PC 07-16-14 Meeting Agenda
AGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
July 16, 2014
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) June 18, 2014 Minutes ...................................................................................................... (A)
3) Committee Reports .................................................................................................. (no tab)
4) Citizen Comments .................................................................................................... (no tab)
PUBLIC HEARING
5) 2030 Comprehensive Plan Amendment-McCann-Slaughter Properties. A proposed
amendment to the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan (NELUP), contained within
Appendix I of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The McCann Slaughter parcels contain
approximately 160 acres, near the intersection of Martinsburg Pike and Old Charlestown
Road, on both sides of McCann Road, and adjacent to the CSX Railroad. The Property
Identification Numbers are 44-A-40 and 44-A-25B in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
The properties are collectively designated in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan for various
types of land uses, including Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) and Industrial.
The proposal would allow mixed use office manufacturing land uses on a portion of the
property and maintain the DSA on the balance of the property.
Mr. Ruddy ........................................................................................................................ (B)
6) 2030 Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPPA; LFCC/Middletown SWSA, Future
Expansion Area – Following on from the recently approved LFCC/Middletown SWSA
which created a 138-acre SWSA in the area surrounding, and including the Lord Fairfax
Community College, the proposed future expansion area, previously identified as Phase
2, includes an additional 100 acres of business development land uses in support of the
College, and an expansion of the Middletown/Lord Fairfax SWSA to be served by
Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA). The Property Identification Number is
84-A-78 in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
Mr. Ruddy ........................................................................................................................ (C)
7) 2030 Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPPA; Reliance Road Sewer and Water
Service Area (SWSA) Designation-Middletown Properties LLC and Molden Properties.
Middletown Properties LLC owns approximately 41 acres at the Middletown Exit off
Interstate 81, east of the interchange and is identified with Property Identification
Numbers 91-A-56, 91-A-57, and 91-A-59 in the Opequon Magisterial District. Molden
Properties has 90 acres to the East and is identified with Property Identification Numbers
91-A-47, 91-A-47A, and 91-A-67 in the Opequon Magisterial District. Additional
properties within the Reliance Road study area may be added to ensure a contiguous
SWSA.
Mr. Ruddy ........................................................................................................................ (D)
8) Rezoning #01-14 Cowperwood/FEMA, submitted by Greenway Engineering Inc., to
rezone 1.24+/- acres of a 18.34-acre property from RA (Rural Area) district to B2
(Business, General) District with proffers. The balance of the property is to remain
16.53+/- M1 (Industrial, Light) District, and 0.57+/- RA (Rural Area) District. The
property is located on the west side of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 North) and is located
approximately 0.6 miles north of Interstate 81 Exit 317 and is identified by Property
Identification Number 43-A-111 in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
Mr. Ruddy ........................................................................................................................ (E)
INFORMATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS
9) Waiver Request for Shenandoah Development – Request to waive the public road
requirement and allow the Shenandoah development to utilized private roads.
Mrs. Perkins ..................................................................................................................... (F)
10) Master Development Plan #06-14 for Shenandoah submitted by Bowman Consulting
Group to revise Maser Development Plan #01-13. The subject properties are located on
the western side of Route 522 South (Front Royal Pike), south of Route 277 (Fairfax
Pike) and east of Route 636 (Hudson Hollow Road). Existing primary access to this site
is located on Route 522 South via Lake Frederick Drive. These properties are located in
the Opequon Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers
87-A-103C, and 87-A-102. Please note this item is presented for informational purposes
only.
Mrs. Perkins ..................................................................................................................... (G)
11) Other
Adjourn
2
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 3108
Minutes of June 18, 2014
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 June 18, 2014.
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;
J. Stanley Crockett, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel,
Shawnee District; J. Rhodes Marston, Back Creek District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District;
Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney; and Martha Shickle,
City of Winchester Liaison.
ABSENT: Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Kevin Kenney, Gainesboro District; and Charles
F. Dunlap, Red Bud District.
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director-
Transportation; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; and Renee S. Arlotta, Clerk.
-----------
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Wilmot called the June 18, 2014 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 Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Crockett,
the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening’s meeting.
-------------
MINUTES
Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Crockett,
the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the minutes of their May 7, 2014 meeting.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Crockett,
the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the minutes of their May 21, 2014 meeting.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3109
Minutes of June 18, 2014
-------------
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Economic Development Commission (EDC)
Commissioner Thomas reported the EDC met last week and a significant discussion item
was small businesses in Winchester and Frederick County. He said 87% of businesses employing in
Frederick County employ less than 25 people and small business is a significant and important part of the
economy. He commented the EDC, over their 20+ years, has had a significant role in setting up those
businesses and mentoring them to be successful in Frederick County. Commissioner Thomas stated that
Frederick County also has a much higher success rate for small businesses than the remainder of the
country and the EDC has done a great job over the years.
Commissioner Thomas also reported that the EDC’s June meeting was its last meeting
and the name will be changed to the Economic Development Authority. He said the name change, the
mission refocus, and the membership will change for the future.
-------------
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC) – 6/09/14 Mtg.
Commissioner Mohn reported the CPPC considered a SWSA (Sewer & Water Service
Area) inclusion request and a CPPA (Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment) for the Blaine properties
located within the Stonewall Magisterial District. He said it was a straight-forward request and is an area
already included within the NELUP (Northeast Land Use Plan). He stated the CPPC was in full
agreement this should move forward for full consideration by the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors. Commissioner Mohn said the request will be going to a joint work session of the Board and
Commission sometime in the near future.
--------------
City of Winchester Planning Commission - 6/17/14 Mtg.
Ms. Martha Shickle, Winchester City Planning Commission Liaison, reported the
Commission had three public hearings at their meeting yesterday. She said the first was for multi-family
housing for a CUP (conditional use permit) for five two-bedroom apartments atop the Goodwill Industries
Building on Millwood Avenue, which was forwarded to Council with a recommendation of approval.
The second public hearing was in regards to the inclusion of Wick and Cameron Streets in the zoning
ordinance relating to Corridor Enhancement Districts, which was forwarded on to Council with a
recommendation for approval. Ms. Shickle said the third public hearing was for an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan to amend the location of the new John Kerr Elementary School and siting of the
property within the zoning district. This was also forwarded on with an affirmative recommendation.
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3110
Minutes of June 18, 2014
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 wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the Citizen Comments portion of
the meeting.
-------------
PUBLIC HEARING
An Ordinance to Amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article V–Planned
Development Districts, Part 502-R5, Residential Recreational Community District, Section 165-
502.05, Design Requirements. This proposed amendment will remove the requirement that R5
communities must be “age-restricted communities” to qualify for private streets; it provides for the
inclusion of additional design standards for private roads; and directs maintenance responsibilities
for private roads to be the responsibility of the property owners association.
Action – Recommended Approval with Specifications
Commissioner Mohn said he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this item
due to a possible conflict of interest.
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported this is a second request to allow the use of
private streets for all types of developments within the R5 (Residential Recreational Community) Zoning
District. Ms. Perkins said currently, the use of private streets in the R5 District are solely allowed within
age-restricted communities and only if approved by the Board of Supervisors. She said the amendment
would allow the use of private streets within all types of developments, but would still require Board of
Supervisors’ approval.
Ms. Perkins said the applicant’s request included the following modifications to the
original text considered with the first text amendment: a requirement that the development must include a
minimum of 1,000 lots and a requirement that paving designs based on actual CBRs (California Bearing
Ratio) are provided to Frederick County for approval. Ms. Perkins explained that if approved, this
amendment would apply to all land zoned R5; the developments that currently have this zoning are
Shenandoah, Lake Holiday, Shawneeland, Mountain Falls Park, and Autumn Hills/Timber Ridge Estates.
While these developments currently utilize private streets, it should be noted there are undeveloped (large
lot) sections within some of these developments that could potentially request the waiver. She pointed
out that new MDPs (Master Development Plan) and approval of a private street waiver would be required.
Ms. Perkins next provided some history of the discussion of this amendment through the
DRRC (Development Review & Regulations Committee), the Planning Commission, and the Board of
Supervisors. Ms. Perkins stated that during the Planning Commission’s and Board of Supervisors’
meetings, the issue of meeting all VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) requirements was
discussed. Therefore, the staff has included two options for consideration: 1) The applicant’s request
which requires the road sections meet the minimum VDOT thickness requirements; and 2) A second
option that would require the road sections to meet all VDOT requirements. Ms. Perkins said tonight, the
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3111
Minutes of June 18, 2014
staff is seeking a recommendation on Option #1 (the applicant’s request) or Option #2 (suggestion based
on comments received) from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Thomas (Ty) Moore Lawson, with Lawson and Silek, P.L.C., came forward on
behalf of the applicant, property owner, and developer of the Shenandoah development. Mr. Lawson said
the mission for all parties involved is to create an ordinance that allows for private streets, not only in age-
restricted communities, but also within non-age-restricted communities, and furthermore, to have the
ability to appear before the Board of Supervisors and have the opportunity to request, under certain
circumstances and conditions, private streets within a community. Mr. Lawson said upon reviewing the
ordinance, language already exists to allow private streets in age-restricted communities with certain
VDOT standards and with a program for the perpetual maintenance of all streets which is acceptable to
the Board of Supervisors and the transportation planner. Mr. Lawson said this request is to be able to
open this up for non-age-restricted communities as well, by asking the Board for permission to do so.
Mr. Lawson stated that throughout the various meetings, they heard comments for
suggested revisions to the ordinance for more standards. He said these standards all focus on the quality
of the road, the depth of the pavement, the upkeep of maintenance, for engineering standards to be met,
and going forward, a demonstration of the financial fitness of the community. Mr. Lawson pointed out
that Shenandoah development began as an age-restricted community with private streets; he said if private
streets are not allowed within the non-age-restricted portions, the development would end up in the range
of 20% public streets and 80% private streets, which could be very confusing implementing maintenance
and snow removal.
Mr. Lawson expressed concern over an issue with one addendum by the staff requiring
the applicant to not only meet or exceed the vertical standard, but also the horizontal standard for a public
street. Mr. Lawson was opposed to this addendum because he believed it was added so the applicant
would basically have to install a public street and keep it private until such time as a failure may occur
and the road would be accepted back into the public system. He believed this deviated from the mission
and the intent. Mr. Lawson said the developer and the residents of this community do not want to have
public streets. He said they were fine with designing to exceed or meet the public street standards so the
streets will last and be durable, but they do not want to create a street that government can come back in
and take over.
Chairman Wilmot next opened the public hearing and called for anyone who wished to
speak regarding this amendment to please come forward.
Mr. Charlie Harmon, a resident of Lake Frederick in the Opequon District, came forward
to speak in support of the private road request for the Lake Frederick community. Mr. Harmon read from
a prepared statement. He said the existing residents bought their homes expecting a private gated, age-
restricted community; however, recent changes in market conditions required the developer to market for
non-age-restricted homebuyers as well. Mr. Harmon said the proposed ordinance change and waiver will
enable the residents to keep the gated community design and will avoid possible management and
maintenance challenges of a community with both private and public streets. He commented that
residents fully understand the financial obligations of the HOA for private street repairs and maintenance
and for several years, under the guiding hand of an experienced and knowledgeable Budget and Finance
Committee, have been building up long-term reserves in anticipation of those expenditures. Mr. Harmon
urged the Commission to send a positive recommendation forward to the Board of Supervisors.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3112
Minutes of June 18, 2014
Mr. D. Michael Reyman, a resident of Lake Frederick in the Opequon District, came
forward to speak in support of the private road request for the Lake Frederick community. Mr. Reyman
read from a prepared statement. Mr. Reyman said the essential elements of the originally approved MDP
for Lake Frederick remain today with regards to number of homes, amenities, and the desire of both
developer and residents to develop a gated access community. He said the only change Lansdowne is
requesting to long-standing County approvals is to enable them to apply to the County to build private
streets at Lake Frederick for the non-age-restricted sections of the community. Mr. Reyman pointed out
that at completion, 72% of the homes at Lake Frederick will be located on private residential streets under
existing County approvals; the requested ordinance change will enable Lansdowne to apply for
permission to construct private streets for the remaining 28%, including the main connector road between
the Route 522 and Route 277 entrances into the community. He said this will allow the residents to retain
the gated community design they bought into and will avoid the previously-mentioned management
challenges for the HOA dealing with a mix of private and public streets. In conclusion, Mr. Reyman
spoke about the HOA’s ability to fund private street maintenance. Mr. Reyman said the residents have
high confidence this cost can be absorbed within the current HOA fee level and they anticipate that over
time, additional residents will be available to contribute to the HOA. Mr. Reyman urged the Commission
to send a positive recommendation forward to the Board of Supervisors.
Dr. Richard Setton, a resident of Lake Frederick in the Opequon District, came forward
to speak in support of the private road request for the Lake Frederick community. Dr. Setton read from a
prepared statement and he re-emphasized the points made by the two previous speakers. He noted the
only change requested by the developer from the originally-approved MDP is for the ability to submit an
application to the County to provide private streets for both age-restricted and non-age-restricted homes at
Lake Frederick. Dr. Setton said the HOA and the residents are no strangers to the challenges and benefits
of private streets. He said the 4.8 miles of existing private streets have all been constructed to VDOT
base standards. He assured the Commission that the HOA and the residents have a solid grasp on the
reserve requirements necessary for the streets, both from formal cost and reserve studies, and from the
considerable prior life experience and knowledge many residents bring with them. Dr. Setton urged the
Commission to send a positive recommendation forward to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Kevin Walek, a resident of Lake Frederick in the Opequon District, came forward to
speak in support of the private road request for the Lake Frederick community. Mr. Walek read from a
prepared statement. Mr. Walek said he supported the diversity of a mixed age-restricted and non-age-
restricted community. He also supported the developer’s desire to build out such a mixed community
with gated access and private streets. He believed integrated private street development will provide
benefits to all homeowners; and, it will eliminate complexities and avoid challenges in the governance
and day-to-day management of the HOA. He spoke of the two classes of homebuyers their mixed
community has been designed to address, the younger life-style seekers and the aging baby boomers, and
he believed it was a model for future planned communities in Frederick County and the Northern
Shenandoah. Mr. Walek urged the Commission to send a positive recommendation forward to the Board
of Supervisors.
Dr. Carol Delacruz, a resident of Lake Frederick in the Opequon District, came forward
to speak in support of the private road request for the Lake Frederick Community and she read from a
prepared statement. As mentioned by the previous speakers, Dr. Delacruz stated the fact that the Lake
Frederick gated community of approximately 2,100 residences was approved for private streets was an
important part of her personal buying decision. Dr. Delacruz commented that beginning in 2012, she was
a member of the group of nine homeowners on a Redevelopment Study Group working with Lansdowne
prior to their purchase of the Lake Frederick property. She said although they differed on some details of
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3113
Minutes of June 18, 2014
the new development plan, both the study group and Lansdowne were in agreement on two key points: 1)
in order to fulfill the promise of a 2,100-home community, the developer needed to address in parallel
both the age-restricted and non-age-restricted homebuyer markets; and 2) given the geography of the
development and existing developed portion, it was imperative that there be gated, private streets
throughout the entire development to provide the security existing homeowners expected, as well as a
sense of cohesiveness and community among the age-restricted residents. Dr. Delacruz stated presently,
the community has two age-restricted sections with private streets, one is gated and the other as yet is not.
She asked the Commission to imagine the impact on the sense of community, and on community
governance, in a situation where roughly half of the age-restricted community has gated access and
private streets and the other half has no gated access and a mix of private and public streets. She said
such a condition would create disjunction within the community, not to mention the challenges it would
present for HOA governance. Dr. Delacruz believed resident age should not influence or be a
determining factor as to whether they are permitted to continue with private roads throughout the
development. She stressed the fact that residents are an active adult community and the daily lives of the
residents will not be that much different from the younger, non-age-restricted residents. Dr. Delacruz
urged the Commission to send a positive recommendation forward to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Bob Suchan, a resident of Lake Frederick in the Opequon District, came forward to
speak in support of the private road request for the Lake Frederick Community. Mr. Suchan said he was a
Vietnam veteran, retired military and he estimated that over 10% of the Lake Frederick residents were
also veterans. Mr. Suchan stated if the remainder of the development does not get the private roads, a
negative message is being sent. Mr. Suchan understood there was another development within Frederick
County that wasn’t successful with the construction and maintenance of their private roads; he was
concerned this experience would influence the decision of the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors for the Lake Frederick community.
Mr. Chris Baldrop, a resident of the eastern side of Lake Frederick in the Opequon
District, came forward to speak in support of the private road request for the Lake Frederick Community.
Mr. Baldrop said many of the supporters this evening are from the western side of Lake Frederick, which
will remain with private roads regardless of the final decision by the Board of Supervisors. He said this
shows the level of support and integrity of all the residents within this community. Mr. Baldrop next
turned his discussion to the event this effort is not approved. Mr. Baldrop said he lives on Tutalo Lane
which ends on Rachel Carson. He explained that if Rachel Carson is converted to a public road, there
will be a series of side roads which are private and have direct access to a public road, particularly those
homeowners on the corner; they will be paying the cost of maintaining private roads, yet not have the
advantages of being on a private road system because they will be directly next to a public road. He
believed this was eminently unfair and for that reason, he urged the Commission to recommend approval
of Option #1 of the staff’s recommendations.
No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of
the hearing.
Commissioner Thomas believed a gated community with a diverse population would
provide a very good quality of life for the residents of the Lake Frederick community. He said over many
years, he has been very vocal about meeting VDOT standards; however, the developer’s representative,
Mr. Ty Lawson, has possibly swayed his opinion with some of his discussions. Commissioner Thomas
stated that after working with contractors and lawyers for over 42 years, he learned the use of the English
language has to be as specific as mathematics. He stated the language used within the County’s
ordinances must be extremely specific and clear or the County will not get what is expected.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3114
Minutes of June 18, 2014
Commissioner Thomas said he would support this change; however, he would want to
have five very specific items with this. He stated the private roads would have to meet VDOT standards
for the following items: 1) structural section design; 2) material composition and quality; 3) construction
standards, techniques, and workmanship quality; 4) drainage and storm water management systems; 5)
the design must be certified by a registered professional engineer; all the design, testing and materials,
and in-place quality testing and as-built drawings for the road system must be submitted to Frederick
County and certified by the developer and a professional engineer that the roads meet VDOT standards.
Commissioner Thomas continued, stating that with those five items, he would definitely
support this ordinance amendment. Commissioner Thomas said the residents present this evening are
very mature in their experiences and life styles, but he was thinking forward to the future. He said if the
developer builds roads that meet these standards, the residents will not have any maintenance for the next
20 years. He noted after 20 years, if minimal maintenance on roads is carried out, the roads will last
another 10-15 years with minimal cost. He stated if the roads are built to these standards, the residents
and future home buyers, and the younger folks that move into the other areas, are not going to have a
significant capital expense for the next 20-35 years based on the roads.
Commissioner Oates stated he was in full agreement with Commissioner Thomas.
Commissioner Oates commented about the two options proposed within the agenda and said one thing he
didn’t like about either option was the wording, “…paving designs, based on actual CBR’s will be
provided to the County for approval.” Commissioner Oates didn’t believe it was the County’s place to
approve or deny the CBR testing. He said it implies that Frederick County is accepting the road or
approving the road; he said this is a private road. Commissioner Oates agreed the “as-built” drawings
should be provided to Frederick County for fire and rescue purposes. Commissioner Oates said Option
#3 should be the five items pointed out by Commissioner Thomas.
Commissioner Unger asked if the developer would still have the option of providing
narrower streets within the development, rather than the width typically provided by VDOT.
Commissioner Oates commented that VDOT also has standards for alleyways and narrower streets and
the developer could follow those standards.
Commissioner Thomas commented that with the narrower streets which do not meet
horizontal standards of the State, the homeowners will be committed to maintaining the streets in
perpetuity and with the structural section, the homeowners will get the quality and durability. He
commented that the narrower streetscape reduces the speed and encourages a bicycling and walking
community.
Chairman Wilmot announced that an email communication concerning the private streets
was received from Mr. and Mrs. Larry Atkinson and she believed it appropriate to add their comments to
the record.
Commissioner Thomas made a motion to recommend approval for private roads in the
R5 Zoning District with the following qualifications: The private roads have to meet VDOT standards for
the following five items: 1) structural section design; 2) material composition and quality; 3) construction
standards, techniques, and workmanship quality; 4) drainage and storm water management systems; 5) all
the design, testing and materials, and in-place quality testing and as-built drawings for the road system
must be certified by the developer, the builder, and a registered professional engineer in the State of
Virginia, that the roads meet all of VDOT structural and quality standards, and these plans are submitted
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3115
Minutes of June 18, 2014
to the Frederick County Engineer and the Frederick County Planning Department. This motion was
seconded by Commissioner Molden and was unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of an
ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article V–Planned Development
Districts, Part 502-R5, Residential Recreational Community District, Section 165-502.05, Design
Requirements. This proposed amendment will remove the requirement that R5 communities must be
“age-restricted communities” to qualify for private streets; it provides for the inclusion of additional
design standards for private roads; and directs maintenance responsibilities for private roads to be the
responsibility of the property owners association. In addition, private roads must meet VDOT standards
for the following five items: 1) structural section design; 2) material composition and quality; 3)
construction standards, techniques, and workmanship quality; 4) drainage and storm water management
systems; 5) all the design, testing and materials, and in-place quality testing and as-built drawings for the
road system must be certified by the developer, the builder, and a registered professional engineer in the
State of Virginia, that the roads meet all of VDOT structural and quality standards, and these plans are
submitted to the Frederick County Engineer and the Frederick County Planning Department.
(Note: Commissioner Mohn abstained; Commissioners Kenney, Triplett, and Dunlap were absent from
the meeting.)
-------------
An Ordinance to Amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VI-Agricultural
and Residential Districts, Part 402, RP (Residential Performance) District, Section 165-402.09,
Dimensional Requirements. The proposed revision will reduce the minimum front setback for
multi-family residential buildings from 35 feet to 20 feet.
Action – Recommended Approval
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported this is a proposed revision to the front
setbacks for multi-family residential buildings. Ms. Perkins said this is a new housing type added to the
RP revision approved in 2013. She said during discussions and the public hearing process, a high-density
residential streetscape schematic was provided and showed how this particular housing type could be
developed. The schematic provided a multi-family building with a front setback of 12-20 feet; however,
the text adopted for multi-family residential buildings required a 35-foot front setback, which is contrary
to what was shown and intended. Ms. Perkins said there is an applicant desiring to implement the
housing type and they have requested the setback be re-evaluated. Ms. Perkins said the proposed
amendment would reduce the setback from 35 feet to 20 feet.
Ms. Perkins said the DRRC (Development Review and Regulations Committee)
reviewed this at their March 14, 2014 meeting and recommended the reduction to 20 feet; the Planning
Commission discussed this at their May 7, 2014 meeting; and the Board of Supervisors discussed this at
their May 28, 2014 and directed the staff to advertise the amendment for public hearing.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing for citizen comments. No one came forward
to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3116
Minutes of June 18, 2014
There were no questions from the Planning Commission and no issues were raised.
A motion was made by Commissioner Oates to recommend approval of the proposed
ordinance amendment as presented by the staff. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas
and unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of an ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VI-
Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 402, RP (Residential Performance) District, Section 165-
402.09, Dimensional Requirements. This revision will reduce the minimum front setback for multi-
family residential buildings from 35 feet to 20 feet.
(Note: Commissioners Kenney, Triplett, and Dunlap were absent from the meeting.)
-------------
INFORMATION/ DISCUSSION ITEMS
Master Development Plan #03-14 of Madison Village, submitted by Painter-Lewis, P.L.C., to
develop 51.26 acres of land, zoned RP (Residential Performance) District, with 640 residential units
(townhouse and multi-family) and five acres of land, zoned B2 (Business General) District, with
commercial uses. The subject property is located on the west side of Route 522, approximately
1,000 feet south of the intersection of Route 522 and Airport Road. The property is further
identified with P.I.N. 64-A-18 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. This item is presented for
informational purposes only.
No Action Required
Commissioner Oates said he would abstain from all discussion on this item due to a
possible conflict of interest. He said he represents an adjacent landowner who is affected by this.
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported this is a proposal to develop a property
rezoned back in 2013. Ms. Perkins said 42.26 acres of the site are zoned RP (Residential Performance)
and will be developed with a maximum of 640 townhouse and multi-family units and the remainder of the
property, consisting of five acres zoned B2 (Business General), will be developed with commercial uses.
Ms. Perkins presented the MDP (master development plan) on the screen and pointed out the internal road
network, the land bays, and the inter-parcel connections. She said Madison Village will have one
signalized entrance on Route 522; she noted the location of this entrance on the MDP has been shifted
slightly south due to entrance spacing requirements. Ms. Perkins said the modified entrance is still in
conformance with the proffered Generalized Development Plan from the rezoning. She noted the MDP
for Madison Village is in conformance with the zoning ordinance, as well as Rezoning #03-13. She
added this MDP is presented as an informational item.
Commissioner Unger inquired if arrangements had been made so the adjoining
landowner can get in and out okay. Ms. Perkins replied the adjoining landowner has been provided with
an inter-parcel access in two locations, which was required by the proffer.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3117
Minutes of June 18, 2014
Chairman Wilmot inquired where Phase 1 of the road would begin and end, since there
was a change.
Mr. John Lewis, with Painter-Lewis, PLC, was present to represent the project. Mr.
Lewis pointed out the location where Phase 1 will end. Mr. Lewis said they will be constructing the
intersection at Route 522, the entrance to the first round-about, and then north to the northern property,
meeting the approved MDP for Russell 150; they will then build to the south to the first intersection,
which would allow them to develop a number of townhomes and part of the multi-family. Chairman
Wilmot commented that the reason she asked was because the School Board wanted some way to get
their buses turned around. Mr. Lewis pointed out where they planned to have a temporary cul-de-sac,
which they planned to do on every phase.
No other questions or issues were raised by the Planning Commission. No action was
needed by the Commission.
(Note: Commissioner Oates abstained from discussion; Commissioners Triplett, Dunlap, and Kenney
were absent from the meeting.)
-------------
Master Development Plan #04-14 of Clearbrook Business Center, submitted by GreyWolfe to
develop 16.886 acres of land, zoned B3 (Industrial Transition) District, with commercial/ industrial
uses. The subject properties are located at 3625 Martinsburg Pike on the west side of Route 11,
approximately 2,000 feet north of Hopewell Road (Rt. 672). The properties are further identified
with P.I.N.s 33-(A)-122A and 33-(A)-123 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. This item is being
presented for informational purposes only.
No Action Required
Commissioner Oates said he would abstain from discussion of this item because his client
is the landowner. Commissioner Oates stated since this item is for informational purposes only, he would
represent the landowner at the podium in the event there may be questions.
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported this is a MDP (master development plan) for
16.886 acres of land which were rezoned in 2006 with proffers. Ms. Perkins pointed out the land along
Martinsburg Pike, as well as the internal road network and the proffered inter-parcel connections to the
north and the south. She said this MDP is in conformance with the zoning ordinance, as well as the
rezoning from 2006, and is being presented as an informational item.
No questions or issues were raised by the Planning Commission. No action was required
by the Planning Commission.
(Note: Commissioner Oates abstained from discussion; Commissioners Triplett, Dunlap, and Kenney
were absent from the meeting.)
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3118
Minutes of June 18, 2014
Master Development Plan #05-14 of Snowden Bridge Station, submitted by GreyWolfe to develop
91.82 acres of land, zoned M1 (Light Industrial), with industrial uses. The subject properties are
located at 1800 Martinsburg Pike, near I-81 North, Exit 317, and bounded by CSX Railroad to the
east, Redbud Road (Rt. 661) to the south, and Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11) to the west. The
properties are further identified by P.I.N.s 43-(A)-143, 43-(A)-144, 43-(A)-145, 43-(A)-146, 43-(A)-
147, 43-(A)-150, 43-(A)-151, 43-(A)-152, 43C-(3)-2, 43C-(3)-3, 43C-(3)-4, 43C-(3)-4A, 43C-(3)-5, and
43C-(3)-7A, within the Stonewall Magisterial District.
No Action Required
Commissioner Oates said he would abstain from discussion of this item because his client
is the landowner. Commissioner Oates stated since this item is for informational purposes only, he would
represent the landowner at the podium in the event there may be questions.
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that a number of properties are associated
with this because there were two rezoning applications that covered this from 2005 and 2012. Ms.
Perkins showed the MDP (master development plan) and pointed out the location of future Snowden
Bridge Boulevard, the proffered Ezra Lane, as well as the land bays. She said access to the site will be
via Snowden Bridge Boulevard which will align with an access point previously approved with the North
Stephenson rezoning (2005). She said the initial segment of Snowden Bridge Boulevard has already been
constructed and aligns with the signalized intersection at Martinsburg Pike, across from Rutherford
Crossing Shopping Center. Ms. Perkins stated the MDP is in conformance with Rezoning #03-05 for
North Stephenson and Rezoning #01-12 for Snowden Bridge Station and is being presented to the
Commission as an informational item.
No questions or issues were raised by the Planning Commission. No action was required
by the Planning Commission.
(Note: Commissioner Oates abstained from discussion; Commissioners Triplett, Dunlap, and Kenney
were absent from the meeting.)
-------------
OTHER
Chairman Wilmot announced there will be a community meeting regarding the South
Frederick Land Use Plan on Tuesday evening, July 1, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the Robert E. Aylor Middle
School Cafeteria. Chairman Wilmot invited all interested citizens to attend.
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3119
Minutes of June 18, 2014
Cancelation of the July 2, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting
Chairman Wilmot announced there were no pending items for the Planning
Commission’s July 2, 2014 meeting.
A motion was made by Commissioner Thomas to cancel the July 2, 2014 meeting of the
Planning Commission. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Oates and unanimously passed.
-------------
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and a motion was made by Commissioner
Thomas to adjourn the meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Oates and unanimously
passed. The meeting adjourned at 8:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
June Wilmot, Chairman
____________________________
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
B
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: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP
Deputy Director
RE: McCann-Slaughter Properties – Public Hearing
A Draft Amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Appendix I – Area
Plans,
The Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan
DATE: June 30, 2014
This Draft Amendment to the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan (NELUP), an Area Plan
contained within Appendix I of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, is presented to the Planning
Commission as a public hearing item. A recommendation from the Planning Commission to the
Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. Staff received direction from the Board to move the
draft amendment through the public hearing process.
The McCann-Slaughter Properties
The McCann Slaughter parcels contain approximately 160 acres near the intersection of
Martinsburg Pike and Old Charlestown Road, on both sides of McCann Road, and adjacent to the
CSX Railroad. The properties are collectively designated in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan for
various types of land uses, including Developmentally Sensitive Areas and Industrial. Future
Route 37 traverses Parcel 44-A-25B and the properties are located within the Sewer and Water
Service Area (SWSA).
Proposal.
The attached language is offered as a potential addition to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan,
Appendix I – The Northeast Land Use Plan. The proposed addition would be inserted into
Appendix I of the Plan within the Northeast Land Use Plan, immediately following the existing
maps.
Background
At their November 13, 2013 meeting, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution directing
staff to undertake a land use study to evaluate the future land use of the McCann-Slaughter
properties and
Planning Commission
Public Hearing: McCann-Slaughter Properties
June 30, 2014
Page 2
surrounding area, near the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Old Charlestown
Road (Route 761). The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC), at their
December meeting, initiated the review of this request.
The review of this item continued in 2014 and involved the Historic Resources Advisory Board
(HRAB) who invited interested groups to participate in their meetings. The HRAB recommended
that the land use designation remain as a DSA at this time. Their recommendation is included as
an attachment to this item.
Ultimately, the CPPC recommended the following balanced approach as an amendment to the
Northeast Land Use Plan (notwithstanding the recommendations of the HRAB):
• The recommendations of the HRAB.
• Protection of the environmental features of the site.
• Preservation of those areas identified with DSA’s and development limited to
those areas to the south of the DSA’s and south of McCann’s Road.
• Utilizing McCann’s Road and other historical features, such as Milburn Road, as
features to be protected and potentially used in a manner that promotes their
historical context (an extension of the historical trail system in the area).
• An O.M. (Mixed Use Office/Industrial) land use designation.
• If an alternative land use designation is deemed to be appropriate, access would
be provided via a new north-south road that would generally be parallel to the
west side of the existing railroad. This road would connect into proposed
development to the south. No access would be permitted to McCann’s Lane for
vehicular access to Martinsburg Pike or Milburn Road.
The CPPC felt strongly that an approach that balanced the various resources and land uses was
appropriate. To that end, additional efforts were made to draft an amendment that was as
thoughtful as possible when balancing the resources and land uses. Two members of the CPPC
met with two members of the HRAB to discuss additional language that has ultimately been
included in the draft amendment. This additional language has been shared with the CPPC and
HRAB.
In addition, representative from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) were
engaged in a discussion about the site’s access with various alternatives being discussed and
evaluated. The alternative approaches to site access are included in your agenda for direction as
part of the land use plan revision.
The Planning Commission discussed the McCann-Slaughter properties at their meeting on May
21, 2014. There was discussion regarding McCann’s Road and the intent for it to be a total buffer
corridor of 50 feet, with 25-foot on each side measured from the centerline. In addition, the
intention was for McCann’s Road to remain as an existing gravel road within a prescriptive
easement with no road improvements. The idea was to essentially preserve McCann’s Road in its
existing condition and for it to be used as a pedestrian/bicycle trail. Members of the Commission
stated this property has had a considerable amount of discussion between all of the stakeholders,
including the CPPC, the HRAB, and environmental representatives. They believed this approach
was an interesting concept because of the many geographical, environmental, and historical
aspects of the property, many of which have competing interests. It was believed the
Planning Commission
Public Hearing: McCann-Slaughter Properties
June 30, 2014
Page 3
stakeholders had achieved a reasonably balanced approach for the use of the land, and preserving
key elements while allowing the appropriate form of development to go forward as well. (Note:
Commissioner Oates was absent from the meeting.)
Staff has also provided a summary of the CPPC and HRAB committee reviews to date. Please
also find attached a copy of the Board approved resolution, a location map which depicts the long
range land use for the area, the current Northeast Land Use Plan, and excerpts from the previous
Northeast Land Use Plan.
Please contact me if you have any further questions.
MTR/pd/rsa
Attachments
2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
APPENDIX I – AREA PLANS
NORTHEAST FREDERICK LAND USE PLAN
MCCANN-SLAUGHTER AMENDMENT
(DRAFT MAY 21, 2014)
The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC), at their April 14, 2014 meeting,
recommended that the following amendment be incorporated into the Northeast Land Use
Plan:
The CPPC proposed the following balanced approach as an amendment to the Northeast
Land Use Plan for the McCann-Slaughter properties located near the intersection of
Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Old Charlestown Road (Route 761). This location has
historically been identified as a Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA) due to the
environmental and historical features on and around the site, most notably Stephenson’s
Depot.
• Protection of the environmental features of the site.
• Preservation of those areas identified with DSA’s and development limited to
those areas to the south of the DSA’s and south of McCann’s Road.
• Utilizing McCann’s Road and other historical features, such as Milburn Road,
as features to be protected and potentially used in a manner that promotes
their historical context (an extension of the historical trail system in the area).
• An O.M. (Mixed Use Office/Industrial) land use designation.
• Access to be provided via a new north south road that would generally be
parallel to the west side of the existing railroad. This road would connect into
proposed development to the south. No access would be permitted to
McCann’s Lane for vehicular access to Martinsburg Pike or Milburn Road.
Subsequently, the proposal was further evaluated to determine if other elements could be
incorporated into the proposed amendment that would further ensure the environmental,
historical, and development resources were protected, promoted, and sensitively integrated
together in this balanced amendment to the Northeast Land Use Plan. To that end, the
following items should be addressed with the future development of this area.
• A buffer adjacent to McCann’s lane that is approximately 50’ in width (25’ from the
centerline in each direction). Contained within this area; native landscape plantings
and preservation of the existing hedgerows aimed at preserving this resource and its
character, interpreting the historical landscape, and buffering the future
development.
• A transitional buffer between the existing floodplain and future land uses that
promotes environmental best management practices and buffers the historical DSA
from the future land uses (landscaping, building height transitions, view sheds). This
buffer may include areas of the identified environmental resources.
• The ability to include a small area of neighborhood commercial land use in support of
the proposed OM land use. This would be located in the northern portion of the OM
land use adjacent to the future road.
• An interpretive trail head/parking area in the northern portion of this area adjacent to
the proposed road could be incorporated into the design of the project, potentially in
conjunction with a small area of neighborhood commercial. The interpretation may be
reflective of the environmental and historical resources of the site and area.
• The CPPC recommended the OM land use designation extends to the center of the
stream. (A subsequent evaluation of this indicated it would be more appropriate to
have the edge of the ultimate floodplain be the common boundary as a floodplain is,
by definition in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, an identified Developmentally
Sensitive Area).
• The location and design of the road should be sensitive to the environmental and
historical resources and should have minimal impact.
• Historical signage consistent with currently used signage should be provided.
• Historically relevant features, such as split rail fences, should be considered as a
feature of the future development. But care should be taken to ensure the character
of the resource isn’t changed.
• Appropriate traffic controls should be provided on McCann’s Lane to ensure that it is
used only for pedestrian and bicycle users.
In general, balance was maintained as the overarching theme of the discussion of the CPPC,
and subsequently, the discussion of the ad-hoc CPPC/HRAB group.
Committee Review Background.
CPPC December 16, 2013 Meeting
The CPPC discussed this request and proposed the study be coordinated with the HRAB, given the
historical context of the Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA’s) in this area. It is believed that the
HRAB would be able to provide the appropriate guidance and input on the land use in this area from
a historical perspective. Notwithstanding the historical background associated with Stephenson’s
Depot, the site also contains a significant amount of environmental features that are protected within
the DSA designation. The floodplain and its associated issues were discussed. The location of the
environmental features also creates a barrier to Martinsburg Pike, Route 11, and Old Charlestown
Road.
The Applicant’s representative presented a sketch of the proposed layout for a potential
commercial/industrial development with access being provided from the north and from the south via
a new north/south road connecting with adjacent projects and minimizing the impact on the Milburn
Road corridor and McCann’s Road. An O.M. land use designation was proposed by the Applicant’s
representative as being the most acceptable land use designation along with recognition that those
DSA’s identified on the site could be incorporated into the land use plan.
Any update to the Northeast Land Use Plan should consider the following points as the basis for the
narrative:
• The recommendations of the HRAB.
• Protection of the environmental features of the site.
• Preservation of those areas identified with DSA’s and development limited to those
areas to the south of the DSA’s and south of McCann’s Road.
• Utilizing McCann’s Road and other historical features, such as Milburn Road, as
features to be protected and potentially used in a manner that promotes their
historical context (an extension of the historical trail system in the area).
• An O.M. (Mixed Use Office/Industrial) land use designation (if appropriate).
The CPPC approached this as an amendment to the Northeast Land Use Plan. It was recognized that
the Northeast Land Use Plan is a series of four detailed land use maps that do not contain a
descriptive narrative. The CPPC felt that if the land use were to change in this location, it should be
accompanied by a descriptive narrative that is clear on what the future land uses should be, where
they should be, and that any performance conditions, such as areas of preservation and methods of
access, should be stated.
The CPPC were very eager to receive the recommendations of the HRAB before they finalized their
recommendations for a change in the land use. In addition, the CPPC wanted to see some of the
points discussed at their December meeting listed in bullet form to provide a summary of the
potential
The CPPC also identified several approaches to update the Northeast Land Use Plan for this area; 1)
updating the four land use maps, 2) updating the four land use maps and adding a narrative specific
to this proposed change, and 3) updating the four land use maps and reinstating text describing the
Northeast Land Use Plan as a whole. The CPPC’s initial preference was option 2. Recent proposed
amendments to the North East Land Use Plan could be consolidated into this update.
HRAB December 17, 2013 Meeting Summary
The Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) has been asked to provide a comment pertaining to
a requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the McCann-Slaughter property.
The Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley published by the National Park Service
identifies these properties as core battlefield area for the Battle of Third Winchester (Opequon) with
retained integrity.
The Applicant’s representative presented a sketch of the proposed layout for a potential industrial
park. The HRAB questioned if the requested industrial park could be laid out in a sensitive way,
preserving the viewsheds and the significant portions of the property. The location of the existing
historic markers was also considered and the impact the land use change would have on the
viewsheds associated with the markers. The HRAB also inquired if the use of tax credits and the
preservation of the property would be worth as much as the potential industrial land. The Applicant
responded that it would not.
After further discussion, the HRAB questioned why the DSA needed to be removed. The DSA was
originally created and shown on this property because of its historic nature and the HRAB wanted to
know what had changed and why the Board should consider a change in land use. The HRAB was
concerned with the removal of the DSA because this is the last bit of core battlefield within this area.
The battlefield areas keep being eroded, first with the rezoning of Stephenson’s Village and then
Graystone. The group also discussed the recently adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the fact
that one goal was to preserve battlefield areas. There are policies in place that support the
preservation of core battlefield areas. The HRAB also wanted comments from the Shenandoah
Valley Battlefield Foundation regarding the scale of the project and the impact it would have; it was
rested that the foundation be invited to the next HRAB meeting.
After the discussion, the HRAB requested that the Applicant consider retaining DSA on the most
significant portions of the property and consider office land use on the balance. The HRAB
ultimately was comfortable with the requested land (low impact/sensitive industrial) use change so
long as the discussed trail network was included and the most significant part of the battlefield
remains in DSA. The HRAB then requested to see the text that is formulated by the CPPC that will
be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their review.
HRAB February 17, 2014 Meeting Summary
The HRAB further discussed the discussions to date of The Comprehensive Plans and Programs
Committee (CPPC) who discussed this amendment at their January and February meetings. The
recommendations of the HRAB were summarized in the comment letter provided by the HRAB and
attached, dated March 10, 2014.
The HRAB recommendation (02/18/14).
Historic Resources Advisory Board Concerns
(Please see the letter provided by the HRAB in the attachments to this agenda).
The Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley published by the National Park Service
identifies these properties as core battlefield area for the Battle of Second Winchester and the Battle
of Third Winchester (Opequon), with retained integrity.
After reviewing this information and the applicant’s materials the Historic Resource Advisory Board
(HRAB) recommended denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the McCann Slaughter
Properties. The HRAB stated that the Historic Chapter of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan supports the
preservation of the County’s battlefield. Specifically, the plan states the following:
“As commercial and residential developments continue to locate and expand in Frederick County,
there is a need for balance to maintain the historic integrity, both structurally and scenically, between
surviving historic resources and landscapes and new development. This balance can be achieved by
recognizing both the current development needs of the community and the historic and rural
character of Frederick County’s past”.
The HRAB also felt that the Developmentally Sensitive Designation was placed over this area
because of the historic nature of the area and that there wasn’t sufficient evidence presented to the
committee that justified support for removing the designation. . Also, at the HRAB’s February 2014
meeting a representative from the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation (SVBF) stated that the
foundation has expressed interest in preserving the site and that additional materials may be available
that provides more detail regarding the historic importance of this site. The HRAB stated that should
additional information regarding the history on the site be made available, the Board could revisit the
subject.
CPPC April 14, 2014 Meeting
The CPPC looked to complete their evaluation of a land use study for the McCann-Slaughter
properties, and surrounding area, near the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Old
Charlestown Road (Route 761). Previously, the CPPC discussed this request and identified several
approaches to update the Northeast Land Use Plan for this area. The CPPC proposed the study be
coordinated with the HRAB. The HRAB has made a recommendation on this request.
Mr. Ruddy presented an overview of this request, an update on the status of this request, and
described the input received previously from the CPPC and more recently from the HRAB. The
HRAB had recommended denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the McCann Slaughter
Properties. The HRAB stated that should additional information regarding the history on the site be
made available, the Board could revisit the subject.
Mr. Ruddy further discussed the options available to the CPPC as listed in the agenda.
1) Support the recommendation of the HRAB.
2) Propose the approach discussed by the CPPC at your earlier meetings, prior to the input of
and notwithstanding the recommendations of the HRAB, where the CPPC described the
following scenario:
• The recommendations of the HRAB.
• Protection of the environmental features of the site.
• Preservation of those areas identified with DSA’s and development limited to those
areas to the south of the DSA’s and south of McCann’s Road.
• Utilizing McCann’s Road and other historical features, such as Milburn Road, as
features to be protected and potentially used in a manner that promotes their
historical context (an extension of the historical trail system in the area).
• An O.M. (Mixed Use Office/Industrial) land use designation.
• If an alternative land use designation is deemed to be appropriate, access to be
provided via a new north south road that would generally be parallel to the west side
of the existing railroad. This road would connect into proposed development to the
south. No access would be permitted to McCann’s Lane for vehicular access to
Martinsburg Pike or Milburn Road.
3) An alternative recommendation to the above of the CPPC.
Members of the CPPC discussed the features of the site in more detail and reflected on the
recommendation of the HRAB. The Applicant’s representative, Mr. Oates, described the
environmental features of the site, the discussion of the HRAB, and the Applicant’s desired
future land use and potential development plan.
Balance was the overarching theme of the discussion of the CPPC. It was recognized that balance
was emphasized in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and in an earlier planning document, the
Battlefield Network Plan, which also sought to achieve a balanced approach to future land uses
that were respectful of the identified DSA’s associated with Stephenson’s Depot.
In making their recommendation, the CPPC expressed their desire to achieve a balance between
the DSA designation, the recommendation of the HRAB, and the other land uses envisioned by
the property owner, the OM (Office-Manufacturing) land use designation.
The CPPC recommended that the scenario described as item 2 in the agenda package be
forwarded to the Planning Commission for their consideration. The motion was made by Jim
Golladay, seconded by Kay Dawson, and unanimously approved by the CPPC members
present.
Following the recommendation, the CPPC recognized the importance of the openness of the
planning process. A suggestion was made to have members of the CPPC meet with members of the
HRAB to further evaluate the details of the proposal to ensure the historic elements of the property
were protected and any areas of development were as sensitive to the historic resources as possible.
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
DATE: June 30, 2014
RE: Public Hearing:
2030 Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPPA); Middletown/Lord
Fairfax Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) –Expansion Area
Request.
Staff received direction from the Board of Supervisors to move two items relating to the
provision of sewer and water in the vicinity of the Town of Middletown through the
public hearing process. This is the first of the two items; the Middletown/Lord Fairfax
Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) –Expansion Area Request.
This amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan would result in the expansion of
the Middletown/Lord Fairfax Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) by
approximately 100 acres and the application of an OM (mixed use industrial/office)
business development land use designation. The properties within this SWSA would
be served by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA).
Sewer and Water Service.
Recently, the Board of Supervisors had discussed the general topic of sewer and water
service in this area of Frederick County, the area immediately surrounding the Town of
Middletown. In particular, the role that the FCSA played in serving this area and the
relationship between the FCSA, the Town of Middletown, and the City of Winchester in
providing this service. The Board indicated that the Frederick County Sanitation
Authority (FCSA) should be the entity that provides the water and sewer services to
properties that are located in Frederick County. The Board of Supervisors provided clear
guidance on the provision of water and sewer and the expansion of the SWSA in this
area.
Planning Commission
Public Hearing: Middletown/Lord Fairfax SWSA - Future Expansion Area.
June 30, 2014
Page 2
Background
The Middletown/Lord Fairfax Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) - Future
Expansion Area draft amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan was presented to the
Board of Supervisors on several occasions for direction. The Board ultimately provided
direction to move the draft amendment through the public hearing process.
Previously, the Board of Supervisors had discussed this item and decided that further
discussion should occur with the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) on the
general topic of sewer and water service in Frederick County. Subsequently, two work
sessions were held between the Board of Supervisors and the FCSA during 2013 at which
the general topic was discussed at length.
The applicant’s representative had requested that this item be brought back to the Board
of Supervisors for their consideration. The Board of Supervisors delayed providing
direction at their May meeting to allow an opportunity to continue discussion on this item
with the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) and adjacent property owners.
Review History.
Following on from the LFCC/Middletown Sewer and Water Service Area Plan, approved
in 2012, which created a 138 acre SWSA in the area surrounding, and including the Lord
Fairfax Community College, the CPPC and Planning Commission continued the
discussion of the surrounding area previously identified as Phase 2.
On March 11, 2013, the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC)
recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment for a change in the land
use designation of this property to OM with the recognition that other business
development land uses aimed at supporting Lord Fairfax Community College may be
considered with rezoning requests implementing the Plan. The CPPC’s endorsement
included the language added to the previously approved land use plan and an updated
land use map.
The CPPC expressed their desire to see the Board of Supervisors provide guidance on the
timing of the expansion of the SWSA in support of the expansion area. As expressed by
the property owner’s representative during the Planning Commission discussion, it is the
property owner’s desire to see the SWSA expanded at this time.
The Planning Commission discussed this item at their April 3, 2013 meeting. The
Commission discussed how the provision of water and sewer would occur in this area.
Staff reiterated that the Plan would maintain consistency with the recently approved
Middletown/Lord Fairfax SWSA Plan. The Town of Middletown and the City of
Winchester would be involved in the provision of public water and sewer. No other
issues were raised by the Planning Commission and the Commission expressed their
Planning Commission
Public Hearing: Middletown/Lord Fairfax SWSA - Future Expansion Area.
June 30, 2014
Page 3
general support of this amendment, in particular, as it would enhance the College and its
growth and development.
This discussion at the Board of Supervisors provided an opportunity for the continued
review of this proposed amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; the
Middletown/Lord Fairfax SWSA. The provision of water and sewer services remained
the focus of this discussion. In particular, the role that the FCSA played in serving this
area and the relationship between the FCSA, the Town of Middletown, and the City of
Winchester in providing this service.
Please find attached with this agenda item the proposed addition to the
Middletown/Lord Fairfax Sewer and Water Service Area Plan. The major change
since it was presented to the Board was the direction received that the Frederick
County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) should be the entity that provides the water
and sewer services to properties that are located in Frederick County. The Board of
Supervisors provided clear guidance on the provision of water and sewer and the
expansion of the SWSA in this area
Staff is seeking a recommendation on the Middletown/Lord Fairfax Sewer and Water
Service Area (SWSA) - Future Expansion Area draft amendment to the 2030
Comprehensive Plan from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors.
Please contact the Planning Department should you have any questions regarding the
information provided for the above two items.
Attachments
MTR/pd
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
Middletown/Lord Fairfax Sewer and Water Service Area
Expansion Area PC/BOS Public Hearing Draft June 30, 2014
MIDDLETOWN/LORD FAIRFAX SEWER AND WATER SERVICE AREA
Lord Fairfax Community College (LFCC) is a comprehensive, multi-campus
public institution of higher education. Through its three locations — the
Fauquier and Middletown Campuses and the Luray-Page County Center — the
College serves eight localities in the Shenandoah Valley and Piedmont
regions. The localities are the counties of Clarke, Fauquier, Frederick, Page,
Rappahannock, Shenandoah and Warren and the city of Winchester.
Frederick County’s Middletown Campus is located at 173 Skirmisher Lane,
Middletown, Virginia. The Middletown campus has grown since it was founded
in 1970 into the campus illustrated in the following site plan.
LFCC is looking to expand its facilities on its current property and on property
owned by the LFCC Foundation.
The Middletown Elementary School is located immediately north of Lord
Fairfax Community College and is one of eleven elementary schools operated
by Frederick County Public Schools serving elementary aged children in
Frederick County.
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
Middletown/Lord Fairfax Sewer and Water Service Area
Expansion Area PC/BOS Public Hearing Draft June 30, 2014
Middletown/Lord Fairfax SWSA
The Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) is an important policy tool used
by Frederick County to determine where public water and sewer service may
be provided. The Board of Supervisors approves the location of the SWSA
boundaries through the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan; the 2030
Comprehensive Plan, and amendments thereto. As a result, properties located
within the SWSA may enjoy access to public water and sewer.
The Middletown/Lord Fairfax SWSA has been established to enable the
provision of public water and sewer in the area north of the Town of
Middletown to current and future institutional land uses, including Lord Fairfax
Community College and the Middletown Elementary School. The supporting
map identifies the location of the Middletown/Lord Fairfax SWSA boundary.
Future study of the area surrounding the Town of Middletown may identify
additional properties that could be added to the Middletown/Lord Fairfax
SWSA, if deemed appropriate by the Board of Supervisors.
The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) has the primary
responsibility to manage the provision of water and sewer in Frederick
County, and therefore, within the SWSA. In some cases, other public entities
may serve properties within Frederick County, if approved by the Board of
Supervisors. Lord Fairfax Community College currently obtains water from the
City of Winchester, and the Town of Middletown receives their wastewater.
The FCSA has expressed that, at this time, they have no desire to serve this
area of Frederick County. However, nothing would preclude the FCSA from
serving this area in the future if it is deemed necessary and appropriate. The
approval of this plan by the Board of Supervisors would allow the City of
Winchester and the Town of Middletown to continue to serve the properties
with water and sewer, respectively. The Board of Supervisors, in approving
this update to the area plan, expressly stated that the Frederick County
Sanitation Authority (FCSA) will be the party responsible for providing water
and sewer in this area.
It is recognized that properties owned by the State of Virginia are preempted
from local control by Frederick County. Frederick County and Lord Fairfax
Community College will continue to work collaboratively on issues related to
the growth and development in this area of Frederick County.
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
Middletown/Lord Fairfax Sewer and Water Service Area
Expansion Area PC/BOS Public Hearing Draft June 30, 2014
Land Use
Frederick County uses the 2030 Comprehensive Plan to guide the future land
uses. The Town of Middletown’s Foresight Middletown plan, which was
adopted into the Town’s Comprehensive Plan in 2005, guides the future land
uses within the Town and was considered when drafting this plan.
The area encompassed by the Middletown/Lord Fairfax SWSA is envisioned to
promote the continued growth of institutional land uses that enhance the
existing educational institutions; Lord Fairfax Community College and the
Middletown Elementary School. To that end, the plan calls for the
establishment of approximately 140 acres of institutional land use that will
serve the citizens of Frederick County and the broader region.
Institutional land uses are defined as a nonprofit or quasi-public use or
institution, such as a church, library, public or private school, hospital or
municipally owned or operated building, structure or land used for public
purposes. Institutions of higher education are defined as an educational
institution whose primary purpose is to provide a collegiate or graduate
education.
Transportation
The Middletown/Lord Fairfax SWSA is immediately north of the Town of
Middletown and is bounded by Route 11, Valley Pike, to the west, and
Interstate 81 to the east. Access to the area is via Route 11, Valley Pike.
Route 11, Interstate 81, and Exit 302, are strong assets to the areas’
transportation network, and to the success of the institutional uses envisioned
for this area. It will be important to ensure the function of this transportation
network.
In rapidly growing areas, as noted in the Foresight Middletown plan,
controlling and coordinating the number, design and location of new access
points to major roadways is critical to maintaining the safety and capacity of
the road system as traffic volumes increase. Accordingly, access to Valley
Pike, Route 11, should be managed and limited. In the future, internal
connections within the institutional land uses should be considered. In
addition, the primary route to this area from Interstate 81 should be
enhanced to safely and effectively manage the traffic and to reflect the
Foresight Middletown plan as a means to create an attractive entrance to the
Town and this developing area.
Consistent application of Comprehensive Plan goals to achieve an acceptable
level of service on area roads and overall transportation network, level of
service C or better, should be promoted. Further, efforts should be made to
ensure that additional degradation of the transportation beyond an acceptable
level of service shall be avoided. Consideration of future development
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
Middletown/Lord Fairfax Sewer and Water Service Area
Expansion Area PC/BOS Public Hearing Draft June 30, 2014
applications within the study area should only occur when an acceptable level
of service has been achieved and key elements and connections identified in
this plan have been provided.
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
Middletown/Lord Fairfax Sewer and Water Service Area
Expansion Area PC/BOS Public Hearing Draft June 30, 2014
Business Development Expansion Area
(Added 01/09/13)
Following the approval of the Area Plan by the Board of Supervisors on
November, 2012, the area immediately to the north of the Middletown/Lord
Fairfax SWSA was evaluated for potential inclusion into the Middletown/Lord
Fairfax SWSA Area Plan. This section, Business Development Expansion Area,
is the resulting addition to the plan which provides guidance to the adjacent
property owners regarding the future land uses. The policies established in
the Middletown/Lord Fairfax SWSA Area Plan guiding transportation and the
provision of public water and sewer would apply to this area of future
expansion. The expansion of the SWSA line would change with the
approval of the Business Development Expansion Area.
The Business Development Expansion Area is approximately 100 acres in size
and is contiguous to the existing Middletown/Lord Fairfax SWSA. The future
land use in this area is envisioned to promote areas of business development
in support of the adjacent land use, Lord Fairfax Community College. The
business development land uses may include a variety of support services to
programs offered at the College, including but not limited to, Health Care, Life
Sciences, and Technology. Other independent business development land
uses may promote the mixed use industrial/office land use classification of the
Comprehensive Plan, the OM Park District, which is designed to provide for
areas for research-and-development centers, office parks, and minimal
impact industrial and assembly uses.
OM District Land Uses are expected to be of a scale that is compatible with
the adjoining educational land uses (LFCC AND Middletown Elementary
School) and developed with sensitivity to the unique business development
partnership promoted by this plan. To that end, OM District standards such as
height, mass, loading/unloading and other design criteria will be expected to
be of a limited scale and appropriately oriented in the future development of
this planned area.
It is recognized that zoning districts other than the OM district may be
proposed provided they support business development and the college. All of
the above would provide opportunities for workforce development associated
with Lord Fairfax Community College.
Residential land uses are not proposed in this area.
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
Middletown/Lord Fairfax Sewer and Water Service Area
Expansion Area PC/BOS Public Hearing Draft June 30, 2014
The area to the west of the Middletown/Lord Fairfax SWSA is not envisioned
to be included in the Area Plan. Route 11, Valley Pike, will continue to be the
western boundary of the Middletown/Lord Fairfax SWSA. The land in this area
to the west of Route 11, Valley Pike, is rural in character and maintaining it in
its current state would reinforce the rural and historical character of the land,
and would preserve the vistas to the west. In addition, it is recognized that
there are environmental features in this area as Meadow Brook and its
associated floodplain bisects the area from north to south. The area is further
constrained by the railroad tracks that also parallel Route 11, Valley Pike.
0111
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
ST627
STT-627
STT-627
ST842
PERSHINGMILL LN
CARO
L
Y
N
A
V
E
M
A
R
K
D
R
RIEN
Z
I
K
N
O
L
L
L
N
QUIN
C
E
Y
MILL
C
T
CO
U
G
I
L
L
R
D
HAZ
E
L
M
I
L
L
L
N
MAIN
S
T
WA
Y
S
I
D
E
MIL
L
L
N
I81, W
E
I
G
H
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
M
U
S
T
A
N
G
L
N
CON
F
I
D
E
N
C
E
L
N
R
E
L
I
A
N
C
E
R
D
RILE
Y
M
I
L
L
L
N
LARR
I
C
K
L
N
VALL
E
Y
PIKE
N BU
C
K
T
O
N
R
D
Middletown/Lord Fairfax SWSA Boundary
Parcels
Building Footprints
Potential_LandUse I
Note:Frederick County Dept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: March 22, 2013Staff: mruddy
Middletown
VALL
E
Y
P
I
K
E
CO
U
G
I
L
L
R
D
N BU
C
K
T
O
N
R
D
MINERA
L
S
T
RI
D
I
N
G
S
M
I
L
L
R
D
I81, W
E
I
G
H
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
0111
MAIN
S
T
RI
D
I
N
G
S
M
I
L
L
R
D
FI
R
S
T
S
T
R
E
L
I
A
N
C
E
R
D
Middletown / Lord FairfaxSewer and Water Service Area
Middletown / Lord FairfaxSewer and Water Service AreaFuture Expansion Area AdmendmentDraft Approved TBD
0 1,300 2,600650 Feet
101.2 Ac.
100.91 Ac.
17.41 Ac.
2.22 Ac.Mix Use Industrial/Office
D
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
DATE: June 30, 2014
RE: Public Hearing:
2030 Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPPA);
Middletown/Reliance Road Land Use Plan Sewer and Water Service
Area (SWSA) Designation Request.
Middletown Properties, LLC, Molden Properties and the balance of
the properties within the study area.
The Middletown/Reliance Road Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) draft
amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan is presented to the Planning Commission
and Board of Supervisors for public hearing. Staff is seeking a recommendation from the
Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors.
This amendment would result in the creation of a Sewer and Water Service Area
(SWSA) around the properties contained within the Reliance Road Land Use Study,
approximately 311 acres. The properties within this SWSA would be served by the
Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA). This amendment would also
modify the text of the land use plan to reflect this direction.
Staff received direction from the Board of Supervisors to move two items relating to the
provision of sewer and water in the vicinity of the Town of Middletown through the
public hearing process. This is the second of the two items and it is based on a request
from Middletown Properties, LLC for the ability to serve an approximately 41 acre sewer
and water area in support of the Reliance Road Land Use Study. Subsequently, the Board
of Supervisors received and endorsed a request from the Molden Properties to be
included in the sewer and water area request.
Planning Commission
Discussion: Middletown/Reliance Road SWSA Public Hearing Memo.
June 27, 2014
Page 2
Sewer and Water Service.
Recently, the Board of Supervisors had discussed the general topic of sewer and water
service in this area of Frederick County, the area immediately surrounding the Town of
Middletown. In particular, the role that the FCSA played in serving this area and the
relationship between the FCSA, the Town of Middletown, and the City of Winchester in
providing this service. The Board indicated that the Frederick County Sanitation
Authority (FCSA) should be the entity that provides the water and sewer services to
properties that are located in Frederick County. The Board of Supervisors provided clear
guidance on the provision of water and sewer and the expansion of the SWSA in this
area. The Board, as a consequence of moving the identified properties forward,
incorporated the potential inclusion of all properties contained within the boundaries of
the Reliance Road Study Area. As a result, all properties within the boundaries of the
Reliance Road Land Use Plan Study Area are included into the boundary of the SWSA
proposed with this amendment.
Please find attached with this agenda item a map depicting the proposed
Middletown/Reliance Road Area Land Use Plan Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA).
The Properties.
Middletown Properties, LLC contacted Frederick County requesting that the Board of
Supervisors allow water and sewer to their property consistent with the Reliance Road
Land Use Study. Middletown Properties, LLC owns approximately 41 acres at the
Middletown Exit of Interstate 81, east of the interchange. About 10 acres of the property
is already zoned B2 (Business General). It should be noted that by including this property
in the SWSA, the property may develop under the current B2 (Business General)
commercial standards without the need for a rezoning that would customarily enable the
County to address the impacts associated with a rezoning.
Molden properties also contacted Frederick County requesting consideration that the
Board of Supervisors allows water and sewer to their property consistent with the
Reliance Road Land Use Study.
As a result of the Board’s direction on the above properties, Staff has included all of the
properties within the land use study area into the proposed sewer and water service area
to ensure a connected, contiguous, and consistent approach to the sewer and water service
area designation. This is identified on the attached map. An approach that includes fewer
properties may be more acceptable following the review of this proposal.
Planning Commission
Discussion: Middletown/Reliance Road SWSA Public Hearing Memo.
June 27, 2014
Page 3
Proposed text amendment.
The following is an excerpt from the Reliance Road Area Land Use Plan.
The land use plan is envisioned to guide land use decisions for an area of
approximately 311 acres over the next 20 to 30 years. Recognizing the
Town’s current water availability, development within the study area will
initially be limited until an additional water supply is more readily available.
Additionally, policy enabling the Town to provide water and sewer service to
the County properties would require Board approval.
The following is proposed as an amendment to the above text of the land use plan:
Additionally, policy enabling the Town to provide water and sewer service to
the County properties would require Board approval. The Board of
Supervisors, in approving this update to the area plan, expressly stated that
the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) will be the party responsible
for providing water and sewer in this area.
Please see the attached letters, dated June 5, 2014 and June 18, 2014. In addition, staff
has attached the Reliance Road Area Land Use Plan for your review.
Staff is seeking a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of
Supervisors on the Middletown/Reliance Road Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA)
draft amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, map and text change.
Please contact the Planning Department should you have any questions regarding the
information provided for the above item.
Attachments
MTR/pd
LAMPSWATSON LANDSubdivision
§¨¦81§¨¦81 ST627
STT-627
ST627
ST627
ST627
ST842
ST627
ST842
PLEASA
N
T
VIEW A
V
E
HUTTL
E
R
D
MA
S
S
A
N
U
T
T
E
N
D
R
CARO
L
Y
N
A
V
E
FIRS
T
S
T
ARLEN
E
C
T
M
A
R
K
D
R
N B
U
C
K
T
O
N
R
D
RELI
A
N
C
E
R
D
CON
F
I
D
E
N
C
E
L
N
S BUC
K
T
O
N
R
D
91 A 39
91 A 49
91 A 50
91 A 50A
91 A 2A
91 A 62
91C 1 4
91C 1 5
91C 1 6
91 A 60
91C 1 7
91 A 63
91C 1 9
91C 1 8
91C 111A
91C 1 10
91 A 57
91C 112A
91 A83A
91C 113A
91 A 55
91 A 55
91 A 54
91 A 59
91 A 84
91 A 85
91 A 86
91 A 90
91B 23 14
91BA 4191B 23 15
91 A 56
91 2 A
91B 21 40
91B 21 3891B 21 39
91B5 15
91 2 B91B 21 37 91B 5 1191B 5 12
91B 5 1391B 5 14 91B 63 16
91 A 89
91B 5 8
91B 5 991B 5 10
91B 63 22
91B 63 17
91B 63 1491B 63 15
91B 5 6
91B 5 7 91B 63 23 91B 63 21
91B6 3 19 91B 63 13
91B 63 12
91B 62 8
91B 62 7 91B 63 24 91B 63 20
91B 63 28 91B 63 10
91B 62 9
91B 62 10
91B 62 11
91B 62 591B 62 6
91B 62 491B 63 25
91B 63 26 91B 63 27
91B 63 29 91B 63 9
91B 62 34 91B 62 3 91B 62 2
91B6 3 31
91B A 35
91B 63 30
91B6 3 7
91B 63 8
91 A 89C91B 62 3291B 62 33
91B 62 35 91B 62 1
91B A36A
91B 63 5 91B 63 6
91B 62 30 91B 62 37
91B 62 38
91B 63 4
91B 63 391B 62 18
91B 62 20 91B 63 2
91 A 101
91B 62 28 91B A35A91B 62 27
Applications
Parcels
Building FootprintsB1 (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: June 17, 2014Staff: mruddy
R
E
L
I
A
N
C
E
R
D
S BUCK
T
O
N
R
D
FI
R
S
T
S
T
CHUR
C
H
S
T
MAIN
S
T
HUTT
L
E
R
D
N BU
C
K
T
O
N
R
D
SH
A
W
N
D
R
MAR
K
D
R
SE
C
O
N
D
S
T
CARO
L
Y
N
A
V
E
THI
R
D
S
T
RELIANC
E
E
X
I
T
R
A
M
P
N
REL
I
A
N
C
E
E
N
T
E
R
R
A
M
P
S
ARLENE CT
Middletown Properties, LLCPINs:91 - A - 56, 91 - A - 57, 91 - A - 59
Middletown Properties, LLCPINs:91 - A - 56, 91 - A - 57, 91 - A - 59
0 490 980245 Feet
§¨¦81 §¨¦81
ST627
ST627
ST627
ST627
ST627
ST627
ST842
ST842
LOSTPOND
C
T
P
L
E
A
S
A
N
T
V
I
E
W
A
V
E
FIFT
H
S
T
SEC
O
N
D
S
T
ARLENE CTCAROL
Y
N
AVETHIR
D
S
T
MAIN ST
M
A
R
K
D
R
CHURCH
S
T
DEPEN
D
E
N
C
E
LN
FIR
S
T
S
T
N BU
C
K
T
O
N
R
D
FOU
R
T
H
S
T
SH
A
W
N
D
R
CON
F
I
D
E
N
C
E
L
N
RE
L
I
A
N
C
E
R
D
HUTT
L
E
R
D
S B
U
C
K
T
O
N
R
D
WARRENCOUNTYVIRGINIA
91 A 34
91 A 46A
91 A 46A
91 A44A
91 A44B
91 A 45 91 A 71
91 A 33
91 A 47A
91 A 23A
91 A 46
91 A 72
91 A 35
91 A 23B
91 A 44
91 A 71A
91 A 39
91 A 23J
91 A 4791 A 23I
91 A 43 91 A 67
91 A 70
91 A 77
91 A 23H
91 A 42
91 A 49
91 A 68
91 A 23G
91 A 41
91 A 69
91 A 39A 91 A 66
91 A 79
91 A77A
91 A 78
91 A 23F
91 A 2A
91 A 64
91 A 65
91 A 67B
91 A 80
91 A 23E 91 A 40
91 A 50A
91 A 62 91 A 81
91 A 23D 91C 1 191C 1 2
91 A 23C 91 A 50
91C 1 391C 1 491C 1 5 91 A 82
91 7 1 2
91 A 38B 91 A 38 91 A 63
91 A 60
91C 1 891C 1 9
91 A 83
91C 1 7
91 A 51
91 A 52
91 A 57
91C 111A
91C 112A
91C 1 10
91 A 83A
91 A 9291B 6 1791B 6 15
91B 6 18 91 A 38
91C 113A
91B 6 10
91B A30B
91B 61 21B
91 A 55
91 A 54
91 A 59
91 A 85
91 A 84
91 A 83B
91B6 9
91B 6 25
91B 6 2391B 6 24
91 A 91A
91BA 4891B 6 26
91B A30C91B A 4491B A50A
91B A 42 91 A 86
91 A 91
91B 1C 3891B 1C 42
91B A46A 91B 23 13
91B 23 14
91 2 A
91 A 9091B 1C 35
91B 1C 39
91B 1C 32
91B 2 691B 2 791B 2 891B 2 10
91B 2 19
91B 23 16
91B 21 40
91 A 56
91 2 B
91B 1 B42A91B 1C 31 91B1 C 30
91B 1C 26 91B 21 5 91B 2 20
91B 21 35 91B 63 17 91B 63 16
91 A 8991B 1B 36
91B 1C 22
91B 21 26
91B 21 33
91B 62 791B 63 23
91B 63 10
91B 63 12
91 A89A
91B1 B 39
91B 1B 33 91B 1C 17
91B 1C 21 91B1 C 18
91B 1C 1491B 1C 16
91B A 3991B 5 2 91B 63 26
91B A 3591B 63 31 91B 63 8
91 A 89C91B 1 A22B
91B 1 B27A 91B 31 17 91B 62 37 91B 63 6
Parcels
Building FootprintsB1 (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: June 17, 2014Staff: mruddy
PINs:91 - A - 67, 91 - A - 47, 91 - A - 47A, 91 - A - 62
PINs:91 - A - 67, 91 - A - 47, 91 - A - 47A, 91 - A - 62
0 1,000 2,000500 Feet
Text
Middletown Properties LLC
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
Reliance Road Area Land Use Plan
Adopted December 14, 2011. Amended (insert date) 2014
RELIANCE ROAD AREA LAND USE PLAN
- INCLUDING 2014 SEWER AND WATER SERVICE AREA (SWSA)
DESIGNATION
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
Reliance Road Area Land Use Plan
Adopted December 14, 2011. Amended (insert date) 2014
RELIANCE ROAD AREA LAND USE PLAN
In spring 2010, the Town of Middletown expressed interest in expanding its
boundaries to incorporate approximately 250 acres of land on the east side of
I-81, Exit 302, following Reliance Road. Shortly thereafter, the Reliance Road
Steering Committee (RRSC) was convened. The RRSC was composed of
representatives from the Town Council and the Board of Supervisors.
The RRSC met various times over the ensuing months. The Town
representatives also held a community meeting and met with individual
property owners within the study area to gain an understanding of the
interest of the property owners in terms of the Town’s desired boundary line
adjustment with the County, as well as future land use opportunities; these
meetings were summarized and presented to the RRSC by Town
representatives. It was noted that while approximately 37 acres of B2
Business General Zoning exists within the study area, only one site has been
developed and benefits from the Town’s water and sewer system: the 2.7
acre site occupied by an existing Exxon service station.
The RRSC also evaluated the existing transportation network in addition to
water and sewer availability. The RRSC considered the Foresight Middletown
plan (adopted into the Town’s Comprehensive Plan in 2005), which promoted
the implementation of a technology park east of the interstate. The results of
these findings led to the crafting of the Reliance Road Area Land Use Plan as a
means to illustrate the potential land uses, and the supporting transportation
and public water and sewer for the area, to foster further discussions.
The land use plan is envisioned to guide land use decisions for an area of
approximately 311 acres over the next 20 to 30 years. Recognizing the
Town’s current water availability, development within the study area will
initially be limited until an additional water supply is more readily available.
Additionally, policy enabling the Town to provide water and sewer service to
the County properties would require Board approval. The Board of
Supervisors, in approving this update to the area plan, expressly stated that
the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) will be the party responsible
for providing water and sewer in this area.
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
Reliance Road Area Land Use Plan
Adopted December 14, 2011. Amended (insert date) 2014
Land Use
The proximity of the study area to I-81, Exit 302, enhances the opportunities
for land uses that benefit from the interstate. As such, commercial and
technology uses would be most beneficial at this location.
The plan calls for the establishment of approximately 44 acres of commercial
uses that serve the travelling public, such as hotels, gasoline service stations,
and restaurants. The commercial opportunities would be located immediately
east of the interstate interchange, on the north and south sides of Reliance
Road. This is also the area where public water and sewer presently serves
the existing Exxon service station. These land uses could be implemented
through the B2 Business General Zoning District.
Technology uses are envisioned both north and south of Reliance Road,
covering approximately 259 acres. Based on the targeted businesses
identified by the Winchester-Frederick County Economic Development
Commission, the technology uses would include economic sectors such as:
Advanced Security, Assembly, Business Services, and Life Sciences. These
land uses would be implemented through the OM Office Manufacturing Zoning
District.
In recognition of the continuation of the agricultural and large lot residential
land uses adjacent to the study area, efforts should be implemented through
the rezoning and development process that mitigate and lessen the adverse
impacts that the commercial and technological uses may introduce.
Mitigation techniques such as 100-foot distance buffers and landscape
screening would be expected.
Transportation
While the existence of I-81, Exit 302, is a strong asset to the areas’
transportation network, the actual configuration of the interchange and its
close proximity of Buckton Road is not conducive to accommodating future
traffic demands. In order for the interchange to operate efficiently and
effectively in the future, it is essential to migrate the existing intersection of
Reliance and Buckton Roads further east, creating a greater separation
distance from the I-81 northbound on/off ramps. Increasing this separation
distance will avoid significant degradation of the interchange similar to what
has occurred at Exit 307 in Stephens City.
In rapidly growing areas, as noted in the Foresight Middletown plan,
controlling and coordinating the number, design and location of new access
points to major roadways is critical to maintaining the safety and capacity of
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
Reliance Road Area Land Use Plan
Adopted December 14, 2011. Amended (insert date) 2014
the road system as traffic volumes increase. Accordingly, access to Reliance
Road should be managed and limited. The plan calls for limiting Reliance
Road access to three points: a managed access entrance point in the vicinity
of Confidence Lane, and two appropriately spaced roundabout or signalized
intersections.
The initial access point onto Reliance Road would be established with the
relocation of Buckton Road. A second access point onto Reliance Road would
be established with the relocation of Huttle Road, to create a single
intersection on Reliance Road for relocated Huttle Road and a new road
servicing the southern land area.
These three Reliance Road access points would facilitate traffic movement
to/from Reliance Road to the various future land uses to the north and south.
It may also be appropriate to utilize a roundabout at the relocated Buckton
Road intersection with Reliance Road as a means to define where the
developed portion of Reliance Road ends and the rural land uses of the
County begin. A similar technique was suggested by the Foresight
Middletown plan as a means to create an entrance to the developed area.
Finally, the Foresight Middletown plan calls for Reliance Road within the Town
limits to be a boulevard with a landscaped median; the Reliance Road Area
Land Use Plan carries this design concept forward east of the interstate.
Consistent application of Comprehensive Plan goals to achieve an acceptable
level of service on area roads and overall transportation network, level of
service C or better, should be promoted. Further, efforts should be made to
ensure that additional degradation of the transportation beyond an acceptable
level of service shall be avoided. Consideration of future development
applications within the study area should only occur when an acceptable level
of service has been achieved and key elements and connections identified in
this plan have been provided.
Water and Sewer
The Town recently completed an upgrade to its wastewater treatment facility
which enables it to treat upwards of 400,000 gpd. Reflective of the slowing
economy and the Town’s limited water availability, the wastewater facility is
currently operating at less than 30 percent capacity; the facility is available to
service future wastewater demands.
Existing limitations in water availability and the conveyance lines under the
interstate may hinder development in the near future. As the Town secures
additional water availability, upgrades to the conveyance system could easily
be undertaken.
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
Reliance Road Area Land Use Plan
Adopted December 14, 2011. Amended (insert date) 2014
Reflective of current water availability, the Town is positioned to dedicate up
to 18,000 gpd of water to development on the east side of I-81. This
available water resource could facilitate an initial expansion of the commercial
land uses to include a hotel, expanded gasoline service station/convenience
center, and a restaurant. Any additional commercial uses would certainly
warrant additional water resources.
Development of the technology park land uses will be limited until additional
water resources are identified and available. Technology uses that require
limited water resources would certainly be more desirable initially, until the
expanded water supply has been secured and accessible.
Potential Signalor Roundabout
Right - InRight - OutEntrances
Re-RouteBuckton Rd
Re-RouteBuckton Rd
Re-RouteBuckton Rd
Potential Signalor Roundabout
Re-RouteHuttle Rd
M
o
l
l
y
B
o
o
t
h
R
u
n
Dry
R
u
n
Molly Bo
o
t
h
R
u
n
Flood ZoneA
MiddletownVirginia
R
E
L
I
A
N
C
E
R
D
HUTTLE RDS BUCK
T
O
N
R
D
N BUC
K
T
O
N
R
D
CONF
I
D
E
N
C
E
L
N
FIR
S
T
S
T
CARO
L
Y
N
A
V
E
MAIN S
T
CHUR
C
H
S
T
MAR
K
D
R
SH
A
W
N
D
R
DEPE
N
D
E
N
C
E
L
N
ARLEN
E
C
T
S B
U
C
K
T
O
N
R
D
ST842
ST627
STT-627
ST842
ST842
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
Road Abandonment
Proposed Transportation
Reliance Rd SWSA (apprx 311 ac)
Land Use
Highway Commercial (apprx 44 ac.)
Mixed - Use Industrial Office (apprx 259 ac.)
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles
1) There is potential that additional through lanes
would be needed depending upon the scope of
development.
2) This change would require a traffic study under
chapter 527. This study would give the needed
information to refine roadway system improvement
expectations.
Reliance Road Area
Land Use Plan
Area Plan
2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan Map
Approved: December 14, 2011F
R
elia
n
c
e
R
oad
A ban don ol d B u ck t o n R d
A b a n d o n o l d H u t t l e R d
§¨¦81§¨¦81
STT-627
ST627
ST627
ST627
ST842
ST627
ST627
ST842
ST842
CATLETT LN
MAS
S
A
N
U
T
T
E
N
DR
LOSTPOND
C
T
FIFT
H
S
T
SENSEN
E
Y
AVE
ARLENE CT
CAROL
Y
N
AVE
SEC
O
N
D
S
T
THIR
D
S
T
MAIN ST
CHURCH
S
T
DEPEN
D
E
N
C
E
LN
PL
E
A
S
A
N
T
V
I
E
W
A
V
E
MA
R
K
D
R
FI
R
S
T
S
T
FOU
R
T
H
S
T
N B
U
C
K
T
O
N
R
D
SHA
W
N
D
R
RE
L
I
A
N
C
E
R
D
CON
F
I
D
E
N
C
E
L
N
HUTT
L
E
R
D
S
B
U
C
K
T
O
N
R
D
WARRENCOUNTYVIRGINIA
91 A 33
91 A 34
91 A 46A
91 A 46A
91 A 44A 91 A44B
91 A 45
91 A 71
91 A 47A
91 A 23A
91 A 46
91 A 72
91 A 35
91 A 23B
91 A 23J
91 A 39
91 A 44
91 A 71A
91 A 4791 A 23I
91 A 43 91 A 67
91 A 70
91 A 77
91 A 23H
91 A 42
91 A 49
91 A 68
91 A 23G
91 A 41
91 A 66
91 A 69
91 A77A
91 A 36
91 A 39A
91 A 67B
91 A 80
91 A 7991 A 78
91 A 23F
91 A 40
91 A 2A
91 A 62
91 A 64
91 A 65
91 A 23D
91 A 23E
91 A 50A
91C 1 1
91 A 81
91 A 50
91C 1 391C 1 2
91 71 2
91 A 23C
91 A 38
91 A 60
91C 1 491C 1 591C 1 6 91 A 82
91 A 83
91 A 38B
91 A 51
91 A 63 91C 1 10
91C 1 7
91C 1 9
91 A 52
91 A 57
91C 111A
91C 112A
91 A 83A
91 A 9291B A53B 91B 6 15 91C 113A
91B 6 14
91B A30B91B 6 2291B 6 121A
91 A 55
91 A 54
91 A 59
91 A 85
91 A 84
91 A 83B
91B 6 791B 6 8 91B 6 2491B 6 25
91B A 42
91B A50A
91 A 91A
91BA 48
91B 1C 44
91B 6 28
91B A 4791B A 4591B A30C
91B 23 13
91B 23 14
91 A 86
91 A 90 91 A 9191B 1C 39 91B 1C 3691B1 C 38 91B A46A
91B 23 12
91B A 41 91 A 56
91 2 A
91B 1 C 35A
91B 1C 35 91B 1C 32 91B 2 6
91B 2 9 91B 23 18
91B 5 13 91 2 B
91 A 89
91B 1 B42A 91B 1C 26 91B 21 391B 21 4
91B 21 24 91B 21 33 91B 21 36
91B 5 7 91B 5 1191B 5 12
91B 63 23
91B 63 16
91 A89A91B 1B 39A91B 1B 43
91B 1B 3691B 1C 25
91B 1C 21 91B 1C 20
91B 21 27 91B 5 3 91B 62 6
91B 63 26 91B 63 10
91B 63 12
91B 1A 22
91B 1 B31A91B 1B 32
91B 1C 15
91B 1C 16
91B A 3891B 1C 12 91B 62 12
91B6 2 2 91B 63 31
91BA 35
91B 63 8
91 A 89C
91 A 96B91B 1A 19 91B 1A 18
91B 1 B21A
91B 1B 24A
91B 1B 18 91B 31 1
91B 31 21 91B 63 4
91 A 101
91B 1 A14A 91B 31 4 91B 31 24 91B 62 28
91B A35A 91 A102A 91 A101B
Reliance Rd SWSA
Parcels
Building FootprintsB1 (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: June 17, 2014Staff: mruddy
PINs:91 - A - 67, 91 - A - 47, 91 - A - 47A, 91 - A - 62
PINs:91 - A - 67, 91 - A - 47, 91 - A - 47A, 91 - A - 62
0 1,000 2,000500 Feet
Text
Middletown Properties LLC
Text
Potential Signalor Roundabout
Right - InRight - OutEntrances
Re-RouteBuckton Rd
Re-RouteBuckton Rd
Re-RouteBuckton Rd
Potential Signalor Roundabout
Re-RouteHuttle Rd
M
o
l
l
y
B
o
o
t
h
R
u
n
Dry
R
u
n
Molly Bo
o
t
h
R
u
n
Flood ZoneA
MiddletownVirginia
R
E
L
I
A
N
C
E
R
D
HUTTLE RDS BUCK
T
O
N
R
D
N BUC
K
T
O
N
R
D
CONF
I
D
E
N
C
E
L
N
FIR
S
T
S
T
CARO
L
Y
N
A
V
E
MAIN S
T
CHUR
C
H
S
T
MAR
K
D
R
SH
A
W
N
D
R
DEPE
N
D
E
N
C
E
L
N
ARLEN
E
C
T
S B
U
C
K
T
O
N
R
D
ST842
ST627
STT-627
ST842
ST842
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
Road Abandonment
Proposed Transportation
Study Area (apprx 311 ac)
Land Use
Highway Commercial (apprx 44 ac.)
Mixed - Use Industrial Office (apprx 259 ac.)
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles
1) There is potential that additional through lanes
would be needed depending upon the scope of
development.
2) This change would require a traffic study under
chapter 527. This study would give the needed
information to refine roadway system improvement
expectations.
Reliance Road Area
Land Use Plan
Area Plan
2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan Map
Approved: December 14, 2011F
R
elia
n
c
e R
o
ad
A b a n d o n o l d B u c k t o n R d
A b a n d o n o l d H u t t l e R d
E
REZONING APPLICATION #01-14
Cowperwood FEMA
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: June 30, 2014
Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission: 07/16/14 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 08/13/14 Pending
PROPOSAL: To rezone 1.24+/- acres of an 18.34-acre property from RA (Rural Area) District to B2
(Business General) District with proffers. The balance of the property is to remain 16.53+/- M1
(Industrial, Light) District, and 0.57+/- RA (Rural Area) District.
LOCATION: The property is located on the west side of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 North) and is
located approximately 0.6 miles north of Interstate 81 Exit 317.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSION FOR THE 07/16/14 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING:
This is a request to rezone a small portion, 1.24 acres, of a larger 18.34-acre tract for the purpose of
enabling the property owner to subdivide the 1.24 acres from the parent tract as a new tax parcel. This
would then allow the existing single family residence to be on the 1.24-acre parcel, and the FEMA
Office complex on the balance of the property.
A Proffer Statement, dated February 14, 2014 and revised June 17, 2014, has been provided that limits
the development on the 1.24-acre parcel to the existing single family detached dwelling, ensures the
access to the property is via the existing entrance and does not permit any new connections to
Martinsburg Pike, and dedicates the appropriate amount of right of way (20’) for future improvements
to Martinsburg Pike.
The proposed commercial land use is consistent with the future commercial land use identified in the
2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast Land Use Plan and the property is within the Sewer and
Water Service Area (SWSA). The impacts associated with the change of use have been limited by the
scope of the proffer statement. Therefore, no additional impacts to Frederick County or the surrounding
property owners are anticipated.
Staff would recommend approval of the 1.24-acre rezoning request from RA (Rural Area)
District to B2 (Business General) District with proffers.
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 #01-14 Cowperwood FEMA LLC
June 30, 2014
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: 07 /16 /14 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 08/13/14 Pending
PROPOSAL: To rezone 1.24+/- acres of an 18.34-acre property from RA (Rural Area) District to B2
(Business, General) District with proffers. The balance of the property is to remain 16.53+/- M1
(Industrial, Light) District, and 0.57+/- RA (Rural Area) District.
LOCATION: The property is on the west side of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 North) and is located
approximately 0.6 miles north of Interstate 81 Exit 317.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall
PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 43-A-111
PROPERTY ZONING: M1 (Light Industrial) and RA (Rural Area)
PRESENT USE: FEMA Office and Single Family Residence
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
North: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential
South: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential
East RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential
West: M1 (Light Industrial) Use: Office
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
The impacts associated with the change of use have been limited by the scope of the proffer
statement. Therefore, no additional impacts to Frederick County or the surrounding property owners
are anticipated. Accordingly, the review agencies that reviewed the application were limited to the
County Attorney, County Planning, and County Transportation.
Rezoning #01-14 Cowperwood FEMA LLC
June 30, 2014
Page 3
Frederick County Attorney: The Proffer Statement is in a form to meet the requirements of the
Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia and is legally sufficient as a proffer
statement.
Planning & Zoning:
1) Site History
The 16.53-acre balance of this property that is presently zoned M1 (Light Industrial) was part of
the Rutherford’s Farm Industrial Park Rezoning approved in 2002.
The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) depicts the
zoning for the 1.24-acre portion for which the rezoning is being requested as R-3 (Residential-
General) District. On October 8, 1980, Parcel 43-A-111, in addition to Parcels 43-A-96, 43-A-
98, 43-A-99, and a portion of 43-A-97, were rezoned from R-3 to A-2 during a Comprehensive
Downzoning. The A-2 (Agricultural General) District zoning classification was modified to RA
(Rural Areas) District on February 14, 1990 during the comprehensive amendment to the
County’s Zoning Ordinance.
2) Comprehensive Policy Plan
The proposed commercial land use is consistent with the future commercial land use identified
in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast Land Use Plan and the property is within the
Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA).
3) Site Suitability/Environment
The site contains no identified environmental features or site development constraints.
Therefore, the site would be suitable for commercial development in the future.
4) Potential Impacts
The impacts associated with the change of use have been limited by the scope of the proffer
statement to the existing single family detached residence. Therefore, no additional impacts to
Frederick County or the surrounding property owners are anticipated.
In anticipation of future transportation needs in the Martinsburg Pike Corridor (as identified in
the Northeast Land Use Plan), the Applicant has worked with Transportation Planning and
VDOT to enable the dedication of 20’ of right of way across the property frontage, when
needed. This is consistent with the anticipated future right of way needs associated with this
project.
5) Proffer Statement
Development on the 1.24 acre parcel has been limited to the existing single family detached
dwelling. As this is proffered, this ensures that the potential impacts are limited.
(Dated February 14, 2014 and revised June 17, 2014)
Rezoning #01-14 Cowperwood FEMA LLC
June 30, 2014
Page 4
The proffer statement limits access for the existing single family dwelling to the existing
access drive, shared with FEMA. The proffer statement further expresses that additional
connections to Martinsburg Pike along the frontage of the property is restricted.
The proffer statement dedicates the appropriate amount of right of way (20’) for future
improvements to Martinsburg Pike.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 07/16/14 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
This is a request to rezone a small portion, 1.24 acres, of a larger 18.34-acre tract for the purpose of
enabling the property owner to subdivide the 1.24 acres from the parent tract as a new tax parcel. This
would then allow the existing single family residence to be on the 1.24-acre parcel and the FEMA
Office complex on the balance of the property.
A Proffer Statement, dated February 14, 2014 and revised June 17, 2014, has been provided that limits
the development on the 1.24-acre parcel to the existing single family detached dwelling, ensures the
access to the property is via the existing entrance and does not permit any new connections to
Martinsburg Pike, and dedicates the appropriate amount of right of way (20’) for future improvements
to Martinsburg Pike.
The proposed commercial land use is consistent with the future commercial land use identified in the
2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast Land Use Plan and the property is within the Sewer and
Water Service Area (SWSA). The impacts associated with the change of use have been limited by the
scope of the proffer statement. Therefore, no additional impacts to Frederick County or the surrounding
property owners are anticipated.
Staff would recommend approval of the 1.24-acre rezoning request from RA (Rural Area)
District to B2 (Business General) District with proffers.
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.
Cons
o
l
i
d
a
t
e
d
R
R
Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, November 2012 Data; Aerial Photo from 2010
RE
Z
O
N
I
N
G
ST
O
N
E
W
A
L
L
M
A
G
I
S
T
E
R
I
A
L
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
CO
W
P
E
R
W
O
O
D
F
E
M
A
L
L
C
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
FR
E
D
E
R
I
C
K
C
O
U
N
T
Y
,
V
I
R
G
I
N
I
A
DA
T
E
:
2
-
2
-
2
0
1
4
PR
O
J
E
C
T
I
D
:
2
7
9
5
J
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
B
Y
:
D
W
E
SC
A
L
E
:
1
I
n
c
h
=
2
0
0
F
e
e
t
Legend
Cowperwood FEMA LLC Property
Approx Area To Be Rezoned
Parcel Boundary
200 0 200 400
Feet
COWPERWOOD FEMA LLC PROPERTYAERIAL OVERVIEW
µ
CO
W
P
E
R
W
O
O
D
F
E
M
A
L
L
C
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
RE
Z
O
N
I
N
G
AE
R
I
A
L
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
AE
R
I
A
L
O
V
E
R
V
I
E
W
Cons
o
l
i
d
a
t
e
d
R
R
Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, November 2012 Data
RE
Z
O
N
I
N
G
ST
O
N
E
W
A
L
L
M
A
G
I
S
T
E
R
I
A
L
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
CO
W
P
E
R
W
O
O
D
F
E
M
A
L
L
C
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
FR
E
D
E
R
I
C
K
C
O
U
N
T
Y
,
V
I
R
G
I
N
I
A
DA
T
E
:
2
-
2
-
2
0
1
4
PR
O
J
E
C
T
I
D
:
2
7
9
5
J
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
B
Y
:
D
W
E
SC
A
L
E
:
1
I
n
c
h
=
2
0
0
F
e
e
t
Legend
Cowperwood FEMA LLC Property
Approx Area To Be Rezoned
Parcel Boundary
Frederick County Zoning
B2 (Business, General Distrist)
M1 (Industrial, Light District)
M2 (Industrial, General District)
RA (Rural Area District)
RP (Residential, Performance District)
200 0 200 400
Feet
COWPERWOOD FEMA LLC PROPERTYLOCATION and ZONING MAP
µ
CO
W
P
E
R
W
O
O
D
F
E
M
A
L
L
C
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
RE
Z
O
N
I
N
G
LO
C
A
T
I
O
N
a
n
d
Z
O
N
I
N
G
M
A
P
LO
C
A
T
I
O
N
a
n
d
Z
O
N
I
N
G
M
A
P
SITE
£¤11
W I N C H E S T E R
LOCATION MAP
OUTSIDE SWSA
INSIDE SWSA
IN
S
I
D
E
S
W
S
A
Cons
o
l
i
d
a
t
e
d
R
R
Baltimo
r
e
&
O
h
i
o
R
R
Co
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
e
d
R
R
Con
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
e
d
R
R
Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, November 2012 Data; FCSA 2014
RE
Z
O
N
I
N
G
ST
O
N
E
W
A
L
L
M
A
G
I
S
T
E
R
I
A
L
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
CO
W
P
E
R
W
O
O
D
F
E
M
A
L
L
C
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
FR
E
D
E
R
I
C
K
C
O
U
N
T
Y
,
V
I
R
G
I
N
I
A
DA
T
E
:
2
-
2
-
2
0
1
4
PR
O
J
E
C
T
I
D
:
2
7
9
5
J
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
B
Y
:
D
W
E
SC
A
L
E
:
1
I
n
c
h
=
4
0
0
F
e
e
t
Legend
Cowperwood FEMA LLC Property
Approx Area To Be Rezoned
Parcel Boundary
Sewer Water Service Area
Water Line
Sewer Line
200 0 200 400
Feet
COWPERWOOD FEMA LLC PROPERTYSWSA MAP
µ
CO
W
P
E
R
W
O
O
D
F
E
M
A
L
L
C
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
RE
Z
O
N
I
N
G
SW
S
A
M
A
P
SW
S
A
M
A
P
650
625
6
5
0
650
675
65
0
Cons
o
l
i
d
a
t
e
d
R
R
Baltimo
r
e
&
O
h
i
o
R
R
Co
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
e
d
R
R
675
70
0
650
650
675
675
675
675
675
7
0
0
675
67
5
70
0
7
2
5
650
700
675
72
572
5
675
700
700
675
700
7
2
5
Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, November 2012 Data
RE
Z
O
N
I
N
G
ST
O
N
E
W
A
L
L
M
A
G
I
S
T
E
R
I
A
L
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
CO
W
P
E
R
W
O
O
D
F
E
M
A
L
L
C
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
FR
E
D
E
R
I
C
K
C
O
U
N
T
Y
,
V
I
R
G
I
N
I
A
DA
T
E
:
2
-
2
-
2
0
1
4
PR
O
J
E
C
T
I
D
:
2
7
9
5
J
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
B
Y
:
D
W
E
SC
A
L
E
:
1
I
n
c
h
=
4
0
0
F
e
e
t
Legend
Cowperwood FEMA LLC Property
Approx Area To Be Rezoned
Parcel Boundary
Lake or Pond
Wetland
100 Year Floodplain
Stream
5 Foot Intermediate Contour
25 Foot Index Contour
400 0 400 800
Feet
COWPERWOOD FEMA LLC PROPERTYENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES MAP
µ
CO
W
P
E
R
W
O
O
D
F
E
M
A
L
L
C
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
RE
Z
O
N
I
N
G
EN
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
F
E
A
T
U
R
E
S
M
A
P
EN
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
F
E
A
T
U
R
E
S
M
A
P
32B
14B
5B
6C
32B
Cons
o
l
i
d
a
t
e
d
R
R
Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, November 2012 Data
RE
Z
O
N
I
N
G
ST
O
N
E
W
A
L
L
M
A
G
I
S
T
E
R
I
A
L
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
CO
W
P
E
R
W
O
O
D
F
E
M
A
L
L
C
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
FR
E
D
E
R
I
C
K
C
O
U
N
T
Y
,
V
I
R
G
I
N
I
A
DA
T
E
:
2
-
2
-
2
0
1
4
PR
O
J
E
C
T
I
D
:
2
7
9
5
J
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
B
Y
:
D
W
E
SC
A
L
E
:
1
I
n
c
h
=
2
0
0
F
e
e
t
Legend
Cowperwood FEMA LLC Property
Approx Area To Be Rezoned
Parcel Boundary
Soils
14B, FREDERICK-POPLIMENTO LOAMS, 2 TO 7 PERCENT SLOPES
32B, OAKLET SILT LOAM, 2 TO 7 PERCENT SLOPES
5B, CARBO SILT LOAM, 2 TO 7 PERCENT SLOPES
6C, CARBO-OAKLET SILT LOAMS, VERY ROCKY, 2 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES 200 0 200 400
Feet
COWPERWOOD FEMA LLC PROPERTYSOILS MAP
µ
CO
W
P
E
R
W
O
O
D
F
E
M
A
L
L
C
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
RE
Z
O
N
I
N
G
SO
I
L
S
M
A
P
SO
I
L
S
M
A
P
!e !e!e!e!e !e!e!e!e !e !e !e!e !e !e!e
!e
!e
!e!e!e !e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e!e!e!e!e!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e!e
!e
!e!e!e !e!e!e
!e
!e !e !e!e!e!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e!e!e!e!e !e !e!e !e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e!e !e !e !e !e!e !e!e!e!e!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e!e
!e
!e
!e !e!e!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
!e!e
!e
!e
!e
!e
Stephensons Depot Battlefield
34-727 Rutherford's Farm
Cons
o
l
i
d
a
t
e
d
R
R
Baltimo
r
e
&
O
h
i
o
R
R
Co
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
e
d
R
R
Con
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
e
d
R
R
Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, November 2012 Data
RE
Z
O
N
I
N
G
ST
O
N
E
W
A
L
L
M
A
G
I
S
T
E
R
I
A
L
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
CO
W
P
E
R
W
O
O
D
F
E
M
A
L
L
C
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
FR
E
D
E
R
I
C
K
C
O
U
N
T
Y
,
V
I
R
G
I
N
I
A
DA
T
E
:
2
-
2
-
2
0
1
4
PR
O
J
E
C
T
I
D
:
2
7
9
5
J
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
B
Y
:
D
W
E
SC
A
L
E
:
1
I
n
c
h
=
5
0
0
F
e
e
t
Legend
Cowperwood FEMA LLC Property
Approx Area To Be Rezoned
Parcel Boundary
!e Rural Landmark
Civil War Battlefield
Stephensons Depot
500 0 500 1,000
Feet
COWPERWOOD FEMA LLC PROPERTYHISTORIC FEATURES MAP
µ
CO
W
P
E
R
W
O
O
D
F
E
M
A
L
L
C
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
RE
Z
O
N
I
N
G
HI
S
T
O
R
I
C
F
E
A
T
U
R
E
S
M
A
P
HI
S
T
O
R
I
C
F
E
A
T
U
R
E
S
M
A
P
43 A 99
43 A 99 43 A 112B
43 A 110
43 A 112A
43 A 113
43 A 108 43 A 134B
43 A 109
43 A 134
43 A 133
Cons
o
l
i
d
a
t
e
d
R
R
43 A 111
Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, November 2012 Data
RE
Z
O
N
I
N
G
ST
O
N
E
W
A
L
L
M
A
G
I
S
T
E
R
I
A
L
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
CO
W
P
E
R
W
O
O
D
F
E
M
A
L
L
C
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
FR
E
D
E
R
I
C
K
C
O
U
N
T
Y
,
V
I
R
G
I
N
I
A
DA
T
E
:
2
-
2
-
2
0
1
4
PR
O
J
E
C
T
I
D
:
2
7
9
5
J
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
B
Y
:
D
W
E
SC
A
L
E
:
1
I
n
c
h
=
2
0
0
F
e
e
t
Legend
Cowperwood FEMA LLC Property
Approx Area To Be Rezoned
Adjoining Property
Parcel Boundary
200 0 200 400
Feet
COWPERWOOD FEMA LLC PROPERTYADJOINING PROPERTIES MAP
µ
CO
W
P
E
R
W
O
O
D
F
E
M
A
L
L
C
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
RE
Z
O
N
I
N
G
AD
J
O
I
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
M
A
P
AD
J
O
I
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
M
A
P
F
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: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Public Meeting – Request to waive the public street requirements in
the Lake Frederick Development (Shenandoah)
DATE: July 10, 2014
Staff has received a request from Lawson and Silek, P.L.C., on behalf of Lansdowne
Development Group to waive the public street requirements within the Lake Frederick
(Shenandoah) Development. The applicant is requesting that the public streets be
waived to allow the development to be constructed with a complete network of private
streets with gated access.
The Lake Frederick Development is located on the western side of Route 522 South
(Front Royal Pike), south of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) and east of Route 636 (Hudson
Hollow Road). Existing primary access to this site is located on Route 522 South via Lake
Frederick Drive. This development consists of 926.27 acres of land zoned R5 (Residential
Recreational Community) District and is approved for a total of 2,130 residential dwelling
units. The details of the private road design are attached.
Staff is seeking a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of
Supervisors on this request to eliminate the public street requirement to allow the Lake
Frederick Development to be developed with a complete network of private streets.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Attachment: 1. Request Letter.
2. Road Details.
CEP/pd
1
Eric Lawrence
From:Chris Mohn <cmohn@bowmanconsulting.com>
Sent:Friday, July 11, 2014 10:13 AM
To:Candice Perkins
Cc:Eric Lawrence; Rick Lanham; Ty Lawson; Payman Homayouni
Subject:Lake Frederick - Private Street Waiver Exhibit
Attachments:Lake Frederick Private Street Waiver Exhibit.pdf; VDOT Pavement Design Guide.pdf
Importance:High
Hi Candice,
Attached is the typical section exhibit for the private street waiver request for Lake Frederick.
As you will see, the typical section follows a consolidated format that graphically specifies the required components of a
private street in Lake Frederick with a corresponding table of standards applicable to each of the four private street
types. Said table also indicates that the pavement section for all private street types will follow the VDOT Pavement
Design Guide, a copy of which is also provided for your records/reference. To further address the criteria of the Zoning
Ordinance, a series of notes specifying minimum standards for private street construction are included with the exhibit.
Assuming approval of the waiver, we will replace the multiple typical sections on the current MDP with the consolidated
information contained on the waiver exhibit for consistency and ease of administration. Of course, we will update the
street type labels on the Transportation Plan of the MDP as well (Sheet 5 of 6).
Please advise with any questions or if additional information is needed.
Regards,
Chris
Christopher Mohn, AICP | Director of Planning
Bowman Consulting
101 South Street, S.E. Leesburg, VA 20175
phone: 703.443.2400 | fax: 703.443.2425 | mobile: 540.771.7088
cmohn@bowmanconsulting.com | bowmanconsulting.com |
- Go Green! Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Virginia Department of Transportation
Pavement Design Guide
For
Subdivision
And
Secondary Roads
In Virginia
A companion reference to the Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements
Prepared by
Materials Division
Virginia Transportation Research Council
And
Maintenance Division
We Keep
Virginia Moving
First Printing ~ October 1973
Revised March 1993
Revised January1996
Revised August 2000
Revised July 2009
2
0
0
9
{Page Intentionally Blank}
Virginia Department of Transportation
Pavement Design Guide
For
Subdivision
And
Secondary Roads
In Virginia
Prepared by
Materials Division
Virginia Transportation Research Council
And
Maintenance Division
First Printing October 1973
Revised March 1993
Revised January1996
Revised August 2000
Revised July 2009
Virginia Department of Transportation ~ Pavement Design Guide (revised 2009)
i
DISCLAIMER
AND
PRECEDENCE OF LOCAL JURISDICTION ORDINANCES
This guide is intended to aid professional personnel knowledgeable in the field of pavement design.
Persons using this guide are responsible for its proper use and application. The Virginia Department of
Transportation and individuals associated with the development of this material cannot be held
responsible for improper use or application.
The pavement design procedures presented in this guide are for flexible pavements only and establish
minimum requirements. However, acceptable methods are referenced for the design of rigid pavement.
Where the subdivision ordinance of a locality has established a pavement design requirement that
exceeds the pavement design obtained by these procedures, then that design process shall govern.
However, these procedures shall govern the design of pavements for roadways under Department
jurisdiction.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This revision was completed by Mr. Mohamed Elfino, Mr. Roger C. Riner, and Mr. David Shiells in
cooperation with the rest of the District Materials Engineers; Mr. Harold Dyson, Mr. Donald French, Mr.
David Lee, Mr. Steven Mullins, Mr. Claud Riffe, Mr. Haroon Shami, Mr. Chaz Weaver, and Mr. Chung
Wu. Also inputs were received from Mr. Stan Hite, Mr. Bill Bailey, Mr. Affan Habib, Mr. Trenton Clark,
Mr. Mike Wells, Mr. Thomas Tate, Mr. Jeff Tabrizi, Mr. Travis Higgs, Mr. Sean Nelson, Mr. Bipad
Saha, Mr. Alexander Appea, Mr. Thomas Druhot, Mrs. Cleo Hill (editorial), Mr. Brian Diefenderfer, Mr.
Robert Hofrichter, and Mr. Kenneth M. Smith.
The encouragement and support of Mr. Charles A. Babish, State Materials Engineer, are greatly
appreciated.
This revision provides the following;
1. Clarification for the use of full depth asphalt directly on top of prepared subgrade.
2. Added clarity regarding the establishment of the design soil support value, when subgrade
stabilization or improvement is involved.
3. Updated design examples.
4. Referencing VDOT WP-2 standard for use on all full lane widening projects.
5. Improvement of the consistency of the lift thickness requirements between the Guide and the
Road & Bridge Specifications.
This document replaces earlier documents designated VHRC 73-R18, VHRC 73-R21, 1993, 1996, and
2000 for “Pavement Design Guide for Subdivision and Secondary Roads in Virginia” respectively.
Virginia Department of Transportation ~ Pavement Design Guide (revised 2009)
ii
{Page Intentionally Blank}
Virginia Department of Transportation ~ Pavement Design Guide (revised 2009)
iii
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Specifications and Additional Resources 1
Computer Software 1
Metric Conversions 1
Discussion of Design Variables 3
Projected Traffic in Terms of Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) 3
Soil Support Value (SSV) of the Roadway Subgrade Soil 3
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of the Roadway Subgrade Soil 3
Test Method 3
Soil Sampling 4
Soil Sample Frequency and CBR Tests for Design of
New Subdivision Streets
4
Soil Sample Frequency and CBR Tests for Design of
Secondary Road Projects
4
Relationship of Design CBR to Number of Tests Performed 4
Construction Factors 5
Resiliency Factor (RF) 5
Discussion of the Flexible Pavement Design Method 7
Thickness Equivalency Value (ax) 7
Thickness Index Value (D) 8
Design Procedures 9
Conventional Pavement Design Method 9
Determination of Design Traffic (Design AADT) 9
Design AADT for New Subdivision Streets 9
Design AADT for Secondary Roads 10
Design AADT When Percent Heavy Commercial Vehicles (%HCV) Exceeds
5.0%
10
Determination of Design CBR, Resiliency Factor (RF), and Soil Support Value (SSV) 11
Determination of Required Thickness Index (DR) 11
Choice of Materials and Pavement Layer Thickness 12
Alternative Pavement Design Method 12
Virginia Department of Transportation ~ Pavement Design Guide (revised 2009)
iv
Table of Contents - continued
Design Considerations 13
Practical Consideration for Thickness of Layers 13
Recommended Minimum and Maximum Limits 13
General Notes and Specifications 14
Subgrade, subgrade treatment or subbase 14
Aggregate Courses 14
Surface Course 15
Minimum Designs (Limited to Secondary Road Projects with AADT 50) 15
Design Methods for Rigid Pavement 15
Drainage Considerations for Flexible and Rigid Pavements 16
Index of Appendices
Appendix I Predicted Resiliency Factors, CBR and Soil Support Values 18
Appendix II Nomograph for Determining Required Pavement Thickness Index DR 24
Appendix III Paving Materials and Allowable Values 25
Appendix IV Flexible Pavement Design Worksheet for New Subdivision Streets 27
Appendix V Sample Pavement Design 29
Index of Tables & Figures
Table 1 Classification, Load Support Characteristic, and Resiliency Factor of
Common Soils in Virginia
6
Figure 1 Illustration of 2 and 3 layer pavement systems 7
Figure 2 Illustration of a 3 layer pavement design 8
Index of Equations
Equation 1 SSV = Design CBR x RF 3
Equation 2 DP = a1h1 + a2h2 + a3h3 + … + axhx 8
Equation 3 Design AADT(n) = Present AADT x [1 +(GR)]n 10
Equation 4 EPT = Pres. AADT + (20 x Number of HCV over 5.0%) 10
Equation 5 Design CBR = Average CBR x 2/3 11
Virginia Department of Transportation ~ Pavement Design Guide (revised 2009)
1
Introduction
The flexible pavement design method presented in this guide was developed by Dr. N. K. Vaswani, who
based it on the original AASHO Road Test Results of 1962 and reflects Virginia's design experience.
This guide is intended for the design of roadway pavements for new subdivision streets and for secondary
roads.
Two design methods are included in this guide:
A. Conventional Pavement Design Method, which requires a rigorous pavement design procedure.
The conventional flexible pavement design procedure may be divided into two parts:
1. The evaluation of design variables:
a. the traffic in terms of projected Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)
b. the soil support value of the subgrade.
2. Design considerations:
a. determination of the required Thickness Index of the pavement
b. the selection of paving materials based on the sum of the products of their
thickness and thickness equivalencies equaling or exceeding the required
Thickness Index value.
B. Alternative Pavement Design Method, which allows use of predetermined pavement designs for
qualifying, new subdivision streets.
Specifications And Additional Resources
Specifications for all materials, testing, construction, and installation can be found in the following
Virginia Department of Transportation documents:
• Road and Bridge Specifications and appropriate supplemental specifications
• Virginia Test Methods Manual
• Road and Bridge Standards.
Traffic information for existing VDOT maintained roadways can be obtained at the following internet
link - http://www.virginiadot.org/info/ct-TrafficCounts.asp
• Computer Software
Computer software developed by VDOT can be used for Subdivision and Secondary Roads pavement
design. It is available through the following link ”http://www.virginiadot.org/business/materials-download-
docs.asp” or by contacting the District Materials Engineers.
• Metric Conversions
The following metric conversion factors shall be used throughout this document.
1 inch = 25 mm 1 pound mass = 454 grams
1 foot = 300 mm 1 pound Force = 4.448 Newton
1 mile = 1.6 km 1 pound/in sq. = 6.895 Pascal
Virginia Department of Transportation ~ Pavement Design Guide (revised 2009)
2
{Page Intentionally Blank}
Virginia Department of Transportation ~ Pavement Design Guide (revised 2009)
3
Discussion of Design Variables
Projected Traffic in Terms of Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)
The method used to determine the Design AADT varies based on the project considered. Essentially, the
methods are as follows:
A. New Subdivision Streets
The traffic volume for subdivision streets shall be developed as specified in Appendix B (1) of
the Department’s Road Design Manual as referenced by the Secondary Street Acceptance
Requirements (SSAR). The traffic is subject to further adjustment as outlined in the “Flexible
Pavement Design Worksheet for New Subdivision Streets” of Appendix IV of this pavement
design guide.
B. Secondary Roads
Pavement design for existing Secondary Roads shall be based on the projected traffic volume for
the midpoint of the 20 year design period (i.e. 10 years) after completion of roadway
construction. A more complete discussion regarding this factor is found under the section
“Design Procedures.”
Soil Support Value (SSV) of the Roadway Subgrade Soil
The Soil Support Value of the subgrade soil is the product of the Design CBR and the soil Resiliency
Factor for the soil encountered, as expressed in Equation 1. SSV is used in conjunction with the design
traffic volume (Design AADT) to determine the minimum structure requirement (Required Thickness
Index) for the pavement.
SSV = Design CBR x RF Equation 1
Note: Subgrade soils that are very weak or have a very low resiliency factor
(i.e. SSV 2) should be stabilized or under cut.
A. California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of the Roadway Subgrade Soil
The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) is the ratio of the resistance to penetration exhibited by a
subgrade soil to that exhibited by a specimen of standard crushed stone base material. The
resistance of the crushed stone under standardized conditions is well established. The objective
of a CBR test is to determine the relative resistance of the subgrade material under the same
conditions.
The CBR of the subgrade soils is the principle component of the soil support value (SSV) used in
flexible pavement design to determine the required pavement thickness index.
1. Test Method
All CBR values are to be determined in accordance with "The Virginia Test Method for
Conducting California Bearing Ratio Tests" (Designation VTM-8). For each roadway, a
sufficient number of CBR tests must be conducted to determine the average CBR value for
the various soil types anticipated to be in the subgrade.
Virginia Department of Transportation ~ Pavement Design Guide (revised 2009)
4
2. Soil Sampling
Representative soil samples for CBR tests shall be taken from the top 12 inches of
the proposed grade by a qualified soils technician or engineer. If the subgrade soil
has been identified as fine grained (i.e. more than 35% passing the 200 sieve
according to AASHTO Classification System), Atterberg tests (Liquid and Plastic
limits) shall be run in addition to the normal sieve analysis, laboratory compaction
and CBR tests, so that an assessment of the potential need for subgrade
stabilization or undercut can be made. If indications of unstable conditions for
construction equipment are present, natural moisture content determinations should
also be made to aid in determining the appropriate method of stabilization/undercut
by comparison with the Atterberg Limits of the soils.
a. Soil Sample Frequency and CBR Tests for Design of New
Subdivision Streets
1) For streets less than 200 feet in length, one soil sample for
conducting AASHTO (AASHTO M 145) and Unified (ASTM D
2488) soil classifications and CBR test is required.
2) For streets 200 to 500 feet in length, at least two soil samples for
conducting AASHTO and Unified soil classifications and CBR
tests is required, which includes one at each intersection with an
existing state road.
3) For longer streets, one soil sample shall be taken at each
intersection with an existing state road plus one test sample every
500 feet in length, or portion thereof, is required for conducting
AASHTO and Unified soil classifications and CBR tests.
b. Soil Sample Frequency and CBR Tests for Design of Secondary Road
Projects
The District Materials Engineer should assure that sufficient CBR tests are
made to represent the various soils encountered on the project. This is to
assure that a reasonable estimate of the average subgrade CBR is
determined. The frequency of soil samples for secondary road projects will
be determined by the District Materials Engineer under the general
guidance of the Materials Division Manual of Instructions.
3. Relationship of Design CBR to Number of Tests Performed
Design CBR is a factor of the number of CBR test results available.
a. For five tests or less, the design CBR shall be the mathematical
average of these tests multiplied by two-thirds, rejecting any
obviously extreme value.
b. For more than five tests, the highest and lowest CBR values are
rejected and the Design CBR value shall be the mathematical
Virginia Department of Transportation ~ Pavement Design Guide (revised 2009)
5
average of the remaining CBR test values multiplied by a factor of
two-thirds.
The two-thirds factor provides the necessary safety margin to compensate
for any non-uniformity of the soil, and for any low test results not
considered when computing the average of the CBR sample values.
Furthermore, four days of soaking, as specified in the CBR test method,
does not necessarily give the minimum CBR strength of some soils. Thus,
the two-thirds factor would compensate for all such variations.
4. Construction Factors
The design CBR determination process assumes that the properly compacted subgrade soil
will produce a stable platform for pavement construction. If an unstable subgrade is
encountered, it should be undercut to a firm foundation and be replaced with adequately
compacted soil or aggregate materials or otherwise be stabilized by lime, cement, or the use
of a geotextile to produce a stable platform for construction equipment.
Subgrade compaction should be verified every 1000 feet before placement of the
subbase/base layer, with a minimum of two compaction tests per roadway. The compaction
shall be 100 percent of standard proctor (VTM-1) for all but gravely soils. Refer to Section
305.03 of The Road and Bridge Specification for compaction requirements for gravely
soils.
B. Resiliency Factor (RF)
1. When soil is repeatedly loaded, it undergoes both recoverable (elastic) and permanent
(plastic) deformation. The Resiliency Factor is a relative value that reflects a soil’s
elastic deformation characteristics and its ability to withstand repeated loading.
2. The smaller the elastic deformation the higher the degree of resiliency, and the better the
subgrade support. The subgrade soils in Virginia are divided into five load support
characteristics based on their degree of resiliency (see Table 1). The resiliency factor of
a given soil can be obtained most precisely if the soil classification is known.
Predicted regional resiliency factors are shown in Appendix I. These factors are valid
only when the in-situ moisture content of the subgrade soil is at or near optimum
moisture content.
The optimum moisture content is determined by AASHTO Test Method T 99, Method
A, as modified by VTM-1. Additional moisture content testing should be conducted
during construction if visual observations dictate. Soils with a moisture content of 20
percent above optimum may need special treatment or may need to be undercut and
replaced.
3. Evaluation of Soil Resiliency Factors
Three primary factors are considered in the evaluation of Soil Resiliency
Factors:
a. Soil Classification (based on AASHTO M- 145)
Virginia Department of Transportation ~ Pavement Design Guide (revised 2009)
6
b. Sand content (percent retained on No. 200 sieve)
c. Mica content
Determination of the mica content is to be done by visual observations.
Borderline cases of low or high mica content shall be decided by the District
Materials Engineer of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Use Table 1 to determine the soil resiliency factor, proceeding from the top to
the bottom and obtain the correct resiliency factor by the process of elimination.
Table 1
Classification, Load Support Characteristic, and Resiliency Factor
of
Common Soils in Virginia
Mica
Content Soil Classification
Load
Support
Characteristic
Resiliency
Factor
a) A-1 & A-3 Soils
b) A-4, A-5 and A-7 soils having a sand content greater
than 60% Excellent 3.0
A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7 soils having a sand content
between 40% and 60%. Good 2.5
Without
Mica
A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7 soils having a sand content
less than 40% Average 2.0
a) A-7-5 soil.
b) soil with low or trace mica content and having an
average group index (GI) below 5 Poor
c) A-2, A-5, A-6, and A-7-6 soils with low or trace mica
content
1.5
With Mica
Soils not within the category of Medium Low Resiliency
Soils and also contain mica. Very Poor 1.0
Virginia Department of Transportation ~ Pavement Design Guide (revised 2009)
7
Discussion of the Flexible Pavement Design Method
Subdivision and Secondary roads in Virginia usually consist of two or three layers of different materials
of varying depth over the subgrade. The two-and three-layer systems are shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 - Illustration of 2 and 3 layer pavement systems.
2 Layer System 3 Layer System
Pavement
Layer
Thickness
(inches)
Thickness
Equivalency
Pavement
Layer
Thickness
(inches)
Thickness
Equivalency
Surface h1 a1 Surface h1 a1
Base h2 a2 Base h2 a2
Subgrade Subbase h3 a3
Subgrade
The soil support value (SSV) and the design traffic volume (Design AADT) are used with the nomograph
(Appendix II) to determine the minimum structural requirement of the pavement, termed the Required
Thickness Index, expressed as DR. This minimum structure requirement is satisfied by providing materials of
known strength indices, termed Thickness Equivalencies (a), sufficient thickness (h) to develop a Pavement
Thickness Index (DP), which will equal or exceed DR. These variables are discussed in the following sections.
A. Thickness Equivalency Value (ax)
The thickness equivalency value (also known as Structural Layer Coefficient) of a given material
(ax, where x is the identity of the pavement layer) is an empirical relationship between the
Thickness Index (also known as Structural Number) and the thickness and it is a measure of the
relative ability of the material to function as a structural component of the pavement. Its value
depends on the type of the material and its location in the pavement structure. The thickness
equivalency values of paving materials are shown in Appendix III.
The thickness equivalencies of some materials differ depending on their location in the pavement
structure; higher when used in the base than when used in the subbase. For example, untreated
crushed aggregate has a thickness equivalency value of 0.6 when used in the subbase course and
1.0 when used in the base course. Cement treated aggregate and select materials types I and II are
considered similarly, see Appendix III.
Investigation and experience has shown that the strength of cement treated native soils or borrow
materials (e.g., select materials type II and select borrow) vary depending upon their physical and
chemical properties. For consistency and simplicity, the thickness equivalencies of such
materials are assumed to be the same whether they are placed in the base or in the subbase.
In 2-layer pavement systems, if the thickness of the lower layer is 8 inches or less, the lower layer is
designated the base layer. However, if the thickness is greater than 8 inches, that portion which
exceeds 8 inches in thickness is considered a subbase layer and the pavement structure computed as a
3-layer system, with the subbase layer thickness being the thickness of the lower layer reduced by 8
inches.
Example: In a 2-layer system having 12 inches of aggregate in the lower layer, the Base is
treated as 8" with an equivalency of 1.0 and a Subbase of 4" with an equivalency of
0.6
(i.e. h2 = 8 inches, a2 = 1.0 and h3 = 4 inches, a3 = 0.6).
Virginia Department of Transportation ~ Pavement Design Guide (revised 2009)
8
The thickness equivalency values of new paving materials must be evaluated relative to
established thickness equivalencies as each material is introduced.
B. Thickness Index Value (D)
The Thickness Index (D) is the total structure of the pavement based on its resistance to a
deflection caused by a wheel load. The minimum thickness index required, based on the SSV of
the subgrade and design traffic volume (Design AADT), is denoted with the symbol DR and is
obtained from the nomograph (Appendix II). The thickness index value of a pavement design is
denoted by the symbol DP and is obtained by Equation 2 below. A potentially acceptable
pavement design is derived when DP equals or exceeds DR (i.e. DP DR).
DP = a1h1 + a2h2 + a3h3 + … + axhx Equation 2
Where: a1, a2, and a3 are the thickness equivalencies of the surface, base and subbase layers, and h1,
h2, and h3 represent the thickness in inches of the surface, base, and subbase layers, respectively. In
the case of a two-layer system a subbase may not be provided; in this instance, a3h3 = 0.
Figure 2 - Illustration of a 3-layer pavement design using values from Appendix III in Equation 2.
Pavement
Layer Material
Thickness
inches
(hx)
Thickness
Equivalency
Value
(ax)
(hx) X (ax)
Surface 165 P/SY Asphalt Concrete SM-9.5A 1.5 2.25 1 3.38
Base 3” Asphalt Concrete BM-25.0A 3.0 2.25 6.75
Subbase Untreated Aggregate (21B) 6.0 0.60 3.6
Subgrade DP = a1h1 + a2h2 + a3h3 = 13.73
1 Note: The higher thickness equivalency value is used for the surface and base material because the
combined thickness of the asphalt concrete equals 4.5 inches. Refer to footnote, Appendix III
Virginia Department of Transportation ~ Pavement Design Guide (revised 2009)
9
Design Procedures
New subdivision street pavement designs are to be developed using the “Flexible Pavement Design
Worksheet for New Subdivision Streets” (Appendix IV), which the developer shall submit with the
design documents for each new subdivision street. Certain new subdivision streets (with a low traffic
volume) may qualify to use the Alternative Pavement Design Method.
Pavement designs for secondary road projects, including developer projects augmenting, realigning, or
relocating secondary roads, are to be developed using the Conventional Pavement Design Method.
Conventional Pavement Design Method
A. Determination of Design Traffic (Design AADT)
The Design AADT used to determine DR from the nomograph in Appendix II, assumes the traffic
volume is equally distributed in both directions. In addition the lane distribution shall be
considered as follows:
a. For all new subdivision streets and two-lane secondary road facilities (one lane
in each direction), including the initial two lane phase of a four lane facility
when that phase is expected to sustain two-way traffic for an appreciable length
of time; the Design AADT shall be the full traffic volume of the roadway.
b. The Design AADT for multi lane facilities, except as restricted in paragraph a,
shall be 80% of the full roadway traffic volume for 4-lanes (two lanes in each
direction) and 70% for 6-lane facilities.
For traffic volumes exceeding 10,000 AADT, the actual truck count and classification needs to
be determined and serious consideration shall be given to designing the pavement as a primary
road facility rather than as a secondary road or new subdivision street. A truck equivalency factor
may be used to convert the truck traffic to an 18 Kip Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL), using
0.46 for each single unit truck and 1.05 for each tractor trailer truck. Designers should check with
the District Materials Engineers for updated equivalency factors.
Once the ESAL's are available, the pavement can be designed using the “1993 AASHTO Guide
for Design of Pavement Structures” in conjunction with the Department’s “Guidelines for 1993
AASHTO Pavement Design”.
1. Design AADT for New Subdivision Streets
Design AADT for new subdivision streets shall be determined as described in the current
edition of Appendix B(1) of the Department’s Road Design Manual, subject to any
adjustment as may be indicated in Step 1 of the “Flexible Pavement Design Worksheet
for New Subdivision Streets” (Appendix IV) and as further explained in paragraph 3,
“Design AADT When Percent Heavy Commercial Vehicles (%HCV) Exceeds 5.0%.”
Therein, the term ‘present traffic’ shall be synonymous with the term ‘projected traffic’
when new subdivision streets are considered.
Virginia Department of Transportation ~ Pavement Design Guide (revised 2009)
10
2. Design AADT for Secondary Roads
The Design AADT for an improvement to the secondary roads system shall be
determined by Equation 3:
Design AADT (n) = Present AADT x [1 +(GR.)]n Equation 3
Where: Design AADT is the Annual Average Daily Traffic volume
projected for the design year (typically the 10th year after construction is
complete) and “n” is the number of years between the design year and
the year of the present traffic volume (AADT).
The Present AADT is the current traffic volume (AADT) in both
directions, determined from an actual traffic count or from preliminary
engineering estimates, provided/approved by VDOT's Traffic
Engineering or Transportation Planning Divisions.
GR. is the Growth Rate percentage expressed as a decimal
(i.e. 5% GR. = 0.05), which may be based on actual historical traffic data
or from estimates made by Traffic Engineering Division. The
expression [1 + (GR.)]n yields the "Growth Factor" based on the
anticipated annual rate of growth of traffic.
Example: If the Present AADT = 700 for Year 2009, the GR. = 3.6%, and
the Roadway Construction is to be completed in Year 2012.
Then: 10th Year after Construction = 2012 + 10 = 2022;
Thus, n = 2022 - 2009 = 13 and Equation 3 yields:
Design AADT13 = 700 x [1 + (0.036)]13 = 700 x (1.036)13
= 700 x (1.584) = 1109 AADT in Year 2022
3. Design AADT When Percent Heavy Commercial Vehicles (%HCV) Exceeds 5.0%
The nomograph in Appendix II assumes the number of Heavy Commercial Vehicles
(HCV), defined as trucks, buses, etc., having 2 or more axles and 6 or more tires, does
not exceed 5.0% of the total traffic volume (AADT). When the design traffic volume
includes more than 5.0% HCV, each heavy commercial vehicle above the 5.0% level is
considered equal to twenty (20) typical (i.e. non-HCV) vehicles. An Equivalent Present
Traffic volume (EPT) representing this adjustment is calculated by Equation 4, the
results of which are to be substituted for the Present AADT value used in Equation 3.
EPT = Pres. AADT + (20 x Number of HCV over 5.0%) Equation 4
{Note: Number of HCVs over 5.0% = (% HCV - 5.0%) x Present AADT,
where (% HCV - 5.0%) is expressed as a decimal}
Example: If Present Traffic Volume = 1000 AADT, Percent Trucks = 8 %
Using Equation 4:
EPT = 1000 + {20 x [1000 x (0.08-0.05)]}
= 1000 + [20 x (1000 x 0.03)]
= 1000 + (20 x 30)
= 1000 + 600 = 1600 AADT
Virginia Department of Transportation ~ Pavement Design Guide (revised 2009)
11
B. Determination of Design CBR, Resiliency Factor (RF), and
Soil Support Value (SSV)
1. The Design CBR, as discussed earlier, is the product of the average values of the CBR
test results and a safety factor of 2/3, expressed as Equation 5.
Design CBR = Average CBR x 2/3 Equation 5
2. Determination of Resiliency Factor (RF)
The Resiliency Factor (RF) may be determined by one of the following methods:
a. Table 1
b. Appendix I - Predicted Regional Resiliency Factors, which are shown
graphically for the state and in a listing by county. These values are to be
considered maximum values unless otherwise approved by the District Materials
Engineer.
c. Obtained from the District Materials Engineer.
3. Determination of Soil Support Value (SSV)
The Soil Support Value (SSV) is the product of the Design CBR and RF, as expressed in
Equation 1 (SSV = Design CBR x RF), and has a maximum value of 30.
4. Preliminary pavement designs may use the predicted SSV values from Appendix I.
However, when the soil moisture content exceeds the plastic limit, and approaches the
liquid limit, the predicted values in Appendix I should not be used and a maximum SSV
of 2 should be used. Pavement designs for new subdivision streets shall be considered
preliminary designs, not approved for construction, until substantiated by acceptable
test results of the subgrade soil. Approval of the final design shall be obtained prior to
construction of the pavement.
5. Even if lime or cement stabilization of the roadway subgrade is to be considered, the Soil
Support Value is based on tests of the non-stabilized soils. Only in the rare case where
multiple layers are stabilized for a total stabilized depth of 2 feet or more may the SSV
be based on tests of the stabilized soil.
6. Where undercutting and backfilling with dense graded aggregate material or unusually
high CBR native soil material is necessary to provide a stable construction platform, the
Soil Support Value is still to be based on the native soil test results. The only exception
to this would be if the entire roadway subgrade is undercut and backfilled to a minimum
depth of 2 feet.
C. Determination of Required Thickness Index (DR)
The required thickness index (DR) is determined from the nomograph in Appendix II, by
projecting a straight line from the Soil Support Value (SSV), through the Design AADT value, to
intersect the Required Thickness Index scale, from which the minimum required Thickness Index
(DR) is read. Alternatively, computer software developed by VDOT can be used for pavement
design. It is available through the following link ”http://www.virginiadot.org/business/materials-
download-docs.asp” or by contacting the District Materials Engineers.
Virginia Department of Transportation ~ Pavement Design Guide (revised 2009)
12
D. Choice of Materials and Pavement Layer Thickness
After DR is determined, the pavement structure design can be derived, as earlier discussed and
illustrated in Figure 2, subject to the factors discussed in the sections “Design Considerations”
and “Drainage Considerations for Flexible and Rigid Pavements.”
Alternative Pavement Design Method
Acceptable, pavement designs for low traffic volume (Design AADT 400) new subdivision streets are
shown in Appendix IV (Tables A and B). These predetermined pavement designs may only be used in
conjunction with the “Flexible Pavement Design Worksheet for New Subdivision Streets” (Step 3A)
provided in Appendix IV.
For new subdivision streets and secondary road projects having a Design AADT greater than 400,
pavement designs must be determined using the Conventional Pavement Design Method, which is
accommodated in Step 3B of the “Flexible Pavement Design Worksheet for New Subdivision Streets.”
Virginia Department of Transportation ~ Pavement Design Guide (revised 2009)
13
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
After the Required Thickness Index (DR) of the pavement has been determined, the choice of materials
and the thickness of the layers for the pavement design are primarily at the discretion of the pavement
designer. These decisions are usually based on dollar value, structural adequacy, pavement serviceability,
historical data, experience, availability of materials, ease of construction, maintenance of traffic, etc.
A. Practical Consideration for Thickness of Layers
The thickness of layers is related to practical considerations. The following are some of the
physical characteristics of materials to be considered:
1. The maximum obtainable density of aggregates and asphalt concretes.
2. The stability of asphalt concrete mixes.
3. The preparation of the subgrade (by providing a stabilized subgrade layer).
4. The weakness of thin layers of fairly rigid materials like asphalt concrete, and stabilized
soil layers.
5. Nominal aggregate size of the asphalt mix.
B. Recommended Minimum and Maximum Limits
The recommended minimum and maximum limits for the thickness of pavement layers are shown
in Appendix III, however, not less than 4.5 inches of asphalt concrete must be placed over
cement treated base/subbase material (CTA) as the surface/intermediate/base layer(s). In
addition, the following criteria shall be considered:
1. Maximum thickness of an asphalt concrete surface shall be 2 inches, except as follows:
a. When staged surfacing is required, a maximum of 2½ inches of surface is
allowable, provided the thickness of the final layer is not less than one inch and
at least one year’s time elapses between the placement of the initial and final
surfaces.
b. A maximum thickness of 3 inches is allowable when using Type IM-19.0A.
c. Six inches of full-depth asphalt concrete pavement is the minimum
recommended allowable thickness (surface mix and base mix) when placed
directly on the prepared subgrade, except as may be permitted by Tables A and B
in Appendix IV for qualifying new subdivision streets.
2. The maximum thickness of aggregate material used as the base layer shall be 8 inches
before considering any additional thickness as a subbase material.
3. Maximum combined thickness of the base and subbase aggregate layers is 12 inches.
Virginia Department of Transportation ~ Pavement Design Guide (revised 2009)
14
General Notes and Specifications
All full lane widening projects shall be in accordance with VDOT WP-2 standard
The following recommendations are based on the department’s design and construction experience:
A. Subgrade, Subgrade Treatment, or Subbase
1. The preparation of the subgrade should be in accordance with the current Virginia
Department of Transportation's Road and Bridge Specifications.
2. Local materials, free of organic matter that normally would be considered unsatisfactory
for use in construction, may be acceptable when stabilized with a stabilizing agent, such
as cement or lime. Lime or cement stabilized subgrades provide a sound foundation that
is a good investment when the traffic is likely to increase considerably. Additionally, this
practice may prove to be the most economical.
3. For soils having a high moisture content, treatment with lime or other pozzolanic
material (1% to 2% by weight), in lieu of undercutting, may be appropriate. However,
such lime treatment is not to be considered part of the pavement structure in calculating
the Thickness Index.
4. When cement stabilized subgrade is recommended, approximately 10% by volume
should be used. When lime is the subgrade stabilizing agent, approximately 5% by
weight should be used. If Select Material, Type II is used, cement stabilization is
required. In all cases, representative samples of the soil should be tested in accordance
with VTM-72 (for Cement) and VTM-11 (for Lime) to determine the optimal
percentage. If soil stabilization (cement or lime) is used, verification of the quantity of
stabilizing agent actually used will be required through the District Materials Engineer.
5. When cement stabilized aggregate is used over very weak soils (SSV 2), it should be
placed over a minimum of 4 inches of untreated aggregate.
6. Soil stabilization should be completed before the temperature drops below 40 degrees
Fahrenheit and, for best results, covered immediately with an untreated aggregate course
(provided that construction equipment does not damage the stabilized course) or an
asphalt seal.
7. Geotextile should be considered for subgrade stabilization, when the areas in question
represent a relatively small amount of the subgrade soils. This may prove more
economically feasible, in isolated cases, than the alternatives discussed above. Refer to
VDOT Road & Bridge Specifications regarding geosynthetics for subgrade stabilization
to select the proper strength requirements.
B. Aggregate Courses
1. Aggregate Base Materials are of two types and various sizes as shown below:
a. Type I - Aggregate base material (crushed material only) using size No. 21A, No.
21B or No. 22 aggregate. The coarser graded aggregate Size No. 21 B is
preferred for AADT over 1000.
b. Type II Aggregate base material (crushed or uncrushed material) using No. 21A,
or No. 22 size aggregate.
Virginia Department of Transportation ~ Pavement Design Guide (revised 2009)
15
2. All untreated aggregate used in base or subbase courses shall be No. 21B gradation,
except on roads with an ADT of 1000 or less; where No. 21A or No. 21B may be used.
When the No. 21B gradation is used, drainage concerns must be addressed. Use No. 21A
gradation if the aggregate is cement stabilized (i.e. CTA).
3. When a local aggregate material is stabilized with cement, approximately 8% by volume
should be used. When lime is used as the stabilizing agent, approximately 4% by weight
should be used.
In all cases, however, representative samples of the material should be tested to
determine the correct percentage of stabilizing agent. A minimum stabilized depth of 6
inches is required.
4. When cement treated aggregate (CTA) is proposed for use a minimum of 4.5 inches of
asphalt concrete should be used atop the CTA in order to retard reflection of the
shrinkage cracks from the CTA.
C. Surface Course
An asphalt concrete surface course of 220 pounds per square yard (2 inches thick), may be used
in lieu of a Class "C" or Class "D" blotted seal or a prime and double seal surface treatment (as
specified in all current L&D I&I memoranda).
D. Minimum Designs (Limited to Secondary Road Improvement Projects with AADT 50)
1. The base should consist of a minimum of 6 inches aggregate base material, Types I or II,
yielding a thickness index of 6.
2. The following minimum recommended design shall only be used when the road is to be
surface treated.
As an alternative, in areas containing borderline local materials but not meeting the
specifications for Type I or II base materials, the base may consist of a minimum depth
of 6 inches of select borrow having a minimum CBR value of 20. The select borrow base
should be stabilized with cement, 8% to 10% by volume, or approximately 40 pounds of
cement per square yard. The cement stabilized borrow should be surfaced with a curing
agent and double seal. In all cases, however, representative samples of the material
should be tested to determine the correct percentage of stabilizing agent.
DESIGN METHODS FOR RIGID PAVEMENT
The following rigid pavement design methods are acceptable: PCA, ACPA, and AASHTO. Stabilized
aggregate material or stabilized soil should be used under plain jointed concrete pavement when the
support soils are weak and truck traffic (%HCV) exceeds 5% of the total traffic volume.
In case of very weak or very low resiliency soils having CBR values less than 2, the soil should be
stabilized for a depth of six inches with cement, 10% to 12% by volume. Concrete shall be Class A-3
paving concrete according to the current Virginia Department of Transportation's Road and Bridge
Specifications and appropriate supplemental specifications. The concrete pavement shall be Plain Jointed
with a recommended joint spacing of 15 feet or Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (CRCP) is
also considered an acceptable option.
Virginia Department of Transportation ~ Pavement Design Guide (revised 2009)
16
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS FOR FLEXIBLE AND RIGID PAVEMENTS
The presence of water within the pavement structure has a detrimental effect on pavement performance
under anticipated traffic loads. The following are guidelines to minimize these effects:
a) Standard UD-2 underdrains and outlets are required under all raised grass medians to prevent
water infiltration through or under the pavement structure. Refer to the current VDOT Road
and Bridge Standards for installation details.
b) When Aggregate Base Material, Type I, Size No. 21B is used as an untreated aggregate base
or subbase, it shall be connected to a longitudinal pavement edge drain (UD-4) with outlets
to provide for positive lateral drainage on all roadways with a design AADT of 1,000
vehicles per day or greater. (Refer to the current VDOT Road and Bridge Standards for
installation details). The District Materials Engineers may waive the requirement for UD-4
installation in special instances, providing another means of pavement drainage such as cross
drains or “daylighting” of the subbase course is used. Other drainage layers can also be
used.
c) Undercutting, transverse drains, stabilization, and special design surface and subsurface
drainage installations should be considered whenever necessary to minimize the adverse
impacts of subsurface water on the stability and strength of the pavement structure.
d) Standard CD-1 and CD-2 for cut to fill and vertical sags respectively should be considered
for use with all types of unstabilized aggregates.
e) For roadways with a design AADT of 20,000 vehicles per day or greater, an Open Graded
Drainage Layer (OGDL) need to be considered, and when used it shall be placed on not less
than 6-inches of stabilized material and connected to a UD-4 edge drain system.
f) Where cement treated aggregate (CTA) is the only aggregate used in a pavement structure,
UD-4 pavement edge drains are not normally required.
For additional information see Report Number FHWA-TS-80-224, Highway Sub-drainage Design from
the US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
Virginia Department of Transportation ~ Pavement Design Guide (revised 2009)
17
{Page Intentionally Blank}
Virginia Department of Transportation ~ Pavement Design Guide (revised 2009)
18
APPENDIX I
Predicted Resiliency Factors, CBR and Soil Support Values
Values may be used for preliminary pavement design only. Final designs must be based on soil tests.
NOTE
Appendix I shall not be used and SSV shall not exceed a value of 2 when the moisture content of the soil exceeds
the plastic limit, approaching the liquid limit (e.g. high water table or other reasons).
1
1.52
2.5
3
1
2
3
Regional Chart of Soil Resiliency Factors
Table of Values by County
County Code County RF CBR SSV
00 Arlington W. of Rte. 95 1.0 7 7
E. of Rte. 95 3.0 10 30
01 Accomack 3.0 7 21
02 Albemarle E. of Rte. 29 1.0 4 4
W. of Rte. 29 1.0 5 5
03 Alleghany 2.0 5 10
04 Amelia 1.5 6 9
05 Amherst 1.5 5 7.5
06 Appomattox 1.5 5 7.5
07 Augusta 2.0 6 12
08 Bath 2.0 5 10
09 Bedford 1.5 5 7.5
10 Bland 2.0 6 12
11 Botetourt. From the western base of the Blue
Ridge Mountains to the east
1.5 4 6
Remainder of county. 2.0 4 8
12 Brunswick 1.5 7 10.5
Virginia Department of Transportation ~ Pavement Design Guide (revised 2009)
19
APPENDIX I continued
Table of Values by County
County Code County RF CBR SSV
13 Buchanan 2.0 6 12
14 Buckingham 1.5 5 7.5
15 Campbell 1.5 5 7.5
16 Caroline W. of Rte. 2 2.5 10 25
E. of Rte. 2 3.0 10 30
17 Carroll 1.0 8 8
18 Charles City 3.0 10 30
10 Charlotte 1.5 5 7.5
* 131 Chesapeake 3.0 6 18
20 Chesterfield SW of a line from Mosley to
Colonial Heights
1.5 6 9
Remainder of County 2.5 9 22.5
21 Clarke 2.0 6 12
22 Craig 2.0 4 8
23 Culpeper E. of Rtes. 229 and 15S 1.0 4 4
W. of Rtes. 229 and 15S 1.0 5 5
24 Cumberland 1.5 6 9
25 Dickenson 2.0 6 12
26 Dinwiddie 1.5 6 9
28 Essex 3.0 10 30
29 Fairfax E. of Rte. 95 3.0 7 21
W. of Rte. 95 1.0 4 4
30 Fauquier N. of Rte. 211 2.0 4 8
S. of Rte. 211 1.0 4 4
31 Floyd 1.0 8 8
32 Fluvanna 1.5 4 6
33 Franklin 1.0 8 8
34 Frederick 2.0 6 12
35 Giles 2.0 7 14
36 Gloucester 3.0 10 30
37 Goochland W. of Rte. 522 1.5 7 10.5
E. of Rte. 522 2.5 7 17.5
38 Grayson 1.0 5 5
Virginia Department of Transportation ~ Pavement Design Guide (revised 2009)
20
APPENDIX I continued
Table of Values by County
County Code County RF CBR SSV
39 Greene 1.0 5 5
40 Greensville E. of Rte. 95 3.0 9 27
W. of Rte. 95 1.5 9 13.5
41 Halifax 1.5 8 12
* 114 Hampton 3.0 9 27
42 Hanover E. of Rte. 95 3.0 10 30
W. of Rte. 95 and E. of Rte. 715 2.5 6 15
W. of Rte. 715 1.5 6 9
43 Henrico W. of Rte. 95 2.5 7 17.5
E. of Rte. 95 3.0 7 21
44 Henry 1.0 8 8
45 Highland 2.0 6 12
46 Isle of Wight 3.0 9 27
47 James City 3.0 6 18
48 King George 3.0 10 30
49 King and Queen 3.0 10 30
50 King William 3.0 10 30
51 Lancaster 3.0 10 30
52 Lee 2.0 6 12
53 Loudoun W. of Rte. 15 2.0 4 8
E. of Rte. 15 1.0 4 4
54 Louisa 1.5 5 7.5
55 Lunenburg 1.5 5 7.5
56 Madison 1.0 5 5
57 Mathews 3.0 10 30
58 Mecklenburg 1.5 7 10.5
59 Middlesex 3.0 10 30
60 Montgomery 2.0 5 10
61 City of Suffolk 3.0 9 27
62 Nelson 1.5 5 7.5
63 New Kent 3.0 9 27
* 121 Newport News 3.0 9 27
* 122 Norfolk 3.0 9 27
Virginia Department of Transportation ~ Pavement Design Guide (revised 2009)
21
APPENDIX I continued
Table of Values by County
County Code County RF CBR SSV
65 Northampton 3.0 7 21
66 Northumberland 3.0 10 30
67 Nottoway 1.5 8 12
68 Orange N. of Rte. 20 & E. of Rte. 522 1.0 6 6
N. of Rte. 20 & W. of Rte. 522 1.0 5 5
S. of Rte. 20 & E. of Rte. 522 1.5 6 9
S. of Rte. 20 & W. of Rte. 522 1.5 5 7.5
69 Page W. Alma 2.0 6 12
E. Alma 1.0 6 6
70 Patrick 1.0 8 8
71 Pittsylvania 1.5 8 12
72 Powhatan W. of Rte. 522 & of Rte. 609 1.5 7 10.5
E. of Rte. 522 & of Rte. 609 2.5 7 17.5
73 Prince Edward 1.5 5 7.5
74 Prince George 3.0 8 24
76 Prince William W. Rte. 95 1.0 4 4
E. Rte. 95 3.0 7 21
77 Pulaski 2.0 5 10
78 Rappahannock N. Flint Hill 2.0 5 10
S. Flint Hill 1.0 5 5
79 Richmond 3.0 10 30
80 Roanoke 2.0 7 14
81 Rockbridge W. of the James, Maury and South
Rivers
2.0 5 10
E. of the James, Maury and South
Rivers
1.5 5 7.5
82 Rockingham W. of Rte. 81 2.0 6 12
E. of Rte. 81 1.0 6 6
83 Russell 2.0 6 12
84 Scott 2.0 6 12
85 Shenandoah 2.0 6 12
86 Smyth 2.0 6 12
87 Southampton 3.0 9 27
Virginia Department of Transportation ~ Pavement Design Guide (revised 2009)
22
APPENDIX I continued
Table of Values by County
County Code County RF CBR SSV
88 Spotsylvania W. of Rte. 95 1.5 6 9
E. of Rte. 95 2.5 10 25
89 Stafford W. of Rte. 95 1.0 6 6
E. of Rte. 95 3.0 10 30
90 Surry 3.0 9 27
91 Sussex W. of Rte. 95 1.5 9 13.5
E. of Rte. 95 3.0 9 27
92 Tazewell 2.0 6 12
* 134 Virginia Beach N. of Rte. 44 3.0 9 27
S. of Rte. 44 3.0 6 18
93 Warren 2.0 6 12
95 Washington 2.0 6 12
96 Westmoreland 3.0 10 30
97 Wise 2.0 6 12
98 Wythe 2.0 6 12
99 York 3.0 7 21
* Note: Arlington County, Henrico County, and independent cities identified with a “County Code”
greater than 99 have administrative jurisdiction over their own transportation facilities.
Consequently, for the development of new subdivision streets, the provisions of this guide
may not apply in those jurisdictions and developers are encouraged to seek the guidance of
appropriate authorities in those areas. However, these provisions shall apply in those
jurisdictions for all Department managed projects.
Virginia Department of Transportation ~ Pavement Design Guide (revised 2009)
23
{Page Intentionally Blank}
Virginia Department of Transportation ~ Pavement Design Guide (revised 2009)
24
Appendix II
Nomograph for Determining Required Pavement Thickness Index DR
(Note: An enlarged version of this nomograph is provided on the last page of this reference.)
Final pavement design must be based on the results of appropriate soil tests.
Preliminary designs may be based on values established in Appendix I.
To determine DR, project a line from the value for SSV through the value for the Design AADT.
The nomograph depicted correlates the soil support value of the subgrade (SSV = Design CBR x RF), the
traffic volume (Design AADT), and the minimum required pavement design thickness index (DR) for
subdivision streets and secondary road pavement, based on AASHO design equations. The equation on
which the nomograph is based is: DR = 3.48Ln (AADT) – 1.48Ln (SSV) - 7.23, where Ln is the natural
logarithm. This nomograph assumes the following:
1. Use of Design AADT for two way traffic, equally distributed, thereby deriving the thickness
index (DR) required for any portion of the pavement to support one-half of the design AADT.
2. For DR greater than 20, staged construction providing an initial stage DR value of 20 may be
permitted or the road can be designed using primary pavement methodology.
3. The District Materials Engineer may consider reducing the minimum DR value of 6.4 for
secondary system facilities having a Design AADT <50.
S S V
S c a l e D e s i g n A A DT
S c a l e
T h i c k n e s s I n d e x
S c a l e
D R
o r m o r e
M i n i m u m
Example
DR = 10.7 (interpolated)
for design parameters
SSV = 11 and Design AADT = 480
(interpolated)
Virginia Department of Transportation ~ Pavement Design Guide (revised 2009)
25
APPENDIX III
Paving Materials & Allowable Values Lift Thickness
Location
& Notation Material Material
Notation
Thickness
Equivalen
cy Value Min.
inches
Max.
inches
Max. No.
of Lifts in
a Design
Asphalt Concrete (SM-9.0A or D)1 1 1.5
Asphalt Concrete (SM-9.5A or D)1 1 1.52
Asphalt Concrete (SM-12.5A or D)1
A.C. 1.67 *
1.25 2
13
Surface
a1
Prime & Double Seal or Class “C” or D”
Blotted Seal Coat Surface Treatments 4 D.S. 0.84 — — 1
Intermediate
a1 Asphalt Concrete (IM-19.0A or D) 1 A.C. 1.67 * 2 3 1
Asphalt Concrete (BM-25.0A or D) 1 A.C. 1.67 * 2.5 4 Multiple6
Full Depth Asphalt Concrete (BM-25.0A
or D) over Subgrade1 A.C. 2.15 ** 2.5 4 Multiple6
Untreated Aggregate 5 Agg. 1.00 See Note5
Cement Treated Aggregate6 CTA 1.67
Base
a2
Cement Treated Select Material, Type II6,
min. CBR = 20 Sel. Mat. C 1.50
Multiple6
Select Material Type I & II, non-plastic5,
min. CBR = 30 Sel. Mat. 0.84 6 10 See Note5
Select Material, Type II, non-plastic5,
min. CBR = 20 Sel. Mat. 0.60
Soil Cement6 S.C. 1.00
Cement Treated Select Material, Type II6 Sel. Mat. C 1.17
Cement Treated Select Borrow6 Sel. Bor. C 1.00
Multiple6
Open Graded Drainage Layer OGDL 0.60 2 3 1
Untreated Aggregate 5 Agg. 0.60 See Note5
Cement Treated Aggregate6 CTA 1.33 Multiple6
Select Material Type I, non-plastic5,
min. CBR = 30 Sel. Mat. 0.50 4 10
Subbase
a3
Select Material Type II, non-plastic5,
min. CBR = 20 Sel. Mat. 0.40
See Note5
Soil Cement6 S.C. 1.00
Soil Lime6 S.L. 0.92
Cement Treated Select Material, Type II6 Sel. Mat. C 1.17
Cement Treated Select Borrow6 Sel. Bor. C 1.00
6 8
Multiple6
Virginia Department of Transportation ~ Pavement Design Guide (revised 2009)
26
Footnotes for Appendix III
1 When 4½ inches or more of any combination of Asphalt Concrete layers (surface + intermediate + base) is
called for on top of a subbase layer, the thickness equivalency value of 2.25 * shall be used for all the asphalt
concrete layers. When an asphalt base course is placed directly on subgrade, the resulting design is considered a
“Full-Depth Asphalt Concrete” pavement. The total depth of asphalt concrete layers (surface + intermediate +
base) in such pavement shall be at least 6 inches and an equivalency value of 2.15 ** shall be used for all the
asphalt concrete layers.
2 When to be placed directly upon an aggregate base course, a 2” minimum thickness is required and placement
in a single lift will be acceptable.
3 Two lifts of surface mix will be acceptable only under the case of phased construction where there will be at
least a year time lapse between placement of the initial lift and the final surface lift placement. The thicknesses
of the two lifts shall each conform to the minimum & maximum thicknesses in the table.
4 Prime and Double Seal Surface Treatment, in lieu of blotted seal coat surface treatment, may only be used as
outlined in Appendix IV (for new subdivision streets) and the current Location and Design Division I&I
Memorandum (for secondary road projects).
5 When plain aggregate materials are used in a design, the maximum combined thickness of base and subbase
layers shall be 12 inches for the purpose of calculating the thickness index value.
6 Multiple lifts of stabilized materials can be used in a design, as long as; they follow the General Notes and
Specifications on page 14 of this Guide.
Virginia Department of Transportation ~ Pavement Design Guide (revised 2009)
27
Appendix IV
Flexible Pavement Design Worksheet for New Subdivision Streets
This sheet is intended for use and submission in conjunction with VDOT’s Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements
County Date:
Subdivision
Street Name
Design Engineer Phone:
AADT Projected traffic for the street segment considered, as defined in the Subdivision Street Requirements.
CBRD Design CBR = Average of CBRT x 2/3 and modified only as discussed in the Pavement Design Guide.
CBRT CBR value of the subgrade sample, taken and tested as specified in the Pavement Design Guide
DME VDOT District Materials Engineer
EPT Equivalent projected traffic
HCV Number of Heavy Commercial Vehicles (e.g. trucks, buses, etc., with 2 or more axles and 6 or more tires).
%HCV Percentage of the total traffic volume composed of Heavy Commercial Vehicles.
RF Resiliency Factor = Relative value of the subgrade soil’s ability to withstand repeated loading.
SSV Soil support value of subgrade (SSV = CBRD x RF)
DP Thickness index of proposed pavement design computed by the Conventional Pavement Design Method
DR Thickness index required, based on Design AADT and SSV, determined by Appendix II.
Step 1: Determine Design AADT Step 2: Determine Design Values
CBR, RF, and SSV
AADT Sample No. CBRT Resiliency Factor (RF)
1 Source Value
2 Table 1
3 Appendix I
DME approved RF
%HCV = 100 ( HCV / AADT)
or
EPT = 20 x HCV
Note: For %HCV 5%, use AADT
_________
Note: For
%HCV>5%,
EPT>AADT
For preliminary designs, use the lowest
RF value in the equation
CBRD x RF = SSV Design AADT
Use greater of AADT or EPT
(_______) x (_______) =
Step 3: Pavement Design (Check appropriate box and show proposed pavement design below.)
(A) Limited to Design AADT 400 - Show pavement material notations and thickness from Appendix IV Tables A and B.
(B) Show pavement section as developed in the Pavement Design Guide.
(See Appendix III for material notations and thickness equivalency values (a)).
DR = ________
from Appendix II
Virginia Department of Transportation ~ Pavement Design Guide (revised 2009)
28
Appendix IV - Table A Alternate Pavement Design Selection Chart
This table is to be used only in conjunction with the Flexible Pavement Design Worksheet for New Subdivision Streets.
DESIGN AADT SUBBASE BASE SURFACE
1 8” Aggregate Base Material,
Type I, Size No. 21A
Blotted Seal Coat -
Type D (See Note A)
2 8” Soil Cement Stabilized
(Native Soil or Borrow)
Blotted Seal Coat -
Type C-1 (See Note A)
Up to 250
AADT
3 4” Select Material, Type I, II or
III, Minimum CBR 30
6” Aggregate Base Material,
Type I, Size No. 21A
Blotted Seal Coat -
Type D (See Note A)
4 4” Cement or Lime
Stabilized Subgrade
4” Aggregate Base Material,
Type I, Size No. 21A
Blotted Seal Coat -
Type D (See Note A)
5 6” Aggregate Base Material
Type I, Size No. 21B
7” Plain Jointed Portland
Cement Concrete
Design Option
shall only be used
when SSV 10
6 3” Asphalt Concrete,
Type BM-25.0
165 psy
Asphalt Concrete,
Type SM-9.5A or
SM-12.5A
1 6” Select Material
Type I or III, Minimum CBR 30
6” Aggregate Base Material,
Type I, Size No. 21A
Blotted Seal Coat -
Type D
2 6” Local or Select Material,
Minimum CBR 20, Stabilized
With Cement
Blotted Seal Coat -
Type C-1
251 - 400
AADT
3 10” Aggregate Base Material,
Type I, Size No. 21A
Blotted Seal Coat -
Type D
4 6” Cement Stabilized Subgrade 4” Aggregate Base Material,
Type I, Size No. 21A
Blotted Seal Coat -
Type D
5 6” Aggregate Base Material,
Type I, Size No. 21B
7” Plain Jointed Portland
Cement Concrete
Design option
shall only be used
when SSV 10
6 4” Asphalt Concrete,
Type BM-25.0
165 psy
Asphalt Concrete,
Type SM-9.5A or
SM-12.5A
Note A. For projected traffic volumes (Design AADT) up to 250 only, a prime and double seal surface may be
used in lieu of a blotted seal coat.
Appendix IV - Table B Alternative Pavement Design Selection Adjustments
This table may only be used in conjunction with Appendix IV, Table A and its intended purpose.
SSV Under 10 SSV 10 to 20 SSV Over 20 (Maximum 30)
For each 5 SSV units under 10, the
pavement design in Table A shall be
increased by 0.5 inches of asphalt concrete
or 1 inch of aggregate base material.
The pavement designs in
Table A may be used as
shown without adjustment.
The pavement designs in Table A
may be decreased by 0.5 inches of
asphalt concrete or 1.0 inch of
aggregate base material.
Virginia Department of Transportation ~ Pavement Design Guide (revised 2009)
29
APPENDIX V - Sample Pavement Design
A two lane road is proposed for construction in Prince William County, east of I-95, and will sustain a
traffic count of 2500 with a growth rate of 3%, based on a September 2002 traffic count. Heavy
commercial vehicles account for 6% of the traffic volume. Construction is expected to be finished in
2010. Soils tests yielded a classification of A-5 with 45% sand with no mica and a Design CBR of 6.3.
The following designs might be considered.
Compute Design AADT = Present AADT x [1 + (GR.)]n
Since %HCV > 5%, compute EPT and substitute result for the “Present ADT”
EPT = 2500 + 20 [2500(0.06 - 0.05)] = 2500 + 20 [25] = 3000
USE Design AADT = 3000 [1 + (0.03)](10+2010-2002)
= 3000 [1.03]18 = 3000 [1.70] = 5100 AADT
Compute SSV from Equation 1 SSV = 6.3 x 2.5 (ref. Table 1) = 15.75
Required Design Thickness Index (DR) from nomograph, Appendix II, is 18.
(Sample pavement designs appear on the next page.)
SSV
Scale
Design ADT
Scale
RD
Thickness Index
Scale
Virginia Department of Transportation ~ Pavement Design Guide (revised 2009)
30
Since several “adequate” pavement design options are available, selection of a pavement design depends
on the availability and cost of materials, underdrain requirements, ease of construction, and other factors.
Appendix V - continued
Sample Pavement Design Selection Alternatives
From nomograph, Appendix II, required pavement design Thickness Index DR = 18
Trial Pavement
Layer Materials Notation Thickness
(h), inches
Equivalency
Value (a)
Layer
Thickness
Index (h x a)
Surface Asphalt Concrete (SM-9.5A)1.50 2.25 3.38
Base Asphalt Concrete (BM-25.0A)5.00 2.25 11.25
1 Subbase Aggregate Base Material 6.00 0.60 3.60
DR = Total of "Layer Thickness Index Values" = 18.23
Comment: Proposed trial pavement design is adequate.
Surface Asphalt Concrete (SM-9.5A)1.50 2.25 3.38
Base Asphalt Concrete (BM-25.0A)4.00 2.25 9.00
2 Subbase Soil Cement 6.00 1.00 6.00
DR = Total of "Layer Thickness Index Values" = 18.38
Comment: Proposed trial pavement design is adequate.
Surface Asphalt Concrete (SM-9.5A)1.50 2.15 3.23
Base Asphalt Concrete (BM-25.0A)7.00 2.15 15.05
3 Subbase (Note: This is full depth asphalt.)0.00
DR = Total of "Layer Thickness Index Values" = 18.28
Comment: Proposed trial pavement design is adequate.
Surface Asphalt Concrete (SM-9.5A)1.50 2.25 3.38
Base Asphalt Concrete (BM-25.0A)3.50 2.25 7.88
Subbase 2 Component Subbase: CTA 4.00 1.00 4.00
4 plus Select Material, Type I 4.00 0.84 3.36
DR = Total of "Layer Thickness Index Values" = 18.61
Comment: Proposed trial pavement design is adequate.
Surface
Asphalt Concrete (SM-9.5A) @ 2 inches
plus (IM-19.0A) @ 2 inches 4.00 1.67 6.68
Base CTA 7.00 1.67 11.69
5 Subbase 0.00
DR = Total of "Layer Thickness Index Values" = 18.37
Comment: Proposed trial pavement design is adequate.
Surface Asphalt Concrete (SM-9.5A)2.00 1.67 3.34
Base Aggregate Base Material 7.00 1.00 7.00
6 Subbase Soil Cement 8.00 1.00 8.00
DR = Total of "Layer Thickness Index Values" = 18.34
Comment: Proposed trial pavement design is adequate.
Note: The trial designs depicted in this example are for illustration purposes only.
Vi
r
g
i
n
i
a
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
~
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
D
e
s
i
g
n
G
u
i
d
e
(
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
2
0
0
9
)
31
Pl
e
a
s
e
r
e
f
e
r
t
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
I
I
a
n
d
V
f
o
r
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
i
s
d
i
a
g
r
a
m
i
n
t
h
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
o
f
p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
.
S S
V
S c
a
l
e
D e s i g n
A A D T
S c a l e
T h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
I
n
d
e
x
S c a l e D R
o r
m
o
r
e
M i n i m u m
Ex
a
m
p
l
e
D R =
1
0
.
7
(
i
n
t
e
r
p
o
l
a
t
e
d
)
fo
r
d
e
s
i
g
n
p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
SS
V
=
1
1
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
A
A
D
T
=
4
8
0
(i
n
t
e
r
p
o
l
a
t
e
d
)
G
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #06-14
Lake Frederick Revision #1
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared:July 1, 2014
Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins,AICP, Senior Planner
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist in the review of this application. It may
also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter.
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission:07/16/14 Pending
Board of Supervisors:08/13/14 Pending
PROPOSAL:To develop 926.27 acres of land zoned R5 (Residential Recreational Community)
District with a total of 2,130 (includes the 253 existing platted lots) residential dwelling units. The land
area west of Lake Frederick will consist entirely of age restricted dwellings (total of 517 age restricted
units) and will be served by private streets. The land area east of Lake Frederick will consist primarily
of traditional residential units (76 age restricted units and 1,537 traditional). The housing located on the
east side of Lake Frederick will include a mix of single family detached and attached and will be served
by public roads. This is a revision to the MDP approved in 2013 for Shenandoah. Changes include
removing the commercial pod located in Phase 1B, removing a road connection and adding lots in Phase
IIA, and adding a model court in Phase 1A. These changes do not impact the overall lot number
approved within the development.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT:Opequon
PROPERTY ID NUMBERS:87-A-103, 87-A-103C, and 87-A-102
LOCATION:The subject properties are located on the western side of Route 522 South (Front Royal
Pike), south of Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) and east of Route 636 (Hudson Hollow Road). Existing
primary access to this site is located on Route 522 South via Lake Frederick Drive.
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
Zoned: Residential Recreational Community (R5)Use:Residential & Vacant
ZONING & PRESENT USE OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES:
North:RA (Rural Areas)Use: Agricultural & Residential
South:RA (Rural Areas)Use: Agricultural & Residential
East:RA (Rural Areas)Use: Agricultural & Residential
Clarke County
West:RA (Rural Areas)Use: Agricultural & Residential
MDP #06-14 Lake Frederick
July 1, 2014
Page 2
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 07/16/14 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The Master Development Plan for Lake Frederick depicts appropriate land uses and appears to be
consistent with the requirements of Article VIII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance.
All of the issues identified by staff, review agencies, as well as those issues brought forth by the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, should be appropriately addressed by the applicant.
It appears that the application meets all requirements. Following presentation of the application to
the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, and the incorporation of your comments,
staff is prepared to proceed to approval of the application.
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Department of Transportation: See attached comment.
Frederick County Fire Marshal: Plan approved.
Frederick County Public Works: No comment at this time.
Frederick County Inspections: Future sections of the subdivision shall meet new stormwater
requirements as applicable at time of subdivision plan approval.
Frederick County Sanitation Authority: Per your request, a review of the proposed master plan has
been performed. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority offers comments limited to the anticipated
impact/effect upon the Authority’s public water and sanitary sewer system and the demands thereon.
The parcel is in the water and sanitary sewer area served by the Authority. Based on the location both
water service and sanitary sewer service is available. The changes contemplated do not vary
significantly to affect either the water or sanitary sewer systems. Sanitary sewer treatment capacity at
the waste water treatment plant should not be affected by this change. Monitoring of the flows into this
plant will need to be performed in order to determine when permit changes are in order. Presently the
plant is permitted for 250,000 gallons per day.
Water and sanitary sewers are to be constructed in accordance with the FCSA standard specifications.
Dedicated easements will be required and based on the final layout,t vehicular access will need to be
incorporated into the final design. All easements should be free from an encumbrance including
permanent structures (fences, signs etc.) and landscaping (trees, shrubs, etc.).
Please be aware that the Authority does not review or comment upon proffers and/or conditions
proposed or submitted by the applicants in support of or in conjunction with this application, nor does
the Authority assume or undertake any responsibility to review or comment upon any amended proffers
and/or conditions which the Applicant may hereafter provide to Frederick County.
Frederick County Public Schools: Our school buses do not travel private roads. Any residents of the
new non-age restricted units in Phase 1B living on private roads would need to walk to the nearest bus
stop located on a public road.
MDP #06-14 Lake Frederick
July 1, 2014
Page 3
Frederick County GIS: Revised and three new street names are good.
Planning & Zoning:
A) Master Development Plan Requirement
A master development plan is required prior to development of this property. Before a master
development plan can be approved, it must be reviewed by the Planning Commission, Board of
Supervisors and all relevant review agencies. Approval may only be granted if the master
development plan conforms to all requirements of the Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances. The purpose of the master development plan is to promote orderly and planned
development of property within Frederick County that suits the characteristics of the land, is
harmonious with adjoining property and is in the best interest of the general public.
B) Site History
The properties comprising this project were rezoned from the A-2 (Agricultural) District to the
R-5 (Residential Recreational Community) District in October of 1975. A Master Development
Plan for a project titled “Wheatlands” containing a total of 1,463 dwelling units was approved by
the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on July 10, 1991. A Master Development Plan for
“Shenandoah” (revised Wheatlands) containing a total of 2,130 (2.3 units per acre) age restricted
dwelling units (attached, detached and apartments on private streets), was approved by the Board
of Supervisors on October 25, 2000 with conditions, (Board of Supervisors deemed conditions
satisfied on March 25, 2001) and the plan was administratively approved by staff on May 2,
2001. On December 5, 2007, staff approved an administrative revision to the Shenandoah
Master Development Plan for minor modifications to the interior road network. On August 22,
2013, staff administratively approved MDP #01-13 for revisions to the Shenandoah
Development. The 2013 MDP revised the road layout of the project as well as the lot layout and
housing types proposed.
C)
Comprehensive Policy Plan:
Site Suitability & Project Scope
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.
[Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1]
Land Use Compatibility:
The parcels comprising this MDP application are not located within the County’s Urban
Development Area (UDA) or the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA); however the site has
existing R5 Zoning and is also shown with a Planned Unit Development designation in the
Comprehensive Plan (Route 277 Triangle and Urban Center Plan). The Shenandoah
Development is proposed to develop with a density of 2.3 units per acre, which is consistent with
the maximum R5 density permitted in the Zoning Ordinance.
MDP #06-14 Lake Frederick
July 1, 2014
Page 4
The Shenandoah Development is served with public sewer by the Crooked Run Wastewater
Reclamation Facility which was constructed by Oxbridge Development at Shenandoah to serve
the Shenandoah Development and turned over to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. The
Authority now owns and maintains the treatment plant. Public water is also provided to the
development by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority.
Site Access and Transportation:
The existing Shenandoah Development is accessed via a signalized (not yet turned on – flashing)
entrance on Route 522 south. The existing Route 522 access also serves as the primary entrance
to Lake Frederick which is owned by VDGIF. An additional full entrance for the development is
shown on Fairfax Pike (Route 277) and an emergency access is shown on Hudson Hollow Road
(Route 636).
The development can be seen as two sections, one east and one west of Lake Frederick. The
portion west of the lake is where the existing age restricted units are located and are completely
served by private roads. The MDP shows all development west of Lake Frederick to remain age
restricted and the private road network will be extended to serve those units. The portion of the
development east of Lake Frederick will primarily consist of traditional housing that will be
served by new public roads.
The Route 277 Triangle and Urban Center Plan (Appendix I), shows a new arterial road called
the South Frederick Parkway which is planned to run through the northern portion of this
property. Sheet 6 of the MDP shows how this future roadway could be accommodated on the
property.
Recreational Amenities:
The existing age restricted portion of the development located on the western side of Lake
Frederick contains a constructed community center with a pool and bathhouse. The existing
community facilities will continue to serve the age restricted portion of the development. A new
community center with a pool, bathhouse and tennis court will be constructed on the eastern side
of Lake Frederick along with a tot lot at a separate location. In addition there will be a 10 foot
paved bike path continued along Rachel Carson Drive, four (4) foot lake access trails throughout
the development and three boat launch locations (with approval by VDGIF).
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 07/16/14 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The Master Development Plan for Lake Frederick depicts appropriate land uses and appears to be
consistent with the requirements of Article VIII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance.
All of the issues identified by staff, review agencies, as well as those issues brought forth by the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, should be appropriately addressed by the applicant.
It appears that the application meets all requirements. Following presentation of the application to
the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, and the incorporation of your comments,
staff is prepared to proceed to approval of the application.
01522
01277
CLARKECOUNTYVIRGINIA
WARRENCOUNTYVIRGINIA
MDP0614
MDP0614
MDP0614
93 A 77
94A110 4
94A 11 6
93 A 79 87B 11 B 94 A 1
94A 11 12
87B 1 1 A
87 A 103
87 A 103
87 A 103
87 A 103
87 A 103
87 A 103
87 A 103
87B 11 C
93 A 79C 93 A79A
93 A79B
87 A103B
87 A103C
87 A103C
87 A103C
87B 11 D 87 A103A
86 A 266
87 A 105
87 A105A
86 A 268 86 A273D
87B 12 31B 87B 12 31C 87B 11 E
87B 12 19
87B 1 388C87B 12 24 87B 11 14 87B 11 10 87B 21 228A
87B 13 3387B 1 388B
87B 13 57
87B 14 175A
87B 14 14887B 14 158
87B 1 416987B 14 174 87B 2 1180 87B 21 193
87B 21 204
87 A 107
86 A 269
87B 1 388B
87B 1 5132A
87B 13 62
87B 15 92 87B 1 5128
87B 1 5165
87B 2 119087B 21 210
86 A271
86 A271A
86 A272C
86 A 2273G 86 A273J
87B 1 5132B87B 1 5132C 87B 15 98
86 A 252
86 A2 273F 86 A273I
86 A273H
86 A272D
86 A272E 86 A 1273E
86 A 273
86 A272B
86 A272F
86 A273C
86 A 223
86 A 272
86 A272A
86 A273B
86 A226
86 A 226
87 A 95D
87 A 102
86 A 220
86 A 222
87 A 15
87 A 95
87 A 92 87 A 9086 A 225
86 A226A
86 A 218
86 A 224
86 A221 87 A 91
87 A 89
87 A 108
87 3 B
87 A 95C
87 A 93
87 A 94 87 3 B1
87 A 96A
87 A 97A
87 A 95B
87 2 287 2 3A86 A 215
86 2 5
86 2 7
87 A 13 87 A 96
87 A 97
87 A 10087 A 101
87 3 A
87 A 88
86 2 686 2 8
87 A 12E
87 A 16B
87 A 86 87 A 87
86 A 217
86 2 1186 2 12 86 2 13
86 A 179
86 A179C 87 A 14
86 A179E
87 1 B 87 A15A
87 A 85A87 A 12
Applications
Parcels
Building FootprintsB1 (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: June 9, 2014Staff: cperkins
FAIRFA
X
P
I
K
E
HU
D
S
O
N
H
O
L
L
O
W
R
D
MDP # 06 - 14Lake Frederick Rev #1PINs:87 - A - 103, 87 - A - 103C, 87 - A - 102
MDP # 06 - 14Lake Frederick Rev #1PINs:87 - A - 103, 87 - A - 103C, 87 - A - 102
0 1,800 3,600900 Feet
Adjoining Property Owners
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
2ZQHUVRISURSHUW\DGMRLQLQJWKHODQGZLOOEHQRWLILHGRIWKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQDQGWKH
%RDUGRI6XSHUYLVRUVPHHWLQJV)RUWKHSXUSRVHRIWKLVDSSOLFDWLRQadjoining property is any
property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly
across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested
property 7KH DSSOLFDQW LV UHTXLUHG WR REWDLQ WKH IROORZLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ HDFK DGMRLQLQJ
SURSHUW\LQFOXGLQJWKHSDUFHOLGHQWLILFDWLRQQXPEHUZKLFKPD\EHREWDLQHGIURPWKHRIILFHRIWKH
&RPPLVVLRQHURI5HYHQXHThe Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 1st floor of the
Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street.
Name and Property Identification Number Address
1DPH
3URSHUW\
1DPH
3URSHUW\
1DPH
3URSHUW\
1DPH
3URSHUW\
1DPH
3URSHUW\
1DPH
3URSHUW\
1DPH
3URSHUW\
1DPH
3URSHUW\
1DPH
3URSHUW\
SHENANDOAH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC.140 BALD EAGLE DR.
87B 1 2 31C
FRONT ROYAL, VA 22630
EUGENE F GROVE
93 A 77
MREC SHENANDOAH VA LLC C/O LANSDOWNE DEVELOPMENT GROUP LLC
87 A 103
SHENANDOAH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC.4840 WESTFIELDS BLVD.
87B 2 1 228A
CHANTILLY, VA 20151
JAMES Q AND DARLENE C HEADLEY
87 A 105A
JAMES Q AND MICHAEL A HEADLEY
87 A 105
KATHY A HEADLEY
87 A 103A
WHEATLANDS LLC
94 A 1
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA -DEPT OF GAME & INLAND FISHERIES
87 A 103B
320 VICTORY RD.
WINCHESTER, VA 22602
2553 DULLES VIEW DR. SUITE 400
HERNDON, VA 20171
4486 FRONT ROYAL PIKE
WHITE POST, VA 22663
4488 FRONT ROYAL PIKE
WHITE POST, VA 22663
4490 FRONT ROYAL PIKE
WHITE POST, VA 22663
8405 GREENSBORO DR. SUITE 830
MCLEAN, VA 22102
4010 W BROAD ST.
RICHMOND, VA 23230
-",&'3&%&3*$,
."45&3%&7&-01.&/51-"/3&7*4*0/
'03.&3-:4)&/"/%0")