PC 05-21-14 Meeting Agenda
AGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
May 21, 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) Committee Reports .................................................................................................. (no tab)
3) Citizen Comments .................................................................................................... (no tab)
PUBLIC HEARING
4) UDA Centers and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan – The Planning Commission will
discuss a proposed amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; Frederick County UDA
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 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 I,
Urban Areas.
Mr. Ruddy ........................................................................................................................ (A)
5) Establishment of a New Agricultural and Forestal District, Green Springs
Agricultural and Forestal District-The proposed District contains 385.63+/- acres within
two parcels and is located in the Gainesboro Magisterial District, fronting Glaize Orchard
Road (Route 682) to the south, and Green Springs Road (Route 671) to the east.
Mr. Cheran ......................................................................................................................... (B)
6) 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 along Hollow Road (Route 707) to the north, Muse Road (Route 610)
and Gold Orchard Road (Route 708) to the east.
Mr. Cheran ....................................................................................................................... (C)
7) Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code – Chapter 165 Zoning, Article
VIII-Development Plans and Approvals, Part 801-Master Development Plans, 165-
801.03 Waivers. Proposed revision to 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.
Mrs. Perkins ...................................................................................................................... (D)
INFORMATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS
8) Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Discussion on McCann-Slaugther. This Draft
Amendment to the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan (NELUP), and 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.
Mr. Ruddy ....................................................................................................................... (E)
9) Other
Adjourn
2
Commonly Used Planning Agenda Terms
Meeting format
Citizen Comments – The portion of the meeting agenda offering an opportunity for the public to provide
comment to the Planning Commission on any items not scheduled as public hearing items.
Public Hearing– A specific type of agenda item, required by State law, which incorporates public comment as a
part of that item prior to Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors action. Public hearings are held for
items such as: Comprehensive Plan policies and amendments; Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
amendments; and Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit applications. Following the Public Hearing, the
Planning Commission will take action on the item (see below).
Action Item–There are both public hearing and non‐public hearing items on which the Planning Commission
takes action. Depending on the actual item, the Planning Commission may approve, deny, table, or forward a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding the agenda item. No public comment is accepted
during the Action Item portion of the agenda.
Information/Discussion Item– The portion of the meeting agenda where items are presented to the Planning
Commission for information and discussion. The Planning Commission may offer comments and suggestions,
but does not take action on the agenda item. No public comment is accepted during the
Information/Discussion Item portion of the agenda.
Planning Terminology
Urban Development Area or UDA – The UDA is the county’s urban growth boundary identified in the
Comprehensive Plan in which more intensive forms of residential development will occur. The UDA is an area
of the county where community facilities and public services are more readily available and are provided more
economically.
Sewer and Water Service Area or SWSA – The SWSA is the boundary identified in the Comprehensive Plan in
which public water and sewer is or can be provided. The SWSA is consistent with the UDA in many locations;
however the SWSA may extend beyond the UDA to promote commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses
in area where residential land uses are not desirable.
Land Use – Land Use is the nomenclature which refers to the type of activity which may occur on an area of
land. Common land use categories include: agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial.
Zoning District ‐ Zoning district refers to a specific geographic area that is subject to land use standards.
Frederick County designates these areas, and establishes policies and ordinances over types of land uses,
density, and lot requirements in each zone. Zoning is the main planning tool of local government to manage
the future development of a community, protect neighborhoods, concentrate retail business and industry, and
channel traffic.
Rezoning – Rezoning is the process by which a property owner seeks to implement or modify the permitted
land use activities on their land. A rezoning changes the permitted land use activities within the categories
listed above under Land Use.
Conditional Use Permit or CUP ‐ A CUP allows special land uses which may be desirable, but are not always
appropriate based on a location and surrounding land uses. The CUP requested use, which is not allowed as a
matter of right within a zoning district, is considered through a public hearing process and usually contains
conditions to minimize any impacts on surrounding properties.
Ordinance Amendment – The process by which the County Code is revised. Often the revisions are the result
of a citizen request with substantial justification supporting the change. Amendments ultimately proceed
through a public hearing prior to the PC forwarding a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
County Bodies Involved
Board of Supervisors or BOS ‐ Frederick County is governed by an elected Board of Supervisors composed of
seven members, one from each magisterial district, and one chairman‐at‐large. The Board of Supervisors is the
policy‐making body of the county. Functions of the Board of Supervisors related to planning include making
land use decisions, and establishing growth and development policies.
Planning Commission or PC ‐ The PC is composed of 13 members, two from each magisterial districts and one
at‐large, appointed by the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission serves in an advisory capacity to the
Board of Supervisors which then takes final action on all planning, zoning, and land use matters.
Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee or CPPC – The CPPC is a major committee of the PC whose
primary responsibility is to formulate land use policies that shape the location and timing of development
throughout the County. Included in the work are studies of specific areas to develop guidelines for future land
use within those areas. The CPPC also considers requests for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
Decisions by CPPC are then forwarded to the PC for consideration.
Development Review and Regulations Committee or DRRC – The DRRC is the second major committee of the
PC whose primary responsibilities involve the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan in the form of
Zoning and Subdivision ordinance requirements. Requests to amend the ordinances to the DRRC are made by
the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, local citizens, businesses, or organizations. DRRC decisions
are also forwarded to the PC for consideration.
UDA Centers discussion points.
Why?
UDA Centers are an integral part of Frederick County’s overall growth management strategy.
Located at very important locations within the County’s Urban Areas, UDA Centers are strategic
growth areas that will absorb a greater amount of the anticipated community growth in an efficient
and effective way, providing relief and protection for the County’s Rural Areas, and encouraging a
variety of housing choices within the urban areas.
Who? From where does the community growth come: internal or external growth.
Over the past two decades, the amount of residential development in Frederick County has grown,
increasing at a relatively consistent rate of approximately three percent a year. Supporting this
growth was a period of significant expansion in the County’s commercial and industrial base.
According to the 2000 Census and more recent studies performed by the Economic Development
Commission, Frederick County remains an in-commute location. That is more people come to the
county daily for work and not to live which would create demand for public service.
On the other hand, the main contributor to the population growth was the migration of people from
outside the Winchester Metropolitan Statistic Area (MSA) to Frederick County for a higher quality
of life including lower housing costs, and a lower tax rate.
Frederick County has also become an attractive place to live for retirees. Excellent examples of
communities supporting this trend have recently been developed. A major factor is also the
Winchester Medical Center, as well as the presence of cultural activities in the arts.
Notwithstanding the above, Frederick County should seek to be a community that provides a variety
of opportunities for existing residents, young and old for the next 50 years. As the community
continues to grow, a greater number of residents will be those who also grew up in Frederick County.
We are educating the next generation, how do we keep them in the community? Once graduated,
often the kids don’t return to Winchester? Why- because of lack of employment opportunities but
also amenities (next generation wants walk ability which does not currently exist). Educated
workforce leaves, so why would business locate here? Urban Centers with their entertainment,
employment, residential, transportation, and educational opportunities, the top five attributes of
Urban Centers, will further those opportunities and require a long term vision for the centers to come
to fruition.
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 the needs of all
residents are met.
FREDERICK COUNTY UDA CENTERS
(Proposed addition to be inserted into the 2030
Comprehensive Plan within Chapter I, Urban Areas).
FUTURE FOCUS
Frederick County seeks to focus growth in strategic areas where community facilities and public
services are more readily available and can be provided in a more economical and sustainable
manner.
Frederick County has identified locations which promote higher urban densities and a more
compact form of development. These strategic growth areas within the Urban Areas are known
as UDA Centers.
Residential densities higher than those previously experienced within the UDA would
accommodate residents interested in living in more urban settings, with the highest
densities located within specifically designated areas within UDA Centers.
Potential locations are strategically situated to take advantage of existing development patterns
and infrastructure locations.
UDA Centers are designated to direct growth in a compact and highly efficient form within the
Urban Areas, thereby reducing development pressures in the Rural Areas.
Within the Urban Area, and particularly the UDA Centers, there is a higher expectation in
design standards to create a quality urban community that successfully and sustainably
accommodates the growth of the community. This enables a more sustainable form of
development and encourages the creation of a sense of community.
Frederick County strives to meet and exceed its residents’ desires for living, working,
and enjoying, through proactive community planning, and enhancements to the Urban
Development Areas.
COMMUNITY BENEFITS
UDA Centers should feature a variety of housing choices, high quality retail, community
facilities as focal points, employment opportunities, and provide for land uses that are
connected by an attractive, efficient, multimodal transportation system. The mixing of uses
provides a greater choice in mobility. Further, focusing development around walkable centers
affords people the opportunity to work, live, shop, and play in locations that are near each
other.
The County should continue to establish policies which result in high quality residential
neighborhoods which are able to accommodate a growing population and expanding workforce.
Policies should recognize the interests of the residents entering and retiring from the
workforce.
A goal of the Neighborhood Villages and UDA Centers is to create new neighborhoods with a
balance between residential, employment, and service uses.
Proactive planning efforts are essential in both the Urban and Rural Areas to ensure that the
County is able to deal with its future residential growth in a cost-effective and attractive
manner, and meet market demand.
POLICIES/IMPLEMENTATION
POLICY: AS FREDERICK COUNTY CONTINUES TO GROW, IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE VISION OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE URBAN AREAS MEET EXPECTED GROWTH IN A
SUSTAINABLE MANNER. GROWTH SHOULD PRIMARILY BE FOCUSED WITHIN THE URBAN
AREAS. MORE INTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE FOCUSED IN UDA CENTERS,
PARTICULARLY MEETING THE RESIDENTIAL NEEDS OF THE YOUNG ADULTS, THE
RETIREMENT GENERATION, AND WORKFORCE NEEDED FOR BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
IMPLEMENTATION:
• Focus new residential growth within the Urban Development Area and at higher
densities within UDA Centers.
• Enact suitable planning and land use policies which will enable the County to
identify where future residential growth should be accommodated.
• Provide County residents, both current and future, an array of housing types
and opportunities that suit their needs and provide affordable housing
opportunities.
POLICY: 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.
IMPLEMENTATION:
• Higher density residential development is encouraged in close proximity to or
mixed with commercial areas to enhance walkable access to employment,
shopping, and entertainment – a lifestyle attractive to young adults and the
newly retired. The County’s strategic growth areas, the UDA Centers and
Neighborhood Villages, are the most desirable locations for this type of
development.
• Residential housing types and design guidelines should be flexible to
accommodate evolving demographic trends, and to ensure that housing choices
are maximized.
• UDA Centers enable the County to plan for and provide services in defined areas
where they can reach the majority of the population at less cost to the
taxpayer.
• Focusing growth and services to the urban areas, and more specifically to the
UDA Centers, will allow the County to develop community facilities that become
focal points to the residential areas. Focusing new residential development
around walkable centers allows people to work, go to school, live, shop, and play
in locations that are near each other.
1
Proposed Green Springs Agricultural and Forestal District
This is a request to the Frederick County Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) to
establish a new Agricultural and Forestal District (District) to be named Green Springs
Agricultural District.
Chapter 43, Section 15.2-4300 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, enables local
governments to establish Agricultural and Forestal Districts to conserve and protect agricultural
and forestal lands for the production of food and other agricultural products and to provide
natural and ecological resources. The Code of Virginia requires the local governing body to
establish an ADAC for the purpose of reviewing proposals that establish or renew Districts to
ensure conformity with the provisions of section 15.2-4300. Ultimately, the Board of Supervisors
approves, approves with modifications, or denies the proposal to establish or renew Forestal
District applications.
LOCATION
This proposed District is located in the Stonewall Magisterial District, fronting Glaize Orchard
Road (Route 682) to the south, and Green Springs Road (Route 671) to the east.
SIZE
The proposed District will contain 385.63+/- acres within two (2) parcels, managed by two (2)
property owners.
AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL SIGNIFICANCE
The predominantly agricultural operations in the proposed District are 40 percent agriculture
(livestock, and crop harvesting) and 60 percent open-space/woodlands. The area within the
District is rural in nature.
LAND USE
All parcels within the proposed District are vacant and woodland.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan of Frederick County (Comp Plan) provides guidance when
considering land use actions. The location of this proposed District lies outside the Urban
Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), and is not part of any
land use plan or study by the County. The land use within this proposed District of 385.63+/-
acres is vacant. The current land use should remain in its present land use of pristine condition
with land use of vacant and woodland.
ZONING
All of the parcels are of this proposed District are currently zoned RA (Rural Areas) Zoning
District. The surrounding properties are zoned:
North: RA (Rural Areas) South: RA (Rural Areas)
East: RA (Rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Areas)
2
LAKES/PONDS/STREAMS
The proposed District lies within the Green Springs and Babbs Run drainage areas. These two
bodies of water are tributaries to Back Creek. The establishment of this District will further
assist with managing the quality of the County’s water resources.
SOILS
The general relief of the proposed District varies from rolling hills to ridges to the south, west,
and north. Flat and gentle rolling hills are to the east. This District lies within the Green Springs
and Babbs Run drainage area and water is available from ponds, wells and springs.
PRIME AGRICULTURE SOIL
The largest amount of prime agricultural soils located within the proposed District is Weikert-
Gainesboro-Berks
STAFF COMMENTS
This proposed District is not part of any land use plan or study as indicated within the 2030
Comprehensive Policy Plan of Frederick County (Comp Plan). The proposed District is located
outside the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), and is
to remain rural in nature and protected from any future development. The intent of the County’s
Rural Areas is to maintain agriculture as a significant portion of the County’s economy, and to
maintain the rural character of areas outside of its UDA and SWSA. The proposed District is
agriculturally significant as outlined in the Agricultural and Forestal Districts Act.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE FREDERICK COUNTY ACAC MEETING:
This proposed District meets the intent of Chapter 43, Section 15.2-4300 of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended, that enables local governments to establish Agricultural and Forestal Districts
to conserve and protect agricultural and forestal land. The Code of Virginia sets out criteria for
evaluating Agricultural and Forestal District applications. One of the criteria is that the
application should be evaluated in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) of the
locality. This proposed District provides an opportunity for the agribusiness community to
conduct long range planning efforts for the management of their operations, while providing a
reserve of agricultural land through the year 2015. Staff recommends that these parcels be
included as part of Frederick County’s Agricultural and Forestal District program.
The Agricultural District Advisory Committee, at its meeting on April 21, 2014, unanimously
approved the creation of the Green Springs Agricultural and Forestal District.
A recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors is
requested.
GLAIZEORCHARD RD
C OUNTRYSQUIRELN
EVENING L N
E Y L E S L N
BELLHOLLOWRD
W E L L D R I L L E R S L N
E
S
T
A
T
EDR
C
H
E
RAN
L
N
WHIS P E R I N G K N O L L S DR
GR
E
E
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
R
D
Green Spring Ag & Forestal District CreationAg & Forestal Districts
DISTRICT
Apple Pie Ridge
Albin
South Timber Ridge
South Frederick District
Double Church District
Red Bud
Sewer and Water Service Area
Streets
Parcels
I
Creation of Green SpringAgricultural andForestal District
21 - A - 25, 21 - A - 36
Creation of Green SpringAgricultural andForestal District
21 - A - 25, 21 - A - 36
0 0.3 0.60.15 Miles
Charles Dehaven Jr.21 - A - 36
Stanley Zuckerman21 - A - 25
c
1
Proposed Addition to the South Timber Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District
This is a request to the Frederick County Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) to
enlarge the South Timber Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District. This Agricultural and Forestal
District was created in 2010.
Chapter 43, Section 15.2-4300 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, enables local governments
to establish Agricultural and Forestal Districts to conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands
for the production of food and other agricultural products and to provide natural and ecological
resources. The Code of Virginia requires the local governing body to establish an ADAC for the
purpose of reviewing proposals that establish or renew Districts to ensure conformity with the
provisions of Section 15.2-4300. Ultimately, the Board of Supervisors approves, approves with
modifications, or denies the proposal to establish or renew an Agricultural and Forestal District.
LOCATION
The District is located in the Gainesboro Magisterial District along Hollow Road (Route 707) to the
north, Muse Road (Route 610) and Gold Orchard Road (Route 708) to the east.
SIZE
The District currently contains 15 parcels and 883+/- acres, managed by one (1) property owner. The
proposed addition will be one (1) parcel containing of total acreage of 85+/- acres. If this addition is
approved, the resulting District will contain a total of 968+/- acres, to be managed by the same
property owner.
AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL SIGNIFICANCE
The predominantly agricultural operations in the District are 90 percent agriculture (orchard, and
crop harvesting) and 10 percent open-space/woodlands. The area within the District is rural in
nature.
LAND USE
The proposed parcel is in agricultural use.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan of Frederick County provides guidance when considering land
use actions. The location of the proposed addition to the District lies outside the Urban Development
Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), and is not part of any land use plan or
study b y the County. The land use within this proposed addition to the District is residential and
agricultural. The current land use should remain in its present land use of pristine condition with
land use of orchards, agricultural, and residential.
ZONING
The proposed parcels are currently zoned RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. The surrounding
properties are zoned:
North: RA (Rural Areas) South: RA (Rural Areas)
East: RA (Rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Areas)
2
LAKES/PONDS/STREAMS
The proposed addition to the District lies primarily within the Gainesboro drainage area. The
establishment of this District will further assist with managing the quality of the County’s water
resources.
SOILS
The general relief of the addition to the District varies from rolling hills to ridges to the north, west,
south and east. This District lies within the Gainesboro watershed and water is available from ponds,
wells and springs.
PRIME AGRICULTURE SOIL
The largest amount of prime agricultural soils located within the South Timber Ridge Agricultural
and Forestal District is Weikert-Berks-Blairton
STAFF COMMENTS
The 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan of Frederick County indicates the area of the County where
this proposed addition is not part of any land use plan or study. The proposed addition is located
outside the UDA and SWSA, and is to remain rural in nature and protected from any future
development. The intent of the Rural Areas is to maintain agriculture as a significant portion of the
County’s economy, and to maintain the rural character of areas outside of its UDA. The addition of
this parcel to the South Timber Ridge District is agriculturally significant as outlined in the
Agricultural and Forestal Districts Act.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE FREDERICK COUNTY ADAC MEETING:
The proposed addition to the District meets the intent of Chapter 43, Section 15.2-4300 of the Code
of Virginia, 1950, as amended that enables local governments to establish Agricultural and Forestal
Districts to conserve and protect agricultural and forestal land. The Code of Virginia sets out criteria
for evaluating Agricultural and Forestal District applications. One of the criteria is that the
application should be evaluated in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan of the locality. The
Comprehensive Plan and this proposed addition provides an opportunity for the agribusiness
community to conduct long range planning efforts for the management of their operations, while
providing a reserve of agricultural land through the year 2015. Therefore, staff would recommend
that this proposed addition of this one (1) parcel containing 85 acres to be included within the South
Timber Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District. This additional acreage will increase the District
from 883 acres to 968 acres.
The Agricultural District Advisory Committee, at its meeting on April 21, 2014, unanimously
approved the creation of the South Timber Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District.
A recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors is requested.
LAFOLLETTE DR
SY
K
E
S
DR
FLETCHE
R
R
D
HOLL
O
W
R
D
WHI
T
L
O
C
K
L
N
H
A
R
R
Y
H
I
E
T
T
L
N
HAMPSHIRECOUNTYWEST VIRGINIA
Ag & Forestal Districts
DISTRICT
Apple Pie Ridge
Albin
South Timber Ridge
South Frederick District
Double Church District
Red Bud
Sewer and Water Service Area
Streets
Parcels
I
Addition South Timber RidgeAgricultural andForestal District
26 - A - 49
Addition South Timber RidgeAgricultural andForestal District
26 - A - 49
0 0.25 0.50.125 Miles
Cordell Watt26 - A - 49
D
Draft Master Development Revisions
1
ARTICLE VIII
DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND APPROVALS
Part 801 – Master Development Plans
§ 165‐801.01 Intent.
The purpose of the master development plan (MDP) is to promote orderly and planned subdivision and
development of property within Frederick County. It is the purpose of the MDP to ensure that such
development occurs in a manner that suits the characteristics of the land, is harmonious with adjoining
property and is in the best interest of the general public. The MDP shall be used to illustrate the
characteristics of the property proposed for subdivision and/or development and of surrounding
properties and ensure that the requirements of the County Code have been satisfied.
§ 165‐801.02 When required.
A. A preliminary Master Development Plan (MDP) shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and
Development, and shall be presented to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors as an
informational item. Ultimately, the MDP must receive administrative approval from the Director of
Planning and Development and the County Administrator prior to any subdivision or development of
property in any of the following zoning districts:
RP Residential Performance District
R4 Residential Planned Community District
R5 Residential Recreational Community District
MH1 Mobile Home Community District
HE High Education District
MS Medical Support District
B1 Neighborhood Business District
B2 Business General District
B3 Industrial Transition District
OM Office‐Manufacturing Park District
M1 Industrial Light District
M2 Industrial General District
EM Extractive Manufacturing District
Draft Master Development Revisions
2
B. The MDP shall include the subject property proposed for subdivision or development as well as all
contiguous land under single or common ownership in the above zoning districts.
C. A MDP may be submitted with an application for a rezoning but shall not be considered binding until
approval of a final MDP.
§ 165‐801.03 Waivers.
A. RP, R4, R5, and MH1 Districts. The Director of Planning and Development may waive the
requirements of a MDP in the RP (Residential Performance District), the R4 (Residential Planned
Community District), the R5 (Residential Recreational Community District), and the MH‐1 (Mobile
Home Community District), if the proposed property for subdivision or development:
(1) Contains 10 or less single‐family detached rural traditional, single‐family detached traditional
or single‐family detached urban dwelling units (all other permitted housing types shall require
a MDP);
(2) Is not an integral portion of a property proposed or planned for future development or
subdivision;
(3) Is planned to be developed in a manner that is harmonious with surrounding properties and
land uses; and
(4) Does not substantially affect the purpose and intent of its zoning district and the intent of this
article.
(5) A MDP may also be waived if the applicant chooses to process a site plan in lieu of a MDP. The
site plan must contain all information generally required on a MDP and a site plan. Once the
site plan is in an administratively approvable form the plan will be presented to the Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors per § 165‐801.06.
B. M1, EM and M2 Districts. The Director of Planning and Development may waive the requirement of a
MDP in the M1 (Light Industrial), the EM (Extractive Manufacturing), or the M2 (Industrial General)
Zoning Districts if the proposed subdivision or development:
(1) Includes no new streets, roads or rights‐of‐way, does not further extend any existing or dedicated
street, road or rights‐of‐way and does not significantly change the layout of any existing or
dedicated street, road or rights‐of‐way;
(2) Does not propose any stormwater management system designed to serve more than one lot and
does not necessitate significant changes to existing stormwater management systems designed
to serve more than one lot;
(3) Is not an integral portion of a property proposed or planned for future development or
subdivision;
Draft Master Development Revisions
3
(4) Is planned to be developed in a manner that is harmonious with surrounding properties and land
uses; and
(5) That such development does not substantially affect the purpose and intent of this chapter.
(6) A MDP may also be waived if the applicant chooses to process a site plan in lieu of a MDP. The
site plan must contain all information generally required on a MDP and a site plan. Once the
site plan is in an administratively approvable form the plan will be presented to the Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors per § 165‐801.06.
C. B1, B2, B3, MS and HE Districts. The Director of Planning and Development may waive the
requirement of a master development plan in the B1 (Neighborhood Business), B2 (Business
General), B3 (Industrial Transition), MS (Medical Support) or HE (Higher Education) Zoning Districts if
the proposed subdivision or development:
(1) Contains less than five acres in the B1 District and less than 10 acres in the B2, B3, MS or HE
District;
(2) Includes no new streets, roads or rights‐of‐way, does not further extend any existing or
dedicated street and does not significantly change the layout of any existing or dedicated street;
(3) Does not propose any stormwater management system designed to serve more than one lot
and does not necessitate significant changes to existing stormwater management systems
designed to serve more than one lot;
(4) Is not an integral portion of a property proposed or planned for future development or
subdivision;
(5) Is planned to be developed in a manner that is harmonious with surrounding properties and
land uses; and
(6) That such development does not substantially affect the purpose and intent of this chapter.
(6) A MDP may also be waived if the applicant chooses to process a site plan in lieu of a MDP. The
site plan must contain all information generally required on a MDP and a site plan. Once the
site plan is in an administratively approvable form the plan will be presented to the Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors per § 165‐801.06.
§ 165‐801.04 Preapplication conference.
Prior to submission of a master development plan for review, the Department of Planning and
Development staff may require, or an applicant may request a preapplication conference. The purpose
of the preapplication conference is to review and discuss the nature of the proposal in relation to the
requirements of the County Code and to discuss the preparation of a master development plan.
A. If required, at the preapplication conference the applicant shall provide a land use plan describing
the following:
Draft Master Development Revisions
4
(1) The general location of the site.
(2) The general location of proposed roads.
(3) The general location and types of proposed uses, environmental features on the site, housing
types or open space.
(4) The uses on adjoining properties.
§ 165‐801.5 Contents of master development plans.
A. The following items shall be required for MDP’s in all Zoning Districts. All required items shall be
shown clearly on the plan. All MDP's shall be prepared in accordance with the following
specifications:
(1) The scale shall be one inch equals 100 feet or larger (the ratio of feet to inches shall be no more
than one hundred feet to one inch) or at a scale acceptable to the Director. The scale shall be
sufficient so that all features are discernible.
(2) No sheet shall exceed 42 inches in size unless approved by the Director of Planning and
Development. If the MDP is prepared on more than one sheet, match lines shall clearly indicate
where the sheets join.
(3) All MDP's shall include a North arrow, a scale and a legend describing all symbols.
(4) A boundary survey of the entire property related to true meridian and certified by a certified
Virginia surveyor, architect or engineer, with all dimensions in feet and decimals of feet, is
required for all MDP'S.
(5) The total area of the property shall be specified on the MDP.
(6) The topography shall be shown at contour intervals acceptable to the Director.
(7) The title of the proposed project; the date, month, year the plan was prepared or revised; the
name of the applicant(s), owner(s) and contract owner(s); and the names of the individuals or
firms preparing the plan shall be clearly specified.
(8) A schedule of phases, with the approximate location of phase boundaries and the order in which
the phases are to be developed, shall be provided.
(9) The use of all adjoining properties shall be clearly designated on the MDP.
(10) All existing, approved or planned public roads, streets or rights‐of‐way on the project or within
2,000 feet of the boundaries of the project.
(11) Any approved proffers associated with property.
Draft Master Development Revisions
5
(12) The location and treatment proposed for all historical structures and sites recognized as
significant by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors or as identified on the Virginia Historical
Landmarks Commission Survey for Frederick County.
(13) A history of all land divisions that have occurred in relation to the tract since the adoption of
this requirement.
(14) The approximate location of sewer and water mains with statements concerning the
connection with and availability of existing facilities.
(15) The ownership and use of all adjoining parcels, including parcels across road right of ways.
(16) Description of any changes made since approval of any prior MDP’s.
(17) An approval block and signature lines for the Director of Planning and Development.
B. Contents of a master development plan in the RP (Residential Performance) District, the R4
(Residential Planned Community) District, the R5 (Residential Recreational Community) District and
the MH‐1 (Mobile Home Community) District. The MDP shall contain a conceptual plan, showing the
location and functional relationship between all proposed housing types and land uses, including the
following information:
(1) A land use plan, showing the location, arrangement and approximate boundaries of all proposed
land uses.
(2) The approximate acreage in common open space, in each use and housing type and in roads,
streets or rights‐of‐way for each phase and the total development.
(3) The location and approximate boundaries of proposed housing types conceptually shown in
accord with residential performance dimensional requirements.
(4) The proposed number of dwelling units of each type in each phase and in the total development.
(5) The location and approximate boundaries of existing environmental features, including
floodplains, lakes and ponds, wetlands, natural stormwater retention areas, steep slopes and
woodlands.
(6) The location of environmental protection land to be included in common open space.
(7) The approximate acreage of each type of environmental protection land, the amount and
percentage of each type that is to be disturbed and the amount and percentage of each type to
be placed in common open space.
(8) The amount, approximate boundaries and location of common open space, with the percentage
of the total acreage of the site to be placed in common open space.
(9) The location and general configuration of recreational facilities, with a general statement of the
types of recreational facilities to be provided.
Draft Master Development Revisions
6
(10) The location and extent of proposed buffers, with statements, profiles, cross sections or
examples clearly specifying the screening to be provided.
(11) The proposed location, arrangement, and right‐of‐way widths of roads and streets, including
roads and streets providing access to adjoining parcels, shall be in accordance with § 165‐202.04.
(12) The location and arrangement of street entrances, driveways and parking areas.
(13) A conceptual plan for stormwater management with the location of stormwater facilities
designed to serve more than one lot.
(14) Calculations describing all proposed bonus factors with the location of and specifications for
bonus improvements, when proposed.
C. Contents of a master development plan in the M1 (Light Industrial) District, the M2 (Industrial
General) District, the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District, the HE (Higher Education) District, the
B1 (Neighborhood Business) District, the B2 (Business General) District, the B3 (Industrial Transition)
District, the OM (Office‐Manufacturing Park) District and the MS (Medical Support) District. The MDP
shall contain a conceptual plan, showing the location and functional relationship between streets and
land uses, including the following:
(1) A conceptual plan, showing the location and arrangement of proposed uses.
(2) The location and approximate boundaries of existing environmental features, including
floodplains, lakes and ponds, wetlands, natural stormwater detention areas, steep slopes and
woodlands, as defined, and the approximate acreage of each type of environmental feature,
including the amount and percentage of each type that is to be disturbed and the amount and
percentage of each type to be placed in open or landscaped areas.
(3) The proposed location and arrangement of all proposed and existing utility systems.
(4) The location and arrangement of existing and proposed public or private roads, existing or
proposed entrances, and driveways from existing and proposed public or private streets.
(5) A conceptual plan for stormwater management and description and the location of all
stormwater facilities designed to serve more than one parcel.
(6) The location and extent of proposed buffers required by this Chapter, with statements, profiles,
cross sections or examples clearly specifying the screening to be provided.
§ 165‐801.06 Master development plan submission.
Applicants shall submit the number of copies of the preliminary MDP to the Department of Planning and
Development specified by the Department of Planning and Development MDP application, together
with completed application materials required by the Department of Planning and Development.
Draft Master Development Revisions
7
A. Applicants shall provide approval comments on the proposed development from various review
agencies or departments as required by the Department of Planning and Development. The
submission shall be complete and the application shall commence through the public meeting
process when the plans, application materials and review agency approval comments have been
received by the Director of Planning and Development.
B. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) shall be prepared and submitted to the Department of Planning and
Development with all MDP applications in accordance with the adopted Traffic Impact Analysis
Standards.
C. When the submission is complete, the Director of Planning and Development shall submit the plans,
application materials and review agency approval comments to the Planning Commission as an
informational item.
D. Following the informational presentation of the MDP to the Planning Commission, copies of the plan,
application materials and agency comments shall be submitted to the Board of Supervisors as an
informational item.
E. The preliminary MDP submitted to the Board of Supervisors for review shall not be substantially
changed from plans reviewed by the Planning Commission. Changes may be made that were
discussed by the Planning Commission. Other substantial changes to the plan shall require that the
Planning Commission review the plan as a new MDP.
F. Site plans or final subdivision plats may be submitted concurrently with preliminary master
development plans for review according to the procedures set forth in this chapter and Chapter 144,
Subdivision of Land, of the County Code.
Master Development Plan Approval Process
Preapplication Conference with Staff if
required or requested
Applicant submits completed MDP application
to Staff, including all agency approval
comments.
MDP is presented to the Planning Commission
as an information item. All comments are
forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.
MDP is presented to the Board of Supervisors
as an informational item.
Final MDP approval by Staff.
Final subdivision or site plan can be submitted
for review.
Draft Master Development Revisions
8
§ 165‐801.07 Final master development plan.
A. The final MDP shall conform to all requirements of the County Code.
B Applicants shall submit a minimum of five copies of the final MDP to the Department of Planning and
Development. Final approval of the final MDP shall be given by the Director of Planning and
Development and the County Administrator.
C. The Director shall approve the final MDP if all requirements of the County Code and all review
agencies have been met, and if a preliminary MDP was presented to the Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors
D. A MDP shall not be considered final until it is signed by the Director of Planning and Development
and the County Administrator.
§ 165‐801.08 Changes to approved Master Development Plans.
Changes to an approved MDP shall occur only after review by the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors using the procedures required for the approval of a new plan. The Director of Planning and
Development may approve minor changes without following the full procedures, if such approval does
not violate the intent of this chapter and section. Such minor changes shall not include increases in the
density or intensity of development, changes to entrance or street layout, changes to stormwater layout
or other major design changes.
§ 165‐801.9 Master development plan review fees.
The Board of Supervisors may adopt a schedule of fees to be paid by the applicant to the County for the
costs associated with the review of the MDP.
E
THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
APPENDIX I – AREA PLANS
NORTHEAST FREDERICK LAND USE PLAN
MCCANN-SLAUGHTER AMENDMENT
(DRAFT MAY 21, 2014)
The Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC), at their April 14, 2014 meeting,
recommended that the following amendment be incorporated into the Northeast Land Use
Plan:
The CPPC proposed the following balanced approach as an amendment to the Northeast
Land Use Plan for the McCann-Slaughter properties located near the intersection of
Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Old Charlestown Road (Route 761). This location has
historically been identified as a Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA) due to the
environmental and historical features on and around the site, most notably Stephenson’s
Depot.
• Protection of the environmental features of the site.
• Preservation of those areas identified with DSA’s and development limited to
those areas to the south of the DSA’s and south of McCann’s Road.
• Utilizing McCann’s Road and other historical features, such as Milburn Road,
as features to be protected and potentially used in a manner that promotes
their historical context (an extension of the historical trail system in the area).
• An O.M. (Mixed Use Office/Industrial) land use designation.
• Access to be provided via a new north south road that would generally be
parallel to the west side of the existing railroad. This road would connect into
proposed development to the south. No access would be permitted to
McCann’s Lane for vehicular access to Martinsburg Pike or Milburn Road.
Committee Review Background.
CPPC December 16, 2013 Meeting
The CPPC discussed this request and proposed the study be coordinated with the HRAB, given the
historical context of the Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA’s) in this area. It is believed that the
HRAB would be able to provide the appropriate guidance and input on the land use in this area from
a historical perspective. Notwithstanding the historical background associated with Stephenson’s
Depot, the site also contains a significant amount of environmental features that are protected within
the DSA designation. The floodplain and its associated issues were discussed. The location of the
environmental features also creates a barrier to Martinsburg Pike, Route 11, and Old Charlestown
Road.
The Applicant’s representative presented a sketch of the proposed layout for a potential
commercial/industrial development with access being provided from the north and from the south via
a new north/south road connecting with adjacent projects and minimizing the impact on the Milburn
Road corridor and McCann’s Road. An O.M. land use designation was proposed by the Applicant’s
representative as being the most acceptable land use designation along with recognition that those
DSA’s identified on the site could be incorporated into the land use plan.
Any update to the Northeast Land Use Plan should consider the following points as the basis for the
narrative:
• The recommendations of the HRAB.
• Protection of the environmental features of the site.
• Preservation of those areas identified with DSA’s and development limited to those
areas to the south of the DSA’s and south of McCann’s Road.
• Utilizing McCann’s Road and other historical features, such as Milburn Road, as
features to be protected and potentially used in a manner that promotes their
historical context (an extension of the historical trail system in the area).
• An O.M. (Mixed Use Office/Industrial) land use designation (if appropriate).
The CPPC approached this as an amendment to the Northeast Land Use Plan. It was recognized that
the Northeast Land Use Plan is a series of four detailed land use maps that do not contain a
descriptive narrative. The CPPC felt that if the land use were to change in this location, it should be
accompanied by a descriptive narrative that is clear on what the future land uses should be, where
they should be, and that any performance conditions, such as areas of preservation and methods of
access, should be stated.
The CPPC were very eager to receive the recommendations of the HRAB before they finalized their
recommendations for a change in the land use. In addition, the CPPC wanted to see some of the
points discussed at their December meeting listed in bullet form to provide a summary of the
potential
The CPPC also identified several approaches to update the Northeast Land Use Plan for this area; 1)
updating the four land use maps, 2) updating the four land use maps and adding a narrative specific
to this proposed change, and 3) updating the four land use maps and reinstating text describing the
Northeast Land Use Plan as a whole. The CPPC’s initial preference was option 2. Recent proposed
amendments to the North East Land Use Plan could be consolidated into this update.
HRAB December 17, 2013 Meeting Summary
The Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) has been asked to provide a comment pertaining to
a requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the McCann-Slaughter property.
The Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley published by the National Park Service
identifies these properties as core battlefield area for the Battle of Third Winchester (Opequon) with
retained integrity.
The Applicant’s representative presented a sketch of the proposed layout for a potential industrial
park. The HRAB questioned if the requested industrial park could be laid out in a sensitive way,
preserving the viewsheds and the significant portions of the property. The location of the existing
historic markers was also considered and the impact the land use change would have on the
viewsheds associated with the markers. The HRAB also inquired if the use of tax credits and the
preservation of the property would be worth as much as the potential industrial land. The Applicant
responded that it would not.
After further discussion, the HRAB questioned why the DSA needed to be removed. The DSA was
originally created and shown on this property because of its historic nature and the HRAB wanted to
know what had changed and why the Board should consider a change in land use. The HRAB was
concerned with the removal of the DSA because this is the last bit of core battlefield within this area.
The battlefield areas keep being eroded, first with the rezoning of Stephenson’s Village and then
Graystone. The group also discussed the recently adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the fact
that one goal was to preserve battlefield areas. There are policies in place that support the
preservation of core battlefield areas. The HRAB also wanted comments from the Shenandoah
Valley Battlefield Foundation regarding the scale of the project and the impact it would have; it was
rested that the foundation be invited to the next HRAB meeting.
After the discussion, the HRAB requested that the Applicant consider retaining DSA on the most
significant portions of the property and consider office land use on the balance. The HRAB
ultimately was comfortable with the requested land (low impact/sensitive industrial) use change so
long as the discussed trail network was included and the most significant part of the battlefield
remains in DSA. The HRAB then requested to see the text that is formulated by the CPPC that will
be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their review.
HRAB February 17, 2014 Meeting Summary
The HRAB further discussed the discussions to date of The Comprehensive Plans and Programs
Committee (CPPC) who discussed this amendment at their January and February meetings. The
recommendations of the HRAB were summarized in the comment letter provided by the HRAB and
attached, dated March 10, 2014.
The HRAB recommendation (02/18/14).
Historic Resources Advisory Board Concerns
(Please see the letter provided by the HRAB in the attachments to this agenda).
The Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley published by the National Park Service
identifies these properties as core battlefield area for the Battle of Second Winchester and the Battle
of Third Winchester (Opequon), with retained integrity.
After reviewing this information and the applicant’s materials the Historic Resource Advisory Board
(HRAB) recommended denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the McCann Slaughter
Properties. The HRAB stated that the Historic Chapter of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan supports the
preservation of the County’s battlefield. Specifically, the plan states the following:
“As commercial and residential developments continue to locate and expand in Frederick County,
there is a need for balance to maintain the historic integrity, both structurally and scenically, between
surviving historic resources and landscapes and new development. This balance can be achieved by
recognizing both the current development needs of the community and the historic and rural
character of Frederick County’s past”.
The HRAB also felt that the Developmentally Sensitive Designation was placed over this area
because of the historic nature of the area and that there wasn’t sufficient evidence presented to the
committee that justified support for removing the designation. . Also, at the HRAB’s February 2014
meeting a representative from the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation (SVBF) stated that the
foundation has expressed interest in preserving the site and that additional materials may be available
that provides more detail regarding the historic importance of this site. The HRAB stated that should
additional information regarding the history on the site be made available, the Board could revisit the
subject.
CPPC April 14, 2014 Meeting
The CPPC looked to complete their evaluation of a land use study for the McCann-Slaughter
properties, and surrounding area, near the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Old
Charlestown Road (Route 761). Previously, the CPPC discussed this request and identified several
approaches to update the Northeast Land Use Plan for this area. The CPPC proposed the study be
coordinated with the HRAB. The HRAB has made a recommendation on this request.
Mr. Ruddy presented an overview of this request, an update on the status of this request, and
described the input received previously from the CPPC and more recently from the HRAB. The
HRAB had recommended denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the McCann Slaughter
Properties. The HRAB stated that should additional information regarding the history on the site be
made available, the Board could revisit the subject.
Mr. Ruddy further discussed the options available to the CPPC as listed in the agenda.
1) Support the recommendation of the HRAB.
2) Propose the approach discussed by the CPPC at your earlier meetings, prior to the input of
and notwithstanding the recommendations of the HRAB, where the CPPC described the
following scenario:
• The recommendations of the HRAB.
• Protection of the environmental features of the site.
• Preservation of those areas identified with DSA’s and development limited to those
areas to the south of the DSA’s and south of McCann’s Road.
• Utilizing McCann’s Road and other historical features, such as Milburn Road, as
features to be protected and potentially used in a manner that promotes their
historical context (an extension of the historical trail system in the area).
• An O.M. (Mixed Use Office/Industrial) land use designation.
• If an alternative land use designation is deemed to be appropriate, access to be
provided via a new north south road that would generally be parallel to the west side
of the existing railroad. This road would connect into proposed development to the
south. No access would be permitted to McCann’s Lane for vehicular access to
Martinsburg Pike or Milburn Road.
3) An alternative recommendation to the above of the CPPC.
Members of the CPPC discussed the features of the site in more detail and reflected on the
recommendation of the HRAB. The Applicant’s representative, Mr. Oates, described the
environmental features of the site, the discussion of the HRAB, and the Applicant’s desired
future land use and potential development plan.
Balance was the overarching theme of the discussion of the CPPC. It was recognized that balance
was emphasized in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and in an earlier planning document, the
Battlefield Network Plan, which also sought to achieve a balanced approach to future land uses
that were respectful of the identified DSA’s associated with Stephenson’s Depot.
In making their recommendation, the CPPC expressed their desire to achieve a balance between
the DSA designation, the recommendation of the HRAB, and the other land uses envisioned by
the property owner, the OM (Office-Manufacturing) land use designation.
The CPPC recommended that the scenario described as item 2 in the agenda package be
forwarded to the Planning Commission for their consideration. The motion was made by Jim
Golladay, seconded by Kay Dawson, and unanimously approved by the CPPC members
present.
Following the recommendation, the CPPC recognized the importance of the openness of the
planning process. A suggestion was made to have members of the CPPC meet with members of the
HRAB to further evaluate the details of the proposal to ensure the historic elements of the property
were protected and any areas of development were as sensitive to the historic resources as possible.