The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-07 DeedD74 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 REZONING 4 107 -07 OF I -81 DISTRIBUTION CENTER SUBMITTED BY TRIAD ENGINEERING INC TO REZONE 59 ACRES FROM RA (RURAL AREAS) DISTRICT TO Ml (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT WITH PROFFERS, FOR OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE USES. THE PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 0.61 MILES NORTH OF THE ROUTE Id INTERSECTION WITH CEDAR HILL (ROUTE 674 BOUNDED ON THE WEST BY INTER ROUTE 81 AND ON THE EAST BY MARTINSBURG PIKE (ROUTE 111. AN ARE IDENTIFIED BY PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS 33 -A -109 AND 33-A-110 IN THE STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. - DENIED 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 M 1 (Light Industrial) District, with proffers. The property is located on Route 1 I 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. I Ie 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 warehouse. 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. Min ule Book Number 33 Board of Supervisors Regnlur Meeting of 09/12107 07t 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 I 1 has been dedicated and right turn deceleration lanes into the site have also been proffered. $150,000 towards Route I I 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 I 1 corridor. He concluded by noting that the applicant had submitted revised proffers, which satisfied the landscaping requirements. Deputy Director 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 backgroundtraffic, 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 Director Bishop stated staff did not support the trip proffers and the ongoing efforts that would be required to monitor them. Staffs 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 M 1 zoned property. — $37+ million class A facility. — $200,000 in annual real estate taxes. Minute Book Number 33 Board of supervisors Regular Meeting of 091(2/0] 076 — 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 Clearbrook Fire and Rescue. — Construct two right turn deceleration lanes, right of way dedication for Future Route I I widening. — $150,000 for Route I 1 improvements. — Install trip counters, real time trip counters. — $50,000 to Frederick County for Route I 1 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 I 1 improvements, if evening peak trips exceed SIO. — 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,E 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. — Stomi water management maintained by the applicant. The potential value of the proffers is $610,000. Mr. Lawson went on to say the proposed M 1 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 Ml . 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 or Supervisors Regular Meeting of09112/07 077 Mr. Lawson responded it was to give an idea of what the applicant was talking about. He stated the design for the Route t 1 corridor was not complete; however, the applicant would be fine with a 301E 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 and the 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. I le 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. Heconcluded 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. Supervisor DeHaven stated despite 19 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 407 -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 Supervisor Regular Meeting of 09/12107 Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Absent Bill M. Ewing Aye Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye OTHER PLANNING ITEMS MAS "rER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 908 -07 OF SHOCKEY BROTHERS - APPROVED Senior Planner Candice Perkins appeared before the Board regarding this item. Sheadvised 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 of North 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, Grecnway 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 §144-24C 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 DeHavcn, 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 Ave Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Aye Gary W. Dove Absent Minute Book Number Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/12/07