Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09-09 Comments
t \nrinnnl I h�t`oricl)isiiirr 3 November 2009 Ms. June Wilmot, Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission 412 Westside Station Drive Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Rezoning Application #09 -09 for Graystone Corporation of Virginia Dear Ms. Wilmot: The Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation would like to submit comments regarding the above rezoning proposal to be considered at your meeting on 4 November 2009. As a neighboring landowner, the Battlefields Foundation received notice about this rezoning application on Tuesday, 27 October 27 2009, five business days before the public hearing for this application, which is quite lengthy and ponders a significant change in the use of the property, one that is also dramatically different from the surrounding land uses. The Foundation respectfully urges the Frederick County Planning Commission to table this proposal to allow further time for review of the application by the Foundation and others in the community. The above notwithstanding, in our initial review of the application the Battlefields Foundation has identified several concerns with its overall purpose as well as with specific elements of the proposed development. Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District and the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation The Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation was established in 2000, pursuant to the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District and Commmission Act. The Act, passed by Congress in 1996, established the eight- county Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District in order to preserve ten battlefields in the Shenandoah Valley, including Second and Third Winchester. The Act also set in motion a three -year planning process overseen by a federal commission of Valley landowners and local, state, and federal government representatives. After more than 90 public meetings throughout the region, the federal commission published the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District Management Plan in 2000, which was approved by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior; the Commonwealth of Virginia; Clarke, Frederick, Highland, Page, Rockingham, and Shenandoah counties; and numerous municipalities. The management plan for the District recommended the creation of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, a Virginia non -stock corporation, to implement the plan and to preserve, interpret, and promote Civil War battlefields in the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District. Shenanilonh lallry ID:ttdefirhIS Fountlot Post OfG:e Pox 9.97 New Mar Wginlc 22E14 ?h: 3 54 888be9.4545 :3ac.740.4509 Ms. June Wilmot, Frederick County Planning Commission 3 November 2009 Page 2 Significance of the Shenandoah Valley's Civil War Battlefields In the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District and Commission Act, Congress determined that the Valley's Civil War battlefields and related historic sites "are collectively of national significance," and that their "preservation and interpretation...will make a vital contribution to the understanding of the heritage of the United States." Of more than 300 engagements that took place in the Shenandoah Valley, the legislation authorized federal funding for the protection of ten battlefields, including Second and Third Winchester (also known as the Battle of Opequon). The ten Civil War battlefields in the National Historic District including Second and Third Wincheste are identified and documented in the Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia conducted by the National Park Service in 1992 at the direction of Congress.' The 1992 study noted that, "the scope, size, and casualties of the battles of Opequon and Cedar Creek would rank in any list of significant battlefields of the Civil War. A strong case can be made that either or both of these battlefields can be considered nationally significant in their own right..." and that "Opequon might qualify on its own for National Historic Landmark designation." In addition, the federal Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, created by Congress in 1991, identified the sites across the nation of 10,500 armed conflicts that occurred during the Civil War in a study released in 1993 and updated earlier this year. 3 About Third Winchester (Opequon), the study said, "Because of its size, intensity, and result, many historians consider this the most important conflict of the Shenandoah Valley." The July 2009 update includes the entire subject property within a Potential National Register Boundary, an area deemed to "retain (the) integrity and cohesion" required for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. General Concerns In general, the Battlefields Foundation has strong concerns about this proposal. The subject property lies in core and study area for the Second and Third Winchester Civil War battlefields and, as noted above, retains the integrity and cohesion that are required for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. As part of a nationally significant battlefield, also as noted above, the property itself and the surrounding landscape both have intrinsic historic value to the nation and the community. The conversion of this property from agricultural to commercial/light industrial use would be incompatible with its historic significance. Frederick County Planning Guidance As noted by Frederick County planning staff in its report to the Planning Commission, the proposed rezoning would allow for uses of this land that are inconsistent with the county's own planning guidance 1 Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, Pursuant To Public Law 101 -628, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (September 1992). Available online at htt p: //u vw nos env history has /ahna /shenandoah /sys0- l.htmt. 2 Ibid at http /www.nos.eov/ history /hos /abpp /shenandoah/sys4- 3.html. Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation's Civil War Battlefields, prepared for the United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the United States House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources, and the Secretary of the Interior by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, National Park Service (1993). Available online at http✓ /www.nps.gov /history/hps /abpp/cwsac /cws0- 1.html_ Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission's Report on the Nation's Civil War Battlefields, Commonwealth of Virginia, Washington, DC, July 2009. httm /A ww. nps eov/history/ hps abpp /CWSIUCWSIIStateReportVA.htm. Ms. June Wilmot, Frederick County Planning Commission 3 November 2009 Page 3 found in the Frederick County- Winchester Battlefield Network Plan and the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan, an element of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. Battlefield Network Plan (1997): The Battlefield Network Plan's recommendations were crafted by a steering committee comprised of local stakeholders and landowners. Among its recommendations were to, "(u)se Milburn Road as a primary travel connection between Stephensons Depot and Third Winchester. Work with land owners to preserve views along Milburn Road using buffers, vegetation, and easements." Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan and the Comprehensive Plan: Regarding the subject property, the county's comprehensive plan envisions the following: The preservation and protection of significant historic resources, environmentally sensitive areas, and open space areas is encouraged by this land use plan... Significant historic resources including the core area of Stephenson's Depot (2nd Battle of Winchester)...and the Milburn Road corridor (Route 662)...fall within the expanded SWSA and UDA boundaries. The land use plan incorporates a Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) designation to ensure that these features...are protected from future development proposals. The DSA is a community and historical preservation area; therefore, adjacent uses which may be incompatible should provide adequate buffers and screening. The DSA is intended to discourage any development along the Milburn Road corridor... Significant portions of the subject property are in the Developmentally Sensitive Area, targeted for protection from future development proposals. Protecting the Preservation Investment The work that the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation and others have done to preserve this area of the county is consistent with the county's planning guidance. The Battlefields Foundation, the National Park Service, the Commonwealth of Virginia, private donors in the Winchester- Frederick area and beyond, the Civil War Preservation Trust, and Frederick County itself have together invested more than $6 million to preserve lands in this area, in accordance with the county's planning guidance. All of these stakeholders and investors made these commitments in the hope that such guidance would also be used in future decisions regarding surrounding land uses by others. The subject proposal would devalue the significant investment made by these private and public entities. Impacts to Preserved Battlefield Land More than 570 acres of preserved land lie immediately to the south of the subject property. The Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation owns 345 acres, including the 209 -acre Huntsberry Farm, recently preserved using $3.35 million in federal, state, county, and private funds. Much of this landscape appears as it did to residents and soldiers at the time of the Second and Third Battles of Winchester the land retains its historic, agricultural character and there are very few modern visual intrusions. (A map of the preserved areas and photographs of the current viewshed from these areas are enclosed.) Ms. June Wilmot, Frederick County Planning Commission 3 November 2009 Page 4 The application before you proposes the construction of 90 -foot (potentially nine story) office buildings and 70 -foot (potentially seven- story) parking garages on the subject property. In its 21 October 2009 letter to the applicant, the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board offered this comment: The proposed intensification of the project in terms of the request to increase the (floor area ratio) to 2.0, to increase the height of Office Buildings to 90 feet, and to increase the height of parking structures to 70 feet is undesirable as this would increase the potential impact on the adjacent historic resources. The Battlefields Foundation concurs with this comment and others contained in the HRAB letter. The visual impact on adjacent preserved historic areas and the Milburn Road corridor appears not to have been evaluated and is likely to be significant. While the Generalized Development Plan included with the application does not identify building locations, 70- to 90 -foot structures will likely be prominent intrusions into the viewshed of preserved properties including parcels owned by the Battlefields Foundation and will dramatically alter the historic character of a landscape that so many have worked diligently to preserve. Proffered Buffers for Surrounding Preserved Lands Proffer C.8 of the application states the following: The applicant's proposed method for buffering its development from surrounding historic resources would likely not be allowable under federal law. The Foundation's land was protected using dollars from the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and per the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, the granting of interest in LWCF protected land to third parties is not permitted. The Foundation appreciates the recognition of the sensitivity of the surrounding preserved resources that Proffer C.8 represents this need exists not just with regard to the Foundation's land but also to other resources along Redbud and Milburn Roads. Should this proposal or elements of it go forward, the Foundation looks forward to working with the applicant, the county, and other surrounding landowners to seek an alternative to meet this identified with buffers along the perimeter of the applicant's property. Conclusion The Applicant hereby proffers to provide for evergreen landscaping along the Redbud Road frontage of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation property identified as a green space buffer area on the proffered GDP. The provision of this evergreen landscaping is to provide viewshed mitigation for this property and is conditioned upon a landscape easement being furnished by Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation property owner. Frederick County has a unique opportunity—one that many communities do not have. In this corridor lie nationally significant historic landscapes, unmatched natural resources, and an actively engaged and successful preservation infrastructure that has been working to maximize these resources for the community and visitors. Here, within biking and walking distance of dense residential areas of the county, visitors and residents will be able to wander the county's historic and still- active farm fields and experience a quiet, contemplative setting where they can meaningfully understand the drama that took place on this landscape 150 years ago. Ms. June Wilmot, Frederick County Planning Commission 3 November 2009 Page 5 The Battlefields Foundation and many others have worked with the county to meet the community's interest and guidance and together we have made significant investments to that end. The Foundation hopes that the Planning Commission will continue to be guided by these interests. We look forward to continuing our work with the county and the community to maintain the value of this landscape today and for future generations. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this proposal. We are available to answer any questions you may have and provide any further information you might need as you consider this application. Sincerely, W. Der afi Zirkle Executive Director dzirkle @svbf.net Enclosures: Map of subject property and surrounding battlefield area with preserved areas Photographs looking north toward subject property from Huntsberry Farm CC: Members, Frederick County Planning Commission Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Frederick County Deputy Planning Director 3 November 2009 Ms. June Wilmot, Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission 412 Westside Station Drive Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Rezoning Application #09 -09 for Graystone Corporation of Virginia Dear Ms. Wilmot: The Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation would like to submit comments regarding the above rezoning proposal to be considered at your meeting on 4 November 2009. As a neighboring landowner, the Battlefields Foundation received notice about this rezoning application on Tuesday, 27 October 27 2009, five business days before the public hearing for this application, which is quite lengthy and ponders a significant change in the use of the property, one that is also dramatically different from the surrounding land uses. The Foundation respectfully urges the Frederick County Planning Commission to table this proposal to allow further time for review of the application by the Foundation and others in the community. The above notwithstanding, in our initial review of the application the Battlefields Foundation has identified several concerns with its overall purpose as well as with specific elements of the proposed development. Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District and the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation The Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation was established in 2000, pursuant to the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District and Commission Act. The Act, passed by Congress in 1996, established the eight- county Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District in order to preserve ten battlefields in the Shenandoah Valley, including Second and Third Winchester. The Act also set in motion a three -year planning process overseen by a federal commission of Valley landowners and local, state, and federal government representatives. After more than 90 public meetings throughout the region, the federal commission published the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District Management Plan in 2000, which was approved by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior; the Commonwealth of Virginia; Clarke, Frederick, Highland, Page, Rockingham, and Shenandoah counties; and numerous municipalities. The management plan for the District recommended the creation of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, a Virginia non -stock corporation, to implement the plan and to preserve, interpret, and promote Civil War battlefields in the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District. She n;ut(1 ,;ih \nll•r (SaitIeIi lily Fonndnlinn Post Odic, Co n P97 New basket, Virglnlc 22 ?:4 ?h: 540.740.454) 1386.5$24545 Ms. June Wilmot, Frederick County Planning Commission 3 November 2009 Page 2 Significance of the Shenandoah Valley's Civil War Battlefields In the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District and Commission Act, Congress determined that the Valley's Civil War battlefields and related historic sites `are collectively of national significance," and that their "preservation and interpretation...will make a vital contribution to the understanding of the heritage of the United States." Of more than 300 engagements that took place in the Shenandoah Valley, the legislation authorized federal funding for the protection of ten battlefields, including Second and Third Winchester (also known as the Battle of Opequon). The ten Civil War battlefields in the National Historic District—including Second and Third Winchester are identified and documented in the Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia conducted by the National Park Service in 1992 at the direction of Congress: The 1992 study noted that, "the scope, size, and casualties of the battles of Opequon and Cedar Creek would rank in any list of significant battlefields of the Civil War. A strong case can be made that either or both of these battlefields can be considered nationally significant in their own right..." and that "Opequon might qualify on its own for National Historic Landmark designation. In addition, the federal Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, created by Congress in 1991, identified the sites across the nation of 10,500 armed conflicts that occurred during the Civil War in a study released in 1993 and updated earlier this year. 3 About Third Winchester (Opequon), the study said, `Because of its size, intensity, and result, many historians consider this the most important conflict of the Shenandoah Valley." The July 2009 update includes the entire subject property within a Potential National Register Boundary, an area deemed to "retain (the) integrity and cohesion" required for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. General Concerns In general, the Battlefields Foundation has strong concerns about this proposal. The subject property lies in core and study area for the Second and Third Winchester Civil War battlefields and, as noted above, retains the integrity and cohesion that are required for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. As part of a nationally significant battlefield, also as noted above, the property itself and the surrounding landscape both have intrinsic historic value to the nation and the community. The conversion of this property from agricultural to commercial /light industrial use would be incompatible with its historic significance. Frederick County Planning Guidance As noted by Frederick County planning staff in its report to the Planning Commission, the proposed rezoning would allow for uses of this land that are inconsistent with the county's own planning guidance Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, Pursuant To Public Law 101 -628, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (September 1992). Available online at /An w nos. vov history /hn,s /ahnp /ahenandoaWsys0 -1 htmt. 2 Ibid at httpjf /ww :llagov/histondhosrabporshenandoah/sys4-3.html. Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation's Civil War Battlefields, prepared for the United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the United States house of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources, and the Secretary of the Interior by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, National Park Service (1993)- Available online at httoJ/ wwnpsao /hjstav /hps /abpp /cwsac /cws0- 1.html. Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission's Report on the Nation's Civil War Battlefields, Commonwealth of Virginia, Washington, DC, July 2009.EnDlivevagnps.eovihistory/hos/abon/CWSIUCWSIIStateReportVA.htm. Ms. June Wilmot, Frederick County Planning Commission 3 November 2009 Page 3 found in the Frederick County Winchester Battlefield Network Plan and the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan, an element of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. Battlefield Network Plan (1997): The Battlefield Network Plan's recommendations were crafted by a steering committee comprised of local stakeholders and landowners. Among its recommendations were to, "(u)se Milburn Road as a primary travel connection between Stephensons Depot and Third Winchester. Work with land owners to preserve views along Milburn Road using buffers, vegetation, and easements." Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan and the Comprehensive Plan: Regarding the subject property, the county's comprehensive plan envisions the following: The preservation and protection of significant historic resources, environmentally sensitive areas, and open space areas is encouraged by this land use plan...Significant historic resources including the core area of Stephenson's Depot (2nd Battle of Winchester)...and the Milburn Road corridor (Route 662)...fall within the expanded SWSA and UDA boundaries. The land use plan incorporates a Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) designation to ensure that these features...are protected from future development proposals. The DSA is a community and historical preservation area; therefore, adjacent uses which may be incompatible should provide adequate buffers and screening. The DSA is intended to discourage any development along the Milburn Road corridor... Significant portions of the subject property are in the Developmentally Sensitive Area, targeted for protection from future development proposals. Protecting the Preservation Investment The work that the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation and others have done to preserve this area of the county is consistent with the county's planning guidance. The Battlefields Foundation, the National Park Service, the Commonwealth of Virginia, private donors in the Winchester- Frederick area and beyond, the Civil War Preservation Trust, and Frederick County itself have together invested more than $6 million to preserve lands in this area, in accordance with the county's planning guidance. All of these stakeholders and investors made these commitments in the hope that such guidance would also be used in future decisions regarding surrounding land uses by others. The subject proposal would devalue the significant investment made by these private and public entities. Impacts to Preserved Battlefield Land More than 570 acres of preserved land lie immediately to the south of the subject property. The Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation owns 345 acres, including the 209 -acre Huntsberry Farm, recently preserved using $3.35 million in federal, state, county, and private funds. Much of this landscape appears as it did to residents and soldiers at the time of the Second and Third Battles of Winchester —the land retains its historic, agricultural character and there are very few modern visual intrusions. (A map of the preserved areas and photographs of the current viewshed from these areas are enclosed.) Ms. June Wilmot, Frederick County Planning Commission 3 November 2009 Page 4 The application before you proposes the construction of 90 -foot (potentially nine story) office buildings and 70 -foot (potentially seven- story) parking garages on the subject property. In its 21 October 2009 letter to the applicant, the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board offered this comment: The proposed intensification of the project in terms of the request to increase the (floor area ratio) to 2.0, to increase the height of Office Buildings to 90 feet, and to increase the height of parking structures to 70 feet is undesirable as this would increase the potential impact on the adjacent historic resources. The Battlefields Foundation concurs with this comment and others contained in the HRAB letter. The visual impact on adjacent preserved historic areas and the Milburn Road corridor appears not to have been evaluated and is likely to be significant. While the Generalized Development Plan included with the application does not identify building locations, 70- to 90 -foot structures will likely be prominent intrusions into the viewshed of preserved properties including parcels owned by the Battlefields Foundation and will dramatically alter the historic character of a landscape that so many have worked diligently to preserve. Proffered Buffers for Surrounding Preserved Lands Proffer C.8 of the application states the following: The applicant's proposed method for buffering its development from surrounding historic resources would likely not be allowable under federal law. The Foundation's land was protected using dollars from the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and per the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, the granting of interest in LWCF- protected land to third parties is not permitted. The Foundation appreciates the recognition of the sensitivity of the surrounding preserved resources that Proffer C.8 represents this need exists not just with regard to the Foundation's land but also to other resources along Redbud and Milburn Roads. Should this proposal or elements of it go forward, the Foundation looks forward to working with the applicant, the county, and other surrounding landowners to seek an alternative to meet this identified with buffers along the perimeter of the applicant's property. Conclusion The Applicant hereby proffers to provide for evergreen landscaping along the Redbud Road frontage of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation property identified as a green space buffer area on the proffered GDP. The provision of this evergreen landscaping is to provide viewshed mitigation for this property and is conditioned upon a landscape easement being furnished by Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation property owner. Frederick County has a unique opportunity —one that many communities do not have. In this corridor lie nationally significant historic landscapes, unmatched natural resources, and an actively engaged and successful preservation infrastructure that has been working to maximize these resources for the community and visitors. Here, within biking and walking distance of dense residential areas of the county, visitors and residents will be able to wander the county's historic and still active farm fields and experience a quiet, contemplative setting where they can meaningfully understand the drama that took place on this landscape 150 years ago. Ms. June Wilmot, Frederick County Planning Commission 3 November 2009 Page 5 The Battlefields Foundation and many others have worked with the county to meet the community's interest and guidance and together we have made significant investments to that end. The Foundation hopes that the Planning Commission will continue to be guided by these interests. We look forward to continuing our work with the county and the community to maintain the value of this landscape today and for future generations. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this proposal. We are available to answer any questions you may have and provide any further information you might need as you consider this application. Sincerely W. De Zirkle Executive Director dzirkle @svbf. net Enclosures: Map of subject property and surrounding battlefield area with preserved areas Photographs looking north toward subject property from Huntsberry Farm CC: Members, Frederick County Planning Commission Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Frederick County Deputy Planning Director Greystone Development Plan on 3rd E Detail, Battlefield of (Opequon) Winchester, Va. Bvt. Shenandoah Valley Battlefiel S 0 1000 2.000 4,000 Legend intersrare Roads Streams Railroads Greystone Development Area Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation SVBF Conservation Easement mizo Potomac Conservancy CE Civil War Preservation Trust ald and 3rd Winchester Core Battlefield Areas 3rd Winchester Study Area Winchester Battlefield Lt. Col. G.L. Gillespie, 1873 ds Foundation 6,000 8,000 Feet View looking north from SVBF's Huntsberry Farm property toward Milburn Road corridor. CEP/bad Attachments MEMORANDUM TO: Historic Resources Advisory Board FROM: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner RE: October 2009 HRAB Meeting Agenda DATE: October 5, 2009 The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) will be meeting on Tuesday, October 20, 2009, at 6:30 p.m., in the Board of Supervisors Executive Session Room* in the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. The HRAB will discuss the following items: AGENDA 1. June and September 2009 HRAB meeting minutes. 2. Graystone Corporation Office Industrial Park Rezoning. Review of the Graystone Corporation Office Industrial Park Rezoning proposal submitted by Greenway Engineering. Please contact this office if you will not be able to attend the meeting. Thank you. *PLEASE NOTE MEETING LOCATION Access to this building is limited during the evening hours. Therefore, it will be necessary to enter the building through the rear door of the Board Room. I would encourage Committee members to park in the County parking lot located behind the new addition (accessible off of Cameron Street). The Historic Resources Advisory Board has been requested to review and provide comment on the Graystone Corporation Office Industrial Park Rezoning proposal submitted by Grecnway Engineering. The proposal seeks to rezone four parcels of land that total 292.87 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to the OM (Office- Manufacturing) Park District for a campus style office and manufacturing park. The site is located near the Interstate 81 Exit 317 interchange and Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and is bound by Redbud Road (Route 661), Milburn Road (Route 662), McCann's Road (Route 838) and the CSX Railroad and is in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Prepared by the applicant and attached for your information are a location map and a copy of the proffers for the project. The Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley, published by the National Park Service, identifies a portion of the Graystone rezoning site as being within the Second Winchester Study Area and a large portion of parcel 44 -A -25 is within the Core Battlefield. This core area is part of Stephenson's Depot (Second Winchester Phase 9). The core area of the Second Winchester Battlefield (Stephenson's Depot) on this site is shown as having retained much of its historic integrity according the Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley. Portions of the site are also within the study area of the Third Battle of Winchester (Opequon) and adjacent to its core. Portions of this site are designated as Development- Sensitive Area in the Northeast Land Use Plan of the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. See the attached maps for further information. The Rural Landmarks Survey Report for Frederick County Virginia identifies seven structures /sites within the immediate area of the subject site; one structure was located on -site. The sites that are listed in the survey are: Carter Hardesty House #34 -112) was located on site but burned and was demolished Byers House #34 -1 124) Godfries- Semples House #34 -135) Helm- McCann Property #34 -703) Rutherford's Farm #34 -727) site consists of historical markers and foundations McCann, Thomas House #34 -729) Milburn Chapel Cemetery #34 -950) The applicant has proffered the following: Proffer C8 The applicant proffers to establish a 50 -foot green space buffer area along the northern boundary of the property as depicted on the proffered GDP. This green space buffer area will be left in its natural state to provide viewshed mitigation for the Milburn Cemetery and the Helm- McCann springhouse. Proffer C9 The applicant proffers to provide for evergreen landscaping along the 1 Redbud Road frontage of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation property indentified as a green space buffer area on the proffered GDP. The provision of this evergreen landscaping is to provide viewshed mitigation for this property and is conditioned upon a landscape easement being furnished by Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation property owner. Please find attached for your information a map of the site, the impact analysis and the proffer statement, GDP and information from the Department of Historic Resources provided by the applicant. Also included is information from the Battlefield Networks Plan and the Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley. Representatives of the applicant will be available at the HRAB meeting to provide additional information on the proposed rezoning. Staff will be seeking comments from the HRAB on the historical elements possibly impacted by the proposed development. The comments will be included in the rezoning application package for the Graystone Property rezoning proposal when it is submitted. TO: FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director RE. General Evan Wyatt, ATCP DATE: October 2, 2009 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 R°zoring Comments Graystone Corporation Offi and Industrial Park. The following comments are offered regarding the Graystone Corporation Office and Industrial Park Conditional Rezoning Application. This is a request to rezone 292.87 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to OM (Office- Manufacturing Park) with Proffers. The review is generally based upon the updated proffer statement dated September 23, 2009 and the Impact Analysis dated August 24, 2009, including a TIA dated August 24, 2009. Please consider the comments as you continue your work preparing the application for submission to Frederick County. Prior to formal submission to the County, please ensure that these comments and all review agency comments, including the HRAB, are adequately addressed. At a minimum, a letter describing how each of the agencies and their comments have been addressed should be included as part of the submission. On September 18, 2009, Staff met with the Applicant and his Counsel and discussed an approach to achieving the proposed additional land uses and design elements currently in the proffer statement. The Applicant is concurrently working through the Development Review and Regulations to address this issue. Such an approach is the appropriate way to address land use and design modifications that may currently be more intensive than permitted in the OM District. 1. Please provide a Plat of rezoning, including a metes and bounds description of the property. 2. Please ensure that all the necessary application materials are submitted with application for each parcel including the current parcel plat, deed information, and tax information. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Graystone Corporation Office and Industrial Park Rezoning Comments October 2, 2009 Page 2 3. The submission fee for this application would total $32,143.50, based upon acreage of 292.87 acres, plus the appropriate amount for public hearing signs. It is suggested that several public hearing signs are obtained for this application given the size and location of the property. Land Use The 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan and the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan provide guidance on the future development of the property. The property is located within the UDA and SWSA. In general, the proposed land uses are not clearly supported by the Comprehensive Plan. 1. The Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan recommends that the land use for this property is predominantly Planned Unit Development with large areas of identified DSA (Developmentally Sensitive Area). 2. The Planned Unit Development Concept seeks to create new neighborhoods with an appropriate balance between residential, employment, and service uses. Areas used for commercial and industrial land uses shall not exceed 50% of the gross area of the planned community. Sufficient commercial and industrial areas shall be provided to meet the needs of the planned community, to provide an appropriate balance of uses and to lessen the overall impact of the planned community on Frederick County. It should be evaluated how this request is consistent with the Planned Unit Development concept when applied to this broader area, including the proffered mix of land uses associated with the Snowden Bridge project (previously approved as Stephenson Village). 3. It is recognized that recent efforts of the Comprehensive Plan and Policy Committee's Community Area Plan Subcommittee has preliminarily recognized this general location as an area of potential OM. However, this planning effort is preliminary in nature and not a consideration when evaluating this current request. 4. The OM District seeks to implement the mixed -use industrial office land use classification promoted in the Comprehensive Policy Plan by providing areas designed to promote research and development centers, office parks, and minimal impact industrial and assembly uses. Such areas should be located in a campus like atmosphere near major transportation facilities. This land use designation is aimed at promoting the County's economic development goals. 5. The Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan has been designed to provide for a balance of land uses which includes industrial and commercial growth along the major road and railroad corridors, the introduction of a planned unit development (PUD) land use, and the preservation of rural areas and significant historic features within the study area boundaries. Future land uses within the study area boundary should be sensitive to existing and planned land uses. The land use plan has been designed to provide the opportunity to develop industrial, business, and PUD uses in a well planned, coordinated manner. Graystone Corporation Office and Industrial Park Rezoning Comments October 2, 2009 Page 3 Transportation The transportation comments have been provided by John Bishop, County Transportation Planner, and should be considered as the County's position on this component of the rezoning. In addition, please consider the following related points. 1. As transportation relates directly to land use, it should be recognized that the TIA for this project is based on a development scenario that has not been proffered. There is no limitation on development beyond that permitted by the district. In addition, it is recognized that it is the ultimate desire of the Applicant to potentially double the development potential of the property by increasing the FAR. 2. The development of this project may have an immediate impact on the surrounding transportation network, and the adjacent residents and historic resources. Due consideration should be given to the constructability of the site and avoiding such potential impacts. 3. It is recommended that the trail improvements are provided during the initial phase of development rather than on an individual parcel basis. Key sections of the trail network could be completed for the benefit of the initial occupants of the project, the adjacent residential community, and the visitors utilizing the many historic resources in and around this general location. 4. It is suggested that in addition to prohibiting individual commercial entrances on Millburn and Redbud Roads, a prohibition be extended to McCann Road. To ensure absolutely minimal impact to the historical streets surrounding the project, the project should develop internal street alternatives which would provide for access to the developed project and eliminate any use of these roads by developmentally generated or induced traffic. Proffer Statement 1. As has been discussed previously, Proffer Statement Section B. OM, Office Manufacturing District Land Uses and a significant portion of Section C. OM, Office- Manufacturing District Design Standards contains language that is problematic in form and principle by proposing uses and standards that expand upon those currently permitted by Frederick County's Zoning Ordinance. Please refer to the comments provided by Mr. Rod Williams for additional guidance on this issue. Please ensure that the final Proffer Statement recognizes the agreed upon approach to addressing this issue by removing these sections from the Statement. Graystone Corporation Office and Industrial Park Rezoning Comments October 2, 2009 Page 4 2. The application identifies 1,749,000 square feet of office and 570,000 square feet of manufacturing. This amount provides the basis for the Traffic Impact Analysis. It should be recognized that the Applicant's proffer statement presently provides no limitations on the amount of O -M development that could occur on the property. It has been requested that the O -M district performance standards be modified to double the FAR from 1 FAR to 2 FAR which would have an impact on the amount and intensity of the development. 3. It would be preferable for the Applicant to further define the amount of, and timing of. the development of the proposed outdoor green areas and plazas 4. The general location of the adjoining parcels that are within permanent protective easements does not need to be an element of the proffered Generalized Development Plan. It is suggested that this remains a component of the Impact Analysis. 5. The location of the internal trail system should be addressed further to ensure it provides connectivity with adjacent land uses and historical elements, and at a minimum to the previously proffered trail system that is part of Snowden Bridge Boulevard. The GDP could be used to a greater extent to identify this. The connectivity of the trail system goes beyond that of just this project. 6. The proffered buffering and landscaping should propose buffering and landscaping that would exceed the minimum expectation of the Ordinance. In addition, given the historical character of the surrounding land uses, there is an expectation of a more significant effort with regards to buffering and landscaping. This is a clear expectation of the Comprehensive Plan. As an example, the adjacent project provided a more significant buffer to similar sensitive land uses utilizing a minimum 100 foot standard. 7. This application's effort to address the fire and rescue community facility impacts is recognized. It is the County's policy when accepting monetary contributions to address fire and rescue impacts that the language of the proffer should read "monetary contribution to Frederick County for fire and rescue purposes Recent rezonings have proffered a monetary contribution in excess of the $0.05 per square foot of structural development proffered in this application. It may be simpler to provide a comparable lump sum monetary contribution at the outset of the project to assist in the planned development of capital facilities that would be necessary to support the growth in this area of the County. A new facility in the Clearbrook area is a top priority of the CIP. 8. It would appear to be necessary for the proffer statement to provide some guidance as to the phases of site development and constructability of the site to ensure that any potential impacts to adjacent properties and historical resources are mitigated or more importantly avoided. Graystone Corporation Office and Industrial Park Rezoning Comments October 2, 2009 Page 5 Other Green Infrastructure This property contains areas of Green Infrastructure elements and features including; areas of wetlands, areas of karst topography, and Developmentally Sensitive Areas. Such features could be incorporated into the project to a greater extent than is presently provided, in particular at the properties perimeter. Low Impact Design methods could be implemented throughout the development of this site as could the use of LEED (or equivalent) land development and building design standards. Historic Resources and Developmentally Sensitive Areas It is recommended that additional commitments are evaluated and made to adequately address the potential impacts on the historic and natural resources, both on the site and adjacent to the site. This could be done in coordination with adjacent stakeholders. Collaboration, now or in the future, with adjacent historical stakeholders would appear to be appropriate and beneficial to the project. The HRAB would be an important resource to help facilitate this collaboration. It is suggested that the Applicant is proactive in this regard. The potential exists to further promote the use of the existing adjacent roads for historical recreational open space corridors as previously recognized. As part of this effort, it is suggested that the buffers adjacent to Battlefield preservation properties, easements, and historical corridors should be tailored, potentially in conjunction with historical stakeholders and the Virginia Department of Forestry. As an example, the adjacent development proposed creating naturally vegetated or natively planted buffer areas, even proposing re- vegetation at a specific rate of trees per acre. Such an approach would appear to be effective with this project. Construction and site development The potential exists for the site development and construction of the project to be impactful to the surrounding community and land uses. The Applicant should be proactive in ensuring that any potential impacts to adjacent properties and historical resources are mitigated or more importantly avoided. Efforts to achieve this in the planning stages are appropriate given the scale and location of this project. In conclusion, please ensure that the above comments, and those offered by the reviewing agency are given due consideration. MTR/bad October 21, 2009 Mr. Evan Wyatt Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester VA 22602 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RE: Application Requesting a Rezoning of 271.39+ Acres from RA to MI (Light Industrial) for the Graystone Corporation Office and Industrial Park Property Identification Numbers (PINs): 43 -A -158, 44 -A -25, 44 -A -26 Current Zoning District: RA (Rural Area) Dear Mr. Wyatt: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the above referenced rezoning proposal during their meeting on October 20, 2009. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley, the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey Report, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, as well as information provided and presented by you on behalf of Greenway Engineering. The proposal seeks to rezone three parcels of land that total 271.39 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to the M1 (Light Industrial) District for office and manufacturing land uses. The site is located near the Interstate 81 Exit 317 interchange and Martinsburg Pike (Route 11), and is bound by Redbud Road (Route 661), Milburn Road (Route 662), McCann s Road (Route 838) and the CSX Railroad, in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Historic Resources Advisory Board Concerns The Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley, published by the National Park Service, identifies a portion of the Graystone rezoning site as being within the Second Winchester Study Area and a large portion of parcel 44 -A -25 is within the Core Battlefield. This core area is part of Stephenson's Depot (Second Winchester Phase 9). The core area of the Second Winchester Battlefield (Stephenson's Depot) on this site is shown as having retained much of its historic integrity according the Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley. Portions of the site are also within the study area of the Third Battle of Winchester (Opequon) and adjacent to its core. Portions of this site are designated as Developmentally Sensitive Area in the Northeast Land Use Plan of the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Mr. Evan Wyatt Re: Rezoning of 271.39+ Acres from RA to M1 Graystone Corporation Office and Industrial Park October 21, 2009 Page 2 The Rural Landmarks Survey Report for Frederick County, Virginia, identifies seven 'structures /sites within the immediate area of the subject site; one structure was located on -site. The sites that are listed in the survey are: Carter- Hardesty House #34 -112) was located on site but burned and was demolished Byers House #34 -1124) Godfries- Semples House #34 -135) Helm- McCann Property #34 -703) Rutherford's Farm #34 -727) site consists of historical markers and foundations McCann, Thomas House #34 -729) Milburn Chapel Cemetery #34 -950) After reviewing this information and the applicant's materials and proposals, the Historic Resource Advisory Board (HRAB) recommended that the Graystone Corporation Rezoning Application addresses the following: o A Phase I Archeological Survey should be done on the property in an effort to identify any archeological resources present on the property. If warranted, further survey work should be completed. It was recognized that this property is uniquely located with regards to a variety of significant historical resources, warranting particular effort to ensure any resources are appropriately addressed. o The proposed intensification of the project in terms of the request to increase the FAR to 2.0, to increase the height of Office Buildings to 90 feet, and to increase the height of parking structures to 70 feet is undesirable as this would increase the potential impact on the adjacent historic resources. In addition, current height exceptions that are allowed in the M1 district which exceed the height standard for the district should be avoided. The Applicant should evaluate if further restrictions to the standards of the M1 District may be warranted. o The Applicant should evaluate if any of the more intensive uses permitted in the M1 District could be proffered out in an effort to minimize the potential impact on the surrounding historical land uses. The more intensive industrial uses should not be located on the portion of the property which is north of future Route 37, as this area contains a far greater area of core battlefield. o Parking lots and other similar site development features should be located to the interior of the development in an effort to minimize the potential impact on the surrounding historical land uses. Mr. Evan Wyatt Re: Rezoning of 27139+ Acres from RA to M1 Graystone Corporation Office and Industrial Park October 21, 2009 Page 3 o Buffers and screening should be placed on the property being developed adjacent to all historical properties to mitigate the potential impact on the adjacent historical properties and rural historical corridors. Additional buffering on adjacent historical properties is encouraged with the cooperation of those property owners. When buffers are proposed, or required by Ordinance, the buffers should be enhanced and should utilize existing vegetation and promote natural re- vegetation as opposed to utilizing the standard berming and screening required by Ordinance. Please contact me with any questions concerning these comments from the HRAB. Sincerely, X44 Mike Ruddy, AICP for Candice Perkins, AICP HRAB Staff MTR/bhd cc: Rhoda Kriz, HRAB Chair Evan Wyatt From: John Bishop [jbishop @co.frederick.va.us] Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 4:06 PM To: Evan Wyatt Cc: Mike Ruddy; Eric Lawrence; Iloyd.ingram @VDOT.virginia.gov; Copp, Jerry; Short, Terry Subject: Transportation Review Comments on Graystone Evan; Page 1 of 3 Thank you for the opportunity to review the preliminary Graystone application. What follows is my review of the updated Transportation Proffers emailed to me 9/23/09 and attached for reference. Please note that as VDOT and I have not had time to do a full review of the TIA, other issues could arise from that ongoing process. 1. Proffers D -1 and D -2 Staff believes that the identified Route 37 Corridor should be fully dedicated. Basing the dedication area upon existing Route 37 is not a good approach since it has already been established through County and VDOT study and coordination that this area will not be like existing Route 37 due to the need for collector distributor (CD) lanes. That said; if some hybrid form of study area and dedication is the only acceptable arrangement to the applicant, then the study term should be extended and the additional right of way above the 225' corridor identified via the study should be dedicated and not simply reserved for purchase. Dedication should be within 90 days as opposed to the proffered 6 months. 2. Proffer D -3 Staff is not opposed to the idea of a single point urban interchange(SPUI) in concept. However, the implementation cost of a SPUI is well known to be significantly higher than more common designs due to the additional bridge work required during construction. As long as the interchange area dedicated will accommodate a diamond interchange, staff is okay with that. However, it is apparent from VDOT comments so far that this may not be the case. Clarification is needed on this issue. Further the proffer should state the area instead of just referring to the design as even footprints among the same design style can vary. Staff preference for this dedication timeline would also be 90 days as opposed to the proffered 6 months. 3. Proffer D -4 a. It should be noted that the portion of Snowden Bridge Blvd being proffered here has already been proffered by the Snowden Bridge residential development, though this proffer does advance implementation. Regarding the 8,000 trip trigger it should be worded so that it includes the TIA trip generation count at site plan and takes into account any actual trips that may have developed should the Snowden Bridge residential development tie in sooner than currently expected. b. Though I have yet to encounter a situation where the County has refused endorsement of an economic development access or rail access funding application. I cannot recommend that the Board of Supervisors obligate themselves via accepting the language doing so in this proffer. One never knows what the situation will be at the time of application and I would not want to place the current Board for future Boards in a situation where they were forced to move on your application when a competing application may be of greater benefit to the County. 4. Proffer D -5 Proposing 4 intersections is inappropriate in the vicinity of a planned interchange. Staff is much more supportive of the exhibits previously discussed which showed 1 major intersection with the rest of the property accessing via an internal roadway system. We had also discussed that this road system include a tie in to the northeast portion of the property under Route 37 in the vicinity of the railroad tracks. We acknowledge that that connection would need to be bridged 10/6/2009 5. Proffer D -6 and D -7 Staff is supportive of the proffer to limit access to Milburn Road and Redbud Roads to emergency access only as determined by the County. Staff would recommend extending this designation to McCanns Road as well. This will allow these roads to continue to serve as historic and scenic corridors for automotive and recreational traffic. The applicant may also want to consider significantly buffering these corridors in order to preserve their historic integrity. This should be carefully worded so as not to conflict with the County desire for a public roadway connection between Snowden Bridge Blvd and Redbud Road. 6. Proffer D -8 A public street connection should be implemented between Redbud Road and Snowden Bridge Blvd. The lack of such a connection in this area has caused the County to be unable to move on needed improvements to the 1 -81 interchange with Route 11, namely, the relocation of the northbound 1 -81 exit ramp to the current Red Bud road location. Additionally, this would allow potential employees from the neighborhoods along Redbud Road to directly access the park instead of forcing them to go all the way around via Old Charlestown Road and Route 11 or future Snowden Bridge. Beyond that issue, staff is supportive of other internal streets in the development being private. 7. Proffer C -7 The trail system proffered should be constructed to the standard 10 foot width and open to the public via a public access easement. In addition to that it should offer connections between Snowden Bridge Blvd and Redbud Road. Further, the trails should be continued along the full frontage of Snowden Bridge and Redbud Road. Finally, the applicant should consider extending the trail across the railroad tracks to meet Route 11. This would provide a continuous trail system between the Snowden Bridge residential development, the Rutherford Shopping Center, and this proposed development, not to mention setting up connections to the nearby battlefield park. This connectivity would aid in taking trips off the roadway and thus reduce this development's transportation impact as well as adding value to the entire community in this area. 8. Unproffered Considerations As noted by VDOT, staff is concerned that no consideration has been given to offsetting impacts to Route 11 at this point. Staff has noted items along Route 11 that you may wish to consider previously but will reiterate them here. a. The county and VDOT have both applied for funds to add additional southbound capacity under 1 -81 all the way to Route 11. The applicant may wish to become a partner in this. b. Due to state cutbacks the funds previously available to relocate the 1 -81 northbound exit ramp to Route 11 are no longer available. This improvement would greatly improve traffic conditions in this area of Route 11. c. Aid in obtaining right of way across the Snowden Bridge property would be a significant contribution to implementing the County's future road plans. Thanks 10/6/2009 Page 2 of 3 upon Route 37 construction, but is still much preferable to an intersection that does not meet standards near an interchange. This new proposal would place intersections at a spacing from the future interchange that would not meet VDOT standards which are becoming effective in October 2009. At worst, this has potential to jeopardize approval of the future Route 37 interchange with Snowden Bridge Blvd. and at best, this would create a situation where the Route 37 interchange functionality is hindered from its first day of operation due to the existing entrances created by this proposal. Please consider returning to the previous concept of an internal road system. On a final note relevant to this issue, I would point out that many of our discussions in scoping the TIA related to the fact that this is proposed to be a development similar to the Avion Business Park in Chantilly, VA. The Avion Business Park has two exterior connections; one to Route 50 and one to Stonecroft Blvd and is a nearly identical acreage(276 acres) to this proposed development. Mike Ruddy From: Funkhouser, Rhonda Rhonda .Funkhouser @VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:42 PM To: Mike Ruddy Subject: FW: Graystone Property VDOT Comments to 10/09/09 Proffers From: Funkhouser, Rhonda On Behalf Of Ingram, Lloyd Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:39 PM To: 'ewyatt@greenwayeng.com ;'Michael C. Glickman' Cc: John.Bishop; Smith, Matthew, P.E.; Copp, Jerry; Ingram, Lloyd Subject: Graystone Property VDOT Comments to 10/09/09 Proffers The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 11, 37, 661, 662, and 638. 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 revised Graystone Property Rezoning Application dated October 9, 2009 address transportation concerns associated with this request. This office has reviewed the revised transportation proffers dated October 9, 2009 and offers the following comments: D-1 &2: D -3: o The applicant did not address VDOT's concern that the timeframe of five years from the date of a rezoning approval for the alignment study, environmental study as well as the full and final design of the roadway plans is not realistic! o The applicant did not address the inadequate right -of -way width of 225'. Again I will point out that the Proposed Route 37 will have to cross four roads and a railroad, thus an elevated roadway will be required that will need a footprint of 350' to 400'. o The idea that the applicant alone will determine if the timeframe will be extended or identify the location of Route 37 is not acceptable. o VDOT has identified the need of 1000' for the Snowden Bridge interchange, the applicant has offered 800'. o If the additional right -of -way is to be purchased from the applicant, will it be at the pre development or post development prices? D -4: No additional comments. D -5: All intersections as well as commercial entrances will need to meet all of VDOT's criteria prior to approval. 1 D -6: VDOT is concerned thahis proffer has too many "developeTby others" that are not party to this proffer and therefore it is questionable if it is enforceable. D -7: No comment. D -8: VDOT dose not agree with this proffer. It has determined that access to Route 661 for "Local" traffic is a key requirement to any approval of this rezoning. D- 9,10,11,12: No additional comments. It should be noted that there has not been any proffers offered to mitigate the almost 10,000 ADT generated by this site that will have a direct impact on Route 11 as well as the Interstate 81 interchange. 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 Virginia Department of Transportation Edinburg Residency Land Development 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 Phone #(540) 984 -5611 Fax #(540) 984 -5607 2 John Bishop From: Funkhouser, Rhonda Rhonda .Funkhouser @VDOT.Virginia.govj on behalf of Ingram, Lloyd [Lloyd.I ng ram @VDOT.virg i n ia. govj Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 3:09 PM To: ewyatt @greenwayeng.com; Michael C. Glickman Cc: John Bishop; Smith, Matthew, P.E.; Copp, Jerry Subject: Graystone Property VDOT Rezoning Comments Attachments: 37typicall .of The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 11, 37, 661, 662, and 638. 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 Graystone Property Rezoning Application dated September 23, 2009 address transportation concerns associated with this request. Specifically, we have the following concerns: Under transportation proffers, the applicant refers to his proposed 225' right -of -way dedication as similar to the western portion of the Route 37 Bypass. Upon review of the property in question there is no similarity. The property changes as much as 90' in elevation. Route 37 would be required to build up to 4 flyover bridges, including the interchange, in a little over a half of a mile. The only practical way to design the roadway, without feeling like a rollercoaster, is an elevated roadway. Therefore, a right -of -way dedication of 350' to 400' of dedication along the mainline will be required. The diamond interchange right -of -way dedication requirement could be as much as 1,200'. The TIA, after its initial review has been found to need additional information combined with recommendations from VDOT's reviewer. These have been requested from the applicant. The two mitigation items that were visible from the initial review, that are key to traffic movements in the area, are the relocation of the NB I -81 off -ramp to align with the existing NB I -81 on -ramp, combined with providing an access road for local traffic from the Snowden Bridge Boulevard to Redbud Road via the Graystone development. As the applicant has not offered to mitigate his impact of almost 10,000 ADT on Route 11, these may be items that should be considered prior to supporting this rezoning. Only setting aside right -of -way for a future roadway facility in lieu of anv mitigation to offset impacts to existing road systems (i.e., Route 11) is not advised, particularly since the construction of Eastern Route 37 (which will aid to disperse the applicants' generated trips), could very well be a generation away from reality. Proffer D -1: In today's economy, additional time will be needed to obtain the funding for the study. We would like to see the proposed five years increased to ten years for both the alignment and preliminary engineering design to identify right -of -way needs for the Route 37 Bypass and full diamond interchange. Proffer D -2: The proposed alignment corridor of only 225' will not contain the proposed Route 37 east. Several key factors seem to have been overlooked when the Developer designated this area: 1 1. Due to the relative spacing between the Shockey interchangand the I -81 interchange, it has been recommended that C -D lanes be constructed to facilitate properly designed ramps and weave areas. Please see the 3/24/06 review correspondence of the County's CX CXL proposals for additional information. 2. In the 2,300 feet of proposed 37 alignment in the Shockey development there are five (5) grade separations /bridges requiring high -fill /additional right -of -way: Route 662 Proposed Snowden Bridge Blvd (to include a full interchange) Proposed secondary between Land Bays A/B and C Hiatt Run tributary crossing Crossing over CSX railroad (if double- stacking is a future consideration, CSX will require at least 23' vertical clearance from high rail) Given these unique conditions and topography, we recommend dedicating a 400' corridor minimum for the highway, flaring out to 1,200' total at the interchange. A sample typical section for a C -D highway is attached; note that it does not account for areas of higher fill necessary for longitudinal grade design, super elevation, etc. «37typical l .tif» Proffer D -3: Remove the references to SPUI interchange as all types of interchange designs will be considered. The appropriate interchange design, based on cost and constructability, will be determined at the design phase. Proffer D -4: VDOT will not support the use of economic development funds for construction of a roadway that has already been proffered. Proffer D -5: All intersections will be required to meet all of VDOT's criteria, including sight distance, crossover spacing and access management regulations. VDOT will not allow entrances to be located in such a manner as to jeopardize the future Route 37 Interchange. Site entrance /intersection design and location will be reviewed at the time of site plan submittal prior to location approval. 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 Virginia Department of Transportation Edinburg Residency Land Development 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 2 Graystone Corporation Trreportation Proffers Evan Wyatt From: Funkhouser, Rhonda [Rhonda.Funkhouser @VDOT.Virginia.gov] on behalf of Ingram, Lloyd [Lloyd.Ingram VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 9:05 AM To: Evan Wyatt Cc: John.Bishop; Copp, Jerry; Ingram, Lloyd; Smith, Matthew, P.E.; Jackson, Terry, PE LS; Alexander, Scott Subject: Graystone Corporation Transportation Proffers The following are expedited preliminary VDOT comments to the Graystone Corporation transportation proffers revised September 23, 2009 without a finalized TIA review. Additional comments will follow once corrections to the TIA have been completed and reviewed. This development has significant traffic impacts to Route 11 and the I -81 Interchange. We believe the applicant should provide appropriate resources to mitigate these impacts. D. Transportation Enhancements 1. We are agreeable to the 350' minimum, however, an additional width may be required after a preliminary engineering study. In today's economy, additional time will be needed to obtain the funding for the study. We would like to see the proposed five years increased to ten years for both the alignment and preliminary engineering design to identify right -of -way needs for the Route 37 Bypass and full diamond interchange. It should be the responsibility of the applicant to coordinate with Frederick County and VDOT to determine final roadway and interchange locations. 2. The 225' of right -of -way offered for dedication is not sufficient to construct the roadway in that type of terrain. Right -of -way needs will be determined upon completion of preliminary engineering as noted in #1 above. All right -of -way required should be dedicated to Frederick County without compensation. 3. Remove all reference to "SPUI" as no determination has been made to the type of interchange. We believe the applicant should proffer the necessary right -of -way for a full diamond interchange. Please call should you have any questions or concerns. Lloyd A. Ingram, Transportation Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation 10/6/2009 Page 1 of 2 4. As this roadway construction has already proffered in the Snowden Bridge rezoning, I do not see a need for tax payer's money to be spent on constructing any of Snowden Bridge Boulevard! This development is placing close to 8,000 additional trips onto Route 11 and yet there has been no proffers offered to mitigate this significant impact. Proffer #4 indicates Snowden Bridge Boulevard will be developed to four -lanes prior to "the site plan that exceeds 8,000 vpd We suggest this is clarified to provide cumulative trips and /or traffic count total. 5. While limiting entrance to four commercial intersections is acceptable, it must be remembered all entrances /intersections will need to meet VDOT and County requirements for sight distance, crossover spacing, access management requirements as well as interchange restrictions at the time of development. Founded in 1971 Engineers Surveyors GHEE ','d AY ER GINEE1lrlIRI© 151 Windy Hill Lane WinchesLer, Virginia 22602 Telephone 540- 662 -4185 FAX 540 722 -9528 www.green wayeng. corn Greenway Engineering File Number: From: Michael Glickman, PE, PTOE 2760GC To: Lloyd Ingram Organization /Company: Virginia Department ofTransportation (VDOT) Memorandum Date: October 9, 2009 Response to October 2, 2009 VDOT comments regarding Project Name /Subject: Graystone Office 6 Industrial Park Tail Impact Study, dated August 24, 2009 Greenway Engineering has prepared this memorandum to provide responses to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) October 2, 2009 and October 6, 2009 comments regarding the Traffic impact Study (August 24, 2009) and Proffer Statement (September 23, 2009), respectively, for the Rezoning Application associated with the Graystone Corporation Office Industrial Park to be located along Snowden Bridge Boulevard in Frederick County, Virginia. The following provides responses to each of the VDOT comments: VDOT "TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY" COMMENTS DATED OCTOBER 2, 2009 VDOT Traffic Impact Study Comment #1: •SB and NB movements at Route 11 /Crown Lane were coded as a permissive movement. Given the size of this intersection, a "Split" phase and longer yellow time should have been used for safety purposes. Greenway Engineering Response: The study area intersections along Route 11, south of 1 -81, were optimized to improve capacity and progression throughout the corridor. It is VDOT's prerogative to determine any necessary adjustments to address safety concerns. VDOT Traffic Impact Study Comment #2: -Synchro shows three Eli through lanes between Market St and Merchant St along Route 11 which is not consistent with aerial photos. Also, the lane configurations at the Route 11 /Merchant St. intersection are not consistent with aerial photos. Greenway Engineering Response: Three (3) eastbound lanes are in existence along Route 11 between Market Street and Merchant Street. It is apparent that the referenced aerial photograph does not include the improvements constructed per the Pubic Improvement Plan (PIP) associated with Rutherford Crossing. Page 1 of 7 Memorandum To Lloyd Ingram Page 2 of 7 VDOT Traffic Impact Study Comment #3: Given the high traffic volumes on Route 11, a permissive left -turn phase is not recommended; please verify if any left-turn movements operate with "Perm" phase currently. With this change, many left turnings movements will operate at LOS F instead of D or E. For example, the W131.. at the I -81 SB ramp will have LOS F instead of D for 2028 BO PM conditions. Please revise. Greenway Engineering Response: The study area intersections along the Route 11 corridor, south of I -81, were optimized for levels of service, capacity, delay and progression. It is VDOT's prerogative to determine any necessary adjustments, which may result in decreased levels of service, capacity, delay and progression, to address perceived safety concerns at the intersections. VDOT Traffic Impact Study Comment #4: The EB right -turn movement at Route 11/1-815B Ramps was coded as a "Free" movement. This movement yields to WBL on -ramp traffic. "Perm" is the correct coding. Making such change will yield nominal changes. Greenway Engineering Response: Greenway Engineering acknowledges this discrepancy and concurs with VDOT's assessment that revising the analyses would have a minimal impact upon the results documented in the August 24, 2009 Traffic Impact Study. VDOT Traffic Impact Study Comment #5: The Synchro model provided with the TIA coded a Two Way Left -Turn Lane (TWLT1..) as the median type for Rte. 11 /FEMA Driveway; Synchro assumes a two -car storage for a TWLTL. The TWLTL on Rte. 11 is 12' wide, which is not wide enough to store vehicles within the median area. The Synchro model should be coded using a 12' median width and removal of the TWLTL. Doing so would produce LOS F, and reported delay reads `error' for the 2028 scenarios because is exceeds HUM limits. Please revise. Greenway Engineering Response: The Two -Way Left -Turn Lane existing along US Route 11 was installed by VDOT to function as a storage lane for northbound and southbound left turning vehicles. The 12 -foot width is consistent with the industry standard of 10 to 16 feet as per AASHTO guidelines. Greenway Engineering has been unable to locate documentation that negates the algorithms included in the Synchro software regarding the Two -Way Left -Turn Lane input. VDOT Traffic Impact Study Comment #6: 2022 and 2028 scenarios used "Perm" phase for the NBL movement at the relocated 1 -81N off ramp. The study assumed double right turn lanes for this movement, as such a "Prot" phase should be used. Making such change will yield nominal changes. Greenway Engineering Response: Greenway Engineering acknowledges this discrepancy and concurs with VDOT's assessment that revising the analyses would have a minimal impact upon the results documented in the August 24, 2009 Traffic Impact Study. Memorandum To Lloyd Ingram Page 3 of 7 VDOT Traffic Impact Study Comment #7: For the 2028 130 with Route 37 scenario, the distance between Site Entrance #3 and the SPUI interchange is less than 660 ft. Also, Site Entrance #2 is assumed as a signalized intersection, the distance between Site Access #2 and the SPUI interchange ramps is Tess than 1,320 ft. Those lengths do not meet access management requirements. Greenway Engineering Response: The SPU1 was provided in the Traffic Impact Study and the associated Synchro software for illustrative purposes only. All access points will be designed to meet the_ VDOT spacing requirements, subject to approval as per the mandatory Site Plan review process, outlined in the VDOT Road Design Manual. VDOT Traffic Impact Study Comment #8: For the 2028 130 with Route 37 scenario, the TIA assumed all traffic using the SPUI interchange are site generated traffic, which is not realistic and does not represent the worst -case scenario. For this reason, Planning strongly advises that adequate right -of -way be dedicated to accommodate a traditional diamond interchange. Greenway Engineering Response: Per AASHTO's Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (1'he "Green" Book), the Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) has a greater capacity than conventional diamond interchanges. Accordingly, the worst -case design was assumed in the Traffic Impact Study. Greenway Engineering's revised Proffer Statement, dated September 23, 2009, does, however, include language to allow for a traditional diamond interchange at the planned junction of Route 37/Snowden Bridge Boulevard. VDOT Traffic Impact Study Comment #9: Referencing Figure 25, all right -turn movements at the SPUI interchange are assumed as a "Free" movement. The RT on -ramp movement will yield to LT on -ramp movement. There are two EB lanes between Route 37NB off -ramp and Site Access #4 and two EB lanes between SPUI intersection and NB off -ramp intersection. Three EB lanes are needed between Route 37NB off -ramp and Site Access #4 to accommodate the "Free" RT movement from Route 37NB off -ramp. Greenway Engineering Response: The SPUI was provided in the Traffic Impact Study and the associated Synchro software for illustrative purposes only. Greenway Engineering recognizes that further evaluation will be required to determine the appropriate configuration for the planned junction of Route 37 /Snowden Bridge Boulevard. VDOT Traffic Impact Study Comment #10: Synchro inputs show two WB through lanes at Site Access #3 for 2028 BO with Route 37 scenario, but there is only one receiving lane downstream. Greenway Engineering Response: All access points are subject to future VDOT approval as per the required Site Plan review process. Memorandum To Lloyd Ingram Page 4 of 7 VDOT Traffic Impact Study Comment #11: The study did not recommend any improvements on Route 11 except "Regional improvements Please elaborate what the "Regional Improvements" are. Setting aside right -of -way for a future roadway facility in lieu any mitigation to offset impacts to existing road systems is not advised. Greenway Engineering Response: Per the request of Jerry Copp (VDOT Edinburg Residency), Greenway Engineering has submitted to VDOT /Frederick County an Addendum, dated September 29, 2009, that evaluates the "regional improvement" referenced in the August 24, 2009 Traffic Impact Study. The adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures is beyond the scope of this Traffic Impact Study. The Owners of the Graystone Office and Industrial Park Property have been working with representatives of Frederick County to establish equitable proffers relating to the transportation implications of the Site. VDOT Traffic Impact Study Comment #12: Referencing Table 10 on Page 45, the queues from 2028 BO traffic will result in many movements having much longer queues compared to the queues from 2028 BIi scenarios. Also, some queue lengths are longer than the link lengths. Please explain why no improvements were recommended along Route 11. Greenway Engineering Response: The adequacy of proposed mitigation measures is beyond the scope of this Traffic Impact Study. The Owners of the Graystone Office and Industrial Park Property have been working with representatives of Frederick County to establish equitable proffers relating to the transportation implications of the Site. VDOT Traffic Impact Study Comment #13: It should be noted that ANY type of interchange could reduce site generated trips on Route 11 and improve LOS. Greenway Engineering Response: Greenway Engineering acknowledges that the future junction of Route 37 /Snowden Bridge Boulevard would improve future background (no- build) and build -out traffic conditions throughout the study area evaluated in the Traffic Impact Study. VDOT Traffic Impact Study Comment #14: The turn lanes design along Snowden Bridge Blvd should be based on VDOT Road Design Manual, such analyses were not provided. Greenway Engineering Response: All access points are subject to future VDOT approval as per the required Site Plan review process. VDOT Traffic Impact Study Comment #15: Per Chapter 527 regulations, cost estimates for improvements are to be provided. Greenway Engineering Response: Per the scoping agreement, the only improvement assumed in the Traffic Impact Study was the relocation of Red Bud Road /I -81 NB off ramp. VDOT /Frederick County has previously documented the costs associated with this improvement. Memorandum To: Lloyd Ingram Page 5 of 7 VDOT "PROFFER STATEMENT" COMMENTS DATED OCTOBER 6, 2009 VDOT Proffer Statement Comment #1: Under transportation proffers, the applicant refers to his proposed 225' right -of -way dedication as similar to the western portion of the Route 37 Bypass. Upon review of the property in question there is no similarity. The property changes as much as 90' in elevation. Route 37 would be required to build up to 4 flyover bridges, including the interchange, in a little over a half of a mile. The only practical way to design the roadway, without feeling like a rollercoaster, is an elevated roadway. Therefore, a right of-way dedication of 350' to 400' of dedication along the mainline will be required. The diamond interchange right -of- way dedication requirement could be as much as 1,200'. Greenway Engineering Response: See Greenway Engineering response to VDOT Proffer Statement Comment #6. VDOT Proffer Statement Comment #2: The TEA, after its initial review has been found to need additional information combined with recommendations from VDOT's reviewer. "These have been requested from the applicant. The two mitigation items that were visible from the initial review, that are key to traffic movements in the area, are the relocation of the NB I -81 off -ramp to align with the existing NB I -81 on -ramp, combined with providing an access road for local traffic from the Snowden Bridge Boulevard to Redbud Road via the Graystone development. As the applicant has not offered to mitigate his impact of almost 10,000 ADT on Route 11, these may be items that should be considered prior to supporting this rezoning. Greenway Engineering Response: The Owners of the Graystone Office and Industrial Park Property have been working with representatives of Frederick County to establish equitable proffers relating to the transportation implications of the Site. The Applicant has agreed to a land dedication of approximately 27 -acres for Route 37 East, which, based upon and M -1 Zoning, would be worth over $2,7000,000. Additionally, according to the Frederick County Development Impact Model, this project would generate a 20 -year net return of $40,267,000 to the County. The Graystone Corporation Office and Industrial Park would be a fiscally positive development that will ultimately afford the County the funds to address a myriad of transportation improvements in the area. VDOT Proffer Statement Comment #3: Only setting aside right -of -way for a future roadway facility in lieu of any mitigation to offset impacts to existing road systems (i.e., Route 11) is not advised, particularly since the construction of Eastern Route 37 (which will aid to disperse the applicants' generated trips), could very well be a generation away from reality. Greenway Engineering Response: The Proffer Statement describes the dedication of approximately 27 -acres, which, based upon and M -1 Zoning, would be worth over $2,7000,000. Additionally, according to the Frederick County Development Impact Model, this project would generate a 20 -year net return of $40,267,000 to the County. Memorandum To: Lloyd Ingram Page 6 of 7 VDOT Proffer Statement Comment #4: Proffer D -1: In today's economy, additional time will be needed to obtain the funding for the study. We would like to see the proposed five years increased to ten years for both the alignment and preliminary engineering design to identify right of -way needs for the Route 37 Bypass and full diamond interchange. Greenway Engineering Response: Per a previous VDOT comment, the Applicant increased the time period from 3 -years to 5 -years in order to allow for additional time to fund the Corridor Study. Given the current economic conditions, it would be detrimental to the Developer and the County to hinder the marketability of the land area for an additional 5 -year period. VDOT Proffer Statement Comment #5: Proffer D -2: The proposed alignment corridor of only 225' will not contain the proposed Route 37 east. Several key factors seem to have been overlooked when the Developer designated this area: 1. Due to the relative spacing between the Shockey interchange and the I -81 interchange, it has been recommended that C -D lanes be constructed to facilitate properly designed ramps and weave areas. Please see the 3/24/06 review correspondence of the County's CX CXL proposals for additional information. 2. In the 2,300 feet of proposed 37 alignment in the Shockey development there are five (5) grade separations /bridges requiring high fill/additional right -of -way: Route 662 Proposed Snowden Bridge Blvd (to include a full interchange) Proposed secondary between Land Bays A/B and C Hiatt Run tributary crossing Crossing over CSX railroad (if double stacking is a future consideration CSX will requir at least 23' vertical clearance from high rail) Greenway Engineering Response: See Greenway Engineering response to VDOT Proffer Statement Comment #6. VDOT Proffer Statement Comment #6: Given these unique conditions and topography, we recommend dedicating a 400' corridor minimum for the highway, flaring out to 1,200' total at the interchange. A sample typical section for a C -D highway is attached <<37typicall.tif note that it does not account for areas of higher fill necessary for longitudinal grade design, super elevation, etc. Greenway Engineering Response: Greenway Engineering has reviewed the typical section provided by VDOT (37typciall.tif) and has concluded that a 400' corridor design vastly exceeds the needs of the facility and would only serve to place a tremendous burden on the County to allocate funding for construction. This design, for example, would require over 600,000 cubic yards of fill on the Graystone Site. Existing Route 37 West generally includes right -of -way widths of 225' with diamond interchange spreads of approximately 800'. Memorandum To Lloyd Ingram Page 7 of 7 VDOT Proffer Statement Comment #7: Proffer D -3: Remove the references to SPUI interchange as all types of interchange designs will be considered. The appropriate interchange design, based on cost and constructability, will be determined at the design phase. Greenway Engineering Response: The latest Proffer Statement allows for up to 800' of width should a diamond interchange be required. This is consistent with existing diamond interchanges along Route 37 West. VDOT Proffer Statement Comment #8: Proffer D -4: VDOT will not support the use of economic development funds for construction of a roadway that has already been proffered. Greenway Engineering Response: Noted VDOT Proffer Statement Comment #9: Proffer D -5: All intersections will be required to meet all of VDOT's criteria, including sight distance, crossover spacing and access management regulations. VDOT will not allow entrances to be located in such a manner as to jeopardize the future Route 37 Interchange. Site entrance /intersection design and location will be reviewed at the time of site plan submittal prior to location approval. Greenway Engineering Response: Noted VDOT Proffer Statement Comment #10: 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. ADOT 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. Greenway Engineering Response: Noted. From: Rod Williams Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 4:07 PM To: tlawson@lsplc.com Subject: Graystone proffers Ty, Following are my comments on the draft proffers as revised, in particular as revised by the language you delivered to me earlier this week: Proffer D(1) In the third sentence, for clarity, it would appear that "access to the property to the proposed interchange and Snowden Bridge Boulevard" should be "access to the property via the proposed interchange at Snowden Bridge Boulevard Proffer D(2): o The references to "mainline section" of Route 37 appear to exclude any use of the proffered right -of -way for collector /distributor lanes, which exclusion may represent a significant limitation on the value of the proffer. o The condition precedent that an `official decision" on alignment and right -of -way be made by "all governmental authorities" represents a much higher threshold than in the previous version of the proffers and may significantly detract from the change in the study period from five years to eight years. The language contained in the previous version of the proffers "within 90 days from the date of written notice by Frederick County of final engineering design approval" seems more appropriate. o With respect to the reservation in the last sentence, I would suggest the addition of the following words at the end: "provided that such installation does not impede use of the right -of- way Proffer D(3): o The use of the word "direct" in referring to access to the Property could be misinterpreted as requiring direct access between the Property and Route 37, without use of the interchange, and therefore it appears that the word "direct" should be deleted. o In the same sentence, at the end, "access through its intersection with Snowden Bridge Boulevard" might better read as "access through the Property's frontage with Snowden Bridge Boulevard Rod o Again, as with Proffer D(2), the requirement of an "official decision" on alignment and right -of -way being made by "all governmental authorities" is problematic. o Again, as with Proffer D(2), with respect to the reservation in the last sentence, I would suggest the addition of the following words at the end: "provided that such installation does not impede use of the right of- way Proffer D(5) If the westernmost intersection is the one as to which the roundabout/signalization is to take place, the GDP might make specific reference at the notation for that intersection to the roundabout/signalization. Also, the Proffer as currently worded (intersection "could potentially be developed as does not actually state any obligation, if one was intended, to construct a roundabout or install a signal. Finally, the Proffer might better identify specific development levels /events at which time performance of the obligations for each respective intersection accrues. (This comment is a carryover from my previous comments.) Proffer D(13) I have the same comments here as with Proffers D(2) and D(3) regarding an "official decision" by "all governmental authorities" and regarding adding language about not impeding the right -of -way in the installation of utilities, etc. Also, with respect to the buffer issue, I would note for particular consideration by staff the specific proposal. Proffer D(14) As with a prior version of this language, I have some concern about whether a time period should be stated regarding any decision not to construct the indicated road systems. Also, again, the word "mainline" appears to be overly restrictive. Roderick B. Williams County Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia 107 North Kent Street, 3rd Floor Winchester, Virginia 22601 Telephone: (540) 722 -8383 Facsimile: (540) 667 -0370 E- mail: rwillia(c�co.frederick.va.us Mike Ruddy From: Rod Williams Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 11:25 AM To: tlawson @Isplc.com Cc: Mike Ruddy Subject: Graystone tentative draft revised Proffer Statement Ty, Rod This is in response to your letter of November 17 and enclosed tentative draft revised Proffer Statement of the same date. I read your statement regarding the Route 37 issues, but do think it best that I reiterate here my comments on the proffers related to Route 37, so that the comments are part of the record of our correspondence. Having said that, my comments are as follows: Proffer C3 The conditional "if applicable in particular, the second parenthetical "if applicable" in the last sentence, is either unnecessary or may render the sentence ambiguous. The sentence is already conditioned on the construction of a building on or associated with the subject lot/parcel "For each lot or parcel associated with the construction of a building, and therefore, a situation in which the provision of a trail facility would not be "applicable" is not apparent. Proffers D2 D3 The order of the language in the first sentence of Proffer D2 might read more clearly if as follows: "The Applicant hereby proffers to provide for a 225 -foot wide right of -way dedication on the Property for the Route 37 corridor that is consistent with a Route 37 western bypass typical section." Also, with respect to the provision in the last sentence of each Proffer, while it is understood that the Applicant is not undertaking to develop Route 37 on the Property, the Proffers still do not indicate any time by which Route 37 would need to be developed on the Property for the reversion clause not to be triggered. Proffer D5 If the westernmost intersection is the one as to which the roundabout/signalization is to take place, the GDP might make specific reference at the notation for that intersection to the roundabout/signalization. Also, the Proffer as currently worded (intersection "could potentially be developed as does not actually state any obligation, if one was intended, to construct a roundabout or install a signal. Finally, the Proffer might better identify specific development levels /events at which time performance of the obligations for each respective intersection accrues. 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 review will be done by staff and the Planning Commission. Roderick B. Williams County Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia 107 North Kent Street, 3rd Floor Winchester, Virginia 22601 Telephone: (540) 722 -8383 Facsimile: (540) 667 -0370 1 TO: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director of Planning FROM: Roderick B. Williams R9k/ County Attorney DATE: October 16, 2009 MEMORANDUM 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 COUNTY OF FREDERICK Roderick B. Williams County Attorney 540/722 -8383 Fax 540/667 -0370 E -mail: rwi l l i a @co. frederi c k. va. us RE: Graystone Corporation Office and Industrial Park Proffer Statement dated October 9, 2009 I received from you, on October 14, the above referenced proffer statement (the "Proffer Statement for the proposed rezoning of 271.39± acres, Parcel Identification Numbers 43 -A- 158, 44 -A -25 44 -A -26 (collectively, the "Property in the Stonewall Magisterial District, from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the Ml (Light Industrial) District. I have now reviewed the Proffer Statement and 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 Code of Virginia, and would be legally sufficient as a proffer statement. subject to the following comments: 1. Proffer B1 The Proffer attempts to limit the restrictions of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the Property. The Proffer attempts to do so in two ways. First, the Proffer seeks to change the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance regarding the Ordinance's interpretation. Sections 165- 101.06 (formerly 165 -4) and 165- 601.01 (formerly the introductory paragraph of 165 -82) have delegated authority for interpretation of the Ordinance to the Zoning Administrator. The Proffer would change a generally applicable provision of the Ordinance, other than one specific to the particular zoning district, so that a different rule would apply to the Property; hence, the Board would interpret uses for the Property, but the Zoning Administrator would interpret uses for properties in the rest of the County. Second, with the exception of Research and Development Offices (current M1 zoning allows "Engineering, accounting, research, management and related services the designated uses (or at least substantially similar uses) are explicitly permitted only in other Michael T. Ruddy, AIC� October 16, 2009 Page 2 zoning districts certain financial institutions in BI and B2 and certain medical offices in B1, without similar terms being included in what is permitted in M1. The enabling legislation for the County's conditional zoning, Va. Code 15.2 -2298, in fact only uses the term "conditional zoning" in the context of a reference to the alternative provisions of Va. Code 15.2 -2203. Instead, 15.2 -2298 enables eligible localities thereunder to "provide for the voluntary proffering of reasonable conditions in addition to the regulations provided for the zoning district or zone by the ordinance" (emphasis added). This conclusion is consistent with the stated purpose of conditional zoning to allow a zoning reclassification "subject to certain conditions proffered by the zoning applicant for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned See Va. Code 15.2 -2296 (emphasis added); see also Clark v. Town of Middleburg, 26 Va. Cir. 472 (1990) (proffers cannot be construed to provide a variance from or to exceed the allowances of a zoning ordinance). 2. Proffers CI-C3 As with Proffer B 1, these Proffers attempt to allow uses /aspects that are more intensive than the requested zoning classification otherwise allows and the same comments therefore apply. 3. Proffer C4 Because other items in the Proffer Statement request uses and aspects not otherwise permitted in the MI District, this Proffer might better contain a provision clarifying that the ARB is not to be delegated any authority to approve aspects that are not otherwise allowed in the M 1 District, in particular with respect to the size and number of signs. 4. Proffer C6 This Proffer does not define the timing of the obligation, such as completion prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, for the trails within each respective lot(s) serving a structure sought to be occupied. 5. Proffers C7 C8 —I note that, to the extent that 165- 203.02(D)(4) now requires Category C buffers for M1 -zoned property adjacent to RA -zoned property that is primarily in residential use, and RP- and R4 -zoned property, the reference in these Proffers to or. -site buffers only on the northern boundary cannot override any buffer requirements for the other boundaries. 6. Proffers D2 D3 The order of the language in the first sentence of Proffer D2 might read more clearly if as follows: "The Applicant hereby proffers to provide for a 225 foot wide right -of -way dedication on the Property for the Route 37 corridor that is consistent with a Route 37 western bypass typical section." Also, with respect to the provision in the last sentence of each Proffer, while it is understood that the Applicant is not undertaking to develop Route 37 on the Property, the Proffers still do not indicate any time by which Route 37 would need to be developed on the Property for the reversion clause not to be triggered. 2 Michael T. Ruddy, AI, October 16, 2009 Page 3 cc: Ty Lawson, Esq., Counsel for Applicant 3 7. Proffer D4 The last sentence might read more clearly, in the context of the entire Proffer, with "In addition," added to its beginning and the following language added to its end: if such volume condition occurs sooner than the proffer otherwise requires 8. Proffer D5 If the westernmost intersection is the one as to which the roundabout/signalization is to take place, the GDP might make specific reference at the notation for that intersection to the roundabout /signalization. Also, the Proffer as currently worded (intersection "could potentially be developed as does not actually state any obligation, if one was intended, to construct a roundabout or install a signal. Finally, the Proffer might better identify specific development levels /events at which time performance of the obligations for each respective intersection accrues. 9. Proffer D12 The last sentence, while it does contain the condition that it does not bind any future legislative act, is still overbroad in that a proffer cannot bind the County to perform any act, legislative or otherwise. 1 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 review will be done by staff and the Planning Commission. Founded in 1971 GREENWAY ENGINEERING, INC. 151 Windy 11i11 Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 October 9, 2009 Frederick County Planning Department Attn: Mike Ruddy, Deputy Director 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mike: RE: Graystone Corporation Rezoning Application Review Agency Comment Response Letter The purpose of this letter is to provide the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors with a comprehensive response to the various review agency comments received for the Graystone Corporation Rezoning Application. The following information provides a summary of the agency comments and the Applicant's response to address these matters. Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department (September 14, 2009 Comment) Comment: Approval for the rezoning is contingent upon a second means of emergency access to the property once construction has occurred. Access from Milburn Road and Redbud Road is preferred. Response: Section D(6) and Section D(7) of the Proffer Statement prohibit direct commercial access to Milburn Road and Redbud Road; however, provisions for emergency access provisions are provided along these road segments if desired by the County. Frederick County Attorney (September 16, 2009 Comment) Comment #1: Graystone needs to come into compliance with applicable law in West Virginia before proceeding with the requested rezoning. Response: The property owner has obtained a Certificate of Good Standing for Graystone Corporation from the state of West Virginia, which is included as information in the rezoning application package. Project 2760GC Engineers Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists Telephone 540- 662 -4185 FAX 540- 722 -9528 www.greeilwayeng.com Agency Comment Response Lester Comment #2: Proffer A(2) should be clarified to make reference to the proffered GDP. Response: Proffer A(2) has been revised to reflect this comment. Comment #3: The County Attorney is unable to conclude that the County may, by adoption of a conditional rezoning, make use allowances greater than otherwise allowed in the proposed zoning district. A text amendment may be the appropriate mechanism to address the request. Response: The Code of Virginia 15.2 -2201 defines Conditional Zoning as the classifying of land within a locality into areas and districts by legislative action, the allowing of reasonable conditions governing the use of such property, such conditions being in addition to, or modification of the regulations provided for a particular zoning district or zone by the overall zoning ordinance. Additionally, The Code of Virginia 15.2 -2296 states that more flexible and adaptable zoning methods are needed to permit differing land uses and the same time to recognize effects of change. It is the purpose of this section to provide a more flexible and adaptable zoning method to cope with situations found in such zones through conditional zoning, whereby a zoning reclassification may be allowed subject to certain conditions proffered by the zoning applicant for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned. Nothing in these sections prohibits a locality from adopting proffered conditions with allowances greater than otherwise allowed in the proposed zoning district. It should be noted that the Applicant participated in the suggested ordinance amendment process; however, this was ineffective in that desired food manufacturing land uses were not supported by the committee studying this matter. Therefore, the Applicant has modified the rezoning application to seek M1, Light Industrial zoning and has incorporated minor land use and height allowances in the proffer statement to be consistent with land uses and structural heights already provided for in other zoning districts in the County. Comment #4: The proffer does not set out standards for the determination of whether additional uses are "similar to the permitted land uses described in this section therefore, this could potentially result in a highly intensive use of the Property. Response: Section B(2) of the Proffer Statement has been revised to eliminate this language. Comment #5: Similar to Comment #3, uses that are more intensive than the requested zoning classification should not be addressed through conditional zoning, but rather through one or more text amendments. Response: Same comment response as specified in Comment #3 above. Project 2760GC 2 Agency Comment Response Letter Comment #6: This proffer might better contain a provision clarifying that the requirements of the zoning ordinance will apply regardless of actions taken by the proffered ARB. Response: Section C(4) of the proffer statement provides for an ARB to approve exterior design treatments and monument signs within the project. The Zoning Ordinance does not regulate design, nor should it; therefore, this section is appropriate as written. Comment #7: The proffer does not define the size of outdoor green/plaza areas or the timing of the obligation. Response: It is envisioned that individual sites will define the size and type (green area or plaza area) of outdoor spaces for their employees or visitors to the specific site. The M1, Light Industrial District requires a minimum of 25% of the specific site to be in green area; therefore, there will be adequate room to determine these areas and types of areas based on the needs and desires of the individual land uses. Comment #8: The proffer does not define the timing for the obligation of the internal trail system. Response: It is envisioned that internal trail systems will be developed as site plans are developed. It is difficult to determine the location of trails at this time as land areas needed for sites are not known and users are not known. A site that is developed by a secure or semi secure land use will not allow for trail connectivity to outsiders and manufacturing users will not want trail connectivity in certain portions of their site; therefore, this standard is best suited at the individual site plan design stage. Comment #9: Category C Buffers are required adjacent to RA -zoned property that is primarily in residential use. The proffers cannot override such requirements. Response: The proposed buffer along the northern property line adjacent to McCann's Road is not required as the rural area land adjacent to it is not residential. However, Section C(7) of the proffer statement has been revised to increase the buffer distance from 50 feet to 100 feet to be consistent with the Category C Buffer that will be required along other portions of the project site. Comment #10: The proffer does not indicate any time by which Route 37 would need to be developed on the Property. Response: Section D(6) of the proffer statement identifies that Route 37 is to be developed by others; therefore, the timing for this improvement is not needed in the proffer statement as this will not be a requirement of the Applicant. Comment #11: In Section D(4), replace the word developed with the word constructed. Response: Section D(4) of the proffer statement has been revised to reflect this comment. Project 2760GC 3 Agency Comment Response Letter Comment #12: The GDP erroneously refers to Section C(5) instead of Section D(5) and does not provide a time frame for performance of the obligation. Response: The GDP has been revised to refer to Section D(5) of the proffer statement for the western-most full commercial intersection. The timing of this improvement will occur when land use development occurs in the northern or southern M1 District land bay that will utilize the full commercial intersection for access to Snowden Bridge Boulevard. Comment #I3: In Section E(1) the proffer should state if the funds are limited to fire and rescue purposes. Response: Section E(1) of the proffer statement has been revised to reflect this comment. Frederick County Building Official (September 17, 2009 Comment) Comment: No comments are required for the rezoning; however, comments will be required during the site plan process. Response: All site plans will be submitted to the Department of Inspections for review and approval. Winchester Regional Airport (September 18, 2009 Comment) Comment: The Winchester Regional Airport requests that the property owner is advised that if structures penetrate into airport airspace that the owner will be required to install FAA approved obstruction lights to address safety concerns. Response: The owner has been advised of the Winchester Regional Airport comment and is aware of the potential obstruction lighting requirement. The owner's property is located within the 5 -mile radius of the airport runway; therefore, site plans will be required to be submitted for review and approval by the airport prior to the issuance of building permits. Based on site topography conditions, it appears that 90 -foot structures situated on the highest locations of the project site would still be 75 feet below the airport airspace in this area of the County. Frederick County Sanitation Authority (September 22, 2009 Comment) Comment: FCSA has reviewed the sewer and water systems and has determined that there should be adequate capacities for transmission and treatment, as well as sufficient pressures and supply. Project 2760GC 4 Agency Comment Response Letter Response: Agreed. Frederick County Transportation Planner (September 25, 2009 Comment) Comment #1: Staff believes that the identified Route 37 Corridor should be fully dedicated. Staff believes that the proffered dedication area that is similar to Route 37 West is not a good approach since VDOT and County study of this area has determined that this will need CD lanes. Staff believes that the study term should be extended and additional right -of -way dedicated. Dedication should be within 90 days as opposed to six months. Response: The Applicants have proffered to dedicate a 225 -foot wide mainline corridor and an interchange area that would allow for a diamond interchange that is 800 feet between ramps. This right -of -way width is consistent with the corridor width that was required to construct Route 37 West. The right -of -way dedication described totals approximately 27.39 acres, which represents 10% of the total land area in this project. The Applicants believe that this is a significant and appropriate proffer for Route 37. The proffer has been revised to provide for the right -of -way dedication within 90 days of written request from the County. Comment #2: Staff would like to see the proffer provide on option for a diamond interchange as well as the SPUI. Dedication of the interchange area should be within 90 days as opposed to six months. Response: Section D(3) of the proffer statement has been revised to provide an option for right -of -way dedication for an 800 -foot diamond interchange, and maintains the option for a single point urban interchange (SPUI). This section has also been revised to provide for the right -of -way dedication within 90 days of written request by the County. Comment #3n: The portion of Snowden Bridge Boulevard through the project site has also been proffered by the Snowden Bridge Subdivision. The 8,000 vehicle per day trip trigger to four -lane Snowden Bridge Boulevard should be worded so it includes the TIA trip generation count at site plan and takes into account any actual trips that may have developed should the Snowden Bridge Subdivision tie in sooner that expected. Response: Section D(4) of the proffer statement has been revised to require the four -lane construction of Snowden Bridge Boulevard when the total trip volume exceeds 8,000 VPD on the property. This accounts for the potential tie in to the Snowden Bridge Subdivision. Comment #3b: Staff cannot recommend that the Board of Supervisors obligate themselves or a future Board in accepting a proffer that requires them to endorse an economic development access or rail access funding application. Project 27600C 5 Agency Comment Response Letter Response: This language was eliminated from the previous proffer statement and new language has been incorporated in Section D(12) of the proffer statement, which identifies the Applicants' desire to apply for various funding sources that will assist in the economic development potential for the benefit of the property owner and the County. This new language shows intent; however, it clearly states that this is not binding any future legislative act by the County. Comment #4: Proposing 4 intersections is inappropriate in the vicinity of the planned interchange. Staff would prefer to see one major intersection with the rest of the property being accessed via internal road systems. Discussion has occurred regarding serving the northeast portion of the property under Route 37, which would need to be bridged upon the construction of Route 37. The current proposal would not meet VDOT spacing standards from the future interchange, which would hinder the operation of the future Route 37 interchange. Response: Section D(5) of the proffer statement reduces the number of full commercial intersections on the property from four to three. Section D(6) of the proffer statement agrees to the elimination of the eastern-most full commercial intersection if necessary when Route 37 is developed and allows for the relocation of street access to the northern land plan at a new full commercial intersection on Snowden Bridge Boulevard that will be located east of Milburn Road. Comment #5: Staff is supportive of the proffer to limit access to Redbud Road and Milburn Road to emergency access only, and would recommend extending this designation to McCann's Road as well. The applicant may also want to consider significantly buffering these corridors in order to preserve their historic integrity; however, this should be carefully worded to not conflict with the County desire to establish a public roadway connection between Snowden Bridge Boulevard and Redbud Road. Response: Section D(9) of the proffer statement prohibits commercial access and emergency access along McCann's Road to preserve the integrity of the proffered buffer area along the northern property line. Comment #6: A public street connection should be implemented between Redbud Road and Snowden Bridge Boulevard. The lack of such a connection in this area has caused the County to be unable to move on the relocation of the I -81 northbound off -ramp to the current Redbud Road location. Response: The MBC, L.C. parcel has been eliminated from the rezoning application; therefore, the remaining frontage is not conducive to access due to poor site distance. The County has an opportunity to work with the Omps property to the northwest of this site to relocate Redbud Road. Comment #7: The proffered trail system should be constructed to the standard 10 -foot width and open to the public via a public access easement. This trail system should offer Project 27600C 6 Agency Comment Response Letter connections between Snowden Bridge Boulevard and Redbud Road and should be continued along the full frontage of Snowden Bridge and Redbud Road. Finally, the applicant should consider extending the trail across the railroad tracks to meet Route 11, which would provide a continuous trail system between Snowden Bridge and Rutherford Crossing. Response: The proffered internal trail system has been widened to eight feet, which meets ADA requirements per discussions with VDOT. It is envisioned that internal trail systems will be developed as site plans are developed. It is difficult to determine the location of trails at this time as land areas needed for sites are not known and users are not known. A site that is developed by a secure or semi secure land use will not allow for trail connectivity to outsiders and manufacturing users will not want trail connectivity in certain portions of their site; therefore, this standard is best suited at the individual site plan design stage. The approved public improvement plan for Snowden Bridge between Route 11 and crossing the CSX railroad into the project site does not include a trail system; however, it does provide for six -foot wide sidewalks along both sides of the road including the crossing of the CSX railroad. Therefore, pedestrian access from the property to Rutherford Crossing can occur. Comment #8: Staff is concerned that no consideration has been given to offsetting impacts to Route 11. Items for consideration include funds towards an additional southbound travel lane on Route 11, funds towards the relocation of the 1 -81 northbound off -ramp to Redbud Road, or right -of -way across the Snowden Bridge property for Route 37. Response: The Applicants' proffer statement provides right -of -way dedication that is valued at more than $2.7M based on an M1 District land value of $100,000 per acre. This is a significant cost savings to facilitate the construction of Route 37. Once Route 37 is developed, a significant amount of traffic will access this system, which will further reduce impacts to Route 11 from this project site. The Applicants have been advised that funding for the relocation of the 1 -81 northbound off -ramp has been taken from the County and is being used elsewhere in the state; therefore, participation in funding for this improvement is not appropriate as there are no other financial commitments for this project. This rezoning application does not discuss future Route 37 right -of -way matters associated with the Snowden Bridge property, nor do the Applicants intend to do so. Virginia Department of Transportation (September 25, 2009 Comment) Comment #I: The Applicant should provide a minimum 350 -foot right -of -way dedication for Route 37. VDOT would like to see the five -year condition for completion of the engineering design extended to 10 years. It should be the responsibility of the Applicant to coordinate with Frederick County and VDOT to determine final roadway and interchange locations. Project 2760GC 7 Agency Comment Response Letter Response: The Applicants have proffered to dedicate a 225 -foot wide mainline corridor and an interchange area that would allow for a diamond interchange that is 800 feet between ramps. This right -of -way width is consistent with the corridor width that was required to construct Route 37 West. The right -of -way dedication described totals approximately 27.39 acres, which represents 10% of the total land area in this project. The Applicants believe that this is a significant and appropriate proffer for Route 37. The proffer has been revised to provide for the right -of -way dedication within 90 days of written request from the County. Section D(2) of the proffer statement has a provision that allows the Applicant to extend the time line for VDOT to complete final engineering design, which will more than likely be the case unless there is a need to develop land bays within the area of the corridor. Comment #2: The 225 -foot right -of -way dedication is not sufficient to construct the roadway in that type of terrain. All right -of -way required should be dedicated to Frederick County without compensation. Response: The property does not contain any area that is defined as steep slope; nor is the terrain mountainous. Comment #3: Remove all references to SPDI as no determination has been made to the type of interchange. VDOT believes that the Applicant should proffer the necessary right -of -way for a full diamond interchange. Response: Section D(3) of the proffer statement has been revised to provide an option for right -of -way dedication for an 800 -foot diamond interchange, and maintains the option for a single point urban interchange (SPUI). Comment #4: The roadway construction has already been proffered by the Snowden Bridge project; therefore, taxpayer money (economic access funds) should not be used for construction. The four -lane construction of Snowden Bridge Boulevard should be based on 8,000 cumulative vehicle trips and not solely by trips from site plans within the project. Response: The County should support any funding mechanism that will expedite economic development activity to generate much needed revenue for the community. The tax —payer money is available throughout the state; therefore, it should be utilized in our community if possible before another community takes advantage of these funds. The proffer for Snowden Bridge to construct this section of road to Route 11 is very far in the future and will most likely not occur in the next 10 years due to the projected housing market development in this region. Section D(4) of the proffer statement has been revised to require the four -lane construction of Snowden Bridge Boulevard when the total trip volume exceeds 8,000 VPD on the property. This accounts for the potential tie in to the Snowden Bridge Subdivision. Project 2760GC 8 Agency Comment Response Letter Comment #5: While limiting entrances to four commercial intersections is acceptable, it must be remembered that all entrances and intersections will need to meet VDOT and County requirements for sight distance, spacing, access management and interchange restrictions at the time of development. Response: The Applicants understand this requirement. Note: VDOT submitted additional comments dated October 2, 2009 and October 6, 2009. These comments, as well as responses to these comments have been provided in the attached memorandum from Greenway Engineering to VDOT dated October 7, 2009. Frederick Winchester Service Authority (September 30, 2009 Comment) Comment: No comments. Response: Greenway Engineering met with the FWSA Director to discuss the projected development and treatment demand needs associated with the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility. It was determined that the expansion of this facility could easily accommodate this development proposal. Frederick County Planning Department (October 2, 2009 Comment) General Section Comment #I: Please provide a plat of rezoning. Response: A Rezoning Exhibit Plat has been included with the rezoning application. General Section Comment #2: Please submit all required application materials. Response: All required application materials have been provided except for the Special Limited Power of Attomey document. The Applicant's believe that their signature on the rezoning application and on the proffer statement are sufficient. General Section Comment #3.: Please submit the appropriate rezoning application fee. Response: The appropriate rezoning application fee has been provided. Land Use Comment #I: The Northeast Land Use Plan recommends Planned Unit Development with large areas of DSA. Response: Agreed. Land Use Comment #2: The Planned Unit Development concept seeks to balance residential, employment and service uses. It should be evaluated how this proposal is consistent with the PUD concept when applied to the broader area. Project 2760GC 9 Agency Comment Response Letter Response.: Agreed. Response: Agreed. Response: This project provides for employment area opportunities that are consistent with the PUD concept when applied to the broader area. Land Use Comment #3: The Comprehensive Plan Committee has discussed this general location for office and manufacturing land use; however, this has not been adopted and is not a consideration when evaluating this request. Response: Agreed. Previous versions of the Northeast Land Use Plan called for industrial and office development in this area; however, those recommendations were not followed by the County at that time. Land Use Comment #4: The office and manufacturing land uses should be located in a campus like atmosphere near major transportation facilities. This land use designation is aimed at promoting the County's economic development goals. Land Use Comment #5: The Northeast Land Use Plan has been designed to provide for a balance of land uses, which includes industrial and commercial growth along the major road and railroad corridors. PUD land use, and the preservation of rural areas and historic features. Future land uses within the study area should be sensitive to existing and planned land uses. Transportation Comment #I: The TIA has been based on a development scenario that is not proffered. There is no limitation on development and the Applicant has requested an increased FAR that could potentially double the development of the project. Response: Frederick County has adopted standards that are more stringent that the VDOT 527 regulations for traffic studies in conjunction with all levels of development activity. Therefore, traffic studies can be required should development of the project site exceed 2,390,000 square feet of development. Transportation Comment #2: Due consideration should be given to the constructability of the site to avoid potential impacts on the surrounding transportation network. Response: Snowden Bridge Boulevard is anticipated to be the only public street serving the project; therefore, it is not anticipated that the surrounding transportation network will be impacted due to the constructability of the site. Transportation Comment #3: Trail improvements are recommended during the initial phase of development rather than on an individual parcel basis. Project 2760GC 10 Agency Comment Response Letter Response: The proffered internal trail system has been widened to eight feet, which meets ADA requirements per discussions with VDOT. It is envisioned that internal trail systems will be developed as site plans are developed. It is difficult to determine the location of trails at this time as land areas needed for sites are not known and users are not known. A site that is developed by a secure or semi- secure land use will not allow for trail connectivity to outsiders and manufacturing users will not want trail connectivity in certain portions of their site; therefore, this standard is best suited at the individual site plan design stage. Transportation Comment #4: It is suggested that individual commercial entrances should be prohibited on McCann's Road. Response: Section D(9) of the proffer statement prohibits commercial access and emergency access along McCann's Road to preserve the integrity of the proffered buffer area along the northern property line. Proffer Statement Comment #l: Section B and Section C contain language that is problematic in form and principal by proposing land uses and standards that expand upon those currently permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Please remove these sections from the proffer. Response: The Code of Virginia 15.2 -2201 defines Conditional Zoning as the classifying of land within a locality into areas and districts by legislative action, the allowing of reasonable conditions governing the use of such property, such conditions being in addition to, or modification of the regulations provided for a particular zoning district or zone by the overall zoning ordinance. Additionally, The Code of Virginia 15.2 -2296 states that more flexible and adaptable zoning methods are needed to permit differing land uses and the same time to recognize effects of change. It is the purpose of this section to provide a more flexible and adaptable zoning method to cope with situations found in such zones through conditional zoning, whereby a zoning reclassification may be allowed subject to certain conditions proffered by the zoning applicant for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned. Nothing in these sections prohibits a locality from adopting proffered conditions with allowances greater than otherwise allowed in the proposed zoning district. It should be noted that the Applicant participated in the suggested ordinance amendment process; however, this was ineffective in that desired food manufacturing land uses were not supported by the committee studying this matter. Therefore, the Applicant has modified the rezoning application to seek M1, Light Industrial zoning and has incorporated minor land use and height allowances in the proffer statement to be consistent with land uses and structural heights already provided for in other zoning districts in the County. Project 2760GC 11 Agency Comment Response Letter Proffer Statement Comment #2: There is no limitation on development and the Applicant has requested an increased FAR that could potentially double the development of the project. Response: Frederick County has adopted standards that are more stringent that the VDOT 527 regulations for traffic studies in conjunction with all levels of development activity. Therefore, traffic studies can be required should development of the project site exceed 2,390,000 square feet of development. Proffer Statement Comment #3: It would be preferable to further define the amount of, and timing of, the development of outdoor green areas and plaza areas. Response: It is envisioned that individual sites will define the size and type (green area or plaza area) of outdoor spaces for their employees or visitors to the specific site. The Ml, Light Industrial District requires a minimum of 25% of the specific site to be in green area; therefore, there will be adequate room to determine these areas and types of areas based on the needs and desires of the individual land uses. Proffer Statement Comment #4: It is suggested that the designation of adjoining properties in permanent protective easements be eliminated from the GDP. Response: The Applicants feel that this information is important to define buffer areas and provide a reference for activities that have occurred in this area of the County. Proffer Statement Comment #5: The location of the internal trail system should be addressed further to ensure it provides connectivity with adjacent land uses and historic elements, and at a minimum to the previously proffered trail system within Snowden Bridge. Response: The proffered internal trail system has been widened to eight feet, which meets ADA requirements per discussions with VDOT. It is envisioned that internal trail systems will be developed as site plans are developed. It is difficult to determine the location of trails at this time as land areas needed for sites are not known and users are not known. A site that is developed by a secure or semi secure land use will not allow for trail connectivity to outsiders and manufacturing users will not want trail connectivity in certain portions of their site; therefore, this standard is best suited at the individual site plan design stage. The Hiatt Run trail system in Snowden Bridge does not adjoin this project. Proffer Statement Comment #6: The proffered buffering and landscaping should exceed the minimum expectation of the Zoning Ordinance. The adjacent project provided a more significant buffer utilizing a minimum 100 -foot standard. Response: Section C(7) of the proffer statement has been revised to establish a 100 -foot buffer along the northern property line. A 1 00-foot minimum buffer will be required Project 2760GC 12 Agency Comment Response Letter along Milburn Road and Redbud Road along the Snowden Bridge Subdivision and along rural properties that are residential. Proffer Statement Comment #7: The language associated with the monetary contribution for fire and rescue should read "monetary contribution to Frederick County for fire and rescue purposes Response: Section E(1) of the proffer statement has been revised to reflect this comment. Proffer Statement Comment #8: It would appear necessary for the proffer statement to provide some guidance as to the phases of site development and constructability of the site to ensure that potential impacts to adjacent properties are avoided. Response: The only element that can be phased is the construction of Snowden Bridge Boulevard between Route 11 and the project site. It would not be prudent to guess at land bay phases as industrial or office prospects could desire to locate on any portion of the property depending on their needs. Other Comment Green Infrastructure: Green infrastructure elements and features including wetlands, karst topography, and DSA should be incorporated into the project to a greater extent than is currently provided. Response: The Impact Analysis Statement commits to narratives on the Master Development Plan that require geotechnical analysis during the site plan process to determine the location of potential sink holes, solution channels and other karst features. Geotechnical reports will be provided to the County Engineer as a condition of land disturbance for identified areas of concern during the site plan process. Other Comment Historic Resources: It is recommended that additional commitments are evaluated and made to adequately address the impacts on historic and natural resources. As part of this effort, it is suggested that buffers adjacent to battlefields and historic road corridors should be developed in conjunction with stakeholders and the Virginia Department of Forestry. Response: The Applicants intend to provide for buffer and screening consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, which will establish a significant amount of landscaping on the project site. Other Comment Construction and Site Development: The Applicant should be proactive in ensuring that any potential impacts to adjacent properties and historic resources are mitigated or avoided. Response: Agreed. Project 2760GC 13 Agency Comment Response Letter Frederick County Public Works (October 5, 2009 Comment) Comment #1: Expand the discussion to include a reference to the power line which crosses the southern end of the property. Response: The Impact Analysis Statement has been revised to discuss the power lines that exist on the project site. This information is included in the Suitability of the Site Section under the Existing Conditions description. Comment #2: Include reference locations of all existing springs within the proposed development. Response: The Impact Analysis Statement has been revised to include a reference to the presence of springs on the project site. This information is included in the Suitability of the Site Section under the Wetlands description. Comment #3: Expand the discussion of soil types to reference the existence of limestone geology and limestone formations throughout the majority of the site. We recommend that detailed geological mapping be performed and included with the master development plan. Response: The Impact Analysis Statement has been revised to discuss the limestone geology and limestone formations throughout the majority of the site. This information is included in the Suitability of the Site Section under the Soil Types description. The Impact Analysis Statement commits to narratives on the Master Development Plan that require geotechnical analysis during the site plan process to determine the location of potential sink holes, solution channels and other karst features. Geotechnical reports will be provided to the County Engineer as a condition of land disturbance for identified areas of concern during the site plan process. Please include this comment response letter as information in the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors agenda packets to ensure that the Applicant's desires are communicated. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the information in this letter. Sincerely, Evan Wyatt, AICP Greenway Enginee 'ing Cc: Don Shockey John Good Ty Lawson Project 2760GC 14 Agency Comment Response Letter VIRGINIA Control number RZ09 0003 Project Name Graystone Corporation Office Industrial Park Address Wilburn Road Redbud Road Type Application Rezoning Current Zoning RA Automatic Sprinkler System No Other recommendation Emergency Vehicle Access Inadequate Siamese Location Not Identified Emergency Vehicle Access Comments Access Comments Additional Comments Plan Approval Recommended Yes Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department Office of the Fire Marshal Plan Review and Comments Date received Date reviewed 9/14/2009 9/18/2009 Tax ID Number 43 -A -158 City Winchester Recommendations Automatic Fire Alarm System Residential Sprinkler System No No Requirements Hydrant Location Not Identified Roadway /Aisleway Width Not Identified Reviewed By J. Neal Applicant Greenway Engineering Fire District 13 State VA Signature Title Zip 22602 Rescue District 13 Fire Lane Required No Special Hazards No Date Revised Applicant Phone 540- 662 -4185 Election District Stonewall Approval for rezoning is contingent upon a second means of emergency access to the property once construction has begun. Access from Wilburn Road and Redbud Road is preferred. Department of Inspection's Comments: /1 (oni r -eq, r vi e el 1 q �J� q e C3 .7 me c5 /a J( Ccw1 44'0 a 417 .S J e Pia i a i!i<v iA/. iii Of If Public Works Signature Date: En .s.« /7 Notice to Department i nspections Please Ret his Form to the Applicant Rezoning Comments Mail to: Frederick County Dept. of Inspections Attn: Director of Inspections 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia, 22601 (540) 665 -5656 Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 w in Frederick County Department of Inspections Current zoning: RA District Zoning requested: OM District Hand deliver to: Frederick County Dept. of Inspections Attn: Director of Inspections County Administration Bldg., e Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia e inforuiation$as acc ent of Inspections w ith ttierr,review` r 3c r t.IN l k dtw9 Kd m n oli tlocahon map, proffer statementOmpact an Telephone: 540-662-4185 Location of property: North side of Redbud Road (Route 661); West side of CSX Railroad; East side of Milburn Road (Route 662); and South side of McCanns Road (Route 838). Acreage: 292.87+ RECEIVED SEP 1 4 2009 FREDERICUOUNN NEW WOBHBtarratie Mr Evan Wyatt Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester. Virginia 22602 RE. Graystone Corpofatiori Office and Industrial Park Rezoning Frederick County Virginia Dear Evan: October 5 2009 COUNTY of FREDERICK' DepartmepioflPublic Works 540/665 =5643 FAX.•540 4678 =0682 We have completed our review of the rezoning application for the proposed Graystone Corporation office and Industrial Park and,offer the following comments: I Refer to Existing Conditions:tinder Site Suitability EYpand.the to include a reference to the power line which crosses the southern endofthe property 2. Refer to Wetlands under'Site•Suitability Include reference locations of all the existing springs within the proposed development. 3 Refer to Soil Types under Site;Suitability The,description of the.soil types should be expanded to include a more thorough description of the site geology The'statement referencing 'minor areas of limestone geology exist'on,the subjectcroperties' is not correct. In fact. a majofity.of the Site-is underlain by :limestone formations. Developed sinkhbles.also,are present withimthe site. Imaddition, a major thrust fault diagonally bisects' the site. It appeals that the existing'SpringS afe.located in close proximity to this fault. We recommend.that detailed geological rapping lie.performed and included with the master development plan. The mapping should include, brit not be lihlited to, 107 North Kent Street Winchester,'Virgidia 22601 5000 Graystone Corporan.Offiee and Industrial'- Park.Rezonintil Pager2' October 5;.2009 HES /rls approximate locations of limetone;and'shale formations faults, sinkholes, springsand other pertinent karst:features. I can be reached at 722- 8214•if you have any.questionsrregarding the above comments. Cc: Planning and Development file Sincerely Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr P.E. Directorof Public Works T \Rhonda \TEAMPCOAMA1 ENTS\ GRAYSTONECORPOFFICE &INDUSTRIALPARKREZCOAI.do 4„„ Sanitation Authority Comments: A review of our sewer and water systems indicate there should be (1) sufficient transportation capacity in the sewer lines and treatment capacity at the receiving sewer facilit.v. and (2) sufficient water line pressure and water supply to serve the parcels for the type of rezoning requested. Sanatation Authority Signature Date: i�� y Notice to Sanitation Autho 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 Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Current zoning: RA District Zoning requested: OM District Hand deliver to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer 315 Tasker Road Stephens City, Virginia tApplr 4 +El fiThout th n Lion SanitationuAuthonty with their review aA taar i i" tilt t p roffer?statementompact ianalysts� a accurately as possible rn order to,assiss ax orngMdga$on copy of yo app any, other perttnent,tnfortnatton Telephone: 540 -662 -4185 Acreage: 292.87* Location of property: North side of Redbud Road (Route 661); West side of CSX Railroad East side of Milburn Road (Route 662): and South side of McCanns Road (Route 838). Fax from b'sn ft& SAW Rezoning Comments Frederick —Winchester Service Authority Current zoning: RA District Fred-Winc Service Authority's Comments: nM CcnMwtWAYD Hand deliver to: Fred -Wine Service Authority Attn: Jesse W. Moffett 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Mail to: Fred -Wine Service Authority Attn: Jesse W. Moffett, Executive Director P.O. Box 43 Winchester, Virginia 22604 (540) 722 -3579 Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Frederick Winchester Service Authority with their review. Attach a copy of your application location map, proffer statement,! and any other pertinent information_ form, Applicant's Name: Gr Enginee Telephone: 540-662-4185 Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: North side of Redbud Road Route 661: West side of CSJ+ Railroad East side of Milburn Road (Route 662) and South side of McCanns Road (Route 838 Zoning requested: OM District Acreage: 292.87± Fred- Wine Service Authority's Signature Date: Notice to Fred -Wine Service Authority Please Return This Form to the Applicant September 18, 2009 Evan Wyatt Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 Sincerely, S, Serena R. Manuel Executive Director WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT 491 AIRPORT ROAD WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 (540) 662 -2422 Re: Rezoning Comment RA to OM District Graystone Corporation MSC, L.C. (292.87+ acres) Stonewall Magisterial District Dear Mr. Wyatt: We have completed a review of the proposed Rezoning application and offer the following comments. Based on estimated calculations using existing ground elevations in that area, we do not believe that this rezoning will impact operations of the Winchester Regional Airport however, because of the location there is some concern with section C items 2, 3 and 4 of the proffer statement regarding the heights of proposed structures. Without knowing the FF elevation we can not determine at this time the maximum height allowed to avoid a penetration into the airport's airspace. That determination would be made upon review of the site plan(s) when submitted. We would request that the owner be advised that upon review of actual site plan(s), should one or more of the structures penetrate into the airport's airspace we would request the owner to install FAA approved obstruction lights which would address any safety concerns. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate contacting me. Thank you for your continued cooperation and consideration in ensuring safe and continued operations of the Winchester Regional Airport. ✓TO: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director of Planning FROM: Roderick B. Williams Bt� County Attorney DATE: September 16, 2009 MEMORANDUM RE: Graystone Corporation Office and Industrial Park 1 received on September 14 from Ty Lawson and from Evan Wyatt copies of a proposed proffer statement dated August 24, 2008 (the "Proffer Statement for the proposed rezoning of 292.871 acres, Parcel Identification Numbers 43 -A -158, 44 -A -25, 44 -A -26 44 -A -27 (collectively, the "Property in the Stonewall Magisterial District, from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the OM (Office- Manufacturing Park) District. I have now reviewed the Proffer Statement and 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 Code of Virginia, and would be legally sufficient as a proffer statement, subject to the comments that follow and subject to the point that my review of the Proffer Statement was cursory, based upon the requested expedited turnaround time. As such, I may have additional comments as this matter continues through the review process. My comments are: 1. Graystone Corporation was organized as a West Virginia corporation, but my review of West Virginia corporate records indicates that its registration there has lapsed. Graystone needs to come into compliance with applicable law in West Virginia before proceeding with the requested rezoning. 2. Proffer A(2) In the last line, "areas described in Section Al of this proffer statement" would more clearly read if it referred to the GDP. Therefore, "indicated on the GDP" might serve as a substitute for the quoted language. 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 COUNTY OF FREDERICK Roderick 13. Williams County Attorney 540/722 -8383 Fax 540/667 -0370 E -mail: rwillia@co.frederick.va.us 3. Proffer B(1) One purpose of conditional zoning is to allow a zoning reclassification "subject to certain conditions proffered by the zoning applicant for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned Va. Code 15.2 -2296 (emphasis added). As such, I am unable to conclude that the County may, by adoption of a conditional rezoning, make use allowances greater than otherwise allowed in the subject zoning district. A text amendment may be the appropriate mechanism to address the request. Also,1 note that the last item listed in this section "Assembly Operations is extremely broad and may encompass highly intensive uses. 4. Proffer B(2) This proffer does not set out standards for the determination of whether additional uses are "similar to the permitted land uses described in this section a determination that could potentially result in a highly intensive use of the Property. 5. Proffers C(1) -C(4)— As with Proffer BI, uses that are more intensive than the requested zoning classification should not be addressed through conditional zoning, but rather through one or more text amendments. 6. Proffer C(5) This proffer might better contain a provision clarifying that the requirements of the zoning ordinance will apply, regardless of particular action taken by the provided -for ARB. 7. Proffer C(6) This proffer does not define the size of the outdoor green/plaza areas or the timing of the obligation. 8. Proffer C(7) This proffer does not define the timing of the obligation. 9. Proffers C(8) C(9) —1 note that, to the extent that 165- 203.02(D)(4) now requires Category C buffers for OM -zoned property adjacent to RA -zoned property that is primarily in residential use, these proffers cannot override such requirements. 10. Proffer D(2) This proffer refers to the Route 37 western bypass, but I believe it should refer to the Route 37 eastern bypass. Also, with respect to the provision in the last sentence, the proffer does not indicate any time by which Route 37 would need to be developed on the Property. 11. Proffer D(4) In line 9, "developed" would be better stated as "constructed 12. Proffer D(5) The GDP erroneously refers to this proffer as proffer C(5). Also, this proffer does not indicate a time frame for performance of the obligation. 13. Proffer E(1) This proffer should state in its main text whether use of the funds is limited to fire and rescue purposes. 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 review will be done by staff and the Planning Commission. cc: Ty Lawson, Esq., Counsel for prospective applicants 2