Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 18 · column 1 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
(Continued from Page 3) would have added approximately 15,000 vehicle trips per day to the
tion of Rt. 29 bypass with Rt. 29
less, already an accidentled
intersection.
‘ Last spring, the county planning Commissioners unanimously recommended denial of the application to fezone the 356-acre tract from agricultural to a mix of residential and commercial. According to Mr. Mothersead, objections centered on concerns over traffic generation, water cnjplity and drainage. When the Three Flags proposal was forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with the recommendation for denial, Maruca and Shipe asked that a decision be Postponed for six months. : "/Three Flags was back before the tidtod last Wednesday under a revised plan which includes the elimination of the planned 100,000 square foot shopping center. According to Mr. Mothersead, this would reduce the vehicle trips per day by about 5,000. In addition, Maruca and Shipe dropped the acreage in the commerrial rezoning application from 28 tores to 10 acres. “It is my understanding they don’t plan to put anything other than a motel on those 10 acfes," the planning director said. “ The developers also offered to Unlit residential development to a total of 400 units until an interchange and overpass at the Rt. 29 intersection is built but dropped the proffer to hold the number of new units to 100 in a calendar year. Mr. Mothersead reported that Highway Department plans call for engineering and design studies on the $5 million project to begin this year; land acquisition and construction to get underway in 1990, and completion to come in 1993. / The revised plan for Three Flags WjBs submitted on Nov. 4, the same $ay as the Board of Supervisors’ public hearing. The changes had not been considered by the Planning Commission. Neither did the revised development plan carry a recommendation from the county’s planning office. That recommendation traditionally comes after “a three to four-week process of agency review
highway, health, soil and water - and in-house analysis,” the planning director said. ‘We didn’t have the time for that.”
Mr. Mothersead added that the revised application for rezoning has “a complicated set and large number of proffers” still to be assessed. (Those included an offer of a contribution towards capital improvements to schools, which the 'copnty attorney ruled unacceptable Since state enabling legislation allows only Fairfax and adjoining counties with the county-executive fotm of local government to accept proffers of off-site improvements hi|d monetary donations.)
• Both the staff and Planning Commission recommendations given (Months ago in response to the original Three Flags proposal “were inconsistent with what we had before us last week,” Mr. Mothersead
89.3%