HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-21 Comments
315 Tasker Road PH (540) 868-1061 Eric R. Lawrence
Stephens City, Virginia 22655 Fax (540) 868-1429 Executive Director
www.FrederickWater.com
Water At Your Service
September 24, 2020
Christopher Stephenson
Gordon
4501 Daly Drive, Suite 200
Chantilly, Virginia 20151
RE: Rezoning Application Comment - One Logistics Park Winchester
Tax Map Numbers: 64-A-83, 83A, 84, 85, 86, and 87
277.22 acres
Dear Mr. Stephenson:
Thank you for the opportunity to offer review comments on the One Logistics Park Winchester
rezoning application package, with a draft proffer statement and Impact Analysis Statement,
both dated Septembers 3, 2020. Frederick Water offers comments limited to the anticipated
impact/effect upon Frederick Water’s public water and sanitary sewer system and the demands
thereon.
The project parcels are located within the sewer and water service area (SWSA) and in an area
presently served by Frederick Water. The SWSA enables access to public water and sewer
service by county policy. Inclusion within the SWSA does not guarantee that sanitary sewer and
water conveyance and treatment capacities are available to serve the property.
The rezoning application proffer states that the proposed use will be limited to uses permitted
in the M1 Light Industrial and B2 Business General Zoning District. Facilities for conveyance of
water to, and sanitary sewer from, the subject properties do presently exist. The Impact
Analysis (IA) projects water and sanitary sewer flows of about 390,000 GPD. The existing
facilities can accommodate the projected flows.
Until the actual uses are known, and advanced into construction, adequacy of the water and
sanitary sewer to accommodate the new flows is a projection and not guarantee.
The Impact Analysis (IA) acknowledges the existence of a 12-inch water main which traverses
the property in an east-west manner. The IA states that the water main will be re-routed as
necessary to accommodate site development plans. Please note that this water main is a fully
functional, operational, and in-service water main and that any re-routing will need to be
Page 2
One Logistics Park Winchester rezoning application
Christopher Stephenson
September 24, 2020
coordinated in advance with Frederick Water. More importantly, the applicant will need to
establish the new water main route and easements, completely construct the new
infrastructure reflective of current standards and specifications, and have the new
infrastructure accepted by Frederick Water and placed into service, prior to disturbing the
existing water main.
The property has access to an existing gravity sewer system. The existing gravity sewer running
parallel to Millwood Pike continues to be inundated by the adjacent pond water. Historically,
the use of the pond for irrigating the Carper Valley Golf Course resulted in a pond water level
that was suitable for the sewer manholes. When the golf course ceased operations, the pond’s
water levels rose, and only minimal maintenance, if any, of the pond’s overflow culverts was
undertaken. The culverts are generally clogged and non-functioning, resulting in higher water
levels in the pond. With the proffer statement promoting Coverstone Drive for vehicular access
to the proposed industrial park, the original entrance to the golf club and the driveway’s use as
the pond’s earthen dam may no longer be necessary. Please either reduce the height of the
earthen dam or implement a maintenance program on the pond’s overflow culvert so that the
pond elevation does not exceed the height of the gravity sewer manholes.
The proffer statement is silent on improvements that would be constructed by the applicant to
meet water and sanitary sewer demands. Accordingly, the comments offered herein are
general in nature. The ultimate decision regarding the ability to serve the property with
adequate water and sanitary sewer will be determined at the time the site’s uses are
determined, conveyance facilities are constructed, and water and sewer connection fees are
paid to Frederick Water. Sanitary sewer system capacity is not reserved until the sewer
connection fee is paid to Frederick Water, and physical connection to the system is made.
Water and sanitary sewers are to be constructed in accordance with Frederick Water standards
specifications. Dedicated easements may be required and based on the layout vehicular access
will need to be incorporated into the final design.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer review comments on the One Logistics Park
Winchester rezoning application.
Sincerely,
Eric R. Lawrence
Executive Director
Cc: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, County Planning Department
1
Christopher Stephenson
From:Eric R. Lawrence <ELawrence@frederickwater.com>
Sent:Monday, December 14, 2020 2:24 PM
To:Christopher Stephenson
Cc:Mike Ruddy
Subject:RE: Frederick Water review comment for One Logistics Park Winchester rezoning
application
Chris,
The revised One Logistics Park proffers dated December 7, 2020 are acceptable. Thank you.
Eric Lawrence
From: Christopher Stephenson <cstephenson@gordon.us.com>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 10:21 AM
To: Eric R. Lawrence <ELawrence@frederickwater.com>
Cc: Mike Ruddy <mruddy@fcva.us>
Subject: RE: Frederick Water review comment for One Logistics Park Winchester rezoning application
Mr. Lawrence,
On 12/11/20, hard copies of the attached documents were submitted to your attention. Please advise if you have any
questions or comments.
Thank you,
Chris
Christopher Stephenson, PLA
Associate | Planning Director
4501 Daly Drive, Suite 200, Chantilly, VA 20151
O: 703.263.1900 | D: 703.889.2350 | M: 703.431.8264 | W: gordon.us.com
2
From: Eric R. Lawrence <ELawrence@frederickwater.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 1:02 PM
To: Christopher Stephenson <cstephenson@gordon.us.com>
Cc: Mike Ruddy <mruddy@fcva.us>
Subject: Frederick Water review comment for One Logistics Park Winchester rezoning application
Mr. Stephenson,
Please find attached a review comment for the One Logistics Park Winchester rezoning application.
Thank you.
Eric
This E-mail originated outside Frederick Water. Please be particularly careful opening attachments or clicking links.
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/ 665-5651
Fax: 540/ 665-6395
October 21, 2020
Mr. Edward Podboy via email: epodboy@wickshiregroup.com
Wickshire Industrial, LLC
2318 Rivera Drive
Vienna, Virginia 22181
RE: Proposed Rezoning for One Logistics Park Winchester
Property Identification Numbers (PINs): 64-A-83, 64-A-83A, 64-A-84, 64-A-86, 64-A-87
Dear Mr. Podboy:
I have had the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application for One Logistics Park
Winchester. This application seeks to rezone five properties totaling 277.22 acres from the R4
(Residential Planned Community) District to the B2 (General Business) District and the M1 (Light
Industrial) District with proffers. Prior to formal submission to the County, please ensure that
these comments and all review agency comments are adequately addressed. At a minimum, a
letter describing how each of the agencies and their comments have been addressed should be
included as part of the submission.
1. Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan and the
Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan provide guidance on the future
development of the property. The property is located within the SWSA. The 2035
Comprehensive Plan identifies these properties with a commercial/transition
designation and residential land use designation; these designations are consistent with
the current zoning. Staff would note that the requested M1 (Light Industrial) District is
generally inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It is noted that the requested M1
is consistent with the land use plan that was in effect prior to the Governors Hill
rezoning. This area is also within the limits of the Airport Support Area, it is noted that
residential development is not desired for properties in this area.
2. Impact Analysis. Please revise or address the following:
a. On page 2 - The section for plan conformity is incorrect, the M1 is not consistent
with the Plan (please see comment 1 above, and 2b below).
b. On page 3, remove “Policy” from the title, Senseny is spelled incorrectly. The
section for plan conformity is incorrect, the M1 is not consistent with the Plan.
It is suggested that the section be further expanded to discuss the previous land
use plan and why this area could be better suited with the desired M1 zoning.
c. On page 8, remove the modification notation.
Page 2
Preliminary Rezoning Comments
RE: One Logistics Park - Winchester
October 22, 2020
d. The statement needs to address any visual or nuisance impacts on surrounding
properties. Tree save areas should be incorporated to provide viewshed
protection from Route 50.
3. Master Development Plan. As this site is proposed to be rezoned from the R4 District
where a MDP is required to be proffered with the rezoning to the M1 District where this
is not a component. All references to the MDP need to be removed from the
application and proffer statement. A Generalized Development Plan should be included
with the proffer that outlines phases and landbays.
4. Proffer Statement. The proffer was drafted by deleting areas on the existing proffer
document and then adding text in its place. A new updated proffer statement needs to
be prepared.
5. Proffer Statement – Landbays – Phases. The proffer makes a number of references to
landbays and phases which were originally on the MDP – this application for review
does not include any documents that show these landbays or phases. The illustrative
plan only shows phase A and B – no landbays and is not a proffered document. The
application needs to be updated to clarify what landbays 1-3 are in regard to what is
shown as phase A and B on the illustrative plan. Please note that additional comments
may be provided once this is clarified.
6. Proffer 1 – Land Use. Please revise or address the following:
a. 1.1 – remove MDP from the statement. The provision regarding the allowance
for modifications needs to be amended, at a minimum it needs to have a
provision to be approved by the Director of Planning and only if it meets the
intent of the proffers.
b. 1.2 – This proffer should be removed.
c. 1.3 – This proffer should be removed
7. Proffer 2 – Unified Development. This proffer should be removed.
8. Proffer 3 – Armory Access.
a. 3.1 This proffer references Tazwell Road – as this roadway is no longer
proposed, this proffer needs to be removed.
b. 3.2 – This proffer should not be part of the Armory Access provision – this is a
transportation proffer/change and needs to be moved to proffer 10 as it
proposes to allow for access to Phase B to be from Pendleton Drive and does
not apply to access to the armory.
9. Proffer 4 – Architecture and Signage. This section should be removed.
10. Proffer 5 – Trail System. Remove the reference to the MDP.
Page 3
Preliminary Rezoning Comments
RE: One Logistics Park - Winchester
October 22, 2020
11. Proffer 6 - Fire and Rescue. This proffer should be amended to be consistent with past
rezonings which have provided for the same amount, but due with the certificate of
occupancy for each building.
12. Proffer 7 – Property Owners Association. This proffer should be removed.
13. Proffer 9 - Environment. This proffer should be removed as it is already required by the
Code of Frederick County.
14. Proffer 10 – Transportation. Please revise or address the following (please see
comment 18 regarding primary transportation comments to be provide by John Bishop):
a. Remove all references to the MDP.
b. The provision regarding the allowance for modifications needs to be amended,
at a minimum it needs to have a provision to be approved by the Director of
Planning and only if it meets the intent of the proffers.
c. This section references landbays, which were part of the MDP. The application
does not have a MDP requirement and therefore a GDP should be included that
shows these areas and road segments.
d. The proffer statement shows up to 500,000sf of industrial uses permitted
utilizing the completed portion of Coverstone Drive. A proffer was originally
added as 200,000sf of office in 2009 and shown in the 2013 revision, amended
to 300,000sf of office in 2014. This shows an increase of 200,000sf and changes
the proposal to industrial. This rezoning should remove the allowance for
utilizing the completed portion without building additional portions of
Coverstone. All new buildings should follow a phasing construction schedule.
e. Proffer 10.2 – Phase 3 – this proffer needs to be revised, please coordinate with
John Bishop.
f. Proffer 10.9 needs to be deleted as it is already a requirement.
g. Proffer 10.10 needs to be deleted as it is already a requirement.
15. Completed Proffers. All proffers that have already been completed need to be removed
from the proffer statement. It would be appropriate to provide a memo that outlines
what has been completed to date.
16. Remaining R4 Property - Buffer. The remaining R4 property with the residential land
use will require a zoning district buffer if the proposed M1 zoning is approved.
17. Existing Wooded Areas. The illustrative plan shows a number of existing wooded areas;
however, this is not discussed in the proffer statement. It is recommended that existing
woodlands be retained – All wooded areas along Route 50 is recommended to stay to
protect the viewshed for surrounding properties.
Page 4
Preliminary Rezoning Comments
RE: One Logistics Park - Winchester
October 22, 2020
18. Transportation Comments. Please note that the transportation comments on the
rezoning application from John Bishop, Assistant Director - Transportation, are being
provided to you in a separate letter. Staff may also provide additional comments related
to the proposed changes if warranted subject to adjustments requested by VDOT.
19. Zoning Plat and Deeds. A survey or plat of the entire site needs to be provided, this plat
must also show the meets and bounds of all zoning boundaries. Deeds for all properties
must also be provided.
20. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency comments from the following
agencies: Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public
Works, Frederick County Fire Marshal, Frederick Water, Frederick-Winchester Health
Department, the local Fire and Rescue Company, the County Attorney, the Frederick-
Winchester Service Authority, the Winchester Regional Airport, and the City of
Winchester.
21. Fees. Based on the rezoning fees adopted by the Board of Supervisors on April 23,
2008, the rezoning fee for this application would be $31,361 based upon acreage of
277.22 acres.
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,
Candice E. Perkins, AICP, CZAS
Assistant Director
CEP/pd
cc: Christopher Stephenson, Gordon, via email: cstephenson@gordon.us.com
John Bishop, via email
Rod Williams, via email
Patrick Barker, EDA
EDINBURG RESIDENCY
LAND USE MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 12, 2020
TO: Douglas R. Kennedy, PE, Pennoni
FROM: Bradley S. Riggleman, P.E., Area Land Use Engineer
RE: TIA Comments – One Logistics Park TIA
_________________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Kennedy,
VDOT Staunton District Planning and Traffic Engineering Divisions, and the VDOT Edinburg
Residency, have reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis for One Logistics Park in Frederick County,
dated September 2020 and submitted October 8, 2020. Due to the complex nature of this TIA and
the nuance involved with some of the concerns outlined below, VDOT requests a meeting with
Pennoni to review our comments together.
COMMENTS
1. Page 1, Summary - Millwood Pike is a Minor Arterial, not a Major Arterial. The rest of the
report calls out the correct classification.
2. Page 1, Summary - Prince Frederick Drive is a VDOT Secondary Roadway and is not classified
as a collector.
3. Page 1, Summary - Clarify that reduction in site traffic on Millwood Pike is relative to the
currently approved zoning.
4. Figure E2, Long-Term LOS Summary, states that signals should be coordinated on Rte 50 in
"eastbound direction only". Please clarify this statement. Does this just mean that
progression should favor EB traffic in the AM since that's the heavier movement?
5. Please provide the full details of the MUTCD signal warrants analysis for Millwood Pk &
Coverstone Dr. Page 6 notes that a Signal Justification Report for this proposed signal is
forthcoming. Please contact VDOT Traffic Engineering to scope the SJR. Note that the SJR and
its recommendation will need to be approved by both the district and the state traffic
engineer, so adequate review time should be considered for this multi-stage approval
process.
6. Page 11 - Note possible typo referencing "Tabler Station Logistics Park".
7. Table 5A site trips - pass-by and external passenger cars daily totals are flipped. 45% of the
4,758 daily trips for LUC 960 is 2,141. Trucks and phase 1 totals are all reported OK.
8. Page 38, Existing Traffic Volumes - Please define the "generalized historical growth rate" used
to convert older count data to 2020.
9. Page 38, Existing Traffic Operations - Please define the AM and PM peak hour time periods
used.
TIA Comments – One Logistics Park
Sheet 2 of 5
November 12, 2020
10. Page 38, Existing Traffic Operations - Please clarify in the report how the number of SimTraffic
runs was determined. 10 simulations runs is a good standard practice, but please confirm that
was adequate based on the 95% Confidence Interval in the provided TOSAM Sample Size
Determination Tool at one or more critical intersection(s).
11. Please provide distribution assumptions in the report or appendices for the ‘Other
Developments’ incorporated into the short and long-term conditions. Assumptions weren't
provided as to how these other trips were distributed outside their respective TIA study areas.
Were the employee trip distributions for One Logistics Park assumed to carry over to the
Other Developments traffic?
12. In all study models, the EB U-Turn (SB U-Turn in the model) at Sulphur Springs Rd is set to
permitted with custom phasing rather than being a protected phase. This makes the
deterministic results in Synchro look much worse than they should with a V/C ratio well
over 1. Changing this setting brings the V/C just under 1 in the 2024 Build model. SimTraffic
modeling was tested and outputs are unaffected by this issue, so reported MOEs are OK;
however, since the LOS reporting is based on HCM results in Synchro, LOS reporting should
be updated in the tables for just the Sulphur Springs Rd intersection with the U-turn
programming corrected.
13. Table 8A - It's clear that careful consideration was given to queue reporting; however, VDOT
is unable to replicate the calculation of the max/back of queue for Intersection 1 WB/TT. It
is identified as a 2,200+ ft queue, while the SimTraffic report shows 629 ft for the
movement with blockage + 270 ft for the upstream B78 node with no blockage = 899 ft. The
queue summation only needs to back as far as the nearest node without upstream spillback
and B78 does not spill back into Intersection 2. Intersection 3 WB/TT is another queue with
significant spillback through upstream nodes, but appears correct based on this approach.
Please clarify the methodology used to calculate the queues.
14. In the HCS models, the "Highway or C-D Roadway" should be selected under Freeway
Geometric Data. Multi-lane highways have different LOS criteria in HCM vs. a freeway and
generally have a better LOS. The 2020 HCS models look good otherwise.
15. Table 9 - NFCU AM should be 549 IN vs. 514 shown. PM In should be 32 vs. 34 shown. Not a
significant difference.
16. The following comments are for the applicant’s information only. Revisions to volumes and
analysis related to these comments are not necessary due to the anticipated minor impacts.
Please note the differences between the scoped and utilized growth rates in the report.
Base 2024 Volumes with Growth - Comparing the 2024 volumes to 2020, it appears that 1%
growth, rather than the scoped 1.5%, was applied on US-50 and was applied over only 3
years for the PM peak instead of 4 years. The AM peak appears to have used 1% over 4
years. Conversely, 1.5% growth appears to be applied on US-522, rather than the 1% that
was scoped.
TIA Comments – One Logistics Park
Sheet 3 of 5
November 12, 2020
For example, Intersection 4, the WBT movement in the PM peak approach is 1345 vehicles
in 2020 and 1385 vehicles in 2024. This is 0.74% growth over 4 years, ~1% growth over 3
years. 1.5% growth over 4 years would be 1426 (41 vehicles more than shown).
As with 2020-2024 growth calculations, the 2024-2028 calculations also appear to have
used the incorrect growth rates, with 1% growth on US-50 and 1.5% growth on US-522.
Figure 9, Other Development Traffic Volumes Without Site - VDOT is unable to replicate the
methodology used to develop the volumes shown. The volumes are close to what is shown
in Appendix E for the FBI complex, but do not quite match. For example, the FBI complex is
receiving 245 trips from EB US-50 in the AM and sending 213 trips WB in the PM. All of
these trips would be expected at Sulphur Springs Rd, but Figure 9 shows 256 trips EB in the
AM (227 EBT+ 29 SBL) and 230 trips WB in the PM (205 WBT+25 WBL). Volumes shown are
generally higher than expected and are of a similar order of magnitude, so this would not
likely effect outcomes. In fact, it helps make up for some of the loss from using the lower
growth rate on US-50.
17. Lane utilization factors for EBL and NBT to the 81N on-ramp were reverted to default
0.97/0.95. Both lanes used a 0.85 factor in the 2020 model, which came from the supplied
VDOT model. This factor change results in a significant difference in the deterministic delay
outcomes, but does not affect SimTraffic. Per the user manual: "To account for unbalanced
flow in SimTraffic, be sure to code in the geometric condition that is causing the condition,
such as a downstream lane taper."
This appears to be an oversight that may need sensitivity testing. The downstream taper on
the ramp is not programmed in Synchro in any of the models. Therefore, comparison is even
for all scenarios, but the potential effect of the lane drop on behavior is not being captured.
18. Figure 13C, Commercial car assignments - Intersection 3 should have 23 AM/22 PM cars
assigned to the I-81 NB off-ramp. These appear to have been mistakenly assigned to the EB
right turn onto US-522. This is a report display issue only because these trips are accounted
for correctly in the total site trip diagram.
19. Page 72, 2024 Mitigation - Based on the site impacts comparing 2024 No Build and Build
conditions, mitigation should be considered at US-50 & Custer Ave. The site is adding just
over 400 trips to the intersection and has several notable performance impacts as
compared to the 2024 No Build operation:
In the AM, NB Thru increases from 60.1 to 73.1, NB approach 30.2 to 37.2. In the PM, the
EB/U and Left delay increase from 6.1/48.4 to 70.2/70.5 seconds, making the U-turn to
access Custer Ave commercial more difficult. Likewise, the NB Left delay increases from
109.9 to 119.2 seconds, with the NB approach going from 64.1 to 89.4 seconds of delay. The
SB/LT also experiences a large jump from 73.1/74.9 to 104.8/99.2 seconds, with the SB
approach delay increasing from 47.7 to 61.4 seconds of delay.
20. US-50 & Sulphur Springs Rd is half cycled in the 2024 and 2028 Build modes. This is not
advisable since this intersection is well over capacity and the short cycle adds additional lost
time vs. a full cycle. No Build 2024 & 2028 models have this intersection in FREE with a 119
TIA Comments – One Logistics Park
Sheet 4 of 5
November 12, 2020
sec cycle, similar to existing conditions. VDOT tested the effect of full cycling Sulphur Springs
Rd in the Build models and found a substantial performance improvement. We recommend
making this adjustment and revising the report to determine the extent of site impacts on
the intersection.
21. The VDOT I-81 Exit 313 interchange project is modeled correctly for the study intersections,
but there is an added traffic signal just west of Mall Blvd that shouldn't be there. This signal
appears to be present to support the WB left movement, but that turn is handled at Mall Blvd
per the VDOT plans.
22. Figure 21, 2028 Background Traffic - The WBR at Custer Ave has the incorrect volumes shown
and should be 0(8). All 2028 No Build volumes are entered correctly in the models.
23. Figures 23 A and B were not provided in the digital copy of the TIA.
24. Figure 26A, 2028 Total Traffic with Site - I-81S off-ramp right turn volume should be 539, not
593. This volume is correct in the model.
25. The report states on Page 104 that "Some of the improvements are not proffered but are
shown for consideration by VDOT, as the analysis did not assume the extra traffic on the
background scenario regional roadway network associated with the by-right activities of
Governors Hill, if the subject property were developed with the approved commercial and
residential uses", also "...NB I-81 ramp access needs potential enhancement to support
forecasts"
This statement is unclear and possibly misleading, and should be reworded or removed. The
TIA is not a proffer statement. It is the role of the TIA to analyze the road network and
identify impacts related to the proposed rezoning, not what was previously approved. The
proffers from the previously approved development are immaterial to defining the changes
to the transportation network needed to maintain satisfactory operating conditions with
site trips added.
If it is known that there are certain improvements that will not be proffered, a separate and
clearly differentiated "Build with developer-proposed improvements" scenario should be
presented in with the rezoning package independent of a "Build with Needed Mitigation"
scenario in the TIA. This would provide decision makers with the information needed to
understand the impacts that are and are not expected to be mitigated.
26. The 2028 Build Improved conditions represent different scenarios with different
modifications to the interchange in the AM and the PM. Please clarify in the report which
alternative is being recommended to adequately mitigate the impact of site trips as
compared to the No Build. The titles for Figures 28 A and B are also confusing, with the 'A'
for the AM titled "...With Alternative Mitigation' and 'B' for the PM titled "...With
Mitigation".
If different alternatives are to be considered, it's preferable to model the impacts of each
one for both AM and PM and present them independently so that impacts are clearly
understood by decision makers.
TIA Comments – One Logistics Park
Sheet 5 of 5
November 12, 2020
27. The 2028 Build with Improvements AM scenario proposes a split of the I-81S off-ramp and
reassignment of traffic. This alternative provides two routes to proceed EB on US-50 east of
US-522 and splits traffic in half between these options. It is unclear how traffic would know
which ramp option is preferred and may not be realistic to expect a natural 50/50 split in
choice between the options. This makes a challenge to argue that certain results might be
achieved based on the model MOEs.
28. The need for bike/pedestrian accommodations should to be addressed. A 90’ right-of-way
would not be adequate to accommodate a 4-lane divided highway with sidewalk on one side,
and shared use path on the other.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Bradley S. Riggleman, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer – Edinburg Residency
Cc: Mark Cheran, Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Administrator
John Bishop, Frederick County, Assistant Director, Transportation
Tyler Klein, Frederick County, Senior Planner
Jeff Lineberry, P.E. – VDOT Transportation and Land Use Director
Terry Short, AICP, VDOT District Planning Manager
Matt Bond, P.E., VDOT Acting District Traffic Engineer
1
Christopher Stephenson
From:Rod Williams <rwillia@fcva.us>
Sent:Tuesday, December 29, 2020 1:08 PM
To:Christopher Stephenson
Cc:Candice Perkins; John Bishop; Pam Deeter; Patrick Barker, CEcD
Subject:RE: '[External]'RE: Preliminary Rezoning Comments
Dear Mr. Stephenson:
I am in receipt of your letter of December 11, 2020, and accompanying revised materials for
this proposed rezoning. I have the following comments on the revised materials:
Generalized Development Plan
o With respect to the two notes on the upper left of the GDP, it may be preferable to use
language similar to that in Proffer 1.1, that is, “… are subject to minor modifications, as
necessary upon final engineering…”.
o I note that the GDP depicts a location for a potential cell tower. This is the only specific
use that the GDP depicts in the area subject to the rezoning and, as such, is
problematic, because County Code Sec. 165-204.19 requires issuance of a conditional
use permit for a cell tower. The specific identification of just this one particular use on
the GDP, and given the language of Proffer 1.1, could mistakenly imply that no further
approval is necessary. Therefore, the tower should not appear on the GDP or, if it
does, it should include a further notation along the lines of “Cell tower would require
subsequent approval pursuant to County Code Sec. 165-204.19”.
Proffer 2.3 – The last sentence remains unclear and presents the potential for confusion. If the
trigger is 10,000 VPD on the indicated portion of Coverstone Drive, this ascertainment
presumably can occur at the time of each individual site plan submission. The last sentence,
however, suggests that this ascertainment would only take place upon development in Phase
2 and/or Phase 3 (should be Land Bay 2 and/or Land Bay 3?) exceeding the quite high
threshold of 2,305,000 square feet.
Proffer 2.6 – The square footage thresholds in this proffer and the conditions in Proffer 2.2 are
in apparent conflict. Will the Proffer 2.6 obligations occur upon either of the Proffer 2.2
conditions or the “site” square footage amounts being reached, or must both the Proffer 2.2
conditions and the “site” square footage amounts occur?
Proffer 2.7 – Rewording of this proffer is necessary; as currently worded, it appears to impose
a condition upon the County. Perhaps it might instead read: “The Owner’s obligations to
complete the off-site transportation improvements described in 2.2 and 2.6 and under the
terms described in 2.2 and 2.6 shall also not vest until the County has obtained any off-site
right of way needed for completion of the obligations.”
Proffer 4.1 – The second sentence is unnecessary.
Proffer 5.2 – The phrase “will coordinate with Frederick Water to address concerns” may not
be sufficiently definite to identify specific actions necessary.
2
Sincerely yours,
Roderick B. Williams
County Attorney
Frederick County, Virginia
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
540-722-8383
rwillia@fcva.us
From: Christopher Stephenson <cstephenson@gordon.us.com>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 10:29 AM
To: Pam Deeter <pdeeter@fcva.us>; Candice Perkins <cperkins@fcva.us>
Cc: John Bishop <jbishop@fcva.us>; Rod Williams <rwillia@fcva.us>; Patrick Barker, CEcD
<pbarker@yesfrederickva.com>
Subject: '[External]'RE: Preliminary Rezoning Comments
Good morning Candice,
Attached are PDF copies of the hard copies documents submitted to your attention on 12/11/20. Please advise if you
have any questions or comments.
Thank you,
Chris
Christopher Stephenson, PLA
Associate | Planning Director
4501 Daly Drive, Suite 200, Chantilly, VA 20151
O: 703.263.1900 | D: 703.889.2350 | M: 703.431.8264 | W: gordon.us.com
From: Pam Deeter <pdeeter@fcva.us>
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 3:15 PM
To: Christopher Stephenson <cstephenson@gordon.us.com>
Cc: John Bishop <jbishop@fcva.us>; Rod Williams <rwillia@fcva.us>; Patrick Barker, CEcD
<pbarker@yesfrederickva.com>
Subject: Preliminary Rezoning Comments
Good afternoon,
3
Please find attached the letter from Ms. Perkins for the preliminary rezoning comments (One Logistics). If you have any
questions, please contact Ms. Perkins.
Pam Deeter,
Secretary II
Dept. Planning & Development
107 N. Kent St. Suite 202
Winchester, VA 22601
540-665-5651
pdeeter@fcva.us
EDINBURG RESIDENCY
LAND USE MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 5, 2021
TO: Douglas R. Kennedy, PE, Pennoni
FROM: Bradley S. Riggleman, PE, Area Land Use Engineer
RE: TIA Comments – One Logistics Park TIA
_________________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Kennedy,
VDOT Staunton District Planning, Traffic Engineering, and the Edinburg Residency have completed a
review of the second submittal of the Traffic Impact Analysis for One Logistics Park in Frederick
County, dated December 2020 and submitted December 15, 2020. This revision includes a first
submittal of a Signal Justification Report for the proposed intersection at Millwood Pike, Coverstone
Drive, and Inverlee Way. The following comments are for the Traffic Impact Analysis and SJR only,
and are not intended to be interpreted as comments for the rezoning application. Please find the
following comments:
• The Signal Justification Report includes only an evaluation of 2024 short term traffic
conditions. Similar to the TIA, the SJR should evaluate both short and long term (2028 –
ultimate buildout) conditions to help determine if a signalized intersection is the most
appropriate intersection configuration at this location.
• The TIA and SJR both assume an intersection configuration at Millwood Pike and future
Coverstone Drive that prohibits through movements across Millwood Pike. With the
County Comprehensive Plan showing Coverstone Drive as a Major Collector, and Inverlee
Way as a Minor Collector that will ultimately extend to Senseny Road, we question if
prohibited through movements will support the goals of the Comp Plan. To address this,
and to provide flexibility in intersection design, a scenario showing through movements (a
traditional full access signalized intersection) needs to be added to the SJR.
• From a technical standpoint, we find the Traffic Impact Analysis and accompanying models
acceptable. However, given the impacts of the site on the surrounding transportation
network, VDOT continues to have significant concerns with the overall lack of mitigation
measures proposed in the TIA and the report narrative utilized to support the current
recommendations. As VDOT continues to coordinate with the applicant and Frederick
County to address these concerns, additional comments regarding mitigation as
recommended in the TIA and reflected in the rezoning application (to be reviewed upon
submission) will be forthcoming.
With the above comments centering on the SJR, it is not necessary to resubmit the entire TIA. A
revised SJR will be sufficient to complete the TIA review. Please note that should further mitigation
be proposed at some point, a subsequent submittal of the TIA could be required in order to
evaluate any additional improvements.
TIA Comments – One Logistics Park
Sheet 2 of 2
January 5, 2021
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Bradley S. Riggleman, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer – Edinburg Residency
Cc: Mark Cheran, Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Administrator
John Bishop, Frederick County, Assistant Director, Transportation
Tyler Klein, Frederick County, Senior Planner
Jeff Lineberry, P.E. – VDOT Transportation and Land Use Director
Terry Short, AICP, VDOT District Planning Manager
Matt Bond, P.E., VDOT Acting District Traffic Engineer
EDINBURG RESIDENCY
LAND USE MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 29, 2021
TO: Mark Cheran, Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision Administrator
FROM: Bradley S. Riggleman, PE, Area Land Use Engineer
RE: Rezoning Comments – One Logistics Park
_________________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Cheran,
The VDOT Edinburg Residency, along with Staunton District Traffic Engineering and Planning, have
completed a review of the rezoning application, proffer statement, and Generalized Development
Plan (GDP) for One Logistics Park in Frederick County. As you know, this is a major rezoning of ±270
acres from a combination of residential and commercial to primarily industrial with a small area
being commercial. This site sits along the south side of US Rt. 50/17 (Millwood Pike), which is
currently classified as a Minor Arterial and carries an average of 18,000 vehicles per day. This site is
approximately one mile east of the Interstate 81 Interchange (Exit 313). The Frederick County 2035
Comprehensive Plan shows Millwood Pike as an improved Major Arterial with a six lane divided
cross section. This site also impacts three other roadways that are intended to be improved in the
Comprehensive Plan. The Frederick County 2035 Comprehensive Plan classifies both the I-81/Rt.
50/17/522 Interchange, and the Rt. 50/17 corridor between the I-81 Interchange and future Rt. 37
as “Current Needs Projects”. A Traffic Impact Analysis was produced by Pennoni (December 2020)
to evaluate the impact that this proposed rezoning will have to the roadway network. The following
comments will make several references to this Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA).
VDOT General Rezoning Comments:
This proposed rezoning will have a measurable and significant impact to the roadway network. The
TIA demonstrates that the Rt. 50/17 corridor and I-81 interchange will experience a major
degradation in operations upon buildout. The rezoning documents and TIA attempt to diminish
these potential impacts by pointing out that there will be an overall reduction in traffic volume
based on what the current zoning of this area would allow. While there will be a decrease in overall
potential traffic generation when compared to the original 2008 traffic study for the property, there
are two important observations to share. First, an acknowledgement that 13 years have passed
since the original traffic study which did not fully account for the growth the County has
experienced over this time along the Route 50 corridor. Second, the character of anticipated traffic
is going to change significantly from passenger vehicles, to heavy vehicles. Transitioning from a
residential/commercial use to industrial will introduce a much higher percentage of heavy vehicles
(semi-trailers) to the network. It could be expected that the currently zoned property (largely
residential and commercial in use) would generate a very small percentage of heavy vehicle traffic
(1% to 2%). The current TIA provided by the applicant shows that in specific proposed uses, the
heavy vehicle percentage could be as high as 34.5%. When considering the overall length of a
typical interstate semi-truck (73.5’) and a much slower acceleration rate, one semi-truck could have
the impact of between 6 and 9 passenger cars. The TIA does not provide any scenarios or traffic
models that demonstrate the operation of the corridor assuming full buildout of the existing zoning,
and thus fails to validate the assumption that a lower vehicle generation will have less impact to the
network.
Rezoning Comments – One Logistics Park
Sheet 2 of 4
January 29, 2021
The proffer statement appears to largely reflect proffers put into place back in 2009 that were
included with the Governors Hill residential rezoning. Since that time, the Winchester/Frederick
County area has experienced significant growth and continues to be the most rapidly developing
community in the Staunton District. Specifically, the Rt. 50/17 corridor has seen significant
development with the opening of the Navy Federal Credit Union, FBI facility, and expansion at the
Winchester Regional Airport. Due to this growth and a rapidly changing landscape, it is expected
that a modernized evaluation of the roadway network in conjunction with such a significant change
in land use would yield updated proffers that would mitigate operational impacts and make
valuable steps towards the realization of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan.
For these reasons, we would respectively offer that the desired comparison of a 2008 TIA to a 2021
TIA, is not germane to the questions of (1) what impacts are expected along the corridor should the
rezoning be approved, (2) what mitigation has the applicant offered to address the advancement of
the 2035 Frederick County Comprehensive Plan and impacts to the surrounding road network, and
lastly, (3) is the proposed mitigation adequate to account for 13 years of additional growth and
traffic delay along and around the Route 50 corridor.
In an effort to evaluate needed improvements to accommodate this development, VDOT drew
upon potential roadway modifications that were included in one of the earlier revisions of the TIA
(October 2020) to come up with a planning level cost estimate for potential roadway
improvements. The October TIA included significant modifications to the I-81 interchange along
with improvements at a number of intersections east of the interchange. These improvements
were shown in the October TIA as being “funded by others”, with no specific identification of who
that might be. The improvements were substantial, but unfunded, and not offered as mitigation by
the applicant. Also, the October submittal did not provide a future condition scenario where these
improvements were not in place. So that the report would be transparent to the reader and
decision makers, at VDOT’s suggestion the final TIA submittal only includes improvements offered
by the applicant. The estimated range of planning level costs for these unfunded improvements as
identified by the applicant’s engineering consultant from their October submittal is between $63 to
$86 million. To provide perspective there are currently three publicly funded projects in this
immediate area that together total $330 million.
In conclusion, based on our evaluation, the proposed proffers do not include adequate
improvements to Rt. 50 and the I-81 interchange to mitigate projected impacts and to make
advancements toward the realization of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. If this
development is approved as is, it is expected that the Route 50/17 corridor and I-81 interchange
operations will erode to poor levels of service and high levels of congestion.
Lastly, we wanted to share our planned response to the applicant’s proffer letter and Generalized
Development Plan:
Rezoning Comments – One Logistics Park
Sheet 3 of 4
January 29, 2021
Proffer Comments:
1. Any reference to proffered highway construction needs to specify rural vs. urban typical
section.
2. It is recommended to include the word “approximately” before any reference to proffered
right-of-way. As design standards change, the right-of-way needs may also change in the
future.
3. Land Use Proffer 1.1: Remove the reference to ingress/egress and intersection alignment.
This should be covered under Transportation and subject to County Planning and VDOT
approval.
4. Transportation Proffer 2.1 needs to include VDOT approval.
5. Transportation Proffer 2.1: Replace “major roadways” with “public roadways”.
6. Transportation Proffer 2.2 needs to better define “half section”. Is the intent to build two
adjacent lanes with no separation, or build the divide median with one lane on each side of
the median? It is VDOT’s recommendation to construct a divided two-lane cross section.
7. Transportation Proffer 2.2, Phase 1 indicates that Coverstone Drive will be built to base
asphalt before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, however, there is not mention of
when the roadway surface will be completed. It is not favorable for base asphalt to be
exposed to weather for a long period of time before sealing with surface asphalt. It is
recommended to change this language from “constructed to base asphalt” to “completed”.
8. Transportation Proffer 2.2: There is a discrepancy between the proffer language and the
GDP to where Phase 1 ends. The proffers indicate Phase 1 ends at the primary entrance to
land bay 3, and the GDP shows Phase 1 extending to the land bay 3 boundary.
9. Transportation Proffer 2.4 indicates that Pendleton Drive will be constructed as a local road.
It appears that the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan includes a new Minor Collector
that intersects Coverstone Drive in close proximity to where Pendleton Drive is being
located. Is the intent of the Comp Plan for Pendleton Drive to be a Minor Collector? If this
is the case, this proffer needs to be worded as such.
10. Transportation Proffer 2.6 should specifically call out that road improvements will be
constructed to meet the latest VDOT standards, unless otherwise approved by VDOT.
11. Transportation Proffer 2.6.2.b should be revised to the effect, “Signalization or alternative
intersection construction, if deemed warranted by VDOT and subject to VDOT approval…”
12. Transportation Proffer 2.6.3 includes a reference to a right turn lane onto Millwood Pike
from Prince Frederick Drive. Currently, there is a right turn lane at this leg of the
intersection. The proffer should be revised to the effect, “Construct additional lane on
northbound Prince Frederick Drive to provide a dedicated left, left/thru, and right turn lane.
Including modifications to the existing signal and geometric improvements of the
crossover.”
13. Transportation Proffer 2.7 should be removed.
14. Transportation Proffer 2.9: The reference to Proffer 2.7 should be replaced with Proffer 2.6.
Generalized Development Plan Comments:
1. Since the GDP does not show development elements other than the alignment of
Coverstone Drive and Pendleton Drive, we recommend removing Note #1 or revising it to
only address potential minor adjustments to these public roadway alignments. VDOT should
be called out as being responsible for approving roadway alignment as well as entrance
locations, not just County Planning.
Rezoning Comments – One Logistics Park
Sheet 4 of 4
January 29, 2021
2. Since the GDP does not show development elements other than the alignment of
Coverstone Drive and Pendleton Drive, we recommend removing Note #1 or revising it to
only address potential minor adjustments to these public roadway alignments. VDOT should
be called out as being responsible for approving roadway alignment as well as entrance
locations, not just County Planning.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Bradley S. Riggleman, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer – Edinburg Residency
Cc: John Bishop, Frederick County, Assistant Director, Transportation
Tyler Klein, Frederick County, Senior Planner
Edwin Z. Carter, Edinburg Residency Administrator
Jeff Lineberry, P.E. – VDOT Transportation and Land Use Director
Terry Short, AICP, VDOT District Planning Manager
Matt Bond, P.E., VDOT District Traffic Engineer