphia, PA since 1980 www.bDQltd.com Regional Offices in Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Reston, VA, Suburban Philadelphia, Raleigh, NC o Privately held Real Estate Developer and Investment Manager BPG owns approximately 20 Million Square Feet of office, industrial, and retail space o BPG developed approximately 3.7 Million Square Feet of commercial space in the last three years o Develop, Own and Operate all of our facilities U. a ^JF-ff UUUUU 0 bit 0 WU 430,000 SF, Planned Page 3 Buena Vista — 180,000 SF Reston — 253,000 SF Harrisonburg — 360,000 SF, Existing Chantilly — 165,000 SF (under const.) �------------------------ - - - - -- X31 - - - -- -- I -81 (R /W VARIES) - - ----- —� —---- --- - - - - -- wa��w oezN - - - - -_ - -_ ----- - - - - -_ _ - ------- - - - -0R _- - -_ —_— __—__—__ i i E z a U.S. RT. 11 (80' WIDE) A The proposed zoning to M1 is consistent with other properties along Route 11 PROPOSED RTE. 11 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS f • Close, Direct Access to Exit 323,1-81 — Key for M1 users • Right Turn Decel Lanes — Both Entrances (Proffer 2.1) • ROW Dedication Along Rt. 11 (Proffer 2.1) • Comprehensive Plan; Bike /Pedestrian Lane; Future Widening of Rt. 11 1 1 1 � .. .. . _. _.�. .. _. .. ... .. .. �- CONCRETE PAD-, .... .... .. ..I I 1 . . DRIVE-IN I -DRIVE-IN 200'TRUCKCOURT 1 ASPHALT PAVING .1 B'CONC.DOLLY PAD PROPOSED WR /W DEDICATION PHOPO1 ._.. ' LANDSC TRIP_.. .. _.._..- _.._.._.._. _�.SWMB ._.._.. _ ]5'SETK _ _ _ RAG r'- PRO E DS S HEDGEROW SCREE_N__ TREES &525 SHRUBSI y - - - - - -- _ - - -- -•� �- - -- -- -- ---- -- - --- R J U.S. -- - - -� PROPOSED DE� PR -� -- -- PROPOSED IO'ASPHALT LONE W /TAPER -- �--�' -� - -� __ PEDESTRIAN / NIKE TRAIL PROPOSED DECEL LANEW /TAPER PROPOSED RTE. 11 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS f • Close, Direct Access to Exit 323,1-81 — Key for M1 users • Right Turn Decel Lanes — Both Entrances (Proffer 2.1) • ROW Dedication Along Rt. 11 (Proffer 2.1) • Comprehensive Plan; Bike /Pedestrian Lane; Future Widening of Rt. 11 I I I zs �I II I� I� I � • M1 Zoning Buffer (North and South Property Lines): • Buffer Type `C' `I •75' Inactive Buffer •25' Active Buffer *Active Buffer Includes: 6' Earthen Berm 254 Trees 53 0 i i Li Iw I> ti • M1 Buffer (along Route 11): •75' Setback • M1 Buffer (along 1 -81): • 25' Setback I I � , � � r � ! i � � s E � M i M Ip I j I j IN w I� I� u 1 *Site Landscaping (by Ordinance): *Based on Proposed Site Plan w 3 348 Trees I I '� Perimeter of Parking Areas: li 3' Earthen Berm or 3' Tall Hedgerow i i *Proffered Landscaping (along Rt. 11): • 63 Trees *525 Shrubs TOTAL: � I '3 tilt w I REQUIRED PROFFERED 602 Trees 63 Trees 6' Berm (North and South) 525 Shrubs MUM i 3' Berm or Hedgerow (East and West) i 6' Berm + 254 Trees 100' Total Setback 3' Berm or Hedgerow 170 Trees I' 3' Berm or Hedgerow 230 Trees `i 525 Shrubs 75' Setback 25' Setback w . MR. ME. MEN w w . w REM iw 'w iw w a !w w w 'w w w w w w w w ion w w a . � � � � M � � � � r M � � M M M M M M M M f M ! M w M 1. Provide "Shovel Ready" M1 property for Potential Users 2. Development - Estimated at $37+ Million, Class A facility 3. Taxes • Current: $17.90 (per county records) • Post Development: Approx. $200,000, annual real estate • PLUS: Business Tax, Machine and Tool, Personal Property 4. Job Creation 5. School Revenue, Net Positive • ROW dedication = 1 Acre of private property (Proffer 2.1) • Right Turn Decel Lanes (Proffer 2.1) • Additional Landscaping along Rt. 11 (Proffer 3.1) • Bike Pedestrian Lane along Rt. 11 (Proffer 3.2) • High Quality Building Materials (Proffer 4.1) 0 . Cash Proffer for Clearbrook Fire and Rescue (Proffer 1) F6. Proffer - $600,000 combined value • Traffic/Trip Counts to protect County and VDOT (Proffers 2.2, 2.3) PM PEAK TRIPS SIZE & USE CALCULATION (Design Criteria) 124* 750,000 SF, Warehouse Applicant Employee Based 325 750,000 SF, Warehouse OR VDOT, County 220,000 SF Office SF Based 567 750,000 SF, Warehouse AND VDOT, County 150,000 SF Office SF Based * A trip counts performed at similar facilities are much lower than this number 6. Proffer - $600,000 combined value 6. Proffer - $600,000 combined value • Cash Proffers for Route 11 (Proffers 2.2, 2.3; detailed below) • Traffic/Trip Counts to protect County and VDOT (Proffers 2.2, 2.3) *567 x 90% = 510 Rt. 11 Related Cash Proffers Timing of Proffer Trip Count Dollar Amount C of O n/a $100,000 Per Trip Count > 124 PM Peak $50,000 Per Trip Count > 325 PM Peak Traffic Signal or Cash Equivalent (current estimate = $150,000) Per Trip Count 1 > 510 PM Peak* $250,000 M ! i M = ' � W = M M = = = M = = W = M M M = ® = ! = = M • 18 months since 1st Scoping Meeting (March 2006) • 2 TIA's submitted prior to Rezone Application • Revised TIA's submitted on Dec. 1, 2006 and May 30, 20 • Independent trip count studies undertaken by Applicant • Numerous Proffer Revisions requested by County and VDOT, all of which are in the current Proffer statement • Comments received by VDOT indicate a successful mitigation of transportation issues March 28, 2006: Scoping Meeting with VDOT in Edinburg • VDOT (Lloyd Ingram, Sam Clem), Frederick County (Candice Perkins), PHRA (Mike Glickman), TRIAD (Dennie Dunlap) • Agreed to truck %, study area intersections, capacity analysis criteria, background projects • Agreed on the 1 employee /5000 square feet calculation (see below) Warehouse Trip Calculation — PM Peak Hour T = 0.59 * W T = number of site generated trips W = number of employees � M � M � = s w W w = M M M = W = s W M = M W = = = M = w June 13, 2006: TIA Submitted to VDOT and Reviewed in Edinburg VDOT (Scott Alexander, Lloyd Ingram, Sam Clem, Terry Short, rreaer[UK County (Mike Ruddy, John Bishop), PHRA (Mike Glickman), TRIAD (Dennie Dunlap) 660,000 sf facility, PM Peak of 117, ADT of 687 Background Projects: Sempeles, Rutherford, Stephenson Village Background projects cause D and F at Hopewell /Brucetown /11 The intersection Rest Church Road /Route 11 was assumed to be "new" due to the inclusion of the Sempeles entrance. August 28, 2006: • TIA Submitted with 660,000 sf facility, PM Peak of 117, ADT of 687 • Background Projects: same as 6/12/06 report • Background projects cause D and F at Hopewell /Brucetown /11. December 1, 2006: is TIA submitted with Rezone Application 750,000 sf facility, PM Peak of 124, ADT of 756 Background Projects: Semples, Clearbrook Properties, Rutherford, North Stephenson, Stephenson Village. Background projects cause D and F at Hopewell /Brucetown /11 March 8, 2007: Comments received from VDOT (Edinburgh): • • Not satisfied with proffers (3/8/07) March 22, 2007: • Comments received from VDOT (Staunton): • Disagreed with trip generation • Questions regarding included background projects • HCS analyses comments • Questions about trip distribution • Met with VDOT (Jerry Copp and Lloyd Imgram) • VDOT requested that the transportation proffer focus on Route 11 , instead of the intersections of HopewelUBrucetown or Rest Church • Applicant revised the Proffer accordingly March 28, 2007: — — — — — — — — — — _, ... Monday April 16, 2007: • PHR +A discussed the March 3 and March 22 Comments with VDOT • PHR +A and VDOT agreed that a Trip Count Study of similar facilities would be helpful to explaining the TIA • PHR +A counted trips, over 24 hour period at facilities in the region Actual Trip Counts April 2006: Existing Facilitie Facilit Actual PM Peak Orgill — Martinsburg, WV (723,000 sf, 150 employees) 79 Home Depot — Winchester, VA (756,000 sf) 22 Target — Chambersburg, PA (1,300,000 sf) 115 April 24, 2007: VDOT Meeting at Edinburg Reviewed TIA and March 8, March 22 Comments PHR +A Presented Actual Count Study (previous slide) VDOT, County Agreed that Trip Count proffers would be a good way to address the differences in calculating the traffic Additionally, the County asked us to revise the TIA to address the Worst Case Development Scenario County, VDOT, BPG, PHR +A, Ty Lawson agreed that Worst Case (1.2M sf) • PM Peak of ITE Code 150 (warehouse), at 750,000 SF • Then equating the resulting trip count (320 trips) to an office square footage with equal PM Peak Hour Trips • 220,000 SF of Office Space = Worst Case (325 PM Peak Trips) PHR +A agreed to revise the TIA to reflect expected and worst case BPG agreed to revise the Proffer, maxing the office development at 220,000 SF May 30, 2007: • Revised TIA Submitted to VDOT, County • Worst Case included: Office 220,000 SF, PM Peak of • Response to March 8, March 22 Comments Submitted t June 18, 2007: • Revised Proffer Submitted to County, VDOT • Increased initial cash proffer to $100,000 • Proffered Trip Counts to protect against Worst Case • $50,000 additional for more than 124 Trips • The traffic signal for more than 325 Trips July 10, 2007: • VDOT, County, BPG, PHRA, Ty Lawson met at Edinburg • Reviewed May 30 Revised TIA • Reviewed May 30 Response to Comments • Reviewed June 18 Revised Proffer • VDOT: Reduce Max Office SF Proffer to 150,000 SF • County: Proffer for traffic signal should say "or cash equivalent" • County, VDOT: Reiterated calculation by square footage • Applicant: Reiterated Worst Case discussion from April 24 (suggested by the County), which is addressed by Trip Counts and max office proffer July 11, 2007: • BPG Submitted Revised Proffer to County and VDOT • Reduced Max Office SF Proffer to 150,000 SF (Proffer 2.4) • Changed proffer 2.3 (for traffic signal) to say "or cash value equivalent" July 20, 2007: • BPG Submitted Rezone Application to County • All Agency Comments Included • Submitted additional VDOT comments to County L Email Dated July 26, 2007 VDOT is modestly satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Rezone Application The overall development plan appears acceptable "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 occuring if /when the trips exceed 124 weekday PM peak hour vehicle trips. However, VDOT will support whatever decision is made between the developer and Frederick County" July 30, 2007: I� r s. i - Staff / PC Comment #1: Land use proposed is not consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan Applicant Response: 1. The proposed rezoning to M1 is consistent with other uses in the area along both sides of Rt. 11 2. The proposed rezoning to M1 can provide "Shovel Ready" land for potential M1 users, a major need for the County 3. Potential users are expressing interest in this site because of its location and access to I -81 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. Applicant Response: 1. 12 Agencies reviewed the Rezone Application • 4 Agencies "no impact" (Regional Airport, FWSA, Parks and Rec., Public Schools) • 5 Agencies "impact acceptable" (Sanitation Authority, County Fire and Rescue, Health Dept., Public Works, Clearbrook Fire & Rescue) 6 • HRAB — Comments fully addressed • VDOT — Satisfied with the Applicant's transportation Proffer, which addresses the potential transportation impacts 2. The Applicant is not degrading Levels of Service Staff / PC Comment #2: Staff / PC Comment #2: 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. Applicant Response (Cont.): 3. The Applicant directly addresses the transportation improvements suggested by the Comprehensive Plan in the Proffer Statement. • ROW dedication for Comp Plan widening of Rt 11 • Bike and Pedestrian Lane Construction, per the Comp Plan • Decel Lanes at Both Entry Points Staff / PC Comment #3: Site Design and Corridor appearance considerations have not been adequately addressed. Applicant Response j 1. Specific landscaping is proffered to address Rt. 11 appearance; 2. Specific building materials are proffered to address site appearance; 3. Required and proffered buffers, screening and landscaping addresses the appearance of both Site Design and Corridor