PC 11-18-15 Meeting Agenda AGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
November 18, 2015
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) Adoption of Agenda: Pursuant to established procedures, the Planning Commission
should adopt the Agenda for the meeting ................................................................ (no tab)
2) October 21, 2015 Minutes............................................................................................... (A)
3) Committee Reports .................................................................................................. (no tab)
4) Citizen Comments .................................................................................................... (no tab)
PUBLIC HEARING
5) Rezoning #10-15 HERITAGE COMMONS, LLC, submitted by Greenway Engineering, Inc. to
rezone 96.28+/- acres from B2 (Business General) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community)
District, 54+/- acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to R4 (Residential Planned
Community) District and .31+/- acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the R4 (Residential
Planned Community) District with proffers. The properties are located west of the intersection of
Front Royal Pike (Route 522) and Airport Road (Route 645) and are identified by the Property
Identification Numbers 63-A-150, 64-A-10, and 64-A-12 in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
Mr. Ruddy ....................................................................................................................... (B)
6) Other
Adjourn
Commonly Used Planning Agenda Terms
Meeting format
Citizen Comments – The portion of the meeting agenda offering an opportunity for the public to provide
comment to the Planning Commission on any items not scheduled as public hearing items.
Public Hearing– A specific type of agenda item, required by State law, which incorporates public comment as
a part of that item prior to Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors action. Public hearings are held for
items such as: Comprehensive Plan policies and amendments; Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance amendments;
and Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit applications. Following the Public Hearing, the Planning
Commission will take action on the item (see below).
Action Item–There are both public hearing and non-public hearing items on which the Planning Commission
takes action. Depending on the actual item, the Planning Commission may approve, deny, table, or forward a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding the agenda item. No public comment is accepted during
the Action Item portion of the agenda.
Information/Discussion Item– The portion of the meeting agenda where items are presented to the Planning
Commission for information and discussion. The Planning Commission may offer comments and suggestions,
but does not take action on the agenda item. No public comment is accepted during the Information/Discussion
Item portion of the agenda.
Planning Terminology
Urban Development Area or UDA – The UDA is the county’s urban growth boundary identified in the
Comprehensive Plan in which more intensive forms of residential development will occur. The UDA is an area
of the county where community facilities and public services are more readily available and are provided more
economically.
Sewer and Water Service Area or SWSA – The SWSA is the boundary identified in the Comprehensive Plan
in which public water and sewer is or can be provided. The SWSA is consistent with the UDA in many
locations; however the SWSA may extend beyond the UDA to promote commercial, industrial, and institutional
land uses in area where residential land uses are not desirable.
Land Use – Land Use is the nomenclature which refers to the type of activity which may occur on an area of
land. Common land use categories include: agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial.
Zoning District - Zoning district refers to a specific geographic area that is subject to land use standards.
Frederick County designates these areas, and establishes policies and ordinances over types of land uses,
density, and lot requirements in each zone. Zoning is the main planning tool of local government to manage the
future development of a community, protect neighborhoods, concentrate retail business and industry, and
channel traffic.
Rezoning – Rezoning is the process by which a property owner seeks to implement or modify the permitted
land use activities on their land. A rezoning changes the permitted land use activities within the categories
listed above under Land Use.
Conditional Use Permit or CUP - A CUP allows special land uses which may be desirable, but are not always
appropriate based on a location and surrounding land uses. The CUP requested use, which is not allowed as a
matter of right within a zoning district, is considered through a public hearing process and usually contains
conditions to minimize any impacts on surrounding properties.
Ordinance Amendment – The process by which the County Code is revised. Often the revisions are the result
of a citizen request with substantial justification supporting the change. Amendments ultimately proceed
through a public hearing prior to the PC forwarding a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
County Bodies Involved
Board of Supervisors or BOS - Frederick County is governed by an elected Board of Supervisors composed of
seven members, one from each magisterial district, and one chairman-at-large. The Board of Supervisors is the
policy-making body of the county. Functions of the Board of Supervisors related to planning include making
land use decisions, and establishing growth and development policies.
Planning Commission or PC - The PC is composed of 13 members, two from each magisterial districts and one
at-large, appointed by the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission serves in an advisory capacity to the
Board of Supervisors which then takes final action on all planning, zoning, and land use matters.
Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee or CPPC – The CPPC is a major committee of the PC whose
primary responsibility is to formulate land use policies that shape the location and timing of development
throughout the County. Included in the work are studies of specific areas to develop guidelines for future land
use within those areas. The CPPC also considers requests for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
Decisions by CPPC are then forwarded to the PC for consideration.
Development Review and Regulations Committee or DRRC – The DRRC is the second major committee of the
PC whose primary responsibilities involve the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan in the form of
Zoning and Subdivision ordinance requirements. Requests to amend the ordinances to the DRRC are made by
the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, local citizens, businesses, or organizations. DRRC decisions
are also forwarded to the PC for consideration.
A
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3265
Minutes of October 21, 2015
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on October 21, 2015
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice
Chairman/Opequon District; Robert S. Molden, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District;
Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek
District; J. Rhodes Marston, Back Creek District; Charles F. Dunlap, Red Bud District; Christopher M.
Mohn, Red Bud District; Kevin Kenney, Gainesboro District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District;
Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney; Robert Hess, Board of Supervisors Liaison.
ABSENT: J. Stanley Crockett, Stonewall District;
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director; John A.
Bishop, Deputy Director Transportation; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning
and Subdivision Administrator; and Shannon L. Conner, Administrative Assistant.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Wilmot called the October 21, 2015 meeting of the Frederick County Planning
Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Wilmot commenced the meeting by inviting everyone to
join in a moment of silence.
-------------
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Manuel, the
Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening’s meeting.
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3266
Minutes of October 21, 2015
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC) – Mtg. 10/12/15
Commissioner Mohn reported the committee kicked off the citizen review panels for the
2035 Comprehensive Plan update. He noted the groups will be meeting over the next several weeks.
Historical Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) – Mtg. 10/20/15
Commissioner Dunlap reported the board discussed the rezoning for the I-81 West
Business Park property and determined there would be no impact on the Robinson/Cline House. He
concluded the board also discussed the role of the HRAB in regards to the 2035 Comprehensive Plan
Update.
Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) – Mtg. 10/20/15
Commissioner Unger reported total customer base for water is 14,429 and the total for
sanitary is 13,941. The rainfall total for the month of September was 3.83 inches which is up and better
than average for the year. Water usage at the Diehl Plant was 1.9 mgd; water usage at the Anderson Plant
was 2.0 mgd; 1.6 mgd was purchased from the City. The daily average use is 5.6 mgd, which is normal
for this time of year. Elevation at the Diehl Plant is down 2 feet and the Anderson Plant elevation is also
down 2 feet. Mr. Unger noted water loss is 18% which is an increase. Mr. Unger concluded the well at
Lake Frederick is producing 350,000 to 500,000 gallons of water per day. The search continues for a well
site in Round Hill per Mr. Unger.
-------------
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any subject not currently on the
Planning Commission’s agenda or any item that is solely a discussion item for the Commission. No one
came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the citizen comments portion of the meeting.
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3267
Minutes of October 21, 2015
PUBLIC HEARING
Conditional Use Permit #03-15 for Gary Rogers Arghyris, for cottage occupation (sale of sheds).
The property is located at 1518 Fairfax Pike, White Post, Virginia. The property is identified with
Property Identification Number 87-A-12D in the Opequon Magisterial District.
Action – Recommend Approval with Conditions
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran reported this property is
currently zoned RA (Rural Areas) and the current land use is Residential. He continued the property is
surrounded by RA (Rural Areas) properties used for Residential and a M1 (Light Industrial) property sits
to the rear of the property line. Mr. Cheran gave an overview of the property lines and the location of
structures.
Mr. Cheran explained the applicant is attempting to assemble and sell sheds on the site.
Mr. Cheran noted most of the sales of the sheds are via the internet, however, the applicant would like to
have the opportunity to have customers visit the property if need be. Mr. Cheran reported the assembly of
the sheds will take place in an existing structure approximately 1,500 square feet in size located towards
the rear of the property.
Mr. Cheran presented the conditions for the CUP recommended by staff :
1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all
times.
2. No more than five (5) customers at any time on site.
3. No more than seven (7) sheds for display or sale shall be allowed on the
property. Such sheds shall be kept in the rear of the property.
4. An illustrative sketch plan shall be submitted to and approved by Frederick
County, and all plan improvements shall be implemented prior to operating
the business.
5. One business sign shall be allowed and shall conform to Cottage Occupation
sign requirements and shall not exceed four (4) square feet in size and five
(5) feet in height.
6. Any expansion or change of use shall require a new Conditional Use Permit.
Commissioner Thomas commented he understands the point of condition #2 (No more
than five (5) customers at any time on site) but how will this be enforced. He continued this condition
should be removed if we cannot enforce it. Mr. Cheran noted a baseline was set for the number of
customers permitted on site at one time.
Mr. Bruce Downing representing the applicant was available to answer any questions or
address any concerns. There were no questions or concerns at this time.
Chairman Wilmot called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing
to come forward at this time.
Samantha Smith of White Post VA came forward to speak. Ms. Smith is concerned with
the speed limit on the stretch of road in front of this property. She explained there have been several
close calls possibly resulting in accidents and would like to see the speed limit reduced from 55mph to 45
mph. Ms. Smith expressed her concern with the existing sheds on the property not being anchored to the
ground. She is fearful of a natural disaster striking and the impact this many unanchored sheds will have
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3268
Minutes of October 21, 2015
on adjoining property owners. Her final concern is the property owner will not abide by the conditions of
the CUP.
No one else came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment
portion of the hearing.
Mr. Cheran addressed the concern regarding the speed limit, he noted VDOT has
reviewed this site and deems it acceptable now; however should the business continue to grow VDOT
could possibly implement a commercial entrance. Commissioner Thomas inquired would it be
appropriate to request a speed limit reduction with VDOT. Commissioner Oates noted the procedure
would be to turn the request over to the Transportation Committee for their assistance. He also noted the
installation of a business sign may alleviate some of the uncertainty of when and where vehicles are
turning.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas, seconded by Commissioner Dunlap to
exclude condition #2 (No more than five (5) customers at any one time on site)
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of the Conditional Use Permit #03-15 for Gary Rogers Arghyris, for cottage occupation (sale of
sheds). The property is located at 1518 Fairfax Pike, White Post, Virginia. The property is identified
with Property Identification Number 87-A-12D in the Opequon Magisterial District with the following
conditions:
1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
2. No more than seven (7) sheds for display or sale shall be allowed on the property. Such sheds
shall be kept in the rear of the property.
3. An illustrative sketch plan shall be submitted to and approved by Frederick County, and all plan
improvements shall be implemented prior to operating the business.
4. One business sign shall be allowed and shall conform to Cottage Occupation sign requirements
and shall not exceed four (4) square feet in size and five (5) feet in height.
5. Any expansion or change of use shall require a new Conditional Use Permit.
(Note: Commissioner Crockett was absent from the meeting)
Rezoning #07-15 Woodside Land Company, LLC, submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., to rezone 20 acres
of property from RA (Rural Areas) District to M2 (Industrial General) District with proffers. The
property is located on the southern side of Route 669 (Woodbine Road) about 2000 feet east of
Route 11 and adjacent to the Winchester & Western Railroad and is identified by Property
Identification Number 34-A-6D in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
Action – Recommend Approval by Majority Vote
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3269
Minutes of October 21, 2015
Commissioner Oates would abstain from all discussion on these items for a possible
conflict of interest.
Deputy Director, Michael T. Ruddy reported this is a request to rezone 20.0 acres from
the RA (Rural Areas) District to M2 (Industrial General) District with proffers. He noted this property is
on the east side of Winchester & Western Railroad tracks and is south of Woodbine Road. Mr. Ruddy
continued the applicant has provided a GDP (Generalized Development Plan) for this 20 acre parcel and it
clearly shows the Woodbine Road right-of-way; Duncan Run and the associated flood plains on each
side; highlights the proposed entrance location; and a potential well site for the County.
Mr. Ruddy reported this is a relatively straight forward request however there are issues
that need to be addressed. He continued the proffers for this rezoning were reviewed by Staff. It was
noted the industrial land use designation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan but it is important to
recognize some of the impacts associated with this request that may be addressed with the applicants
proffer statement and the proffers primarily revolve around transportation. Mr. Ruddy explained it is
important to recognize the condition of Woodbine Road (Route 669) in the vicinity of this project. The
road is relatively rural in condition; it includes a low water bridge crossing Duncan Run, and includes
significant turns in the road itself. Mr. Ruddy noted the long term Comprehensive Plan identifies a major
collector road and Woodbine Road extending east from its current location. Mr. Ruddy continued the
potential cash contribution of $.75 per building square foot has the ability to generate up to but no more
than $76,875 for transportation improvements in that general area. He noted recognizing the scale of that
and the cost of transportation improvements, that potential amount does not appear to address the
improvements that may be needed to the road and to other transportation solutions in the general area.
Mr. Timothy Stowe representing the applicant came forward to address any questions or
concerns. Mr. Stowe reiterated this project has been scaled to be able to work with the transportation
network that is in place at this time. He explained the goal of the applicant is to not generate more than
100 trips during peak hours. He noted the applicant does realize the road is small, winding, and he feels
this modest level of traffic will not overtax the roadway.
Commissioner Marston inquired if the 100 units of traffic is truck traffic and if this site is
for a warehouse. Mr. Stowe responded typically in a development similar in nature to this 8% is truck
traffic and the balance is usually employees and visitors. Mr. Stowe noted the plan is for a warehouse on
this site. Commissioner Mohn requested clarification for the basis of the $.75 per square foot. Mr. Stowe
explained this amount has been used in previous projects that have been approved by the Board of
Supervisors with very similar interests.
Commissioner Thomas voiced his concern with the applicants view on the traffic impact;
would the existing condition of Woodbine Road structurally sustain 8% of tractor trailer traffic without
significant maintenance being performed especially with part of the road being located in a flood plain.
He doesn’t foresee the road being able to handle that type of traffic. Mr. Stowe noted there has not been
any type of soil or pavement analysis performed. Mr. Stowe continued at the present time there are trucks
accessing the Frederick County Public Schools warehouse site on a regular basis as well as agricultural
traffic and at time carrying heavier loads than a tractor trailer may hold. Commissioner Thomas inquired
if this is an appropriate transportation system to accommodate the use. Mr. Stowe elaborated based on
the Comprehensive Plan this is the direction the County has decided to go and this proposal is keeping
within that plan.
Commissioner Unger commented that with the $.75 per square foot being used in the past
for projects we cannot expect someone to do anything different at this point. He also expressed his
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3270
Minutes of October 21, 2015
appreciation of an easement well being considered in the proffers for this project. Commissioner Thomas
asked will traffic intensity require a lot of road maintenance. Deputy Director Transportation, John A.
Bishop explained not having performed analysis of the roadway, he cannot speak to what is not known to
be factual or to what that piece of pavement can or cannot handle. He expressed confidence that the road
was not built to what VDOT would require today for construction of a new road. Mr. Bishop agreed this
is a valid concern.
Chairman Wilmot requested Mr. Bishop comment on the rail situation at this location.
Chairman Wilmot noted she has viewed the site and the track appears to be very straight. She explained
if a M2 piece of property is the goal for this rezoning this would be a prime candidate for a rail line siting
and if so can it be accommodated with the length of its property boundary. Mr. Bishop agreed that is
accurate, the length looks good, and there are rail access funds available.
Chairman Wilmot called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing
to come forward. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment
portion of the hearing.
The applicant Mr. John Light came forward to answer any questions and to address any
concerns. He explained the rail situation; currently it is Winchester & Western Railroad; last year a
second rail line was installed as a stacking/parking area that ran approximately 2000 linear feet down his
property; since completion they have started a third line on the west side which means significant parking
for Winchester & Western Railroad. Mr. Light addressed the concerns regarding Woodbine Road; from
the railroad west to Route 11 was upgraded to tractor trailer status about 15 years ago; the road was
widened approximately 18 inches on each side and capped. He explained the amount of roadway that is
being addressed through the proffer is from the railroad to the turn which is not a very long distance. He
agreed on the $.75 per square foot proffer due to that amount being used previously on rezonings. Mr.
Light commented regarding tractor trailer traffic on Woodbine Road and he agreed the road would need
to be upgraded and the part he is speaking of is of minimal distance.
Commissioner Thomas commented he feels the transportation proffers are inadequate for
this rezoning. Noted by Commissioner Kenney, he feels this is a good application and the County has to
start somewhere to process more industrial uses.
Commissioner Triplett recommended approval of this rezoning. This motion was
seconded by Commissioner Unger and passed by a majority vote.
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of
Rezoning #07-15 Woodside Land Company, LLC, submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., to rezone 20 acres of
property from RA (Rural Areas) District to M2 (Industrial General) District with proffers. The property
is located on the southern side of Route 669 (Woodbine Road) about 2000 feet east of Route 11 and
adjacent to the Winchester & Western Railroad and is identified by Property Identification Number 34-A-
6D in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
The vote was as follows:
YES: Wilmot, Marston, Unger, Triplett, Kenney, Mohn, Dunlap, Manuel
NO: Molden, Thomas, Ambrogi
ABSTAIN: Oates
(Note: Commissioner Crockett was absent from the meeting)
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3271
Minutes of October 21, 2015
Rezoning #08-15 McCann Office Park, submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., to rezone 154.923 acres as
follows: 43.76 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RA (Rural Areas) District with proffers,
6.180 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District, 11.729 acres from RA
(Rural Areas) District to M1 (Light Industrial) District, and 93.246 acres from RA (Rural Areas)
District to OM (Office-Manufacturing Park) District with proffers. The property is located on the
southeastern side of Martinsburg Pike (Route 1) and Old Charlestown Road (Route 761) and is
identified by Property Identification Numbers 44-A-25A, 44-A-25B, and 44-A-40 in the Stonewall
Magisterial District.
Action – Recommend Approval
Commissioner Oates would abstain from all discussion on these items for a possible
conflict of interest.
Deputy Director, Michael T. Ruddy reported this application is to rezone a total of
154.923 acres. He noted the rezoning appears complicated with the breakdown of acreage and zoning
districts however it is consistent with the updated land uses of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Ruddy
provided an overview of the location of the property at which time the right-of-way for Route 37 on the
southern end of the property was emphasized.
Mr. Ruddy noted the applicant provided the proffer statement along with a series of maps
and has identified the requested zoning locations. Mr. Ruddy explained the proffers were reviewed by
Staff and the transportation proffer was highlighted specifically: Route 37 right-of-way dedication;
additional right-of-way along other roads; signalization at the intersection with Route 11; improvements
to McCanns Road. Mr. Ruddy continued access to this site will be from McCanns Road and the applicant
has worked closely with VDOT to receive their endorsement to access the property. Mr. Ruddy noted
currently McCanns Road cannot support this project however the applicants proffer provides the
commitment to improve McCanns Road to a standard that can support industrial traffic. Mr. Ruddy
reiterated the land use is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the impacts anticipated have
generally been addressed in particular transportation.
Chairman Wilmot called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing
to come forward. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment
portion of the hearing.
Mr. Timothy Stowe representing the applicant came forward to answer any questions.
He explained they feel this is a good balance of development property that can be used to bring industrial
base to the County; to preserve green areas that will benefit the community; and to provide the
transportation improvements that are needed to support this project. He feels this is a good fit and a win
win for the County and for the landowner.
Commissioner Thomas inquired about page 2 of 4 of an email that was sent back to
VDOT, #5 seems to be a disagreement on the proposed cross section, whether the cross section is
adequate for a commercial roadway serving the intensity of the development. He asked if an agreement
was met on this. Mr. Stowe responded there are two components to this: once at the intersection they
anticipate two turn lanes, one for southbound Route 11 and one for northbound Route 11 traffic, plus the
eastbound lane for traffic coming into the development and that would be 36 feet. He explained once the
area for the que is cleared the intent would be to narrow the pavement to two lanes rather than carry three
lanes all the way back and that area would be 24 feet. Commissioner Thomas asked if VDOT agreed to
this. Mr. Stowe responded VDOT has not responded as of today.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3272
Minutes of October 21, 2015
Upon motion made by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Manuel
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Rezoning #08-15 McCann Office Park, submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., to rezone 154.923
acres as follows: 43.76 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RA (Rural Areas) District with proffers,
6.180 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District, 11.729 acres from RA
(Rural Areas) District to M1 (Light Industrial) District, and 93.246 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District
to OM (Office-Manufacturing Park) District with proffers. The property is located on the southeastern
side of Martinsburg Pike (Route 1) and Old Charlestown Road (Route 761) and is identified by Property
Identification Numbers 44-A-25A, 44-A-25B, and 44-A-40 in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
(Note: Commissioner Crockett was absent from the meeting)
Rezoning #09-15 Artillery Business Center submitted by Pennoni Associates, to revise proffers
associated with Rezoning #07-08. This revision relates specifically to the transportation proffers.
The properties are located east and adjacent to Shady Elm Road approximately 4,500 feet south of
the intersection of Shady Elm Road and Apple Valley Drive. The properties are identified with
Property Identification Numbers 75-A-1 and 75-A-1F in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
Action – Recommend Approval by Majority Vote
Commissioner Manuel would abstain from all discussion on these items for a possible
conflict of interest.
Deputy Director Transportation, John A. Bishop reported this rezoning is a proffer
modification to Rezoning #07-08 which was approved by the Board of Supervisors on February 18, 2008.
He noted the proffer revisions address the timing and commitments for transportation proffers. Mr.
Bishop explained the proposed proffer modifications replace transportation commitments for
improvements to Shady Elm Road, $250,000 in cash transportation proffers, and the right-of-way
provision across 74-A-68 with the commitment to participate in revenue sharing in the completing of
Renaissance Drive from the current ending location to Shady Elm Road. Mr. Bishop noted building
permits are limited to two (2) on the property (1 per parcel) until the applicant enters into a revenue
sharing agreement with the County.
Mr. Bishop noted there are items that could delay the completion of the roadway such as
the right-of-way acquisition and acquiring a rail crossing. Commissioner Unger requested Mr. Bishop
clarify the shift in proffers from Shady Elm and cash to the revenue sharing agreement. Mr. Bishop
emphasized that the full connection of Renaissance Drive offers greater value to the County than Shady
Elm improvements.
Patrick Sowers representing NW Works came forward address any questions or concerns.
Mr. Sowers presented a brief overview of the property lines as well as provided details of what has
transpired since rezoning #07-08. Commissioner Unger inquired how far the 1,100 feet comes down
Shady Elm Road. Mr. Sowers noted it is about half way down the site. Commissioner Kenney inquired
in reading the VDOT letters; September 2015 VDOT was not satisfied then in October, 2015 they were
cautiously satisfied, and what has changed. Mr. Sowers explained this was adjusted due to the actual
proffering and entering into and a revenue sharing agreement.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3273
Minutes of October 21, 2015
Chairman Wilmot called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing
to come forward. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment
portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Oates noted a concern about there not being a time requirement for
entering into the revenue sharing agreement in addition to the building permit trigger. Mr. Bishop agreed
a time frame would be beneficial due to timeline for availability of funds from VDOT.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Unger, seconded by Commissioner Mohn to
recommend approval with a suggestion that the Applicant include within the proffers a deadline for road
construction to reflect 24-36 months
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of
Rezoning #09-15 Artillery Business Center submitted by Pennoni Associates, to revise proffers associated
with Rezoning #07-08. This revision relates specifically to the transportation proffers. The properties are
located east and adjacent to Shady Elm Road approximately 4,500 feet south of the intersection of Shady
Elm Road and Apple Valley Drive. The properties are identified with Property Identification Numbers
75-A-1 and 75-A-1F in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
The vote was as follows:
YES: Wilmot, Mohn, Dunlap, Triplett, Thomas, Oates, Ambrogi, Marston, Unger
NO: Kenney, Molden
ABSTAIN: Manuel
(Note: Commissioner Crockett was absent from the meeting)
-------------
Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code – Chapter 165 Zoning, ARTICLE IV
AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; Part 401 – RA Rural Areas District §165-
401.03 Conditional Uses. ARTICLE II Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking Buffers, and
Regulations for Specific Uses. Part 204 – Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, §165-204.18
Storage Facilities, self-service. Revision to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to include self-
storage facilities as a conditional use in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District.
Action – Recommend Approval
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins reported this is an ordinance amendment to include
self-storage facilities as a conditional use in the RA (Rural Areas) District. She explained currently self-
storage facilities are a permitted use in the B2, B2, M1, and M2 Districts. Ms. Perkins noted this is a
request to consider self-storage in the RA (Rural Areas) District due to this use requiring limited
infrastructure (such as water and sewer).
Ms. Perkins continued by reviewing the additional standards placed on the CUP for this
use (in addition to the existing supplementary use regulations).
The development must conform to all B2 (General Business) District standards.
All development shall have direct access onto a paved state road.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3274
Minutes of October 21, 2015
Property must be located within a designated and defined Rural Community
Center as identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Perkins explained the third standard was added after the Board of Supervisors
discussion due to the number of concerns about the self-storage being within various areas in the RA
(Rural Areas) District.
Commissioner Oates inquired would this be a site plan or illustrative sketch plan
scenario. Ms. Perkins noted a site plan would be required. Commissioner Oates commented he does not
agree with the Rural Community Center designation, typically those are small lots and rural centers or
mini storage facilities would not be appropriate. He continued there are more suitable areas with five acre
lots where the neighbors are not as close. He feels self-storage facilities should be discouraged from
going into smaller communities. Commissioner Thomas agreed with Mr. Oates.
Chairman Wilmot called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing
to come forward. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment
portion of the hearing.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Thomas to
recommend approval of this ordinance amendment with the removal of requirement; properties must be
located within a designated and defined Rural Community Center as identified in the Comprehensive
Plan.
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of the Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code – Chapter 165 Zoning, ARTICLE
IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; Part 401 – RA Rural Areas District §165-
401.03 Conditional Uses. ARTICLE II Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking Buffers, and
Regulations for Specific Uses. Part 204 – Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, §165-204.18 Storage
Facilities, self-service. Revision to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to include self-storage
facilities as a conditional use in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District.
(Note: Commissioner Crockett was absent from the meeting)
Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code – Chapter 165 Zoning, ARTICLE X
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS; Part 1001 – Board of Zoning Appeals §165-1001.02
appointment; organization; terms. §65-1001.02 powers and duties. ARTICLE 1 GENERAL
PROVISIONS, AMENDMENTS, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS; Part 101 – General
Provisions §165-101-.02 Definitions and word usage. Revision to the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance to revise and update the variance requirements per the Code of Virginia.
Action – Recommend Approval
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins reported during the 2015 session, the Virginia
General Assembly passed amendments to the Code of Virginia pertaining to the operation of the local
Board of Zoning Appeals. She explained these changes require revisions to be made to the Zoning
Ordinance to be compliant with the Code of Virginia pertaining to the Board of Zoning Appeals and the
standards by which the Board reviews variance request, these include:
The definition of variance has been revised.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3275
Minutes of October 21, 2015
The administrative appeals section has been updated to be consistent with the
Code of Virginia – the determination of the Zoning Administrator shall be
resumed to be correct and the burden of proof falls on the applicant to rebut the
resumption of correctness.
Within Section C – Variances – the term “unnecessary hardships” has been
replaced with the phrase “unreasonable restriction on the utilization of the
property”.
Several other minor revisions have been included that reformat the ordinance to
comply with the changes.
Chairman Wilmot called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing
to come forward. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment
portion of the hearing.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of the Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code – Chapter 165 Zoning, ARTICLE
X BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS; Part 1001 – Board of Zoning Appeals §165-1001.02 appointment;
organization; terms. §65-1001.02 powers and duties. ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS,
AMENDMENTS, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS; Part 101 – General Provisions §165-101-.02
Definitions and word usage. Revision to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to revise and update the
variance requirements per the Code of Virginia.
(Note: Commissioner Crockett was absent from the meeting)
Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code – Chapter 165 Zoning, ARTICLE IV
AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; Part 401 – RA Rural Areas District,
§165-401.07 Setback requirements. Revision to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to revise
the setback from parcels within Agricultural and Forestal Districts in the RA (Rural Areas)
District.
Action – Recommend Approval
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins reported this ordinance amendment arose from the
recent Agricultural and Forestal District update. She explained there were issues that came to light with
parcels less than five (5) acres in size being included in the Agricultural and Forestal District due to the
impacts on adjacent property owners. Ms. Perkins continued the concern was that placement of these
parcels of less than five (5) acres in size into the Agricultural District did not clearly further agriculture
pursuits and interests, and often contained residences, yet the resulting 220 foot setback placed greater
restrictions on their adjacent neighbors. Ms. Perkins elaborated essentially; someone with a two (2) acre
parcel could control development activity on their property as well as their neighbor’s two (2) acres
(when the 200 foot setback was applied).
Ms. Perkins noted the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing for the inclusion of
these smaller parcels, action was deferred on many of these and the Board of Supervisors directed
Planning Staff to prepare an ordinance amendment that would allow the inclusion of the parcels without
impacting adjacent parcels. The amendment includes the following:
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3276
Minutes of October 21, 2015
Utilizes the RA setback requirement based on adjoining parcel size previously
adopted in 2001.
Includes setbacks for parcels that abut an agricultural district, based on the size of
the parcel within the adopted agricultural district.
Parcels within an agricultural district that are six (6) acres or less would require a
50 foot setback and parcels over six (6) acres would require the 200 foot setback.
Chairman Wilmot called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing
to come forward. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment
portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Oates felt the two (2) acre option was a better option and did not see the
need for moving to the six (6) acre. Commissioner Thomas disagreed and preferred the six (6) acre
option.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas, seconded by Commissioner Manuel, and
passed by majority vote
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the
Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code – Chapter 165 Zoning, ARTICLE IV
AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; Part 401 – RA Rural Areas District,
§165-401.07 Setback requirements. Revision to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to revise the
setback from parcels within Agricultural and Forestal Districts in the RA (Rural Areas) District.
The vote was as follows:
YES: Wilmot, Marston, Triplett, Thomas, Mohn, Dunlap, Manuel, Ambrogi
NO: Molden, Unger, Kenney, Oates
(Note: Commissioner Crockett was absent from the meeting)
------------
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and a motion was made by Commissioner Oates to adjourn
the meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas and unanimously passed. The
meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
June M. Wilmot, Chairman
____________________________
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
B
REZONING APPLICATION #10-15
Heritage Commons
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: November 9, 2015
Staff Contacts: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Director
John Bishop, AICP, Deputy Director - Transportation
PROPOSAL: This is a request to rezone 96.28 acres from B2 (General Business) District to R4
(Residential Planned Community) District, 54 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to R4
(Residential Planned Community) District, and .31 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the R4
(Residential Planned Community) District with proffers. The total acreage is 150.59 acres to the R4
(Residential Planned Community) District.
LOCATION: The site fronts on the west side of Front Royal Pike (Route 522), opposite Airport Road
(Route 645), and has frontage on the east side of Interstate 81.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSION FOR THE 11/18/2015 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING:
The Heritage Commons rezoning application is a request to use the R4 (Residential Planned
Community) Zoning District, with modifications and proffers, to construct a development with 645
residential units and commercial uses. The project is located on the 150-acre property commonly
known as Russell 150. The 645 residential units may include multi-family units and multi-family
residential units combined with commercial structures.
The land uses shown with the Heritage Commons rezoning application are not wholly consistent with
the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. It is recognized that commercial and higher density residential uses are
supported in this general area, but not specifically within the locations identified in the GDP and
accompanying Land Use Matrix.
Additionally, the application does not adequately address the negative impacts associated with this
request; in particular, the negative transportation and fiscal impacts. The Applicant’s approach to
addressing these items should be carefully evaluated. In particular, it should be determined if the
Revenue Sharing approach to securing partial completion of the transportation improvements is
satisfactory (page 8). Also, it should be determined if the Applicant’s alternative to credit the impacts to
community facilities is acceptable (page 10).
On the transportation front, the applicant has much improved the language regarding commitment to the
revenue sharing project which would complete Airport Road, the roundabout, and the bridge over I-81.
However, this comes at a cost of only a right-of-way commitment to Warrior Drive, only a right of way
commitment to Tevis Street to the northern property line, and removal of the $1million cash proffer
toward offsite transportation improvements. Consideration and analysis needs to be given to proper
access to the southern land bay which is being set up to access exclusively through the Madison parcel.
This would not be the case if Warrior Drive was still being considered.
The items identified throughout the Staff Report, and any further issues raised by the Planning
Commission should be addressed prior to securing a favorable decision from the Planning Commission:
Rezoning #10-15 Heritage Commons
November 9, 2015
Page 2
The Applicant should also ensure that all review agencies are afforded the opportunity to guarantee their
comments are adequately addressed as described prior to the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisor’s review. The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors should be certain that the
comments have been appropriately addressed.
Following the required public hearing, a recommendation regarding this rezoning application to
the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately
address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission.
Rezoning #10-15 Heritage Commons
November 9, 2015
Page 3
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this
application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues
concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report.
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission: 11/18/15 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 12/09/15 Pending
PROPOSAL: This is a request to rezone 96.28 acres from B2 (General Business) District to R4
(Residential Planned Community) District, 54 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to R4
(Residential Planned Community) District, and .31 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the R4
(Residential Planned Community) District with proffers. The total acreage is 150.59 acres to the R4
(Residential Planned Community) District.
LOCATION: The site fronts on the west side of Front Royal Pike (Route 522), opposite Airport Road
(Route 645), and has frontage on the east side of Interstate 81.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee
PROPERTY ID NUMBER(S): 64-A-10, 64-A-12, 64-A-150
PROPERTY ZONING: B2 (General Business) District, RP (Residential Performance) District and
RA (Rural Areas) District
PRESENT USE: Vacant
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
North: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential/Institutional
B2 (General Business) Vacant
South: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Vacant (Madison Village)
B2 (General Business) Vacant
East: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential
West: City of Winchester Use: Residential/Vacant
PROPOSED USES: 645 residential units and commercial uses within this 150 acre project.
Rezoning #10-15 Heritage Commons
November 9, 2015
Page 4
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Please see attached applicant’s responses for the following reviewing agencies:
Frederick County Attorney: Please see attached letter from Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney
dated October 28, 2015.
Virginia Department of Transportation: Please see attached email from Jeff Lineberry dated
October 16, 2015.
Frederick County Public Schools: Please see attached letter from K. Wayne Lee, Jr., LEED AP
dated September 30, 2015.
Frederick County Public Works: Please see attached letter from Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E.
dated September 25, 2015.
Frederick County Parks and Recreation: Please see attached email from Jonathan Turkel, Park and
Stewardship Planner dated September 28, 2015.
Fire Marshal: Plans approved dated 09/18/15.
Frederick County Sanitation Authority: Please see attached letter from Uwe E. Weindel, PE.,
Engineer-Director dated September 15, 2015 .
Frederick-Winchester Service Authority: No comments regarding wastewater treatment capacity.
Winchester Regional Airport: Please see attached letter from Serena Manuel, Executive Director
dated October 21, 2015.
City of Winchester: Please see attached letter from Perry Eisenach, PE., Public Services Director,
dated September 22, 2015
Planning & Zoning:
1) Site History
The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies these
properties as being zoned R-1 (Residential Limited). The parcels were re-mapped from R-1 to
A-2 (Agricultural General) pursuant to the County’s comprehensive downzoning initiative
(Zoning Amendment Petition #011-80), which was adopted on October 8, 1980. The County’s
agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District
upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989.
The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re-mapping of the subject property
and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District.
Rezoning #10-15 Heritage Commons
November 9, 2015
Page 5
Properties 64-A-10 and 64-A-12 were rezoned in 2005 from the RA District to the B2 and RP
Districts with Rezoning Application #01-05 for Russell 150 with proffers. The proffers
approved with Rezoning #01-05 are attached.
In 2014, the initial Heritage Commons rezoning application was submitted to the County for
review. Ultimately, on March 11, 2015, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors denied
rezoning application RZ#02-14. On October 13, 2015, this current Heritage Commons rezoning
application, RZ#10-15 was submitted to Frederick County by way of a letter dated September 2,
2015. This current rezoning application was determined to be substantially different from the
previously denied rezoning application, and therefore may be accepted and processed through
the rezoning application process.
2) Comprehensive Policy Plan
Land Use
The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as
the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public
facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to
protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a
composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County.
The parcels comprising this rezoning application are located within the County’s Urban
Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The UDA defines the
general area in which more intensive forms of residential development will occur. In addition,
the Heritage Commons property is located within the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Area
Plan. This land use plan calls for the area north of Buffalo Lick Run and between I-81 and the
future Warrior Drive to be developed with Employment land uses and the area south of Buffalo
Lick Run for High-Density Residential. The high density residential designation is located
adjacent to other proposed higher density residential land uses such as Madison Village. The
Heritage Commons application proposes land uses which are not wholly consistent with
these areas of the land use plan. Specifically, Land Bay 3 may be entirely commercial, rather
than residential as identified. Further, Land Bay 2 may be predominantly residential rather
than commercial/employment land uses identified.
Areas planned for employment land uses are envisioned to allow for intensive Retail, Office,
Flex-Tech, and/or Light Industrial Land Use in a planned business park settings. As noted, the
employment land uses are generally north of Buffalo Lick Run and west of future Warrior
Drive.
Areas planned for higher density residential development are envisioned to develop with 12-16
units per acre and would generally consist of a mix of multi-family and a mix of other housing
types. This density is necessary to accommodate the anticipated growth of the County within the
urban areas. The Heritage Commons rezoning is proposing to develop up to 645 residential
units on approximately 46.47 acres of the property which would equate to approximately 13.8
Rezoning #10-15 – Heritage Commons
November 9, 2015
Page 6
units per acre. This assumes that most of the residential development would occur in Land Bay
2. It is recognized that smaller amounts of residential may occur in land bay 3. The Applicant is
proposing to develop multi-family residential units and multi-family residential units mixed
with commercial uses within the same structure. The types of residential units and the proposed
densities within the project are consistent with the goals of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and
specifically the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan. However, they are in locations that
differ from those identified in the Plan.
The application provides for a Generalized Development Plan (GDP), included in the proffer
statement that identifies three land bays and shows their location within the property. The
proffer statement contains a land use matrix that further defines the land uses within the land
bays. The Heritage Commons rezoning allows for; commercial uses within all three land bays,
residential primarily within Landbay 2, and potentially a small amount of residential in Land
Bay 3:
Landbay 1 – 37.48 acres – 100% Commercial
Landbay 2 – 46.47 acres – 75%-80% Residential (remainder 20%-25% Commercial)
Landbay 3 – 53.95 acres – 80%-100% Commercial (remainder 0%-20% Residential)
Buffalo Lick Run – 12.35 acres – Open Space
Land Bay 3 is the area located south of Buffalo Lick Run. The Comprehensive Plan calls for
high density residential in this area, and therefore the designation of this area for
commercial uses, allowing up to 100% commercial uses, with the potential for 0 – 20%
residential uses, is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Land Bay 2 is the area located north of Buffalo Lick Run and south of Airport Road
extended. The Comprehensive Plan calls for employment land uses in this area, and
therefore the designation of this area for primarily residential uses, allowing up to 80%
commercial uses, with the potential for 0 – 20% residential uses, is inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan high density residential in this area.
There are no issues with the proposed land uses in Land Bay 1 or the Buffalo Lick Run Open
Space Land Bay.
The applicant should further address the discrepancy between the proffered land uses
identified in the GDP and matrix, with the land uses identified in the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan.
It should be recognized that while the application identifies itself as an urban mixed use
commercial and residential community, and in many cases describes this environment, the
proffer statement does not fully implement such a development. Urban Center designation is
envisioned to be a more intensive, walkable urban area with a larger commercial core, higher
densities, and designed around some form of public space or focal point, located in close
proximity to major transportation infrastructure.
Rezoning #10-15 – Heritage Commons
November 9, 2015
Page 7
Zoning Ordinance – R4 District
The R4 (Residential Planned Community) District is a district that allows for a mix of
commercial and residential land uses. The District is intended to create new neighborhoods
with an appropriate balance between residential, employment and service uses. Innovative
design is encouraged. Special care is taken in the approval of R4 developments to ensure that
necessary facilities, roads and improvements are available or provided to support the R4
development. Planned community developments shall only be approved in conformance with
the policies in the Comprehensive Plan.
The R4 District is a flexible district that allows for an applicant to request a number of
modifications to the Zoning Ordinance to tailor the requirements to meet the needs of their
development. Done properly and in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, the R4 District
can produce a unique and beneficial development for the community. As stated in the intent of
the district, “special care is taken in the approval of R4 developments to ensure that necessary
facilities, roads and improvements are available or provided to support the R4 development.”
Staff Note: The proposed R4 zoning classification being sought with this rezoning
application would enable a mixed use development; however, based on the proffered
Generalized Development Plan and Land Use Matrix Table there are no assurances within
the proffer statement that an innovative mixed use development with an identifiable
core/center area will be provided. As proffered, the development could be a typical residential
and commercial project, with the uses being clearly segregated from one another. This is
contrary to the potential urban mixed-use style development previously illustrated and
described in the application.
Transportation
The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan provides the guidance regarding future arterial and
collector road connections in the eastern portion of the County by identifying needed connections
and locations. Plans for new development should provide for the right-of-ways necessary to
implement planned road improvements and new roads shown on the road plan should be
constructed by the developer when warranted by the scale, intensity, or impacts of the
development. Existing roads should be improved as necessary by adjacent development to
implement the intentions of the plan.
Warrior Drive and the extension of Airport Road from its current terminus, over Interstate 81, into
the City of Winchester are road improvement needs that are identified in the Eastern Road Plan
that directly relate to the Russell 150 property. Both are important improvements for the County
and the City of Winchester collectively. Warrior Drive in projects to the south of the subject
rezoning have provided for a four-lane divided and raised median road section for Warrior Drive.
Accommodations for construction of these new major collector roads presently are not, but
should be incorporated into the project.
Rezoning #10-15 – Heritage Commons
November 9, 2015
Page 8
Transportation Approach
The previous application, the Russell 150 project, included detailed proffers which dedicated
right-of-way and fully constructed Warrior Drive, Airport Drive Extended, East Tevis Street
Extended, and the Flyover Bridge on I-81. These items were funded through the creation of a
Community Development Association or CDA.
Staff Note: In the time since the approval of the original development, the County has (of its
own volition), secured in excess of $8,000,000 in state funds to match with private dollars to
aid in meeting these proffered obligations. This revenue sharing effort continues to be
available to the Heritage Commons applicant should they elect to assume responsibility for
the local match. The funds could be returned to VDOT in the event that the applicant elects
not to utilize the funding.
The applicant’s proposed proffer package relies upon revenue sharing funding procured by
Frederick County and an agreement between the applicant and Frederick County for providing
matching funds being in place within 30 days.
The Applicant’s proposed proffer package relies upon revenue sharing funding procured by
Frederick County and an agreement between the applicant and Frederick County for
providing matching funds being in place within 30 days of a non-appealable rezoning
approval. The Applicant has further identified that development activities shall not be
permitted to commence on the property until the agreement is executed. This does provide the
County with some certainty regarding the development of the roads proffered and ensures
that the transportation impacts associated with any development commencing wit hout the
roads proffered will not be an issue.
The Applicant has proffered to enter into the revenue sharing agreement within 30 days of
non-appealable rezoning which amounts to a 60 day timeline to enter into the agreement
from the date of the rezoning action by the Board. Using the Applicant’s road section
references, they are committing to section A, Airport Road from Rt. 522 to the roundabout,
and section B which includes the roundabout, bridge, and stubs to the north and south.
Notably, the Applicant is not committing to participate in funding the Tevis extension to the
north property line or Warrior Drive to the south property line as has been previously
proffered. It should be noted that the County has revenue sharing funds for the Tevis
extension but not currently for Warrior Drive.
Based on the GDP and the proposed proffers it would appear the Applicant’s commitment to
connecting Warrior Drive to the south, while improved from the previous proffers, still leaves
much room for uncertainty.
Corridor Appearance Buffers
The Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan calls for a significant corridor appearance buffer
along Route 522 similar to that established for the Route 50 West corridor in the Round Hill Land
Use Plan, which consisted of a 50 foot buffer area, landscaping, and bike path. The Heritage
Rezoning #10-15 – Heritage Commons
November 9, 2015
Page 9
Commons rezoning has not addressed this corridor enhancement.
3) Potential Impacts
Fiscal Impacts
In its current format, the application’s proposed development of 645 multi-family residential
dwellings and 107,500 square feet of commercial land use may have a negative fiscal impact on
the County.
The land use phasing proffer proposed states that the Applicant may develop up to 299 residential
units before any commercial land use is developed. Prior to the issuance of the 300th Certificate of
Occupancy for a residential unit the Applicant would need to develop 50,000 square feet of
commercial land use. Subsequently, the Applicant may then develop an additional 299 residential
units. An additional 57,500 square feet of commercial land use would then need to be developed
prior to the issuance of the 600th residential unit. To enable the maximum land use proffered to
occur based on 645 residential units, the Applicant would have to develop 107, 500 square feet of
commercial land use. It is recognized that a significantly greater amount of commercial land uses
may be developed. The impacts associated with the potential additional commercial development
are primarily recognized to be transportation related. Therefore, it is imperative to ensure that
necessary facilities, roads and improvements are available or provided to support the
development.
County Development Impact Model
The County’s Development Impact Model (DIM) is utilized to project the capital fiscal impacts
that a residential development will place on the County over a 20-year period. Through an
extensive review in 2013/2014, the DIM policy was reaffirmed that the DIM projection would
consider residential capital fiscal impacts and would not consider credits for commercial
components of a development proposal. On June 10, 2015, the Board of Supervisors adopted the
updated DIM for use in FY2015.
The DIM projects; that on average, residential development has a negative fiscal impact on the
County’s capital expenditures. As such, all rezoning petitions with a residential component
submitted after July 1, 2015 will be expected to demonstrate how the proposal will mitigate the
following projected capital facility impacts:
Single Family Dwelling Unit = $ 19,681
Town Home Dwelling Unit = $ 13,681
Apartment Dwelling Unit = $ 13,880
Rezoning #10-15 – Heritage Commons
November 9, 2015
Page 10
The following is a breakdown of the projected impacts per dwelling unit for each capital facility.
Capital facility Single Family Town home Apartment
Fire And Rescue $ 547 $ 406 $ 412
General Government $ 1,373 $ 1,050 $ 1,050
Public Safety $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Library $ 442 $ 338 $ 338
Parks and Recreation $ 1,819 $ 1,391 $ 1,391
School Construction $ 15,499 $ 10,495 $ 10,689
Total $ 19,681 $ 13,681 $ 13,880
The application does not contain a proffered mitigation proposal to fully address these impacts.
This projection solely considers capital fiscal impacts; operational fiscal impacts are generally
much greater (recent analysis indicates expenses of a residential use exceed $100,000 over 20
years).
Impact on Community Facilities
The Applicant is proposing an alternate approach to addressing the potential impacts to
community facilities by; 1) proffering an alternate approach to determining the potential impacts
to public schools resulting from student generation from the project, see proffer E, and 2)
proffering an amount $3,000, that is less than that identified in the current Development Impact
Model for each student over a number of students prescribed in the proffer statement (Monetary
Contribution for Public Schools, Proffer E).
The above approach reflects the Applicant’s belief that their project will generate less students
than would be customary and that the amount of their contribution would be offset by other
credits; commercial land use and transportation credits.
The Board of Supervisors should ultimately determine if such an approach is appropriate.
Current Board policy recognizes that the impacts to community facilities by certain types of
residential development, illustrates those potential impacts with the Development Impact Model
(DIM), and anticipates that the Applicant will fully address those impacts.
Schools are one component of the DIM. The potential impacts to other community facilities
have not been fully addressed.
Rezoning #10-15 – Heritage Commons
November 9, 2015
Page 11
It should be recognized that the Applicant characterizes the residential land uses as market rate
and incudes a definition of market rate within the proffer statement.
Traffic Impact Analysis
The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) on file from the previously approved application (Russell 150)
projects that the development of 294 single family attached residential units, 264,000 square feet of
office use, and 440,450 square feet of retail use would generate 23,177 vehicle trips per day. The report
was developed with primary access to the project to be via the proposed western extension of Airport
Road which would extend into the City of Winchester via East Tevis Street extended. A secondary
access point was modeled from the project onto Route 522. The continuation of East Tevis Street from
the property north to Route 522 was not modeled in the TIA.
The TIA concludes that the traffic impacts associated with the Russell 150 application are acceptable
and manageable. It should be recognized that with the exception of the Route 522/50/17 intersection
with the Interstate 81 ramp, a level of service “C” is achieved. The above noted intersection is currently
operating at a level of service C(F). When the 2010 background is added, this intersection is projected
to operate at a level of service D(F). The inclusion of the 2010 build-out information results in a level of
service D(F). *(*) represents AM(PM) LOS (level of service).
Note that the applicant has proffered to perform additional traffic impact analysis when actual trip
generation exceeds 20,000 VPD prior to further development activities and implement improvements
called for within the TIA.
4) Proffer Statement – Dated September 25, 2015; revised October 29, 2015:
Executive Summary: The applicant has proffered a GDP (Generalized Development Plan) (Exhibit A
– Heritage Commons Generalized Development Plan) for the purpose of identifying the general road
layout and land bays within the development. Also proffered is a Design Modifications Document –
Exhibit B.
1. Design Modification Document – Exhibit B.
The Applicant has proffered a number of ordinance modifications with this rezoning
application. The R4 Zoning District allows an Applicant to modify Zoning Ordinance
requirements so that they may tailor the development to meet their needs. Below is an outline
of the requested modifications contained within “Exhibit B” with staff’s comments:
Modification #1 – Section 165-501.02 Rezoning Procedure.
Proffered Master Development Plan. The Applicant is requesting to provide a GDP in lieu of a
MDP (Master Development Plan) during the rezoning process. The MDP would come before
Rezoning #10-15 – Heritage Commons
November 9, 2015
Page 12
the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors as an informational item at a later time.
Modification #2 – Section 165-501.03 Permitted Uses. The applicant is requesting to mix
commercial and residential land uses within the same structure. “The mixed-use
commercial/residential land bays identified on the proffered Generalized Development Plan are
slated for dense urban commercial and residential land use, which may include commercial and
residential land uses that are located within the same structure or within connected structures”.
Specific standards for the modified permitted residential uses have not been provided.
Modification #2 also states that no M1 (Light Industrial) or OM (Office and Manufacturing)
uses will be permitted, other than those otherwise permitted in the RP, B1, B2, and B3 Zoning
Districts.
Modification #3 – Section 165-501.05 Mixture of Housing Types Required. The Applicant is
requesting a modification from the requirement that no more than 40% of the residential areas
may be used for housing other than single family (multi-family, townhouses, etc). The
Applicant is requesting to utilize 100% of the residential area for multi-family residential units.
Modification #4 – Section 165-501.06(C) Residential Density. TheAapplicant is requesting a
modification from the maximum residential density of four units per acre. The Applicant is
requesting to utilize the densities specified in the RP District multi-family residential land uses
(20 units/acre).
This area south of Buffalo Lick Run is slated for high density residential land uses in the
Comprehensive Plan with a density of 12-16 units/acre; however, it has been recognized
that this specific location, primarily Land Bay 2, is not entirely consistent with the area
identified for high density residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (Land Bay 3). The
requested modification in density is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Modification #5 – Section 165-501.06(D) Commercial & Industrial Areas. The Applicant is
requesting a modification from the requirement that commercial or industrial uses may not
exceed 50% of the gross area of the total planned community. The Applicant would like the
ability to exceed the commercial area beyond 50% of the project.
Modification #6 – Section 165-501.06(E) Open Space. The applicant is requesting a
modification from the minimum 30% open space requirement. They are requesting that a
minimum of 15% of the gross area of the development and 100% of the Buffalo Lick Run
Stream Valley area be designated as open space.
This modification has the potential to create a community with limited outdoor areas for
recreation, which is contrary to the intent of the R4 (Residential Planned Community).
The outdoor recreation and open space areas discussed in this request are not proffered
improvements.
Rezoning #10-15 – Heritage Commons
November 9, 2015
Page 13
Modification #7 – Section 165-501.06(G) Buffers and Screening. The Applicant is requesting
a modification/elimination from the requirement for buffers between the internal uses (uses
within the commercial and residential land bays). The Applicant is proposing to provide
perimeter zoning district buffers where required.
The elimination of buffers enables residential uses (i.e. apartment building) to be fronted
on a street directly across from a commercial use, which creates more of an urban
setting.
Modification #8 – Section 165-501.06(I) Road Access. The Applicant is requesting a
modification from the requirement that all streets within the planned community shall be
provided with a complete system of public streets. The Applicant is requesting that all major
collector road systems identified in the Comprehensive Plan shall be public streets, but that all
other streets within the development may be private. They are also requesting a modification to
allow them to exceed the maximum distance a residential structure may be located from a public
road.
The Frederick County Engineer has not developed or adopted acceptable design
standards for Private Streets within Frederick County. The Applicant should provide a
commitment that the Major Collector Roads will be constructed by the Applicant
reflective and consistent with the MCR design as a complete street, especially Warrior
Drive as it will be used to serve the development in the future.
Modification #9 – Section 165-501.06(M) Phasing. The Applicant is requesting a
modification/elimination from the requirement that a schedule of phases be submitted. The
ordinance requires an Applicant to specify the year the phase will be completely developed.
The Applicant has proffered a phasing schedule that has been discussed elsewhere in this
report.
Modification #10 – Section 165-201.03(B)(6) Height Limitation and Section 165-601.02
Dimensional and Intensity Requirements. The Applicant is requesting a modification of the
maximum height of commercial buildings, retail buildings, office buildings, hotel buildings, and
shared commercial and residential buildings. The current height maximum for office buildings
and hotel and motel buildings is 60’. The Applicant is requesting that commercial buildings,
retail buildings, office buildings, hotel buildings, and shared commercial/residential buildings
may be constructed up to 80’ in height, not including architectural screening features which may
be limited to 90’.
The proximity to the Airport may be of concern and was further addressed. It is recognized
that the Applicant has met with the Executive Director of the Winchester Regional Airport
and has included additional exhibits to address the concerns related to the height limitations
of structures that would impact the Airport approach zones and conical zones.
Rezoning #10-15 – Heritage Commons
November 9, 2015
Page 14
Modification #11 – Section 165-402.09(j)(D1) Multi-family Residential Buildings. The
Applicant is requesting a modification from the setback requirement for multi-family buildings.
The ordinance currently requires that buildings over 60’ be set back one foot for every foot over
60 up to the maximum height of 80’. The Applicant is proposing that all buildings may be
constructed within 20’ of public or private street systems serving the community.
This results in a more urban setting which is consistent with that envisioned in the
Comprehensive Plan. The Application should qualify that the 20’ would be the front
setback and that buildings would not encroach within this 20’. Modification #12
confirms this , should it be approved.
Modification #12 – Section 165-402.09(I) Modified Apartment Building. The Applicant is
requesting a modification to the dimensional requirements for Garden Apartments. The garden
apartment housing type has a maximum of 16 units per structure, a height of 55’, and setbacks
of 35’ from public roads, 20’ from private roads, 20’ side and 25’ rear. Building separation per
ordinance is 20’ or 35’ depending on the orientation. The Applicant is proposing a modification
that would allow for up to 64 units per structure, a height of up to 80’ and setbacks of 20’ from
public roads, 10’ from private roads, and 15’ side and rear setbacks. Proposed building
separation is 15’.
This modification results in more urban standards (density and setbacks) similar to
those envisioned for UDA (Urban Development Area) Centers.
2. Uses, Density and Mix:
The Applicant has proffered a potential mix of residential types (multi-family and multi-family
combined with commercial in the same structure), shared residential and commercial structures,
office, retail and other commercial uses. Industrial land uses have been eliminated. There are
three land bays and a Buffalo Lick Run land bay (the Buffalo Lick Run land bay consists of
12.35 acres of preserved environmental features). The Land Use and Land Use Matrix described
previously in this report further describes the proffered development program.
The proffers place a cap of 645 residential units on the development. There is no cap or
triggers on the commercial square footage within land bays, beyond that identified in the
Land Use Matrix. However, the Applicant has capped the potential development program up
to 20,000 ADT. Transportation Proffer 7 would then enable additional commercial
development based on future Traffic Studies.
3. Capital Facility Impacts:
The Applicant has proffered the following approach to addressing the community facility
impacts and obtaining credit towards addressing those community impacts. The Board of
Supervisors should ultimately determine if this approach and the details of the approach to
address the community facility impacts is appropriate.
Rezoning #10-15 – Heritage Commons
November 9, 2015
Page 15
The Heritage Commons mixed-use residential and commercial project proffers a maximum
of 645 market rate multi-family residential units. The County’s Development Impact Model
(DIM) does not differentiate between market rate multi-family units, conventional multi- family
units, or subsidized multi-family units. The current fiscal impact assumed by the DIM for
apartment units is $13,880.00 per unit. Therefore, a stand-alone 645 unit multi-family
residential development would be projected to have a capital facilities fiscal impact of
$8,952,600.00.
The Heritage Commons Proffer Statement commits to 50,000 square feet of commercial
development prior to the 300th market-rate multi-family unit, an additional 57,500 square feet
of commercial development prior to the 600th market-rate multi-family unit. The DIM Output
Module demonstrates a 50% reduction in normal capital facilities fiscal impacts based on these
proffered conditions. Therefore, the proffered commercial development program results in a
fiscal impact credit towards the $13,880.00 per unit value projected by the DIM.
The Heritage Commons Proffer Statement commits to providing the local funding match for the
construction of the Interstate 81 Bridge, the dual-lane Roundabout, and an urban four-lane
divided collector between the dual-lane Roundabout and Route 522 South at the
signalized intersection with Airport Road; as well as providing right-of-way dedication for all
regional transportation improvement projects within the property that are identified in the
Comprehensive Policy Plan. These regional transportation projects are identified in the County
Comprehensive Policy Plan Eastern Road Plan as Urban Four-Lane Divided (U4D) and Urban
Two-Lane (U2) road systems. The Interstate 81 Bridge, the dual-lane Roundabout, and the
additional lane geometry for the urban four-lane divided collector between the dual-lane
Roundabout and Route 522 South at the signalized intersection with Airport Road qualify as a
fiscal impact credit towards the $13,880.00 per unit value projected by the DIM. The County
Consulting Engineer has developed cost estimates for the Interstate 81 Bridge and the dual-lane
Roundabout, and Greenway Engineering has developed cost estimates for the U4D collector.
These cost estimates demonstrate that the regional road network construction projects will
exceed $5,000,000.00 in local funding by the Heritage Commons project. Additionally, the
Heritage Commons Proffer Statement provides right-of- way dedication for the U4D portions of
East Tevis Street and Warrior Drive, which total approximately 230,000 square feet and have
an estimated land value of $1,380,000.00. Therefore, the proffered regional transportation
program results in a fiscal impact credit towards the $13,880.00 per unit value projected by the
DIM.
The Heritage Commons Proffer Statement commits to the construction of a public 10’ asphalt
pedestrian and bicycle facilities that are not required by County Code. These public pedestrian
and bicycle facilities are located within the Buffalo Lick Run Open Space Area and along the
regional road system between the Roundabout and the Route 522 South intersection with
Airport Road. These public pedestrian and bicycle facilities are approximately 4,600 lineal feet
and have a value of $68.00 per lineal feet based on information provided by the County Parks
and Recreation Department. Therefore, the value for the public pedestrian and bicycle facilities
is $312,800.00. It should be noted that this value does not include the public 8’ asphalt
Rezoning #10-15 – Heritage Commons
November 9, 2015
Page 16
pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the residential portions of the project, nor the concrete
or asphalt pedestrian systems that connect the adjoining residential subdivision to the Heritage
Commons project. Therefore, the proffered public pedestrian and bicycle facilities results in a
fiscal impact credit towards the $13,880.00 per unit value projected by the DIM.
The Heritage Commons Proffer Statement commits to establishing an escrow account in an
initial amount of $200,000.00 that will be continuously funded throughout the residential
development program and utilized to mitigate student generation impacts to public schools.
This monetary contribution provides for $3,000.00 per student when specific student generation
thresholds are exceeded. The DIM assumes a student generation ratio of .256 students per
apartment unit, which projects a total of 165 students for a 645 unit multi-family residential
development. Therefore, this element of the project qualifies as a fiscal impact credit towards
the $13,880.00 per unit value projected by the DIM.
The Heritage Commons Proffer Statement commits to commercial development thresholds
during the residential development program, the funding, construction and right-of-way
dedication for on-site and off-site regional road improvements, the funding and construction of
public pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and monetary contributions for student generation
impacts. The projected cost of these proffered project commitments is $11,661,220.00, which
provides for a positive fiscal impact of $2,708,620.00 for the Heritage Commons project.
Therefore, the capital facilities impact costs for public school facilities, parks and
recreation facilities, fire and rescue facilities, library facilities and general government
facilities have been mitigated by the Heritage Commons Proffer Statement.
4. Transportation Improvements:
The Applicant is framing an argument for credit against the proffer model based upon regional
transportation improvements and the fact that they are proffering to participate in a 4 lane
Airport Road as opposed to the two lanes shown on the Eastern Road Plan. Due to the fact that
the County has procured revenue sharing funds for half of roadway construction and that the
Applicant’s TIA calls for a 4 lane facility, the credit value needs additional validation. Staff
would agree that there is regional value to the roadway improvements; however, per the TIA
these improvements were required simply to make even the Applicants own traffic work.
5. Recreational Amenities:
The Applicant has proffered a 10’ asphalt pedestrian trail throughout the limits of the Buffalo
Lick Run land bay, a community building including a swimming pool, and an additional trail
system throughout the residential portions of the project.
The Applicant should be prepared to address the size and scope of the recreational amenities
and the potential outstanding conflict regarding the width of the 8 foot trail. In addition, the
Applicant is claiming value for these amenities towards the recreation unit calculations for
the project.
Rezoning #10-15 – Heritage Commons
November 9, 2015
Page 17
6. Phasing:
The Applicant has proffered a land use phasing program that phases the residential uses to 175
residential units within the first two years of the project, 148 residential units for the ensuing
two years, 147 units for the next two years of the project, and finally the remaining 175
residential units may be developed.
With regards to the commercial component, the commercial land use is phased so that 50,000
square feet of commercial land use shall develop prior to the 300th market rate multi-family
residential unit. An additional 50,000 square feet of commercial land use prior to the 600th
market rate multi-family residential unit, and 7,500 more square feet of commercial
development shall occur prior to the 645th market rate residential unit.
CONCLUSIONS FOR 11/18/15 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The Heritage Commons rezoning application is a request to use the R4 (Residential Planned
Community) Zoning District, with modifications and proffers, to construct a development with 645
residential units and commercial uses. The project is located on the 150-acre property commonly
known as Russell 150. The 645 residential units may include multi-family units and multi-family
residential units combined with commercial structures.
The land uses shown with the Heritage Commons rezoning application are not wholly consistent with
the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. It is recognized that commercial and higher density residential uses are
supported in this general area, but not specifically within the locations identified in the GDP and
accompanying Land Use Matrix.
Additionally, the application does not adequately address the negative impacts associated with this
request; in particular, the negative transportation and fiscal impacts. The Applicant’s approach to
addressing these items should be carefully evaluated. In particular, it should be determined if the
Revenue Sharing approach to securing partial completion of the transportation improvements is
satisfactory (page 8). Also, if the Applicant’s alternative to credit the impacts to community facilities is
acceptable (page 10).
On the transportation front, the Applicant has much improved the language regarding commitment to
the revenue sharing project which would complete Airport Road, the roundabout, and the bridge over I-
81. However, this comes at a cost of only a right-of-way commitment to Warrior Drive, only a right-of-
way commitment to Tevis Street to the northern property line, and removal of the $1million cash proffer
toward offsite transportation improvements. Consideration and analysis needs to be given to proper
access to the southern land bay which is being set up to access exclusively through the Madison parcel.
This would not be the case if Warrior Drive was still being considered.
The items identified throughout the Staff Report, and any further issues raised by the Planning
Commission should be addressed prior to securing a favorable decision from the Planning Commission:
Rezoning #10-15 – Heritage Commons
November 9, 2015
Page 18
The Applicant should also ensure that all review agencies are afforded the opportunity to guarantee their
comments are adequately addressed as described prior to the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisor’s review. The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors should be certain that the
comments have been appropriately addressed.
Following the required public hearing, a recommendation regarding this rezoning application to
the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately
address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission.
WINCHESTERREGIONAL AIRPORTSubdivision
AIRPORTBUSINESS CENTERSubdivision
PRESTONBUSINESS PARKSubdivision
PRESTONPLACESubdivision
FUNKHOUSERSubdivision
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
ST645
ST644
Winchester
3290PAPERMILL RD
3306PAPERMILL RD
3290PAPERMILL RD
3312PAPERMILL RD
3364PAPERMILL RD
910FRONTROYAL PIKE 937FRONTROYAL PIKE
961FRONTROYAL PIKE
105LONGCROFT RD 100ELMWOOD RD
118ELMWOOD RD
120ELMWOOD RD
111LONGCROFT RD
124ELMWOOD RD
119LONGCROFT RD
123LONGCROFT RD
3318PAPERMILL RD 105ELMWOOD RD
107ELMWOOD RD
109ELMWOOD RD117ELMWOOD RD
121ELMWOOD RD
123ELMWOOD RD
125ELMWOOD RD
3300PAPERMILL RD
921FRONTROYAL PIKE
791FRONTROYAL PIKE
797FRONTROYAL PIKE 111ELMWOOD RD 115ELMWOOD RD
3272PAPERMILL RD
3279PAPERMILL RD
867FRONTROYAL PIKE
170MUSKOKA CT831FRONTROYAL PIKE
124CASTLEBRIDGE CT
781FRONTROYAL PIKE
751FRONTROYAL PIKE 238AIRPORT RD
721FRONTROYAL PIKE 234AIRPORT RD
232AIRPORT RD
230AIRPORT RD
699FRONTROYAL PIKE 113BRIGSTOCK DR
113BRIGSTOCK DR
201BRIGSTOCK DR
201BRIGSTOCK DR
667FRONTROYAL PIKE673FRONTROYAL PIKE
649FRONTROYAL PIKE
137ROYALAVE
116ROYALAVE
635FRONTROYAL PIKE
641FRONTROYAL PIKE
622FRONT ROYALPIKE
615FRONTROYAL PIKE
218BUFFLICK RD
244BUFFLICK RD
226BUFFLICK RD
234BUFFLICK RD
142FRONT DR
151FRONT DR
592FRONTROYAL PIKE
121FRONT DR
607FRONTROYAL PIKE
166BUFFLICK RD
192BUFFLICK RD
202BUFFLICK RD
223BUFFLICK RD
233BUFFLICK RD
201FRONT DR
578FRONTROYAL PIKE
189FRONT DR
578FRONTROYAL PIKE164FRONT DR 589FRONTROYAL PIKE
152BUFFLICK RD
171BUFFLICK RD
160BUFFLICK RD
215BUFFLICK RD
545FRONTROYAL PIKE567FRONTROYAL PIKE
135BUFFLICK RD
125BUFFLICK RD
133PREMIER PL
501FRONTROYAL PIKE100PREMIER PL
497FRONTROYAL PIKE491FRONTROYAL PIKE
466FRONTROYAL PIKE
474FRONTROYAL PIKE
473FRONTROYAL PIKE
425FRONT ROYALPIKE
422FRONTROYAL PIKE
431FRONTROYAL PIKE
415FRONTROYAL PIKE
64 A 12
64 A 10
63 A 150
BRO
A
D
V
I
E
W
S
T
SULGRAVECT
LONGV
I
E
W
AVE
WINC
R
E
S
T
D
R
CAS
T
L
E
B
R
I
D
G
E
C
T
ROY
A
L
S
T
LEAFIEL
D
CT
PREMIE
R
P
L
AIRPORT RD
NE
T
H
E
R
F
I
E
L
D
C
T
RO
Y
A
L
A
V
E
CIRC
L
E
D
R
IMPE
R
I
A
L
S
T
FRON
T
D
R
BRIG
S
T
O
C
K
D
R
ELMWOOD RD
P
A
P
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
BUFFL
I
C
K
R
D
SUPE
R
I
O
R
A
V
E
F
R
O
N
T
R
O
Y
A
L
P
I
K
E
Applications
Parcels
Sewer and Water Service Area
Building Footprints
I
Note:Frederick County Dept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: October 28, 2015Staff: mruddy
Winchester
P
A
P
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
TEVIS ST
SHAWN
E
E
D
R
BUFF
L
I
C
K
R
D
AIRPORT RD
FRONT D
R
LONGCROFT RD
FIRST
S
T
BRUC
E
D
R
§¨¦81
REZ # 10 - 15Heritage CommonsPINs:63 - A - 150, 64 - A - 10, 64 - A - 12Rezoning from RP to R4, B2 to R4,RA to R4
0 790 1,580395 Feet
REZ 10-15
REZ # 10 - 15Heritage CommonsPINs:63 - A - 150, 64 - A - 10, 64 - A - 12Rezoning from RP to R4, B2 to R4,RA to R4
REZ 10-15
REZ 10-15
01522
01522
Winchester
WINCHESTERREGIONAL AIRPORTSubdivision
AIRPORTBUSINESS CENTERSubdivision
PRESTONBUSINESS PARKSubdivision
PRESTONPLACESubdivision
FUNKHOUSERSubdivision
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
ST645
ST644
Winchester
3290PAPERMILL RD
3306PAPERMILL RD
3290PAPERMILL RD
3312PAPERMILL RD
3364PAPERMILL RD
910FRONTROYAL PIKE 937FRONTROYAL PIKE
961FRONTROYAL PIKE
105LONGCROFT RD 100ELMWOOD RD
118ELMWOOD RD
120ELMWOOD RD
111LONGCROFT RD
124ELMWOOD RD
119LONGCROFT RD
123LONGCROFT RD
3318PAPERMILL RD 105ELMWOOD RD
107ELMWOOD RD
109ELMWOOD RD117ELMWOOD RD
121ELMWOOD RD
123ELMWOOD RD
125ELMWOOD RD
3300PAPERMILL RD
921FRONTROYAL PIKE
791FRONTROYAL PIKE
797FRONTROYAL PIKE 111ELMWOOD RD 115ELMWOOD RD
3272PAPERMILL RD
3279PAPERMILL RD
867FRONTROYAL PIKE
170MUSKOKA CT831FRONTROYAL PIKE
124CASTLEBRIDGE CT
781FRONTROYAL PIKE
751FRONTROYAL PIKE 238AIRPORT RD
721FRONTROYAL PIKE 234AIRPORT RD
232AIRPORT RD
230AIRPORT RD
699FRONTROYAL PIKE 113BRIGSTOCK DR
113BRIGSTOCK DR
201BRIGSTOCK DR
201BRIGSTOCK DR
667FRONTROYAL PIKE673FRONTROYAL PIKE
649FRONTROYAL PIKE
137ROYALAVE
116ROYALAVE
635FRONTROYAL PIKE
641FRONTROYAL PIKE
622FRONT ROYALPIKE
615FRONTROYAL PIKE
218BUFFLICK RD
244BUFFLICK RD
226BUFFLICK RD
234BUFFLICK RD
142FRONT DR
151FRONT DR
592FRONTROYAL PIKE
121FRONT DR
607FRONTROYAL PIKE
166BUFFLICK RD
192BUFFLICK RD
202BUFFLICK RD
223BUFFLICK RD
233BUFFLICK RD
201FRONT DR
578FRONTROYAL PIKE
189FRONT DR
578FRONTROYAL PIKE164FRONT DR 589FRONTROYAL PIKE
152BUFFLICK RD
171BUFFLICK RD
160BUFFLICK RD
215BUFFLICK RD
545FRONTROYAL PIKE567FRONTROYAL PIKE
135BUFFLICK RD
125BUFFLICK RD
133PREMIER PL
501FRONTROYAL PIKE100PREMIER PL
497FRONTROYAL PIKE491FRONTROYAL PIKE
466FRONTROYAL PIKE
474FRONTROYAL PIKE
473FRONTROYAL PIKE
425FRONT ROYALPIKE
422FRONTROYAL PIKE
431FRONTROYAL PIKE
415FRONTROYAL PIKE
64 A 12
64 A 10
63 A 150
BRO
A
D
V
I
E
W
S
T
SULGRAVECT
LONGV
I
E
W
AVE
WINC
R
E
S
T
D
R
CAS
T
L
E
B
R
I
D
G
E
C
T
ROY
A
L
S
T
LEAFIEL
D
CT
PREMIE
R
P
L
AIRPORT RD
NE
T
H
E
R
F
I
E
L
D
C
T
RO
Y
A
L
A
V
E
CIRC
L
E
D
R
IMPE
R
I
A
L
S
T
FRON
T
D
R
BRIG
S
T
O
C
K
D
R
ELMWOOD RD
P
A
P
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
BUFFL
I
C
K
R
D
SUPE
R
I
O
R
A
V
E
F
R
O
N
T
R
O
Y
A
L
P
I
K
E
Applications
Parcels
Sewer and Water Service Area
Building Footprints
B1 (Business, Neighborhood District)
B2 (Business, General Distrist)
B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District)
EM (Extractive Manufacturing District)
HE (Higher Education District)
M1 (Industrial, Light District)
M2 (Industrial, General District)
MH1 (Mobile Home Community District)
MS (Medical Support District)
OM (Office - Manufacturing Park)
R4 (Residential Planned Community District)
R5 (Residential Recreational Community District)
RA (Rural Area District)
RP (Residential Performance District)
I
Note:Frederick County Dept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: October 28, 2015Staff: mruddy
Winchester
P
A
P
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
TEVIS ST
SHAWN
E
E
D
R
BUFF
L
I
C
K
R
D
AIRPORT RD
FRONT D
R
LONGCROFT RD
FIRST
S
T
BRUC
E
D
R
§¨¦81
REZ # 10 - 15Heritage CommonsPINs:63 - A - 150, 64 - A - 10, 64 - A - 12Rezoning from RP to R4, B2 to R4,RA to R4
0 790 1,580395 Feet
REZ 10-15
REZ # 10 - 15Heritage CommonsPINs:63 - A - 150, 64 - A - 10, 64 - A - 12Rezoning from RP to R4, B2 to R4,RA to R4
REZ 10-15
REZ 10-15
01522
01522
Winchester
AIRPORT BUSINESSCENTERSubdivision
PRESTONBUSINESS PARKSubdivision
PRESTONPLACESubdivision
FUNKHOUSERSubdivision
§¨¦81
§¨¦81 ST645
ST644
Winchester
64 A 12
64 A 10
63 A 150
107CALDWELL LN117CALDWELL LN 3416PAPERMILL RD
900FRONTROYAL PIKE 1014FRONTROYAL PIKE
120LONGCROFT RD
3364PAPERMILL RD 3392PAPERMILL RD 104LONGCROFT RD
112LONGCROFT RD114LONGCROFT RD
3290PAPERMILL RD
980FRONTROYAL PIKE 100LONGCROFT RD
113LONGCROFT RD
3290PAPERMILL RD3306PAPERMILL RD3312PAPERMILL RD
910FRONTROYAL PIKE
949FRONTROYAL PIKE
118ELMWOOD RD
120ELMWOOD RD105ELMWOOD RD
109ELMWOOD RD
791FRONTROYAL PIKE
797FRONTROYAL PIKE921FRONTROYAL PIKE
111ELMWOOD RD
115ELMWOOD RD
3272PAPERMILL RD
3279PAPERMILL RD
867FRONTROYAL PIKE
170MUSKOKA CT831FRONTROYAL PIKE
124CASTLEBRIDGE CT
781FRONTROYAL PIKE
751FRONTROYAL PIKE
721FRONTROYAL PIKE
201BRIGSTOCK DR
201BRIGSTOCK DR
113BRIGSTOCK DR
113BRIGSTOCK DR
113BRIGSTOCK DR
667FRONTROYAL PIKE673FRONTROYAL PIKE
649FRONTROYAL PIKE
116ROYALAVE 651FRONTROYAL PIKE
641FRONTROYAL PIKE
155ROYALAVE137ROYALAVE
623FRONTROYAL PIKE
218BUFFLICK RD
185FRONT DR 161FRONT DR
134FRONT DR
121FRONT DR
607FRONTROYAL PIKE
202BUFFLICK RD210BUFFLICK RD
201FRONT DR
578FRONTROYAL PIKE
172FRONT DR164FRONT DR
575FRONTROYAL PIKE
152BUFFLICK RD
171BUFFLICK RD
160BUFFLICK RD
545FRONTROYAL PIKE
135BUFFLICK RD
532FRONTROYAL PIKE 125BUFFLICK RD
125PREMIER PL
501FRONTROYAL PIKE
100PREMIER PL
466FRONTROYAL PIKE
474FRONTROYAL PIKE
473FRONTROYAL PIKE485FRONTROYAL PIKE
425FRONT ROYALPIKE
422FRONTROYAL PIKE 431FRONTROYAL PIKE451FRONTROYAL PIKE
186WINCREST DR
ROYALAVE
PREMIER PL
BUFFL
I
C
K
R
D
LONGCROFT RD
CALD
W
E
L
L
L
N
BRUC
E
DR
A
L
L
S
T
O
N
C
I
R
LONGVI
E
W
AVE
CA
S
T
L
E
B
R
I
D
G
E
C
T
SEC
O
N
D
S
T
LEA
F
I
E
L
D
C
T
WINCR
E
S
T
D
R
BRO
A
D
V
I
E
W
S
T
AIRPORT RD
NET
H
E
R
F
I
E
L
D
C
T
BRIG
S
T
O
C
K
D
R
CIRC
L
E
D
R
FIRS
T
S
T
SUM
M
I
T
A
V
E
FRON
T
D
R
ROYA
L
S
T
BAL
D
W
I
N
S
T
E
L
M
W
O
O
D
R
D
SHA
W
N
E
E
D
R
IMPE
R
I
A
L
S
T
SUPE
R
I
O
R
A
V
E
P
A
P
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
Applications
Parcels
Sewer and Water Service Area
Building Footprints
Residential
Neighborhood Village
Urban Center
Mobile Home Community
Business
Highway Commercial
Mixed-Use
Mixed Use Commercial/Office
Mixed Use Industrial/Office
Industrial
Warehouse
Heavy Industrial
Extractive Mining
Commercial Rec
Rural Community Center
Fire & Rescue
Historic
Institutional
Planned Unit Development
Park
Recreation
School
Employment
Airport Support Area
B2 / B3
Residential, 4 u/a
High-Density Residential, 6 u/a
High-Density Residential, 12-16 u/a
Rural Area
Interstate Buffer
Landfill Support Area
Natural Resources & Recreation
Environmental & Recreational Resources
I
Note:Frederick County Dept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: October 28, 2015Staff: mruddy
Winchester
P
A
P
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
TEVIS ST
SHAWN
E
E
D
R
BUFF
L
I
C
K
R
D
AIRPORT RD
FRONT D
R
LONGCROFT RD
FIRST
S
T
BRUC
E
D
R
§¨¦81
REZ # 10 - 15Heritage CommonsPINs:63 - A - 150, 64 - A - 10, 64 - A - 12Rezoning from RP to R4, B2 to R4,RA to R4
0 870 1,740435 Feet
REZ 10-15
REZ # 10 - 15Heritage CommonsPINs:63 - A - 150, 64 - A - 10, 64 - A - 12Rezoning from RP to R4, B2 to R4,RA to R4
REZ 10-15
REZ 10-15
01522
01522
F
R
O
N
T
R
O
Y
A
L
P
I
K
E
Design Modification Document 1 October 29, 2015
HERITAGE COMMONS
DESIGN MODIFICATION DOCUMENT - PROFFER EXHIBIT B
October 29, 2015
Design Modification Document 2 October 29, 2015
MODIFICATION #1 § 165-501.02 Rezoning Procedure
Ordinance Requirement:
In order to have land rezoned to the R4 District, a master development plan meeting all
requirements of this chapter, shall be submitted with rezoning application.
Alternative Design Standard:
In order to have land rezoned to the R4 District, a proffered Generalized Development Plan
identifying the concept of the overall acreage and its relationship to adjoining properties and
adjoining roadways shall be submitted with rezoning application. The Generalized Development
Plan for Heritage Commons will provide Land Bays to demonstrate the proposed general land
use plan layout for the entire acreage. The Proffer Statement for Heritage Commons will also
provide a matrix identifying the residential and non-residential land uses within each Land Bay,
the projected acreage of each Land Bay and the percentage of residential and commercial land
use within each Land Bay classified as Mixed-Use Commercial/Residential. A Master
Development Plan will be provided to the County prior to development activity on the Property.
Justification for Modification:
A mixed-use planned community on 150.28 +- acres of land cannot be completely master
planned as a condition of rezoning approval. These communities are dynamic due to the market;
therefore, the exact location of residential units, internal roads, commercial land use, recreational
amenities, open space and significant environmental features are difficult to identify at this stage
in the process. The Applicant should be prepared to identify basic information pertaining to the
overall development of the planned community to inform decision makers and interested citizens
how the general land use patterns and major road systems will be developed should a rezoning be
approved. The use of a Generalized Development Plan and Proffer Statement as a tool for this
purpose is reasonable, as it contains illustrative and general development information that can
assist in understanding the basic concepts of a mixed-use planned community and guide the more
formalized Master Development Plan process following rezoning approval. Therefore, it is
requested that a Generalized Development Plan be permitted to function in the place of a detailed
Master Development Plan during the rezoning process. A Master Development Plan will be
provided subsequent to the rezoning approval process to ensure consistency with subdivision
design plans and site design plans within the project.
Design Modification Document 3 October 29, 2015
MODIFICATION #2 §165-501.03 Permitted Uses
Ordinance Requirement:
All uses are allowed in the R4 Residential Planned Community District that are allowed in the
following zoning districts:
RP Residential Performance District
B1 Neighborhood Business District
B2 Business General District
B3 Industrial Transition District
M1 Light Industrial District
OM Office and Manufacturing District
Alternative Design Standard:
The Land Bays identified on the proffered Generalized Development Plan are slated for urban
mixed-use commercial and residential land use, which may include commercial and residential
land uses that are located within the same structure, or within connected structures. Land uses
permitted within the OM, Office Manufacturing District and the M1, Light Industrial District
that are not otherwise permitted within the RP, B1, B2 and B3 Zoning Districts shall be
prohibited within the Property.
Justification for Modification:
Heritage Commons is planned as an urban center design form that will contain multi-family
units, commercial, retail and office structures, and structures that may comprise a combination of
these land uses. The ability to provide for mixed-use residential and commercial, retail and/or
office land use within the same structure or within connected structures is in keeping with urban
form design, which provides a very efficient use of land and provides opportunities for residents
to live, shop, and work within the same area of their community.
Design Modification Document 4 October 29, 2015
MODIFICATION #3 §165-501.05 Mixture of Housing Types Required
Ordinance Requirement:
Each planned community shall be expected to contain a mixture of housing types that is typical
for existing and planned residential neighborhoods in Frederick County. No more than 40% of
the area of portions of the planned community designated for residential uses shall be used for
any of the following housing types: duplexes, multiplexes, atrium houses, weak-link townhouses,
townhouses or garden apartments or any combination of those housing types.
Alternative Design Standard:
The Land Bays identified on the proffered Generalized Development Plan are slated for market-
rate multi-family residential housing types. To achieve this type of urban residential
development, single-family detached and attached residential units will not be required as a
component of the residential mix, and multi-family residential units will be allowed to comprise
100% of the residential housing units within the Heritage Commons project.
Justification for Modification:
Heritage Commons is planned as an urban design form that will contain multi-family housing
units within a mixed-use commercial, retail and office development. The Residential Planned
Community District promotes suburban residential design form that is predominately residential
with a minimum percentage of non-residential land use. The implementation of significant
percentages of non-residential land use within Heritage Commons dictates the need for higher
density residential land use to facilitate this form of development.
Design Modification Document 5 October 29, 2015
MODIFICATION #4 §165-501.06(C) Residential Density
Ordinance Requirement:
Residential Density. The maximum allowed gross density for residences in the planned
community development shall be four units per acre.
Alternative Design Standard:
The Mixed-Use Commercial/Residential Land Bays identified on the proffered Generalized
Development Plan are slated for urban residential housing types. To achieve this type of urban
residential development, the gross densities specified in Section 165-402.05B for multi-family
residential land use shall be permitted.
Justification for Modification:
Heritage Commons is planned as an urban design form that will contain multi-family housing
units within a mixed-use commercial, retail and office development. The Board of Supervisors
recently approved increased densities for residential development within the Urban Development
Area (UDA) to maximize the residential development potential within this portion of the County.
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies this property as being planned for employment and
high-density residential (12-16 units/acre) land use; therefore, it is appropriate to allow this type
of residential density within the Heritage Commons development.
Design Modification Document 6 October 29, 2015
MODIFICATION #5 §165-501.06(D) Commercial & Industrial Areas
Ordinance Requirement:
Commercial and industrial areas. The areas for commercial or industrial uses shall not exceed
50% of the gross area of the total 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.
A minimum of 10% of the gross area of the project shall be used for business and industrial uses.
Alternative Design Standard:
The Heritage Commons Land Bays are intended to be developed as commercial and as mixed-
use commercial and residential land use. Therefore, commercial areas may exceed, and should
be encouraged to, exceed 50% of the gross area of the total planned community. Further, to be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, industrial uses should not be encouraged, and therefore,
not allowed in the Heritage Commons Land Bays. By doing this, the balance will allow for
higher density residential uses and will create Land Bays that lend themselves to creating a
community where residents can live, work and play in the same community. A Land Bay
Breakdown Table has been incorporated into the Heritage Commons Proffer Statement to
demonstrate the minimum and maximum acreages for commercial and residential development
throughout the project.
Justification for Modification:
A planned mixed-use commercial and residential community in an area that is designated under
the Comprehensive Plan as such should provide for a higher percentage mix of commercial uses.
Given the intensity and extent of commercial uses they would be more harmonious if they were
mixed in with or adjacent to higher density residential development. The Generalized
Development Plan will depict the Land Bays where it is anticipated that the higher density
residential and commercial uses will be mixed and also areas that will be designated purely for
commercial. With the transportation networks and connectivity of all the Land Bays, however, it
is anticipated that the activity level of residences, commercial shopping, dining and work will be
laid out so that the residents will be able to walk back and forth between these uses and not need
use their automobiles to access these facilities and amenities.
Design Modification Document 7 October 29, 2015
MODIFICATION #6 §165-501.06(E) Open Space
Ordinance Requirement:
Open Space. A minimum of 30% of the gross area of any proposed development shall be
designated as common open space.
Alternative Design Standard:
A minimum of 15% of the gross area of the Mixed-Use Commercial/Residential Land Bays, and
100% of the gross area of the Buffalo Lick Run Stream Valley Land Bay identified on the
proffered Generalized Development Plan shall be designated as common open space.
Justification for Modification:
Heritage Commons is planned as an urban design form that will contain multi-family housing
units within a mixed-use commercial, retail and office development. This type of urban design
provides opportunities for indoor and outdoor recreational amenities and facilities, pedestrian
sidewalk and trail systems, central plazas and squares, small exterior urban-scale green-space
areas, and rooftop green-space or rooftop amenity areas; therefore, vast expanses of green space
area are not conducive for this type of development. The location of open space areas and the
types of recreational amenities will be identified on the Master Development Plan to ensure
conformity with ordinance requirements.
Design Modification Document 8 October 29, 2015
MODIFICATION #7 §165-501.06(G) Buffers and Screening
Ordinance Requirement:
Buffers and Screening. Buffers and screening shall be provided between various uses and
housing types as if the uses were located within the RP, B1, B2, or M1 Zoning District according
to the uses allowed in those districts. Buffers and screening shall be provided accordingly as
specified in Section 165-203.02 of this Chapter. Road efficiency buffers shall be provided
according to the requirements of that section. In addition, along the perimeter boundary of the
Residential Planned Community District, buffers and screens shall be provided in relation to
adjoining properties as if the uses in the planned community were located in the RP, B1, B2, or
M1 Zoning Districts.
Alternative Design Standard:
Buffers and screening shall be provided along the perimeter boundary of the Residential Planned
Community District where proposed Commercial Retail and Office Land Bays adjoin existing
residential land use, or where multifamily residential units adjoin existing single-family detached
residential land use. Buffers and screening shall be provided accordingly as specified in Section
165-203.02(C), Section 165-203.02(D), and Section 165-203.02(E) of this Chapter.
Justification for Modification:
Heritage Commons is planned as an urban design form that will incorporate mixed-use
commercial and residential land use immediately adjacent to each other. Land uses within this
form of development are intended to be integrated, and in some instances located within the
same structures; therefore, the requirement for internal buffers and screening are not practical in
achieving this type of urban design. The alternative design standard provides for adequate
buffers and screening along the perimeter of the Heritage Commons project to protect existing
residential land uses. This buffer and screening standard is consistent with applicable residential
separation buffers and zoning district buffers utilized in other portions of the Urban
Development Area.
Design Modification Document 9 October 29, 2015
MODIFICATION #8 §165-501.06(I) Road Access
Ordinance Requirement:
Road Access. All planned community developments shall have direct access to an arterial or
collector road or to roads improved to arterial or collector standards. The planned community
development shall be provided with a complete system of public streets dedicated to the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
Alternative Design Standard:
The proffered Generalized Development Plan shall provide for the construction and/or right-of-
way dedication for primary regional road systems identified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan,
which will be public streets dedicated to the Virginia Department of Transportation. All other
street systems located within the Heritage Commons development may be designed and
constructed as private streets, which will be maintained by a master association or sub-
associations created during the subdivision design and site plan design process. All private
streets shall be designed in general to meet vertical base design standards acceptable to the
Frederick County Engineer based on projected traffic volumes for the identified land uses within
the project. All lots created within the Heritage Commons development may be located on
private streets, which shall not be subject to distance limitations from planned public streets
within the project.
Justification for Modification:
Heritage Commons is planned as an urban design form that will contain a variety of street
systems that are designed in general to meet vertical base design standards acceptable to the
Frederick County Engineer based on projected traffic volumes for the identified land uses within
the project. The ability to utilize private street design will provide design flexibility throughout
the project that would otherwise not be practical due to rigid Virginia Department of
Transportation street design standards. The ability to utilize private street design will also allow
for innovative storm water management low-impact design and landscaping design to assist in
meeting water quality measures for the project.
Design Modification Document 10 October 29, 2015
MODIFICATION #9 §165-501.06(M) Phasing
Ordinance Requirement:
Phasing. A schedule of phases shall be submitted with each proposed planned community. The
schedule shall specify the year in which each phase will be completely developed. No
subdivision or site plans shall be approved in the planned community unless they are in
accordance with the approved schedule.
Alternative Design Standard:
A Phasing Plan and Phasing Schedule shall not be required for the Heritage Commons project.
Justification for Modification:
Heritage Commons is planned as an urban design form that will contain mixed land use
including commercial, retail, office, and multi-family housing units within a master planned
project. Heritage Commons exceeds the commercial, retail and office land use percentages from
conventional residential planned community projects, and may incorporate mixed commercial
and residential land use within the same structure. Therefore, it is not practical to require a
phasing schedule and time line that limits the ability for the project to develop, as this will be
dictated by market conditions.
Design Modification Document 11 October 29, 2015
MODIFICATION #10 §165-201.03(B)(6) Height Limitations
§165-601.02 Dimensional and Intensity Requirements
Ordinance Requirement:
General office buildings in the B2 and B3 Districts and hotel and motel buildings in the B2
Zoning District shall be exempt from the maximum height requirements of those zoning districts.
In no case shall the height of such buildings exceed 60 feet. When such exemptions are
proposed adjacent to existing residential uses, the Board of Supervisors shall review the site
development plan pursuant to the provisions of Section 165-203.02A(3).
Alternative Design Standard:
Commercial buildings, retail buildings, office buildings, hotel buildings, and shared commercial
and residential buildings may be constructed up to 80 feet in height; however, architectural
screening features may be permitted to exceed this height allowance but shall be limited to a
maximum structural height of 90 feet.
Justification for Modification:
Heritage Commons is planned as an urban design form that will promote vertical construction
throughout the project. The ability to construct buildings to 80 feet in height is consistent with
the height allowance for shared commercial and residential buildings, which will be developed
within the project. Other zoning districts within the County allow for office buildings and other
structures to be constructed up to 90 feet in height; therefore, the Heritage Commons urban
design form is consistent with these more intensive types of development currently permitted by
County Code.
Heritage Commons has coordinated with the Winchester Regional Airport (WRA) to obtain
information that delineates height limitations for structures that would impact the WRA approach
zones and conical zones. This information has been incorporated within an exhibit that
demonstrates that the maximum height allowances identified in the alternative design standards
will not impact WRA operations.
Design Modification Document 12 October 29, 2015
MODIFICATION #11 §165-402.09(J)(D1) Multifamily Residential Buildings
Ordinance Requirement:
Principal building (max): 60 feet, provided that a multifamily residential building may be erected
to a maximum of 80 feet if it is set back from road right-of-ways and from lot lines in addition to
each of the required minimum yard dimensions, a distance of not less than one foot for each one
foot of height that it exceeds the sixty-foot limit.
Alternative Design Standard:
Commercial buildings, retail buildings, office buildings, hotel buildings, and shared commercial
and residential mixed use buildings may be constructed within 20 feet of public or private street
systems serving the community.
Justification for Modification:
Heritage Commons is planned as an urban design form that will promote vertical construction
throughout the project. This design form should provide flexibility to promote building
construction that abuts wide pedestrian walkway areas that adjoin public and private street
systems. Urban design promotes build-to setback lines, which are not proposed as a requirement
for Heritage Commons; however, this alternative design standard will allow for this form of
design should it be desired by the developer of the project.
Design Modification Document 13 October 29, 2015
MODIFICATION #12 §165-4002.09(I) Modified Apartment Building
Ordinance Requirement:
This housing type consists of buildings that contain multiple dwelling units that share a common
yard area. The entire dwelling unit does not necessarily have to be on the same floor. Garden
apartments shall be at least two stories high but no more than four stories and shall contain six or
more units in a single structure, not to exceed 16 units within a single structure. Dimensional
requirements shall be as follows:
A. Lot Dimensions
A1 Maximum site impervious surface ratio 0.60
B. Building Setbacks
B1 From public road right-of-way 35 feet
B2 From private road right-of-way, off-street parking lot or
driveway
20 feet
B3 Side (perimeter) 20 feet
B4 Rear (perimeter) 25 feet
B5 Rear for balconies and decks 20 feet
B6 Minimum on-site building spacing: Buildings placed side to side shall
have a minimum distance of 20 feet between buildings; buildings placed side
to back shall have a minimum distance of 35 feet between buildings.
Buildings back to back shall have a minimum distance of 50 feet between
buildings.
C. Minimum Parking
C1 Required off-street parking 2 per unit
D. Height
D1 Principal building (max): 55 feet
D2 Accessory building (max) 20 feet
Alternative Design Standard:
This housing type consists of buildings that contain multiple dwelling units that share a common
outdoor area and residential and commercial mixed-use buildings. Dwellings can be on multiple
floors with buildings being at least two stories but not more than six stories. Dwellings can have
internal or external corridors at the discretion of the developer. Modified apartment buildings
shall contain a minimum of 16 dwelling units but may not exceed more than 64 dwelling units
within a single structure. Dimensional requirements shall be as follows:
A. Lot Dimensions
A1 Maximum site impervious surface ratio 0.60
B. Building Setbacks
Design Modification Document 14 October 29, 2015
B1 From public road right-of-way 20 feet
B2 From private road right-of-way, off-street parking lot or
driveway
10 feet
B3 Side (perimeter) 15 feet
B4 Rear (perimeter) 15 feet
B5 Rear for balconies and decks 20 feet
B6 Minimum on-site building spacing: 15 feet side to side; 15 feet side to
back; 15 feet back to back
C. Minimum Parking
C1 Required off-street parking 2 per unit,
inclusive of
garage
D. Height
D1 Principal building (max): 80 feet
D2 Accessory building (max): 50 feet
D3 Maintenance buildings (max): 20 feet
Justification for Modification:
Heritage Commons is planned as an urban design form that will promote massing of dwelling
units throughout the project. This design form should provide flexibility to promote building
construction that accommodates an appropriate number of dwelling units within a single
structure and within a residential and commercial mixed-use building. The dimensional
requirements provided for the Modified Apartment Building achieve appropriate setbacks for
siting of buildings and protection of adjoining properties, while providing densities more in
keeping with a dense urban center design form.
Greenway Engineering September 28, 2005 Heritage Commons Rezoning
Revised May 20, 2015; Revised September 25, 2015
Revised October 23, 2015, Revised October 29, 2015
File #3701HC/EAW 1
HERITAGE COMMONS PROFFER STATEMENT
REZONING: RZ# 02-14 10-15
Rural Areas (RA) District, Business General (B2) District and
Residential Performance (RP) District with Proffers to Residential
Planned Community (R4) District with Proffers
PROPERTY: 150.59+/- acres;
Tax Map Parcels 63-A-150, 64-A-10 and 64-A-12 (here-in after
the “Property”)
RECORD OWNER: R 150 SPE, LLC (here-in after the “Owner”)
APPLICANT: Heritage Commons, LLC (here-in after the “Applicant”)
PROJECT NAME: Heritage Commons (here-in after the “Project”)
ORIGINAL DATE
OF PROFFERS: September 28, 2005 May 20, 2015 September 25, 2015
REVISION DATE: September 25, 2015 October 23, 2015 October 29, 2015
Preliminary Matters
Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and
the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional
zoning, the undersigned Owner hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors
of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application #02-14 #10-15 for the
rezoning of 150.59±-acres inclusive of 96.28± acres of Business General (B2) District
and 54.0± acres of Residential Performance (RP) District with proffers, and 0.31± acres
of Rural Areas (RA) District without proffers to 150.59±-acres of Residential Planned
Community (R4) District with proffers, development of the subject properties (here-in
after the “Property”) shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth
herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended
or revised by the Applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that
such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no
effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon the Owner and any legal
successors, heirs, or assigns.
References to the Master Development Plan, hereinafter referred to as the Generalized
Development Plan dated September 25, 2015 October 23, 2015 October 29, 2015, as
required by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, are to be interpreted to be references
Greenway Engineering September 28, 2005 Heritage Commons Rezoning
Revised May 20, 2015; Revised September 25, 2015
Revised October 23, 2015, Revised October 29, 2015
File #3701HC/EAW 2
to the specific Generalized Development Plan (here-in after the “GDP”) attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference as “Exhibit A”. The Owner/Applicant is submitting
a GDP, Exhibit A, as part of a rezoning application. The GDP is provided in lieu of a
Master Development Plan and contains all information deemed appropriate by the
Frederick County Planning Department. The exact boundary and acreage of each land
bay may be shifted to a reasonable degree at the time of site plan submission for each
land bay in order to accommodate engineering or design considerations.
HERITAGE COMMONS PROFFER STATEMENT
A. Generalized Development Plan
1) The Owner and/or Applicant shall develop the Property in substantial
conformance with the GDP prepared by Greenway Engineering, dated September
25, 2015 October 23, 2015 October 29, 2015, which is attached and approved as
part of this rezoning application. The GDP is intended to delineate the general
location of the regional road systems identified in the Frederick County
Comprehensive Policy Plan, the location of the maximum number of potential
entrance locations along the regional road systems serving the Property, the
general location of the land bays proposed for residential and commercial
development, the general location of the East Tevis Street and the Warrior Drive
right-of-way dedication areas, and the general location of the Buffalo Lick Run
Open Space Area and public trail system. The final location of the regional road
improvements and potential entrance locations, the land bays proposed for
residential and commercial development, the general location of the East Tevis
Street and the Warrior Drive right-of-way dedication areas, and the general
location of the Buffalo Lick Run Open Space Area and public trail system can be
adjusted to accommodate final engineering design requirements without the need
to revise the GDP provided that the final engineering design is consistent with the
overall layout depicted on the GDP.
B. Design Modifications Document
1) The Owner and/or Applicant shall develop the Property in substantial
conformance with the Design Modification Document dated September 25, 2015
October 23, 2015 October 29, 2015 that is attached and incorporated hereto as
“Exhibit B”. Pursuant to Frederick County Code § 165-501.06(O), the design
modifications set forth in Exhibit B shall apply to the Property.
C. Land Use and Land Use Matrix
Greenway Engineering September 28, 2005 Heritage Commons Rezoning
Revised May 20, 2015; Revised September 25, 2015
Revised October 23, 2015, Revised October 29, 2015
File #3701HC/EAW 3
1) The Owner and/or Applicant shall develop a mixed land use development that
includes market rate multi-family residential, commercial, and market rate multi-
family residential/commercial land uses within the same structure. Market rate
multi-family residential land use is defined as having no income limit for the unit
and offered rented as the highest rent that the local market can sustain. Market
rate multi-family residential land use shall exclude subsidized housing units. The
market rate multi-family residential and the market rate residential/commercial
land uses within the same structure may be developed within gated communities
with private street systems.
2) The following Land Use Matrix Table provides for the general development
parameters on the Property. The Land Use Matrix Table provides for the
minimum and maximum percentages of residential and commercial that will be
developed within the land bays identified within the GDP identified as Exhibit A
in this proffer statement. Market rate multi-family residential/commercial land
uses within the same structure shall be permitted within Land Bay 2 and Land
Bay 3. The actual acreages identified for each Land Bay is approximate and may
fluctuate based on final survey work.
LAND
BAY
LAND USE
ACREAGE
(APPROX)
RESIDENTIAL
(MIN/MAX%)
COMMERCIAL
(MIN/MAX%)
1
Uses allowed in B1;
B2; B3 Districts and
Design Modification
Document
37.48± acres
0% AC.
100% AC.
2
Uses allowed in RP;
B1; B2; B3 Districts
and Design
Modification
Document
46.47± acres
75% MIN. AC.
80% MAX. AC.
20% MIN. AC.
25% MAX. AC.
3
Uses allowed in RP;
B1; B2; B3 Districts
and Design
Modification
Document
53.95± acres
0% MIN. AC.
20% MAX. AC.
80% MIN. AC.
100% MAX. AC.
Buffalo
Lick Run
Open Space; Public
Trail System; Road and
Pedestrian Crossing;
Utilities Crossing
12.35 acres
N/A
N/A
3) The Owner and/or Applicant shall limit residential land use development within
the Property to a maximum of 645 market rate multi-family units, which is
Greenway Engineering September 28, 2005 Heritage Commons Rezoning
Revised May 20, 2015; Revised September 25, 2015
Revised October 23, 2015, Revised October 29, 2015
File #3701HC/EAW 4
inclusive of market rate multi-family residential/commercial land uses within the
same structure. The commercial land use development within the Property is not
limited other than by the requirements pertaining to the average daily trip (ADT)
generation specified in Section G6 of the proffer statement.
4) The Owner/Applicant shall prohibit permitted land uses within the OM, Office
Manufacturing District and the M1, Light Industrial District that are not otherwise
permitted within the RP, B1, B2 and B3 Zoning Districts.
D. Land Use Phasing Program
1) The Owner and/or Applicant shall phase the residential land use development
program so as not to exceed 175 residential units within the first two years of the
project, which shall begin at the time of non-appealable rezoning approval.
2) Subsequent to the two year time line specified in Section D1 of the proffer
statement, the Owner and/or Applicant shall phase the residential land use
development program so as not to exceed 148 residential units for the ensuing two
years of the project.
3) Subsequent to the two year time line specified in Section D2 of the proffer
statement, the Owner and/or Applicant shall phase the residential land use
development program so as not to exceed 147 residential units for the ensuing two
years of the project.
4) Subsequent to the two year time line specified in Section D3 of the proffer
statement, the Owner and/or Applicant shall be permitted to develop the
remaining 175 residential units.
5) The Owner and/or Applicant shall develop 50,000 square feet of commercial land
use prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy permit for the 300th market
rate multi-family residential unit.
6) The Owner and/or Applicant shall develop an additional 50,000 57,500 square
feet of commercial land use prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy
permit for the 600th market rate multi-family residential unit.
7) The Owner and/or Applicant shall develop 7,500 square feet of commercial land
use prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy permit for the 645th market
rate multi-family residential unit.
E. Monetary Contribution for Public Schools
1) The Owner and/or Applicant shall establish an escrow account with the County
totaling an initial amount of $200,000.00 to mitigate potential impacts to public
Greenway Engineering September 28, 2005 Heritage Commons Rezoning
Revised May 20, 2015; Revised September 25, 2015
Revised October 23, 2015, Revised October 29, 2015
File #3701HC/EAW 5
schools resulting from student generation from the project. Potential impacts to
public schools shall be determined by student calculation numbers provided by
population data specific to the project obtained from Frederick County Public
Schools consistent with the residential land use development program specified in
Section D1 – D4 of the proffer statement within 90 days following issuance of the
certificates of occupancy for each of the units identified in Proffers E2-E5.
Monetary contributions for impacts to public schools shall be provided as a one-
time payment as described in Sections E2 – E5 of the Proffer Statement drawn
from the escrow account. This escrow account shall continue to be funded by the
Owner and/or Applicant as necessary throughout the residential land use
development program to ensure that the payments described in Sections E2 – E5
of the Proffer Statement are satisfied. No further certificates of occupancy for
residential units shall be issued until the remaining amounts then due have been
paid.
The remainder of the escrow account balance shall be released by the County
within 90 days of issuance of the final occupancy permit following completion of
the residential development program, or within 90 days of a conditional zoning
amendment that provides for the discontinuance of the residential land use
development program. Frederick County Public Schools shall provide the County
with information specifying the total number of students within the Property
within this 90 day release period to ensure that proffered payments have been
secured for the project.
2) A one-time payment of $3,000.00 for each student over 15 total students, as
calculated based upon the actual student population specific to the project at the
time of issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the 175th residential unit.
3) A one-time payment of $3,000.00 for each student over 27 total students, as
calculated based upon the actual student population specific to the project at the
time of issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the 323rd residential unit.
4) A one-time payment of $3,000.00 for each student over 39 total students, as
calculated based upon the actual student population specific to the project at the
time of issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the 470th residential unit.
5) A one-time payment of $3,000.00 for each student over 51 total students, as
calculated based upon the actual student population specific to the project at the
time of issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the 645th residential unit.
F. Recreational Amenities
1) The Owner and/or Applicant shall construct a 10-foot asphalt pedestrian and
bicycle trail throughout the limits of the Buffalo Lick Run Land Bay in the
general location depicted on the GDP. The 10-foot asphalt pedestrian and bicycle
trail shall be designed and constructed in conjunction with second phase of
Greenway Engineering September 28, 2005 Heritage Commons Rezoning
Revised May 20, 2015; Revised September 25, 2015
Revised October 23, 2015, Revised October 29, 2015
File #3701HC/EAW 6
residential land use development specified in Section D2 of the proffer statement.
The 10-foot asphalt pedestrian and bicycle trail shall be available for use as a
public trail system and shall be maintained by the property owners association
established for the project. The 10-foot asphalt pedestrian and bicycle trail
system shall be permitted to count towards the recreational amenity values for the
market rate multi-family units developed within the project.
2) The Owner and/or Applicant shall construct a community building to include a
workout/fitness facility and a community swimming pool for use by the residents
of the project. The community building and swimming pool facilities shall be
available for use by the residents of the project prior to the completion of the
second phase of residential land use development specified in Section D2 of the
proffer statement. The community building, workout/fitness facility, and
community swimming pool shall be permitted to count towards the recreational
amenity values for the market rate multi-family units developed within the
project.
3) The Owner and/or Applicant shall construct an 8-foot asphalt pedestrian trail
system within the residential portions of the project, which shall provide
connectivity to adjacent commercial land uses located within the same Land Bay
area. The general location of the trail system shall be provided on the Master
Development Plan. The 10-foot asphalt pedestrian trail system shall be permitted
to count towards the recreational amenity values for the market rate multi -family
units developed within the project.
G. Transportation
1) Comprehensive Policy Plan Regional Road Infrastructure Classifications
The GDP identifies the primary regional road systems identified on the
Comprehensive Policy Plan Eastern Road Plan. The GDP delineates these
regional road systems as Section A – Front Royal Pike/Airport Road intersection
to Roundabout; Section B – Interstate 81 Bridge, East Tevis Street to western
Property boundary, and Roundabout; Section C – East Tevis Street to northern
Property boundary; and Section D – Warrior Drive from Section B to southern
property boundary. The Comprehensive Policy Plan Eastern Road Plan identifies
Section A as an Urban Two-Lane Section (U2); the East Tevis Street portions of
Section B and Section C as an Urban Four-Lane Divided Section (U4D); and
Section D as an Urban Four-Lane Divided Section (U4D).
2) County-Managed Revenue Sharing Program Project Agreement
The Owner and/or Applicant shall enter into a County-Managed Revenue Sharing
Program Project Agreement (here-in after the “Agreement”) for the regional road
system identified as Section A and Section B on the proffered GDP within 30
days of non-appealable rezoning approval. The Agreement shall be consistent
Greenway Engineering September 28, 2005 Heritage Commons Rezoning
Revised May 20, 2015; Revised September 25, 2015
Revised October 23, 2015, Revised October 29, 2015
File #3701HC/EAW 7
with the standard format utilized for other executed County-Managed Revenue
Sharing Program Projects and may be modified to provide language acceptable to
the County and the Owner and/or Applicant provided that the location and typical
section of the Section A and Section B regional road system is consistent with the
proffered conditions. The Owner and/or Applicant shall be responsible in the
Agreement for the local funding match for the Section A and Section B regional
road system identified on the proffered GDP. The Owner and/or Applicant shall
not be permitted to commence development activities on the Property until the
Agreement is executed.
3) Section A Regional Road Improvement Program
The Owner and/or Applicant shall enter into a County-Managed Revenue Sharing
Program Project Agreement (here-in after the “Agreement”) for the regional road
system identified as Section A on the proffered GDP within 30 days of non-
appealable rezoning approval. The Agreement shall be consistent with the
standard format utilized for other executed County-Managed Revenue Sharing
Program Projects and may be modified to provide language acceptable to the
County and the Owner and/or Applicant provided that the location and typical
section of the Section A regional road system is consistent with the proffered
conditions.
The Owner and/or Applicant shall be responsible for the local funding match for
the Section A regional road system, which The Section A regional road system
shall be designed and constructed as an Urban Four-Lane Divided Section (U4D)
with curb and gutter, a 10’ asphalt pedestrian and bicycle trail and 5’ concrete
sidewalk, and intersections providing full access and/or partial access commercial
entrances into Land Bay 1 and Land Bay 2 that meet or exceed VDOT entrance
spacing requirements that are in force at the time of final road design plan
approval.
The Owner and/or Applicant shall be permitted to advance the Section A road
design plan and applicable studies required for approval by the County and
VDOT necessary to begin construction of the Section A regional road system.
The Owner and/or Applicant shall be permitted to begin residential and
commercial development that is served by the Section A regional road system,
which shall be limited to the development of the residential and commercial land
uses specified in Section D1 and D5 of the Proffer Statement until construction of
the Section B regional road system commences.
4) Section B Regional Road Improvement Program
The Owner and/or Applicant shall enter into a County-Managed Revenue Sharing
Program Project Agreement for the regional road system identified as Section B
on the proffered GDP within 30 days of non-appealable rezoning approval. The
Agreement shall be consistent with the standard format utilized for other executed
County-Managed Revenue Sharing Program Projects and may be modified to
Greenway Engineering September 28, 2005 Heritage Commons Rezoning
Revised May 20, 2015; Revised September 25, 2015
Revised October 23, 2015, Revised October 29, 2015
File #3701HC/EAW 8
provide language acceptable to the County and the Owner and/or Applicant
provided that the location and typical section of the Section B regional road
system is consistent with the proffered conditions.
The Owner and/or Applicant shall be responsible for the local funding match for
the Section B regional road system, which The Section B regional road system
shall be designed and constructed as an Interstate 81 Bridge with four travel lanes,
a raised concrete median, and sidewalks; an Urban Four-Lane Divided Section
(U4D) with curb and gutter, a 10’ asphalt pedestrian and bicycle trail and 5’
concrete sidewalk for East Tevis Street between the Interstate 81 Bridge and
Roundabout; and a dual-lane Roundabout with a 10’ asphalt pedestrian and
bicycle trail and 5’ concrete sidewalk, and intersections providing full access
and/or partial access commercial entrances into Land Bay 1 and Land Bay 2 that
meet or exceed VDOT entrance spacing requirements that are in force at the time
of final road design plan approval.
5) Section C Regional Road Right-of-Way Dedication
The Owner and/or Applicant shall provide the County with a right -of-way
dedication plat for the Section C East Tevis Street extension between the
Roundabout and the northern Property boundary. The Section C right-of-way
dedication plat shall be sufficient for the construction of an Urban Four-Lane
Divided Section (U4D) with curb and gutter, a 10’ asphalt pedestrian and bicycle
trail and 5’ concrete sidewalk that is consistent with the County-Managed Tevis
Street Extension Design Plan from Station 41+50 to Station 46+50 within the
Property. The Section C right-of-way dedication plat shall be provided to the
County for recordation within 30 days of written notice by the County of final
road construction design plan approval.
The final road design plan shall include an intersection that provides full access
and/or partial access commercial entrances and partial access commercial
entrances serving Land Bay 1 on the east and west side of the Section C regional
road system that meet or exceed VDOT entrance spacing requirements that are in
force at the time of final road design plan approval. The Owner and/or Applicant
shall provide ingress/egress easements along the northern limits of the Property
within Land Bay 1 sufficient to allow for inter-parcel access for construction and
use by the adjoining properties.
In the event that the County-Managed Revenue Sharing Program construction
project has not commenced for the portion of Section C within the Property when
street access is needed to serve development within this portion of Land Bay 1,
the Owner and/or Applicant shall be permitted to construct a partial street section
necessary to serve said development until the East Tevis Street extension project
is completed by others. The partial street section shall be constructed within the
planned right-of-way and shall be constructed to permit expansion of the Section
C East Tevis Street extension as described in the first paragraph of this section of
the Proffer Statement.
Greenway Engineering September 28, 2005 Heritage Commons Rezoning
Revised May 20, 2015; Revised September 25, 2015
Revised October 23, 2015, Revised October 29, 2015
File #3701HC/EAW 9
6) Section D Regional Road Right-of-Way Dedication
The Owner and/or Applicant shall provide the County with a right -of-way
dedication plat for the Section D Warrior Drive extension between the
Roundabout and the southern Property boundary consistent with the alignment
identified on the GDP. The Section D right-of-way dedication plat shall be
sufficient for the construction of an Urban Four-Lane Divided Section (U4D) with
curb and gutter, a 10’ asphalt pedestrian and bicycle trail. The Owner and/or
Applicant shall dedicate right-of-way sufficient for the described Warrior Drive
U4D road section within 6 months of the issuance of an occupancy permit for the
first land use approved that accesses the regional road system between the
Roundabout and the right-of-way dedication area identified on the proffered GDP.
7) Residential and Commercial Development Program
The Owner and/or Applicant shall be permitted to implement the residential and
commercial land development program specified in Section C2 of the proffer
statement until the land uses have a cumulative impact of 20,000 ADT. The
Owner and/or Applicant shall utilize actual traffic counts to determine ADT
volumes associated with land uses developed in the Property. The Owner and/or
Applicant shall conduct actual traffic counts when ITE Generation values for
approved land uses are projected to reach 20,000 ADT, which will be provided to
the County Transportation Director. Once actual traffic counts for land uses
developed in the project reach 20,000 ADT, the Owner and/or Applicant will
prepare traffic studies in conjunction with subsequent site plans if deemed
necessary by the County Transportation Director. Improvements to the
transportation system within the Property identified by the traffic studies will be
implemented by the Owner and/or Applicant during the site plan development
process as required by VDOT and the County.
The Owner and/or Applicant shall limit development within Land Bay 3 to land
uses with a cumulative impact of 2,550 ADT in which access is limited to the
signalized full access entrance at Madison Village and the potential entrance
location for Land Bay 3 identified on the proffered GDP. The Owner and/or
Applicant shall utilize actual traffic counts at the Madison Village public access
road connection along the southern boundary of the Property to determine ADT
volumes associated with land uses development restriction for this phase of
development within Land Bay 3. The Owner/Applicant shall be permitted to
continue development within Land Bay 3 above the 2,550 ADT threshold
following the construction of street access that connects Land Bay 3 to the
regional road system serving Land Bay 2. Street access connecting Land Bay 3 to
Land Bay 2 shall be the responsibility of the Owner and/or Applicant and shall be
designed and constructed as a typical section sufficient to accommodate the traffic
projections that exceed the 2,550 ADT threshold.
8) Private Streets
Greenway Engineering September 28, 2005 Heritage Commons Rezoning
Revised May 20, 2015; Revised September 25, 2015
Revised October 23, 2015, Revised October 29, 2015
File #3701HC/EAW 10
The Owner and/or Applicant shall have the ability to construct all internal street
systems within the Property as private streets, except for the regional road
systems described in Section G1 through G5 of the proffer statement. All private
streets shall be designed to standards acceptable to the County Engineer and in
conformance to VDOT corner clearance distances that are in force at the time of
final private street design plan approval before an intersection entrance and/or
public street can be connected to the private street.
9) Adjoining Subdivision Pedestrian Connectivity
The Owner and/or Applicant shall provide pedestrian access connectivity for the
benefit of the adjoining residential subdivision adjoining Land Bay 1. Pedestrian
connectivity will be developed as concrete sidewalks or asphalt trails within the
portions of the Property that abut the existing residential subdivision street
systems.
H. Winchester Regional Airport
1) The Owner and/or Applicant shall provide information in sales literature, property
deeds and lease agreements for the market rate multi-family units that identifies
the Winchester Regional Airport facility location and flight pattern in proximity
to the Property.
OWNER/APPLICANT NOTARIZED SIGNATURE ON FOLLOWING PAGE
Greenway Engineering September 28, 2005 Heritage Commons Rezoning
Revised May 20, 2015; Revised September 25, 2015
Revised October 23, 2015, Revised October 29, 2015
File #3701HC/EAW 11
Signature
The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors,
administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the owner and applicant.
In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and
accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in
addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code.
Respectfully Submitted:
By:
R 150 SPE, LLC - Owner Date
Commonwealth of Virginia,
City/County of To Wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
20 by
Notary Public
My Commission Expires
File #3701HC/EAW
IMPACT STATEMENT
HERITAGE COMMONS
REZONING
Shawnee Magisterial District
Frederick County, Virginia
TM 63-A-150, 64-A-10 & 64-A-12
150.59± Acres
September 25, 2015
Revised October 29, 2015
Current Owners: R 150 SPE, LLC
Applicant: Greenway Engineering, Inc.
Contact Person: Evan Wyatt
Greenway Engineering
151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, VA 22602
540-662-4185
Greenway Engineering September 25, 2015; Revised October 29, 2015 Heritage Commons Rezoning
File #3701HC/EAW 2
HERITAGE COMMONS REZONING
INTRODUCTION
This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Fredrick County by
the proffered rezoning of 150.59± acres owned by R 150 SPE, LLC. The 150.59± acres
consists of three parcels identified as Tax Map Parcels 63-A-150, 64-A-10, and 64-A-12.
The subject parcels are located on the west side of Front Royal Pike (Route 522), opposite
Airport Road (Route 645), and adjoining Interstate 81 along the western property boundaries.
Tax Map Parcels 64-A-10 and 64-A-12 were rezoned to the B-2, Business General District
(96.28 acres) and the RP, Residential Performance District (54.0 acres) with proffers
approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on September 28, 2005. R 150 SPE,
LLC desires to rezone Tax Map Parcels 64-A-10 and 64-A-12 from the B-2, Business
General District and the RP, Residential Performance District, and Tax Map Parcel 63-A-150
from the RA, Rural Areas District to establish 150.59± acres that will be zoned R-4,
Residential Planned Community District with proffers. The R-4, Residential Planned
Community District zoning will allow for the development of Heritage Commons, which is
planned as an urban mixed-use commercial and residential community with regional
transportation improvements.
General Information
Location: Fronting on the west side of Front Royal Pike (Route
522), opposite Airport Road (Route 645), and adjoining
Interstate 81 along the western property boundaries.
Magisterial District: Shawnee District
Property ID Numbers: 63-A-150, 64-A-10, and 64-A-12
Current Zoning: B-2 General Business District; RP, Residential
Performance District, and RA, Rural Areas District
Current Use: Unimproved
Proposed Use: Urban Mixed-Use Commercial and Residential with
Regional Transportation Improvements
Proposed Zoning: R-4, Residential Planned Community District
Total rezoning area: 150.59± acres
Greenway Engineering September 25, 2015; Revised October 29, 2015 Heritage Commons Rezoning
File #3701HC/EAW 3
COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN
Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan
The Heritage Commons urban mixed-use commercial and residential community is located
within the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan. The Senseny/Eastern Frederick
Urban Area Plan is a future land use plan that identifies recommended land uses and regional
transportation improvements as a guide for future development within this geographic area of
the community.
The Heritage Commons urban mixed-use commercial and residential community is proffered
to provide significant areas of commercial land use within three land bays that are depicted
on the proffered Heritage Commons Generalized Development Plan; to limit residential land
use to a maximum of 645 market rate multi-family units; and to enter into a County Managed
Revenue Sharing Program Project Agreement to participate in the implementation of regional
transportation improvements. The Heritage Commons urban mixed-use commercial and
residential community represents good planning practice; provides for regional transportation
improvements that are necessary to accommodate growth within this geographic area of the
community; and provides economic development opportunities needed for the commercial
and employment land uses envisioned by the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan.
Urban Development Area
The 150.59± acres proposed for the Heritage Commons urban mixed-use commercial and
residential community is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA). Expansion of
the Urban Development Area (UDA) is not required by this rezoning application.
Sewer and Water Service Area
The 150.59± acres proposed for the Heritage Commons urban mixed-use commercial and
residential community is located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA).
Expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) is not required by this rezoning
application.
A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE
Flood Plains
The subject property can be found on FEMA NFIP Map #51069C0218D Panel 218 of 375,
dated September 2, 2009. A portion of Buffalo Lick Run and two small unnamed tributaries
are located within the 150.59± acres, which are identified as being within the 100-year
Greenway Engineering September 25, 2015; Revised October 29, 2015 Heritage Commons Rezoning
File #3701HC/EAW 4
floodplain and are designated as “Zone A” on the FEMA NFIP Map. The remainder of the
site is located outside the 100-year floodplain in designated “Zone X”. The proffered
Heritage Commons Generalized Development Plan identifies a land bay entitled Buffalo
Lick Run, which accounts for the designated floodplain area on the project site. Disturbance
within the designated floodplain area will be limited to road crossing, utility installation, and
construction of a public trail system. Any impacts associated with floodplain disturbance
will be in conformance with applicable government regulations and permitting requirements
to mitigate impacts to this environmental feature.
Wetlands
The National Wetlands Inventory Map (NWI) and the Frederick County GIS database do not
identify wetland areas within the 150.59± acres. The 150.59± acres will be analyzed
subsequent to rezoning approval and prior to any development activities to determine the
existence of wetlands. Any impacts associated with potential wetlands disturbance will be in
conformance with applicable government regulations and permitting requirements to mitigate
impacts to this environmental feature.
Steep Slopes
The 150.59± acres contains minor areas of defined steep slopes in conjunction with the
Buffalo Lick Run Land Bay area identified on the Heritage Commons Generalized
Development Plan. Disturbance of steep slope features will be done in conformance with
applicable government regulations and permitting requirements to mitigate impacts to this
environmental feature.
Woodlands
The 150.59± acres contains minor areas of mature vegetation throughout the Buffalo Lick
Run Land Bay and within a minor portion of Land Bay 3 identified on the Heritage
Commons Generalized Development Plan. Development of Heritage Commons will
necessitate the clearing of some areas of mature vegetation; however, these devel oped areas
will be required to comply with the landscaping requirements of the Frederick County
Zoning Ordinance, which will mitigate this impact.
Soil Types
The soil types contained in this tract have been obtained from the USDA Soil Survey of
Frederick County and the Frederick County GIS database. There are nine soil types
identified on the 150.59± acres:
1B Berks Channery Silt Loam 2-7% slope
3B Blairton Silt Loam 2-7% slope
6C Carbo-Oaklet Silt Loam, very rocky 2-15% slope
8C Chilhowie Silty Clay Loam 7-15% slope
9B & 9C Clearbrook Channery Silt Loam 2-15% slope
14B Frederick-Poplimento Loams 2-7% slope
Greenway Engineering September 25, 2015; Revised October 29, 2015 Heritage Commons Rezoning
File #3701HC/EAW 5
28 Lobdell Silt Loam Floodplain
32B Oaklet Silt Loam 2-7% slope
41C, 41D & 41E Weikert-Berks Channery Silt Loam 7-65% slope
Table 5 on page 123 of the USDA Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia, identifies the
3B Blairton Silt Loam and 28 Lobdell Silt Loam soils as prime farmland. The
Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies the 150.59± acres for future land use development;
therefore, soils types that are conducive to agricultural practices are not planned to continue
in this geographic area of the community.
B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
Adjoining Property Zoning and Present Use:
North: RP District Use: Residential
B2 District Use: Church; Undeveloped
South: RP District Use: Residential (under construction)
B2 District Use: Undeveloped
East: RP District Use: Residential
West: City of Winchester Use: I-81; Residential; Commercial
C. TRANSPORTATION
The 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan Eastern Road Plan identifies a regional transportation
network within the proximity of the 150.59± acres, which includes the extension of Tevis
Street in the City of Winchester to Front Royal Pike (US Route 522) in Frederick County.
This regional network includes an urban four-lane collector with an Interstate 81 flyover
bridge, a dual lane roundabout, and a new signalized intersection at Front Royal Pike.
Additionally, this regional network includes an urban four-lane collector for the extension of
Warrior Drive, and a two-lane collector that intersects Front Royal Pike at the Airport Road
signalized intersection.
Frederick County is a member of the Win-Fred Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).
The MPO 2030 Transportation Plan identifies several of the regional transportation network
improvements as a candidate project (Project #61) within the 2035 Constrained Long Range
Plan.
The Heritage Commons Proffer Statement and proffered Generalized Development Plan
provide the ability for the identified regional transportation network to be realized within the
Greenway Engineering September 25, 2015; Revised October 29, 2015 Heritage Commons Rezoning
File #3701HC/EAW 6
150.59± acres and the off-site Interstate 81 flyover bridge. The Proffer Statement commits
the Property Owner to enter into a County Managed Revenue Sharing Program Project
Agreement for the Interstate 81 Bridge, the dual-lane Roundabout, and an urban four-lane
divided collector with curb and gutter, a 10’ asphalt pedestrian and bicycle facility and 5’
concrete sidewalk between the dual-lane Roundabout and Route 522 South at the signalized
intersection with Airport Road; to be responsible for the local funding match for the regional
road network projects that are identified in the Revenue Sharing Program Agreement; to
prohibit development within the Property until the Revenue Sharing Agreement is executed;
to dedicate right-of-ways within the 150.59± acres sufficient for all urban collector road
systems identified by the Comprehensive Policy Plan; to require the initial residential and
commercial development to be served by the Section A Regional Road Improvement Project
and limit the residential and commercial development program until construction commences
for the Section B Regional Road Improvement Project; to limit land use development within
Land Bay 3 based on traffic generation volumes that will utilize the signalized intersection at
Madison Village until street connection to the regional road network is provided within the
project; and to prepare additional traffic studies when land uses developed within the
150.59± acres reach 20,000 ADT, which is below the traffic threshold determined to be
acceptable in the previous traffic impact analysis study for the mixed-use commercial and
residential project.
The proffered transportation improvements implement significant components of the regional
transportation network; provide right-of-way sufficient for the implementation of other
components of the regional transportation network identified by the Comprehensive Policy
Plan; and manage development activities within the Property until regional road
improvements are realized. Therefore, the Heritage Commons Proffer Statement adequately
mitigates transportation impacts created by the project and accommodates regional traffic
volumes not created by the project.
D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT
The 150.59± acres is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and
Water Service Area (SWSA). The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) is the
public sanitary sewer provider for Frederick County. FCSA has sanitary sewer infrastructure
adjacent to the Heritage Commons project site that will allow for this project to be served by
sanitary sewer, and has adequate treatment capacity at the waste water treatment plant.
Based on comparable discharge patterns, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA)
has determined that 235 gallons/day per residential connection and 75 gallons/day per 1,000
square feet of commercial development is an appropriate calculation for estimating the sewer
impact for the residential and commercial land uses.
Q = 235 gallons/day/acre per residential connection
Q = 235 GPD x 645 residential connections
Q = 151,575 GPD projected at residential build-out
Greenway Engineering September 25, 2015; Revised October 29, 2015 Heritage Commons Rezoning
File #3701HC/EAW 7
Q = 75 gallons/day/acre per 1,000 square feet commercial
Q = 75 GPD x 642.42 (642,422 sq.ft./1,000 sq.ft.)
Q = 48,181 GPD projected at commercial build-out
TOTAL: Q = 199,757 GPD at project build-out
The proposed build-out of the Heritage Commons urban mixed-use commercial and
residential project is estimated to add 199,757 gallons per day to the public sewage
conveyance system. The development project will direct effluent to the OWRF, which has a
design capacity of 12.6 MGD. The Frederick-Winchester Service Authority (FWSA) has
advised that Frederick County owns 5.475 MGD of the total design capacity and is currently
using 2.434 MGD, or 44% of this allocated capacity. The Heritage Commons urban mixed-
use commercial and residential project is estimated to utilize 6.5% of the remaining design
capacity allocated to Frederick County at build-out; therefore, the OWRF has adequate
capacity to provide treatment of the projected sewer demand of 199,757 GPD created by the
Heritage Commons project.
E. WATER SUPPLY
The 150.59± acres is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and
Water Service Area (SWSA). The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) is the
public water service provider for Frederick County. FCSA has public water infrastructure
adjacent to the Heritage Commons project site, which includes a 20” water transmission line
that will allow for this project to be served by public water and looped to provide adequate
water pressure.
Based on comparable consumption estimates, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority
(FCSA) has determined that that 235 gallons/day per residential connection and 75
gallons/day per 1,000 square feet of commercial development is an appropriate calculation
for estimating the water impact for the residential and commercial land uses. The figures
below represent the impact that the total build-out of the proposed land uses will have on the
water supply and treatment systems.
Q = 235 gallons/day/acre per residential connection
Q = 235 GPD x 645 residential connections
Q = 151,575 GPD projected at residential build-out
Q = 75 gallons/day/acre per 1,000 square feet commercial
Q = 75 GPD x 642.42 (642,422 sq.ft./1,000 sq.ft.)
Q = 48,181 GPD projected at commercial build-out
TOTAL: Q = 199,757 GPD at project build-out
Greenway Engineering September 25, 2015; Revised October 29, 2015 Heritage Commons Rezoning
File #3701HC/EAW 8
The FCSA 20” water transmission main provides potable water from the James Diehl Water
Treatment Plant. The James Diehl Water Treatment Plant has the ability to provide 3 MGD
of potable water daily. Additionally, FCSA has the ability to obtain water from other sources
to further supplement water demands from development within the UDA and the SWSA.
Therefore, the projected 199,757 GPD water demand created by the Heritage Commons
project can be accommodated by FCSA.
F. SITE DRAINAGE
The 150.59± acres generally drains to Buffalo Lick Run and then downstream under Front
Royal Pike (Route 522) towards the Opequon Creek. Stormwater management will be
designed to accommodate the 2014 Frederick County requirements for stormwater quality
and stormwater quantity. Stormwater management facilities and treatment measures will
occur during the regional road system design process, which will require approval by the
County Engineer and Virginia Department of Transportation; as well as during specific site
development plans, which will require approval by the County Engineer. The Heritage
Commons urban mixed use commercial and residential project will be designed to comply
with these stormwater management requirements as a condition of land disturbance;
therefore, there will be no adverse impacts to adjoining properties or to the Buffalo Lick Run
watershed associated with this project.
G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
The impact on solid waste disposal facilities can be projected from an average annual
business consumption of landfill volume of 5.4 cubic yards per 1,000 square feet of structural
floor area and an average annual residential consumption of 5.4 cubic yards per household
(Civil Engineering Reference Manual, 4th edition). The following figures show the increase
in average annual volume based on the 642,422 square feet of commercial land use, and 645
residential units that are projected to develop within the Heritage Commons project:
AV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. per 1,000 square feet
AV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. x 642.42 (642,422 sq.ft./1,000 sq.ft.)
AV = 3,469 Cu. Yd. at commercial build-out/yr, or 2,428 tons/yr at build-out
AV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. per household
AV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. x 645 residential units
AV = 3,483 Cu. Yd. at residential build-out, or 2,438 tons/yr at build-out
TOTAL AV = 4,866 tons/yr at build-out
The Municipal Solid Waste area of the Regional Landfill has a current remaining capacity of
13,100,000 cubic yards of air space. The projected build-out of the Heritage Commons
Greenway Engineering September 25, 2015; Revised October 29, 2015 Heritage Commons Rezoning
File #3701HC/EAW 9
project will generate 4,866 tons of solid waste at build-out annually on average. This
represents a 2.43% increase in the annual solid waste received by the Municipal Solid Waste
area of the Regional Landfill, which currently averages 200,000 tons per year. The Heritage
Commons mixed-use commercial and residential land uses will utilize commercial waste
haulers for trash pickup service; therefore, impacts at the citizen convenience centers will be
non-existent, and tipping fees will be generated that will create a continuous revenue source
for the Regional Landfill by the Heritage Commons project.
H. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES
The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey identifies Russell Place (#34-431) as a
potentially significant historic resource associated with the 150.59± acres. The Virginia
Division of Historic Landmarks survey form specified that neither the house nor any of the
outbuildings would qualify for historic significance individually. Instead the farmland, with
the cluster of farm buildings taken in this context was determined to be potentially
significant. The survey refers to this farm as one of the last examples near Winchester of a
sort of land use that was once “typical” all around the city. However, the future land use and
regional transportation network recommended by the Comprehensive Policy Plan
demonstrates that farmland will not be a cultural resource that should be considered for
development applications in this geographic area of the community. Additionall y, the house
and farm buildings have been razed and the property has not been actively farmed since the
2005 rezoning approval that was granted for the 150.59± acres.
I. IMPACTS ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES
The Heritage Commons mixed-use residential and commercial project proffers a maximum
of 645 market rate multi-family residential units. The County’s Development Impact Model
(DIM) does not differentiate between market rate multi-family units, conventional multi-
family units, or subsidized multi-family units. The current fiscal impact assumed by the DIM
for apartment units is $13,880.00 per unit. Therefore, a stand-alone 645 unit multi-family
residential development would be projected to have a capital facilities fiscal impact of
$8,952,600.00.
The Heritage Commons Proffer Statement commits to 50,000 square feet of commercial
development prior to the 300th market-rate multi-family unit, an additional 57,500 square feet
of commercial development prior to the 600th market-rate multi-family unit. The DIM Output
Module demonstrates a 50% reduction in normal capital facilities fiscal impacts based on
these proffered conditions. Therefore, the proffered commercial development program results
in a fiscal impact credit towards the $13,880.00 per unit value projected by the DIM.
The Heritage Commons Proffer Statement commits to providing the local funding match for
the construction of the Interstate 81 Bridge, the dual-lane Roundabout, and an urban four-
lane divided collector between the dual-lane Roundabout and Route 522 South at the
Greenway Engineering September 25, 2015; Revised October 29, 2015 Heritage Commons Rezoning
File #3701HC/EAW 10
signalized intersection with Airport Road; as well as providing right-of-way dedication for all
regional transportation improvement projects within the property that are identified in the
Comprehensive Policy Plan. These regional transportation projects are identified in the
County Comprehensive Policy Plan Eastern Road Plan as Urban Four-Lane Divided (U4D)
and Urban Two-Lane (U2) road systems. The Interstate 81 Bridge, the dual-lane
Roundabout, and the additional lane geometry for the urban four-lane divided collector
between the dual-lane Roundabout and Route 522 South at the signalized intersection with
Airport Road qualify as a fiscal impact credit towards the $13,880.00 per unit value projected
by the DIM. The County Consulting Engineer has developed cost estimates for the Interstate
81 Bridge and the dual-lane Roundabout, and Greenway Engineering has developed cost
estimates for the U4D collector. These cost estimates demonstrate that the regional road
network construction projects will exceed $5,000,000.00 in local funding by the Heritage
Commons project. Additionally, the Heritage Commons Proffer Statement provides right-of-
way dedication for the U4D portions of East Tevis Street and Warrior Drive, which total
approximately 230,000 square feet and have an estimated land value of $1,380,000.00.
Therefore, the proffered regional transportation program results in a fiscal impact credit
towards the $13,880.00 per unit value projected by the DIM.
The Heritage Commons Proffer Statement commits to the construction of public 10’ asphalt
pedestrian and bicycle facilities that are not required by County Code. These public
pedestrian and bicycle facilities are located within the Buffalo Lick Run Open Space Area
and along the regional road system between the Roundabout and the Route 522 South
intersection with Airport Road. These public pedestrian and bicycle facilities are
approximately 4,600 lineal feet and have a value of $68.00 per lineal feet based on
information provided by the County Parks and Recreation Department. Therefore, the value
for the public pedestrian and bicycle facilities is $312,800.00. It should be noted that this
value does not include the public 8’ asphalt pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the
residential portions of the project, nor the concrete or asphalt pedestrian systems that connect
the adjoining residential subdivision to the Heritage Commons project. Therefore, the
proffered public pedestrian and bicycle facilities results in a fiscal impact credit towards the
$13,880.00 per unit value projected by the DIM.
The Heritage Commons Proffer Statement commits to establishing an escrow account in an
initial amount of $200,000.00 that will be continuously funded throughout the residential
development program and utilized to mitigate student generation impacts to public schools.
This monetary contribution provides for $3,000.00 per student when specific student
generation thresholds are exceeded. The DIM assumes a student generation ratio of .256
students per apartment unit, which projects a total of 165 students for a 645 unit multi-family
residential development. Therefore, this element of the project qualifies as a fiscal impact
credit towards the $13,880.00 per unit value projected by the DIM.
The Heritage Commons Proffer Statement commits to commercial development thresholds
during the residential development program, the funding, construction and right-of-way
dedication for on-site and off-site regional road improvements, the funding and construction
of public pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and monetary contributions for student generation
impacts. The projected cost of these proffered project commitments is $11,661,220.00,
which provides for a positive fiscal impact of $2,708,620.00 for the Heritage Commons
Greenway Engineering September 25, 2015; Revised October 29, 2015 Heritage Commons Rezoning
File #3701HC/EAW 11
project. Therefore, the capital facilities impact costs for public school facilities, parks and
recreation facilities, fire and rescue facilities, library facilities and general government
facilities have been mitigated by the Heritage Commons Proffer Statement.
The Heritage Commons Proffer Statement provides for protection for operations associated
with the Winchester Regional Airport. Heritage Commons will require disclosure of the
Winchester Regional Airport facility location and flight patterns in sales literature, deeds and
lease agreements for the market-rate multi-family residential units. Additionally, Greenway
Engineering has worked with the Winchester Regional Airport to determine structural height
limits that will not impact airspace associated with airport operations based on horizontal and
approach zones established by the Winchester Regional Airport. Additionally, the
Winchester Regional Airport will submit site plans associated with the Heritage Commons
project to the FAA to ensure that final structural plans do not impact airport operations.
Attachments:
Aerial Overview Map Exhibit
Location and Zoning Map Exhibit
SWSA & UDA Map Exhibit
Environmental Features Map Exhibit
Soils Map Exhibit
Historic Features Map Exhibit
Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan
Winchester Regional Airport Structural Height Zones Exhibit
W I N C H E S T E R C I T Y L I M I T S
64 A 12
64 A 10
63 A 150
F
R
O
N
T
R
O
Y
A
L
P
I
K
E
F R O N T R O Y A L P I K E
§¨¦81 §¨¦81
£¤522
£¤522
rs776
rs645
rs778
rs777
rs644
rs775
BUFFLICK RD
AIR PORT R D
M U S K O K A C T
B R I G S T O C K D R
A V I A T O R P L
C A S T L E B R I D G E C T
P I L O T C I R
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CN ES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, andthe GIS User Community
Map D ata Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, 2015 Data; Aerial Photos from ESRI (http://services.arcgisonline.com/ArcGIS/rest/services [World Imagery])
A E R I A L O V E R V I E W
S H A W N E E M A G I S T E R I A L D I S T R I C T
H E R I T A G E C O M M O N S
F R E D E R I C K C O U N T Y , V I R G I N I A
D A T E : 2 0 1 5 -0 9 -0 3
P R O J E C T I D : 3 7 0 1 H C
D E S I G N E D B Y : D W E
S C A L E :
1 I n c h = 5 0 0 F e e t
Le gend
Heritage Commons
Pa rce l Bou ndary
500 0 500
Feet
µ
H E R I T A G E C O M M O N S
R E Z O N I N G
A E R I A L O V E R V I E W
R E Z O N I N G
W I N C H E S T E R C I T Y L I M I T S
64 A 12
64 A 10
63 A 150
F
R
O
N
T
R
O
Y
A
L
P
I
K
E
F R O N T R O Y A L P I K E
§¨¦81 §¨¦81
£¤522
£¤522
rs776
rs644
rs778
rs645
rs777
BUFFLICK RD
AIR PORT R D
M U S K O K A C T
B R I G S T O C K D R
A V I A T O R P L
C A S T L E B R I D G E C T
P I L O T C I R
Map D ata Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, 2015 Data; City of Winchester GIS Department, 2015 Data
L O C A T I O N & Z O N I N G M A P
S H A W N E E M A G I S T E R I A L D I S T R I C T
H E R I T A G E C O M M O N S
F R E D E R I C K C O U N T Y , V I R G I N I A
D A T E : 2 0 1 5 -0 9 -0 3
P R O J E C T I D : 3 7 0 1 H C
D E S I G N E D B Y : D W E
S C A L E :
1 I n c h = 5 0 0 F e e t
Le gend
Heritage Commons
Pa rce l Bou ndary
Frederick County Zoning
B1 (Business, Neighborhood District)
B2 (Business, Gen eral D istrist)
B3 (Business, Industrial Tran sition District)
M1 (Industrial, Light D istrict)
M2 (Industrial, General District)
RA (R ural A rea District)
RP (Resid ential, Performance District)
500 0 500
Feet
µ
H E R I T A G E C O M M O N S
R E Z O N I N G
L O C A T I O N & Z O N I N G M A P
R E Z O N I N G
HERITAGECOMMONS
£¤522
Winchester
Stephens City
£¤50
£¤17
§¨¦81
£¤11
ËÊ37
ËÊ37
ËÊ7
Location Map
W I N C H E S T E R C I T Y L I M I T S
I
n
s
i
d
e
S
W
S
A
&
U
D
A
I
n
s
i
d
e
U
D
A
I n s i d e S W S AInside SWSA
I n s i d e U D A
Inside UDA
In
sid
e U
D
A
20" WaterLine
8" WaterLine 8" SewerLine
64 A 12
64 A 10
63 A 150
9B
B a l t i m o r e & O h i o R R
B a l t i m o r e & O h i o R R
MILLWOOD PIKE
F
R
O
N
T
R
O
Y
A
L
P
I
K
E
V A L L E Y P I K E
F
R
O
N
T
R
O
Y
A
L
P
I
K
E
£¤50
£¤17
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
£¤11
ËÊ37
ËÊ37
£¤522
£¤522
P
A
P
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
AIR
P
O
R
T R
D
V I C T O R Y R D
D
A
R
B
Y
D
R
BUFFLICK RD
VINE LN
A R B O R C T
R O S A L N
COSTELLO DR
K
I
N
R
O
S
S
D
R
SHAWNEE DR
P
E
M
B
R
I
D
G
E
D
R
Y
A
L
E
D
R
APPLE VALLEY RD C A L D W E L L L N
BENTLEY AVE TRAVIS CT
F A Y S T
JUSTES DR
D E W B E R R Y D R
I N V E R L E E W A Y
MCCLURE WAY
S H A D Y E L M R D
C E D A R C R E E K G R
H I L L A N D A L E L N
I N D E P E N D E N C E D R
F A I R F I E L D D R
PRINCETON DR
A V I A T I O N D R
COVERSTONE DR
WESTWOOD DR
S
T
A
N
E
L
Y
D
R
HOOD WAY
JUSTES DR
AI RPO RT RD
E V E N D A L E L N
PASTU
RE LN
C A P I T O L L N
RYCO LN
DELCO PLZ
G A R B E R L N
H A R V E S T R I D G E D R
L I L A C L N
N
A
Z
A
R
E
N
E
D
R
M U S K O K A C T
N U T M E G L N T A I L S P I N C I R
Map D ata Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, 2015 Data; City of Winchester GIS Department, 2015 Data
S W S A & U D
A M A P
S H A W N E E M A G I S T E R I A L D I S T R I C T
H E R I T A G E C O M M O N S
F R E D E R I C K C O U N T Y , V I R G I N I A
D A T E : 2 0 1 5 -0 9 -0 3
P R O J E C T I D : 3 7 0 1 H C
D E S I G N E D B Y : D W E
S C A L E :
1 I n c h = 1 ,5 0 0 F e e t
Le gend
Heritage Commons
Se wer Water Service Area
Urban Development Area
Pa rce l Bou ndary
FCSA Sewe r Line
FCSA Water Line
1,500 0 1,500
Feet
µ
H E R I T A G E C O M M O N S
R E Z O N I N G
S W S A & U D A M A P
R E Z O N I N G
W I N C H E S T E R C I T Y L I M I T S
64 A 12
64 A 10
63 A 150
7 5 0
7 5 0
700
675
725
725
7 2 5 725
7
0
0
7 2 5
7 0 0
675
725
7 0 0
7
2
5
6 7 5
725
700
725
725
700
7 2 5
725
700
7
2
5
7 2 5
7 2 5
7 5 0
7 2 5
7 2 5
700
7 5 0
725
750
725
7 2 5
725
725
725
7 2 5
700
7 2 5
725
7
2
5
700
7
2
5
725
725
7
0
0
7
2
5
675
750
700
7 2 5
7 0 0
7
2
5
7 2 5
7
0
0
7 0 0
725
7
2
5
F
R
O
N
T
R
O
Y
A
L
P
I
K
E
F R O N T R O Y A L P I K E
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
£¤522
£¤522
rs776
rs645
rs778
rs777
rs644
rs775
BUFFLICK RD
AIR PORT R D
M U S K O K A C T
B R I G S T O C K D R
A V I A T O R P L
C A S T L E B R I D G E C T
P I L O T C I R
Map D ata Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, 2015 Data; City of Winchester GIS Department, 2015 Data
E N V I R O N M E N T A L F E A T U R E S M A P
S H A W N E E M A G I S T E R I A L D I S T R I C T
H E R I T A G E C O M M O N S
F R E D E R I C K C O U N T Y , V I R G I N I A
D A T E : 2 0 1 5 -0 9 -0 3
P R O J E C T I D : 3 7 0 1 H C
D E S I G N E D B Y : D W E
S C A L E :
1 I n c h = 5 0 0 F e e t
Le gend
Heritage Commons
Pa rce l Bou ndary
Lake or Pon d
Wetlan d (N WI)
100 Year Floodp lain
Stream
5 Foot Intermediate Contour
25 Foot Index Contour
500 0 500
Feet
µ
H E R I T A G E C O M M O N S
R E Z O N I N G
E N V I R O N M E N T A L F E A T U R E S M A P
R E Z O N I N G
W I N C H E S T E R C I T Y L I M I T S
41E
9B
41E
41D
3B
3B
64 A 12
64 A 10
63 A 150
41E
28
9B
41D
14B6C
8C
41D
32B
9B
9B
9C
3B
41C
9C
41C
1B
F
R
O
N
T
R
O
Y
A
L
P
I
K
E
F R O N T R O Y A L P I K E
§¨¦81 §¨¦81
£¤522
£¤522
rs776
rs775
rs645
rs644
rs778
rs777
rs781
BUFFLICK RD
AIR PO RT R D
M U S K O K A C T
P E G A S U S C T
B R I G S T O C K D R
A V I A T O R P L
C A S T L E B R I D G E C T
P I L O T C I R
Map D ata Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, 2015 Data; City of Winchester GIS Department, 2015 Data
S O I L S M A P
S H A W N E E M A G I S T E R I A L D I S T R I C T
H E R I T A G E C O M M O N S
F R E D E R I C K C O U N T Y , V I R G I N I A
D A T E : 2 0 1 5 -0 9 -0 3
P R O J E C T I D : 3 7 0 1 H C
D E S I G N E D B Y : D W E
S C A L E :
1 I n c h = 5 0 0 F e e t
Le gend
Heritage Commons
Pa rce l Bou ndary
NRCS Soils
14B:F REDE RICK-POP LIM ENTO LOAM S, 2 TO 7 P ERCE NT SLO PES
1B:B ERKS C HANN ERY SILT LOAM , 2 TO 7 PE RCE NT SLO PES
28:LO BDELL SILT LOA M
32B:O AKLE T SILT LOAM , 2 TO 7 PE RCEN T SLOP ES
3B:B LAIRTON SILT LOA M, 2 TO 7 P ERCE NT SLO PES
41C:WEIKERT-BER KS CHAN NERY SILT LO AMS , 7 TO 15 PER CENT SLOPE S
41D:WEIKERT-BER KS CHAN NERY SILT LO AMS , 15 TO 25 PER CEN T SLOPE S
41E:W EIKERT-BERK S CHAN NERY SILT LO AMS, 25 TO 65 PER CENT SLOPE S
6C:C ARB O-OAKLE T SILT LOA MS, V ERY ROC KY, 2 TO 15 PERC ENT SL OPES
8C:C HILHOW IE S ILTY CLAY LOAM , 7 TO 15 P ERCE NT SLO PES
9B:C LEAR BROO K CHAN NERY SILT LO AM, 2 TO 7 PERC ENT S LOPES
9C:C LEAR BRO OK CHA NNERY SILT LO AM, 7 TO 15 PER CENT S LOPE S
500 0 500
Feet
µ
H E R I T A G E C O M M O N S
R E Z O N I N G
S O I L S M A P
R E Z O N I N G
mmmmmmmmmmm
mmmm
m
m
m
m
m
àà
àà
à
à
à
à
à
àà
à
à
àà
à
ààà
àà
à
à
àà
à
à
à
à
à
à
à
à
à
à
à à à
à
à
à à
à
à
à
à
à
à
à
àà
à
à
à
à à
à
à
à
à
à
W I N C H E S T E R C I T Y L I M I T S
64 A 12
64 A 10
63 A 150
34-431
34-424
B a l t i m o r e & O h i o R R
B a l t i m o r e & O h i o R R
F
R
O
N
T
R
O
Y
A
L
P
I
K
E
MILLWOOD PIKE
F
R
O
N
T
R
O
Y
A
L
P
I
K
E
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
£¤522
£¤522
rs776
rs775
rs717 rs644
rs645
rs781
rs652
rs786
rs785
rs778
rs782
rs777
rs796
rs780
rs848
rs797
rs763
AIR PORT R D
BUFFLICK RD
P
A
P
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
COSTELLO DR
SHAWNEE DR
BENTLEY AVE TRAVIS CT
D
A
R
B
Y
D
R
MCCLURE WAY
A V I A T I O N D R
COVERSTONE DR
WINDY HILL LN
C A P I T O L L N
R Y C O L N
DELCO PLZ
WINCREST DR
M U S K O K A C T
T A I L S P I N C I R
P I L O T C I R
Map D ata Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, 2015 Data; City of Winchester GIS Department, 2015 Data
H I S T O R I C F E A T U
R E S M A P
S H A W N E E M A G I S T E R I A L D I S T R I C T
H E R I T A G E C O M M O N S
F R E D E R I C K C O U N T Y , V I R G I N I A
D A T E : 2 0 1 5 -0 9 -0 3
P R O J E C T I D : 3 7 0 1 H C
D E S I G N E D B Y : D W E
S C A L E :
1 I n c h = 1 ,0 0 0 F e e t
Le gend
Heritage Commons
Pa rce l Bou ndary
à Civil War En ca mp me nt
m Civil War Fort
Cemete ry
Rura l Landmark
[e 34-424 Garber Fa rm
[e 34-431 Russell Place
Civil War Battlefield
Se co nd Kernstown
1,000 0 1,000
Feet
µ
H E R I T A G E C O M M O N S
R E Z O N I N G
H I S T O R I C F E A T U R E S M A P
R E Z O N I N G
File #3701HC/EAW
IMPACT STATEMENT
HERITAGE COMMONS
REZONING
Shawnee Magisterial District
Frederick County, Virginia
TM 63-A-150, 64-A-10 & 64-A-12
150.59± Acres
September 25, 2015 October 29, 2015
Current Owners: R 150 SPE, LLC
Applicant: Greenway Engineering, Inc.
Contact Person: Evan Wyatt
Greenway Engineering
151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, VA 22602
540-662-4185
Greenway Engineering September 25, October 29, 2015 Heritage Commons Rezoning
File #3701HC/EAW 2
HERITAGE COMMONS REZONING
INTRODUCTION
This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Fredrick County by
the proffered rezoning of 150.59± acres owned by R 150 SPE, LLC. The 150.59± acres
consists of three parcels identified as Tax Map Parcels 63-A-150, 64-A-10, and 64-A-12.
The subject parcels are located on the west side of Front Royal Pike (Route 522), opposite
Airport Road (Route 645), and adjoining Interstate 81 along the western property boundaries.
Tax Map Parcels 64-A-10 and 64-A-12 were rezoned to the B-2, Business General District
(96.28 acres) and the RP, Residential Performance District (54.0 acres) with proffers
approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on September 28, 2005. R 150 SPE,
LLC desires to rezone Tax Map Parcels 64-A-10 and 64-A-12 from the B-2, Business
General District and the RP, Residential Performance District, and Tax Map Parcel 63-A-150
from the RA, Rural Areas District to establish 150.59± acres that will be zoned R-4,
Residential Planned Community District with proffers. The R-4, Residential Planned
Community District zoning will allow for the development of Heritage Commons, which is
planned as an urban mixed-use commercial and residential community with regional
transportation improvements.
General Information
Location: Fronting on the west side of Front Royal Pike (Route
522), opposite Airport Road (Route 645), and adjoining
Interstate 81 along the western property boundaries.
Magisterial District: Shawnee District
Property ID Numbers: 63-A-150, 64-A-10, and 64-A-12
Current Zoning: B-2 General Business District; RP, Residential
Performance District, and RA, Rural Areas District
Current Use: Unimproved
Proposed Use: Urban Mixed-Use Commercial and Residential with
Regional Transportation Improvements
Proposed Zoning: R-4, Residential Planned Community District
Total rezoning area: 150.59± acres
Greenway Engineering September 25, October 29, 2015 Heritage Commons Rezoning
File #3701HC/EAW 3
COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN
Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan
The Heritage Commons urban mixed-use commercial and residential community is located
within the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan. The Senseny/Eastern Frederick
Urban Area Plan is a future land use plan that identifies recommended land uses and regional
transportation improvements as a guide for future development within this geographic area of
the community.
The Heritage Commons urban mixed-use commercial and residential community is proffered
to provide significant areas of commercial land use within three land bays that are depicted
on the proffered Heritage Commons Generalized Development Plan; to limit residential land
use to a maximum of 645 market rate multi-family units; and to enter into a County Managed
Revenue Sharing Program Project Agreements to participate in the implementation of
regional transportation improvements. The Heritage Commons urban mixed-use commercial
and residential community represents good planning practice; provides for regional
transportation improvements that are necessary to accommodate growth within this
geographic area of the community; and provides economic development opportunities
needed for the commercial and employment land uses envisioned by the Senseny/Eastern
Frederick Urban Area Plan.
Urban Development Area
The 150.59± acres proposed for the Heritage Commons urban mixed-use commercial and
residential community is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA). Expansion of
the Urban Development Area (UDA) is not required by this rezoning application.
Sewer and Water Service Area
The 150.59± acres proposed for the Heritage Commons urban mixed-use commercial and
residential community is located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA).
Expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) is not required by this rezoning
application.
A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE
Flood Plains
The subject property can be found on FEMA NFIP Map #51069C0218D Panel 218 of 375,
dated September 2, 2009. A portion of Buffalo Lick Run and two small unnamed tributaries
Greenway Engineering September 25, October 29, 2015 Heritage Commons Rezoning
File #3701HC/EAW 4
are located within the 150.59± acres, which are identified as being within the 100-year
floodplain and are designated as “Zone A” on the FEMA NFIP Map. The remainder of the
site is located outside the 100-year floodplain in designated “Zone X”. The proffered
Heritage Commons Generalized Development Plan identifies a land bay entitled Buffalo
Lick Run, which accounts for the designated floodplain area on the project site. Disturbance
within the designated floodplain area will be limited to road crossing, utility installation, and
construction of a public trail system. Any impacts associated with floodplain disturbance
will be in conformance with applicable government regulations and permitting requirements
to mitigate impacts to this environmental feature.
Wetlands
The National Wetlands Inventory Map (NWI) and the Frederick County GIS database do not
identify wetland areas within the 150.59± acres. The 150.59± acres will be analyzed
subsequent to rezoning approval and prior to any development activities to determine the
existence of wetlands. Any impacts associated with potential wetlands disturbance will be in
conformance with applicable government regulations and permitting requirements to mitigate
impacts to this environmental feature.
Steep Slopes
The 150.59± acres contains minor areas of defined steep slopes in conjunction with the
Buffalo Lick Run Land Bay area identified on the Heritage Commons Generalized
Development Plan. Disturbance of steep slope features will be done in conformance with
applicable government regulations and permitting requirements to mitigate impacts to this
environmental feature.
Woodlands
The 150.59± acres contains minor areas of mature vegetation throughout the Buffalo Lick
Run Land Bay and within a minor portion of Land Bay 3 identified on the Heritage
Commons Generalized Development Plan. Development of Heritage Commons will
necessitate the clearing of some areas of mature vegetation; however, these devel oped areas
will be required to comply with the landscaping requirements of the Frederick County
Zoning Ordinance, which will mitigate this impact.
Soil Types
The soil types contained in this tract have been obtained from the USDA Soil Survey of
Frederick County and the Frederick County GIS database. There are nine soil types
identified on the 150.59± acres:
1B Berks Channery Silt Loam 2-7% slope
3B Blairton Silt Loam 2-7% slope
6C Carbo-Oaklet Silt Loam, very rocky 2-15% slope
8C Chilhowie Silty Clay Loam 7-15% slope
9B & 9C Clearbrook Channery Silt Loam 2-15% slope
Greenway Engineering September 25, October 29, 2015 Heritage Commons Rezoning
File #3701HC/EAW 5
14B Frederick-Poplimento Loams 2-7% slope
28 Lobdell Silt Loam Floodplain
32B Oaklet Silt Loam 2-7% slope
41C, 41D & 41E Weikert-Berks Channery Silt Loam 7-65% slope
Table 5 on page 123 of the USDA Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia, identifies the
3B Blairton Silt Loam and 28 Lobdell Silt Loam soils as prime farmland. The
Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies the 150.59± acres for future land use development;
therefore, soils types that are conducive to agricultural practices are not planned to continue
in this geographic area of the community.
B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
Adjoining Property Zoning and Present Use:
North: RP District Use: Residential
B2 District Use: Church; Undeveloped
South: RP District Use: Residential (under construction)
B2 District Use: Undeveloped
East: RP District Use: Residential
West: City of Winchester Use: I-81; Residential; Commercial
C. TRANSPORTATION
The 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan Eastern Road Plan identifies a regional transportation
network within the proximity of the 150.59± acres, which includes the extension of Tevis
Street in the City of Winchester to Front Royal Pike (US Route 522) in Frederick County.
This regional network includes an urban four-lane collector with an Interstate 81 flyover
bridge, a dual lane roundabout, and a new signalized intersection at Front Royal Pike.
Additionally, this regional network includes an urban four-lane collector for the extension of
Warrior Drive, and a two-lane collector that intersects Front Royal Pike at the Airport Road
signalized intersection.
Frederick County is a member of the Win-Fred Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).
The MPO 2030 Transportation Plan identifies several of the regional transportation network
improvements as a candidate project (Project #61) within the 2035 Constrained Long Range
Plan.
Greenway Engineering September 25, October 29, 2015 Heritage Commons Rezoning
File #3701HC/EAW 6
The Heritage Commons Proffer Statement and proffered Generalized Development Plan
provide the ability for the identified regional transportation network to be realized within the
150.59± acres and the off-site Interstate 81 flyover bridge. The Proffer Statement commits
the Property Owner to enter into a County Managed Revenue Sharing Program Project
Agreements for the Interstate 81 Bridge, the dual-lane Roundabout, and an urban four-lane
divided collector with curb and gutter, a 10’ asphalt pedestrian and bicycle facility and 5’
concrete sidewalk between the dual-lane Roundabout and Route 522 South at the signalized
intersection with Airport Road; to be responsible for the local funding match for the regional
road network projects that are identified for the Property Owner/County in the Revenue
Sharing Program Agreements; to prohibit development within the Property until the Revenue
Sharing Agreement is executed; to dedicate right-of-ways within the 150.59± acres sufficient
for all urban collector road systems identified by the Comprehensive Policy Plan; to require
the initial residential and commercial development to be served by the Section A Regional
Road Improvement Project and limit the residential and commercial development program
until construction commences for the Section B Regional Road Improvement Project; to limit
land use development within Land Bay 3 based on traffic generation volumes that will utilize
the signalized intersection at Madison Village until street connection to the regional road
network is provided within the project; and to prepare additional traffic studies when land
uses developed within the 150.59± acres reach 20,000 ADT, which is below the traffic
threshold determined to be acceptable in the previous traffic impact analysis study for the
mixed-use commercial and residential project.
The proffered transportation improvements implement significant components of the regional
transportation network; and provide right-of-way sufficient for the implementation of other
components of the regional transportation network identified by the Comprehensive Policy
Plan; and manage development activities within the Property until regional road
improvements are realized. Therefore, the Heritage Commons Proffer Statement adequately
mitigates transportation impacts created by the project and accommodates regional traffic
volumes not created by the project.
D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT
The 150.59± acres is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and
Water Service Area (SWSA). The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) is the
public sanitary sewer provider for Frederick County. FCSA has sanitary sewer infrastructure
adjacent to the Heritage Commons project site that will allow for this project to be served by
sanitary sewer, and has adequate treatment capacity at the waste water treatment plant.
Based on comparable discharge patterns, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA)
has determined that 235 gallons/day per residential connection and 75 gallons/day per 1,000
square feet of commercial development is an appropriate calculation for estimating the sewer
impact for the residential and commercial land uses.
Q = 235 gallons/day/acre per residential connection
Q = 235 GPD x 645 residential connections
Greenway Engineering September 25, October 29, 2015 Heritage Commons Rezoning
File #3701HC/EAW 7
Q = 151,575 GPD projected at residential build-out
Q = 75 gallons/day/acre per 1,000 square feet commercial
Q = 75 GPD x 642.42 (642,422 sq.ft./1,000 sq.ft.)
Q = 48,181 GPD projected at commercial build-out
TOTAL: Q = 199,757 GPD at project build-out
The proposed build-out of the Heritage Commons urban mixed-use commercial and
residential project is estimated to add 199,757 gallons per day to the public sewage
conveyance system. The development project will direct effluent to the OWRF, which has a
design capacity of 12.6 MGD. The Frederick-Winchester Service Authority (FWSA) has
advised that Frederick County owns 5.475 MGD of the total design capacity and is currently
using 2.434 MGD, or 44% of this allocated capacity. The Heritage Commons urban mixed-
use commercial and residential project is estimated to utilize 6.5% of the remaining design
capacity allocated to Frederick County at build-out; therefore, the OWRF has adequate
capacity to provide treatment of the projected sewer demand of 199,757 GPD created by the
Heritage Commons project.
E. WATER SUPPLY
The 150.59± acres is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and
Water Service Area (SWSA). The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) is the
public water service provider for Frederick County. FCSA has public water infrastructure
adjacent to the Heritage Commons project site, which includes a 20” water transmission line
that will allow for this project to be served by public water and looped to provide adequate
water pressure.
Based on comparable consumption estimates, the Frederick County Sanitation Authority
(FCSA) has determined that that 235 gallons/day per residential connection and 75
gallons/day per 1,000 square feet of commercial development is an appropriate calculation
for estimating the water impact for the residential and commercial land uses. The figures
below represent the impact that the total build-out of the proposed land uses will have on the
water supply and treatment systems.
Q = 235 gallons/day/acre per residential connection
Q = 235 GPD x 645 residential connections
Q = 151,575 GPD projected at residential build-out
Q = 75 gallons/day/acre per 1,000 square feet commercial
Q = 75 GPD x 642.42 (642,422 sq.ft./1,000 sq.ft.)
Q = 48,181 GPD projected at commercial build-out
TOTAL: Q = 199,757 GPD at project build-out
Greenway Engineering September 25, October 29, 2015 Heritage Commons Rezoning
File #3701HC/EAW 8
The FCSA 20” water transmission main provides potable water from the James Diehl Water
Treatment Plant. The James Diehl Water Treatment Plant has the ability to provide 3 MGD
of potable water daily. Additionally, FCSA has the ability to obtain water from other sources
to further supplement water demands from development within the UDA and the SWSA.
Therefore, the projected 199,757 GPD water demand created by the Heritage Commons
project can be accommodated by FCSA.
F. SITE DRAINAGE
The 150.59± acres generally drains to Buffalo Lick Run and then downstream under Front
Royal Pike (Route 522) towards the Opequon Creek. Stormwater management will be
designed to accommodate the 2014 Frederick County requirements for stormwater quality
and stormwater quantity. Stormwater management facilities and treatment measures will
occur during the regional road system design process, which will require approval by the
County Engineer and Virginia Department of Transportation; as well as during specific site
development plans, which will require approval by the County Engineer. The Heritage
Commons urban mixed use commercial and residential project will be designed to comply
with these stormwater management requirements as a condition of land disturbance;
therefore, there will be no adverse impacts to adjoining properties or to the Buffalo Lick Run
watershed associated with this project.
G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
The impact on solid waste disposal facilities can be projected from an average annual
business consumption of landfill volume of 5.4 cubic yards per 1,000 square feet of structural
floor area and an average annual residential consumption of 5.4 cubic yards per household
(Civil Engineering Reference Manual, 4th edition). The following figures show the increase
in average annual volume based on the 642,422 square feet of commercial land use, and 645
residential units that are projected to develop within the Heritage Commons project:
AV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. per 1,000 square feet
AV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. x 642.42 (642,422 sq.ft./1,000 sq.ft.)
AV = 3,469 Cu. Yd. at commercial build-out/yr, or 2,428 tons/yr at build-out
AV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. per household
AV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. x 645 residential units
AV = 3,483 Cu. Yd. at residential build-out, or 2,438 tons/yr at build-out
TOTAL AV = 4,866 tons/yr at build-out
The Municipal Solid Waste area of the Regional Landfill has a current remaining capacity of
13,100,000 cubic yards of air space. The projected build-out of the Heritage Commons
project will generate 4,866 tons of solid waste at build-out annually on average. This
Greenway Engineering September 25, October 29, 2015 Heritage Commons Rezoning
File #3701HC/EAW 9
represents a 2.43% increase in the annual solid waste received by the Municipal Solid Waste
area of the Regional Landfill, which currently averages 200,000 tons per year. The Heritage
Commons mixed-use commercial and residential land uses will utilize commercial waste
haulers for trash pickup service; therefore, impacts at the citizen convenience centers will be
non-existent, and tipping fees will be generated that will create a continuous revenue source
for the Regional Landfill by the Heritage Commons project.
H. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES
The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey identifies Russell Place (#34-431) as a
potentially significant historic resource associated with the 150.59± acres. The Virginia
Division of Historic Landmarks survey form specified that neither the house nor any of the
outbuildings would qualify for historic significance individually. Instead the farmland, with
the cluster of farm buildings taken in this context was determined to be potentially
significant. The survey refers to this farm as one of the last examples near Winchester of a
sort of land use that was once “typical” all around the city. However, the future land use and
regional transportation network recommended by the Comprehensive Policy Plan
demonstrates that farmland will not be a cultural resource that should be considered for
development applications in this geographic area of the community. Additionall y, the house
and farm buildings have been razed and the property has not been actively farmed since the
2005 rezoning approval that was granted for the 150.59± acres.
I. IMPACTS ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES
The Heritage Commons mixed-use residential and commercial project proffers a maximum
of 645 market rate multi-family residential units. The County’s Development Impact Model
(DIM) does not differentiate between market rate multi-family units, conventional multi-
family units, or subsidized multi-family units. The current fiscal impact assumed by the DIM
for apartment units is $13,880.00 per unit. Therefore, a stand-alone 645 unit multi-family
residential development would be projected to have a capital facilities fiscal impact of
$8,952,600.00.
The Heritage Commons Proffer Statement commits to 50,000 square feet of commercial
development prior to the 300th market-rate multi-family unit, an additional 50,000 57,500
square feet of commercial development prior to the 600th market-rate multi-family unit. , and
an additional 7,500 square feet of commercial development prior to the 645th market-rate
multi-family unit. The DIM Output Module demonstrates a 50% reduction in normal capital
facilities fiscal impacts based on these proffered conditions. Therefore, the proffered
commercial development program results in a fiscal impact credit towards the $13,880.00 per
unit value projected by the DIM.
The Heritage Commons Proffer Statement commits to providing the local funding match for
the construction of the Interstate 81 Bridge, the dual-lane Roundabout, and an urban four-
Greenway Engineering September 25, October 29, 2015 Heritage Commons Rezoning
File #3701HC/EAW 10
lane divided collector between the dual-lane Roundabout and Route 522 South at the
signalized intersection with Airport Road; as well as providing right-of-way dedication for all
regional transportation improvement projects within the property that are identified in the
Comprehensive Policy Plan. These regional transportation projects are identified in the
County Comprehensive Policy Plan Eastern Road Plan as Urban Four-Lane Divided (U4D)
and Urban Two-Lane (U2) road systems. The Interstate 81 Bridge, the dual-lane
Roundabout, and the additional lane geometry for the urban four-lane divided collector
between the dual-lane Roundabout and Route 522 South at the signalized intersection with
Airport Road qualify as a fiscal impact credit towards the $13,880.00 per unit value projected
by the DIM. The County Consulting Engineer has developed cost estimates for the Interstate
81 Bridge and the dual-lane Roundabout, and Greenway Engineering has developed cost
estimates for the U4D collector. These cost estimates demonstrate that the regional road
network construction projects will exceed $5,000,000.00 in local funding by the Heritage
Commons project. Additionally, the Heritage Commons Proffer Statement provides right-of-
way dedication for the U4D portions of East Tevis Street and Warrior Drive, which total
approximately 230,000 square feet and have an estimated land value of $1,380,000.00.
Therefore, the proffered regional transportation program results in a fiscal impact credit
towards the $13,880.00 per unit value projected by the DIM.
The Heritage Commons Proffer Statement commits to the construction of public 10’ asphalt
pedestrian and bicycle facilities that are not required by County Code. These public
pedestrian and bicycle facilities are located within the Buffalo Lick Run Open Space Area
and along the regional road system between the Roundabout and the Route 522 South
intersection with Airport Road. These public pedestrian and bicycle facilities are
approximately 4,600 lineal feet and have a value of $68.00 per lineal feet based on
information provided by the County Parks and Recreation Department. Therefore, the value
for the public pedestrian and bicycle facilities is $312,800.00. It should be noted that this
value does not include the public 8’ asphalt pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the
residential portions of the project, nor the concrete or asphalt pedestrian systems that connect
the adjoining residential subdivision to the Heritage Commons project. Therefore, the
proffered public pedestrian and bicycle facilities results in a fiscal impact credit towards the
$13,880.00 per unit value projected by the DIM.
The Heritage Commons Proffer Statement commits to establishing an escrow account in the
in an initial amount of $200,000.00 that will be continuously funded throughout the
residential development program and utilized to mitigate student generation impacts to public
schools. This monetary contribution provides for $3,000.00 per student when specific
student generation thresholds are exceeded. The DIM assumes a student generation ratio of
.256 students per apartment unit, which projects a total of 165 students for a 645 unit multi-
family residential development. Therefore, this element of the project qualifies as a fiscal
impact credit towards the $13,880.00 per unit value projected by the DIM.
The Heritage Commons Proffer Statement commits to commercial development thresholds
during the residential development program, the funding, construction and right-of-way
dedication for on-site and off-site regional road improvements, the funding and construction
of public pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and monetary contributions for student generation
impacts. The projected cost of these proffered project commitments is $11,661,220.00,
Greenway Engineering September 25, October 29, 2015 Heritage Commons Rezoning
File #3701HC/EAW 11
which provides for a positive fiscal impact of $2,708,620.00 for the Heritage Commons
project. Therefore, the capital facilities impact costs for public school facilities, parks and
recreation facilities, fire and rescue facilities, library facilities and general government
facilities have been mitigated by the Heritage Commons Proffer Statement.
The Heritage Commons Proffer Statement provides for protection for operations associated
with the Winchester Regional Airport. Heritage Commons will require disclosure of the
Winchester Regional Airport facility location and flight patterns in sales literature, deeds and
lease agreements for the market-rate multi-family residential units. Additionally, Greenway
Engineering has worked with the Winchester Regional Airport to determine structural height
limits that will not impact airspace associated with airport operations based on horizontal and
approach and conical zones established by the Winchester Regional Airport. Additionally,
the Winchester Regional Airport will submit site plans associated with the Heritage
Commons project to the FAA to ensure that final structural plans do not impact airport
operations.
Attachments:
Aerial Overview Map Exhibit
Location and Zoning Map Exhibit
SWSA & UDA Map Exhibit
Environmental Features Map Exhibit
Soils Map Exhibit
Historic Features Map Exhibit
Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan
Winchester Regional Airport Structural Height Zones Exhibit
Heritage Commons Rezoning Adjoining Properties Listing
Label Tax Map Number Owner Mailing Address City & State ZIP
A 64 A 9 FLG RESIDUAL TRUST PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 888 WINCHESTER, VA 22604
B 64B A 73B FLG RESIDUAL TRUST PROPERTIESLLC/, CAMPFIELD LLC PO BOX 888 WINCHESTER, VA 22604
C 64B A 73 CALVARY CHURCH OF THE BRETHREN, C/O RICHARD E KELLER 578 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602
D 64 A 10A CALVARY CHURCH OF THE BRETHREN, C/O RICHARD E KELLER 578 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602
E 64B 4 E HEPNER DANIEL K, HEPNER ANGELA M 256 DEVLAND DR WINCHESTER, VA 22603
F 64 A 11 BELT ARTHUR A, BELT JUANITA S 201 FRONT DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602
G 64B 4 F CROSEN TARA M 189 FRONT DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602
H 64B 4 H SHANK ROBERT L SR, SHANK PATRICIA A 185 FRONT DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602
I 64B 4 25J MUDD THOMAS S 179 FRONT DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602
J 64B 4 26 COURTNEY CHARLES A 161 FRONT DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602
K 64B 4 27 COURTNEY CHARLES A, COURTNEY BETTY 161 FRONT DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602
L 64B 4 28 COURTNEY CHARLES A 161 FRONT DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602
M 64B 4 29 COURTNEY CHARLES A 161 FRONT DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602
N 64B 4 30 OATES BONNIE JEAN, MILLER MISTY DAWN 151 FRONT DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602
O 64B 4 31 OATES BONNIE JEAN, MILLER MISTY DAWN 151 FRONT DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602
P 64B 4 32 THE BRINCEFIELD GROUP LLC PO BOX 337 ASHTON, MD 20861
Q 64B 4 33 THE BRINCEFIELD GROUP LLC PO BOX 337 ASHTON, MD 20861
R 64B 4 34 YOWELL ERIC P 149 ROYAL AVE WINCHESTER, VA 22602
S 64B 4 35 YOWELL ERIC P 149 ROYAL AVE WINCHESTER, VA 22602
T 64B 4 36 KELLY JOHN B JR, KELLY MARSHA J 137 ROYAL AVE WINCHESTER, VA 22602
U 64B 4 37 KELLY JOHN B JR, KELLY MARSHA J 137 ROYAL AVE WINCHESTER, VA 22602
V 64B 4 38 HOTT CALVIN E II, HOTT DOROTHY D 131 ROYAL AVE WINCHESTER, VA 22602
W 64B 4 39 HOTT CALVIN E II, HOTT DOROTHY D 131 ROYAL AVE WINCHESTER, VA 22602
X 64B 4 9A MCFARLAND CHARLES C SR & ELENER L, MCFARLAND CHARLES C JR 116 ROYAL AVE WINCHESTER, VA 22602
Y 64B 4 10A MCFARLAND CHARLES C SR & ELENER L, MCFARLAND CHARLES C JR 116 ROYAL AVE WINCHESTER, VA 22602
Z 64B 4 8 HOTT BARBARA ANN ETALS, C/O WAYNE GODLOVE 325 W TEVIS ST WINCHESTER, VA 22601
AA 64B A 89 DOTSON SCOTTIE D 371 CHIMNEY CIR MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645
BB 64B A 4 91 YOUNG PHILIP T, YOUNG JUDY LYNN 655 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602
CC 64B A 92 CONWAY GENEVE B, CONWAY SHELTON RAY 667 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602
DD 64C A 1 GRIM RONALD E, GRIM MONICA 673 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602
EE 64C A 2 EMBREE JOSEPH, EMBREE LYNNETTE L 687 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602
FF 64C A 3 EMBREE JOSEPH, EMBREE LYNNETTE L 687 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602
GG 64C A 4 BARNARD E DARLENE S, BARNARD CHARLES M PO BOX 4585 WINCHESTER, VA 22604
HH 64C A 7 WHITACRE ELWOOD H SR 721 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602
II 64C 1 15 CORNERSTONE LP LLP PO BOX 2497 WINCHESTER, VA 22604
JJ 64C A 9 WINCHESTER OUTDOOR 355 S POTOMAC ST HAGERSTOWN, MD 21740
KK 64C A 11 LUCAS WILLIAM R, LUCAS KRISTA K 831 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602
LL 64C A 13 GIBSON MONTIE JR 867 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602
MM 64 A 14 SHEPARD MICHAEL S, SHEPARD CHERYL 179 GEORGE DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602
NN 64 A 18 MADISON II LLC 558 BENNYS BEACH RD FRONT ROYAL, VA 22630
OO 63 A 123A EFG INVESTMENTS LLC 340 W PARKINS MILL RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602
Source: Frederick County GIS, January 2015 Page 1 of 1
W I N C H E S T E R C I T Y L I M I T S
64 A 12
64 A 10
63 A 150
NN
OO
A
C
II
KK
B
LL
D
HH
I
BB
GG
F
E
Z
JJ
MM
FF
AA
DD
Q
EE
CC
YX
G H J
LK
T UV
S
N
R
P
W
M O
F
R
O
N
T
R
O
Y
A
L
P
I
K
E
F R O N T R O Y A L P I K E
§¨¦81 §¨¦81
£¤522
£¤522
rs776
rs645
rs644
rs775
BUFFLICK RD
AIR PORT R D
M U S K O K A C T
B R I G S T O C K D R
A V I A T O R P L
C A S T L E B R I D G E C T
P I L O T C I R
Map D ata Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, 2015 Data; City of Winchester GIS Department, 2015 Data
A D
J O I N
I N G P R O P E R T I E S M A P
S H A W N E E M A G I S T E R I A L D I S T R I C T
H E R I T A G E C O M M O N S
F R E D E R I C K C O U N T Y , V I R G I N I A
D A T E : 2 0 1 5 -0 9 -0 3
P R O J E C T I D : 3 7 0 1 H C
D E S I G N E D B Y : D W E
S C A L E :
1 I n c h = 5 0 0 F e e t
Le gend
Heritage Commons
Heritage Commons Adjoining Pro perty
Pa rce l Bou ndary
500 0 500
Feet
µ
H E R I T A G E C O M M O N S
R E Z O N I N G
A D J O I N I N G P R O P E R T I E S M A P
R E Z O N I N G