Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I see it's 5 o'clock, so we will get going with the work session for the Gibson Property Resuming Request. This is a work session for the Planning Commission. I appreciate everybody coming out. This is an opportunity for Planning Commissioners to have dialogue with the applicant, and we do appreciate you folks being here this evening as well. We have a series of topics that we want to discuss with the applicant to learn more about what their intent is and where they're where they're thinking their direction is going to be with this project so that we can learn more. This will culminate at a later time with a public hearing. And our goal is to get that on the docket as soon as we can based on what we learned tonight. So without further ado, our staff, Mr. Tyler Klein is our planner who's leading the charge on this for us. I'd also like to introduce, we have Mr. Joe Johnson with us from VDOT here this evening. And in the back of the room hiding is Bob Liera, who's our supervisor for this district, who's going to take note of everything I say. And Who knows? He might use that against me later. So we'll get going, Mr. Klein. The floor is yours.

Yes, good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. This is your work session briefing on rezoning 08-26 for the assemblage of properties known as the Gibson property. This is a request to rezone 244 acres from the RA Rural Area Zoning District to our M1 Light Industrial Zoning District. The properties are located at 1787 Fairfax Pike and White Post in the Shawnee Magisterial District and there are no previous rezoning approvals on this property. Directing your attention to the screen, this is our county-wide locator map showing the approximate location of the properties, which are located in Southeast Frederick County, actually right on the Magisterial District line between the Shawnee District and the Opecan District. This is your location and zoning map showing that assemblage of two tracks outlined in purple. They are immediately north of Route 277 or Fairfax Pike and west of Route 522 Front Royal Pike. they do adjoin significant areas of existing residential development you have the lake frederick community immediately to the south along with sandy's mobile home park which you may be familiar with and then just above the legend on your screen is the madison 277 or madison farms property you all will all be familiar with that property as it was rezoned earlier this year to r4 and it is planned as a neighborhood village with a mix of commercial office and residential And I would also point out that the property is partially adjoined Clark County as well. This is our adopted long range land use plan. This is an area of the county that's planned in the southern Frederick area plan. It's known as the triangles of economy. It's been a planned industrial and mixed industrial area for the better part of 20 years. That's the blue and the kind of blue and red striping there on the subject properties. And you can see to the south of 277 is an area known as the Lake Frederick UDA, which is a neighborhood village planned area that was added or updated in our southern Frederick area plan in 2023. This is the generalized development plan that was included with the application. It shows the approximate location of the land bays, the potential buffers, and the points of access. Staff would note that the applicant is seeking four points of access, one point of access from Route 522, two points of access on 277 for the land bay to the east, and one entrance on the land bay to the west. As this is a work session, we'll jump right into the proffers. As we know, this will be what you all would like to discuss with staff and the applicant this evening. Proffer one pertains to site development. It specifies conformance with the generalized development plan included with the application, including the green space buffers that are shown. It provides a list of primary building materials specified. It requests that they be permitted to install overhead power lines on the property, and it proffers to provide a historic signage commemorating the Battle of Double Tollgate, which was noted in the HRAB comments as a significant historical point of interest for these properties. Proffer 2 is pertaining to transportation. It specifies conformance with the generalized development plans, including those proposed site entrances that I mentioned when discussing the GDP. They have proffered to provide a right-of-way reservation for the future condition of Fairfax Pike. Route 277 is a four-lane highway. They are proffering to make sidewalk and trail improvements along Route 277 and Route 522 frontages. They are proffering to provide left and right turn lanes at the site entrances. They are proffering to construct all internal streets to a public street standard. And they are proffering to provide turn lanes at the 277-522 intersection after 1.5 million square feet of building is occupied on the site. And they've proffered to provide or to conduct a signal justification report, which would be triggered after 2 million square feet of buildings are occupied. Proffer 3 pertains to site proffer payments. They are proffering 10 cents per square foot for fire and rescue services. Proffer 4 speaks to limited uses. They are prohibiting the development of a regional criminal justice facility, enforcement and detention facilities, and they're prohibiting freestanding restaurants or freestanding restaurants that may include a drive-thru or fast food service. Proffer 5 is the exclusion of public property from the proffers. Proffer 6 pertains to serverability. Proffer 7 is a binding effect, noting that the proffers run with the land. And proffer 8 contains the escalator clause, noting that after 12 months, they will escalate their proffer payments using the consumer price index. So as is customary with our application, we like to provide the Planning Commission and the public with a summary of the positives and concerns of these applications. Staff would note that for positives, the proposed zoning district M1 is typically associated with the future land use designation of industrial for which significant portions of their site are designated. So the proposal is generally plan compliant. Further, the proposed rezoning aligns with broader comprehensive plan goals in support of opportunities for industrial development, ensuring a broad selection of employment opportunities, and expanding the county's industrial base in support of low residential taxes. As in regard to concerns, the rezoning is mostly silent on potential excluded uses and how it further the county's economic development authority targeted industries that are outlined in your plan. Further, the area plan, which is the southern Frederick area plan, envisions a mix of flexible uses and portions of this property being mixed use industrial office. And it's unclear to staff how this proposal meets those pieces of the plan policy. Additionally, other elements of comprehensive plan policy, such as high-quality architecture and site design, are underdeveloped in the application materials that you were provided with. We also raised concern that the overhead utility waiver lacks justification in their application, and there will be a zoning text amendment later this evening where we're actually removing the ability to seek a waiver of overhead utilities, so that's one point of consideration for you all. And then staff would note that proffer two that pertains to transportation does not fully mitigate all of the transportation impacts that are generated by this development. The traffic impact study that was provided with the application recommends improvements both on-site and regionally to support safe and efficient operations along key roadways. There's some clarity issues with certain proffers about if They aren't able to get right away for certain improvement. What happens to that improvement? Does it go away? Is someone else responsible? And then the trigger for the signal justification report is after a significant amount of development has already occurred on the property. I will point you all to the Madison rezoning where they agreed to conduct a signal justification report at the time of their site plan that would be ensure that any improvements or signalization would be understood and be part of the site plan improvements so that they weren't left to a later date and time. And in this case, the applicant is able or is proffering to build a certain amount of square footage before they would trigger even the requirement to do an SJR. So you potentially have a traffic impact that's created with the lack of a signalization. that creates both safety and movement issues in that area of the county. So staff is happy to answer any questions you have. Mr. Lawson is here representing the Peterson companies who are the applicant this evening, and he does have a presentation as well, and I'll let Mr. Lawson walk through his slides.

Okay, any questions for Mr. Klein to my right? And to my left? One of the questions I've gotten is there's property between the two parcels that is not included in this effort. What's the story there, sir?

The owner who they're purchasing the property from does not own those parcels, and I can let Mr. Lawson speak to their assemblage and how they came to be, et cetera.

Okay. Sorry. In the portion of the property that's in Clark County, will the applicant kind of? explain how that process works since I think we're showing a little.

It's such a small sliver that usually Clark County would defer to us to do the site plan work. We did reach out to Clark County as part of the agency comments. They issued a comment that they would provide comments after VDOT commented. We provided them the VDOT comments and they never provided an additional comment. If and when this were to go to site plan, we would again reach out to Clark County for comments. So I think it's more of a product of just how they do planning over on that side.

You may have said this. How long has this been in the comp plan for industrial development?

It was last comprehensively looked at in 2011, but it has been planned industrial preceding that.

Okay.

A long time. A long time, yes, sir. Okay. And again, this item is presented for information. No action is required of the Planning Commission this evening, and we will be, if desired by the Chair and agreed to by the Chair, we'll take it to public hearing on the 7th. of October. Okay. Very good.

Yes.

Mr. Whitaker, good evening, sir.

Good evening. How are you, Don? The industrial portion of this, where is this going to be located on those two parcels?

Mr. Lawson has some graphics showing the building layouts. I'll let him explain how they're going to assemble their site.

Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. Yes,

All right, thank you very much, Mr. Klein. Mr. Lawson, good evening, sir.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, Ty Lawson here on behalf of Peterson. Also, and we know we're here to answer questions, we have a team. We have three folks from Peterson, Taylor Chess, Clark Totweiler, and Caroline Brett. Grove Slade is represented, Aaron Steele, and Catherine Roberts is here, Bowler Engineering, and It's great to have VDOT here. We've certainly been working with them. This is the Peterson Company. It's a slide that gives you an idea of who they are, but we already know them. They're on either side of Renaissance Drive, and we've talked about the chocolate factory. Sixty years ago, it takes me back. They've been around a long time, family-owned, and love the area and are in the area. are committed to the area, but they also have some notable projects all around the DC metro area. This is the property, and the proximity to the port is no accident. I think Back to your comment, Mr. Chairman, this has been slated for decades as industrial. And I think that's probably a big reason why. Close proximity to the port. Remember the, and you can see that white rectangle up there, the Home Depot facility, which serves 13 states, was put there for that very reason. They ship and receive products from all over the world. and then comes through the port. So we're a continuation of that thought that's been on the books for a long time. We're the light blue subject property, and of course, At the intersection, very close double toll gate, 522, which is that major artery which serves the port, also gets folks to 81 and 66 very directly and efficiently. Mr. Whitaker asked a question. Conceptual layout of what we're looking at here, Fairfax Pike 277 and then 522, the idea, and Peterson can talk more about this and who they think are likely targets for the buildings, but the one big rectangle is I believe million square feet, very desirable industrial, and we're pleased that it can locate on the property. Also, we're showing that... I guess that's yellow. Comp Plan has a major collector kind of cutting through the property, and so we're intentionally doing a layout that would accommodate that if, in fact, that goes forward, and then that would intersect with 522. If that happens, and folks are here to talk about that more if there are questions, we're proffering improvements at Double Tollgate, but But that road would actually have a very positive effect because it would direct trips to 522 and to the county's new major collector. This is an aerial of the site with the landscaping and layout. The solar field on the right, that's Clark County. Somebody asked about Clark. They're actually slated. It's been approved to double that. It's kind of different for Clark County to have something that looks industrial, but they are. They've approved the one site, and it's actually on Gibson property. That increases by a factor of two times if they build out the rest of it. So that's what we abut. And then that property in the middle, that little triangle, is part of the Gibson property, but is intentionally not part of this rezoning to give you all time to look at the comp plan and decide if that ought to be industrial in the future or some other use. We had gotten some questions, what kind of buildings do you all build and are you thinking about? And these are some conceptual layouts with intentional berming and landscaping, a little more close up. And then with regard to traffic, there's actually been quite a bit of work with VDOT and Grove Slate is here to speak to it. But we have built in triggers. The square footage is very intentional because according to the manual, once you hit those square footages, there will be need for future study, signal justification reports and the like. And we've been working very, very well and cooperatively with VDOT to come up with the language that is in the proffers. And it is to provide safety triggers well in advance of impacts and triggers that would allow not only county transportation, but VDOT. to examine and allow or approve as we build out. And then the importance of those future SJRs is they'd be tailored to not a hypothetical, but what we would actually be proposing to build. Because we can all appreciate, we contemplate things and invariably we end up having to redo them as we have actual users. That's the way we've proffered this. And then these are the improvements to double tollgate, double lefts as you go north on 522. And then as you're going east towards Clark County, there would be a dedicated left turn lane and a straight. Right now, it's a combined lane as you come up to Dinosaurland on your right. And we were asked to see if we could fit within the existing right of way the planned improvements. And that's what this sketch represents. Happy to respond to any questions. And again, the team and the experts are here to speak about the various aspects that you all have for us.

Thank you, Mr. Lawson.

Yes, sir.

Taylor Clark, good evening. Thank you for coming down. I appreciate you being here. I know them because they were on a call with me last week or two weeks ago. Hey, one of the things, and I promised Tom I wouldn't put him on the spot, but he's here. Water and sewer, as I read, and I think you said somebody from your engineering groups here, As I read the impact report, it talks about 50,000 to 150,000 gallons of wastewater or water, 60,000 to 160,000 gallons a day for the wastewater. That doesn't seem like very much for this size project. So are we talking about warehousing that's going to be automated and not have a lot of people there? Are we talking about, what kind of uses are we talking about to have a water and sewer that's so low? And water and sewer is not in our purview. I'd be the first to say that. But we've gotten so accustomed to talking about water and sewer with our data center discussions. We have to talk about it.

We do. And I mean, the The easy overview is we understand that we would be working with Frederick County Sanitation Authority. All development does and look forward to it. We've had conversations, preliminary conversations with staff. We're aware of the force main. We're all aware of the new force main that was just put in recently. As I understood those numbers and those estimates, those are as a result of meetings that have occurred between Peterson and the Sanitation Authority. But do we know? No, we don't know. And certainly before we develop, we would need to coordinate with a multitude of folks, but especially the Sanitation Authority. And you didn't mention it, but what if it's a food processor? That is a high user of water and sewer. And we would need to put in improvements to be able to accommodate that. But yeah, with regard to automated warehouse distribution and other more modern facilities, we are seeing that. And Peterson can speak to who they would expect or are looking forward to inviting to this new industrial park. But with automation, you're using less water and sewer. But I don't know how much depth you want to get into. We're aware of the gallonage that is there. We're aware of the capacity that has been allocated to other users, including my Clark County. We'll wait and see if we actually use any of those gallons. But I get it. And the Sanitation Authority has other customers. But I guess the first line is the wrap-up, which is we are committed to working with the Sanitation Authority and building and developing cooperatively with them whatever improvements are needed for the exciting uses that are coming.

Okay. Ty?

Do you want to?

Yeah.

I'm not trying to put you on the spot.

No, that's okay. I've had meetings with Ty, and we've met with the Peterson Group on another occasion.

May I introduce you in your other role, just everyone in the audience?

Yeah, I'm on the board of Frederick Water in addition to this role. So, yeah, we have limited capacity left in the main that's in place. We estimate about 60,000. We have capacity reserved for the rest of the build out of Lake Frederick. We have capacity for the Madison property that's already been board approved, so we have to leave that capacity alone. There was about 40,000 gallons a day of capacity potentially for use at the Sandy Mobile Home Park. They're still using a lagoon system, so DEQ asked us to reserve some capacity for them. So that gets us to about 60,000 left in the existing line. And it is a pressure main. So it's not like a gravity system where from 10 PM to 6 AM, you have very little flow. The pressure main is all based on when the lift station is filling and when the pumps kick on. So we know and we expect to have meetings and try to get this resolved. There were plans to put a second line in, but that was not done by Frederick Water when they put the initial 12-inch line in three years ago, just because we didn't have a customer lined up. And in just a little history with the Gibson property, they actually, when we talked to them about going through their property, they only asked for basically sanitation services for four residences. So at that point, they had no inclination that they were going to go anything other than agriculture. I know Eric and staff and Mike have already had discussions with you guys. And I think we need to continue them to try to come to some resolution. But 60,000 gallons is a long way from, I heard numbers up to a million. So I know you want to try to see what we can get. And on the water side, there's a 12-inch main on 277. And we also have a 12-inch main up on Tasker. That would be a nice tie-in for an industrial facility, because then you could have good flow through and never have a loss of water, because you'd have two main areas to feed the facility. But again, we look forward to trying to sit down with you and try to come to a resolution before the Planning Commission meeting. So I think there's people waiting for your phone call. Okay. Thank you, Tom.

Thank you.

Mr. Ty, with the water in the sewer, water may be available, I guess, depending on how much you need. But if it comes down to $60,000 versus a million, is your the owner prepared to proffer out high water use. And you don't, I mean, you don't have to answer that now, but when it would come before the planning commission as an actual submittal, we would want to see that there's a match between the use and what's available. And if the uses that you're looking at don't match up with what's available, we would assume you're going to proffer them out or agree to, you know, do something else.

That's certainly a thought. I would hope not only for this area, but that we're committed to growing our system to the extent we can to accommodate growth. And we didn't talk about it, but that disproportionate taxpayer, that industrial taxpayer, which your markets study, says is very desirable because they pay actually better than commercial and retail and so that The rest of us, the residents, don't have to bear that burden. So we would look forward to working with all the utilities.

Well, Ty, what I meant was when you come in with a submittal for the rezoning, we want to make sure everything matches up. Absolutely. That submittal, we're not looking at a big deficit on something. However you get there is up to you guys, not us. We're not going to give you suggestions or tell you how to do it, but we just want it to match up either by proffering out other uses or however you do it. That's up to you. And I do know that this was called the Industrial Triangle backed by John Rowley when he was head of the planning department. So that's probably, it's been intended to be industrial for probably close to 40 years. So it's not something new. I understand that and... Appreciate what you're doing.

Thank you Roger I do think As I understood the letter from Eric Lawrence at Frederick water his position is basically and I'm this is a Reader's Digest version of If he can't provide the capacity in his existing system, it's up to them to figure out how to develop it.

They just need to figure it out.

Yeah, and that's not a proffered condition. That's something that's real. And just like VDOT's going to tell them, hey, if you're going to put an entrance here, you've got to create a turn lane that's associated with your entrance. So I think there's some of those conditions that... A proffer may not necessarily apply to you, but we look forward to seeing how you address that, sir. I like the way you put it.

That's a developer's reality. And Roger, you remember in 91 when Wheatlands was approved, there surely wasn't any water and sewer around Lake Frederick. And the developer was responsible.

That's really all I was trying to say.

Yeah, I understand. Okay. Thank you. Mr. DeHaven, you want to talk about uses on the land?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Lawson, for being here and your presentation. Looking at this and looking at the zoning you are applying for or pursuing, it's a pretty broad set of uses. Has the applicant considered narrowing that down any and maybe proffering out some of the more obscure or not desirable uses?

They can speak to who they're targeting. We intentionally deleted the uses that were approved for Winchester Gateway when that rezoning was approved. three years ago, I think it was. And so we tracked with that and deleted those two uses. But I'll let Peterson speak to who they think will be there. And if you have uses that you believe are undesirable, I'm sure they'd love to hear.

PETER SINGER- Appreciate it. Yeah. Taylor Chess with Peterson Companies. Thank you all. We don't want to limit who we could go after. We want to go after whoever you allow in the zoning ordinance. If there are noxious uses that you don't want to see here, we'd like to hear who those are. But by limiting the pool of tenants that we could go after, it just compromises the viability of the project. So why restrict it? To your point on water usage, We wouldn't want to proffer out high water use tenants because, as you discussed, we have to fix the problem to get that tenant in there. So why would we compromise that is my point. But if there are specific uses, as Ty said, we eliminated the ones that you already eliminated on the other project. If there are others that you feel need to be eliminated or shouldn't be in that ordinance, you might want to talk to the Planning Commission and the board. But if they're in the zoning ordinance, why wouldn't we put them there?

Appreciate it. Thank you.

And I guess really what Ty wanted me to do is say who we are targeting. So sorry about that. We see this as a great opportunity. We've talked to the airport. The airport's working with a lot of defense contractors and research people. They need large campuses nearby where they can do manufacturing. So we would love to get advanced manufacturing. This is a great area for bio manufacturing within the valley. You've got a lot of people who work in food processing, which is also the same type of skill set that you need for pharmaceutical. So we see that as an opportunity. Can we pull those people out of Maryland? Can we pull those people out of Pennsylvania? We'll try. Mission-critical suppliers. So you've got a lot of mission-critical projects in Loudoun County. So the suppliers, the producers of server racks and HVAC, There's a lot of need for that in Loudoun and Prince William County right now. Also, you already have a strong but more food and beverage. I mean, it was great that we were able to pull in Clawson's Chocolate, pulled them in from Wisconsin. Yeah, great new tenant, great new business for the Commonwealth. And it was great that Winchester was able to secure that. warehouse, straight warehouse, what you've got a lot of down near the port, that is always an option. And there is your low water use. But that doesn't produce quite as many jobs as some of these other opportunities. We have talked to a number of the economic development groups around. Shenandoah University is very excited about this opportunity for research and development. They're saying, hey, we'll create courses for any companies that you're able to bring here. So that's where our head is right now.

Quick follow-up, Mr. Chairman? When you're looking at pursuing these different types of uses, does that play out as far as a phasing of development on these sites as they lay out and timing on something like this?

If we had a million square footer, we'd start in the middle. They're the white whale. As Ty mentioned, there are very few million square foot opportunities in Virginia, and Clerk, you can speak to how many do we have currently?

There is only one currently in the state of Virginia. And after you get out of the state, you're competing against Pennsylvania and states further north. So to be able to have the ability to install a million square foot warehouse on your site puts you in a multi-regional, gives you a multi-regional competitive advantage.

So you saw that that's kind of in the back of the site. We have the opportunity to do a multitude of different sized buildings up in the triangle. There you go. So down to the right hand side, we've got a lot of different sized buildings down here. So depending on which tenant we get first, we would size the building appropriately. At Shady Elm, We are building 170,000 square foot facility right now. We got a 60,000 square foot tenant, but we also have a 400,000 square foot pad left. Now that could be 400,000 square foot single box. That could be two 150,000 square foot boxes. We want to leave flexibility so that we're not limiting the type of companies that we can bring to the area.

Mr. Chairman, if I may add some clarity to that as well. I think your comprehensive plan speaks to what they were mentioning about those kind of targeted uses in our industrial areas specific to the triangles of economy sub area within that area plan. I think one of the things that we noted in our presentation and the staff report was obviously the property is kind of planned for two different land uses. Yes, a significant portion of the site is industrial. I think that's where they're demonstrating that that kind of million square foot building is kind of to the rear where it's up against what What is the Eastgate development, which is all of the commercial and industrial development basically between the Gibson Tract and Tasker Road. But certainly, I think there's opportunity to consider what uses front on 277 that fall into that mixed-use industrial office category that we have on the plan. Certainly, I think Mr. DeHaven mentioned the phasing and the timing. Those are things you all could continue to work with them on. It's not uncommon for people to proffer out uses, proffer in uses, and then come back several years and say, hey, I've got an opportunity. I want to amend my proffers to add this use or something like that. So it's not out of the realm of, you know, he mentioned Winchester Gateway as an example, and that is a recent example. That would be correct. But there are other sets of proffers that we've had over time. I think what's important and what's mentioned in the staff report is sensitivity should be given, you know, when you, 277 is this dividing line between what is planned industrial and what is existing in planned neighborhood village. So it's a, you know, transitional area, right? Because you're going north into more intense industrial areas. But to the south of that, you have Lake Frederick, Sandy's Mobile Home Park, and Madison. The Madison is a recent example that you all mentioned. discussed and worked with the applicant on where, you know, their frontage piece is mixed office and commercial to serve kind of the residential nature of that southern piece of the 277 corridor and then the residentials in the back. So, certainly, you know, they could phase it in a manner where the front is a certain amount of uses and then the back is maybe unrestricted M1. So, those are the things you certainly can continue to work with them on.

So, as we talk about these mixed uses, we kind of really honed in on the industrial uses as that's laid out. When we're looking at a request to rezoning like this, is it something that you would sometimes see in a plan where you proffer certain amounts of different types of uses here?

Certainly could do that. And there's also, you know, they're certainly, you know, their presentation is focused on kind of large regional, national kind of users. But there's also, you know, opportunities to do small business incubation or entrepreneurial space. They mentioned Shenandoah University. Smaller spaces, we've heard from the airport over the years they are looking for all kinds of different flex and mix kind of spaces because they have tenants and users of various sizes that need to locate in the region. So it's not all just 1 million square foot buildings. There could be other buildings at different scales with different uses that would be enabled in those land bays. The way that their GDP is currently laid out is just kind of one big land bay on each property, but certainly they could break that up into multiple land bays and then specify the uses in various land bays if they would be agreeable to it.

I'll throw that out to the applicant. Is that something you guys have contemplated with our comprehensive plan looking for some type of mixed use there? Is that something you would look to incorporate in your proposal?

Mixed use is very, it's the eye of the beholder, right? Is a mixed use a warehouse and an advanced manufacturing and research and food processing? Or is a mixed use residential retail school? What's mixed use? What we plan to do is an industrial park that has a multitude of different sized buildings that could accommodate the flex, what's commonly referred to as flex warehouse, or innovative technology, where You could break it down to 5,000 to 10,000 square feet, and then have the big sites for the million square foot. So we will not limit the types of uses that we can put here, because we don't want to limit the opportunities that we could bring to this site.

Thank you.

Mr. Broomback, did you have anything? Okay. Mr. Whitaker.

So this is that big million square foot building could possibly become a data center?

No, the zoning doesn't allow for data center.

Okay.

Well, to clarify, the zoning as of today does allow for data centers as a conditional use in the M1 zoning district.

We are all well aware that there's going to be a text amendment that's going to the board for action next week. But certainly, right now, the use is allowed as a conditional use. Leaving it unrestricted M1 means that in the future, if you all add any uses to your zoning ordinance and they're not prohibited, they can construct them on this property. So there may be uses that are not currently being contemplated that could be developed on this property in the future if the zoning ordinance were to change.

Do you have a topo map of this?

We do have surveys of the site and some topography, but not in the slide deck. And the county has topography.

OK. I'd like to see where all of this runs to. I'm thinking it's running all toward the development area and over there toward the lake. Another concern is having the big... You're saying water runs that way? Is it running that way?

No, I think it's falling towards...

Toward 522? We do have Bowler Engineering here who can speak to the flow of the project.

Yeah, absolutely. Hi, I'm Catherine. It's flowing really back toward the rear of that large building. There's a creek, RPA floodplain area that runs along the property line.

That's what I thought.

Goes to the east, I guess, towards the Opaca?

Right, yes.

So to your right.

OK. Um? Piggybacking on what Mr Klein said, so you're willing to proffer out data centers even though we won't have a definition for one in our zoning ordinance.

It depends on what your zoning ordinance says. We're not asking for CUP for a data center.

They didn't going to say anything because it's all going to be removed in the language.

Yeah, we can't do a data center today and we're not asking for a CUP today.

OK. Is that a yes?

It's a politician.

If we're not going to proffer out a data center, we've got a big problem going forward. And I just want you to be aware of that.

We're not asking for a CUP for data center.

Understood.

OK. By the time it comes in, the board will have taken their action.

Yes. OK.

Mr. Marker. Yes. Yes, a question about the electric utilities, the request for having them underground. I'd like to know a little bit more about that because what we're trying to do, this is the 21st century, and we would like to see that just for visual purposes and for safety to put those utilities underground. So give me a really good argument otherwise.

No, no, it's a great question, and we actually had a brief conversation with staff about that. The intent of that is there is an overhead power line that runs across the property now, and we're going to need to relocate that because it runs through some buildings. We have no problem clarifying that for the service to these buildings as we develop that those will be underground But we don't want anybody to have any misunderstanding that the co-op power lines, they are above ground and they will be rerouted so that they're not running, I guess, over or through a building. But it's a good point.

Okay. You won't be putting those, relocating those, the power line that goes through for the utility?

I think the utility will be the one doing it. If it's like prior experience, I'm sure we'll be paying for it. But they're going to reroute those lines, and I would expect they would be the same lines or same dignity, so they're going to stay above ground. And these are the lines that are running through the property now.

but anything that you run to the buildings is going to be underground.

Yes. And we're not, just so everybody's clear, the question was, are you asking for an advance waiver for something? Right. Which I thought was an intriguing thing. I never really thought of that before. Because normally you do a waiver for a specific purpose. You want to do this, there's a waiver allowed in the ordinance, but it's tied to that building or something. I think we did one for Carmoos so we could build a new kiln. It had a height issue, and it went up in the air as opposed to the old bottle kiln, which was parallel to the ground. But it was tied to that specific layout and use. And we would do that here as well. We're not building a kiln, by the way. Isn't there a problem?

Don't your proffer ask for a waiver to burying utilities? It wasn't specific to... utility-owned lines, it was very general in nature. Was the intent for all utilities, all dry utilities to be overhead?

Because that's different than what I think I'm hearing. Right. And the point was raised, and we're happy to clarify that to the extent there's confusion on that.

Okay. I can jump in here as well. Yes, sir. I had asked Ty to include that in the proffers because there is an overhead transmission line that runs across the property it jogs south the one with the big metal poles but there is a continuation of it that doesn't have the metal poles it has wooden poles still a transmission line that runs all the way to the west side of the property the proffer was added so that if we had to relocate that we could do it overhead because that is a line of such high voltage that the utility company does not allow it to be underground For the service to the individual buildings, we're perfectly fine with that being underground. All right. That makes a lot more sense.

Just be clear. Thank you. Dr. LaManna, did you have anything more you wanted to add, sir? No. I think that last point answered my questions. Thank you. Ms. Cosell, Mr. Steeden, who's going to? lead the charge here.

I mean, I guess I can start general discussion, just kind of what we're looking at architecturally. These buildings are very large in scale. As you're coming down 277, what's across the way, Lake Frederick, Madison, we're trying to capture the architecture of those sites and this. You stand out. It's massive. There are concrete tilt panels. Nothing matches existing surrounding site. So is there any way we can try to capture some other materials, brick, stone, or does it have to be all just one solid square box with a couple overhead rolling doors and whatever else you put in for warehouses?

We can certainly look into adding some language that tries to capture that, just to get technical. It becomes difficult when you try to cast the concrete tilt panels with that type of stuff in there. But there are things that you can do with them to promote the texture, color reveals that would allow them to achieve, I think, the level of aesthetic that you're looking for. So let us take that back and see what sort of language we can come up with.

Can you provide renderings with language? I'm a visual person, so it would be helpful if we could see a little more detail.

Sure, sure.

And then also, besides concrete, there's no other way to get any other materials on the buildings. Is it inefficient? Does it not work with the HVAC system? What would be the reasoning we couldn't get other materials?

It's inefficient. Sometimes at the entry you can, but largely everywhere on the building it becomes extremely inefficient to do that.

OK. And your overhead picture, there was a lot of parking kind of along 277. I'd like to see if possible we could get that hidden, put it behind the buildings, hide it if possible. So as you come down 277, the people across the way, I mean, you've got a farmer's market over there as well. It's just going to be smack in their face, big concrete, a lot of pavement, so buckers as well.

If you flip the buildings, then the buildings are closer to 277.

Well, you could change the size of the buildings as well and the parking.

I think what we were trying to do with the berm and landscaping is avoid looking at the parking lots. So you are seeing the buildings, but you're not looking at the parking lots. Thank you.

We can put this into words. The berming that we're proposing right now, and we can look at that further, but you'll notice it's a six-foot section with landscaping to do, as Taylor pointed out. So you're looking at higher up and not the vehicles. And we understand the corridor. Again, we've had some discussions with staff about that, is to work on the 277 corridor.

Ms. Kozel, you and I spoke on the phone, our correspondent via email. There are two recent examples of industrial projects on the 277 corridor. They're of significantly different, lesser scale. You all may recall the sink trucking rezoning, and then we had D&M Container. They, in their building consideration, proffered to not have the loading docks in the front, and then they had the different facade treatments for the front edge on 277. So we do have recent examples, and I will provide those to Mr. Lawson.

That would be helpful. You want to? Sure.

So I think by right there, M1 is maxed out at a 60-foot building height. Is that correct? It is. So are these buildings intended to be 60 feet high?

They have to be, and they will be ordinance compliant. I think that's a max, from what I understand it. So they could be lower. There is an opportunity for a waiver. And we talked about that briefly. But that's another public hearing and process. And that would be more site-specific.

But I think, wasn't it Madison? They proffered at 45 feet, I believe, didn't they? A maximum height?

For their industrial?

No, no, no. For right across the street for the residential.

I know what you're saying.

For the residential, yeah. OK. Like I said, I think our concern is just that it kind of matches. We don't have a giant building on one side. And we do want this to be a transition area. Like I said, the renderings look nice, but we just want to make sure it does transition. Would you guys be willing to max out at 45 feet as opposed to 60? No.

Well, and possibly it could be a step type thing. It could be. Where the ones close to the road, maybe you did something to make them not look quite as high, and the ones in the back could be the 60 foot that you're not going to see. Maybe the ones at the road could be 45 or 50 or whatever.

I think what Clark was talking about, about the architecture, you can do some articulation to the roof line so it's not just one constant. Again, we don't want to limit what we can build to. We'll stay within the ordinance. If we have an incredible use that happens to be taller than 65, then we're going to come back in and talk about it. Typically, they're not 60 feet tall, but we're not going to restrict ourselves now since that's what the ordinance says.

Sure.

Okay?

Okay.

Anything else?

No. I'll circle back, though.

Anything else? Mr. Schneed, anything else?

I think Ms. Cazale kind of covered the things. But I mean, it sounds like they're just going to stick with the ordinance. So I'm good. Okay.

Sorry. To tag on, the ordinance, and I was trying to find the language in the 277 triangle. There's a specific paragraph in there. So we need to match. That's part of this process, too. It talks about the architectural and all the different materials. So we need to match that.

Roger and I, we drew the straw to talk about transportation. Do you want me to go first? Yes, sir. You go right ahead.

I don't expect the answers tonight, but things I would like to see addressed when you come in with the application. I'm concerned about the turning radius. I assume there's going to be a significant number of tractor trailers, 18 wheelers coming in and out. I'm very concerned with the turning radius. Even if you improve the intersection at 277 and 522, I don't think you have the geometric configuration there, the ability to come up with a good turning radius for a lot of 18-wheelers. I'm concerned about the stacking on 522 for that left turn into 277. I make that turn a lot of times. And even with just cars, cars are stacked up out of the turning lane. back down 522 and i think that's a dangerous situation so going back down five going south on 522 you could probably extend the turning lane but i'm still concerned about the configuration and being able to get that radius that's needed for for 18 wheelers along with that uh you know the the impact on 277 there uh there's going to be a lot of traffic. And if you're not able to get the right-of-way to develop the, whether it's going to be an additional lane or your turning lanes or your acceleration, de-acceleration lanes, what is the plan if you can't get the right-of-way? If the owners of that right-of-way just turn around and say, no, thanks, we're not going to get it because the counties in VDOT probably are not going to condemn the property to get you a right-of-way. The number of entrances I would like to see some type of a transportation management plan that you can come up with phasing of the traffic whether you know take your daily traffic if this is an industrial area when are you going to get your deliveries how are you going to manage the flow in and out of the project site you know you don't want to have 14 tractor trailers stacked up on 277 in a stacking lane waiting to turn right to go in there. So how is that going to be managed to minimize stacking on 277? Same thing coming out and going to the light there at the intersection of 522 and 277. How are you going to manage the stacking for them to turn right? Because that's going to be the primary turn going down to the inland port. I don't know that there's room there to come up with a stacking lane that you can get more. I mean, you can get two or three cars in there now, but you sure can't get two or three 18-wheelers in there. So how are you going to manage the stacking from that? Can you phase your deliveries depending on your occupants? And, you know, I appreciate that you want to be as flexible as possible, but when you get different occupants in there, is it possible to phase your deliveries at warehouse one? Their deliveries would have to be from six to eight in the morning. Warehouse two, your deliveries are going to be from four to six in the morning, or pickups and deliveries, whatever it is. somehow to try to minimize the impact on 277 and 522? And how are you going to interconnect the two separate parcels since you don't have the land in between? Is there going to be an interconnection to try to ease the traffic flow? How is the 522 access a little bit further north? Are you going to be able to use that as a back door or as a primary entrance and minimize the traffic on 277? A lot of questions on how you're going to do it and how you're going to manage the traffic flow in that area. I mean, that is a large concern because we're talking a significant amount of industrial capacity here. And I think it's a great project. We need the industrial area, but we also need to look at how that traffic flow is going to be managed. And just hoping for the best, hope has never been a good way to solve a problem.

That's not a good strategy.

No. So I'd like to see some kind of a traffic management plan, somehow you're going to do it, how you're going to allocate traffic between the entrances. the entrances and exits? How's that management process going to occur? I mean, you can't have, if you have, let's see, there's four or seven warehouses there, you can't have seven or ten or twenty different clients just out there deciding, well, okay, I'm going to send my trucks out at this time. So, I assume there's going to be an overlord over this whole thing, and is he going to be responsible for some kind of a traffic management plan, delivery plan, pickup plan, all that kind of stuff to be able to mitigate the traffic impacts?

so what's your plan for no ty ty told me that we don't need a plan it's the developer that's going to solve all what's your plan for the road that cuts through this project that's on your comp plan is that a road that you support that the county wants or is it not we are in the process of updating our comprehensive plan and that's certainly one that we'll look at in

within the perspective of this rezoning. And Mr. Bishop, do you have any thoughts on that at this time, or is it too early?

No, you captured it. It's early. Part of our comprehensive plan update, we are doing a modeling exercise. This piece of road, in addition to, frankly, the entire South Frederick Parkway, is one of the things we're shining a bit of a spotlight on to retest that, make sure it's still what's needed. But that's part of your comprehensive planning process. It's going to be a little bit before we have that answer. For now, it is on your comp plan. And I'm happy to see that they're accommodating it as as they have in case it stays on there but if it doesn't I don't see us I don't see the way they've laid out as being necessarily con contrary or detrimental to what they're trying to do okay if I could add more for mr. Thomas's benefit and you you don't see it here I think we've had at least two possibly three rounds of comments with V dot at this point

And when you mentioned the overlord, I was taught that with regard to the roads, the overlord is VDOT. And we have to provide whatever studies and analysis to accommodate our intended use. And we do recognize that we are proffering that. I think it's the law anyway. And as we go forward in time, whether you're approved or not, when you change your uses, you still have to accommodate through your site plan process and the commenting process what VDOT would need, and we're well aware of that. But we do and we have submitted, and Ms. Steele is here, she and Kevin Sitzman and others at Grove Slate have been busy at it and would be happy to go as deep as you want in terms of detail and what they've analyzed and what the plans are. and what the backup plans are. But most importantly, committing to the SJRs going forward before these uses are able to come online to assure that the impacts are more than satisfied. And you go through that intersection. I go through that twice a day. That's where I live. So I appreciate what you're saying. It is kind of fun, though, to watch what is a failing intersection. And I've actually been watching it and timing it. And what it is is when you're sitting at a light waiting for the other to move. So if I'm on Lord Fairfax, I'm waiting for 522 to run. That's the delay. I do not see the backups. The best backup you've got is when I take my trash on Saturday. And there's also a car show somewhere south on 522. That's kind of a fun way. You get to see some nice old cars going by. But we're here, and we've been meeting with VDOT and Mr. Bishop and his team. And Grove Slade, if you want him to speak to it now, they will. But if you want him to meet with you. they've been hard at work and have some very good answers.

I just, when the application comes in, I just want to see the plan in that.

No, it's a good heads up.

If they want to talk before that, that's fine. I'm sure I'll be available. But I just am concerned about the overall traffic. And VDOT will tell you how to get, you know, the requirements to get in and out, but VDOT's not going to tell you how to manage the traffic that you could reduce the flow in and out during certain times of the day. And that's what I'm looking for in the traffic management plan on, you know, are you going to dump everybody out at 6 in the morning or 8 in the morning, or is there a way to, you know, dump out 20% of the traffic at four different time frames during the day, either in or out, either way. And that's what I'm looking for in a management plan. And I understand that you don't have the occupants now, but I would think you can put the verbiage in there in whatever lease agreement or building or sales agreement. that would kind of restrict it. You know, it's not a free-for-all on who gets to the intersection first. There's a plan on how we're going to sequence and how we're going to do this. And it's no intent to restrict who your uses are or anything else. It's just to kind of mellow out the traffic flow.

No, it's a good comment. And to speak to it, and we've all watched it, and I was reminded that it's 20-some years ago when we did the Moranto Manor Double lefts for the Home Depot facility was 3 quarters of a million feet. And of course, that predates Walmart. That's worked remarkably well. In fact, I go there all the time, and I never see a backup either for that. So it works. It works very well.

Oh, a double left there would be great. But I don't know if you have the geometry to do it.

Yeah. I'd love to talk to Ms. Diehl.

Well, she's here, and she'd love to speak. Bring her up, sir. All right.

Yeah, so the double F you're talking about is on 522. Yeah, so I think the stacking that you mentioned, that backs up. There's a pretty long turn lane there today. Traffic studies show that that would continue to write That queuing would get longer in the future, which is why that improvement Was geared towards adding a second left so that queuing can get that stacking can be reduced and stay within the the turn lane so that specifically is is one of the reasons that provides benefit to this intersection. The geometry and the truck movement through the intersection, that's certainly something, yeah, we're looking at. We're going to work with VDOT on. When SMIP plans to VDOT, that is something exactly that they will look at, require that you can have trucks go through the movement and not over track. So that's something we want to talk with VDOT more about the comment that they issued so that we can understand the specifics that they want to see here. And, you know, if there's, you know, proper refinement related to this improvement that we can kind of work to resolve that.

I'm still trying to figure out if he asked one question or 20 questions in one sentence.

Probably 20 questions. I didn't ask a question. I just said what I wanted to see at the application.

So one of the things Roger asked, and I'm like, does that add to question on my mind? Did you assume the two parcels are somehow interconnected from a transportation standpoint?

So if there is potential that they could come together, then you could get traffic, like you said, to go out 522.

Okay. Understanding that you don't have the property between them.

That is our assumption. Our assumption is that the two parcels will be connected so that most of the flow inside the project can be dispersed differently.

Okay. Very good. As I read Mr. Johnson's letter, there was some discussion about the site entrances and from staff as well. Is the site entrance on 522 need necessary since the piece on the east side is not part of this rezoning process?

I think you want the entrance on 522. I would rather have the traffic on 522 than on 277.

Is there a crossover on 522 where the entrance is? There are. An existing crossover? OK. Mr. Johnson, what's that going to require from the department to show the adequacy of that crossover? Is there something that would have to be done? Because I think I heard something about a signal at that location earlier. And I know you've got spacing requirements for signals on primary highways, or I guess it's in the primary, whatever this is.

522?

Yes.

Yes, we would need first a signal warrant analysis to determine if the signal is even warranted, and then a signal justification report to determine if the signal is the proper solution as opposed to ARCUD or Roundabout or one of the other alternatives. And then 522 is on the arterial preservation network. So any signal that's proposed on the APN has to go to a state level committee.

So there's another step to that.

That doesn't sound like very much fun. Okay. There's three entrances proposed over on 277. One of them lines up with the location where the Lake Frederick folks had planned an entrance. We worked quite a bit with Madison to try to combine that with an entrance a little bit further west. Can we get these lined up together so that the Madison, what they're doing there and what you're doing can all come under one signal study and get things much more efficient? I think that was one of the other items Mr. Johnson mentioned in his letter.

Based on our conversations with Lake Frederick and the fact that there's already been work to connect to that cut is the location of the future road for Lake Frederick. So we lined up our entrance with that Lake Frederick since it looks like that's going to be built first.

Is that going to fly, Mr. Johnson? My understanding is there was a real problem with What's that going on?

VDOT's preference is for a single signal through this corridor, if possible. The entrances do meet spacing. I think it's a quarter mile. But our preference is for a single signal. A signal, obviously, is a maintenance burden for VDOT, and it would add delay through the corridor, traveling delay. So that's our preference is for them to line up with Madison. And they're already going to have a signal there, so they would just be adding to that signal.

That signal's already warranted?

Yeah. An update on Madison. I think someone, one of the planning commissioners emailed me about that today. They did do their signal justification report. That's under review by VDOT. They're doing their master plan and they're concurrently preparing site plans for those commercial land base. So it is likely that they'll be starting their entrance work, starting their potential signalization and starting their development in post haste.

OK. We'll be happy to line up the entrance with whatever entrance you want us to line it up with. We were trying to be good neighbors for Lake Frederick, and they had requested it. So you guys make the decision.

OK. Thank you. Is the 522, 277, 340 intersection just boggles my mind for the same reasons Mr. Lawson cited. I don't think I've ever been through there and had to sit there more than about 30 seconds to get through the signal. So I'm not real sure how, I don't know where the volumes came from or how the modeling was done, but I was not seeing the levels of service that were in the report. But aside from that, the improvements that are called for there, are pretty significant, pretty costly. And I don't think that intersection is not in Frederick County, is it, Mr. Bishop? Is it in Clark County? And I'm sure residents of Clark County that might be in our presence would appreciate Frederick County making an improvement in Clark County, but I'm not sure Clark County is going to enjoy the benefits of that as much as Frederick County might resist. So I'm looking at this saying, do we really want to, how do we deal with that? And Ty's saying, yeah, go ahead. Fix Clark County's road for them.

I mean, the form of the proffer is really going to rule the day. It's one thing if the applicant is simply proffering a physical improvement. and it's a coordination with VDOT and potentially Clark County and Frederick County. It's another thing if we end up in a three-headed monster where we've got a little bit of cash from the applicant and it becomes the county's job to try and push something with Frederick County and VDOT and Clark. So that's not inconsistent, frankly, from what I tell you when something's fully within Frederick County's boundaries, which is, We always like to see the improvement as opposed to a cash proffer. One, we get it sooner. Two, we get it cheaper. Three, we don't have to fight with VDOT. So, yeah, it's no offense, Joe. Because it's not usually Joe we're fighting with, to be clear there. But that's the staff opinion. Please let me know if I haven't actually addressed your question in the way you were looking for. But that's what we'll be looking at.

Okay. So if the developer wants to go out there and spend $5 million or whatever the cost is to do these improvements, and he proffers to do that, we're fine with him doing that. Is that my interpretation of what you're saying? We'll even buy him lunch.

Go with God. Yeah, we're supportive of that.

There you go. Taylor, what a deal.

I think the comment that was raised in the staff report by staff and VDOT was that the proffer is contingent on right-of-way being available. So the question remains, what happens if they're unable to get the right-of-way? Does the improvement not get made at all? Does it convert to cash? What happens there? Because you still have the impact, but you don't necessarily have the resolution the way the proffer is currently written.

That does put the county... over a barrel in trying to address that. I would point you to the one logistics parks proffer in which they shouldered that at their own risk that responsibility and the proffers were fairly firm on the applicant in that. I would also point you to a rezoning that was ultimately not approved but ENDED UP IN A SIMILAR POSITION AS THE FRUIT HILL REZONING UP OFF OF REST CHURCH ROAD. THEY WERE IN A SIMILAR POSITION REGARDING RIGHT OF WAY FOR TURNS ON TO ROUTE 11 NORTH WHERE THEY DID END UP HAVING TO GO AND GET THE PROPERTY. THANKFULLY, IT SEEMS THAT WITH A MOTIVATED BUYER AND NEITHER OF THOSE CASES DID WE AT LEAST GET BROUGHT INTO ANY MAJOR CONCERN SCENARIOS, THE APPLICANT STEPPED UP AND TOOK IT ON AND FOUND A SOLUTION. without putting the county in that position of, what if this doesn't happen?

OK. Can you clarify that for us when you send us updates? What's the answer if the right-of-way is?

We work on the language and the alternative. We are, through the engineering, we're trying to be able to demonstrate that these languages depend on the right-of-way. But we'll be happy to come up with some alternative language also to address some circumstance that you can't fit something.

Very good.

And again, I can't emphasize enough, and I think I want to really compliment VDOT through the comment process. This is a dynamic process. We're going to work on this as we go forward. We are committing to do these additional studies and reports so that what we build fits and fits within the transportation network. And it's kind of like the water and sewer comment. It would be on the developer under that scheme to make these, it's not a utility, but the transportation network work. And I believe it will, and that's been our experience in the corridor. That's why I brought up the thing that we did for Home Depot and eventually Walmart. It's still underutilized, that intersection. But it's ready for something else if it wants to come.

Do you have anything else? Oh, yes, sir.

Mr. Lawson, on the southeast parcel, was there two entrances and exits onto 277 in your drawing? I don't know.

Yes.

I'm sort of surprised that there aren't renderings on what's going to happen there. Because at some point, that is a 55 mile an hour zone. And it's a two lane road. So if you've got tractor trailers trying to turn in, we're going to have a lot of backups on 277. And so I am concerned. Yes, I live in Lake Frederick, and I was actually, I apologize for maybe throwing you under the bus, but we actually asked that that light be located at Lake Frederick, because we think And Lake Frederick thinks, this needs to be a global answer. We need to get the Madison group, Lake Frederick folks, VDOT, and you guys all together to figure out how to fix this 1 and 1 half mile corridor. Because if everyone goes in and fights for their own little part, nobody's going to win. And we're going to come back to the thing, as Mr. Bishop said the other day, we're going to be incidences, and then we'll react. So I would hope that all the parties get get together and try to come up with the best solution. Because I think there's going to be some stacking occur on 277 and a tractor trailer come barreling around that one corner, just coming up to that southeast parcel. It's going to be an incident that's not going to involve Lake Frederick folks. So I was just actually surprised that there wasn't any renderings on widening of 277 through that area.

So the two entrances on the eastern parcel, we've proffered turn lanes where they're warranted. So you wouldn't have trucks stacking in the turn lane to turn left. There would be widening, so you have left turn lane for them to go into before they go into the site.

So you're going to widen 277 back further back on that southeast parcel to make those two entrances. I'm not talking about the double toll gate here. I'm all the way back at the parcel where you showed the two entrances and exits on your little arrows on the map. And that's where my concern is, because 275, a very narrow road, drops off. We've had numerous cars drop off the berm. already. So again, I think all the parties need to get together and come up with a good solution with VDOT and work out what's best for everybody.

Yeah, and we will work with VDOT. Obviously, VDOT's not going to let us have an entrance that doesn't have a de-cell lane for the specific reason that you're talking about. So we'll be making the improvements that are required to get the entrances as we have them shown. And I just wanted to say kind of going back to the amount of traffic, different uses have different amounts of traffic. So that's another reason why these traffic studies are a moving target as we're developing the site. What is that use going to be? So something we will, through the site plan process and VDOT, be taking a really hard look at.

Okay. Commissioners, any other questions or comments to my right? Yes, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of questions. The first is about the water. And I'm assuming, I don't want to assume, I should say I'm asking this because I don't want to assume, but we have all of the homes that are, have not been built on the original plan for Lake Frederick, then we have all the whole new R4 plan. And we all know homes take a lot of water. So when we're talking about the 125,000 gallons a day, and maybe we can only get up to 60, is that taking into account all of those new homes being built?

Yeah, when Lake Frederick put their well in, that well was capable of producing about 400,000 gallons a day. And right now, Lake Frederick's only consuming about 150, with about 400 to 500 more homes to be built. So that well is actually going to push water to the tower and actually reduce the demand on deal. So there's not a water issue with the homes that were planned. And we've already got capacity for the Madison group. And water and sewage.

Okay. And that won't impact this project?

No.

Got it. The water side. Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. I know there was a lot of discussion there. Thank you. I have a question about 522 South. We've looked at what the frontage is going to look like. The building frontage is going to look like on 277. 522 is a concern for me. I know from the tourism standpoint, a lot of people travel, especially this time of year, between Winchester and the Shenandoah National Park. And 522 is a beautiful road. It's nice and beautiful, clean. You have beautiful mountain views. So that's very important to us. I was on a site visit tour this afternoon, actually this morning, and the people in the car were saying, oh, this is wild. They'd never been here before. And they said, this is beautiful. We're going down 522 south, right past this. And they're, wow, this is so beautiful. We can see the mountains out here, and it's very peaceful and fields. And so what is... I mean, there's one building right up against 522 that the corner pokes right up on there, and then one of those other two buildings on the far bottom right kind of gets over into that viewshed. Have we talked about what those are going to look like? We've spent a lot of time talking on 277, but same considerations for 522.

I mean, we can certainly look at it. The comments that we've received have been focused on 277.

The architectural guidelines that we will live up to will be for the project overall.

OK. I would like to see that shorter bit we were talking about kind of maybe staggering the heights of the buildings. I think those two are pretty important for the viewshed on 522 for all the tourists and everyone that drives up and down 522 because that's a very important corridor for the area. So I wanted to make that comment. My other question is, and this is a strange question, and I haven't looked into this a lot, but this was brought up at our last meeting with the previous rezoning that we were talking about, or the CP we were talking about, is karst land. That came up again and again, especially with a large project that weighs a lot. And there's a lot of water feature on this. I was just looking at the the topography of this, and it goes right down into Wright's Run. So there's water feature right at the edge of this property. I'm assuming a geological study will be done before you put this huge, very heavy 1 million square foot building so it doesn't go down into the...

Absolutely. That's one of our top concerns. And as we advance this, we'll do geological electro resistivity to identify any of the carched features near or deep below the surface and mitigate for those however we need to.

Okay. I didn't know if that was an issue, but I figured I would ask it because it came up from the public repeatedly at our last meeting regarding another project. And then my final question is that same... that same consideration with that water feature. Those rights run right behind it, right on the edge of this property, and that empties straight into the Opecan. And everyone knows how important the Opecan is to this area. So I'm concerned with specific uses that we haven't proffered out, maybe chemical heavy uses that if there was some sort of a leak or some sort of a problem that we would have in a very quick and very bad impact into the Opecan, potentially. So I don't have a list of things to proffer out yet, but I would be concerned with some heavy chemical usage that might go into that water system. That's all.

thank you justin if i can clarify one point you made um the renderings that you're seeing here this evening are new to staff the proffers are not proffered in a manner that you're going to get that necessarily so i think that's a that's room for improvement right now they're just showing a general buffer you referred to winchester gateway winchester gateway proffered an enhanced buffer a 200 foot setback plus an enhanced buffer as part of their original rezoning because of the PROXIMITY ON A MAJOR ROADWAY AND I THINK THAT SPEAKS TO THE COMMENTS YOU MADE ABOUT THE 522 CORRIDOR BEING A SIGNIFICANT TOURISM ROUTE BUT ALSO ON 277 WHICH MR. BOTORF NOTED IS A VERY NARROW ROADWAY AND THE PROXIMITY TO THE USES ON THE OTHER SIDE IS NEAR. THEY COULD PROFFER ENHANCED BUFFERS, SCREENING SETBACKS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. THAT'S VERY COMMON INDUSTRIAL REZONINGS.

One logistics we've seen that with Winchester Gateway and other properties so that that's when staff noted earlier as one of our concerns That's kind of those under undeveloped or underdeveloped elements of their application Hey to my left any more questions or comments Okay, mr. Bishop was there is there an area that was reserved an area of the property that was reserved that wasn't included in the rezoning and I'm trying to remember what.

You mean for right-of-way? Yeah. Proctor 2.2 notes that the applicant shall reserve right-of-way along property frontage of Fairfax Pike to allow for future dedication of the proposed four-lane collector roadway as depicted on the South Frederick land use plan. So we would just note that that should probably be reserved for future dedication. I mean, it's nitpicking the language, but it's Bear some clarification.

Okay. So we're looking for dedication rather than a reservation? Is that what?

I would use the terminology dedication outright or reserve for dedication.

Okay. Because if it's a reserve, when VDOT comes back later and says we want to widen the road, they can get remunerated for the purchase.

Yeah.

If we dedicate it now, they're giving it away. Correct. That's part of the rezoning. So, okay.

But if we dedicate it, who's maintaining it?

The owner would be responsible for maintaining it. Yes, sir?

It's your land.

OK. Anything else? All right. OK. Mr. Bishop, Mr. Klein, talk to me about schedules. These guys, my understanding is they have a grant application they're trying in. Their hope is to get a rezoning completed so they can show on their grant application that they have the zoning that's needed for their grant application. We've identified things here this evening that they're going to work on. I can tell you, I'm not going to sugarcoat it, if a data center is not propped out, this ain't going to go anywhere with this body. I just want you to be, I don't want you to be surprised later on. If you haven't seen our history of late, I would encourage you to take a look. What do we, if we want to get to If we want to get to a public hearing for these folks on the 7th, I believe is what you said, October 7th?

Yeah. So the cutoff date for the 7th is Monday for them to have revised.