The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About15-08 CommentsCOUNTY of FREDERICK Roderick B. Williams County Attorney 540/722 -8383 Fax 540/667 -0370 E -mail: rwillia @co.frederick.va.us 0 December 8, 2008 VIA FACSIMILE — (540) 722 -9528 — AND REGULAR MAIL Mr. Evan Wyntt, AICP Greenway Engineering 151 Windv Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 11 P1 I i v DEC 0 9 1008 r hn A/ AN/ Re: Rezoning Application, Parcel Number 44 -A -75, Adams Commercial Center — Revised Proffer Statement dated October 1, 2008 Dear Evan: I have reviewed the above- referenced proposed Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the Proffer Statement would be in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Codeof V_ irginia and wouldbelegally %suffictent'a "sa'proffer.? statement, subject to the following: 1. Proffer B2 remains unclear regarding what the reference to "motor freight transportation' might actually exclude. SIC Major Group 42 is designated "Motor Freight Transportation And Warehousing (emphasis added). Furthermore, the Industry Groups within Major Group 42 clearly distinguish between activities with an emphasis on transportation, Industry Group 421: Trucking And Courier Servi Except Air, and those without, Industry Group 422: Public Warehousing And Storage (this group includes, for example, self - storage, an activity that it would-seem is not typically considered,as involving transportation per se, any more so than a number of retail activities). Also, staff should be aware that, while SIC Major Group 86 is designated "Membership Organizations ", the applicant intends, by its reference to "Membership Organizations ", to proffer out "only Industry Group 862: Professional Membership Organizations, and not Industry Group 861: Business Associations and Industry Group 863: Labor Unions And Similar Labor Organizations, which are also allowed uses in the B3 District. See Evan Wyatt`letter to. me, dated October. 17, .2008. _ 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 Mr. Evan Wyatt, AICP December 8, 2008 Page 2 2. Staff should be aware that the applicant has deleted the former Proffer H, regarding BMP facilities, per the comment from the applicant. See Evan Wyatt letter to me, dated October 17, 2008. I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for this specific development, as it is my understanding that that will be done by staff and the Planning Commission. Sincerely yours, 0/ Roderick B. Williams County Attorney cc: Ms. Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner, County of Frederick k COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 September 11, 2008 Mr. Evan Wyatt Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 RE: Proposed Rezoning of the Adams Property Property tilentification Number (PiN): 44 -A -75 Dear Evan: I have had the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application forthe Adams Property. This application seeks to rezone 28.10 acres of land from the B3 (Industrial Transition) District with proffers to the B3 District with revised proffers. Staff's review comments are listed below for your consideration. 1. Martinsburg Pike Improvements. As indicated in the Frederick County Eastern Road Plan, Martinsburg Pike is identified as an improved minor arterial road (U41)). With this rezoning application, the applicant should be constructing the additional lane along the frontage of the site. 2. Proffer B.I. Proffer B appears to be placing an impact on parcels 44- A -75B, C, D, E and F. The original proffer stated that the entire site was limited to 4,603VPD, and the revised proffer states that the remainder of 44 -A -75 is limited to 3,607VPD. The last sentence of this proffer states that the 3,607VPD may be reduced if additional development occurs on the remainder of the site. This proffer does not account for the opposite situation where if 44 -A -75 utilizes all of the 3,607VPD the parcels B -E will not be able to expand. If parcel 44 -A -75 utilizes all of the 3,607VPD, parcel E, which is ourr ntly- .'acam, , ou! j nct be ahle to develop ata!!. 3. Proffer B.2. The original proffer was very restrictive in regards to uses, as it limited the site to only five types of uses. The new proffer allows for all uses except what is listed in proffer B.2, which allows for many other uses. The applicant should also look at restricting restaurant uses on the site. 4. Proffer D. It appears that proffer D can be removed from the revised proffer statement as it does not apply to PIN 44 -A -75. 5. Proffer G. It appears that proffer G should have the same timing as proffer C.S. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Page 2 Mr. Evan Wyatt RE: Proposed Rezoning of The Adams Property September 11, 2008 6. Proffer 1. The total potential monetary contribution needs to be modified since parcels B -E are not part of this application. i 7. Proffer G. It appears that the corridor appearance proffer could be modifed to create a staggered buffer. Please refer to previously approved buffers proffered with Rutherford Crossing or Easy Living. 8. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency comments from the following agencies: Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marshall, Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, Frederick - Winchester Health Department, the local Fire and Rescue Company and the Frederick - Winchester Service Authority. The proposed proffers have been forwarded by staff to the Frederick County Attorney. Once attorney comments are received by the Planning Department, they will be forwarded to your office. Attorney comments are required for acceptance of the rezoning application. 9. Special Limited Power of Attorney. Provide a Power of Attorney for the property owners. 10. Fees. The fee for this application includes a $5,000.00 base fee plus $200.00 per acre, and a $50.00 public hearing sign fee. This is based on fees as of April 28, 2008. Fees may change. All of the above comments and reviewing agency comments should be appropriately addressed before staff can accept this rezoning application. Please feel free to contact me with questions regarding this application. Sincerely, /� JUaGCe Candice E. Perkins, AICP Senior Planner Attachments cc: Adams Development Group, Inc., HC 34 Box 30, Bloomery, WV 26817 CEP /bad Rezoning Comments I Virginia Department of Transportation Mail to: Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 (540) 984 -5600 Hand deliver to: Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer 2275 Northwestern Pike Winchester, VA 22603 (540) - 53501828 Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540- 662 -4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: North of City of Winchester. fronting on the west side of Martinsburg Pike (US Route 11). opposite the intersection with Stephenson Road (Route 664) Current zoning: B3 Zoning requested: B3 Acreage: 28_10 Virginia Department of Transportation Comments: See attached email from VDOT to Greenway Engineering dated August 14 2 00 Land Development Super VDOT Signature & Date: For iJ-oyV A. Ingr Transpo tation Engineer 08/14/0 Notice to `'DOT — Please Return This Form to the Applicant ,isor Adams Commercial Center - Ron t�l, Frederick County Page 1 of 1 Evan Wyatt From: Funkhouser, Rhonda [Rhonda.Funkhouser@ VDOT.Virginia.gov] on behalf of Hoffman, Gregory [Gregory.Hoffman @ VDOT. Virginia.gov] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 2:37 PM To: Evan Wyatt Cc: Hoffman, Gregory; Smith, Matthew, P.E.; John Bishop Subject: Adams Commercial Center - Route 11, Frederick County The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable impact on Route 11. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Adams Commercial Center Rezoning Application dated August 12, 2008 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. 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. <<CommentSheet.pdf>> Gregory T. Hoffman, Supervisor Virginia Department of Transportation Edinburg Residency — Land Development 2275 Northwestern Pike Winchester, VA 22603 Phone #(540) 535 -1824 Fax #(540) 535 -1846 8/18/2008 Control number Date received RZOE -0016 10212008 Project Name Adams Commercial Center Zoning Amendment Address City 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester Type Application Tax ID Number Rezoning 44 -A -75 Current Zoning S3 Recommendations Automatic Sprinkler System Automatic Fire Alarm System No No Other recommendation Date reviewed Date Revised 1012712008 Applicant Greenway Engineering State Zip Applicant Phone VA 22602 540 - 662 -4185 Fire District Rescue District 13 13 Election District Stonewall Residential Sprinkler System No Requirements Emergency Vehicle Access Not Identified Siamese Location Hydrant Location Not Identified Roadway /Aisleway Width Not Identified Fire Lane Required No Special Hazards No Emergency Vehicle Access Comments RECEIVED Access Comments Additional Comments OCT 2' 2008 GREENWAY ENGINEERING Plan Approval Recommended Reviewed By Signature 'Ye Yes J. Neal Title +' 0 0 Adams Conditional Zoning Amendment — County Attorney Comments 1) Structural limitations are not defined by maximum defined square footage; however, structural limitation are set based on maximum vehicle per day generation that will be determined from ITE when a site plan is filed with the County. 2) Plat will be provided as part of the formal submittal. 3) Will add the word "attached ". The NTS is accurate. 4) Will reword the second sentence to follow suggested wording. The proffer does address reductions in the maximum 3,607 VPD by stating that this number would be further reduced if additional development occurs on the other subdivided parcels above their current approved site plans. 5) The B -3 District allows SIC 862 only and SIC 42. The proffer prohibits all uses within the allowed categories. 6) Will reword first sentence to state that "Direct access to Martinsburg Pike will be provided through a single shared commercial entrance to provide ingress and egress for the 28.10± acre property and all parcels previously subdivided from tax parcel 44- A -75." 7) Will reword proffer C2 to acknowledge the installation of the existing turn lane and maintain the future relocation of the turn lane as requested by VDOT. Will incorporate new sentence for proffer C3 acknowledging that the County has received right -of -way as evident from Deed Instrument #050017512. Will reword proffer C4 to include the statement "When determined by VDOT..." at the beginning of the third sentence to further address the performance obligation. 8) Will reword proffer C5 to change "in conjunction with" to "will construct bicycle and pedestrian facility within 180 days of first site plan approval' for the north and south sides of the commercial entrance. 9) Will eliminate Outdoor Storage Buffer from proffer statement. 10) Will reword Proffer E to state "adjacent to tax parcels 44- ((A)) -76A, 44- ((A))- 76B, 44- ((A)) -76C, and 44- ((A)) -76D as depicted on the proffered GDP." Will reword Proffer F to state "adjacent to tax parcels 44- ((A)) -70, 44- ((A)) -72, 44- ((A))-73 and 44- ((1)) -D as depicted on the proffered GDP." 11) Will eliminate Stormwater Quality Measures as this is now a DCR requirement. 12) Will reword to state "will be paid prior to the issuance of the building occupancy permit." 0 Adams Conditional Zoning Amendment — County Planning 9 -11 -08 Comments I) The proposed conditional zoning amendment has been structured to provide a zero impact application from what was approved by the Board of Supervisors in 2005. The proffered transportation improvements were deemed acceptable by VDOT and the BOS at that time; therefore, the suggestion regarding construction of a new 12 -foot wide, 800 linear foot travel lane on Martinsburg Pike is excessive. In the spirit of cooperation, the developer has agreed to assume the cost with relocation of the right turn lane that is approximately 350 linear feet, as well as the construction of a 10 -foot wide asphalt bicycle and pedestrian facility as new conditions associated with the zero impact application; therefore, it is hoped that the County will recognize this offer. 2) Proffer B actually places an impact on the undeveloped 28.10± acre area, as the parcels that have been sold have the first opportunity to take the proffered VPD from the total allocation. The proposed proffer acknowledges this and agrees to reduce the 3,607 VPD if additional development occurs on those parcels that are already sold. Your point regarding parcel E is valid; therefore, we would be willing to entertain a maximum allocation of the available 3,607 VPD. I would recommend limiting the 28.10± acres to a maximum of 3,000 VPD. This would provide the previously sold properties, including the 5 -acre undeveloped property with adequate development and expansion potential (additional 38% of available 1,603 ADT). Additionally, we would maintain the statement regarding reduction of the 3,000 VPD for the 28.10± area should additional development occur on the other parcels. 3) Agreed; however, this was done based on our discussion to prevent the County from having to make interpretations regarding land uses that appeared to be appropriate in the B3 such as the commercial kitchen equipment repair client. It seemed that the allowed land uses were less of an issue provided that the site development was limited to the maximum VPD, thus maintaining a zero impact application. However. the elimination of restaurants would be acceptable, as well as other land uses that you may be concerned with. 4) Will eliminate Outdoor Storage Buffer from proffer statement. 5) Will reword Proffer G to provide for the same timing as Proffer C5. 6) Will reword Proffer 1 to eliminate the statement "potentially totaling $8.325.00 ". 7) Proffer G was intended to dress up the Martinsburg Pike corridor and not serve as a buffer, as APAC is across the street from this project unlike residential uses across the sweet from Rutherford Crossing and Easy Living. However, we would be willing to consider your input on a staggered landscaping design if it results in a better design for the project site. 8) Our previous meetings indicated that due to the minor nature of this application that we would only need comments from VDOT, Planning and the County Attorney. The site area approved during the 2005 Rezoning has been improved so that the entire acreage has access to Yardmaster Court, including access to public water and sewer, the sewer pump station and fire hydrants; therefore, comments from the Hcalth Department, FCSA, FWSA and the Fire Marshal seem to be a moot point. The Parks and Recreation Department did not comment on the previous rezoning application; therefore. we would be happy to obtain a comment from this agency regarding the new 10 -foot bicycle and pedestrian facility if desired. Additionally, the Health Department does not regulate Will reword proffer C5 to change "in conjunction with" to "will construct bicycle and pedestrian facility within 180 days of first site plan approval' for the north and south sides of the commercial entrance. 9) Will do at time of formal filing. 10) Will do at time of formal filing. 1 Founded in 1971 GREENWAY ENGINEERING, INS, 151 Windy hilt tane Winchester, Virginia 22602 October 17, 2008 Frederick County Planning Development Attn: Candice Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, VA 22601 �J Re: Comment Response Letter - Adams Development Group Proffer Amendment Dear Candice: We are in receipt of the comments dated September 11, 2008 and offer the following responses: Comment 1: Martinsburg Pike Improvements. As indicated in the Frederick County Eastern Road Plan, Martinsburg Pike is identified as an improved minor arterial road (U4D). With this rezoning application, the applicant should be constructing the additional lane along the frontage of the site. Response: The proposed conditional zoning amendment has been structured to provide a zero impact application from what was approved by the Board of Supervisors in 2005. The proffered transportation improvements were deemed acceptable by VDOT and the BOS at that time. In the spirit of cooperation, the developer has agreed to assume the cost with relocation of the right turn lane that is approximately 350 linear feet, as well as the construction of a 10 -foot wide asphalt bicycle and pedestrian facility as new conditions associated with the zero impact application, which has been determined to be acceptable by VDOT; therefore, it is hoped that the County will recognize this offer to be acceptable as well. Comment 2: Proffer B.I. Proffer B appears to be placing an impact on parcels 44 -A- 75B, C, D, E, and F. The original proffer stated that the entire site was limited to 4,603VPD, and the revised proffer states that the remainder of 44 - A - 75 is limited to 3,607VPD. The last sentence of this proffer states that the 3,607VPD may be reduced if additional development occurs on the remairuler of the site. This proffer does not account for the opposite situation where if 44 -A -75 utilizes all of the 3,607VPD the parcels B -E will not be able to expand. If parcel 44 -A -75 utilizes all of the 3,607VPD, parcel E, which is current vacant, would not be able to develop at all. Response: Proffer B actually places an impact on the undeveloped 28.10± acre area, as the parcels that have been sold have the first opportunity to take the proffered VPD from Engineers Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists Telephone 540- 662 -4185 FAX 540- 722 -9528 File #3949 /8AW /dlm www.greenwayeng.com the total allocation. The proposed proffer acknowledges this and agrees to restrict the total undeveloped 28.10± acre area to a maximum 2,900 VPD and further reduce this allocation if additional development occurs on those parcels that are already sold. This would provide the previously sold properties, including the 5 -acre undeveloped property with adequate development and expansion potential. Comment 3: Proffer B.2. The original proffer was very restrictive in regards to uses, as it limited the site to only five types of uses. The new proffer allows for all uses except what is listed in proffer B.2, which allows for many other uses. The applicant should also look at restricting restaurant uses on the site. Response: Agreed; however, this was done based on our discussion to prevent the County from having to make interpretations regarding land uses that appeared to be appropriate in the B3 such as the commercial kitchen equipment repair client. It seemed that the allowed land uses were less of an issue provided that the site development was limited to the maximum VPD, thus maintaining a zero impact application. However, the Applicant has agreed to include restaurants as a prohibited land use as suggested. Comment 4: Proffer D. It appears that proffer D can be removed from the revised proffer statement as it does not apply to PIN 44 -A -75. Response: Section D - Outdoor Storage Buffer has been eliminated from the proffer statement and the revised proffer sections have been reformatted accordingly. Comment 5: Proffer G. It appears that proffer G should have the same timing as proffer C.S. Response: Section G of the revised proffer statement has been reformatted as Section F — Corridor Appearance Enhancements, and has been revised to provide for the same timing mechanism as Section C5. Comment 6: Proffer L The total potential monetary contribution needs to be modified since parcels B -E are not part of this application. Response: Section I of the revised proffer statement has been reformatted as Section G — Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development, and has been revised to eliminate the statement "potentially totaling $8,325.00 ". Comment 7. Proffer G. It appears that the corridor appearance proffer could be modified to create a staggered buffer. Please refer to previously approved buffers proffered with Rutherford Crossing or Easy Living. File #3949 /EAW /dlm 2 Response: Section G of the revised proffer statement has been reformatted as Section F — Corridor Appearance Enhancements, and has been revised to provide for language that calls for the staggering of shrubs based on our previous meeting. Additionally, the Corridor Appearance Enhancement Exhibit has been modified to reflect this change. Comment 8: Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency comments from the following agencies: Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marshal, Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, Frederick - Winchester Health Department, the local Fire and Rescue Company, and the Frederick - Winchester Service Authority. The proposed proffers have been forwarded by staff to the Frederick County Attorney. Once attorney comments are received by the Planning Department, they will be forwarded to your office. Attorney comments are required for acceptance of the rezoning application. Response: Per our meeting, it was agreed that we will obtain review agency comments from VDOT, the County Attorney, the County Fire Marshal, the I" Due Fire and Rescue Company (Clear Brook), and the Planning Department. Comment 9: Special Limited Power of Attorney. Provide a Power of Attorney for the property owners. Response: The SLPOA Document will be submitted as part of the formal filing of the Conditional Zoning Amendment Application. Comment 10: Fees. The fee for this application includes a $5,000.00 base fee plus $200.00 per acre, and a $50.00 public hearing sign fee. This is based on fees as of April 28, 2008. Fees may change. Response: An Application Fee in the amount of $10,670.00 ($5,000.00 base fee + $5,620 acreage fee (28.10± acres x $200.00 per acre) + $50.00 sign deposit fee) will be submitted as part of the formal filing of the Conditional Zoning Amendment Application. File #3949 /EAW /dim 3 Please find attached a copy of the revised proffer statement that indicates the proposed revisions with bold and italic text and indicates the language to be eliminated with strike out text in order to assist with your review. I have also attached a copy of the comment response letter that has been prepared for the County Attorney, as several of your comments were consistent with these comments. Please review this information and provide me with an updated comment for this project at your earliest possible convenience. We would like to attempt to meet the November 7, 2008 filing deadline for this project; therefore, please contact me if you have any questions regarding the information in this packet or if you need any additional information at this time. Sincerely, L Evan A. Wyatt, AIC Greenway Engineering, Inc. Attachments Cc: Rod Williams, Frederick County Attorney R.C. Adams — Adams Development Group File #3949 /EAW /dlm 4