PC 10-07-15 Meeting Agenda
AGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
October 7, 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) September 16, 2015 Minutes ........................................................................................... (A)
3) Committee Reports .................................................................................................. (no tab)
4) Citizen Comments ................................................................................................... (no tab)
PUBLIC HEARING
5) Rezoning #05-15 HIATT RUN CONDOS, LLC submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., to rezone
3.00 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the RP (Residential Performance) District
with proffers. This property is located eastern side of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) just
before Old Charlestown Road (Route 761). The property is identified with Property
Identification Number 44-A-17 in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
Mr. Ruddy ....................................................................................................................... (B)
6) POSTPONED BY APPLICANT
Rezoning #06-15 OPEQUON CROSSING submitted by Pennoni Associates, to revise
proffers associated with Rezoning #04-07 and Rezoning #12-07. This revision relates
specifically to the monetary transportation credits. The properties are located south of the
existing terminus of Eddys Lane (Route 820) approximately south of Route 7 and
adjacent to Opequon Creek. The properties are identified with Property Identification
Numbers 55-A-210, 55-A-212 and 55-A-212A in the Redbud Magisterial District.
INFORMATION/DISCUSSION ITEM
7) 2035 Comprehensive Plan Appendix II Review.
Mr. Ruddy ........................................................................................................................ (C)
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 3255
Minutes of September 16, 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 September 16, 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; J. Rhodes Marston, Back
Creek District; Charles F. Dunlap, Red Bud District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Roderick
B. Williams, County Attorney; Robert Hess, Board of Supervisors Liaison.
ABSENT: J. Stanley Crockett, Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Kevin Kenney,
Gainesboro District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District;
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; 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 September 16, 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.
-------------
MINUTES
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Manuel, the
Planning Commission adopted the minutes of their August 19, 2015 meeting.
(Note: Commissioner Dunlap abstained)
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3256
Minutes of September 16, 2015
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee – Mtg. 9/14/15
Commissioner Oates reported the committee reviewed the maps for the 2035
Comprehensive Update. He noted the maps were very well detailed and praised the effort put forth on
these.
City of Winchester Planning Commission – Mtg. 9/15/15
Commissioner Smith reported discussion was held on two items: an ordinance regarding
breweries and distilleries; and an ordinance to rezone 16.4 acres containing approximately 96 parcels for
the Corridor Enhancement Project which will be on National Avenue.
Board of Supervisors Report – Mtg. 9/9/15
Board of Supervisors’ Liaison, Supervisor Robert Hess, reported the agenda included
several Planning Commission items and they are as follows: A Public Hearing for Jackson’s Retreat
regarding a waiver request to eliminate sidewalks and streetlights, this was approved; Discussion on the
Hiatt Run Condominiums Master Plan presented for information only; Discussion of an ordinance
amendment to permit self-storage facilities in the RA (Rural Area) District, the Board moved this item
forward to Public Hearing; An ordinance amendment regarding variance requirements to bring the
County into compliance with changes in the state code, it was agreed to move this forward to Public
Hearing; Discussion on an ordinance amendment regarding setbacks from Agricultural & Forestal
Districts for parcels less than six (6) acres, this was moved forward to Public Hearing; Discussion on the
Kernstown Area Plan, it was decided more time is needed before a decision can be made to move the item
forward.
-------------
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.
-------------
PUBLIC HEARING
Conditional Use Permit #02-15 for James Brown and Susan Brown, for a Kennel. The property is
located at 719 Barley Lane. The property is identified with Property Identification Number 61-A-
23 in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
Action – Recommend Approval
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3257
Minutes of September 16, 2015
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran reported this request for a CUP
(Conditional Use Permit) is for a dog kennel which will be for breeding purposes only. He explained, the
property is zoned RA (Rural Area) and is surrounded by properties that are also zoned RA. Mr. Cheran
noted the nearest residential dwelling is approximately 500 to 1000 feet from the kennel.
Mr. Cheran explained kennels are a permitted use in the RA (Rural Area) Zoning District
with an approved CUP (Conditional Use Permit). This proposed use will take place on a 154.75+/- acre
parcel; surrounded by properties that are zoned RA (Rural Area). Mr. Cheran noted the 2030
Comprehensive Policy Plan of Frederick County identifies this area of the County to remain rural in
nature and the property is not part of any land use study.
Mr. Cheran reported the applicant will be utilizing a 34x12 square foot enclosed kennel
for adult dogs, a 12x24 foot building for storage, and two 10x16 foot enclosed kennels for whelping and
weaning in the rear of the property. He noted there will be a fenced area for the dogs to the rear of the
residence.
Mr. Cheran noted staff recommends the following conditions be attached to the CUP
(Conditional Use Permit):
1. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times.
2. This CUP is solely to enable the breeding of dogs on this property.
3. No more than twenty (20) dogs and puppies shall be permitted on the property at any
given time.
4. No employees other than those residing on the property shall be allowed.
5. All dogs shall be controlled so as not to create a nuisance to any adjoining properties
by roaming free or barking.
6. All dogs must be confined indoors by 9:00 p.m. and not let outdoors prior to 8:00
a.m.
7. Any proposed business sign shall conform to Cottage Occupation sign requirements
and shall not exceed four (4) square feet in size and five (5) feet in height.
8. Any expansion or modification of this use will require the approval of a new CUP.
Mr. Cheran noted the Applicant is present to answer any questions the Planning
Commission may have. Commissioner Mohn inquired should condition #3 state no more than twenty
(20) adult dogs rather than twenty (20) dogs and puppies. Mr. Cheran explained after speaking with the
Applicant and Commissioner Marston a change was made to condition #3 of the proposed CUP to state
twenty (20) adult dogs. Commissioner Mohn commented the change makes good sense.
Commissioner Marston reported he has spent some time at the kennel location and
discussed the number of dogs with the Applicant. Commissioner Marston noted he and the Applicant are
satisfied with condition #3 stating twenty (20) adult dogs.
Mr. James M. Brown of the Back Creek Magisterial District came forward to answer any
further questions. He recommended those interested visit the website of the kennel-dog breeding facility.
Mr. Brown noted he appreciates the Planning Commissions interest in the number of dogs being
permitted. Mr. Brown explained he had no idea at the beginning of this venture how it would positively
affect his livelihood. He and his family have thoroughly enjoyed the people and situations brought to
them by this opportunity.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3258
Minutes of September 16, 2015
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing to citizen comments. No one came forward
to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Marston and seconded by Commissioner Thomas,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #02-15 for James Brown and Susan Brown, for a Kennel.
The property is located at 719 Barley Lane. The property is identified with Property Identification
Number 61-A-23 in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
(Note: Commissioners Crockett, Kenney, Unger, and Triplett were absent from the meeting)
-------------
INFORMATION/ DISCUSSION ITEM
I-81 Distribution Park – Stonewall (Stonewall Industrial Park) Site Plan. The site plan for the I-81
Distribution Park, located on Tyson Drive in the Stonewall Industrial Park is being presented as an
information item due to its impacts on the Route 37 right-of-way.
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins reported this site plan is presented due to its
implications on the planned path for Route 37. She explained the site is located in the Stonewall
Industrial Park in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Ms. Perkins noted the plans for Stonewall Industrial
Park do not accommodate the Route 37 right-of-way. She identified the property as being located at the
corner of Tyson Drive and Welltown Road and contains a 330,050 square foot warehouse structure that is
within the path of Route 37. Ms. Perkins explained, in an effort to keep the Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors apprised of the Route 37 right-of-way, site plans and subdivisions that impact the
right-of-way are presented for their review.
There were no questions or comments from the Planning Commission at this time.
Supplementary Use Regulations – Setback Extensions. Discussion on revision to the Frederick
County Zoning Ordinance to revise the Supplementary Use Regulations for setback extensions.
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins reported in 2011 the RP (Residential Performance)
District setbacks and dimensional requirements were revised to introduce setbacks for unroofed decks and
structures. She noted with that revision, the allowance for extensions into the setback within the
supplementary use regulations was changed to eliminate the RP and R4 (Residential Planned Community)
Districts. Ms. Perkins explained since the RP dimensional requirements also apply to the R5 (Residential
Recreational Community) District, the R5 District should have also been removed from the
supplementary use regulations extension provision (leaving only the RA and MH1 in the supplementary
use section).
Ms. Perkins reported a minor revision has been prepared to remove the R5 from the
supplementary use regulation setback extension to ensure that R5 developments (Lake Holliday, Lake
Frederick, Shawneeland, and Mountain Falls) all utilize the RP deck and stoop setback extension as
intended. Ms. Perkins noted the DRRC discussed this amendment at their August 2015 meeting and
agreed with the proposed changes as drafted.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3259
Minutes of September 16, 2015
Commissioner Oates commented this is a clean-up exercise and he agrees with the
amendment. There were no further questions of comments from the Planning Commission at this time.
-------------
OTHER
Chairman Wilmot noted the Planning Commission will hold the meeting scheduled for
October 7, 2015.
-------------
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 7:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
June M. Wilmot, Chairman
____________________________
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
B
REZONING APPLICATION #05-15
HIATT RUN CONDOS, LLC
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: September 25, 2015
Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission: 10/07/15 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 10/28/15 Pending
PROPOSAL: To rezone 3.00 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential
Performance) District with proffers.
LOCATION: The property is located on the eastern side of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) just before
Old Charlestown Road (Route 761).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 10/07/15 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING:
This request to rezone three acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the RP (Residential
Performance) District would appear to be appropriate when considering the limitations on the
residential use of the property provided in the Applicant’s proffer statement (the Applicant has
proffered that no residential structures are to be located on the property) and the adjacent residential
development, recently approved by the County, into which this property has been adjusted. The
adjacent residential development is the Hiatt Run Condominium project. There are no anticipated issues
or additional impacts associated with this proposed rezoning request, most particularly, as no additional
residential uses or buildings will be constructed on the three acres subject to this rezoning request.
While the residential land use proposed with this plan is inconsistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan,
as it is outside of the UDA, it can be said that the environmental and recreation land use components of
the application are in line with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the most recent McCann-Slaughter
Amendment to the Northeast Land Use Plan. The majority of the subject property is currently zoned RP
(Residential Performance) District. This three acre minor portion of the property was recently
incorporated into the property by a Boundary Line Adjustment. Further, the Master Development Plan
for the Hiatt Run Condominiums immediately to the west of this property (and now incorporated into
the property) was approved meeting all County standards. The subject property is also located within
the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA).
The rezoning application, and its proffered conditions, appear to be an appropriate land use. Any issues
brought forth by the Planning Commission should be appropriately addressed by the applicant.
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 #05-15 Hiatt Run Condos, LLC
September 25, 2015
Page 2
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: 10/07/15 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 10/28/15 Pending
PROPOSAL: To rezone 3.00 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential
Performance) District with proffers.
LOCATION: The property is located on the eastern side of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) just before
Old Charlestown Road (Route 761)
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall
PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 44-A-17
PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District
PRESENT USE: Vacant
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
North: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Vacant/Agriculture
South: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential
East: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Vacant/Agriculture
West: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential
Rezoning #05-15 Hiatt Run Condos, LLC
September 25, 2015
Page 3
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Public Works Department: We do not have any comments concerning the proposed rezoning.
Frederick County Park & Recreation: Parks and Recreation supports the proffers identified in the
rezoning request.
Frederick County Attorney: Please see attached letter from Rod Williams, dated August 11, 2015.
Planning & Zoning:
1) Site History
The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Stephenson Quadrangle) depicts the
zoning for the subject parcel as A-2 (Agricultural General) District. The County’s agricultural
zoning districts were 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.
In 2015 a Master Development Plan MPD #04-15, the Hiatt Run Condominiums Master
Development Plan, was approved by the County that enabled the development of 120 units
contained within eight garden apartment buildings. A Boundary Line Adjustment Plat was
approved that incorporated this three acre parcel into the Hiatt Run property on July 29, 2015.
2) Comprehensive Policy Plan
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan is the guide for the future growth of Frederick County.
Land Use
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan provide guidance on
the future development of the property. The property is located within the Sewer and Water
Service Area (SWSA). It is located outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA). The 2030
Comprehensive Plan identifies the general area surrounding this property with a
Developmentally Sensitive Area designation, and in the area immediately east of this property,
with an OM (Office Manufacturing) District land use designation. In general, the proposed
residential land use would be inconsistent with the current land use plan. However, it is
recognized that the proposed residential project immediately to the west of this 3 acre property
was rezoned and master planned for residential uses with the approval of the County (this
property was previously within the UDA). Further, the proffered recreational context and
environmental preservation proposed for this property would be consistent with the current land
use supported by the Comprehensive Plan. As noted, the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan
Rezoning #05-15 Hiatt Run Condos, LLC
September 25, 2015
Page 4
continues to promote such environmental and recreational land uses in this area through the
DSA designation.
Careful consideration was given to ensure that no additional residential density would be
permitted based on this rezoning and that no residential land uses would be permitted within
this area to be rezoned. This would be inconsistent with the land use plan. As proposed in the
proffer statement, no residential buildings will be located on these 3 acres. Therefore, no
additional residential density may be gained with the rezoning of this property. It should be
recognized that uses accessory to the residential development would still be permitted if this
property is rezoned. As noted in the proffer statement, this may include a community center,
manager’s office, parking, garages, open space, and recreational amenities.
3) Potential Impacts
Site Access and Transportation
Access to the site will be via the Hiatt Run Condominium project immediately to the west and
more specifically, through the two entrances shown on the approved Master Development Plan
for Hiatt Run Condominiums.
Environment
Hiatt Run, a tributary to Opequon Creek, flows through the southern portion of parcel 44-A-17.
There is a zoning ordinance requirement for a riparian buffer along natural waterways in
Frederick County. No development or land disturbance is permitted in a riparian buffer, other
than the recreational area and trails within the open space for this development. Floodplains
also exist on the property.
4) Proffer Statement
A) Allowed Uses:
The Applicant has proffered that the three acres that will be rezoned will not contain any
residential uses. In addition, all other uses in the RP (Residential Performance) District have
been excluded with the exception of a community center, manager’s office, parking, garages,
open space, and recreational amenities.
B) Access Management and Transportation:
The Applicant has committed to utilize for access to the property, the two entrances shown on
the approved Master Development Plan for the Hiatt Run Condominiums, MDP #04-15.
Therefore, there will be no additional access to this site via McCanns Lane or Martinsburg Pike.
C) Site Development:
The Applicant has proffered to construct a public hiker/biker trail, the location of which is
shown on the Generalized Development Plan for this site included in the proffer statement. The
public trail is actually located on the adjacent property within a proposed 20’ easement. In
Rezoning #05-15 Hiatt Run Condos, LLC
September 25, 2015
Page 5
conjunction with the trail, a fence will be constructed by the Applicant. It is recognized that the
trail and fence will be conducted in two phases; Phase One to be completed by July 1, 2018,
and Phase Two to be completed by July 1, 2021 or prior to the final Certificate of Occupancy
Permit of the 120th apartment unit in the Hiatt Run project located on this property.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 10/07/15 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
This request to rezone three acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the RP (Residential
Performance) District would appear to be appropriate when considering the limitations on the use of the
property provided in the Applicant’s proffer statement and the adjacent residential development,
recently approved by the County, into which this property has been adjusted. There are no anticipated
issues or additional impacts associated with this proposed rezoning request, most particularly, as no
additional residential uses or buildings will be constructed on the three acres subject to this rezoning
request.
While the residential land use proposed with this plan is inconsistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan,
as it is outside of the UDA, it can be said that the environmental and recreation land use components of
the application are in line with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the most recent McCann-Slaughter
Amendment to the Northeast Land Use Plan. The majority of the subject property is currently zoned RP
(Residential Performance) District. Further, the Master Development Plan for the Hiatt Run
Condominiums immediately to the west of this property (and now incorporated in to the property) was
approved meeting all County standards. The subject property is also located within the Sewer and
Water Service Area (SWSA).
Any issues brought forth by the Planning Commission should be appropriately addressed by the
applicant.
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.
0111
2118MARTINSBURGPIKE
2110MARTINSBURGPIKE
142MCCANNS RD
2126MARTINSBURGPIKE
170MCCANNS RD
2142MARTINSBURGPIKE2142MARTINSBURGPIKE
2158MARTINSBURGPIKE
102MCCANNS RD
2157MARTINSBURGPIKE
207EBERT RD
207EBERT RD
2239MARTINSBURGPIKE
195EBERT RD
2251MARTINSBURGPIKE
2259MARTINSBURGPIKE
2269MARTINSBURGPIKE
2279MARTINSBURGPIKE
116EBERT RD
114EBERT RD
2359MARTINSBURGPIKE
140JIREHLANE 2379MARTINSBURGPIKE
EBERT
R
D
MART
I
N
S
B
U
R
G
PIKE
MCCA
N
N
S
R
D
Applications
Parcels
Building Footprints
I
Note:Frederick County Dept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: September 14, 2015Staff: mruddy
Stephenson
MART
I
N
S
B
U
R
G
P
I
K
E
MCCA
N
N
S
R
D
EBERT
R
D
0111
REZ # 05 - 15Hiatt Run Condos LLCPIN:44 - A - 17RA to RP
0 320 640160 Feet
REZ 05-15
REZ # 05 - 15Hiatt Run Condos LLCPIN:44 - A - 17RA to RP
44 A 17
0111
2100MARTINSBURGPIKE2094MARTINSBURGPIKE2088MARTINSBURGPIKE
142MCCANNS RD
2110MARTINSBURGPIKE
2126MARTINSBURGPIKE
2118MARTINSBURGPIKE
170MCCANNS RD2142MARTINSBURGPIKE
2123MARTINSBURGPIKE
2158MARTINSBURGPIKE2142MARTINSBURGPIKE
2135MARTINSBURGPIKE
102MCCANNS RD
2157MARTINSBURGPIKE
207EBERT RD
207EBERT RD
2239MARTINSBURGPIKE
195EBERT RD
2251MARTINSBURGPIKE
2259MARTINSBURGPIKE
2269MARTINSBURGPIKE
2279MARTINSBURGPIKE
116EBERT RD
114EBERT RD
2359MARTINSBURGPIKE
2379MARTINSBURGPIKE
EBERT
R
D
MART
I
N
S
B
U
R
G
PIKE
MCCA
N
N
S
R
D
Applications
Parcels
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: September 14, 2015Staff: mruddy
Stephenson
MART
I
N
S
B
U
R
G
P
I
K
E
MCCA
N
N
S
R
D
EBERT
R
D
0111
REZ # 05 - 15Hiatt Run Condos LLCPIN:44 - A - 17RP to RA
0 320 640160 Feet
REZ 05-15
REZ # 05 - 15Hiatt Run Condos LLCPIN:44 - A - 17RP to RA
44 A 17
C
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/ 665-5651
Fax: 540/ 665-6395
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Director
RE: 2030 Comprehensive Plan 5-year Update – Appendix II; Background
Studies and Analysis Draft.
DATE: September 25, 2015
The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC), on behalf of the Frederick
County Planning Commission, initiated the 5-year review and update of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan, the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. Over the past several months the
CPPC has reviewed and updated Appendix II – Background Analysis and Supporting
Studies. This draft of Appendix II represents Phase 1 of the update and is presented to the
Planning Commission at this time.
Phase 1 includes the following information:
Demographic Analysis (Completed in July)
Economic Analysis (Completed in August)
Land Use Analysis; including SWSA needs analysis with FCSA
strategies, and C&I analysis of the 25/75 Ratio throughout the County
(Completed in September)
When compiled with the Geographical Setting and Historical Background components,
which have not changed, this constitutes a draft version of Appendix II; Background
Analysis and Supporting Studies.
Previously, Staff provided a schedule to the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors outlining the three-phase approach and timetable for the 2035 update. As you
are aware, it is the goal to complete the update by the spring 2016, approximately twelve
months from when the CPPC started in June 2015.
In addition to Phase 1, described above, the three-phase approach to the Update includes;
Phase 2, the CPPC and Blue Ribbon Group review and update of key sections of the Plan,
including; Residential Development, Business Development, Transportation, and Natural
Memo: 2035 Comprehensive Plan 5-year Update – Appendix II.
September 25, 2015.
Page 2.
Resources, Historical Resources, and Public Facilities, and Phase 3, the Planning
Commission Review of 2035 Update, followed by Board of Supervisors direction to
move forward with additional public outreach. This would include Community Meetings
and ultimately, the Public Hearing Process and Approval.
Staff will provide the Planning Commission an overview of Phase 1 of the 2035 update,
Appendix II; Background Analysis and Supporting Studies. In addition, Staff will update
the Planning Commission on Phase 2, the CPPC and Blue Ribbon Group review and
update of key sections of the Plan, including; Residential Development, Business
Development, Transportation, and Natural Resources, Historical Resources, and Public
Facilities, which will be proceeding in October, November, and December of 2015.
Please contact me if you have any questions or would like to provide additional input.
MTR/dlw
Attachments:
Phase 1 – Demographic Analysis
Economic Analysis
Land Use Analysis
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DRAFT
1
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DRAFT
2
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
HISTORICAL POPULATION
Settlement of Frederick County began in the early 1700’s, but it was not until
1840, that the boundary of Frederick County was established to what we
know today. Frederick County supports one of the faster growth rates of
population in Virginia, and the rates of growth have accelerated in recent
decades. During the 1970's, the population of the County grew by as many
people as in the previous seven decades combined. In 2010, the population of
Frederick County was 78,305. More recently, the population estimate for
Frederick County in 2014 was 82,059. Since 1980 Frederick County
population growth averaged 29.3% per decade.
21941 24,107
34,150
45,723
78,305
59,209
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DRAFT
3
POPULATION ESTIMATES
Frederick County growth rate is expected to continue in future decades and is
estimated to be one of the faster growing communities in the Commonwealth
of Virginia and the greater Washington D.C. region. The Weldon Cooper
Center for Public Service population projections for 2020, 2030, and 2040
indicate this trend by projecting the population of Frederick County to be
97,192, 119,419, and 145,938 in the respective years. This trend is indicated
in the following figure.
82,059
97,192
119,419
145,938
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
2014 2020 2030 2040
Source: Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DRAFT
4
POPULATION AND AGE DISTRIBUTION
On average, the age of people living in Frederick County is increasing.
Between 1990 through 2009, the median age of the population increased
from 33 in 1990 to 39 in 2009. Overall, Frederick County’s population is
slightly older than the Commonwealth as a whole (37.6 yrs) and the USA
(37.1).
Population Distribution: Frederick County
Percent Change
1990
Census
2000
Census
2009
Estimate
2014
Projection
1990 to
2000
2009 to
2014
0 - 4 6.5% 7.6% 6.4% 6.2% 52.3% 7.0%
5 -19 22.2% 21.8% 20.4% 19.4% 26.8% 5.5%
20 - 24 4.7% 6.3% 6.1% 6.5% 73.5% 17.4%
25 - 44 31.9% 34.6% 27.8% 25.0% 40.5% -0.6%
45 - 64 24.1% 20.3% 27.5% 29.1% 9.2% 17.1%
65 and
over 10.6% 9.4% 11.9% 13.8% 14.6% 28.2%
Median
Age 33.4 37.3 38.8 39.4
As the median age rose, the proportion of the population in the older age
groups also increased. The percentage of the population age 65 or older in
Frederick County has increased from 10.6% in 1990 to 11.9% in 2009.
Projections for 2014 indicate a trend of increasing numbers of people of 65 or
older.
The population under the age of 18 has not increased as rapidly in recent
decades. The proportion of the population under the age of eighteen in
Frederick County now sits at 20%, down from 22.2% in 1990. This element
should be evaluated further with the release of the complete 2010 census
information.
Current projections for 2014 indicate a continuation of past trend, an aging
population. A major labor force category (25 – 44) is expected to have
negative growth. This fact furthers enforces the need to analyze our regional
labor force market to meet future employment needs.
Projections show an increase of over 6,000 individuals who are 45 an d older.
The school-aged segment of the population (5 – 19) is not expected to
significantly increase.
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DRAFT
5
Source: Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service.
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DRAFT
6
DIVERSITY
Diversity is becoming increasingly apparent in Frederick County. From 1990
to 2010, the area's population has experienced substantial increases
individuals of Hispanic (over 5,000) and black ethnicity (over 3,000). The
2010 census has observed a continuation of these trends, which are reflective
of greater national trends.
Race and Ethnicity
1990 2000 2009 2014
American
Indian,
Eskimo,
Aleut
0.2% 0.2% 1.0% 2.4%
Asian 0.5% 0.7% 1.4% 1.5%
Black 1.8% 2.6% 5.2% 7.3%
White 97.4% 95.0% 91.2% 88.2%
Other 0.2% 0.6% 0.4% 0.3%
Multi-Race 1.0% 0.8% 0.3%
American
Indian,
Eskimo,
Aleut
0.2% 0.2% 1.0% 2.4%
Hispanic
Ethnicity 0.6% 1.7% 7.8% 12.0%
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DRAFT
1
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DRAFT
2
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The study of the economy of Frederick County involves many factors. This
chapter examines the change in employment sectors, the role of small
business and top employers. Change in Frederick County’s economy,
undoubtedly, is evident in this chapter; however, the strong signs of stability
with appropriate diversity are particularly noteworthy.
RECENT EMPLOYMENT COMPARISONS AND TRENDS
An analysis of the employment segments reveals minimal overall change in
the Frederick County economy since 2005. While the absolute number of
employment change is significant for some of the largest employers, 4 of the
top employers in 2005 remain ten years later. Health Care and Social
Assistance and Accommodation and Food Services employment are the two
new arrivals to the top employer list. The growth of Winchester Medical
Center and Frederick County’s population remain likely reasons for its rise.
Overall, retail trade displayed the largest growth of the top employers
(+1,677). Manufacturing’s overall net increase is noteworthy given its
decrease in the Commonwealth overall.
Sector 2005Q4 Sector 2015Q4
Manufacturing 4,584 Manufacturing 5,033
Educational Services 2,552 Retail Trade 3,405
Construction 2,322 Educational Services 2,891
Retail Trade 1,728 Accommodation and Food
Services
2,217
Wholesale Trade 1,481 Construction 2,004
Administrative and Support and
Waste Management and
Remediation Services
1,254 Health Care and Social
Assistance
1,925
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DRAFT
3
Looking into the next twenty years, population increase and continued
international economic forces will likely influence Frederick County’s economy
and its largest employment sectors. Established clusters in food processing
and plastic manufacturing coupled with the area’s sheer logistical advantages
and workforce draw will likely keep manufacturing employment stable. Retail
and healthcare growth, fueled by population growth, will gain additional
employment and likely rise in its role within the economy. Joini ng the
national and state trends, Frederick County will diversify further via service
based employment. Professional service, finance and insurance employment
will likely lead this surge.
Although the major employment players remain mostly the same, their
impact on the community has clearly changed. Viewing the growth in net
new establishments provides an alternative view on the role of largest
employment segments. The growth in the number of manufacturing
establishments is a prime example. This fact along with overall positive
employment growth in this sector demonstrates a very positive evolving
manufacturing sector. The future of Frederick County’s economy shines
bright given manufacturing’s noted large multiplier impact and above average
wage.
Overall, Frederick County added over 397 new establishments in the past ten
years. Service based businesses; health care (+265) and accommodation and
food services (+56) produced the largest net gain in new establishments
since 2005. These sectors, however, collectively employ slightly half the
employees of the manufacturing sector. Advancing twenty year’s health care
and professional service entities will likely continue to add their totals
furthering Frederick County’s diversification into a manufacturing/service
based economy.
Sector 2005Q1 Sector 2015Q1
Construction (23)
307
Health Care and Social Assistance
(62) 313
Retail Trade (44)
163
Construction (23)
217
Other Services (except Public
Administration) (81) 117
Retail Trade (44)
195
Professional, Scientific, and
Technical Services (54) 102
Professional, Scientific, and
Technical Services (54) 132
Administrative and Support and
Waste Management and
Remediation Services (56) 97
Other Services (except Public
Administration) (81) 132
Wholesale Trade (42)
88
Accommodation and Food
Services (72) 119
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DRAFT
4
SMALL BUSINESS
A discussion about any economy would be incomplete without reviewing the
role of small businesses. Their importance to a community’s long term
economic success cannot be overstated. In the United States overall, they
employ nearly half of all private sector employees. They generated 60 to 80
percent of net new jobs annually over the last decade.
The definition of small business varies widely. For this chapter purposes,
small business will be identified as those employer with less than 19
employees.
In 2004, 82.2% of all employers in Frederick County had less than 19
employees. Advance 10 years later, Frederick County experienced a slight
increase to 83.5% of employers with less than 19 employees. Given the
number of arrival/increase of large employers like Kraft, HP Hood, FEMA, and
Valley Health Systems, the ability of small business to hold their role in
Frederick County’s economy is impressive.
Sector 2004Q4 Sector 2014Q4
Health Care and Social Assistance 38
Health Care and Social Assistance 274
Construction 261
Construction 186
Retail Trade 126
Retail Trade 148
Other Services (except Public
Administration) 106
Other Services (except Public
Administration) 126
Professional, Scientific, and Technical
Services 81
Professional, Scientific, and
Technical Services 120
Administrative and Support and
Waste Management 95
Administrative and Support and
Waste Management 97
Small business will retain the vast majority of employment in Frederick
County. As such, entrepreneurship/small business development should
remain one of the pinnacles of Frederick County’s economic development. It
is a beacon indicating when a community has an ideal business climate –
when all physical and soft infrastructure is in place to allow new companies to
grow and the community to self-sustain economic growth. The community’s
undeveloped entrepreneurial culture has often been highlighted in studies as
a hurdle to continued economic growth.
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DRAFT
5
CURRENT TOP EMPLOYERS
The section will illustrate the evolution of Frederick County’s economy through
the top ten employer rankings.
Over ten years ago, Frederick County’s economy was chiefly led by major
manufacturers and local government entities. Manufacturers established
deep roots due to the area’s immense access to the East Coast, Virginia’s
favorable cost of business and Frederick Count’s productive workforce.
Employer Industry Size Class
Frederick County School Board Educational Services 1000 and over
employees
County of Frederick
Executive, Legislative, and
Other General Government
Support
500 to 999 employees
World Wide Automotive LLC Merchant Wholesalers,
Durable Goods 500 to 999 employees
Action Executive Services Administrative and Support
Services 250 to 499 employees
American Woodmark
Corporation
Furniture and Related
Product Manufacturing 250 to 499 employees
H.P. Hood, Inc. Food Manufacturing 250 to 499 employees
Lord Fairfax Community
College Educational Services 250 to 499 employees
GE Lighting
Electrical Equipment,
Appliance, and Component
Manufacturing
250 to 499 employees
Shockey Brothers, Inc. Nonmetallic Mineral
Product Manufacturing 250 to 499 employees
Glaize and Brothers Wood Product
Manufacturing 100 to 249 employees
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DRAFT
6
Today, the make-up of the largest employers is quite more diverse than
2004. While manufacturers still hold several slots in the top ten, many
service base employers, like Navy Federal, Home Depot and Department of
Homeland Defense, have provided a more diverse economy than 10 years
ago. These new additions provide enhanced stability during instance of plant
closures and national economic downturns.
Employer Industry Size Class
Frederick County School Board Educational Services 1000 and over employees
Navy Federal Credit Union Credit Intermediation and Related
Activities 1000 and over employees
U.S. Department of Homeland
Defense Administration of Economic Programs 500 to 999 employees
County of Frederick Executive, Legislative, and Other
General Government Support 500 to 999 employees
Lord Fairfax Community College Educational Services 500 to 999 employees
Axiom Staffing Group Administrative and Support Services 500 to 999 employees
H.P. Hood, Inc. Food Manufacturing 250 to 499 employees
Kraft Foods Food Manufacturing 250 to 499 employees
The Home Depot Building Material and Garden
Equipment and Supplies Dealers 250 to 499 employees
Trex Company Inc & Subsid Plastics and Rubber Products
Manufacturing 250 to 499 employees
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DRAFT
7
FUTURE BUSINESS GROWTH
In 20 years, the top employer listing may contain many of the same names,
but likely they will be joined by some of employers of tomorrow. Third party
analyses have indicated a strong likelihood of success toward other business
service operations, life science entities and defense/advance security oriented
businesses. The full list follows below.
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DRAFT
8
CURRENT WORKFORCE DRAW
Frederick County’s labor supply is drawn from a 45-mile radius and includes
the counties of Shenandoah, Page, Clarke, Warren, Loudoun in Virginia, and
the counties of Berkeley, Hampshire, Hardy, Jefferson, and Morgan in West
Virginia and Washington County, Maryland
As the table shows below, Frederick County possesses a diverse and ample
labor force within its draw area as of 1st quarter 2015.
Title Employment Avg.
Annual
Wages1
Unempl Unempl
Rate
Total - All Occupations 253,809 $42,900 n/a n/a
Office and Administrative Support Occupations 40,060 $33,800 3,244 5.9%
Sales and Related Occupations 28,909 $31,500 2,140 5.7%
Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations 23,855 $21,200 2,846 8.4%
Transportation and Material Moving Occupations 20,316 $33,800 1,697 6.9%
Education, Training, and Library Occupations 16,550 $50,800 1,079 5.0%
Production Occupations 16,456 $36,000 1,326 6.7%
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations 14,704 $74,700 421 2.5%
Management Occupations 11,573 $101,900 343 2.2%
Business and Financial Operations Occupations 10,620 $68,100 531 3.3%
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations 9,390 $42,900 588 4.4%
Construction and Extraction Occupations 9,308 $39,500 1,233 8.4%
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance
Occupations 8,648 $24,700 1,080 8.0%
Personal Care and Service Occupations 8,297 $23,800 765 7.0%
Protective Service Occupations 8,130 $44,400 410 4.2%
Healthcare Support Occupations 7,444 $28,500 430 4.7%
Computer and Mathematical Occupations 5,331 $81,100 308 2.6%
Community and Social Service Occupations 3,919 $43,400 142 3.3%
Architecture and Engineering Occupations 3,166 $76,600 156 2.9%
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media
Occupations 2,852 $46,800 242 6.0%
Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations 1,644 $64,100 89 3.4%
Legal Occupations 1,379 $87,800 43 2.3%
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations 1,261 $25,400 100 7.3%
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DRAFT
9
Frederick County’s unemployment rate has continued to decrease since the
last recession. Currently the rate stands close to full employment rate of
4.0%.
EMPLOYMENT AND BUSINESS
Value
Frederick
County, Virginia
Virginia USA
Labor Force Participation Rate and Size
(civilian population 16 years and over)4
41,878 4,188,480 157,113,886
Armed Forces Labor Force4 95 115,131 1,083,691
Veterans, Age 18-644 4,694 483,075 11,977,656
Median Household Income3,4 $68,424 $63,907 $53,046
Poverty Level (of all people)4 5,547 887,595 46,663,433
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DRAFT
10
Frederick County,
Virginia
Virginia USA
Labor Force Participation Rate
and Size (civilian population 16
years and over)4
67.3% 64.9% 63.8%
Armed Forces Labor Force4 0.2% 1.8% 0.4%
Veterans, Age 18-644 9.5% 9.5% 6.2%
Median Household Income3,4 — — —
Poverty Level (of all people)4 7.1% 11.3% 15.4%
COMMUTING PATTERNS
The Winchester-Frederick County community is the regional economic
epicenter for the Northern Shenandoah Valley region. One reason for this
statement is found in the area’s commuting patterns. The 2000 Census
showed just over 4,000 more workers commuted into this community than
out-commuted, double the amount from 1990. In 2000, the in-commuting
growth (up 5,012) significantly out-paced that of out-commuters (up 2,807)
by nearly a 2 to 1 margin.
In addition, the Winchester-Frederick County community remains a “Place to
Live and Work.” Nearly 75% (31,573 out of 42,291) of working individuals in
either Winchester or Frederick County reported living and working in the
Winchester-Frederick County community. Over 4,600 (17.4%) net new
workers have chosen to work and live in this community since 1990.
The benefits of our community having a large “live where you work”
population is enormous.
Promotes linkage between employers and community
Reduces commuting costs, thus increasing a household’s disposable
income
Reduces employee turnover, training, and recruitment costs
Makes our community a more attractive place for businesses to locate
and expand
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DRAFT
11
The out-commuting population also remains a viable labor force for some
companies. In 2000, slightly more than 25% (10,718 individuals) of our
community’s working population commuted. Over 89% of our community’s
commuting population works either in an adjacent local area or the Northern
Virginia area.
Workforce studies in 2003 and 2006 yielded similar commuting patterns.
Specifically, the 2006 study showed that 68.7% of Winchester-Frederick
County’s working population live and work in Winchester-Frederick County,
with only 12.4% working in Northern Virginia.
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DRAFT
12
TAXABLE SALES
The retail sector is important, though, as retail activity reflects the general
health of a local economy. Retail sales also produce sales tax dollars, which
support municipal service provision. In Frederick County the overall value of
taxable sales grew from $413 million from to just over $1 billion in
unadjusted dollars, currently.
Please note, in the third quarter of calendar year 2005 the Virginia
Department of Taxation began tracking quarterly taxable sales using the
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) business categories
rather than Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories. Consequently,
data from the two time periods are not fully compatible for purposes of
comparison. Taxable sales reported on this page can be compared from 1995
through the second quarter of 2005 (the quarters using the SIC categories) or
from the third quarter of 2005 through the current quarter (quarters using
the NAICS categories), but comparing data from between the two periods will
carry misleading results.
The evolution of Frederick County’s economy once again became apparent
when examining the top taxable sales categories over the past almost 20
years. In 2004, miscellaneous store retail topped all with sales over nearly
$115 million. Fast forward to 2014, the top ranking changes to general
merchandise stores taxable sales, which exceeded $271 million.
Sector 2004
Sector 2014
Gasoline Stations 104,881,954
General Merchandise Stores 271,764,942.00
Misc Retail 115,325,402
Food and Beverage 161,493,402.00
Building Materials 64,735,846
Merchant Wholesalers, Durable
Goods 100,667,998.00
Grocery Stores 54,407,471
Food Services and Drinking Places 82,792,777.00
Food Services and Drinking
Places 59,059,004
Gasoline Stations 60,836,162.00
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DRAFT
1
• LAND USE ANALYSIS
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DRAFT
2
LAND USE ANALYSIS
The Land Use Analysis includes the Planning Area Analysis and a review of the
UDA (Urban Development Area) Report. When combined together, these two
pieces of information help to provide an understanding of the current make-
up of the County in terms of zoning, land use, and residential development.
The Land Use Analysis also helps us to understand the future development of
the County and the demands associated with the growth and development of
the County.
This information is useful in many ways. With regards to the 2035 update to
the Comprehensive Plan, it has been used to better understand the balance of
future land uses so the County can continue to strive for a balanced approach
to the 25% Commercial/Industrial – 75% Other Real Estate Tax Assessment
Ratio. It has also been used to comprehend the water and wastewater needs
associated with the future growth of the County and to continue to provide
support and information to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority.
The Planning Area Analysis has been completely revised since the 2030
Comprehensive Plan to better reflect the improvements made in the County’s
Area Plans in support of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Each Planning Area
directly relates to each Area Plan contained within Appendix I of the
Comprehensive Plan. Also included are those urban areas not covered in any
particular Area Plan. As a result of this effort, all of the County’s Urban Areas
are now included in the Planning Area Analysis.
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DRAFT
3
PLANNING AREA ANALYSIS 2015
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
01277
01522
01522
City ofWinchester
WARRENCOUNTY
BERKELEYCOUNTY
JEFFERSONCOUNTY
Town ofMiddletown
Town ofStephens City
Legend
Area Plans
SWSA
Urban Development Area
Magisterial Districts inPlanning Areas
Backcreek
Gainesboro
Opequon
Redbud
Shawnee
Stonewall
Planning Area Analysis 2015 - Frederick County's Urban Areas
Planning Areas
Residential
RESIDENTIAL UNITS # UNITS
Existing 18668
Planned 12968
Potential RP 2992
UDA Acreage - 17144 acresTotal SWSA Acreage - 29178 acres
Gross Acreage - 54340 acres
(All acreages based on Parcel calculated acreages)
Main SWSA Acreage - 27516 acres
Lake Frederick SWSA Acreage - 1113 acres
Middletown SWSA Acreage - 549 acres
Zoning
ZONING TOTAL ACRES VACANTACRES
B1 57 26
B2 3010 1289
B3 449 196
EM 1361 489
HE 30 9
M1 3335 1421
M2 600 234
MH1 441 67
MS 180 50
R4 1622 1494
R5 931 759
3811RP7728
33607 17850RA
Land Use
Business 2851 1587
Mixed-Use 61 50
MUCO 201 136
Highway C 69 23
B2 / B3 1008 644
Industrial
MUIO
Warehouse
H Industrial
E Mining
Employment
Commercial R
REC
NRR
Park
ERR
Hist / DSA
Institutional
MHC 68 3
PUD 1392 1247
Urban C 2414 1507
N Village 325 216
Res, 4 u/a 6672 2717
HDR, 6 u/a 85 85
HDR, 12 u/a 916 599
Land Use TOTAL ACRES VACANTACRES
Residential 1272 558
6318 3441
2455 1410
337 141
141 72
1372 485
370 342
306 35
300 134
161 101
545 475
1235 1235
2796 1745
2258 783
017
CLARKECOUNTY
0111
01522
0150
0150
0111
0111
0137
0137
§¨¦81
NORTHEAST FREDERICK
SENSENY/EASTERN FREDERICK
SOUTHERN FREDERICK
MIDDLETOWN/LORD FAIRFAX/RELIANCE ROAD SWSA
STEPHENS CITY/FREDERICK COUNTY JOINT
ROUND HILL COMMUNITY
ROUTE 37 WEST
JAMES WOOD HS
SUNNYSIDE
MERRIMANS WESTSIDE
WEST JUBAL EARLY
HARVEST RIDGE
KERNSTOWN
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DRAFT
4
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA REPORT 2015
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DRAFT
5
Vacant Land - No Approved GDPs
2,992 potential units based on permitted densities on
442 acres of vacant land
Zoned Land - Approved GDPs
3,917 Units (maximum yield based on proffered densities)
1,002 Acres
Master Development Planned Projects
7,332 Total residential lots/units planned
1,771 single family lots planned
1888 townhouse, duplex, multiplex lots/units planned
124 multi-family units planned
3,549 mixed units planned
(Current Status) Residential Subdivisions Under Development - vacant lots
1,719 Total residential lots/units available
1,046 single family-detached lots available
652 townhouse, duplex, multiplex lots available
21 multi-family units available
Grand Total:15,960 approved, planned, or potential residential lots/units.
170 Single Family-Detached permits have been issued in 2015 within the UDA
56 Townhouse/Duplex/Multiplex permits have been issued in 2015 within the UDA
Notes:
476
3,631 The number of lots planned within Age-Restricted communities
2,653 Vacant lots within Age-Restricted Communities
Denotes an age-restricted community or component
5,820
1,887
Revised: 9/03/2015
The number of vacant lots within the R5 zoned residential communities in the western portion of Frederick
County, outside the UDA. These communities (Lake Holiday, Shawneeland, and Wild Acres) contain a total of
7,917 recorded lots.
The number of vacant lots within The Shenandoah development, which is located outside the Urban
Development Area on the south side of Fairfax Pike; however, the proximity of the UDA will directly impact
land development decisions in the county's development area. The Shenandoah MDP calls for 593 age-
restricted and 1,537 traditional residential units in a community of 2,130 total residential units on 926.26 acres.
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA (UDA)
Residentially Zoned Development Information - vacant lot summary
(Through July 2015 adjustedMR )
Frederick County, Virginia
Vacant single family-detached lots are within 6 of the single-family residential subdivisions which currently have
approved subdivision plans within the UDA. (Abrams Pointe, Meadows Edge, Old Dominion Greens, Red Bud
Run, Shenandoah and Snowden Bridge)
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DRAFT
6
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DRAFT
7
ACHIEVING FISCAL BALANCE THROUGH LAND USE PLANNING
THE 25% COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL – 75% OTHER REAL ESTATE TAX
ASSESSMENT RATIO
Local governments throughout the country rely on the revenue collected from
real estate taxes to fund their general operation. Therefore, it is
understandable that the revenue-generating potential for properties receives
strong consideration during land use and development decisions. In many
circumstances, a site’s ability to generate revenue, and an applicant’s
capability to adequately mitigate negative fiscal impacts, are driving factors
behind the development approval process.
Prompted in part by fiscal concerns, local governments plan and ultimately
zone large tracts of land for commercial and industrial use, to ensure that
there is not only adequate land available for current demand but also for
future demand. This practice of using land use policies (a.k.a. Comprehensive
Plan) and the zoning ordinance to achieve fiscal objectives rather than purely
land-use objectives is commonly referred to as ‘fiscal zoning’. Under the
fiscal zoning approach, local governments discourage proposed developments
that have the potential to create a net financial burden on the county and will
instead encourage development that promises a net financial gain. Fiscal
consideration is a significant element of land use planning.
The county has successfully utilized the Comprehensive Policy Plan to
designate areas of the county for future commercial and industrial (C/I) land
use opportunities since the early 1970s. Over the years this practice has
helped reserve designated land for vital tax generating land uses. Through
the policies of the Comprehensive Plan areas designated for C/I land uses can
be implemented through the rezoning process, which then allows the property
owner to develop the site into commercial and/or industrial uses. Once the
C/I use has been constructed, the county is then able to bring in additional
tax revenues from the site. Through the support and encouragement of C/I
uses, the county over the past decade has successfully maintained a relatively
low (0.51 to 0.71 percent) real estate tax rate while continuing to provide a
high quality of public services to its citizens.
The Frederick County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and now the 2035 Update,
strives to incorporate a more comprehensive analysis of the C/I land uses and
their contribution towards the county’s fiscal health into its overall community
planning effort. The importance of the C/I land use has elevated in recent
years as the country strives to overcome the challenging economic times. In
an effort to plan for the county’s prosperous future, the 2035 Comprehensive
Plan has been drafted to designate sufficient acreage for C/I land use
opportunities that is necessary to generate tax revenue that is necessary to
offset the county’s costs for providing public services to the important but
more financially burdensome residential land use.
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DRAFT
8
It is the county’s goal to create a policy plan that balances land uses and their
associated tax contributions to ensure that those contributions offset the
countywide cost of community services. This goal should be achieved by
utilizing the land use plan to assist the county in achieving a real estate tax
assessment ratio of 25 percent C/I to 75 percent Other land uses such as
residential. Ultimately, the land use plan should be designed to plan for
adequate revenue opportunities to ensure that the county is capable of
providing its citizens with desired public services without having to place
additional tax burdens on those citizens to fund the services.
This document strives to provide additional background materials and a better
understanding in support of the C/I policies and goals of Frederick County.
ANALYSIS
Evaluation of Costs of Community Services (COCS) by land use
A Cost of Community Services study is one of the simplest forms of fiscal
analysis available to local government. This study groups major land use
categories together and evaluates all revenues and expenditures of the land
uses throughout the county. In 2003, the American Farmland Trust (AFT), in
working with the Frederick County Farm Bureau, analyzed Frederick County’s
FY02 budget, its revenue and expenditures, in an effort to determine the
Costs of Community Services (COCS) by land use. This study was targeted to
illustrate the minimal impact that agricultural lands place on county services,
but residential and commercial/industrial land uses were also analyzed. The
study concentrated on fiscal year 2002 (July 2001 to June 2002), and
represented a 12 month ‘snap-shot’.
The American Farmland Trust study of Frederick County, VA found the
following:
Land Use Cost of Service per $1
Revenue Generated
Residential $ 1.19
Commercial/Industrial $ 0.23
Agricultural/Open Space $ 0.33
The AFT study found that residential land uses receive $1.19 in community
services for every $1 contributed in tax revenue. More importantly, this study
also found that the revenue generated by C/I land uses are more than four
times their projected costs for community service.
While it is noted that this study was conducted a few years ago, the premise
behind the analysis does capture a key aspect of the county’s typical financial
situation: C/I is vital to the county’s tax base, and that in 2002, the C/I land
uses contributed 18.82% of the total real estate tax revenue.
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DRAFT
9
In order to project the capital fiscal impacts that would be associated with
residential developments, Frederick County utilizes a Development Impact
Model (DIM). This DIM is a micro-level model with the ability to analyze site
specific land use data. In 201 0, as part of the annual review of the DIM, the
Development Impact Model-Oversight Committee (DIM-OC) utilized the DIM
to evaluate the costs for service for residential land uses. The DIM projects
fiscal analysis over a 20 year period (a 20 year ‘snap -shot’), and considers full
revenue contributions and expenditure demands, traditional budget elements
as well as the associated Capital Improvement Plan projects. The DIM
considers the various revenue sources such as real estate and property taxes,
as well as sales, meals, and other potential taxes enabled within the
community. The findings that were generated from the residential analysis
were surprising. The DIM projected that over a 20 year period a single family
residence valued at $270,000 would cost the county $1.95 for every $1
contributed. The DIM’s projections indicate a significant disparity in the
relationship between residential tax contributions and its associated service
expectations.
2010 Development Impact Model (DIM)
projections over 20 year period
$270,000 Single
Family Dwelling
Tax Revenue $72,881
Real Estate (direct contributions) $26,125
Personal Property, Sales, Meals,
etc (indirect contributions)
$46,756
County Service Expenditures $142,394
Capital (schools, public safety,
library, etc)
$ 21,672
Operations $120,722
These two studies reinforce the generally accepted belief that residential land
uses require more services than their associated tax contributions cover,
while on the other hand commercial and industrial land uses offer significant
tax revenues which exceed their associated cost for community services.
More importantly, these two studies show that the revenues generated by C/I
land uses are essential in the county being able to mitigate the residential
land use costs for community services, and provide for more opportunities
and quality of life elements that make for a great community.
Evaluation of County Tax Revenue and Expenditures
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DRAFT
10
Utilizing figures for the county’s fiscal year ending June 30, 2010, one gains a
better understanding from where funds are derived, and where those funds
are then spent. Figures from 2015 were also considered in the 2035 Update.
Real Estate taxes represented 38 percent of the County’s tax revenue in
2015, down from 43 percent ($41.1 million) of the county’s tax revenue in
2010.
This real estate tax revenue is derived from various land uses: residential,
commercial, industrial, and agricultural. In 2010 C/I land uses brought in
$5.6 million in real estate taxes, or 13.56 percent of the total real estate tax
revenue. It should be noted that C/I uses only occupy 1.79 percent of the
County’s total land area and contribute $1,229.5 per acre in real estate taxes.
In addition to real estate taxes, C/I land uses are also significant contributors
to personal property, local sales, meals and lodging, business license, and
other local taxes. C/I land uses are vital contributors to the local tax revenue
and ultimately contribute over 75 percent of the County’s total tax revenue.
At the other end of the spectrum, residential land uses brought in $24.3
million in real estate taxes, or 59.2 percent of the total real estate tax
Personal
Property
36.7%
Real Estate
38.6%
Other Taxes
0.4%
Local Sales & Use
9.3%
Communications
1.0%
Business Licenses
4.9%
Meals & Lodging
3.8%
Vehicle
Licenses
1.9%
Recordation &
Wills
0.9% Utility
2.4%
2015 Tax Revenue
Personal Property
Real Estate
Other Taxes
Local Sales & Use
Communications
Business Licenses
Meals & Lodging
Vehicle Licenses
Recordation & Wills
Utility
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DRAFT
11
revenue. Residential land uses make up 27 percent of the County’s total land
area and contribute an average of $353.40 per acre in real estate taxes.
In reviewing the county’s expenditures for the same period, a significant
portion of the county’s funds are directed towards education ($65.3 million).
At 52.1 percent of the expenditures, the county is clearly committed to
educating its residents, preparing for the future, and providing for a high
quality of life. In 2015, 55.9 percent of the expenditures are directed towards
education, an increase over 2010.
Education
55.9%
Parks, Rec &
Cultural
3.8%
Community
Development
2.0%
Non-School Debt
1.3%
General Govt
Admin
6.5%
Public Safety
21.1%
Judicial
Administration
1.5%
Public Works
2.7%Health & Welfare
5.2%
2015 Expenditures
Education
Parks, Rec & Cultural
Community Development
Non-School Debt
General Govt Admin
Public Safety
Judicial Administration
Public Works
Health & Welfare
This review of the County’s 2015 tax revenues and expenditures, as it did in
2010, clearly illustrates that while residential land use contribute a majority of
the real estate taxes collected by the County, the costs for covering services
provided to those resident far exceeds their contributions. As depicted in the
chart above, the expenditures for education (which is a service connected
with residential land uses), is more than three times the contributions made
from residential property.
Through solid land use and financial planning, the county has maintained a
stable, relatively low real estate tax rate for the past decade while continuing
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DRAFT
12
to provide top notch services to its residents. Utilizing the benefits of C/I, an
increase in C/I land uses would offer the county an even greater ability to
provide services or cover the increasing costs of services.
Recognition of C/I Contributions to the Tax Base
Commercial and industrial land uses offer significant benefits to the
community, in terms of tax contributions (real estate, meals, machinery,
room, etc.) with minimal expectations and impacts on county services. C/I
land uses also offer key employment opportunities for the residents of the
county to help improve their individual quality of life and achieve their
personal goals.
Based on the 2010 tax revenues, C/I properties represented more than 13
percent of the total real estate property assessments in the county, but
accounted for less than 2 percent of the land area within the county. While
land values will certainly fluctuate with the ebb and flow of the economy, C/I
values will continue to be significant contributors to the county’s tax base and
more importantly, C/I tax contributions will offset the residential land use cost
for services.
Target: Plan for C/I to Represent 25 Percent of Real Estate Assessments
In an effort to maintain the county’s ability to provide high quality services
while at the same time maintaining low real estate tax rates, the 2030
Comprehensive Plan is utilizing land use planning and C/I opportunities to
offset impacts from existing and planned residential uses. If it is a goal for
Frederick County to have 25 percent of the total county assessments come
from C/I land use values, then it is obvious that at only 13.56 percent (4,556
acres) the county needs additional developed C/I uses. To achieve the 25
percent assessment target in 2010, an additional 2,761 developed acres of
C/I land uses would have been needed.
Recognizing the county’s 2.9 percent annual growth rate over the past 3
decades, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan should be designed to accommodate
an additional 4,859 acres of new C/I opportunities. This projection indicates
that the 2030 Comprehensive Plan should contain a minimum designation of
12,176 acres for C/I land uses within the Sewer and Water Service Area
(SWSA). Further fluctuations may be anticipated with additional residential
growth. Since 2010, additional areas of C/I land uses have been included in
the Long Range Land Use Plan, further achieving this target.
203 5 Comprehensive Plan
APPENDIX II – BACKGROUND ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING
STUDIES
THE 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - DRAFT
13
The 2035 Comprehensive Plan has been developed to incorporate a balance of
land uses in order to achieve needed tax revenues. The Plan achieves the
land use policy target of ensuring that 25 percent of the projected
assessments will be in C/I land uses. This is accomplished by designating over
16,700 acres for future C/I land uses, which will occupy approximately 2/3 of
the 29,000-acre Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA).
The Plan also incorporates opportunities for mixed use developments and
single family residential uses at a minimum density of 4 units per acres within
the designated Urban Development Area (UDA). The policy of directing
residential growth into the UDA also promotes a more efficient use of land
and community services, ultimately offering additional cost savings to the
county.
Mixed use developments also offer additional revenues to address the
demands for services generated by the residential uses. Mixed-use
developments – such as urban center and neighborhood villages – are
planned developments that encourage and accommodate a mix of land uses.
These projects include an appropriate mix of commercial, office, and
residential development. They provide an efficient development pattern that
can foster economic development, provide diversity in land use, and reduce
the number and the length of automobile trips. These mixed uses projects are
encouraged in appropriate locations in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
CONCLUSION
The land use designations contained within the 2035 Comprehensive Plan
accommodate the goal of providing 25 percent C/I land uses to 75 percent
Other land uses. Maintaining a healthy C/I ratio will help the county maintain
its current tax rates while continuing to enhance the services provided the
residents - particularity in the area of education. It is through the use of land
use policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan that these goals will be
supported and achieved.
In an effort to reinforce a sound policy basis that balances land use planning
and fiscal policies, the ratio of 25/75 between C/I and other land uses in
terms of available land areas and taxable value of the land uses shall be the
established benchmark. This policy shall dictate that at least 25 percent of
the taxable land value (land plus improvement value) in the county should
contain C/I land uses, and conversely that no more than 75 percent of the
taxable land area should be for uses other than C/I land. By achieving this
policy goal, the County will ensure that taxable land values equate to the
projected expenditures.