Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout17-06 Application 2Mr. Evan Wyatt, AICP Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 RE: REZONING #17 -06, RUTHERFORD CROSSING Dear Evan: This letter serves to confirm action taken by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their meeting of January 24, 2007. The above referenced application was approved to rezone 22.45 acres from B3 (Industrial Transition) District to B2 (General Business) District and 8.55 acres from M1 (Light Industrial) District to B2 District, totaling 31 acres, with proffers, for a retail center. The properties are located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Interstate 81 (Exit 317) and Martinsburg Pike (Route 11), in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and are identified with Property Identification Numbers 43 -A -99 and 43 -A -100. An additional property to be subject to proffers, but not to be rezoned, is identified by Property Identification Number 43 -A -98. This property is located east of Interstate 81, approximately 1,500 feet north of the intersection of Interstate 81 and Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) in the Stonewall Magisterial District. The proffer that was approved as a part of this rezoning application is unique to this property and is binding regardless of ownership. Enclosed is a copy of the adopted proffer statement for your records. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any questions regarding the approval of this rezoning application. Sincerely, Iva Susan K. Eddy Senior Planner COUNTY 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 SKE/bhd Attachment cc: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Stonewall District Supervisor John H. Light and Gary Oates, Stonewall District Planning Commissioners Jane Anderson, Real Estate Commissioner of Revenue Rutherford Farm, LLC, Virginia Apple Storage, C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV, and John B. Schroth This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Planning Commission: Board of Supervisors: Reviewed December 6, 2006 January 24, 2007 PROPOSAL: To rezone 22.45 acres from B3 (Industrial Transition) District to B2 (General Business) District and 8.55 acres from M1 (Light Industrial) District to B2 District, totaling 31 acres, with proffers and to add proffers to one adjoining parcel. (The three parcels, including the portions not being rezoned. total 138.68 acres.) LOCATION: The properties to be rezoned are located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Interstate 81 (Exit 317) and Martinsburg Pike (Route 11). An additional property to be subject to proffers, but not to be rezoned, is located east of Interstate 81, approximately 1,500 feet north of the intersection of Interstate 81 and Martinsburg Pike (Route 11). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall REZONING APPLICATION #17 -06 RUTHERFORD CROSSING Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors Prepared: January 16, 2007 Staff Contact: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 43 -A -99, 43 -A -100 43 -A -98 (subject to proffers) Action Recommended Denial —Pe PROPERTY ZONING: B2 (Business General) District, B3 (Industrial Transition) District MI (Light Industrial) District; all properties are in the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) District. PRESENT USE: Vacant Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING PRESENT USE: North: M2 (Industrial General) Use: Warehouse Commercial RA (Rural Areas) Vacant Rezoning #17 -06 Rutherford Crossing January 16, 2006 Page 2 South: East: West: REVIEW EVALUATIONS: M1 (Light Industrial) plus IA (Interstate Area Overlay) Ml (Light Industrial) RP (Residential Performance) RP (Residential Performance) RA (Rural Areas) N/A B2 (Business General) B3 (Industrial Transition) RP (Residential Performance) RA (Rural Areas) Use: Use: Use: FEMA Office PROPOSED USES: The proposed rezoning would create a retail center. would be used for industrial and office uses. Trucking Residential Residential Residential Residential, Agriculture Commercial Nursery Interstate 81 Commercial Commercial Vacant Residential Residential Church The balance of the site Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 11 and I -81. 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 Rutherford Crossing rezoning application dated October 26, 2006 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Under Section C of the Transportation Enhancements, Item #2, Site Access Improvements, the verbiage notes the construction of two full entrances and two right in/right -out entrances. While it addresses the spacing of the entrances, the documents that were submitted with this rezoning request do not identify the approximate locations. Under Item 3, Right -of -way Reservation: This appears to be a considerable change from the original rezoning which was titled "Right -of -Way Dedication VDOT is 'requesting a reason for the change from dedication to reservation by the applicant. We have concerns with the way the current document is worded. Under Item 6, the Route 11 and Interstate 81 Northbound Off -Ramp Improvements: While we appreciate the applicant agreeing to prepare and process a Limited Access Break Study meeting FHWA and VDOT standards for the relocation of the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound off -ramp as well as preparing and processing of the Public Improvement Plan, we feel the proposed $125,000.00 to help construction of this facility falls far short of the monies needed to construct this key component of the transportation improvements in this area. During our meeting with the applicant, the Route 37 and Interstate 81 interchange were identified as a critical part of the County's transportation plan. The identified footprint of this roadway, a portion of which crosses the Rutherford Crossing property, needed to be preserved /dedicated as part of the proffer documents. This request has not been included in the current proffer document. The TIA prepared for this rezoning request did not take into consideration the Omps Property which was rezoned on the east side of Route 11 and will have considerable impact on the level of service at the main entrance to the Rutherford Crossing properties. There were several other anomalies within the study that gives VDOT cause for concern about some of the conclusions that were derived from this study. Before development, this office will require a Rezoning #17 -06 Rutherford Crossing January 16, 2006 Pane 3 complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip General Manual, Sixth Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all 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. VDOT has not provided comments on the proffer statement dated December 21, 2006. Fire Marshal: Plans approved as submitted. Public Works Department: Besides eliminating B3 zoned areas from the project, the impact analysis has changed the stormwater management philosophy from onsite detention ponds to discharge to an adequate channel. Consequently, we focused our review on the drainage analysis prepared by Randy Kepler and dated May 22, 2006. Based on our review of the Hiatt Run drainage analysis, we offer the following comments: 1. Verify that the cross section referenced in the report is representative of the channel cross section between the Rutherford discharge point and Route 11. 2. Hydrograph No. 9 indicates that the storm flows derived from the Rutherford project are relatively insignificant compared to the total drainage from Hiatt Run. Also, this hydrograph indicates that the peak flows from Rutherford occur long before the peak arrives from the total discharge area. This fact should be highlighted in the report summary and serve as the main justification for allowing discharge directly to the receiving stream without onsite detention. This latter conclusion assumes that the receiving channel has an adequate cross section. 3. Provide a map indicating the location of the channel section used to derive the total time of concentration. Frederick Winchester Service Authority: This rezoning will reduce wastewater demand by 50,000+ gal /day compared to prior approved rezoning. No comments. Sanitation Authority: We have sufficient water and sewer capacity to serve this site. Winchester Regional Airport: 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. Historic Resources Advisory Board: The HRAB reviewed rezoning application #07 -01 and a new review with this proposed rezoning was not warranted. Please see attached letter from the HRAB, dated July 19, 2001. Frederick County Attorney: Please see attached letters from Robert T Mitchell, Esquire, dated December 2006 and January 16, 2007. Planning Department: Please see attached letter dated October 20, 2006from Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner. Rezoning #17 -06 Rutherford Crossing January 16, 2006 Page 4 Planning Zoning: 1) Site History On April 22, 2002 the County rezoned 113 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District and 3.7 acres from the RP (Residential Performance) District to the M1 (Light Industrial) District, rezoned 21.8 acres from the RA District and 1.4 acres from the RP District to the B2 (Business General) District, rezoned 14.5 acres from the RA District to the B3 (Industrial Transition) District and rezoned all of those 1 54.4 acres to the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) Zoning District (REZ #07 -01). Parcel 43 -A -111 (the FEMA site) was part of that rezoning, but is not part of this proposed rezoning. On July 14, 2004 the County rezoned 13.4 acres from the RA (Rural Area) District, the B2 (Business General) District, the B3 (Industrial Transition) District and the Ml (Light Industrial) District to the B2 and B3 Districts (REZ #06 -04). This was a reconfiguration of 12.65 acres that was part of Rezoning #07 -01, plus the rezoning of .75 adjoining additional acres. All proffers associated with Rezoning #07 -01 were carried forward to Rezoning #06 -04. Parcel 43 -A -111 (the FEMA site) was part of that rezoning, but is not part of this proposed rezoning. StaffNote: Throughout this report are many staff notes comparing the proposed rezoning to Rezoning #06 -04, which is the by -right scenario. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1 -1] Land Use The subject properties are located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The subject properties are within the area covered by the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP). The mix and location of proposed commercial and industrial uses are generally in conformance with the plan. While the NELUP shows more of the site for industrial use as opposed to commercial use, that plan shows general land bays. Staff Note: REZ #06 -04 provided a greater amount of industrial and industrial transition land and thus was more in keeping with the land use proposed in the NELUP. The applicant is seeking this rezoning to allow for more retail uses, although they are able to accommodate considerable retail uses by -right in the existing B2 and B3 Districts. The NELUP identifies the frontage of this property along Route 11 as developmentally sensitive and worthy of a higher standard of development. The landscape proffer (Proffer D -2) addresses Rezoning #17 -06 Rutherford Crossing January 16, 2006 Page 5 some of this issue, but is vague. It would be clearer, if, for example, the applicant stated the landscape specifications such as the number of trees per linear feet. The NELUP calls for industrial land to be adequately screened from adjoining land to mitigate visual and noise impacts. Further, business and commercial land uses which adjoin existing residential uses and significant historic resources should be adequately screened to mitigate impacts. The applicant should consider extra screening against existing residences. The NELUP discourages individual lot access on the Martinsburg Pike corridor, encourages inter parcel connections, and recommends adequate screening from adjoining land uses and recommends greater setbacks and buffers and screening along Martinsburg Pike. Screening should be addressed and future inter parcel connectors to adjacent sites considered. Consideration should also be given to screening along Interstate 81. The Comprehensive Policy Plan recommends a number of design features for properties along business corridors. These include landscaping and screening (noted above) and controlling the size and number of signs. Proffer F -1 only addresses signs at the ent rances on Route 11. Signage for the entire site should be addressed. The proposed three Interstate Overlay (IA) signs may also be excessive. The Zoning Ordinance allows these signs to be up to 500 square feet in area. Given three such signs, 1,500 square feet of IA signage could be located on this site. A limit on the total IA sign square footage should be considered. Transportation The County's Eastern Road Plan, which is a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, identifies the Route 37 Corridor and a future Route 37 /Route 81 interchange on aportion of this property. The NELUP calls for accommodating these road improvements. Some land dedication and some land preservation for Route 37 has been proffered for parcel #43 -A -99. No land has been reserved or dedicated for Route 37 on parcel #43 -A -98. Therefore, this application is not fully compliant with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Staff Note: Rezoning #06 -04 proffers did not dedicate or reserve land for Route 37. The County's Eastern Road Plan and the NELUP identify a collector road through this property. The road was planned to be a free flowing, major collector between industrial sites. The applicant is proffering an internal road, with two 90 degree turns, that is not in the location shown on the NELUP. (The new road location is also not in the same location as the access easement for parcel #43- A -98.) The applicant is expected to construct this road on their property to established standards. The County standard for a major collector road (four -lane, divided median with landscaping) has not been proffered. From the signalized main entrance on Route 11 to the FEMA property, this road should be a four -lane section with a landscaped median. Beyond that point it may not be necessary to provide a four lane road as the adjacent road master planned for the Carroll Industrial Park (MDP #08 -05) will only have two lanes. Rezoning #17 -06 Rutherford Crossing January 16, 2006 Page 6 Staff Note: A major collector road in a location compliant with the NELUP, was proffered with REZ #06 -04. This road location is also included on the approved Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Master Development Plan (MDP #04 -02). This free flowing road would better facilitate industrial and office traffic than the proposed rezoning which provides a road through a shopping center with two 90 degree turns. Drawings prepared for the applicant showing a by- right development with the road in an alternate location would not be compliant with the proffers associated with REZ #06 -04 and thus would not allow by- right. The County's Eastern Road Plan identifies Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) from the main entrance of this project south to the 1 -81 northbound on -ramp as a six -lane divided road section and from the main entrance north as a four -lane divided section. The applicant will be reserving right -of- way without financial compensation and providing land dedication along Route 11 and will be constructing a third southbound lane of Route 11 from the main entrance to the Interstate 81 northbound on -ramp. Staff Note: REZ #06 -04 dedicated the right -of -way for Route 11 and proffered the same road construction. The NELUP requires road capacity Level of Service (LOS) Category C or Yietter on surrounding roads with proposed commercial or industrial development. LOS C will not be maintained with this proposal; therefore, the proposal is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. (See details under transportation impacts.) Staff Note: REZ #06 -04 did not provide Level of Service C. Martinsburg Pike is identified on the Frederick County Bicycle Plan as a short-term destination. A 10 foot wide sidewalk is being provided in this location. Staff would also strongly suggest that the applicant consider a commitment to sidewalks throughout the development. It is very likely that the FEMA employees, and other future employees on the site, will walk to the retail /restaurant facilities. 3) Site Suitability/Environment Hiatt Run is located in the northern portion of this site. Approximately 28.3 acres in the northern portion of the site, in the vicinity of Hiatt Run, is within the floodplain. The applicant will need to comply with all state and local permitting requirements in this area. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued Jurisdictional Determination Letter 02 -B0133 on March 5, 2003 verifying that no regulated waters and /or wetlands exist on the subject property. There are no steep slopes on the site. The site contains mature woodlands that might be usable as natural buffers. The site contains prime agricultural soils. Rezoning #17 -06 Rutherford Crossing January 16, 2006 Page 7 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared for this application using composite data collected from other studies in the area as well as actual traffic counts. Two alternative scenarios were modeled. Scenario A modeled the proposed development and Scenario B modeled the by -right development allowed with REZ #06 -04. Scenario A modeled industrial floor space, a home improvement store, a discount store, retail floorspace, five restaurants and a bank, for a total of 26,652 vehicle trips per day. Scenario B (by- right) modeled industrial floorspace, considerable office space, a discount store, a home improvements store, seven restaurants, a bank and a convenience mart with gas station, for a total of 28,859 vehicle trips per day. Through selective data input, the applicant has set up a comparison in which the by -right development appears to generate more traffic than the more heavily commercial proposed development. The two scenarios and associated uses are so contrived that both the County and VDOT question their validity. It is also important to remember that theITiA associated with Rezoning #07 -01 projected only 9,744 vehicle trips per day. The County approved rezoning #07 -01, with its proffered transportation improvements, based on this projected traffic volume. The applicant is now telling the County that in fact, the by -right development will generate 28,859 vehicle trips per day. The County's rezoning application requires applicants to model the worst case traffic. The worst case traffic was not modeled in either scenario. Neither scenario modeled the maximum floorspace of 1.245 million square feet. The precise mix of retail, office and industrial uses and the floorspace modeled are not proffered. It is entirely possible that a large amount of office space and very little industrial space will develop on this property (in either scenario), given the proximity to the PEMA site. Office space is a much higher traffic generator than industrial space. (It should also be noted that if the non retail portion of the site develops with more office uses than industrial uses, the free flowing NELUP collector road would be more beneficial than the collector road proposed with this rezoning.) Scenarios A and B both used incomplete background data. Neither modeled the North Stephenson, Inc. development, which is directly across Route 11. This industrial development (REZ #03 -05) is projected to generate 5,874 vehicle trips per day. The Adams Development (REZ #11-04 and #02 -05) further north on Route 11 was also not modeled as background. It is projected to generate 4,603 vehicle trips per day. The TIA shows that post- development, for both Scenarios A and B, roads will function at a Level of Service less than C. This is contrary to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The intersections with LOS less than C will include: Rezoning #17 -06 Rutherford Crossing January 16, 2006 Page 8 B. Sewer and Water A) Cover Sheet Route 11 and Old Charles Town Road; Route 11/1 -81 northbound on- ramp /Redbud Road (although the traffic signal proffered with this rezoning provides a benefit); Route 11 and the I -81 northbound off -ramp; Route 11 and the I -81 southbound ramps (although the traffic signal proffered with this rezoning and Rezoning #06 -04 provides a benefit); Route 11 and Welltown Road (This intersection shows failure even with additional turn lanes that no developer has proffered). The site is projected to add 68,435 gallons per day to the public sewage conveyance system and the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant. There is a newly constructed eight inch sanitary sewer force main adjacent to the Winchester and Western Railroad line on the site. A regional pump station has been designed for this development by the applicant and will be installed by the applicant and dedicated to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. The site is projected to utilize 136,870 gallons of water per day. There is an existing ten inch water main located on the east side of Martinsburg Pike and a newly constructed 20" water main adjacent to the Winchester and Western Railroad line on the site. The Sanitation Authority commented that they have sufficient water and sewer capacity to serve this site. C. Community Facilities The current application does not address capital facilities. SlaffNote: REZ 06 04 provided a $10,000 monetary contribution for fire and rescue services, to be paid at the submission of the first site plan (the FEMA site). The monetary contribution was made on July 20, 2006. 5) Proffer Statement Dated April 5, 2004 with latest revision dated December 21, 2006 This proffer statement was written in an unconventional format. Not all proffers relate to all owners. Property owners and associated parcels are incorrectly identified on the cover sheet. Rezoning #17 -06 Rutherford Crossing January 16, 2006 Page 9 B) Preliminary Matters This proffer statement terminates the proffer statement associated with REZ #06 -04. As stated in the recitals "all other proffers contained in the 2004 Proffer Statement have agreed to be provided by the Applicant and Record Owner of each parcel as set forth in this, the 2006 proffer Statement, without further obligation to Tax Parcel #43- ((A))- 111." Staff Note: The applicant has taken responsibility for the transportation proffers associated with REZ #06-04. However, this new proffer removes all existing proffers from parcel #43 -A -111, the FEMA site. The FEMA site therefore would be left as a pure M -1 site with no proffers associated with it. This includes the REZ #06 -04 proffers limiting its floorspace, uses, lighting, signage and recycling. (Mr. Mitchell's comments concerning the Route 11 improvements north to the FEMA site entrance were not interpreted in the past in that manner. Route 11 road improvements were only planned to the main site entrance and remain that way.) C) Maximum Building Structures D) Land Use All owners proffer to limit the total building structures to 1,245,000 square feet for the entire property. All owners proffer to exclude truck stops, but all other uses within SIC Code 5541 (Gasoline Service Stations) are allowed. Staff Note: This proffer is identical to one associated with REZ #06 -04. Staff would point out that it in effect allows gasoline service stations, excluding truck stops, in the M1 district where they are normally not allowed. E) Transportation 1. Signalization: A traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of Route 11 and the main entrance when warranted by VDOT. A traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of Route 11 and the southbound ramps of Interstate 81 (Exit 317) when warranted by VDOT. A traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of Route 1l /the northbound on -ramp of Interstate 81 (Exit 317) /Redbud Road, when warranted by VDOT. Prior to the installation of the above three signals, a signalization timing analysis for lights on Martinsburg Pike from the main site entrance to Crown Lane will occur and the costs for any adjustments borne by the applicant if warranted by VDOT. Staff Note: REZ #06 -04 included two of these three traffic signals. Only the signal at Route 11/1-81 northbound on- ramp /Redbud Road is new. REZ #06 -04 proffered two signalization agreements prior to the first site plan approval. The two signalization agreements have been signed, but the bonds have yet to be posted. Rezoning #17 -06 Rutherford Crossing January 16, 2006 Page 10 2. Site Access: The total number of entrances along Route 11 will be limited to one full entrance and two right in/right -out entrances. Travel lane and turn lane improvements at those intersections will be in conformance with the MDP dated December 21, 2006 and will be completed by December 31, 2007. Staff Note: REZ #06 -04 did not limit the number of entrances REZ #06 -04 proffered the entrance improvements within one year of the first site plan approval. The FEMA site plan was approved on October 10, 2006. Therefore, these improvements should be completed by October 10, 2007. However, the new proffer statement would void the old proffers. 3. Right of Way Reservation: Rutherford Farm, LLC has proffered to reserve right -of -way without financial compensation for the planned Route 11 improvements, and to dedicate the land within 90 days of request by VDOT. Rutherford Farm, LLC and Virginia Apple Storage, Inc. have proffered to reserve right -of -way without financial compensation for the planned Interstate 81 improvements, and to dedicate the land within 90 days of request by VDOT. C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV and John B. Schroth have agreed to dedicate land for the 350 foot wide Route 37 corridor on Parcel 43 -A -99 and to reserve land with future financial compensation for the Route 37 /Route 81 ramp on parcel #43 -A -99. (The meaning of "reserve" is unclear to staff.) (No land reservation or dedication for Route 37 has been made on parcel #43 -A -98, Virginia Apple Storage.) Staff Note: REZ #06 -04 required Route I 1 land dedication prior to approval of the construction plans for these improvements. VDOT has verified that this land dedication has not taken place. REZ #06 -04 required Route 81 land dedication prior to approval of the Master Development Plan (MDP) for the Rutherford Farm Industrial Park. The Rutherford Farm MDP (MDP #04- 02) was approved on December 3, 2002, yet there is no evidence that this dedication has taken place. REZ #06 -04 did not address Route 37 on this property. 4. Comprehensive Plan Road Construction: Rutherford Farm, LLC agrees to construct a portion of a major collector road, to base pavement and available for public access, from the main entrance on Route 11 to parcel 43 -A -111 (the FEMA site). Rutherford Farm, LLC will use reasonable commercial effort and diligently pursue this construction no later than December 31, 2007. This text does not guarantee a firm completion date. (The proffer does not include a description of the road section. The County's major collector road standard is a four -lane section with a landscaped median.) The remainder of the major collector road and internal roads will be constructed with each site plan submission. Staff Note: REZ #06 -04 proffered a major collector road in the location shown in the NELUP and proffered road construction with each site plan submission. If the by -right development is pursued, the collector road location is fixed as per the rezoning. Approved MDP #04 -02 also includes the road network to the FEMA site. The NELUP road network efficiently accommodates commercial and industrial traffic in a free flowing manner. Rezoning #17-06 Rutherford Crossing January 16, 2006 Page 11 5. Route 11 and I -81 Northbound Ramp Improvements: Rutherford Farm, LLC agrees to construct a third southbound lane on Route 11 from the main entrance to the I -81 northbound on -ramp. This improvement shall be completed within one year of the approval of the first site plan for the B -2 portion of the site, and in any event prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit on the property. Staff Note: REZ #06 -04 required this road construction to be completed within 12 months of the first site plan approval. The FEMA site plan was approved on October 10, 2006. Therefore, these improvements should be completed by October 10, 2007. However, the new proffer statement would void the old proffers. 6. Monetary Contribution for Route 11 Corridor: Rutherford Farm, LLC agrees to provide Frederick County with $250,000 for transportation studies or physical improvements within the Martinsburg Pike corridor. Staff Note.. REZ #06 -04 did not provide a cash contribution for road improvements. F) Historic Resources 1. Interpretive Signs: An interpretive area for public use with plaques, picnic tables and landscaping will be provided (by Rutherford Farm, LLC) along Route 11, in a location specified on the proposed MDP. It will be constructed in conjunction with the adjacent site plan. Staff REZ #06 -04 proffered a similar interpretive area. 2. Landscapin•: Rutherford Farm, LLC will provide a landscape buffer along Route 11, during the construction of the first B2 structure. It will be a 15' strip with low earthen mounds and landscaping as depicted on the proposed MDP. Staff Note: REZ #06 -04 proffered similar landscaping. G) Lighting Rutherford Farm, LLC (the B2 property) has proffered for all building mounted and pole mounted lights to be of a downcast nature. hooded and directed away from adjacent properties. (Lighting proffers are not associated with the MI portion of the site, so these properties could have a greater lighting impact on adjacent properties.) A lighting plan will be submitted to the County for approval, prior to the installation of these lights. Stuff Note REZ #06 -04 proffered a similar lighting package for all portions of the site, not just the B2 portion. Rezoning #17 -06 Rutherford Crossing January 16, 2006 Page 12 H) Signage 1. Rutherford Farm, LLC has proffered that all freestanding business signs located at the entrances on Martinsburg Pike will be monument style, not to exceed 12' in height. Staff Note: REZ #06 -04 proffered freestanding business signs to be monument style, not to exceed 12' in height only on the M1 portion of the site. (It would be more in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan if this sign limitation covered all of the site.) 2. All owners agree to limit the IA (Interstate Overlay Area) District signs to a total of three. Staff Note REZ #06 -04 had the same IA sign total of three. I) Recycling Proffer Virginia apple Storage, Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV and John implement recycling programs with each industrial use. StaffNote: REZ #06 -04 had a similar recycling proffer. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 12/06/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: B. Schroth agree to The fundamental decision to be made with this application is whether Frederick County is better off with the existing by -right development or with the proposed rezoning. The by -right development provides a collector road as planned in NELUP and provides two traffic signals. The proposed rezoning provides a road akin to driving through a shopping center instead of a free flowing collector road. The proposed rezoning provides a total of three traffic signals and $250,000 towards road improvements. Neither scenario truly provides land for Route 37. Greater B2 use, as proposed in this rezoning, typically generates more traffic, despite what is modeled in the TIA. The County accepted rezonings #07 -01 and #06 -04 with their associated road improvements, based on the very low traffic projections they were provided by the applicant. Given the new traffic projections, it would be appropriate for the applicant and the County to be discussing road improvements commensurate with the vastly increased traffic to be generated from this development. Finally, the proffers associated with REZ #07 -01 and REZ #06 -04 include road improvements linked to the already approved FEMA site plan. These should be retained with this proposed rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION FOR THE 12/06/06 MEETING: During the conclusion of the staff's presentation, staff noted that a new proffer statement was received after the agenda packet was mailed, dated November 29, 2006; and, in addition, another revised proffer, dated December 5, 2006, was received the morning of December 6, 2006. Commission members stated that it may be appropriate to table the application since neither the staff, the Commission, or the County attorney had the opportunity to review the latest proffers. Rezoning #17 -06 Rutherford Crossing January 16, 2006 Page 13 The applicant anticipated Lowes and Target as anchor stores with support retail and restaurants; they wanted to develop more of a retail -type road system to present a commercial presence. The applicant offered to create a dedication plat for the right -of -way along I -81 and Route 11 without financial compensation. A 14 -acre area was reserved for proposed Route 37 and had a ten -year, no -build clause. The applicant requested that the Commission not table their application, but asked the Commission to consider the November 29, 2006 proffers with the revisions offered and to act on their request this evening. The applicant's transportation engineer said that during their initial scoping for the TIA, the vehicle tpd were inflated. which is why they believed their modeling was appropriate for the proposed B2 uses. 1-le noted that the Red Bud intersection fails under existing conditions and the signal they have proffered here will bring the LOS up to acceptable levels. In addition, the applicant's transportation engineer responded to a question about traffic congestion on Route 11. He said evaluation of the problem centered on inadequate synchronization of signals near the Crown, Cork Seal; he said the applicant will conduct an analysis of the signalization and pay for retiming. The County's transportation planner, John Bishop, stated that the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) endorsed a recommendation by VDOT to drop the Star Solutions proposal for the 1 -81 widening; however. widening of I -81 has not been abandoned. The CTB recognized the widening will probably not be uniform and the study is ongoing. Mr. Bishop also noted that the Route 37 centerline was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in April of 2006. Commissioners asked Mr. Bishop to comment on how the LOS for the site would be affected when the original proposal called for less than 10,000 tpd and the new proposal will result in almost 30,000 tpd. Mr. Bishop replied that it would result in significant traffic degradation and functionality in the entire area would virtually be zero during peak hours. VDOT's representative, Mr. Lloyd Ingram, said that VDOT was not satisfied with what is being presented. Mr. Ingram said the previous by -right plan was approved approximately three years ago and since that time, a considerable amount of development has occurred. He commented that the traffic from the Omps development was not included in the applicant's TIA. Commission members expressed concern that land for Route 37 was not dedicated with this application, but merely reserved for a ten -year period and afterward, any taking of property would require compensation at fair market value. They noted that all of the other properties in the path of Route 37 had dedicated land. Another concern was that the major collector road shown on the County's Eastern Road Plan was obliterated by this new proposal and the two 90- degree turns introduced will impede the flow of traffic. Commission members had concerns that the road improvements offered would not accommodate the increased traffic that would be generated with greater retail uses. There were no public comments. A motion for a recommendation of denial was made, seconded, and passed by the following majority vote: Rezoning #17 -06 Rutherford Crossing January 16, 2006 Page 14 YES (TO DENY): Unger, Manuel, Oates, Thomas, Kriz, Molm, Wilmot NO: Watt, Triplett, Kerr (Note: Commissioners Morris, Light, and Ours were absent from the meeting.) Since the Planning Commission meeting on December 6, 2006, the applicant has revised the proffer statement to address some of the concerns raised by the Commissioners. The proffer statement is dated December 21, 2006 and has been thoroughly analyzed in this staff report. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 01/24/07 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING: The fundamental decision to be made with this application is whether Frederick County is better off with the existing by -right development or with the proposed rezoning. The by -right development provides a collector road as planned in NELUP and provides two traffic signals. The proposed rezoning provides a road akin to driving through a shopping center instead of a free flowing collector road. The proposed rezoning provides one additional traffic signal and $250,000 towards road improvements. For Route 37, the proposed rezoning provides some land dedication and some land reservation, although in the future, financial compensation would need to be paid for the reserved land. The by -right development does not provide any land for Route 37. Greater B2 use, as proposed in this rezoning, typically generates more traffic, despite what is modeled in the TIA. The County accepted rezonings #07 -01 and #06 -04 with their associated road improvements, based on the very low traffic projections that were provided by the applicant. Given the new traffic projections, it would be appropriate for the applicant and the County to be discussing road improvements commensurate with the vastly increased traffic to be generated from this development. Finally, the proffers associated with REZ 1106 -04 would no longer apply to the FEMA site, and it would become an unfettered M1 property. Following the required public hearing, a decision regarding this rezoning application by the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Board of Supervisors. REZ#17-06 Frederick County Location in the County Map Features Q Application UDA Urban Development Area Lakes/Ponds Streams dap SWSA c3 Flooplain Streets Primary Secondary Terciary Winchester City Future Rt37 Bypass ''i Railroads Rezoning 1 Applicati Rutherf Crossi Parcel ID: 43 -A -9i 43 -A -9f 43 A 10 Location in Surrounding Area 0 300 600 12P2et M2 zoning GARP-DLL tNDU57RNL PARK C CLAN 43 A 85 108.36 ac. )W WP.4.t- It.UXJ6 •IAL PARK 43 N E 3j5.2 4c s3 NTS K J INVESTMENTS 43 A 151 35.78 ac. CRIDER SHOCKEY 44 A 26 170 ac. Frederick County, Location in the County Map Features Q Application UDA Urban Development Area Co Lakes /Ponds Streams dip SWSA Flooplain Streets ^r Primary Secondary Terciary Winchester City Future Rt37 Bypass ^y. Railroads 0 300 600 Rezoning 1 Applicatii Rutherfi Crossii Parcel ID: 43 A 98 43 -A -99 43 -A -10( Zoning 81 (Business, Neighborhood C 82 (Business, General District' 40 B3 (Business, Industrial Transi EM (Extractive Manufacturing HE (Higher Education District) M1 (Industrial, Light District) M2 (Industrial, General District MH1 (Mobile Home Communit MS (Medical Support District) do R4 (Residential, Planned Com R5 (Residential Recreational C RAZ (Rural Area Zone) RP (Residential Performance I Location in Surrounding Area 1'2 94,1 Location in the County Map Features Q Application UDA Urban Development Area fl Lakes/Ponds Streams SWSA G3 Flooplain Streets .0r Primary 4 Secondary Terciary Winchester City �i. Future Rt37 Bypass ".P Railroads Long Range Land Use Rural Community Center Residential Business 40 Industrial Institutional 6X Recreation Historic Mixed -Use CE5 Planned Unit Development Winchester: Vir9ika Location in Surrounding Area 0 300 600 I Frederick County, Rezoning 1 Applicatic Rutherfc Crossir Parcel ID: 43 A 98 43 -A -99 43-A -100 1,2p0pt Frederick County Planning Department Adopted by Board of Supervisors August 13, 2003 Northeast Land Use 0 0.5 1 1.5 Miles LE GEND Ma Study Are.a tmdary SWSA r•Urban Development Area Rural Community Centers Water Featur /\/Perennial Streams A, Historic Features Proposed Land tilse Residential Business liggi Industrial =Planned Unit Development 7,7,', Rural Area gig Developmentally Sensitive Areas Roads /V Interstate 81, Primary Highways /V Secondary Roads Railroads g% Proposed Route 37 Extension New Collector Roads 3 New Signalturtion Zoning O B1 (Business, Neighborhood District) CI B2 (Business, General District) Ill 83 (Industrial Transition District) 11101 EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) M1 (Industrial, Ught District' M2 (Ind ustrial, General District) MI-I1 (Mobile Ho CorrirmmIty) H RA (Rural Area) RP (Residential .erformance District) Plan Name: Address: 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Evan Wyatt, AICP Location map Plat Deed to Property Verification of taxes paid REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be.cotnpleted by Planning Staff Zoning Amendment Number b97o PC Hearing Date N /6 O Fee Amount Paid Date Receive BOS Hearing Date The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: Greenway Engineering Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 2. Property Owner (if different from above) Please refer to attached Property Owner Information List Telephone: Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Telephone: (540) 662 -4185 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Agency Comments Fees Impact Analysis Statement Proffer Statement 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: Rutherford Farm, LLC Virginia Apple Storage C. Robert Solenberger John S. Scully, IV John B. Schroth 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Residential Unimproved B) Proposed Use of the Property: Retail Center, Office Industrial 7. Adjoining Property: Please refer to attached Adjoining Property Owner Table USE PARCEL ID NUMBER ZONING 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact located based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route number): Northeast Quadrant of Interstate 81 Exit 317 and Martinsburg Pike intersection Districts Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 43- ((A)) -98; 43- ((A))-99 &43 -((A)) -100 Magisterial: Stonewall High School: James Wood Fire Service: Clear Brook Middle School: James Wood Rescue Service: Clear Brook Elementary School: Stonewall 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres 22.45± 8.55± 31.0± Current Zoning B3 District M1 District Zoning Requested B2 District B2 District Total Acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Single Family homes: Non Residential Lots: Number of Units Proposed Townhome: Multi Family Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms: Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office: Service Station: Retail: Manufacturing: Restaurant: Warehouse: Other Note: The Applicants Proffer Statement limits structural development to 1,400,000 square feet for the 136.87± acre site Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right -of -way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the bet of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s): Rutherford Farm, LLC William Lauer and Jack Waghorn 8230 Leesburg Pike Suite 500 Vienna, VA 22182 (703) 448 -4307 Virginia Apple Storage C. Robert Solenberger P.O. Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22604 (540) 667 -3390 C. Robert Solenberger P.O. Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22604 (540) 667 -3390 John S. Scully, IV 1 12 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 662-0323 John B. Schroth 112 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 662-0323 Property Owner Information List O 0 Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Planning office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540- 665 -5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That 1 (We) (Name) Virginia Apple Storage, Inc (Phone) (540) 667 -4273 (Address) PO Box 3103. Winchester, VA 22604 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land "Property conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. 040011262 on Page and is described as Parcel: 43 Lot: 98 Block: A Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Greenwav Engineering (Phone) (540) 662 -4185 (Address) 151 Windy Hill Lane, Winchester, VA 22602 To act as my true and lawful attorney -in -fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning application for my (our) above described Property, including: Z Rezoning (Including proffers) Conditional Use Permits Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) Subdivision Site Plan Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment My attorney -in -fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this -I day o 20010 State of Virginia, City/ oun[ ofW2& To -wit: h�PSS cr a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction atoresaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who I (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this. l{ day olkhl,*Y20(10 Cornrrif55 01 SSIal •W:) My Commission Expiresij©IP.mhet Lc 5tai' Publ -Signature(s) Department of Planning Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540- 665 -6395 Planning office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540 665 -5651 Facsimile 540- 665 -6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) C. Robert Solenberger (Phone) (540) 667 -3390 (Address) PO Box 2368, Winchester, VA 22604 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land "Property conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia. by Instrument No. 040017164 on Page and is described as Parcel: 43 Lot: 99 Block: A Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Greenway Engineering (Phone) (540) 662 -4185 (Address) 151 Windy Hill Lane, Winchester, VA 22602 To act as my true and lawful attorney -in -fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning application for my (our) above described Property, including: Rezoning (Including proffers) Conditional Use Permits Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) Subdivision Site Plan Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment My attorney -in -fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. 9 In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this I day ofgJ 20 ,--Signature(s) d V j A. a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to The f@regoing instrument and who I (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this 9 day efg.lerba- 200(n N6taty.P Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us State of Virginia, City/ fI eW ro wit: Ceavniopvcl )tc5/'ca /1 Wr l My Commission Expires: A/ketti :+-)g Department of Planning Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, 'Virginia 22601 Phone 540- 665 -5651 Facsimile 540- 665 -6395 Planning office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540 -665 -5651 Facsimile 540 -665 -6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) John S. Scully IV (Address) 112 North Cameron Street, Winchester. VA 22601 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land "Property conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. 040017164 on Page and is described as Parcel: 43 Lot: 99 Block: A Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Greenway Engineering (Phone) (540) 662 -4185 (Address) 151 Windy Hill Lane, Winchester VA 22602 To act as my true and lawful attorney -in -fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning application for my (our) above described Property, including: Rezoning (Including proffers) Conditional Use Permits Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) Subdivision Site Plan Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment My attorney -in -fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof- 14w h;hereto my and seal this Km day of ►J0■1, 20( (o Sig nature(s)c Notary Public Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us (Phone) (540) 662 -0323 State of Virginia, Cit) Count f C 4 o -wit: L Me115Oa Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who I (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before mein the jurisdiction aforesaid this 60, day ofNrMprvk✓''200 .�o g /v My Commission Expires: Ee-IYU2✓V 2P, 2cx>8 Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Planning office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540- 665 -6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That 1 (We) (Name) John B. Schroth (Phone) (540) 662 -0323 (Address) 112 North Cameron Street, Winchester, VA 22601 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property conveyed to me (us). by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick. Virginia, by Instrument No. 040017164 on Page and is described as Parcel: 43 Lot 99 Block: A Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Greenway Engineering (Phone) (540) 662 -4185 (Address) 151 Windy Hill Lane. Winchester, VA 22602 To act as my true and lawful attorney -in -fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority 1 (we) would have if acting personally to file planning application for my (our) above described Property. including: Rezoning (Including proffers) Conditional Use Permits Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) Subdivision Site Plan Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment My attorney -in -fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. day of In. witness thereof, I (we) have hereto s y (our) hand and seal this Sign`ature(s) o fEt'(Z{Ptn;ill'o -wit: State of Virginia, Ci a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who I (are) known to me. personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this _fain_ day oft4.64 x3200 (o Mp, y u y My Commission Expires: FeOttleu P 211, 2 e Notary Public Department of Planning Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540 665 -5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Planning office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540- 665 -6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That 1 (We) (Name) Rutherford Farm, LLC Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us (Address) 8230 Leesburg Pike, Suite 500, Vienna, VA 22182 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land "Property conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. 050006702 on Page and is described as Parcel: 43 Lot: 100 Block: A Section: Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Greenway Engineering (Phone) (540) 662 -4185 (Address) 151 Windy Hill Lane. Winchester, VA 22602 To act as my true and lawful attorney -in -fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning application for my (our) above described Property, including: IS Rezoning (Including proffers) Conditional Use Permits Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) Subdivision Site Plan Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment My attorney -in -fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I (we) have h veto set my (our) hand and seal this 'V1 day ofte 200 A Signature(s) I.ThywptL• k1etiSO, a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who I (are) known to me, personally appeared before nie and has acJct(owledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this Stln day of�dFf200 (o My Commission Expires: frekwuT3 ZR, 208 Notary Public X /Y State of Virginia, Ci (Phone) (703) 448 -4307 f il evt t t4 c REZONING APPLICATION #17 -06 RUTHERFORD CROSSING Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: November 20, 2006 Staff Contact: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning natter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: December 6, 2006 Pending Board of Supervisors: January 10, 2007 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 22.45 acres from B3 (Industrial Transition) District to B2 (General Business) District and 8.55 acres from M1 (Light Industrial) District to B2 District, totaling 31 acres, with proffers and to add proffers to one adjoining parcel. (The three parcels, including the portions not being rezoned, total 138.68 acres.) LOCATION: The properties to be rezoned are located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Interstate 81 (Exit 317) and Martinsburg Pike (Route 11). An additional property to be subject to proffers, but not to be rezoned, is located east of interstate 81, approximately 1,500 feet north of the intersection of Interstate 81 and Martinsburg Pike (Route 11). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 43 -A -99, 43 -A -100 43 -A -98 (subject to proffers) PROPERTY ZONING: B2 (Business General) District, B3 (Industrial Transition) District M1 (Light Industrial) District; all properties are in the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) District. PRESENT USE: Vacant Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING PRESENT USE: North: M2 (Industrial General) Usc: Warehouse Commercial RA (Rural Areas) Vacant Rezoning #17 -06 Rutherford Crossing November 20, 2006 Page 2 South: East: West: REVIEW EVALUATIONS: MI (Light Industrial) plus IA (Interstate Area Overlay) MI (Light Industrial) RP (Residential Performance) RP (Residential Performance) RA (Rural Areas) N/A B2 (Business General) B3 (Industrial Transition) RP (Residential Performance) RA (Rural Areas) Use: Use: Use: FEMA Office PROPOSED USES: The proposed rezoning would create a retail center. would be used for industrial and office uses. Trucking Residential Residential Residential Residential, Agriculture Commercial Nursery Interstate 81 Commercial Commercial Vacant Residential Residential Church The balance of the site Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 11 and 1 -81. 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 Rutherford Crossing rezoning application dated October 26, 2006 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Under Section C of the Transportation Enhancements, Item #2, Site Access Improvements, the verbiage notes the construction of two full entrances and two right in/right -out entrances. While it addresses the spacing of the entrances, the documents that were submitted with this rezoning request do not identify the approximate locations. Under Item 3, Right -of -way Reservation: This appears to be a considerable change from the original rezoning which was titled "Right -of -Way Dedication VDOT is requesting a reason for the change from dedication to reservation by the applicant. We have concerns with the way the current document is worded. Under Item 6, the Route 11 and Interstate 81 Northbound Off -Ramp Improvements: While we appreciate the applicant agreeing to prepare and process a Limited Access Break Study meeting FHWA and VDOT standards for the relocation of the Interstate 81 Exit 317 northbound off-ramp as well as preparing and processing of the Public Improvement Plan, we feel the proposed $125,000.00 to help construction of this facility falls far short of the monies needed to construct this key component of the transportation improvements in this area. During our meeting with the applicant, the Route 37 and Interstate 81 interchange were identified as a critical part of the County's transportation plan. The identified footprint of this roadway, a portion of which crosses the Rutherford Crossing property, needed to be preserved /dedicated as part of the proffer documents. This request has not been included in the current proffer document. The TIA prepared for this rezoning request did not take into consideration the Omps Property which was rezoned on the east side of Route 11 and will have considerable impact on the level of service at the main entrance to the Rutherford Crossing properties. There were several other anomalies within the study that gives V DOT cause for concern about some of the conclusions that were derived from this study. Before development, this office will require a Rezoning #17 -06 Rutherford Crossing November 20, 2006 Page 3 Fire Marshal: Plans approved as submitted. complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.C. Trip General Manual. Sixth Edition for review. V DOT reserves the right to comment on all 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. VDOT has not yet provided comments on the proffer statement dated November 7, 2006. Public Works Department: Besides eliminating B3 zoned areas from the project, the impact analysis has changed the stormwater management philosophy from onsite detention ponds to discharge to an adequate channel. Consequently, we focused our review on the drainage analysis prepared by Randy Kepler and dated May 22, 2006. Based on our review of the Hiatt Run drainage analysis, we offer the following comments: 1. Verify that the cross section referenced in the report is representative of the channel cross section between the Rutherford discharge point and Route 11. 2. Hydrograph No. 9 indicates that the storm flows derived from the Rutherford project are relatively insignificant compared to the total drainage from Hiatt Run. Also, this hydrograph indicates that the peak flows from Rutherford occur long before the peak arrives from the total discharge area. This fact should be highlighted in the report summary and serve as the main justification for allowing discharge directly to the receiving stream without onsite detention. This latter conclusion assumes that the receiving channel has an adequate cross section. 3. Provide a map indicating the location of the channel section used to derive the total time of concentration. Frederick Winchester Service Authority: This rezoning will reduce wastewater demand by 50,000+ gal /day compared to prior approved rezoning. No comments. Sanitation Authority: We have sufficient water and sewer capacity to serve this site. Winchester Regional Airport: 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. Historic Resources Advisory Board: The FIRAB reviewed rezoning application #07 -01 and a new review with this proposed rezoning was not warranted. Please see attached letter from the HRAB, dated July 19, 2001. Frederick County Attorney: Please see attached letter from Robert T. Mitchell, Esquire, dated October 23, 2006. The County Attorney has not yet reviewed the proffer statement dated November 7, 2006. Planning Department: Please see attached letter dated October 20, 2006fron Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner. Rezoning #17-06 Rutherford Crossing November 20, 2006 Page 4 Planning Zoning: 1) Site History On April 22, 2002 the County rezoned 113 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District and 3.7 acres from the RP (Residential Performance) District to the MI (Light Industrial) District, rezoned 21.8 acres from the RA District and 1.4 acres from the RP District to the B2 (Business General) District, rezoned 14.5 acres from the RA District to the B3 (Industrial Transition) District and rezoned all of those 154.4 acres to the IA (Interstate Area Overlay) Zoning District (REZ #07 -01). Parcel 43 -A -111 (the FEMA site) was part of that rezoning, but is not part of this proposed rezoning. On July 14, 2004 the County rezoned 13.4 acres from the RA (Rural Area) District, the B2 (Business General) District, the B3 (Industrial Transition) District and the M1 (Light industrial) District to the B2 and B3 Districts (REZ #06 -04). This was a reconfiguration of 12.65 acres that was part of Rezoning #07 -01, plus the rezoning of .75 adjoining additional acres. All proffers associated with Rezoning #07 -01 were carried forward to Rezoning #06 -04. Since parcel 43-A- 111 (the FEMA site) is not part of the proposed rezoning, all proffers associated with Rezoning #06 -04 remain with parcel 43 -A -111. Staff Note: Throughout this report are many staff notes comparing the proposed rezoning to Rezoning #06 -04, which is the by -right scenario. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1J Land Use The subject properties are located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The subject properties are within the area covered by the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP). The mix and location of proposed commercial and industrial uses are generally in conformance with the plan. While the NELUP shows more of the site for industrial use as opposed to commercial use, that plan shows general land bays. Staff Note: REZ #06 -04 provided a greater amount of industrial and industrial transition land and thus was more in keeping with the land use proposed in the NELUP. The applicant is seeking this rezoning to allow for more retail uses, although they are able to accommodate considerable retail uses by -right in the existing B2 and B3 Districts. Rezoning #17 -06 Rutherford Crossing November 20, 2006 Page 5 The NELUP identifies the frontage ofthis property along Route 11 as developmentally sensitive and worthy of a higher standard of development. The landscape proffer (Proffer D -2) addresses some of this issue, but is vague. It would be clearer, if, for example, the applicant stated the landscape specifications such as the number of trees per linear feet. The NELUP calls for industrial and to be adequately screened from adjoining land to mitigate visual and noise impacts. Further, business and commercial land uses which adjoin existing residential uses and significant historic resources should be adequately screened to mitigate impacts. The applicant should consider extra screening against existing residences. The NELUP discourages individual lot access on the Martinsburg Pike corridor, encourages inter parcel connections, and recommends adequate screening from adjoining land uses and recommends greater setbacks and buffers and screening along Martinsburg Pike. Screening should be addressed and future inter parcel connectors to adjacent sites considered. Consideration should also be given to screening along Interstate 81. The Comprehensive Policy Plan recommends a number of design features for properties along business corridors. These include landscaping and screening (noted above) and controlling the size and number of signs. Proffer F -1 only addresses signs at the entrances on Route 11. Signage all along Route 11 should be addressed. The proposed three Interstate Overlay (IA) signs may also be excessive. The Zoning Ordinance allows these signs to be up to 500 square feet in area. Given three such signs, 1,500 square feet of IA signage could be located on this site. A limit on the total IA sign square footage should be considered. Transportation The County's Eastern Road Plan, which is a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, identifies the Route 37 Corridor and a future Route 37 /Route 81 interchange on a portion ofthis property. The NELUP calls for accommodating these road improvements. The applicant has proffered to not build on the land needed for Route 37 for a period of only five years. This is neither a land reservation nor a land dedication. Therefore, this application is not fully compliant with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Staff Note: Rezoning #06 -04 did not proffer to dedicate or reserve land for Route 37. The County's Eastern Road Plan and the NELUP identify a collector road through this property. The road was planned to be a free flowing, major collector between industrial sites. The applicant is proffering an internal road, with two 90 degree turns, that is not in the location shown on the NELUP. (The new road location is also not in die same location as the access easement for parcel #43- A -98.) The applicant is expected to construct this road on their property to established standards. The County standard for a major collector road (four -lane, divided median with landscaping) has not been proffered. From the signalized main entrance on Route 11 to the FEMA property, this road should be a four -lane section with a landscaped median. Beyond that point it may not be necessary to provide a four lane road as the adjacent Rezoning #17 -06 Rutherford Crossing November 20, 2006 Page 6 road master planned for the Carroll Industrial Park (MDP #08 -05) will only have two lanes. Staff Note. A road location, in compliance with the NELUP, was proffered with REZ #06 -04. This road location is also included on the approved Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park Master Development Plan (MDP #04 -02). This free flowing road would better facilitate industrial and office traffic than the proposed rezoning which provides a road through a shopping center with two 90 degree turns. The County's Eastern Road Plan identifies Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) from the main entrance of this project south to the I -81 northbound on -ramp as a six -lane divided road section and from the main entrance north as a four -lane divided section. The applicant will be reserving right -of- way without financial compensation along Route 11 and will be constructing a third southbound lane of Route 11 from the main entrance to the Interstate 81 northbound on -ramp. Staff Note: REZ #06 -04 dedicated the right -of -way for Route 11 and proffered the same road construction. The NELUP requires road capacity Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better on surrounding roads with proposed commercial or industrial development. LOS C will not be maintained with this proposal; therefore, the proposal is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. (See details under transportation impacts.) Staff Note: REZ #06 -04 did not provide Level of Service C. Martinsburg Pike is identified on the Frederick County Bicycle Plan as a short-term destination. A bike trail, in lieu of the required sidewalk, should be provided in this location. The bike trail should be outside of the public right of-way to allow for future road widening. Staff would also strongly suggest that the applicant consider a commitment to sidewalks throughout the development. It is very likely that the FEMA employees, and other future employees on the site, will walk to the retail /restaurant facilities. 3) Site Suitability/Environment Hiatt Run is located in the northern portion of this site. Approximately 28.3 acres in the northern portion of the site, in the vicinity of Hiatt Run, is within the fioodplain. The applicant will need to comply with all state and local permitting requirements in this area. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued Jurisdictional Determination Letter 02 -B0133 on March 5, 2003 verifying that no regulated waters and /or wetlands exist on the subject property. There are no steep slopes on the site. The site contains mature woodlands that might be usable as natural buffers. The site contains prime agricultural soils. Rezoning #17 -06 Rutherford Crossing November 20, 2006 Page 7 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared for this application using composite data collected from other studies in the area as well as actual traffic counts. Two alternative scenarios were modeled. Scenario A modeled the proposed development and Scenario B modeled the by -right development allowed with REZ #06 -04. Scenario A modeled industrial floor space, a home improvement store, a discount store, retail floorspace, five restaurants and a bank, for a total of 26,652 vehicle trips per day. Scenario B (by- right) modeled industrial floorspace, considerable office space, a discount store, a home improvements store, seven restaurants, a bank and a convenience mart with gas station, for a total of 28,859 vehicle trips per day. Through selective data input, the applicant has set up a comparison in which the by -right development appears to generate more traffic than the more heavily commercial proposed development. The two scenarios and associated uses are so contrived that both the County and VDOT question their validity. It is also important to remember that the TIA associated with Rezoning #07 -01 projected only 9,744 vehicle trips per day. The County approved rezoning #07 -01, with its proffered transportation improvements, based on this projected traffic volume. The applicant is now telling the County that in fact, the by -right development will generate 28,859 vehicle trips per day. The County's rezoning application requires applicants to model the worst case traffic. The worst case traffic was not modeled in either scenario. Neither scenario modeled the maximum floorspace of 1.4 million square feet. The precise mix of retail, office and industrial uses and the floorspace modeled are not proffered. It is entirely possible that a large amount of office space and very little industrial space will develop on this property (in either scenario), given the proximity to the FEMA site. Office space is a much higher traffic generator than industrial space. (It should also be noted that if the non retail portion of the site develops with more office uses than industrial uses, the free flowing NELUP collector road would be more beneficial than the collector road proposed with this rezoning.) Scenarios A and B both used incomplete background data. Neither modeled the North Stephenson, Inc. development, which is directly across Route 11. This industrial development (REZ #03 -05) is projected to generate 5,874 vehicle trips per day. The Adams Development (REZ #11-04 and #02 -05) further north on Route 11 was also not modeled as background. It is projected to generate 4,603 vehicle trips per day. The TIA shows that post development, for both Scenarios A and B, roads will function at a Level of Service less than C. This is contrary to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The intersections with LOS less than C will include: Rezoning #17 -06 Rutherford Crossing November 20, 2006 Page 8 Route 11 and Old Charles Town Road; Route 11 /I -81 northbound on- ramp /Redbud Road (although the traffic signal proffered with this rezoning provides a benefit); Route 11 and the I -81 northbound off -ramp; Route 11 and the 1 -81 southbound ramps (although the traffic signal proffered with this rezoning and Rezoning #06 -04 provides a benefit); Route 11 and Welltown Road (This intersection shows failure even with additional turn lanes that no developer has proffered). B. Sewer and Water The site is projected to add 68,435 gallons per day to the public sewage conveyance system and the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant. There is a newly constructed eight inch sanitary sewer force main adjacent to the Winchester and Western Railroad line on the site. A regional pump station has been designed for this development by the applicant and will be installed by the applicant and dedicated to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. The site is projected to utilize 136,870 gallons of water per day. There is an existing ten inch water main located on the east side of Martinsburg Pike and a newly constructed 20" water main adjacent to the Winchester and Western Railroad line on the site. The Sanitation Authority commented that they have sufficient water and sewer capacity to serve this site. C. Community Facilities The current application does not address capital facilities. Staff Note: REZ 06 -04 provided a $10,000 monetary contribution for fire and rescue services, to be paid at the submission of the first site plan (the FEMA site). The monetary contribution was made on July 20, 2006. 5) Proffer Statement Dated April 5, 2004 with latest revision dated November 7, 2006 This proffer statement was written in an unconventional format. Not all proffers relate to all owners. The County Attorney has not yet provided comments on this aspect of the rezoning. A) Maximum Building Structures All owners proffer to limit the total building structures to 1.400,000 square feet for the entire property. Staff Note: REZ 406 -04 proffered to limit building structures to 1,400,000 square feet, but that rezoning included parcel 43-A-111, the FEMA site with its 160,000 square feet of office space. Rezoning #17-06 Rutherford Crossing November 20, 2006 Page 9 This proffer does not include parcel 43-A-111, therefore the floorspace should be scaled down appropriately. The County would have more confidence in the TIA if the proffer statement included more specific floor space limits tied to uses. B) Land Use All owners proffer to exclude truck stops. C) Transportation Staff Note: The proffer statement states that the transportation proffers are associated with Rutherford Farm. LLC. This is incorrect as proffer C3 is associated with multiple owners. 1. Signalization: A traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of Route 11 and the main entrance when warranted by VDOT. A traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of Route 11 and the southbound ramps of Interstate 81 (Exit 317) when warranted by VDOT. A traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of Route 11/ the northbound on -ramp of Interstate 81 (Exit 317) /Redbud Road, when warranted by VDOT. Prior to the installation of the above three signals. a signalization timing analysis for lights on Martinsburg Pike from the main site entrance to Crown Lane will occur and the costs for any adjustments borne by the applicant if warranted by VDOT. StaffNote: REZ #06 -04 included two of these three traffic signals. Only the signal at Route 11/1 -81 northbound on- ramp /Redbud Road is new. REZ #06 -04 proffered two signalization agreements prior to the first site plan approval. The FEMA site plan (SP #32 -06) was approved on October 10, 2006. The proffer statement should therefore not time the agreements to the first occupancy permits in the B -2 acreage. 2. Site Access: The total number of entrances along Route 11 will be limited to one full entrance and two right -in /right -out entrances. Travel lane and turn lane improvements at those intersections will be in conformance with the MDP dated October 24, 2006 and will be completed by December 31, 2007. Staff Note: REZ #06 -04 did not limit the number of entrances. REZ #06 -04 required road improvements at two Route 11 entrances to be completed within 12 months of the first site plan approval. The FEMA site plan was approved on October 10, 2006. Therefore, these improvements must be completed by October 10, 2007. Failure to complete these improvements by October 10, 2007, which could happen under the proposed rezoning, could delay FEMA's certificate of occupancy. 3. Right of Way Reservation: Rutherford Farm, LLC has proffered to reserve right of -way without financial compensation for the planned Route 11 improvements, within 90 days of VDOT permit approvals for these improvements. Virginia Apple Storage, Inc. has proffered to reserve right -of -way without financial compensation for the Rezoning #17 -06 Rutherford Crossing November 20, 2006 Page 10 planned Interstate 81 improvements, within 90 days of written request by VDOT. C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV and John B. Schroth have agreed that for a period of five years. they will not build upon the tract of land proposed to be used as part of the Route 37 bypass. Staff Note: REZ #06 -04 required Route 11 land dedication prior to approval of the construction plans for these improvements. VDOT has verified that this land dedication has not taken place. REZ #06 -04 required Route 81 land dedication prior to approval of the Master Development Plan (MDP) for the Rutherford Farm Industrial Park. The Rutherford Farm MDP (MDP #04 -02) was approved on December 3, 2002, yet there is no evidence that this dedication has taken place. REZ #06 -04 did not address Route 37 on this property. 4. Comprehensive Plan Road Construction: Rutherford Farm, LLC agrees to construct a portion of a major collector road, to base pavement and :available for public access, from the main entrance on Route 11 to the cul -de -sac adjacent to parcel 43 -A- 111 (the FEMA site), in the location depicted on the proffered zoning exhibit. Rutherford Farm. LLC will use reasonable commercial effort and diligently pursue this construction no later than December 31, 2007. This text does not guarantee a firm completion date. (The proffer does not include a description of the road section. The County's major collector road standard is a four -lane section with a landscaped median.) The remainder of the major collector road and internal roads will be constructed with each site plan submission. Staff Note: REZ #06 -04 proffered a major collector road in the location shown in the NELUP and proffered road construction with each she plan submission. Approved MDP #04 -02 also includes the road network to the FEMA site. The NELUP road network efficiently accommodates commercial and industrial traffic in a free flowing manner. 5. Route 11 and 1 -81 Northbound Ramp Improvements: Rutherford Farm, LLC agrees to construct a third southbound lane on Route 11 from the main entrance to the I- 81 northbound on -ramp. This improvement shall be completed within one year of the approval of the first site plan for the B -2 portion of the site. Staff Note: REZ #06 -04 required this road construction to be completed within 12 months of the first site plan approval. The FEMA site plan was approved on October 10, 2006. Therefore, these improvements must be completed by October 10, 2007. Failure to complete these road improvements will impact FEMA's ability to secure a certificate of occupancy. 6. Monetary Contribution for Route 11 Corridor: Rutherford Farm, LLC agrees to provide Frederick County with $250,000 for transportation studies or physical improvements within the Martinsburg Pike corridor. Rezoning #17-06 Rutherford Crossing November 20, 2006 Page 11 Staff Note: REZ #06 -04 did not provide a cash contribution for road improvements. D) Historic Resources 1. Interpretive Signs: An interpretive area for public use with plaques, picnic tables and landscaping will be provided (by Rutherford Farm, LLC) along Route 11, in a location specified on the proposed MDP. It will be constructed in conjunction with the adjacent site plan. Staff Note: REZ #06 -04 proffered a similar interpretive area. 2. Landscaping Rutherford Farm, LLC will provide a landscape buffer along Route 11, during the construction of the first B2 structure. It will be a 15' strip with low earthen mounds and landscaping as depicted on the proposed MDP. Staff Note: REZ #06 -04 proffered similar landscaping. E) Lighting Rutherford Farm, LLC (the B2 property) has proffered for all building mounted and pole mounted lights to be of a downcast nature, hooded and directed away from adjacent properties. (Lighting proffers are not associated with the M1 portion of the site, so these properties could have a greater lighting impact on adjacent properties.) A lighting plan will be submitted to the County for approval, prior to the installation of these lights. Staff Note REZ #06 -04 proffered a similar lighting package for all portions of the site, not just the B2 portion. F) Signage 1. Rutherford Farm. LLC has proffered that all freestanding business signs located at the entrances on Martinsburg Pike will be monument style, not to exceed 12' in height. Staff Note: REZ #06 -04 proffered freestanding business signs to be monument style, not to exceed 12' in height only on the MI portion of the site. (It would be more in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan if this sign limitation covered all of the site.) 2. All owners agree to limit the IA (Interstate Overlay Area) District signs to a total of three. Staff Note: REZ #06 -04 had the same IA sign total of three. Rezoning #17 -06 Rutherford Crossing November 20, 2006 Page 12 G) Recvcling Proffer C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV and John B. Schroth agree to implement recycling programs with each industrial use. Staff Note: REZ #06 -04 had a similar recycling proffer. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 12/06/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The fundamental decision to be made with this application is whether Frederick County is better off with the existing by -right development or with the proposed rezoning. The by -right development provides a collector road as planned in NELUP and provides two traffic signals. Th proposed rezoning provides a road akin to driving through a shopping center instead of a free flowing collector road. The proposed rezoning provides a total of three traffic signals and $250,000 towards road improvements. Neither scenario truly provides land for Route 37. Greater B2 use, as proposed in this rezoning, typically generates more traffic, despite what is modeled in the TiA. The County accepted rezonings #07 -01 and #06 -04 with their associated road improvements, based on the very low traffic projections they were provided by the applicant. Given the new traffic projections, it would be appropriate for the applicant and the County to be discussing road improvements commensurate with the vastly increased traffic to be generated from this development. Finally, the proffers associated with REZ #07 -01 and REZ #06 -04 include road improvements linked to the already approved FEMA site plan. These should be retained with this proposed rezoning. Following the requirement for a public hearing, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning this rezoning application would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission.