Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout17-06 CommentsEric Lawrence From: Alexander, Scott Scott .Alexander @VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 11:52 AM To: Michael C. Glickman Cc: Bishop, John A.; Copp, Jerry; Funkhouser, Rhonda; Ingram, Lloyd; Eric Lawrence Subject: Rutherford Signalization Study Scott Scott Alexander Assistant Residency Administrator VDOT Edinburg Residency 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 Phone: 540 -984 -5605 Fax: 540 984 -5607 n i1 n inn/1 Page 1 of 1 like: his is confirm our discussion regarding the Rutherford Farm signalization timing analysis. We appreciate your client's consideration f including the FEMA entrance and Park Center Drive intersections in the study in order to provide a more complete picture of the orridor. Because this work does go above and beyond the original scope, we would certainly be willing help by assuming the esponsibility of applying the suggested /agreed -upon signal timing changes. 3ecause the proffers refer to your client bearing the cost of the timing changes "if warranted by VDOT I believe we are well within ioth the letter and spirit of the statement. appreciate you and your client working on this with us so that we maximize the efficiency of the corridor. If you have any comments r questions, please don't hesitate to give me a call. July 19, 2001 Mark Smith, P.E., L.S., President Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 RE: Rutherford's Farm Rezoning. Proposal Dear Mr. Smith: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540 /665 -6395 The Frederick County Historic. Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the referenced proposal during their meeting of July 17, 2001. This proposal involves the rezoning of approximately 144 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General), B3 (Industrial Transition), and M1 (Light Industrial) Zoning Districts. The subject properties are partially located within the limits of the Second Winchester study area, and are also within the Battle of Rutherford's Farm study area. Therefore, the HRAB has expressed .concern for the loss of historic battlefields and the aesthetic qualities of the rural community in which these parcels are located. In response to the HRAB's concerns, you presented a number of proffered condition concepts and indicated your willingness to incorporate the conditions with the formal rezoning application submittal. Specifically, you offered the following concepts: To establish a pull -off location for historical interpretation of the Second Battle of Winchester, the Battle of Rutherford's Farm, and the Rutherford Farm. The interpretation area would contain historical markers and be maintained by the Industrial Park Association. It was also stated that the marker design and textual content would be returned to the HRAB for review and approval. Maintain the visual rural community elements existing along Martinsburg Pike by providing linear landscaping. This landscaping along Martinsburg Pike would include combinations of three -foot high evergreen hedges and berms, and mass clustering of tree and shrub plantings. The landscaping is intended to retain the natural feel of the rural community and utilize native vegetation including red buds, oaks, and cedars: A combination of hedges, berms, and tree clusters would be implemented to lessen the visual impact of the proposed development. 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Page 2 Mark Smith, P.E., L.S., President, Greenway Engineering Re: Rutherford's Farm July 19, 2001 Establish a link to the property's history by naming the development after the Rutherford's The HRAB felt the rezoning proposal would be more palatable for the historic preservation community, if the above identified concepts were included in the rezoning application's proffer statement. Please contact me with any questions concerning these comments from the Frederick County Historic Resources visory Board. Sincerel ERL/kac Farm. Eri Lawrence, AICP Deputy Director U:\EridComnxn\HRAB\Ruthaford Farmm2AB.Rawmmmdatim.wpd cc: Dr. Richard It Duncan, 6101 Edsall Road, Apt 1802, Alexandria, VA 22304 -6009 Mr. StephenL. Pettier, Jr., Harrison Johnston, 21 So. Loudoun St., Wmchester, VA 22601 Mr. R. J. Turner, Adams Nelson Assoc., 303 So. Loudoun St., Wmchester, VA 22601 Susan K. Eddy, AICP January 23, 2007 Page 2 RTM /Ifw HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN MITCHELL With kind regards, I am Ver truly yours, Robert T. Mitchell, Jr. WILBIJR C. HALL 11892 -1972) HAND DELIVERED Dear Susan: HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN MITCHELL A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 7 S 307 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST BOSOAWEN STREET THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924 -1999) SAMUEL D. ENGLE LEESBURG, VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA O. LELAND MAHAN TELEPHONE 703-777-1050 TELEPHONE 540.6623200 ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. FAx 540-s62 -4304 JAMES A. KLEN KAR E lawyers @hallmonahan. corn STEVEN F. JACKSON January 16, 2007 DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR. Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner Frederick County Department of Planning Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Rutherford Crossing Amended and Restated Proffer Statement (Revised December 21, 2006) JAN 1 6 2007 L. PLEASE REPLY TO' P. 0. Box 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604 -0848 I have reviewed the above referenced Amended and Restated Proffer Statement, revised as of December 21, 2006. The previous revision of this Proffer Statement, revised as of November 29, 2006, was reviewed by me in my letter to you of December 4, 2006. In this letter 1 am referencing the paragraph numbers in my December 4 letter, with references as to whether or not the respective comment in my December 4 letter still applies or has been addressed. 1. The comments in Paragraph 1, subparagraphs a, b, and c of my December 4 letter have been addressed, except that Zoning Exhibit "A" (Existing Zoning) needs to be labeled on the plat as "A Susan K. Eddy, AICP January 16, 2007 Page 2 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN MITCHELL 2. With respect to my comment in Paragraph 2.a. of my December 4 letter, and the staff should carefully review the 2004 proffer to be sure that these current proffers have included all provisions from the 2004 proffers which the County wishes to have included. The first four sentences of Paragraph 2.b. of my December 4 letter have been addressed, to the extent that this Proffer Statement is replacing the 2004 Proffer Statement, and that this Proffer Statement will not apply to Parcel 1 1 1 The remainder of my Paragraph 2.b. still applies as to the length of the third southbound lane to be constructed. 3. Paragraph 3 of my December 4 letter has been addressed. 4. The comment in Paragraph 4 of my December 4 letter still applies. 5. The comment in Paragraph 5 of my December 4 letter still applies. 6. The comments in Paragraph 6 of my December 4 letter have been addressed. However, in Proffers 3.(a) and (b), in the last sentence, after the words "shall prepare the following words should be added: "and execute a deed of dedication and 7. The comments in Paragraph 7 of my December 4 letter have been addressed. However, I would recommend the following revisions to Paragraph 3.(c) of the Proffer Statement: (1) In the first sentence, after the words "benefit of Frederick County", the following words should be added, set off by commas: "within ninety (90) days of request by the County, and (2) In the last sentence, after the word "released add the following words: "in writing by the County." 8. Paragraph 8 of my December 4 letter still applies. 9. With respect to the first sentence of Paragraph 9 of my December 4 letter, see my comments with respect to Paragraph 2 (b), above, regarding the third southbound lane. The second sentence of Paragraph 9 of my December 4 letter has been addressed. Susan K. Eddy, AICP January 16, 2007 Page 2 addressed. addressed. addressed. me. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN St MITCHELL 10. The comments in Paragraph 10 of my December 4 letter have been 1 1. The comments in Paragraph 1 1 of my December 4 letter have been 12. The comments in Paragraph 12 of my December 4 letter have been As noted in previous reviews of the proffers in this rezoning, 1 have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the rezoning of this specific property, or whether other proffers would be appropriate, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. If there are any questions concerning the foregoing comments, please contact RTM /ks CC: Benjamin M. Butler, Esquire HAND DELIVERED A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner Frederick County Department of Planning Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Susan: HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN MITCHELL WILBUR C. HALL (1892-1972) 6 307 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924 -1999) SAMUEL D. ENGLE LEESBURG. VIRGINIA WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 0. LELAND MAHAN TELEPHONE 703.777.1050 TELEPHONE 590.662 -3200 ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. FAX 540.652.4304 JAMES A. KLEN KAR E -MAIL lawyers ©Nallmonahan.com STEVEN F. JACKSON December 4, 2006 DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR. Re: Rutherford Crossing Amended and Restated Proffer Statement DEC 4 2006 PLEASE REPLY TO: P. 0. Box 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-0848 1 have reviewed the above referenced Amended and Restated Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the proposed Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. As a general matter, I would recommend that the following changes in labeling be made and implemented throughout the Proffer Statement: a. The previous Proffer Statement, dated April 5, 2004, should be referenced by the label "2004 Proffer Statement b. There are two exhibits attached to the Proffer Statement. One is an exhibit showing "Existing Zoning and one is an exhibit showing "Proposed Susan K. Eddy December 4, 2006 Page 2 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN MITCHELL Zoning The Proposed Zoning exhibit appears to have roads shown on it which are referenced in the Proffer Statement. Present references in the Proffer Statement are to a "Rezoning Plat Exhibit without identifying which is the exhibit to which reference is being made. 1 would recommend that the Existing Zoning plat be identified as "Exhibit A and that the Proposed Zoning plat be identified as "Exhibit B References in the Proffer Statement would then be to Exhibit A or Exhibit B to make clear which plat is being referenced. c. The Proffer Statement makes reference in various places to "Master Development Plan prepared by Bury +Partners The date of that Master Development Plan should be included in each reference to the Master Development Plan, so that the precise Master Development Plan can be identified in the future, as the Master Development Plan is not an attachment to the Proffer Statement. 2. This Amended and Restated Proffer Statement proposes to terminate and replace the 2004 Proffer Statement. In this regard the following should be noted. a. The third WHEREAS paragraph is not precisely correct. While this Proffer Statement substantially covers, and in some instances expands, the 2004 Proffer Statement, the wording of this Proffer Statement in some places is different from the wording of the parallel proffer in the 2004 Proffer Statement. b. The 2004 Proffer Statement covered the properties included in this Proffer Statement, and also Tax Parcel No. 43 -(A) -111 "Parcel 111 The owner of Parcel 111 is not a party to this Proffer Statement. The question is then presented as to whether this Proffer Statement also replaces the Proffer Statement on Parcel 111, in which event Parcel 111 would be obligated for none of the proffers, or whether the 2004 Proffer Statement continues to apply to Parcel 111. The staff should review this matter to deter mine whether there is any need to continue to have any proffers apply to Parcel 111. In this regard, I would draw the staff's attention to Proffer C(5)(Route 11 and Interstate 81 Northbound On -Ramp Improvements) and the parallel proffer C (5) of the 2004 Proffer Statement. The 2004 Proffer Statement provides for a third southbound lane on U.S. Route 11 from the northernmost Susan K. Eddy December 4, 2006 Page 3 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN MITCHELL entrance to the "applicant's property That would appear to require a third southbound lane from the Route 1 I entrance to Parcel 111. The current proffer provides for the construction of a third southbound lane from the "primary entrance to the Property It would appear that the primary entrance to "the Property", which does not include Parcel 1 1 I, would be substantially closer to the northbound I 81 ramp. In any event, the status of the 2004 Proffer Statement as to Parcel 1 1 1 needs to be discussed and addressed. 3. The "NOW THEREFORE clause, following the third WHEREAS paragraph, should be deleted. 4. Section C of the Proffer Statement addresses Transportation Enhancements. My legal review of this section of the Proffer Statement does not address the details or the appropriateness of the proffers set forth therein, and it is my assumption that the County's staff and engineers will review the substances of these transportation proffers. 5. In Section C (1)(Traffic Signalization) it is proffered that the signalization agreements provided for in subsections (a), (b), and (c) will be entered into prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit within the B -2 acreage on the Property. This would seem to presume that the B -2 property will be developed prior to development of the M -I portion of the Property. The staff should review this aspect of the proffers to determine if the timing is satisfactory, and should also review the proffer in subsection (d) of Section C (I) to determine if the time by which the signalization timing analysis would be done is sufficiently clear. 6. The proffers set forth in subparagraph (a) and (b) of Section C (3)(Right of Way Reservation) provide for reservation (but not dedication) of right of way along U. S. Route 11 and Interstate 81. These appear to be the same rights of way referenced in Section C (3) of the 2004 Proffer Statement. However, in the 2004 Proffer Statement the rights of way were to be dedicated, not just reserved. Since the current Proposed Proffer Statement would replace the previous Proffer Statement, the Applicant and Record Owners would appear to be trying to eliminate the dedication Susan K. Eddy December 4, 2006 Page 4 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN MITCHELL of the rights of way which they are currently obligated to do under the 2004 Proffer Statement. I would recommend that the County not permit the amendment of the 2004 Proffer Statement in this regard. 7. In subparagraph (c) of Section C (3), the Record Owners of Parcel 99 agree to not build upon a certain tract of land. The 14 -acre tract of land referred to is not located on the Proposed Zoning exhibit. I would recommend that the area referenced be located on the exhibit (which 1 have recommended be labeled as Exhibit B). Further, I would recommend that the initial clause of this subparagraph be reworded as follows: "The Record Owners of Tax Parcel #43- ((A)) -99, C. Robert Solenberger, John S. Scully, IV, and John B. Schroth, 8. As to Section C (4) (Comprehensive Plan Road Construction), the staff should determine whether it is comfortable with the timing commitment for the construction of the Collector Road. 9. In Section C (5) (Route 11 and Interstate 81 North On -Ramp Improvements) see my comments in Paragraph 2(b) above, regarding the commitment for the construction of a third southbound lane in this proffer as compared to the previously approved 2004 Proffer Statement. Also, I would recommend adding the following language to end of this proffer: and, in any event, prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit on the Property." 10. It should be noted that Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Section D provide that the maintenance of the interpretive signs and landscaping will be the responsibility of "Rutherford Crossing Association." There does not appear to be any other reference in the Proffer Statement regarding Rutherford Crossing Association, and Rutherford Crossing Association is not an applicant who is bound by these proffers. Therefore, there would not appear to be any basis on which the County could enforce the maintenance provisions in these two proffers. Susan K. Eddy December 4, 2006 Page 5 11. With respect to Section D (3) (Property Name), see my comments in Paragraph 2 (b) above, regarding the status of Parcel 111 upon adoption of this Proffer Statement. While it may not be a significant issue, it should be noted that if the 2004 Proffer Statement is to continue to apply to Parcel 111, pursuant to Section D (3) of the 2004 Proffer Statement, the name which would apply to Parcel 111 is "Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park and the name "Rutherford Crossing" would apply to the Property included in the proposed Proffer Statement. 12. In the last paragraph, titled "Signatures the words "applicant and owner at the end of the first sentence should be restated as "Applicant and Record Owners As previously noted I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the rezoning of this specific property, or whether other proffers would be appropriate, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. me. RTM /ks CC: Benjamin M. Butler, Esquire HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN MITCHELL If there are any questions concerning the foregoing comments, please contact ruly yours, Robert T. Mitch October 20, 2006 Mr. Evan Wyatt Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Dear Evan: M FILE COPY RE: Proposed Rezoning of Rutherford Crossing 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540 /665 -6395 T have had the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application for the Rutherford Crossing Development. The application seeks to rezone 22.45 acres from the B3 (Industrial Transition) District to the B2 (Business General) District and 8.55 acres from the M1 (Light Industrial) District to the 132 (Business General) District. Overall the proposed land use conforms to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. However, the applicant needs to further address transportation issues and design elements as outlined below. Comments on the Master Development Plan are being provided in a separate letter. 1. Northeast Land Use Plan(NELUP). The subject properties are within the area covered by the Northeast Land Use Plan. This plan is a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The mix and location of 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. 2. NELUP. The NELUP identifies the frontage of this property along Route 11 as developmentally sensitive. The landscape proffer (D -2) addresses. this issue, but is too vague. Rewrite the proffer to clearly identify, at minimum, trees per linear feet. 3. NELUP. 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. Consider extra screening against existing residences. NELUP. The Northeast Land Use Plan 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. Page 2 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Rutherford Crossing October 20, 2006 5. NELUP. The NELUP states that "Proposed industrial, commercial and planned unit development should only occur if impacted road systems function at Level of Service (LOS) Category C or Better With this proposed development, Level of Service C is clearly not achieved. 6. Comprehensive Policy Plan. 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. Serious consideration should be given to signage, with a recommendation for reduced signage, monument style signs and a coordinated sign package. 7. Eastern Road Plan. The County's Eastern Road Plan identifies the Route 37 Corridor and a future Route 37 /Route 81 interchange on a portion of this property. The NELUP calls for the accommodating these road improvements. It is expected that the applicant will accommodate these road improvements, otherwise the application will not be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 8. Eastern Road Plan. The County's Eastern Road Plan and NELUP identify a collector road through this property. The applicant is expected to construct this road on their property to established standards. From the signalized main entrance on Route 11 to the FEMA property, this road should be a four -lane section with a landscaped median. 9. Comprehensive Policy Plan. Martinsburg Pike is identified on the Frederick County Bicycle Plan as a short -term destination. Provide a bike trail, in lieu of the required sidewalk, in this location. The bike trail should be outside of the public right -of -way to allow for future road widening. I would 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 facilities. 10. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). The TIA does not meet county standards. A few examples of shortcomings include: the exclusion of the nearby North Stephenson rezoning and the Adams rezoning, the modeling of less than the proffered maximum development (1.4 million square feet), the modeling of only a small percentage of the total FEMA employees, the lack of modeling for the FEMA entrance on Route 11 and the illogical comparison of the by -right development (which was modeled for the 2001 rezoning as purely industrial) to the proposed development (which is heavily commercial). I would also point out that some of the modeled improvements (including the Welltowi Road /Route 11 intersection) have not been proffered by anyone. Page 3 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Rutherford Crossing October 20, 2006 11. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). It is not clear if the northernmost secondary site driveway is the service road behind the small shopping area, as shown on the draft site plan. If so, this driveway can only be allowed with an inter parcel connection to the north, in order to meet entrance standards. 12. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). Given the impact of this large development on an already failing transportation corridor, it is suggested that the applicant consider making a significant improvement to the corridor. As previously discussed, one of the obvious improvements would be to relocate the T-81 northbound off -ramp. (This would require abandoning a section of Red Bud Road, which will eventually be rerouted through the North Stephenson development.) This improvement has been sought by the County and VDOT for years. This would eliminate one intersection and the need for another traffic signal. It would greatly improve the functioning of this corridor and directly benefit this project. 13. Proffer Statement Transportation Proffers C- I(a -c). All of these proposed improvements are proffered before the issuance of the first building permit for the property. Please provide confirmation that these have been satisfied. 14. Proffer Statement Transportation Proffer C -1(d). It seems illogical to study only three intersections. 1 suggest studying all intersections begimiing with the intersection of Route 11 and the northbound on- ramp /Redbud Road and ending with and including the intersection of Route 11 and Crown Lane. This would be more beneficial to the County and VDOT. 15. Proffer Statement Transportation Proffer C -2. The TIA modeled two right in/right -out entrances on Route 11. Clarify which of these entrances this proffer covers. I strongly suggest specifically limiting the number of entrances on Route 11. This will clarify that the pad sites will not have future entrances on Route 11. 16. Proffer Statement Transportation Proffer C -2. It is unclear what "multi -lane system" means. Detail the road specifications being provided. 17. Proffer Statement Transportation Proffer C -4. This proffer obliges to applicant to build the collector road as envisioned in the Northeast Land Use Plan. That road, as per NELUP, is a sweeping are with no 90 degree turns, to allow for free flowing traffic. The road as shown on the applicant's draft Master Development Plan (MDP) does not match the road called for in NELUP. Thus the MDP will not be in compliance with this proffer as written. It might be helpful to proffer a simple Generalized Development Plan (GDP) with the road layout. (Also note the current Northeast Land Use Plan is the 2002 NELUP. The collector road did not change from one version of the plan to another, but please reference the current plan.) Page 4 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Rutherford Crossing October 20, 2006 18. Proffer Statement Transportation Proffer C -4. Please revise this proffer to insure that the vital road connection between the collector road and the entrance to the FEMA site takes place immediately. 19. Proffer Statement Transportation Proffer C -5. This proffer requires the applicant to construct an additional Route 11 southbound lane from the FEMA entrance to the northbound 1 -81 ramp. This is a distance of approximately 3,000 linear feet. Also, note that the first site plan for Rutherford Crossing, the FEMA site plan, has already been approved. (As stated in Proffer D3 all four parcels make up Rutherford Crossing.) 20. Proffer Statement Transportation Proffer C -6. The scope of this study is unclear. Further details are requested. Proffer Statement Historic Resources Proffer D -1. This proffer needs a timing element. 22. Proffer Statement Landscaping Proffer D -2. As stated in comment #2, this proffer requires greater clarity as to plant materials and spacing. Adequate street trees, plus other plant materials, are recommended. 23. Proffer Statement Lighting Proffer E. This proffer is less than the County's adopted lighting standard. Consider a revision that provides a lighting plan. 24. Proffer Statement Signage Proffer F -1. As stated in comment #6, reduced signage is sought. Consideration should be given to monument signs throughout the development with a limited sign area and height. 25. Proffer Statement Signage Proffer F -2. As stated in comment #6, reduced signage is sought. Consider further limiting the number of interstate overlay signs. 26. Parcel #43- A -1i1. Only the M -1 portion of parcel 443-A-111 appears to be part of this rezoning. This must be clearly stated in the application and the proffer statement, and should be correctly referenced in the area tabulation on the Zoning Exhibit (dated June 2006) prepared by Bury Partners. Also, all maps included in the impact analysis statement show the RA portion of parcel #43 -A -111 as part of the rezoning. This application will not be accepted until a consistent treatment for the RA portion of this parcel is included throughout the application and proffer statement. 27. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency comments from the following agencies: Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County Page 5 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of Rutherford Crossing October 20, 2006 28. Other. Please provide a deed to the property verifying current ownership. Please have all property owners sign the application and complete the special limited power of attorney form which authorizes you to represent them during the application process. Please provide a receipt from the Treasurer's office which verifies that real estate taxes for the properties have been paid. All of the comments in this letter and any agency comments should be appropriately addressed before staff can formally accept this rezoning application. Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions regarding this application. Sincerely, Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner SKE /dlw Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marshall, Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation, Frederick County Public Schools, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, Frederick Winchester Health Department, Winchester Regional Airport, Clearbrook Fire and Rescue Company, the Frederick- Winchester Service Authority and the Frederick County Attorney. Historic Resources Advisory Board comments from the previous rezoning application will be used by staff. The proffer statement has been sent to the Frederick County Attorney by the Planning Department. edfi, cc: Rutherford Farrar, LLC, 8230 Leesburg Pike, Suite 500, Vienna, VA 22182 Virginia Apple Storage Inc., PO Box 3103, Winchester, VA 22604 C. Robert Solenberger, PO Box 2368, Winchester, VA, 22604 John S. Scully, 112 North Cameron St., Winchester, VA 22601 John B. Schroth, 112 North Cameron St., Winchester, VA 22601 Cowperwood FEMA, LLC, 375 Park Avenue, Suite 3701, New York, NY, 10152 WILBUR C. HALL (1892 1972) HAND-DELIVERED Dear Susan: HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN ST MITCHELL THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924 1999) 7 6 307 EAST MARKET STREET SAMUEL D. ENGLE LEESeuRG, VIRGINIA O. LELAND MAHAN ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. JAMES A. KLENKAR STEVEN F. JACKSON DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR. A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS TELEPHONE 703-777.1050 ATTORNEYS AT LAW October 23, 2006 Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner Frederick County Department of Planning Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Rutherford Crossing Proffer Statement B EAST SOSCAWEN STREET WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA TELEPHONE 540662.3200 FAX 540-662.4304 E lawyers @hallmonahan.cmm '1 3T CDR OCT 2 3 2006 PLEASE REPLY TO: P. 0. Box 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604 1 have reviewed the above referenced Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments: 1. Section C of the Proffer Statement addresses Transportation Enhancements. My legal review of this section of the Proffer Statement does not address the details or the appropriateness of the proffers set forth therein, and it is my assumption that the County's staff and engineers will review the substances of these transportation proffers. 2. Paragraph 1 of Section C addresses traffic signalization. Subparagraphs a -c provide for traffic signals at three separate intersections. Subparagraph d provides for a signalization timing analysis to be done prior to the installation of the traffic signals referenced in subparagraphs a -c. Assuming that the Susan K. Eddy October 23, 2006 Page 2 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN MITCHELL traffic signals in subparagraph a -c will not all be installed at the same time, the timing of the signalization timing analysis provided for subparagraph d is not clear. Is it to be done prior to installation of any of the three traffic signals, or is it to be done prior to the installation of the last of the three traffic signals? This should be clarified. 3. In paragraphs 2 (Intersection Improvements) and 5 (Route 1 1 and northbound 1 -81 Ramp Improvements) of Section C, the timing of certain proffered road improvements is that the improvements would be completed within one year of a site plan approval. In paragraph 2 the work would be completed within one year of the date of the first site plan approval within the B -2 District portion of the Property. Section 2 further provides that if all or part of the intersection improvements are "required" for the first site plan within the M -1 District, the work shall be constructed with the first site plan. My assumption is that the proffer is permitting the County to require the intersection improvements if the first site plan is within the M- 1 District. If that is the case, I would suggest that the words "in the discretion of the County" be inserted within commas after the word "required" in paragraph 2. In addition, in the event those intersection improvements are required with the first site plan in the M -1 District, the proffer should set forth that the improvements will be completed within one year of the first site approval, if that timing is satisfactory to the County. The foregoing comments, with respect to Paragraph 2, would also apply to Paragraph 5. 4. Paragraph 3 of Section C is titled "Right of Way Dedication However, subparagraphs a and b state an agreement to "reserve" the rights of way, and to provide VDOT with a "right of way reservation plat The proffer should state that the Applicant will reserve the right of way until it is dedicated to VDOT, and to dedicate it to VDOT with a dedication plat. 5. In Paragraph 4 (Comprehensive Road Plan Construction) of Section C, it would appear that the proffer should be to coordinate, dedicate, and construct the major collector road referenced. Also, staff should determine whether the location of that road in the referenced Northeast Land Use Study is sufficiently definite to precisely locate the road, or whether there should be some qualifying language in the Susan K. Eddy October 23, 2006 Page 3 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN E. MITCHELL proffer to locate the road in accordance with any amendment of the Northeast Land Use Study adopted prior to approval of a site plan on any portion of the property on which the road would be located. 6. As to Paragraph 7 (Monetary Contribution) of Section C, staff should determine whether the timing of the monetary contribution (building permit for the first structure in the B -2 portion of the property) is satisfactory, or whether it should be at the issuance of a building permit for the first structure on the property. 7. It should be noted that a Master Development Plan is referenced in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Section D, but there is no proffer that the property generally will be developed in accordance with the referenced Master Development Plan. I assume that the County has a copy of the referenced Master Development Plan in order to enforce the interpretive signs and landscaping proffers contained in Section D. 8. It should be noted that Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Section D provide that the maintenance and the interpretive signs and landscaping will be the responsibility of "Rutherford Crossing Association." There does not appear to be any other reference in the proffer statement regarding Rutherford Crossing Association, and Rutherford Crossing Association is not an applicant who is bound by these proffers. Therefore, there would not appear to be any basis on which the County could enforce the maintenance provisions in these two proffers. 9. In Section E (Lighting), reference is made to lighting plans which will be submitted as a "separate attachment" for review and approval by the Frederick County Planning Department. 1 am not clear as to what the lighting plan would be attached. Does it mean to say that the lighting plans would be submitted as a separate attachment to all site plans? If so, that should be set forth in the proffer. Susan K. Eddy October 23, 2006 Page 4 10. I am unclear about the wording of Paragraph 2 of Section F (Signage). It proffer states "Within the IA (Interstate Overlay) District, the Applicants hereby proffer to limit the total number of signs to three." That proffer seems to suggest that the Interstate Overlay District is only located on a portion of the property. However, in the Preliminary Matters section of the proffer statement, it is indicated that the Overlay District would apply to the entire 155 acres. 11. In Section G (Recycling Proffer) I would recommend that the last sentence be reworded to read: "The program for each industrial user will be reviewed and subject to approval by the Frederick County Recycling Coordinator prior to the issuance of a final occupancy permit for each industrial user." As previously noted I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the rezoning of this specific property, or whether other proffers would be appropriate, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. me. RTM /ks HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN MITCHELL If there are any questions concerning the foregoing comments, please contact truly yours, Robert T. Mitchell, Rutherford Crossing Proffer Statement VDOT Comments to Rezoning DP Page 1 of 2 Evan Wyatt From: Funkhouser, Rhonda [Rhonda.Funkhouser @VDOT.Virginia.gov] on behalf of Ingram, Lloyd [Lloyd.Ingram VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 9:20 AM To: Evan Wyatt Cc: Ingram, Lloyd; 'Eric Lawrence'; 'Susan Eddy' Subject: Rutherford Crossing Proffer Statement VDOT Comments to Rezoning MDP The following comments reflect VDOT comments on both the rezoning and the master development plan submittals: The documentation within the applications appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 11 and 1 -81. These routes are the VDOT roadways which has 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 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 11/8/2006 Rutherford Crossing Proffer Statement ent VDOT Comments to Rezoni DP Page 2 of 2 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 complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right -of -way needs, including right -of -way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right -of -way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. Lloyd A. Ingram Transportation Engineer VDOT Edinburg Residency Land Development 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 (540) 984 -5611 (540) 984 -5607 (fax) 11/8/2006 Control number RZ06 0015 Project Name Rutherford Crossing Address 151 Windy Hill Ln. Type Application Rezoning Current Zoning B2,B3,M1 Automatic Sprinkler System No Other recommendation Emergency Vehicle Access Not Identified Siamese Location Emergency Vehicle Access Comments Access Comments Additional Comments Plans approved as submitted. Plan Approval Recommended Yes Date received 9/8/2006 Tax ID Number 43 -A -98, etc. City Winchester Recommendations Requirements Hydrant Location Not Identified Roadway /Aisleway Width Not Identified Reviewed By J. Neal Date reviewed 9/12/2006 Applicant Greenway Engineering Fire District 13 State VA Zip 22602 Rescue District Date Revised Election District Stonewall Automatic Fire Alarm System Residential Sprinkler System No No Fire Lane Required No Special Hazards No Applicant Phone 540662-4185 r !i SEP 1 3 2006 !Uy 795T Signature Title 4 1 FIRE MARSHAL, FREDERICK COUNTY Mr. Evan Wyatt, AICP Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 October 20, 2006 RE: Revised Rezoning and Master Development Plan (MDP) for Rutherford Crossing Frederick County, Virginia Dear Evan: We have completed our review of the revised rezoning and master development plan for the Rutherford Crossing project. 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: I Verify that the cross section referenced in the report is representative of the channel cross- section between the Rutherford discharge point and Route 11. I- Iydrograph No. 9 indicates that the storm flows derived from the Rutherford project are relatively insignificant compared to the total drainage form 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 sections used to derive the total time of concentration. 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665 -5643 FAX: 540/678 -0682 Ir OCT 2 3 2006 C'195RF I� LJi Review Comments Revised Rutherford Rezoning and MDP Page 2 October 20, 2006 I can be reached at 722 -8214 if you should have any questions regarding the above comments. Our final approval of the rezoning and MDP will be contingent on receipt of a revised drainage analysis incorporating the above comments. HES /rls cc: Planning and Development file Sincerely, E Harvey E. 6t awsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works C: \Program Files \WordPerfect Office X3\ Rhonda TEMPCOMMENTS \rutherfordcrossingrevrcz &mdpcom.wpd Sanitation Authority Comments: lNF_ h Kr SOFT c /iCeter l v4 rFif bt se WeAt r>1 rY To s.F,4 ✓F T/2i5 57 rF. ,i Sanatation Authority Signature Date: 401,---e- rne Q 5, al O Notice to Sanitation Authority Please Return This Form to the Applicant Rezoning Comments Frederick County Sanitation Authority Mail to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, Virginia, 22601 (540) 665-1061 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer 315 Tasker Road Stephens City, Virginia u 61 tut M 1 riS s z t s u•. kApphcant *Please ft ll,out,the tnfotmattor s accurately as possible m order toJasslsttthe p ti 1 Y F� �i7Y t i 0 v m 8 s 'uiSR u' 4 e e w t+•t Ya r it k SanttationzAuthorrty withstherrrevtew `Attach a copy„of your application form;rlocationrma ,proffer ;i analysis, and "any, other:pertment information `A Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: Northeast Quadrant of Interstate 81 Exit 317 and Martinsburg Pike intersection in Stonewall Magisterial District Current zoning: B2, B3 M1 Zoning requested: B2 M1 Telephone: 540 -662 -4185 Acreage: 31.0± SEP 1 2 2005 j, L_ ri2W5kr Rezoning Comments Frederick Winchester Service Authority Mail to: Fred -Winc Service Authority Attn: Jesse W. Moffett, Executive Director P.O. Box 43 Winchester, Virginia 22604 (540) 722 -3579 Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 3 "'s Hand deliver to: Fred -Winc Service Authority Attn: Jesse W. Moffett 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Ap plicant Please fill'out the tnforh &ttonas accurately' ble m oi der 'to assist the .4' m�" .P l e l .G x J 5': f 'n aFY #d fi h5 Frederic k Winchester Service Authouty wtthl,therr ;24,-- tacht&copy of�.your a pphe form, location map&offer,statement, ar_:u'any eth pertinent mfu�ipation y Telephone: 540- 662 -4185 Location of property: Northeast Quadrant of Interstate 81 Exit 317 and Martinsburg Pike intersection in Stonewall Magisterial District Current zoning: B2, B3 MI Zoning requested: B2 M1 Acreage: 31.0± SEP 12 2006 ?_56F Fred -Wine Service Authority's Comments: It114 1'22AV(9 to Ut reddr -e a a5c tc a eilftand 121 t L1,J/ can pc eJ b encrk a@rOtCAt4 Rani No (mutt Fred- Winc Service Authority's Signature &Date: btit,(, W 91 Notice to Fred -Winc Service Authority Please Return This Form to the Applicant Rezoning Comments Frederick Winchester Service Authority Mail to: Fred -Winc Service Authority Attn: Jesse W. Moffett, Executive Director P.O. Box 43 Winchester, Virginia 22604 (540) 722 -3579 Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 3 "'s Hand deliver to: Fred -Winc Service Authority Attn: Jesse W. Moffett 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Ap plicant Please fill'out the tnforh &ttonas accurately' ble m oi der 'to assist the .4' m�" .P l e l .G x J 5': f 'n aFY #d fi h5 Frederic k Winchester Service Authouty wtthl,therr ;24,-- tacht&copy of�.your a pphe form, location map&offer,statement, ar_:u'any eth pertinent mfu�ipation y Telephone: 540- 662 -4185 Location of property: Northeast Quadrant of Interstate 81 Exit 317 and Martinsburg Pike intersection in Stonewall Magisterial District Current zoning: B2, B3 MI Zoning requested: B2 M1 Acreage: 31.0± SEP 12 2006 ?_56F Winchester Regional Airport's Comments: Winchester Regional Airport's C' n j Signature Date: iy c\r yA t i j C)) 1 22 l 0(0 Notice to Winchester Regional Airport Please Return This Form to the Applicant Rpzohing Comments rF M Mail to: Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 (540) 662-2422 Winchester Regional Airport Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering n Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester. VA 22602 Hand deliver to: Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road (Rt. 645, off of Rt. 522 South) Winchester, Virginia Telephone: 540- 662 -4185 Current zoning: B2, B3 M1 Zoning requested: B2 MI Acreage: 31.0± Apphcant Please fill�&it the mfoi nation as acc urately as possible tt%otder to assist the 4 r o i a s c A m rt: Wmchest Regional Airport w ithAhem review. Att ach a copy. o f y our s application form, L Iocahon map,,proffer, st_atement,,impact analysis, and any, other p ertment;i n fo r matto n Location of property: Northeast Quadrant of Interstate 81 Exit 317 and Martinsburg Pike intersection in Stonewall Magisterial District OCT 1 7 2006 BY c LCU_ D 6 D2 October 12, 2006 Dear Mr. Wyatt: Sincerely, Serena R. Manuel Executive Director WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT 491 AIRPORT ROAD WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 (540) 662 -2422 Evan Wyatt Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 Re: Rezoning Comment Rutherford Crossing B2 M1 Stonewall Magisterial District We have reviewed the proposed Rezoning application and determined that the proposed development plan will not have an impact on operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. While the proposed site lies within the airport's airspace, it does fall outside of the airport's Part 77 close in surfaces. Thank you for your continued cooperation and consideration in the continuing safe operations of the Winchester Regional Airport. Evan Wyatt From: Susan Eddy [seddy @co.frederick.va.usj Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 11:26 AM To: Evan Wyatt Subject: Rutherford Crossing Rezoning Evan, On Monday, September 11th I forwarded the Rutherford Crossing rezoning application and proffer statement to Bob Mitchell's office for comment. Also, as regards the HRAB, you will not need to obtain new comments. Regards, Susan Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner Frederick County Planning Department 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 540 665 -5651 11/8/2006 O Page 1 of 1 October 23, 2006 Mr. Evan Wyatt Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 RE: Proposed Rezoning of Rutherford Crossing Dear Evan: Attached you will find a copy of the review comments from the County Attorney's office concerning the proposed proffer statement for the rezoning of Rutherford Crossing. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, .4ucietaLA0 (A" Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner SKE/bhd Attachment 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540/665 -6395 o n L OCT 2 4 2006