HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 06-18-14 Meeting Agenda
AGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
June18, 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) May 7, 2014 and May 21, 2014 Minutes .......................................................................... (A)
3) Committee Reports .................................................................................................. (no tab)
4) Citizen Comments .................................................................................................... (no tab)
PUBLIC HEARING
5) Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code – Chapter 165 Zoning,
Article V- Planned Development Districts, Part 502-R5 Residential Recreational
Community District, 165-502.05 Design Requirements. Proposed revision to remove
the requirement that R-5 communities must be “age restricted communities” to qualify
for private streets, inclusion of additional design standards for private roads, and
maintenance responsibilities of the private roads by the property owners association.
Mrs. Perkins ..................................................................................................................... (B)
6) Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code – Chapter 165 Zoning, Article VI-
Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 402-RP Residential Performance District,
165-402.09 Dimensional Requirements. Proposed revision to reduce the minimum front
setback for multifamily residential buildings from 35 feet to 15 feet.
Mrs. Perkins ..................................................................................................................... (C)
INFORMATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS
7) Master Development #03-14 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 multifamily) and 5 acres of land zoned B2 (Business
General) District with commercial uses. The subject property is located west side of
Route 522 approximately 1,000 feet south of the intersection of Route 522 and Airport
Road in the Shawnee Magisterial District and is identified by Property Identification
Number 64-A-18. Please note this item is presented for informational purposes only.
Mrs. Perkins ..................................................................................................................... (D)
8) Master Development #04-14 for 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 (Route
672) in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification
Numbers 33-(A)-122A and 33-(A)-123. Please note this item is presented for
informational purposes only.
Mrs. Perkins ..................................................................................................................... (E)
9) Master Development #05-14 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 Interstate 81 North exit 317 and
bounded by CSX to the east, Redbud (Route 661) to the south, and Martinsburg Pike
(Route 11) to the west in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and are identified by
Property Identification Numbers 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. Please note this item is presented for informational
purposes only.
Mrs. Perkins ...................................................................................................................... (F)
10) Other
Adjourn
2
A
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3088
Minutes of May 7, 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 May 7, 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; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Kevin Kenney, Gainesboro District; J. Rhodes
Marston, Back Creek District; Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney; and Robert Hess, Board of
Supervisors Liaison.
ABSENT: Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Charles F. Dunlap, Red Bud District; and Greg
L. Unger, Back Creek 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 May 7, 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.
-------------
INTRODUCTION OF VISITING COMMISSIONER
Chairman Wilmot introduced Mr. Matt Wendling from the Warren County Planning
Commission. Chairman Wilmot said that Mr. Wendling is attending the PlanVirginia Certified Planning
Commissioner’s Program, along with Frederick County’s Commissioner, Charles Dunlap. She said that
Mr. Wendling is attending this evening because it is one of the assignments for the certification program.
Chairman Wilmot welcomed Mr. Wendling to the meeting.
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3089
Minutes of May 7, 2014
KEY TO COMMONLY USED PLANNING TERMS
Chairman Wilmot pointed out the new reference guide inserted into the agenda package
and on the website which defines the acronyms and other planning terms used on a regular basis. She
said this new reference guide will be placed on the County’s web site at www.fcva.us -agendas for the
Planning Commission.
-------------
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Crockett, the
Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening’s meeting.
-------------
MINUTES
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Crockett, the
minutes of the April 2, 2014 Planning Commission meeting were unanimously approved as presented.
-------------
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Chairman Wilmot announced another new addition to the Planning Commission agenda
packet, under Committee Reports. She pointed out that minutes from committees which have recently
met will be included under Committee Reports, so that other members of the Commission, the Board, and
the public can be better informed on the discussions of various committees. Chairman Wilmot said the
committee minutes will also be posted on the website.
Transportation Committee – 4/28/14 Mtg.
Commissioner Oates reported on the five items that were on the Transportation
Committee’s agenda: 1) Welcoming Signage – the EDC (Economic Development Commission) and the
Business-Friendly Committee had recommended welcoming signs for Frederick County; Since VDOT
has specific rules about signage, the committee recommended this topic be sent back to the EDC to see if
they could put something together; 2) Interstate, Primary, & Secondary Road Plan Updates – was
discussed by the Committee and will be presented to the Planning Commission at this evening’s meeting;
3) Intersection of Tasker Road and Crosskeys Blvd. – an additional lane for left turns is being sought by
county deputies and VDOT because a few accidents have occurred; a study will be done; 4) Private
Streets in the R5 Zoning District – was discussed by the Committee and will be presented to the Planning
Commission at this evening’s meeting; 5) Draft VDOT Six-Year Improvement Program.
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3090
Minutes of May 7, 2014
Board of Supervisors – 4/23/14 Mtg.
Supervisor Robert (Bob) Hess reported on three of the Boards’ agenda items that were
related to the Planning Commission: 1) Public hearing on a conditional use permit (CUP) for a kennel on
Laurel Grove Road in the Back Creek Magisterial District; quite a few citizens spoke; the Back Creek
Supervisor indicated he received additional information and questions and requested the CUP be
postponed until the Board’s next meeting. 2) Public hearing on revisions to the Floodplain Ordinance;
there were no public comments; a brief discussion took place and the revisions to the ordinance passed.
3) Proposed revisions to the MDP requirements – following brief discussion, the Board adopted a
resolution directing the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing.
--------------
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
Draft Update of the 2014-2015 Frederick County Interstate, Primary and Secondary Road
Improvement Plans. The Primary and Interstate Road Improvement Plans establish priorities for
improvements to the Primary and Interstate road networks within Frederick County. Comments
from the Transportation Committee and the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board
of Supervisors. Ultimately, the priorities adopted by the Board of Supervisors will be forwarded to
the Commonwealth Transportation Board for consideration.
Action – Recommended Approval
Deputy Director-Transportation, John A. Bishop, presented the public hearing item to
consider the update of the 2014-2015 Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Improvement Plans. Mr.
Bishop stated the statutory-required piece is the Secondary System Update and the Interstate and Primary
is something Frederick County does to make sure VDOT is well appraised of the County’s priorities.
Mr. Bishop began discussion with the Interstate Road Plan, which consists of Interstate
81 and associated improvements. He said that nothing has changed from the previous plan; the highest
priority, Exit 310, is underway with the right-of-way acquisition phase; completion of this project is
several years out. Other priorities remain the same in terms of widening and the relocation of Exit 307 in
the Stephens City area.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3091
Minutes of May 7, 2014
Moving to the Primary Road Improvement Plan, Mr. Bishop stated the priorities have not
changed from the previous year and Route 37 continues to be the top priority with the top prioritized
segment of Route 37 being from Exit 310 (I-81) over to Route 522. He stated this link is very important,
both in terms of helping with Route 277, Exit 307, and Exit 313 to the north, and providing a much better
access point via Route 522 to the Inland Port. Mr. Bishop commented the Route 277 project is well
underway in terms of design and initial right-of-way acquisition; however, it has become apparent the
project is underfunded. He said while some are familiar with the termini discussion being from the
interstate all the way to Warrior Drive, it is now from the interstate to Double Church Road, primarily due
to the high cost of right-of-way.
Proceeding next to the Secondary Road Improvement Plan, Mr. Bishop said this is the
section that is statutorily required. He noted Sulphur Springs Road has been the top project on this plan
and is in the right-of-way acquisition phase. The project involves significant improvements at the
intersection, as well as an upgrade of the roadway, although not a significant widening. He said
previously, a full four-lane divided roadway with a shared-use path for bicycles and pedestrians was
considered; however, a basic reconstruction of the existing road to a more modern standard with a wide-
paved shoulder for bicyclists and pedestrians will take place. The re-alignment of Red Bud Road does not
have a lot of funds; however, the project remains important in terms of being able to re-align the ramp
from north-bound I-81 out to where Red Bud Road currently intersects with Route 11 and will result in
the removal of a signal and alignment of the on/off ramps from and to I-81 from Route 11 on the
northbound side. He noted the two references to East Tevis Street, explaining this is all Russell 150
revenue-sharing work. Mr. Bishop next referred to Martinsburg Pike and pointed out this is a revenue-
sharing project, as well as a safety project by VDOT at the intersection of Welltown Road and Route 11N.
He said Carpers Valley Road and Renaissance Drive continue to be on the list and are associated with a
pending revenue sharing application. Mr. Bishop said he has received some positive indications the
revenue sharing application will be approved, nevertheless, this won’t be official until later this month or
in June. He said a significant approval for Snowden Bridge Boulevard from Route 11N over across the
railroad tracks and into the Graystone development is anticipated for this approximate 4½ million dollar
project.
Mr. Bishop continued with the Hardsurface Road Improvement Projects and he
commented it’s the least funded portion, but one which he gets the most calls from citizens. He said the
number one priority on last year’s list, Warm Springs Road, has been removed because it is about to be
completed. Mr. Bishop stated that no new projects are being promoted. He said the news following on
the heels of the new transportation legislation is that the estimates for expected revenue are significantly
less than what was expected and what was forecasted when the legislation was passed. He said this
doesn’t mean there’s no road money coming in; however, it is much less than projected. As a result, there
is no additional money to promote roads from the unscheduled to the scheduled list. He noted there are
still some minor changes and Laurel Grove Road is the primary change; it was previously listed as one
segment, but now is divided into two segments. Mr. Bishop explained the pave-in-place, rural rustic road
treatments, along with using local residency forces, are easier to accomplish when the project is under a
certain dollar amount, which is why it was split into two segments. Regarding the “Unscheduled” list,
Mr. Bishop stated it is still a very long list and many citizens want their road paved. He said three new
projects have been added to the bottom of the list. He explained that according to the Board of
Supervisors’ policy, in the years projects are not promoted to the scheduled list, the project ratings are not
redone because it is a big effort and frankly a waste of time when projects are not being promoted. Those
projects added include St. John’s Road, Mt. Olive Road, and Shockeysville Road. He said assuming there
is the ability next year to promote projects, the list would then be re-rated. He commented that this page
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3092
Minutes of May 7, 2014
of the plan has been updated with a note of explanation to the public that project ratings are updated only
when funding is available to promote projects.
Mr. Bishop stated the Transportation Committee reviewed the Update of the Interstate,
Primary, and Secondary Road Plans on April 28, 2014 and recommended its approval.
Chairman Wilmot next opened the public hearing for citizen comments and called for
anyone wishing to speak regarding the road plans to come forward. No one came forward to speak and
Chairman Wilmot closed the public comments portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Oates commented that Mr. Bishop did an excellent job with his overview
of the plans and he appreciated his thoroughness.
No other questions or issues were raised.
Commissioner Oates made a motion to recommend approval. This motion was seconded
by Commissioner Crocket and was unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby endorse and
recommends approval to the Board of Supervisors of the Draft Update of the 2014-2015 Frederick
County Interstate, Primary, and Secondary Road Improvement Plans. The Primary and Interstate Road
Improvement Plans establish priorities for improvements to the Primary and Interstate road networks
within Frederick County. Ultimately, priorities adopted by the Board of Supervisors will be forwarded to
the Commonwealth Transportation Board for consideration.
(Note: Commissioners Mohn, Dunlap, and Unger were absent from the meeting.)
Update on the Six-Year Road Improvement Plan
Deputy Director-Transportation, John A. Bishop, returned to the podium and provided an
update on the Six-Year Road Improvement Plan at the Commission’s request. Mr. Bishop reported that
Frederick County participated in the April 29, 2014 Commonwealth Transportation Board’s (CTB) public
hearing for the Six-Year Improvement Program Draft. A couple key messages he tried to send were first,
how grateful Frederick County is for how well the Revenue Sharing Program has been going and the
good advantage Frederick County makes in terms of using it with public/private partnerships to get
projects accomplished. Secondly, Mr. Bishop referred to Exit 313, noting the significant dollar amounts
designated for the cost of the interstate modification study; he said a little seed money is there for an
additional project. He mentioned the 313 bridge is seriously under maintained and is the neediest bridge
in the Valley in terms of re-decking. He inferred to the CTB that if this is what the seed money is
intended for, Frederick County absolutely supports it 100% because the maintenance is needed for the
safety of the traveling public. However, if the seed money is to start implementing whatever the
recommendations may be for the interchange modification study, then he earnestly requested the CTB
consider Frederick County’s priorities. Mr. Bishop said he offered Frederick County’s first priority, the
segment of Route 37 from I-81 over to Route 522, off of Exit 310. He said this would benefit not only
313, but also Route 277, Exit 307, and significantly enhance service to the Inland Port. He noted that
although the Inland Port is not within Frederick County, it is a vital facility for the County. Mr. Bishop
said he strived to make the point that if the 313 interchange modification is the project that VDOT is
trying to build toward, it’s being done without necessarily going hand-in-hand with Frederick County. He
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3093
Minutes of May 7, 2014
suggested to the CTB that if the County is being primed for another major project that the CTB work with
the local government and consider Frederick County’s priorities before a final decision is made.
-------------
INFORMATION/ DISCUSSION
Discussion of Proposed Revisions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance Regarding Private
Streets in the R5 Zoning District. These revisions will remove the requirement that R5
Communities must be “age-restricted” communities to qualify for private streets.
No Action Required
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported the staff has received a second request to
allow the use of private streets for all types of developments in the R5 (Residential Recreational
Community) Zoning District. Ms. Perkins explained that currently, the use of private streets in the R5
Zoning District is only permitted within age-restricted communities and only if approved by the Board of
Supervisors. She said the amendment before the Commission tonight proposes to allow the use of private
streets within all developments in the R5 District, but would still require a waiver by the Board of
Supervisors. The only modification to the text before the Commission this evening, versus the previous
amendment, is an addition that the development must include a minimum of 1,000 lots.
Ms. Perkins provided some history, noting the first request was reviewed by the DRRC
(Development Review & Regulations Committee) in October of 2012; the Planning Commission, the
Public Works Committee, and the Transportation Committee, as well as the Board of Supervisors,
discussed this item in 2012 and 2013. Ultimately, the Board declined to send the requested amendment
forward for public hearing. She said the applicant has since requested another review of the text
amendment and the discussion was moved forward by the Board of Supervisors. The Board discussed
this second request at their February 12, 2014 meeting and the Board sent it forward to the Transportation
Committee for evaluation. She noted the Transportation Committee referred the proposal back to the
DRRC at their February meeting and at their April meeting, the Transportation Committee sent the
amendment back to the Board without an action. Ms. Perkins said when the DRRC discussed this at their
February meeting, concerns were raised about the maintenance of the private streets and the potential for
the Homeowners Association (HOA) to go defunct, resulting in a request for the County to take over
maintenance of the streets.
Ms. Perkins said the staff is seeking comments from the Planning Commission to forward
to the Board of Supervisors.
Commissioner Thomas’ concern was the need for specificity in the language that private
streets are built in accordance with all VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) design and
construction standards in much more detail than is currently stated within the ordinance. Commissioner
Thomas believed the broader ordinance, not just the R5 ordinance, should specifically state that the
design, structural section, material quality, workmanship, drainage design, vertical curve, horizontal
sections, etc., all must meet VDOT standards and all must be verified by an independent engineer. In
addition, the independent engineer would have to be paid for by the developer or the construction
contractor. Secondly, he would want to see something in the deed that would state very specifically that
these streets meet VDOT standards and the maintenance and improvements of drainage systems, snow
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3094
Minutes of May 7, 2014
removal, etc., is the responsibility of the HOA. In addition, Commissioner Thomas said there needs to be
a mechanism included that these responsibilities are recognized by the buyer of the lot or home and the
homeowner will be responsible for all costs associated with maintenance and snow removal.
Commissioner Thomas commented that if sometime in future, the HOA wants to give the streets to the
County or State, through financial hardship or other reasons, the roads will have been constructed to State
standards.
Commissioner Oates said he agreed with Commissioner Thomas’ comments except for
one item. He said he has designed roads to VDOT standards in the past, as little as seven years ago, and
today those roads would not meet VDOT requirements because of VDOT’s ever-changing standards.
Commissioner Thomas said he wasn’t necessarily seeking a commitment from VDOT,
but a construction quality of a road that would last for a certain time. He wanted to move away from a
road that was constructed to sub-quality standards. Commissioner Oates agreed the roads should be built
to a good standard; nevertheless, if the intention was that someday the road could go into the VDOT
system, odds are, after five to six years, it wouldn’t meet the criteria any longer and would have to be
rebuilt.
Commissioner Oates said he has been a member on all the committees this subject has
gone through over the previous year. He said he keeps hearing the comment that private streets are
already allowed in age-restricted communities, so why not allow them in other residential communities,
as well. Commissioner Oates said back when this originally went through, his rational for allowing
private streets within age-restricted communities was that the residents would be mature, responsible, and
safe drivers and the HOAs would be more likely to remain stable. He commented that he liked the idea of
taxpayers not having to pay for someone else’s private roads. He said he was still in favor of private
streets in age-restricted areas, but did not know how we would vote on non-age-restricted areas.
Commissioner Triplett inquired how the road system would be handled in a gated
community. Commissioner Oates replied it’s all private; it’s up to the homeowners to maintain the roads.
Commissioner Triplett said we already have this within the County; it’s already available to people.
Commissioner Thomas commented that when a gate is placed on a private road, it’s more obvious to the
residents that it’s their road; however, if residents want private streets, they need to understand what they
are getting and what the responsibilities are. Commissioners believed that requiring the roads to be
constructed to a certain standard would help to protect both the people who are buying into the private
road and the remaining county residents as well.
Chairman Wilmot recognized a number of individuals seated in the audience who had
indicated their concerns and/or who had comments and possible solutions. Chairman Wilmot commented
that if there were no objections, she would like to give these citizens an opportunity to speak. The
following persons came forward:
Mr. Chris Barltrop, a resident on Tutelo, Phase 2, of Lake Frederick, said that Phase 1 is
really not an issue because it is age-restricted and the roads are private. Mr. Barltrop said the issue is
more with Phase 2, where there is a blend of age-restricted and non-age-restricted residences. He
commented he served as Finance Committee Chairman and understands that maintaining the roads would
require setting up a fund, similar to what is in place for their buildings maintenance, so that in 15-20 years
when the roads need re-surfacing, adequate funds are available. Mr. Barltrop believed the community
could handle this responsibility. He said one issue is access to the lake and persons wondering into the
Phase 2 side of the development who are looking for the lake. He said a gate would solve the problem;
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3095
Minutes of May 7, 2014
however, a gate cannot be placed across a public road. Mr. Barltrop presented the Commission with a list
of alternatives or options he believes are available. He felt it would be advantageous for the developer to
have clear guidance from the County on what is or is not permitted because they are in the difficult
position of having to put in roads now, without having clear standards on what those roads should be.
Mr. Larry Atkinson, also a resident of Lake Frederick, said his concern was based on
comments made at the Transportation Committee meeting when those members spoke about having
established criteria that would provide some assurance to the Board of Supervisors when they considered
whether the HOA could meet their obligations to maintain not only the roads, but other expenses the
HOA will face. Mr. Atkinson believed specific criteria were needed, not only for the developer, but also
what the homeowners can expect in order to meet their total obligations. He said in the case of Lake
Frederick, there are other potentially significant obligations, particularly the lake. He mentioned the
Memorandum of Agreement between the developer and the VDGIF (Virginia Department of Game &
Inland Fisheries), which has not been fully defined and may have considerable financial obligations once
the developer pulls out. In addition, Mr. Atkinson said they were promised a community center, and
other amenities, which are not yet constructed and residents have no idea what the financial
responsibilities are in the long term. Mr. Atkinson asked the Commission to recommend to the Board of
Supervisors that there be specific criteria, clearly written, so that everyone understands the basis for a
Board decision on a request for private roads in the R5 District.
Mr. Richard Palowsky, a retired homeowner in Lake Frederick, next came forward. Mr.
Palowsky said it was anticipated that the new area, with non-age-restricted homes, may have 750 to 1,000
residences, which generates an enormous amount of money when you think about HOA requirements.
He was most concerned about the relationships of the community with the VDGIF, the lake, physical
boundaries, the various rules, and the enormous expansion taking place. Mr. Palowsky said residents
cannot call the Sheriff’s Department and expect someone to show up at the lake; they need to call the
VDGIF. Mr. Palowsky said there have been drug situations and people staying all night in the lake area,
which is why the gated concept was so important to many of the residents.
No one else remained to speak and Chairman Wilmot called for Mr. Thomas (Ty) Moore
Lawson, the attorney representing the developer at Lake Frederick, to come forward. Mr. Lawson stated
there are over 300 folks presently residing at Lake Frederick and it is continuing to grow; the age-
restricted sections are quite active and growing. He said this community was approved as a gated
community with private roads and the intent is to continue development as a gated community, but this
can’t be accomplished without private roads. Mr. Lawson said the existing private streets are built to very
exacting standards which meet or exceed the standard for depth of pavement and the roads also satisfy all
drainage requirements. He commented the construction traffic is what takes a toll on the roads and
because the roads in this community were built to such high standards, the existing roads are in great
shape.
Mr. Lawson continued, stating that some changes were made to the proposed ordinance
as a result of various committee meetings. He said detail was added regarding construction of the private
roads and included a requirement for the depth of pavement, which must be inspected by Virginia
engineers. The engineers would need to certify not only the design, but what was installed to satisfy the
requirements. He said there is also language about the requirement for capital reserve studies on a bi-
annual basis to guarantee reserve funds for future road maintenance. Mr. Lawson pointed out the
developer does have an issue, however, with the horizontal aspect of road construction. He explained the
developer intentionally does not want to construct massive roads that enable high-speed travel; he said
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3096
Minutes of May 7, 2014
they want to slow down vehicle traffic. Mr. Lawson said the message they are receiving is to construct
the roads so they last and that is what this developer is doing.
Mr. Lawson said the majority of residents at Lake Frederick want to keep their
community gated, not just on one side of the lake, but on both sides of the lake. He said not only do they
already have private streets within this community, they are building additional age-restricted sections
which will have still additional private streets, along with private parking courts and town homes, all of
which allow for private streets under the ordinance. He commented that a resident provided him with a
statistic that if there is no further development in this community, they are in the 70+ % range in private
streets. Mr. Lawson said this developer is happy to add standards so these roads are built to last, but they
do not want to build VDOT roads; they also don’t want to turn this back over to the public. The residents
want to keep this community gated and to finish it as a gated community.
No further questions or issues were raised by the Commission at this time. Ms. Perkins
said she would forward the Commission’s comments on to the Board of Supervisors.
-------------
Discussion of Proposed Revisions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance Regarding Setback
Requirements for Multi-Family Residential Buildings. The proposed revisions are to reduce the
minimum front setback for multi-family residential buildings.
No Action Required
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported this is a proposed revision to the front
setback for the housing type called, multi-family residential buildings. She said this was the housing type
added in 2013 when the RP (Residential Performance) revisions were approved. She noted that during
the discussion and public hearings, there was a residential street-scape section schematic that was
provided as to how this housing type could be developed. That schematic depicted a multifamily building
with a front setback of 12-20 feet. However, the text adopted for the multifamily buildings actually
included a 35-foot front setback which was contrary to what was discussed during the discussions, work
sessions, and public hearings. Ms. Perkins said there is presently an applicant who is trying to implement
the housing type and they have requested the setback be re-evaluated to reduce the 35-foot front.
Ms. Perkins said the DRRC (Development Review & Regulations Committee) reviewed
this amendment at their March 2014 meeting. The DRRC initially discussed a change to reduce the
setback from 35 feet to 15 feet, but believed 15 feet was too close to a public street; however, they were
comfortable with a 20-foot front setback.
Ms. Perkins said the staff was seeking comments from the Planning Commission to
forward to the Board of Supervisors on the proposed amendment.
Commissioner Thomas was interested in the specifics of the setback and asked if the 20-
foot setback was from the edge of the right-of-way or from the center line, and if this was made clear
within the ordinance revision. Ms. Perkins said it is specifically stated within another section of the
ordinance, which addresses how setbacks are determined, that the setback is 20 feet from the edge of the
right-of-way.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3097
Minutes of May 7, 2014
Commissioner Thomas commented that with a six-foot wide sidewalk along the edge of
the right-of-way, there could be a building 14 or so feet off the edge of the sidewalk. Ms. Perkins replied
it would depend on whether the sidewalk was constructed within the right-of-way or on the property. Ms.
Perkins pointed out this particular housing type is only permitted within areas with high-density,
residential development; it is not a housing type allowed everywhere. She explained this is proposed for
constructing in high-density, walkable, and more urban-type designed areas.
Commissioner Oates added for clarification that another reason the 20-foot setback was
discussed was that many water lines require a 20-foot right-of-way; if this occurs outside the public right-
of-way, there’s still the ability to get utilities through. Commissioner Oates said he was in favor of this.
Other Commissioners were also in favor of the change and believed it was ready to move
forward as presented to the Board of Supervisors.
-------------
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and a motion was made by Commissioner
Oates to adjourn the meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas and unanimously
passed. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
June Wilmot, Chairman
____________________________
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3098
Minutes of May 21, 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 May 21, 2014.
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice
Chairman/Opequon District; Robert S. Molden, Opequon District; J. Stanley Crockett, Stonewall District;
Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett,
Gainesboro District; Kevin Kenney, Gainesboro District; J. Rhodes Marston, Back Creek District; Greg
L. Unger, Back Creek District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Charles F. Dunlap, Red Bud
District; Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney; and John David Smith, Jr., City of Winchester Liaison.
ABSENT: Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director; Mark
R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; and Renee S.
Arlotta, Clerk.
-----------
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Wilmot called the May 21, 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 Crockett and seconded by Commissioner Thomas,
the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening’s meeting.
-------------
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC) – 5/12/14 Mtg.
Commissioner Mohn reported the CPPC discussed the McCann-Slaughter
Comprehensive Plan amendment, which is on the Commission’s agenda this evening for discussion.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3099
Minutes of May 21, 2014
-------------
Sanitation Authority – 5/20/14 Mtg.
Commissioner Unger stated the Sanitation Authority reported a total customer base for
water of 14,077; total customer base for sanitary of 13,592; May rainfall was 3.06 which is average; water
production at the Diehl Plant was 2.7mgd; water production at the Anderson Plan was 1.7mgd; purchased
.74mgd from the City of Winchester; daily average use was 5.18mgd which is normal; the Diehl quarry is
down about one foot; the Anderson quarry is up about one foot; the Parkins Mill Plant continues to have a
nitrogen problem due to discharge from the Hood Plant; and water leaks were reported at 8%. A water
well test at Clearbrook is not producing as they had hoped. Commissioner Unger also reported the
Sanitation Authority held their election of officers and the same officers were re-elected; however, one
new member was added, Mr. George Michael (Mike) Cundiff, replaced Mr. Richard Ruckman.
--------------
City of Winchester Planning Commission -5/20/14 Mtg.
Mr. John David Smith, Jr., Commissioner with the City Planning Commission, reported
the Commission discussed a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) for the conversion of ground-floor, non-
residential use to residential; considered a CUP for the Winchester SPCA for an animal shelter;
considered a CUP for extended stay in Old Towne; and the major item currently being discussed is an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the new John Kerr Elementary School. Mr. Smith said there
will be an open house meeting concerning the school tomorrow evening, Thursday, May 22, 2014 at City
Hall on the fourth floor.
-------------
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
UDA Centers and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan – The Planning Commission will discuss a
proposed amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; Frederick County UDA (Urban
Development Area) Centers, and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This amendment is a follow up to
and in support of, the UDA Center Design Cabinet Report and the draft Traditional Neighborhood
Design (TND) Ordinance discussion. The proposed amendment continues to consolidate and
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3100
Minutes of May 21, 2014
reinforce the UDA Center discussion within the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and further strengthens
sound planning principles within the County’s urban areas. The aim of this proposed amendment
is to illustrate why UDA Centers in Frederick County are important and to highlight who would
benefit from living in these strategic growth areas. The proposed amendment would be inserted
into the Plan within Chapter 1, Urban Areas.
Action – Recommended Approval by Majority Vote
Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported the proposed amendment was
initiated by the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC) as a result of the ongoing effort
and discussion of this subject at various work sessions and at the Planning Commission’s 2014 Retreat.
Mr. Ruddy said the Urban Center Design Cabinet Report, which was accomplished by a group of
individuals who were looking at the potential for the identified locations, and the Traditional
Neighborhood Design (TND) Ordinance, which would implement the goals for the UDA Centers, were
the catalysts for this proposed amendment. He noted the CPPC discussed this proposed amendment at
their March 10, 2014 meeting and expressed support for the amendment and the overall UDA Center and
TND effort. Thereafter, the Planning Commission discussed this in April and the Board of Supervisors
endorsed moving this through the public hearing process.
Mr. Ruddy next provided an overview of frequently-asked questions of “why” Urban
Development Centers and “who” would the Urban Development Centers benefit. Mr. Ruddy said UDA
Centers are an integral part of the overall growth management strategy for Frederick County within the
urban areas. He said the County’s planning efforts enable residents, both current and future, recent
graduates, and recent retirees, to choose from an array of housing types that suit their needs and provide
affordable housing opportunities. Implementation of this effort will ensure that needs of all residents are
met.
Mr. Ruddy continued, reviewing the three main policies: Policy #1 – As Frederick
County continues to grow, it is essential the vision of the Comprehensive Plan for the Urban Areas meets
expected growth of the community in a sustainable manner; growth should primarily be focused within
the Urban Areas. Policy #2 – More intensive development should be focused in the UDA Centers,
particularly meeting the residential needs of the young adults, the retirement generation, and the
workforce needed for business development. Policy #3 – UDA Centers, located at strategic locations
within the urban areas, should absorb a portion of the anticipated community growth with the maximum
efficiency and effectiveness and be attractive to young adults and the newly retired. Mr. Ruddy said a
variety of implementation steps are included within the amendment.
Mr. Ruddy explained the UDA Centers and the Urban Areas is a discussion that occurs
throughout the Comprehensive Plan and occurs in many locations within the plan. However, this
particular amendment seeks to place it in one spot, to highlight it, and to reinforce Frederick County’s
planning efforts with regards to urban areas.
Commissioner Dunlap commented that he supported this amendment and believed it will
take Frederick County to the next level. He said the County has already identified those urban areas
where they want growth to occur and this amendment provides greater flexibility as far as how these areas
are to be developed. He stated this offers great design flexibility in regards to various types of housing
intermixed with commercial which could help to create areas within Frederick County that are walkable,
sustainable, and would offer opportunities for people of all ages. Commissioner Dunlap said it’s noted in
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3101
Minutes of May 21, 2014
the report that Frederick County would like to keep its youth and this is also a growing area for retirees.
He believed this was a step in the right direction.
Chairman Wilmot stated that during the many times this was discussed, there was some
sense that this particular effort is not one that’s going to be accomplished in a short period of time.
Chairman Wilmot suggested that somewhere within the document, it should state this is a long-term
proposal for the County. Mr. Ruddy said the 2030 Comprehensive Plan looks out into the future a good
number of years and this goes beyond that time period.
Chairman Wilmot next opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and called for
anyone in the audience who wished to speak regarding the proposed amendment. The following person
came forward to speak:
Mr. Allen Morrison, a resident of the Gainesboro District, said the wording about
“strengthening sound planning principles” bothered him because he assumed the Planning Department
would have been doing this all along. Mr. Morrison commented that when the core function of the
department is reiterated within the document, it made him wonder if the authors were trying to convince
themselves or the public. He understood there needed to be a county-wide plan and work to accomplish
it; but he believed the County is working on things universities are teaching as the best way. He
mentioned a key word used, “sustainable;” however, he said it brings to mind another word, “stack and
pack.” Mr. Morrison said his biggest concern comes when citizens are no longer allowed to live the lives
they have chosen simply because it no longer fits the mold that our sustainable planning has made as the
primary goal. He wondered whether the citizens of Frederick County are being led down a path where
they will have to give up freedoms and liberties just to maintain this high-density, highly efficient housing
model. Mr. Morrison said this is not the model that most people who moved to Frederick County and
who have lived in this county for many years would have chosen. He added this will be a dramatic and
fundamental change to the way Frederick County people are asked to live.
No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot then closed the public comment
portion of the hearing.
No other comments were made by Commission members.
Commissioner Thomas made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed
amendment to the Frederick County UDA Centers and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This motion was
seconded by Commissioner Dunlap and was passed by a majority vote.
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the
Frederick County UDA (Urban Development Area) Centers, and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This
amendment is a follow up to and in support of, the UDA Center Design Cabinet Report and the draft
Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) Ordinance discussion. The proposed amendment continues to
consolidate and reinforce the UDA Center discussion within the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and further
strengthens sound planning principles within the County’s urban areas. The aim of this amendment is to
illustrate why UDA Centers in Frederick County are important and to highlight who would benefit from
living in these strategic growth areas. The amendment will be inserted into the Comprehensive Plan
within Chapter 1, Urban Areas.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3102
Minutes of May 21, 2014
The vote was as follows:
YES (TO REC. APPROVAL): Unger, Marston, Crockett, Thomas, Molden, Kenney, Dunlap, Mohn,
Wilmot
NO: Ambrogi, Manuel, Triplett
(Note: Commissioner Oates was absent from the meeting.)
-------------
Consideration of the establishment of the Green Springs Agricultural and Forestal District. This
proposed district contains 385.63+ acres within two parcels located in the Gainesboro Magisterial
District. The parcels are fronting Glaize Orchard Road (Rt. 682) to the south and Green Springs
Road (Rt. 671) to the east. The parcels are further identified by P.I.N.s 21-A-25 and 21-A-36.
Action – Recommended Approval
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported this is a proposal for a
new Agricultural and Forestal District, to be known as the Green Springs Agricultural and Forestal
District. Mr. Cheran said the proposed district contains 385.63+ acres within two parcels; the two parcels
are zoned RA (Rural Areas); and the surrounding properties are also zoned RA. He noted the
predominantly agricultural operations in the proposed district are 40 percent agriculture (livestock and
crop harvesting) and 60 percent open-space/woodlands, and the area within the proposed district is rural
in nature. Mr. Cheran stated the Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) met on April 21,
2014 and unanimously recommended the creation of a new Agricultural and Forestal District.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing to citizen comments and called for anyone
who wished to speak to please come forward. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot
closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
No questions or issues were raised by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Thomas made a motion to recommend approval of the creation of the new
Green Springs Agricultural and Forestal District. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Triplett
and was unanimously approved.
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of the establishment of the Green Springs Agricultural and Forestal District. This proposed
district contains 385.63+ acres within two parcels which front along Glaize Orchard Road (Rt. 682) to the
south and Green Springs Road (Rt. 671) to the east. The parcels are further identified by P.I.N.s 21-A-25
and 21-A-36 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
(Note: Commissioner Oates was absent from the meeting.)
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3103
Minutes of May 21, 2014
Consideration of an addition to the South Timber Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District. The
proposed addition contains a total of 85+ acres within one parcel and is located in the Gainesboro
Magisterial District. This parcel is located along Hollow Road (Rt. 707) to the north, and Muse
Road (Rt. 610) and Gold Orchard Road (Rt. 798) to the east. The parcel is further identified with
P.I.N. 26-A-49.
Action – Recommended Approval
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported this is a proposal to
increase the South Timber Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District with one 85+-acre parcel. Mr. Cheran
said this district presently contains 15 parcels and consists of 883+ acres; the proposed addition will be
one parcel containing 85+ acres. He said if this addition is approved, the resulting district will contain a
total of 968+ acres, to be managed by the same property owner. Mr. Cheran noted the proposed parcel is
zoned RA (Rural Areas) and the surrounding properties are also zoned RA. He pointed out the
predominantly agricultural operations in the district are 90 percent agriculture (orchard and crop
harvesting) and 10 percent open-space/woodlands, and the area within the district is rural in nature. Mr.
Cheran stated the Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) met on April 21, 2014, and
unanimously recommended this increase to the South Timber Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing to citizen comments and called for anyone
who wished to speak to please come forward. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot
closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
No questions or issues were raised by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Thomas made a motion to recommend approval of the addition to the
South Timber Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District. This motion was seconded by Commissioner
Triplett and was unanimously approved.
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of the addition to the South Timber Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District. This proposed
addition contains 85+ acres within one parcel located along Hollow Road (Rt. 707) to the north and Muse
Road (Rt. 610) and Gold Orchard Road (Rt. 798) to the east. The parcel is further identified with P.I.N.
26-A-49 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
(Note: Commissioner Oates was absent from the meeting.)
-------------
An Ordinance to Amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VIII –
Development Plans and Approvals, Part 801 – Master Development Plans, Section 165-801.03
Waivers. The proposed revision will allow for a waiver of the Master Development Plan
requirement, if an applicant chooses to process a detailed site plan in lieu of a Master Development
Plan.
Action – Recommended Approval
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3104
Minutes of May 21, 2014
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported this amendment is a proposed addition to
the master development plan (MDP) requirements and provides the opportunity for applicants to process a
detailed site plan in lieu of a MDP. Ms. Perkins explained it simply removes a step in the process, if an
applicant knows exactly what they plan to do with their property. She noted this waiver addition is in
response to the Business-Friendly Committee recommendations that came out in 2012. Ms. Perkins said
the Development Review & Regulations Committee (DRRC) reviewed the MDP requirements at their
October 2013 and January 2014 meetings and they forwarded a recommendation for the waiver option;
the Planning Commission discussed the amendment at their meeting on April 2, 2014. She said the Board
of Supervisors discussed the amendment on April 23, 2014, and at that meeting, sent it forward for public
hearing. Ms. Perkins said this is a public hearing item and the staff is seeking a recommendation from the
Planning Commission to forward to the Board of Supervisors.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing and called for anyone in the audience who
wished to speak to please come forward. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the
public comment portion of the hearing.
No questions or issues were raised by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Thomas made a motion to recommend approval of the MDP waiver. This
motion was seconded by Commissioner Crockett and was 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 VIII –
Development Plans and Approvals, Part 801 – Master Development Plans, Section 165-801.03 Waivers.
The proposed revision will allow for a waiver of the Master Development Plan requirement, if an
applicant chooses to process a detailed site plan in lieu of a Master Development Plan.
-------------
INFORMATION/ DISCUSSION ITEMS
Discussion of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the McCann-Slaughter Property. 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
discussion item. 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. The proposal would allow mixed use office manufacturing land uses on a portion of the
property.
No Action Required
Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported the McCann-Slaughter parcels
contain approximately 160 acres and are collectively designated within the 2030 Comprehensive Plan for
various types of land uses, including Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) and Industrial. He said it is
identified with the DSA because of an environmental feature, Hiatt Run, its associated floodplain, and in
addition, there are historical components: Stephenson’s Depot is in the general area, the northern part of
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3105
Minutes of May 21, 2014
the property connects to Milburn Road and the Milburn Road corridor, reinforcing the existing
conservation easements and the historical character of the area. Mr. Ruddy said the request is to re-
evaluate the property to see if the land use designation could change to allow some sort of development to
occur. Mr. Ruddy said the applicant had requested the OM (Office-Manufacturing) designation, while
still recognizing the DSAs identified, the environmental features, such as the floodplain, and the
identified Stephenson Depot primary and secondary areas. In addition, south of McCanns Road, the
larger portion of the property is bisected by future Route 37; furthermore, south of Route 37 is already
identified with an industrial and M1 land use designation. Essentially, the area in question is the area
north of future Route 37 on both sides of McCann Lane, approximately 160 acres east of Route 11 North
and south of Old Charlestown Road. The applicant had made the request, the Board of Supervisors
supported the evaluation of the land use study, and the Comprehensive Plan Committee worked in
conjunction with the Historic Resources Advisory Board, who also reviewed this particular request on a
couple of occasions, to come up with an approach to the future land use. The intent of the Comprehensive
Plan Committee was to find a balanced approach which looked at future land uses and also recognized
those items identified as developmentally sensitive areas.
Mr. Ruddy provided a proposed updated map and revised text that would be placed
within the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP). He made note of the following key points: 1) protection
of the environmental features of the site; 2) 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; 3) 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); 4) an OM (Mixed Use Office/Industrial) land use designation; and 5) 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.
Mr. Ruddy stated that with this request, the area is balanced with the development and
still maintains the Milburn Road historical area and the conservation area to the east. He added the
Historical Resources Advisory Board’s (HRAB) recommendation was not to change any of the land use
there. Mr. Ruddy said the Comprehensive Plan Committee, in recognition of the HRAB’s involvement
and recommendation, wanted to reach out to see if this could be balanced or refined even further.
Therefore, additional discussion took place at the Comprehensive Plan meeting last Monday evening to
consider some of those other points that could be included within the text to make the land use and DSA
balance work to a higher level and be more sensitive. As a result, some additional points were created
and include: 1) providing a small area of supporting commercial land use; 2) providing interpretive
wayside parking at the north end of the road (may be done in conjunction with commercial); 3) provide a
buffer zone between the DSA and OM land use (environmental BMP’s and site design elements); and 4)
provide historical signage.
Commissioner Crockett commented this was a very interesting concept because of the
many geographical, environmental, and historical aspects of the property, many of which have competing
interests with each other. He stated there has been a considerable amount of discussion between all of the
stake holders including the Comprehensive Plan Committee, the HRAB, and the environmental
representatives. Commissioner Crockett believed all of the stakeholders have come up with a reasonably
balanced approach for the use of this land and he believed they have done a good job.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3106
Minutes of May 21, 2014
Referring to the updated language, Commissioner Mohn asked if the 50-foot buffer for
McCann’s Lane was intended to be a total buffer corridor of 50 feet with 25 feet on either side; he said
the language implies 50 feet adjacent. Commissioner Mohn commented this was a point of discussion
last week with members of the HRAB. Mr. Ruddy replied this was discussed in detail on Wednesday
afternoon and it was meant to be 50 feet from the centerline; however, more importantly, the discussion
revolved around what type of buffering or screening should be done in the area. Mr. Ruddy said there
was recognition of just leaving it natural, which simply ensures there is no vehicular access up and down,
so it maintains its existing character. While at the same time, there may be some areas, if new
development is occurring on the north and south, that could be enhanced with some landscaping or view
shed to help work that out. Mr. Ruddy said while 50 foot had been discussed and it would be roughly
from the centerline, he believed the intent was to be very flexible with what the buffering would be in that
particular area to maintain the existing character of McCann’s Lane. Commissioner Mohn believed that
made sense and was a good compromise. Commissioner Mohn wanted to be sure that if the suggestion is
for 50 feet total, it may be best to clarify that it is “25 feet on either side, measured from the centerline,” if
it is a minimum so there is no misinterpretation of something more.
Commissioner Thomas commented that 50-foot didn’t seem wide enough for a road.
Commissioner Mohn pointed out there would be no road improvement there; it is an existing gravel road
within a prescriptive easement, so the idea would be to essentially preserve it as a pedestrian/bicycle trail
in its existing condition. Commissioner Mohn clarified it would be preserving a 50-foot corridor in total;
he said this is how he interpreted it and how it was discussed at the meeting. He said it was a means of
alternative access and wasn’t intended to be any wider than it needed to be to facilitate that connection.
Commissioner Thomas asked if the HRAB was in favor of 50 feet. Mr. Ruddy replied
that the HRAB’s recommendation was not to change the land use in any way, shape, or form. Mr. Ruddy
said when this was discussed with members of the HRAB on Wednesday, there was general support for
all of the items listed; however, the HRAB as a whole did not consider the 50 feet. Mr. Ruddy said this
will go back to the HRAB to let them know where the discussion is going.
Commissioner Mohn stated if Milburn Road is the key element, based on all the prior
planning documents and from an HRAB perspective, the Comprehensive Plan Committee thoroughly
considered it in terms of a compromise. He said their goals were to preserve what’s important and get
some balanced elements involved, but allowing the appropriate form of development to go forward
eventually, as well.
Chairman Wilmot believed what the staff and the two committees have accomplished
was super and a good compromise for all the interested parties.
There were no further issues of discussion and Mr. Ruddy said he would forward the
Commission’s comments on to the committee and the Board of Supervisors.
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3107
Minutes of May 21, 2014
OTHER
Cancelation of the June 4, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting
Chairman Wilmot announced there were no pending items for the Planning
Commission’s June 4, 2014 meeting.
A motion was made by Commissioner Thomas to cancel the June 4, 2014 meeting of the
Planning Commission. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Crockett 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 Crockett and unanimously
passed. The meeting adjourned at 7:43 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: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Public Hearing – Private Streets in the R5 Zoning District
DATE: May 30, 2014
Staff has received a second request to allow the use of private streets for all types of developments in the
R5 (Residential Recreational Community) Zoning District. Currently, the use of private streets in the R5
District is only permitted within age-restricted communities and only if approved by the Board of
Supervisors. The age-restricted private street allowance was added into the R5 Zoning District in 2000,
along with a number of other revisions that were requested by Dogwood Development Group (prior
owner of the Shenandoah Development (Wheatlands)). The changes in 2000 were approved to allow
increased flexibility and alternative designs in the R5 District while recognizing that an age-restricted
development would have a reduced impact on capital facilities. Prior to the adoption of the age-restricted
private street allowance, the use of public streets was mandatory for all new developments in the R5
District.
The amendment proposes to allow the use of private streets within all developments in the R5 District,
but would still require Board of Supervisors approval. The Applicant’s request included the following
modifications to the original text amendment: requirement that the development must include a
minimum of 1,000 lots, and a requirement that paving designs based on actual CBR’s (California bearing
ratio) be provided to the County for approval.
If approved, this amendment would apply to all land zoned R5 (Residential Recreational Community)
Zoning District. The developments that currently have this zoning are Shenandoah, Lake Holiday,
Shawneeland, Mountain Falls Park and Autumn Hills Estates. While these developments currently utilize
private streets it should be noted that there are undeveloped (large lot) sections within some of these
developments zoned R5 that could potentially utilize the waiver request. New Master Development Plans
and approval of a private street waiver would be required.
The attached text amendment contains two options for consideration by the Planning Commission and the
Board of Supervisors. The Applicant’s request requires that the road sections meet the minimum VDOT
thickness requirements. During the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors meetings the issue of
meeting all VDOT requirements was discussed. Therefore staff has included a second option that would
require the private streets to meet all VDOT requirements.
Frederick County Planning Commission
RE: R5 Private Streets
May 30, 2014
Page 2
History – First Request
A previous request for private streets was discussed by the DRRC in October 2012; at that time the DRRC
endorsed the proposed text amendment. The Planning Commission, Public Works Committee, the
Transportation Committee and the Board of Supervisors also discussed this item in 2012 and 2013.
Ultimately, the Board of Supervisors declined to send the requested amendment forward for public
hearing. The Applicant has since requested another review of the text amendment and the discussion was
moved forward by the Board of Supervisors.
2014 Transportation Committee Discussions
The Transportation Committee discussed this proposed change at their February 2014 meeting and
forwarded it to the DRRC for comment. The DRRC discussed the requested amendment at their March
2014 meeting; the minutes from the DRRC meeting are attached. The DRRC expressed concern about
maintenance of the private streets and the potential for HOA’s to go defunct and request the County take
over the streets. The Transportation Committee discussed the item again at their April 2014 meeting and
forwarded the amendment to the Board of Supervisors with no action.
May 7, 2014 Planning Commission Discussion
This item was discussed by the Planning Commission at their meeting on May 7, 2014. Commissioners
expressed the need for specificity in the language of not just the R5 ordinance, but the broader ordinance,
if private roads are allowed in non-age-restricted communities, in which it is clearly detailed that private
streets need to be designed and constructed in accordance with all VDOT standards, particularly including
the structural section, material quality, drainage, vertical and horizontal sections, etc., and be verified by
an independent engineer. In addition, the deed should specifically state the streets meet VDOT standards
and the maintenance and improvements of drainage systems and snow removal is the responsibility of the
HOA. Furthermore, a mechanism should be included whereby these responsibilities are recognized by the
buyer of the lot and they will be responsible for all costs associated with maintenance and snow removal.
Commissioners wanted the private roads to be constructed to a high quality that would last over time and
avoid roads constructed to sub-quality standards. Their rational was that if the road was constructed to a
high standard, it would protect those people buying into the private road community and the remaining
county residents, in the event the HOA would become defunct and VDOT needed to take over the roads.
Conversely, it was pointed out that constructing a road to VDOT standards today would not guarantee it
would be accepted into the State’s system in future years because the State’s criteria frequently changes.
Three residents of the Lake Frederick community came forward to address the Commission and noted the
issue centers around Phase 2 of Lake Frederick, which is a blend of age-restricted and non-age restricted
communities. These residents spoke about incidences relating to non-residents staying overnight at the
lake area and/or driving through the residential areas looking for the lake, and drug situations. This was
why the gated concept was important to many of the residents; however, a gate cannot be placed across a
public road. It was also believed that specific criteria were needed so the homeowners know what to
expect in order to meet their financial obligations regarding the maintenance of the roads, along with the
agreement between the Developer and the VDGIF, the promised community center, and other amenities
not yet constructed, once the developer pulls out. It was noted the newly developed area, with non-age-
restricted homes, may have 750 to 1,000 residences, which will generate a significant contribution to the
HOA.
Frederick County Planning Commission
RE: R5 Private Streets
May 30, 2014
Page 3
The Developer’s representative explained the original community was approved as a gated community
with private roads and the intent is to continue development as a gated community, but this can’t be
accomplished without private roads. He stated the existing private streets are built to a very exacting
standard that meets or exceeds the standard for depth of pavement and the roads also satisfy all drainage
requirements. The message the Developer received was the private streets need to be constructed so
they last and this is what they are doing. In addition, detail was added to the proposed ordinance as a
result of various committee meetings and included requirements for depth of pavement and verification
by a certified Virginia engineer. Also included is a requirement for capital reserve studies on a bi-annual
basis to guarantee reserve funds for future road maintenance. He pointed out, however, the Developer
has an issue with the horizontal aspect of road construction because he intentionally does not want to
construct massive roads enabling high-speed travel; the intent is to slow down traffic. It was also noted
the majority of residents want to keep their community gated, not just on one side of the lake, but on
both sides. The Developer is in favor of including specific standards to ensure private roads are
constructed to last, but does not want to build VDOT roads. (Note: Commissioners Mohn, Dunlap, and
Unger were absent from the meeting.)
May 28, 2014 Board of Supervisors Discussion
This item was discussed by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on May 28, 2014. Four citizens spoke
at the beginning of the meeting requesting the item be sent forward for public hearing. The Board of
Supervisors expressed concern with the long term maintenance of the streets and concern that streets
may be too narrow for on street parking. Ultimately the Board of Supervisors sent the item forward for
public hearing.
Conclusion
Staff has attached a draft ordinance revision that includes the amendments requested by the applicant
(with strikethroughs for text eliminated and bold italic for text added). This item is presented for
discussion. A recommendation from the Planning Commission (approval or denial, option 1 or option 2)
on this proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment is sought. Please contact me if you have any
questions.
Attachments:
1. Proposed Revisions
2. Correspondence from Supervisors Wells
3. Applicant Request Letter
4. Letters from Shenandoah Residents
5. DRRC Minutes – March 2014
6. Transportation Committee Reports – February 2014, April 2014
CEP/pd
ATTACHMENT 1
1
ARTICLE V
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS
Part 502 – R5 Residential Recreational Community District
§ 165-502.05 Design requirements.
F. Open space. A minimum of 35% of the gross area of any proposed development shall be designated
as common open space. This open space shall be for purposes of environmental protection and for
the common use of residents of the development. No more than 50% of the required open space
shall be within lakes and ponds, wetlands or steep slopes. The Board of Supervisors may allow a
larger amount of steep slopes to be utilized where the developer can demonstrate a viable plan for
the use of these areas. Where age-restricted When communities are approved with private streets, a
minimum of 45% of open space shall be required.
K. Streets. The residential recreational community development shall be provided with a complete
system of public streets dedicated to the Virginia Department of Transportation. The road system
shall conform with the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan and with road improvement
plans adopted by the County.
OPTION #1:
Applicant’s Request:
(1) Within any portion of a residential recreational community which qualifies as an age-
restricted community, the Board of Supervisors may waive the public street requirement
and allow for the installation of private streets, provided that all road sections meet the
minimum thickness based on the Virginia Department of Transportation pavement design
standards, all storm sewer, signage, guardrails, and any other accessory features shall be
designed following the VDOT Manual of Road and Bridge Standards streets conform to the
construction details and materials of the Virginia Department of Transportation Standards.
Paving designs, based on actual CBR’s will be provided to the County for approval. and
that a A program for the perpetual maintenance of all streets by the property owner’s
association will be is provided which is acceptable to the Board of Supervisors and the
Transportation Planner.
ATTACHMENT 1
2
(a) Three classes of private streets shall be permitted in age-restricted communities and shall be
identified on a MDP as follows:
[1] Greenways. All private streets with a projected ADT of over 3,000 shall have a minimum
right-of-way of 50 feet and shall have no direct lot frontage. Greenways shall be lined on
both sides with street trees having a minimum caliper of two inches at the time of
planting, spaced not more than 50 feet apart. Along the portions of right-of-way which
abut mature woodland, the Planning Director may waive the requirement for street
trees. The horizontal center line geometrics and vertical profile design shall meet the
VDOT criteria for subdivision streets with a design speed of 30 miles per hour (mph).
[2] Neighborhood collectors. All private streets with a projected ADT of over 400 shall have a
minimum right-of-way of 50 feet and may have lot frontage. Neighborhood collectors
shall be lined on both sides with street trees having a minimum caliper of two inches at
the time of planting, spaced not more than 50 feet apart. The horizontal center line
geometrics and vertical profile design shall meet the VDOT criteria for subdivision streets
with a design speed of 30 mph.
[3] Local streets. All private streets with a projected ADT of 400 or less shall have a minimum
right-of-way of 30 feet and may have lot frontage. Local streets shall be lined with street
trees having a minimum caliper of two inches at the time of planting, spaced not more
than 50 feet apart. The horizontal center line geometrics and vertical profile design shall
meet the VDOT criteria for subdivision streets with a design speed of 20 mph.
(b) The subdivision design plans and final subdivision plats for all lots contained within an age-
restricted community that utilize private roads shall include the following language:
OPTION #2:
Staff Recommendation:
(1) Within any portion of a residential recreational community which qualifies as an age-
restricted community, the Board of Supervisors may waive the public street requirement
and allow for the installation of private streets, provided that all road sections meet all
Virginia Department of Transportation road design standards and any other accessory
features shall be designed following the VDOT Manual of Road and Bridge Standards
streets conform to the construction details and materials of the Virginia Department of
Transportation Standards. Paving designs, based on actual CBR’s will be provided to the
County for approval. and that a A program for the perpetual maintenance of all streets by
the property owner’s association will be is provided which is acceptable to the Board of
Supervisors and the Transportation Planner.
ATTACHMENT 1
3
The proposed private streets will not be maintained by the Virginia Department of
Transportation or the County of Frederick. The maintenance and improvement of
said private streets shall be the sole responsibility of the owners of the lots within
the age-restricted community which are provided access via the private streets.
(b) Developments utilizing private streets shall meet the following conditions:
[1] The plan for the development shall include 1000 or more planned lots.
[2] The subdivision design plans and final subdivision plats for all lots that utilize private
streets shall include language that states “The private streets within this development
are not intended for inclusion in the system of state highways and will not be
maintained by VDOT or Frederick County. Frederick County and VDOT have no, and will
have no, responsibility for the maintenance, repair, or replacement of the private
streets within this development. The maintenance and improvement of said private
streets shall be the sole responsibility of the property owners’ association”.
[3] The developer shall establish a reserve fund dedicated solely for the maintenance of the
private streets within the development. The reserve fund shall consist of a specified
percentage of all dues collected from the residents as determined by the developer.
The percentage may be reduced by the developer or the property owners’ association
only after a reserve study has been completed and said study shows that a lesser
amount is necessary to maintain the private street system within the development. The
property owners’ association shall complete a capital reserve study on a bi-annual basis
and such study will be used as the basis of the reserve funding. Such reserve study shall
be held at the office of the property owners’ association and available for review by the
County, if requested.
[4] Sales brochures or other literature and documents, provided by the seller of lots served
by such private streets, shall include information regarding responsibility for
maintenance, repair, replacement, and covenants pertaining to such lots, including a
statement that the County has no, and will have no, responsibility for the maintenance,
repair, or replacement of private streets.
(2) Within R-5 residential recreation community developments approved prior to 1980, the Board of
Supervisors may allow the extension of existing private roads if no other means of access is
available.
(3) Within developments utilizing private streets, a certified professional engineer, licensed in the
State of Virginia, shall be employed by the developer to monitor and supervise the materials
used; the adequacy of the subgrade; the installation of drainage structures, curb and gutter
and all concrete items; and all road, driveway and parking area construction activities,
including material compaction, grading tolerances and compliance with the plans and
specifications. Prior to bond release, the certified professional engineer, licensed in the State of
ATTACHMENT 1
4
Virginia, shall provide the county with certification that the bonded phase or section of
construction met density requirements; that all material depths were verified for compliance;
and that the road and parking areas have been constructed in strict accord ance with the plans
and specifications.
L. Curb and gutter. All public and private streets shall be provided with curb and gutter.
1
DRRC Meeting – 03/27/2014
Members present: Greg Unger, Tim Stowe, Gary Oates, June Wilmot, Jay Banks
Absent: Larry Ambrogi, Kevin Kenney, Eric Lowman, Dwight Shenk, Whit Wagner, Roger Thomas
Staff: Candice Perkins
Applicants: Rick Lanham, Josh Hummer - Attorney
Item 1: Private Streets in the R5 Zoning District. Discussion on revisions to the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance to remove the requirement that R-5 communities must be “age restricted communities” to
qualify for private streets.
The Applicant’s Attorney summarized the Transportation Committee meeting. The TC wanted the roads
built to state standards and cbr's to be provided to the county. They also wanted to have the PE
requirement to monitor the instillation and certify the construction. Mr. Unger asked about the
construction and the PE certification. The applicant stated that the same standards would apply to
them; paving design would be provided to the county and bonded. They would be inspected and then
fixed at the end and off bond.
The committee was concerned because private streets don’t have the same requirements as the public
streets. Private streets go bad eventually; the committee questioned how this could be avoided. The
applicant stated that the ordinance includes a provision for a reserve fund and a reserve balance
analysis to make sure there are adequate funds for repairs. He further stated that Shenandoah is a large
community and the residents are asking for private streets. Every two years a capital reserve study is
completed that ensures there are adequate funds for repairs.
Mr. Unger expressed concern about busses not being able to go into the community. Ms. Wilmot
wanted to know if this community would draw more residents with or without kids. The applicant stated
that he believes that it will draw fewer children, but can't be sure. The DRRC also had questions about
liability for accidents on the private streets.
The committee questioned how the reserve is started? The Applicant stated that it is created at day one
and as more improvements get underway more gets added to the fund.
The committee expressed concern about the guarantee that the HOA would never fold and then the
residents come back to the county for help. The applicant stated that there is no way to provide a
complete guarantee but they are trying to put ordinances in place to help that from happening. The
applicant further stated that Shenandoah is proposed to be a nice development and the residents are
going to want to keep it up but how do you make sure the maintenance is kept up. If the HOA doesn't
do the reserve study then the county would have to enforce the ordinance and make them do it.
Item 2: (Other) Setbacks for Multifamily residential buildings.
The committee expressed concern with the proposal to reduce the front setback from 35 feet to 15 feet.
They felt that it seemed to close to a public street.
2
TND or high density developments should have commercial elements that include eating establishments
which would be between the street and the building and 15 feet seems close. The committee expressed
comfort with reducing the setback from 35 feet to 20 feet because it would provide more distance to
the public road.
The committee also stated the possibility of going off the speed limit. Roads with a 25 mph should be 20
feet and anything overt that should be 35 feet.
C
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/ 665-5651
Fax: 540/ 665-6395
107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Public Hearing- Setback Requirements for Multifamily Residential Buildings
DATE: May 30, 2014
______________________________________________________________________________
Changes to the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District were approved by the Board of
Supervisors in January of 2013. One change to the ordinance was the addition of a new housing
type called “multifamily residential buildings.” This multifamily housing type allows for high
density (up to 20 units per acre) in areas designated by the Comprehensive Plan as
neighborhood villages, urban centers or other areas planned for high-density residential. During
the discussion and public hearing process, a high-density residential streetscape section
schematic was provided of how this housing type could be developed. The schematic depicted a
multifamily building with a front setback of 12-20 feet. The text adopted for multifamily
residential buildings requires a 35-foot front setback which is contrary to what was shown
during the initial discussions. An applicant is now trying to implement this housing type and
they have requested the setback be re-evaluated to reduce the 35- foot front setback to 15 feet.
The DRRC reviewed this proposed change at their March 2014 meeting. The DRRC initially
discussed a change to reduce the setback from 35 feet to 15 feet, but felt that 15 feet was too
close to a public street. The committee expressed comfort with reducing the setback from 35
feet to 20 feet because it would provide a comfortable distance to the public road while still
allowing the buildings to be closer to the road, which is common in high density and TND
developments. The 20-foot setback would fit the maximum shown in the schematic.
This item was discussed by the Planning Commission at their May 7, 2014 meeting. A comment
was made that the proposed revision should specifically state if the setback was measured from
the centerline or right-of-way and whether the resulting structure might be too close to a
sidewalk. Staff noted the 20 feet would be measured from the edge of the right-of-way. Staff
pointed out this housing type is only permitted within areas planned for high-density residential
development and is not allowed everywhere. (Note: Commissioners Mohn, Dunlap, and Unger
were absent from the meeting.) The Board of Supervisors Discussed this item at their May 28,
2014 meeting; the Board discussed where this reduced setback would be used and whether
keeping the 35’ setback would encourage parking in front of the structure (which was not
desirable). Ultimately the Board of Supervisors sent the item forward for public hearing.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Setback Requirements for Multifamily
May 30, 2014
Page 2
The attached document shows the existing ordinance with the proposed changes supported by
the DRRC and the Planning Commission (with strikethroughs for text eliminated and bold italic
for text added). A recommendation from the Planning Commission on this proposed Zoning
Ordinance text amendment is sought. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Attachment: 1. Proposed Revisions (deletions shown in strikethrough and additions show in
bold underlined italics).
2. High Density Residential Streetscape Section Schematic
CEP/pd
ARTICLE IV
AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Part 402 – RP Residential Performance District
§ 165-402.09 Dimensional requirements.
J. Multifamily residential buildings. This housing type consists of multifamily buildings with a minimum
of four dwelling unit entrances sharing an internal corridor per floor. The entire dwelling unit does
not necessarily have to be on the same floor. External corridors are not permitted. Multifamily
residential building shall only be located in areas designated in the Comprehensive Plan as
neighborhood villages, urban centers or other areas planned for high density residential.
Dimensional requirements shall be as follows:
A. Lot Dimensions
A1 Maximum site impervious surface ratio .60
B. Building Setbacks
B1 From public road or private road right-of-way 35 feet 20feet
B2 From off street parking lot or driveway 20 feet 10 feet
B3 Side (perimeter) 50 feet
B4 Rear (perimeter) 50 feet
B5 Rear for balconies and decks 20 feet
B6 Minimum on-site building spacing: Minimum on-site building spacing. Buildings placed side to side
shall have a minimum distance of 20 feet between buildings; buildings placed side to back shall have a
minimum distance of 35 feet between buildings. Buildings back to back shall have a minimum distance
of 50 feet between buildings.
C. Minimum Parking
C1 Required off street parking 2 per unit
D. Height
D1 Principal Building (max): 60 feet provided that a multifamily residential building may be erected to a
maximum of 80 feet if it is set back from road right-of-ways and from lit lines in addition to each of the
required minimum yard dimensions, a distance of not less than one foot for each one foot of height that
it exceeds the 60 foot limit.
D2 Accessory Building (max) 20 feet
D
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #03-14
Madison Village
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared:May 30, 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:06/18/14 Pending
Board of Supervisors:07/09/14 Pending
PROPOSAL:To develop 46.26 acres of land Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District with a
maximum of 640 residential units (townhouse and multifamily) and 5 acres of land zoned B2 (Business
General) with commercial uses.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT:Shawnee
PROPERTY ID NUMBER:64-A-18
LOCATION:The property is on the west side of Route 522, approximately 1,000 feet south of the
intersection of Route 522 and Airport Road.
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
Zoned: Industrial Transition (B3)Use:Residential & Agricultural
ZONING & PRESENT USE OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES:
North:RP (Residential Performance)Use: Vacant (Russell 150)
South:RP (Residential Performance)Use: Residential/Vacant
East RP (Residential Performance), B2 (Business General) Use: Residential/Vacant
West: RA (Rural Area)Use: Vacant/Agricultural
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 06/18/14 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The Master Development Plan for Madison Village depicts appropriate land uses and appears to be
consistent with the requirements of Article VIII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance,
and this MDP is in a form that is administratively approvable. The MDP is also in conformance with the
proffers for Rezoning #03-13. All of the issues brought forth by the Planning Commission should be
appropriately addressed by the applicant.
It appears 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.
MDP #03-14, Madison Village
May 30, 2014
Page 2
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Department of Transportation: Plan approved.
Frederick County Public Works: Plan approved.
Frederick County Inspections: Comments shall be made at site plan/subdivision site submittal.
Frederick County Parks and Recreation: The applicant will need to submit details on the required
recreational units during the site development phase.
Frederick County Fire & Rescue: Plan approved.
Frederick County Fire Marshall: Plan approved.
Frederick County Health Department: Health Department has no objection. Public water and sewer
required.
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. Sanitary sewer treatment capacity at the waste
water treatment plant is also presently available. Sanitary sewer conveyance capacity and layout will be
contingent on the applicant performing a technical analysis of the existing sanitary sewer system within
the area to be served and the ability of the existing conveyance system to accept additional load.
Likewise, water distribution capacity will require the applicant to perform a technical analysis of the
existing system within the area to be served to determine available capacity. Both water and sanitary
sewer facilities are located within a reasonable distance from this site.
Water and sanitary sewers are to be constructed in accordance with the FCSA standards specifications.
Dedicated easements will be required and based on the layout, vehicular access will need to be
incorporated into the final design. All easements should be free from any encumbrance including
permanent structures (fences, signs, etc.) and landscaping (trees, shrubs, etc.).
Please be aware, 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: It is noted the public streets will be phased with the development.
Our buses can use the roundabouts to turn around at the ends of phases 1 and 2. We will need a cul-de-
sac or similar feature to turn around at the end of Phase 3. Roadway features that do not require backing
are preferred over features such as hammer heads that do require backing.
MDP #03-14, Madison Village
May 30, 2014
Page 3
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 original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Winchester, VA Quadrangle) identifies the
subject property as being zoned A-1 (Agricultural General). The County’s agricultural zoning
districts were combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment
to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding zoning map
resulted in the re-mapping of this portion of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2
rezoned land to the RA District. On December 11, 2013 the Board of Supervisors approved
Rezoning #03-13 of Madison Village which rezoned the property to RP (Residential
Performance) and B2 (Business General) with proffers.
C)
Comprehensive Policy Plan:
Site Suitability & Project Scope
The 2030 Comprehensive 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.
Land Use Compatibility:
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Areas Plan (Appendix
I) provide guidance on the future development of the property. The property is located in the
UDA (Urban Development Area) and the SWSA (Sewer and Water Service Area). The 2030
Comprehensive Plan identifies the general area surrounding this property with a high density
residential land use designation.
Site Access and Transportation:
The Madison Village development will have one signalized entrance on Route 522. It should be
noted that the location on the MDP has been shifted south due to entrance spacing requirements.
The modified entrance is still in general conformance with the proffered Generalized
Development Plan from the rezoning. The development includes the following improvements:
installation of a traffic signal at the development entrance, right and left turn lanes on Route 522,
dual eastbound left turn lanes from the development entrance, and two roundabouts internal to
the project. The site will also be providing interparcel connections to the adjacent B2 zoned
properties as proffered, as well as a connection into the Russell 150 property.
MDP #03-14, Madison Village
May 30, 2014
Page 4
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 06/18/14 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The Master Development Plan for Madison Village depicts appropriate land uses and appears to be
consistent with the requirements of Article VIII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance,
and this MDP is in a form that is administratively approvable. The MDP is also in conformance with the
proffers for Rezoning #03-13. All of the issues brought forth by the Planning Commission should be
appropriately addressed by the applicant.
It appears 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.
GLAZEDEVELOPMENTSubdivision
AIRPORT BUSINESSCENTERSubdivision
PRESTONBUSINESS PARKSubdivisionPRESTON PLACESubdivision
01522
ST644
MCCLUREWAY
CASTLEBRID
G
E
CT
LONGCROFT RD
BENTLEY AVE
E
L
M
W
O
O
D
R
D
P
A
P
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
F
R
O
N
T
R
O
Y
A
L
P
I
K
E
63 A 147
63 4 5A
63D 1 2 63D 1 3
63 A 145
63D 1 463D 1 5
63 A 146 64 A 20 64 A 21A 64D 2A 8 64D 2A 7
64D 2A 14 64D 2A 15
64D 3 A64D 3 B 64D A 2064DA 22 64D A 21
64D 8 1 86A
64D 81 6964D 81 86
64D8 1 7064D 81 85
64D 81 83 64D 81 81
63D 1 A63D1 1
64 A 21
64D 2A 1064D2 A 9
64D 2A 12
64D 2A 13 64D A 19
64D A 16 64D A 18 64D 81 68 64D 81 71
64D 81 72
64D 81 73
63 4 4
63 A 149
64D A 1564D 2A 11
64D A 12
64D A 17
64 2 C
64D 81 67
64D 81 66
64D 81 64
63 A148 63 A 14463 A146A
64D A 10
64 2 B2
64D 734A
63 A 124
63 A 143
64D A 14 64 2 A2 64D 7 6
64D A 7
64D A 8 64D A 9 64 2 A1 64 2 A3
63 A124B
64 A 18
64D A 5
64D A 6
64 2 A64 2 A3
64D7 1 64D7 2 64D7 3
64D 7 464D A 464D A 3
64 A 18A
64D A 2 64 A 42
64 A 41
64D A 1 64 A 43
64 A 4464C 2 1
64C 2 3
64C 2 2
64C2 9
64 A44B 64 A44A 64C2 4464C 2 45
64 A 17
64C 2 4
64C 2 5 64C2 10 64C2 11
64C2 33 64C2 3464C 2 35
64 A 16
64C 2 6 64C 2 12
64C2 25 64C2 26
64C 2 8
64C 2 7 64C 2 13
64C A16A
64C2 15
64C 2 14
64C2 16
64C 2 18
64C 2 19
64C A 16
64C A 15
64C A 14
64C 216A 64C2 17
64C A13A
63 A123A
64 A 15
64 A 45
64 A 12
64 A 14
64C A 13
64C A 11
64 A 45B
64C A 10
64CA 9
64C 1 15
MDP0314
Applications
Parcels
Building Footprints
B1 (Business, Neighborhood District)
B2 (Business, General Distrist)
B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District)
EM (Extractive Manufacturing District)
HE (Higher Education District)
M1 (Industrial, Light District)
M2 (Industrial, General District)
MH1 (Mobile Home Community District)
MS (Medical Support District)
OM (Office - Manufacturing Park)
R4 (Residential Planned Community District)
R5 (Residential Recreational Community District)
RA (Rural Area District)
RP (Residential Performance District)
I
Note:Frederick County Dept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: May 23, 2014Staff: cperkins
P
A
P
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
F
R
O
N
T
R
O
Y
A
L
P
I
K
E
AIRPORT RD
VINE LN
CALDW
E
L
L
L
N
BENTLE
Y
A
V
E
SHA
W
N
E
E
D
R
FIRS
T
S
T
ROYAL
S
T
WESTWOOD DR
01522
01522
MCCLURE WAY
LONGCROFT RD
IMPE
R
I
A
L
S
T
AD
M
I
R
A
L
B
Y
R
D
D
R
GRINDSTONE DR
ELMWOOD RDJU
D
Y
D
R
HARRISO
N
L
N
MA
T
E
C
T
SHELBY
C
TTRENT CT
ME
W
S
L
N
W
E
S
T
W
O
O
D
C
I
R
MELI
S
S
A
A
V
E
A
L
L
S
T
O
N
C
I
R
F
R
O
N
T
R
O
Y
A
L
P
I
K
E
MDP # 03 - 14Madison VillagePINs:64 - A - 18
MDP # 03 - 14Madison VillagePINs:64 - A - 18
0 525 1,050262.5 Feet
E
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #04-14
Clearbrook Business Center
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared:May 29, 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:06/18/14 Pending
Board of Supervisors:07/09/14 Pending
PROPOSAL:To develop 16.886 acres of land zoned B3 (Industrial Transition) District with
commercial/industrial uses.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT:Stonewall
PROPERTY ID NUMBERS:33-(A)-122A and 33-(A)-123
LOCATION:The subject properties are located at 3625 Martinsburg Pike, on the west side of Route
11, approximately 2,000’ north of Hopewell Road (Route 672).
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
Zoned: Industrial Transition (B3)
Use:Residential & Agricultural
ZONING & PRESENT USE OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES:
North: Residential/Agricultural Use: RA (Rural Ares)
South: Agricultural and Residential Use: RA (Rural Ares)
East:Route 11/Residential Use: RA (Rural Ares)
West: Interstate I-81 Use: N/A
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 06/18/14 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The Master Development Plan for Clearbrook Business Center depicts appropriate land uses and appears
to be consistent with the requirements of Article VIII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning
Ordinance, and this MDP is in a form that is administratively approvable. The MDP is also in
conformance with the proffers for Rezoning #01-06. All of the issues brought forth by the Planning
Commission 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.
MDP #04-14 Clearbrook Business Center
May 29, 2014
Page 2
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Department of Transportation: The Master Development Plan for this property appears to
have a measurable impact on Route 11, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property.
VDOT finds the MDP acceptable. Once approved by Frederick County, please provide a signed PDF of
the plan. Before making any final comments, this office will require a complete set of site plans,
drainage calculations and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for
review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way
dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Prior to construction
on the State’s right-of-way the developer will need to apply to this office for issuance of appropriate
permits to cover said work.
Frederick County Fire Marshal: Plan approved.
Frederick County Fire & Rescue: Plan approved.
Frederick County Public Works: No comment at this time.
Frederick County Inspections: No comments required at this time. The department will comment at
the time of the site plan.
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. Sanitary sewer treatment capacity at the waste
water treatment plant is also presently available. Sanitary sewer conveyance capacity and layout will be
contingent on the applicant performing a technical analysis of the existing sanitary sewer system within
the area to be served and the ability of the existing conveyance system to accept additional load.
Likewise, water distribution capacity will require the applicant to perform a technical analysis of the
existing system within the area to be served to determine available capacity. Both water and sanitary
sewer facilities are located within a reasonable distance from this site.
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.
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
MDP #04-14 Clearbrook Business Center
May 29, 2014
Page 3
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 original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Inwood Quadrangle) identifies the subject
parcels as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). The County’s agricultural zoning districts
were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an
amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding
revision of the zoning map resulted in the re-mapping of the subject property and all other A-1
and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. On March 22, 2006 the Board of Supervisors approved
Rezoning #01-06 which rezoned the subject properties from the RA District to the B3 (Industrial
Transition) District with proffers.
C)
Comprehensive Policy Plan:
Site Suitability & Project Scope
The 2030 Comprehensive 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.
Land Use Compatibility:
The parcels comprising this MDP application are located within the County’s Sewer and Water
Service Area (SWSA). The site is within the limits of the Northeast Land Use Plan and is
designated for business use.
Site Access and Transportation:
The Clearbrook Business Center development will be accessed via a public street that will
intersect with Martinsburg Pike. The internal road network will also provide interparcel access
to the properties to the north and south.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 06/18/14 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The Master Development Plan for Clearbrook Business Center depicts appropriate land uses and appears
to be consistent with the requirements of Article VIII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning
Ordinance, and this MDP is in a form that is administratively approvable. The MDP is also in
conformance with the proffers for Rezoning #01-06. All of the issues brought forth by the Planning
Commission 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.
AIKENS
CLEARBROOKBUSINESSCENTER
0111
§¨¦81§¨¦81
ST671
HOPEWELL
R
D
JEREMIAH
LN
A
I
K
E
N
L
N
BRUCETOWN RD
WO
O
D
S
I
D
E
R
D
CE
D
A
R
H
I
L
L
R
D
MA
R
T
I
N
S
B
U
R
G
PIK
E
MDP0414
MDP0414
33 A114A
33 A115A
33 A 115
33 2 A
33B 1 12
33 A 151
33B1 9
33 A 150
33B 1 5
33B 1 6
33 A 149
33B 1 53
33 A 148
33 A 166
33 A114B
33B 1 4733B 1 49
33B 1 51 33B 1 5433B 1 5533B 1 57 33B A 4
34 A 11A
34 A 11A
33 A117A
33B 1 58
33B A 2
33 A155B
33 A 117
33 A 119
33 A 122
33 A 120
33 A 121
33 A 12333 A123B
33 A122A
33 A124D
33 A124A
33 A124B
33 A124B
33 A 125
33 A 132
33 A123A 33 A125A
33 A 13133 A125B
33 A 124
33 A 126
33 A 129
33 A112F
33 A112F
33 A125C
33 A125E
33 A125D
33 A 128
33 A 127
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 & Development
107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: May 30, 2014Staff: cperkins
MA
R
T
I
N
S
B
U
R
G
P
I
K
E
BRUCETOWN RD
WOO
D
S
I
D
E
R
D
HOPEWELL
R
D
CED
A
R
H
I
L
L
R
D
0111
HOP
E
W
E
L
L
E
X
I
T
R
A
M
P
S
MDP # 04 - 14Clearbrook Business CenterPINs:33 - A - 122A, 33 - A - 123
MDP # 04 - 14Clearbrook Business CenterPINs:33 - A - 122A, 33 - A - 123
0 525 1,050262.5 Feet
F
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #05-14
Snowden Bridge Station
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared:May 30, 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:06/18/14 Pending
Board of Supervisors:07/09/14 Pending
PROPOSAL:To develop 91.82 acres of land zoned M1 (Light Industrial) with industrial uses.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT:Stonewall
PROPERTY ID NUMBERS:44-A-143, 44-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
LOCATION:The subject properties are located at 1800 Martinsburg Pike –near Interstate 81 North
exit 317 and bounded by CSX to the east, Redbud Road (Route 661) to the south, and Martinsburg Pike
(Route 11) to the west.
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
Zoned: M1 (Light Industrial)Use:Industrial, Residential & Agricultural
ZONING & PRESENT USE OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES:
North:RA (Rural Areas),RP (Residential Performance) Use:Nursery/Residential
South:Interstate I-81,RA (Rural Areas)Use:Interstate/Residential
East: M1 (Light Industrial)Use: Vacant/Graystone Industrial Park
West: RP (Residential Performance),RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential
B2 (Business General)Rutherford Crossing (commercial)
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 06/18/14 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The Master Development Plan for Snowden Bridge Station depicts appropriate land uses and appears to
be consistent with the requirements of Article VIII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance,
and this MDP is in a form that is administratively approvable. The MDP is also in conformance with the
proffers for Rezoning’s #03-05 for North Stephenson and #01-12 for Snowden Bridge Station. All of the
issues brought forth by the Planning Commission should be appropriately addressed by the applicant.
It appears 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.
MDP #05-14 Snowden Bridge Station
May 30, 2014
Page 2
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Department of Transportation: The Master Development Plan for this property appears to
have a measurable impact on Route 11, the VDOT facility which would provide access to the property.
VDOT finds the MDP acceptable. Once approved by Frederick County, please provide a signed PDF of
the plan. Before making any final comments, this office will require a complete set of site plans,
drainage calculations and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for
review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way
dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Prior to
construction on the State’s right-of-way the developer will need to apply to this office for issuance of
appropriate permits to cover said work.
Frederick County Fire Marshal: Plan approved.
Frederick County Fire & Rescue: Plan approved.
Frederick County Public Works: No comments.
Frederick County Inspections: Comments shall be made at site plan submittal.
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. Sanitary sewer treatment capacity at the waste
water treatment plant is also presently available. Sanitary sewer conveyance capacity and layout will be
contingent on the applicant performing a technical analysis of the existing sanitary sewer system within
the area to be served and the ability of the existing conveyance system to accept additional load.
Likewise, water distribution capacity will require the applicant to perform a technical analysis of the
existing system within the area to be served to determine available capacity. Both water and sanitary
sewer facilities are located within a reasonable distance from this site.
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 master plan, 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.
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
MDP #05-14 Snowden Bridge Station
May 30, 2014
Page 3
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 original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Winchester, VA Quadrangle) identifies the
majority of the subject property as being zoned A-2 (Agriculture General). The County’s
agricultural zoning districts were combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption
of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The
corresponding zoning map resulted in the re-mapping of this portion of the subject property and
all other A-1 and A-2 rezoned land to the RA District. The remainder of the property was
identified as being zoned R-3. The R-3 (Residential-General) District zoning classification was
modified to RP (Residential Performance) District on February 14, 1990, during the
comprehensive amendment to the county’s Zoning Ordinance. On April 26, 2005 the Board of
Supervisors approved Rezoning #03-05 for North Stephenson, Inc. which rezoned 79.13 acres
from RA (Rural Areas) District and RP (Residential Performance) District area to the M1 (Light
Industrial) District with proffers. On March 14, 2012 the Board of Supervisors approved
Rezoning #01-12 for Snowden Bridge Station which rezoned 6.512 acres from RA (Rural
Areas) District and 6.180 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District, totaling 12.692 acres
to M1 (Light Industrial) District, with proffers.
C)
Comprehensive Policy Plan:
Site Suitability & Project Scope
The 2030 Comprehensive 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.
Land Use Compatibility:
The North East Land Use Plan, Appendix I of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, recognizes that this
property is planned for industrial land uses. In addition, the adjacent area is planned for
industrial and commercial land uses. The property is located within the County’s Sewer and
Water Service Area.
Site Access and Transportation:
Access to this site will be via a connection to Snowden Bridge Boulevard that would align with
an access point already approved with the North Stephenson, Inc., rezoning application. The
initial segment of Snowden Bridge Boulevard has been constructed and aligns at a signalized
intersection of Martinsburg Pike across from the Rutherford Crossing Shopping Center. The
Master Development shows the platted ROW for the continuation of Snowden Bridge Boulevard
and road construction is coordinated through several projects including North Stephenson Inc.,
Graystone, and Snowden Bridge. Additional portions of Snowden Bridge Boulevard and the
proposed Ezra Lane will be built by Snowden Bridge Station if needed for site access. The MDP
also shows the proffered ROW for the relocation of Redbud Road.
MDP #05-14 Snowden Bridge Station
May 30, 2014
Page 4
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 06/18/14 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The Master Development Plan for Snowden Bridge Station depicts appropriate land uses and appears to
be consistent with the requirements of Article VIII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance,
and this MDP is in a form that is administratively approvable. The MDP is also in conformance with the
proffers for Rezoning’s #03-05 for North Stephenson and #01-12 for Snowden Bridge Station. All of the
issues brought forth by the Planning Commission should be appropriately addressed by the applicant.
It appears 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.
FORT COLLIERINDUSTRIAL PARKSubdivision THIRD WINCHESTERBATTLEFIELDSubdivision
RUTHERFORDSFARMSubdivision
0111
§¨¦81
§¨¦81 §¨¦81
PACT
I
V
WAY
EZRA
L
N
AMO
C
O
L
N
MART
I
N
S
B
U
R
G
PIKE
SNO
W
D
E
N
B
R
I
D
G
E
B
L
V
D
RED
B
U
D
R
D
54 A 36J54 A 36M
43 A 154
54 A 89C 54 A 88
44 A 26
43 A 155 43 A156 43 A 157
55 A 3
44 A 27
43 A38A
43 A 44
43 A 158
43 A159
43 A159A
43C6 A
43 A 152
43C 5 1643C 5 17
43C 5 15
43C4 8
43C 4 10
43C4 543C 4 643C4 7
43 A 48A
43C 4 243C4 3 43C4 4
43 A48B
43 A 151
43 A50A
43C 3 8A43C3 9
43 A 147
43 A 52C 43C3 6
43C 3 7A
43C3 5
43 A 52 43 A100I
43C3 3
43C 3 4
43C 3 4A
43C3 2 43 A 146
43 A 52B 43 A100D
43 A100J 43 A 150 43 A 148
43 A 140
43 A 144
43 A 145
43 A100K
43 A100L 43 A 149 43 A 143
43 A 56
43 A100E
43C 2 1 43 A 141
43 A 142
43 A100C
43 A 100
43 A100F 43C 2 243C 2 3
43 A100G
43C 1 A
43 A 138
43 A 139
43 A 56D
43 A100B
43 A100H
43 A 102
43 A 103
43 A 137
43 A 98 43 A100A 43 A 99
43C 1 B 43 A 104
43 A 105
43 A 106 43 A134A43 A56B
43 A 98A
43C 1 D
43 A 107 43 A 13643 A 135
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 & Development
107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: May 29, 2014Staff: cperkins
RED
B
U
D
R
D
MARTINS
B
U
R
G
P
I
K
E
MIL
B
U
R
N
R
D
WE
L
L
T
O
W
N
R
D
0111
0137
MCGHEE RD
AMO
C
O
L
N
MA
R
T
I
N
S
B
U
R
G
E
X
I
T
R
A
M
P
S
M
A
R
T
I
N
S
B
U
R
G
E
N
T
E
R
R
A
M
P
N
M
A
R
T
I
N
S
B
U
R
G
E
N
T
E
R
R
A
M
P
S
MA
R
T
I
N
S
B
U
R
G
E
X
I
T
R
A
M
P
N
MERCEDES CTI81, AC
C
E
S
S
I
8
1
,
A
C
C
E
S
S
I
8
1
,
A
C
C
E
S
S
MDP # 05 - 14Snowden Bridge StationPINs:43 - A - 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 150, 151, 15243C - 3 - 2, 3, 4, 4A, 5, 7A
MDP # 05 - 14Snowden Bridge StationPINs:43 - A - 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 150, 151, 15243C - 3 - 2, 3, 4, 4A, 5, 7A
0 630 1,260315 Feet
MDP0514
Graystone