PC 10-01-14 Meeting Agenda AGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
October 1, 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) August 20, 2014 Minutes and September 3, 2014 Work Session Minutes...................... (A)
3) Committee Reports .................................................................................................. (no tab)
4) Citizen Comments ................................................................................................... (no tab)
PUBLIC HEARING
5) Southern Frederick Area Plan – This is a public hearing for the Southern Frederick
Area Plan. The Plan encompasses the area generally east of Interstate 81 to the Clarke
County line and from the Opequon Creek in the north to Lake Frederick in the south.
The Plan contains four maps and a narrative text that covers the following areas: Urban
Areas and Residential Development, Business Development, Transportation, and Natural
Resources, Historic Resources, and Public Facilities, and is an update to Appendix I of
the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use
Plan, a component of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This Plan represents the work of a
large number of citizen volunteers who have been working over the past several months
in collaboration with each other.
Mr. Ruddy ....................................................................................................................... (B)
6) Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code – Chapter 165 Zoning,
Article II Supplementary Use Regulations; Parking; Buffer; and Regulations for
Specific Uses, Part 203-Buffers and Landscaping, §165-203.02 Buffer and Screening
Requirements. Revisions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to allow for a
Zoning District buffer waiver when the planned land use shown in the Comprehensive
Plan is compatible.
Mrs. Perkins ..................................................................................................................... (C)
-2-
7) Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code – Chapter 165 Zoning,
Article II Supplementary Use Regulations; Parking; Buffers; and Regulations for
Specific Uses, Part 201-Supplementary Use Regulations, §165-201.10 Outdoor
storage and processing. Revisions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to revise
the outdoor storage screening
Mrs. Perkins ..................................................................................................................... (D)
ACTION ITEM
8) Rezoning #03-14 Governors Hill, submitted by Williams H. Gordon Associates, to
request a minor proffer revision associated with Rezoning #10-08. This revision related
to the Transportation section of the proffers. The property is located approximately one
mile east of Interstate 81 on the south side of the Millwood Pike (Route 50 East), across
from Sulphur Springs Road (Route 655) and The Ravens subdivision are identified by
Property Identification Numbers 64-A-86 and 64-A-87 in the Shawnee Magisterial
District.
Mr. Ruddy ........................................................................................................................ (E)
INFORMATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS
9) Black Diamond Site Plan Requirements.
Mrs. Perkins ..................................................................................................................... (F)
10) Other
Adjourn
Commonly Used Planning Agenda Terms
Meeting format
Citizen Comments – The portion of the meeting agenda offering an opportunity for the public to provide
comment to the Planning Commission on any items not scheduled as public hearing items.
Public Hearing– A specific type of agenda item, required by State law, which incorporates public comment as a
part of that item prior to Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors action. Public hearings are held for
items such as: Comprehensive Plan policies and amendments; Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
amendments; and Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit applications. Following the Public Hearing, the
Planning Commission will take action on the item (see below).
Action Item–There are both public hearing and non‐public hearing items on which the Planning Commission
takes action. Depending on the actual item, the Planning Commission may approve, deny, table, or forward a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding the agenda item. No public comment is accepted
during the Action Item portion of the agenda.
Information/Discussion Item– The portion of the meeting agenda where items are presented to the Planning
Commission for information and discussion. The Planning Commission may offer comments and suggestions,
but does not take action on the agenda item. No public comment is accepted during the
Information/Discussion Item portion of the agenda.
Planning Terminology
Urban Development Area or UDA – The UDA is the county’s urban growth boundary identified in the
Comprehensive Plan in which more intensive forms of residential development will occur. The UDA is an area
of the county where community facilities and public services are more readily available and are provided more
economically.
Sewer and Water Service Area or SWSA – The SWSA is the boundary identified in the Comprehensive Plan in
which public water and sewer is or can be provided. The SWSA is consistent with the UDA in many locations;
however the SWSA may extend beyond the UDA to promote commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses
in area where residential land uses are not desirable.
Land Use – Land Use is the nomenclature which refers to the type of activity which may occur on an area of
land. Common land use categories include: agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial.
Zoning District ‐ Zoning district refers to a specific geographic area that is subject to land use standards.
Frederick County designates these areas, and establishes policies and ordinances over types of land uses,
density, and lot requirements in each zone. Zoning is the main planning tool of local government to manage
the future development of a community, protect neighborhoods, concentrate retail business and industry, and
channel traffic.
Rezoning – Rezoning is the process by which a property owner seeks to implement or modify the permitted
land use activities on their land. A rezoning changes the permitted land use activities within the categories
listed above under Land Use.
Conditional Use Permit or CUP ‐ A CUP allows special land uses which may be desirable, but are not always
appropriate based on a location and surrounding land uses. The CUP requested use, which is not allowed as a
matter of right within a zoning district, is considered through a public hearing process and usually contains
conditions to minimize any impacts on surrounding properties.
Ordinance Amendment – The process by which the County Code is revised. Often the revisions are the result
of a citizen request with substantial justification supporting the change. Amendments ultimately proceed
through a public hearing prior to the PC forwarding a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
County Bodies Involved
Board of Supervisors or BOS ‐ Frederick County is governed by an elected Board of Supervisors composed of
seven members, one from each magisterial district, and one chairman‐at‐large. The Board of Supervisors is the
policy‐making body of the county. Functions of the Board of Supervisors related to planning include making
land use decisions, and establishing growth and development policies.
Planning Commission or PC ‐ The PC is composed of 13 members, two from each magisterial districts and one
at‐large, appointed by the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission serves in an advisory capacity to the
Board of Supervisors which then takes final action on all planning, zoning, and land use matters.
Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee or CPPC – The CPPC is a major committee of the PC whose
primary responsibility is to formulate land use policies that shape the location and timing of development
throughout the County. Included in the work are studies of specific areas to develop guidelines for future land
use within those areas. The CPPC also considers requests for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
Decisions by CPPC are then forwarded to the PC for consideration.
Development Review and Regulations Committee or DRRC – The DRRC is the second major committee of the
PC whose primary responsibilities involve the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan in the form of
Zoning and Subdivision ordinance requirements. Requests to amend the ordinances to the DRRC are made by
the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, local citizens, businesses, or organizations. DRRC decisions
are also forwarded to the PC for consideration.
A
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3133
Minutes of August 20, 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 August 20, 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;
Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; J. Rhodes Marston, Back
Creek District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Kevin
Kenney, Gainesboro District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Roderick B. Williams, County
Attorney; Robert Hess, Board of Supervisors Liaison; Mark Loring, City of Winchester Liaison.
ABSENT: J. Stanley Crockett, Stonewall District; Charles F. Dunlap, Red Bud District
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director; Mark
R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; and Renee S. Arlotta, Clerk.
-----------
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Wilmot called the August 20, 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 Oates and seconded by Commissioner Manuel, the
Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening’s meeting.
-------------
MINUTES
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Manuel, the
Planning Commission unanimously adopted the minutes of their July 16, 2014 meeting.
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3134
Minutes of August 20, 2014
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Transportation Committee – 8/4/14 Mtg.
Commissioner Oates reported the following items from the Transportation Committee
meeting: 1) considered a request for a “Blind Child at Play” sign; since the property was on a cul-de-sac
and research has determined motorists become desensitized to such signs over time, the committee
believed this was not a good use of funds; 2) a report by VDOT regarding a house bill directing money
for road projects, such as Route 277, to be pooled together; a list of criteria will be established to rank
projects for funding; the criteria should be available in November; and 3) an update on the Six-Year Road
Plan from VDOT.
-------------
Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) – 8/19/14 Mtg.
Commissioner Unger reported the following from the FCSA meeting: the total customer
base for water is 14,124; the total customer base for sanitation is 13,639; July rainfall totaled 3½ inches;
production from the Diehl plant was 2.6mgd; the Anderson plant was 1.6mgd; 1½ mgd water was
purchased from the City of Winchester; the daily average water use was 5½ mgd; the Diehl plant’s
elevation was the same as the previous month; the Anderson plant’s elevation was down about three feet;
nitrogen problems continue at the Parkins Mill plant, which is coming from the Hood plant. A
considerable number of water leaks were corrected in the previous month; leakage went from 17% down
to 5%. The final topic of discussion was the problem in Fredericktowne with flooding; the SA is
considering smoke tests, placing meters, and corrections to Stephens Run.
-------------
City of Winchester Planning Commission – 8/19/14 Mtg.
Chairman Wilmot welcomed Commissioner Mark Loring, the City of Winchester
Planning Commission Liaison.
Commissioner Loring reported the Planning Commission for the City of Winchester
considered seven public hearings and recommended all for approval. Commissioner Lauren highlighted
two: the first, Verizon, requested a conditional use permit (CUP) to install new telecommunications
facilities on top of the George Washington Hotel and existing Nextel equipment will be removed; the
second public hearing was a CUP for the City of Winchester to replace the existing 85-foot
communications tower at the public safety center with a 150-foot tower. There were three administrative
approvals: one in particular, was a site plan for the new cancer center at the hospital.
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3135
Minutes of August 20, 2014
Board of Supervisors Report – 8/13/14 Mtg.
Board of Supervisors’ Liaison, Supervisor Robert Hess, reported the Board considered
five action items that were previously on the Planning Commission’s agenda and included three
amendments to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. He said all of the amendments, the McCann-Slaughter
property, expanding the SWSA in Middletown north of the Lord Fairfax Community College, and
expanding the SWSA east of I-81 at Middletown, were unanimously approved. Supervisor Hess stated
the Cowperwood-FEMA Rezoning was unanimously approved; and, the request for a waiver for private
roads in the Lake Frederick subdivision was also approved.
-------------
Commissioner Robert Molden Appointed to CPPC
Chairman Wilmot appointed Commissioner Robert Molden to the CPPC (Comprehensive
Plans and Programs Committee). Commissioner Molden accepted the Chairman’s appointment to serve.
-------------
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. The
following person came forward to speak:
Mr. John Goode of the Stonewall District and member of the Business Friendly
Committee thanked the Commission on behalf of Mr. Ty Lawson, Mr. Bruce Carpenter, and himself for
the opportunity to meet with the DRRC (Development Review and Regulations Committee) in April to
discuss the proposed amendment to the landscape ordinance. Mr. Good stated the changes before the
Commission on this evening’s agenda for discussion are of only little help. He said various items are
unaddressed and he provided two examples: diminutive changes to a site which the planning director
cannot waive; and second, the massive amount of plant materials required for buffering. He believed
there were public safety issues resulting from the intensity and needless extent of landscaping required by
the ordinance.
-------------
PUBLIC HEARING
2030 Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPPA; Frederick County Public Schools Sewer and Water
Service (SWSA) Adjustment – The request is for consideration of an amendment to the Sewer and
Water Service Area (SWSA) to serve the proposed 4th High School of approximately 83 acres. The
property is located adjacent to and east of Admiral Richard E. Byrd Middle and Evendale
Elementary Schools. The property is identified with P.I.N. 76-A-96E in the Shawnee Magisterial
District.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3136
Minutes of August 20, 2014
Action – Recommended Approval
Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported this amendment to the 2030
Comprehensive Plan would result in an 83-acre expansion of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA)
around the property purchased for the fourth High School. He said this expansion is immediately
adjacent to the existing SWSA. Mr. Ruddy explained the Frederick County Public Schools requested the
amendment to the SWSA in an effort to serve the recently-acquired high school site located at the eastern
terminus of Justes Drive, adjacent to the Admiral Byrd Middle School and the Evendale Elementary
School. He noted the property is located within the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Area Plan and the
proposed expansion of the SWSA is consistent with the approved Area Plan.
Mr. Wayne Lee, LEED, AP, Coordinator of Planning and Development for Frederick
County Public Schools was available to answer any questions from the Commission.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing and called for anyone who wished to speak
regarding this request to come forward. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the
public comment portion of the hearing.
No questions were raised by the Commission and they believed the request was
appropriate.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Mohn,
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPPA; Frederick County Public Schools Sewer
and Water Service (SWSA) Adjustment. This request is for an amendment to the Sewer and Water
Service Area (SWSA) to serve the proposed fourth High School and consists of approximately 83 acres.
The property is located adjacent to and east of Admiral Richard E. Byrd Middle and Evendale Elementary
Schools.
(Note: Commissioners Crockett and Dunlap were absent from the meeting.)
-------------
ACTION ITEM
Waiver Requests and Master Development Plan Review for Wright Renovations, Inc. submitted by
Michael Artz of Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C. The following waivers to the Frederick
County Subdivision Ordinance, Article V, Design Standards, are requested: Section 144-17(L)
Curbs and Gutters; Section 144-18 (A) (1), Sidewalks and Pedestrian Walkways; Section 144-19,
Streetlights; Section 144-24 Lot Requirements, (C) Lot Access; Section 144-26 Buffers and Screens;
and Section 144-28 Dedication of Common Open Space. The requested waivers will allow a
subdivision resulting in the existing homes each being located on individual lots. This property is
identified with P.I.N.s 54F-A-22 and 54F-A-22A in the Red Bud Magisterial District.
Action – Recommended Approval of Waivers
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3137
Minutes of August 20, 2014
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported the subject properties
are located on the southeastern side of the intersection of Dowell J. Circle (Rt. 1240) and Anderson
Avenue. Mr. Cheran said the MDP (Master Development Plan) for Wright Renovation’s Inc. depicts
appropriate land uses and appears to be consistent with the requirements of Article VIII, MDP, of the
Frederick County Zoning Ordinance; however, in order for this MDP to be administratively approved and
a three-parcel subdivision to occur, the Board of Supervisors would need to act on six separate waivers.
Mr. Cheran added the Board of Zoning Appeals approved reduced lot sizes and setbacks to accommodate
the two existing dwellings. He commented that this is a clean-up exercise because there are two
dwellings existing on one parcel.
Mr. Cheran proceeded to review each of the requested waivers with the Commission.
Specifically, the six waivers to the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 144, involved
requirements for curb and gutter, sidewalks, streetlights, direct access to a public street or right-of-way,
recreational facilities, and open space. Mr. Cheran provided justifications for each of the requested
waivers, stating the surrounding lots do not have curb and gutter; the surrounding lots do not have
sidewalks; the surrounding lots do not have streetlights; there is no homeowners associations to support
and maintain recreational facilities or to dedicate open space; and regarding direct access to a public street
or right-of-way, Anderson Avenue is a private street and serves as access for 103 Anderson Avenue.
Mr. Cheran stated that while the MDP is presented as an informational item, staff is
seeking a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors on the six
requested waivers to the subdivision ordinance.
Commissioner Manuel inquired about who was responsible for road maintenance and
snow removal of Anderson Avenue, since it is a private street. Mr. Cheran believed the neighbors
collectively pitch in to do necessary maintenance.
Mr. Michael M. Artz of Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C. was representing this
application. Mr. Artz stated this was a clean-up exercise. There are two existing lots with one lot
fronting on Dowell J. Circle and the other is a corner lot fronting on Dowell J. Circle and Anderson
Avenue. He explained the lot on Anderson Avenue contains two dwellings and they are simply
attempting to separate the two houses onto their own individual lots. He said the end result is three lots
because they plan to take the adjoining lot and do a boundary line adjustment to take care of the existing
encroachment. The end result will be three dwellings on three individual lots. Mr. Artz said he received
confirmation from Ms. Kelly Hinshaw at the City of Winchester that she has no issues with the
subdivision of this property; this will provide the sanitary sewer and water for these parcels. He has also
received confirmation from the VDOT that they have no issues with this subdivision.
Commission members agreed this was a necessary clean-up exercise and believed it was
appropriate to grant the waivers needed.
Commissioner Mohn made a motion to recommend approval of all six of the requested
waivers to the subdivision ordinance for Wright Renovations, Inc. This motion was seconded by
Commissioner Ambrogi and was unanimously passed.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3138
Minutes of August 20, 2014
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of the Waiver Requests and Master Development Plan Review for Wright Renovations, Inc.
submitted by Michael Artz of Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, P.L.C. The following waivers to the
Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, Article V, Design Standards, are requested: Section 144-17(L)
Curbs and Gutters; Section 144-18 (A) (1), Sidewalks and Pedestrian Walkways; Section 144-19,
Streetlights; Section 144-24 Lot Requirements, (C) Lot Access; Section 144-26 Buffers and Screens; and
Section 144-28 Dedication of Common Open Space. The requested waivers will allow a subdivision
resulting in the existing homes each being located on individual lots.
(Note: Commissioners Crockett and Dunlap were absent from the meeting.)
-------------
INFORMATION/ DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Discussion on Revisions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to Modify the Landscaping
Requirements.
No Action Required
Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence reported the Planning Staff has been working with
the Frederick County Business Climate Assessment Committee (also called the Business Friendly
Committee) for a number of years on the landscaping requirements within the ordinance. Mr. Lawrence
said this past spring, an amendment was brought before the Commission that essentially did not modify
the landscaping requirements, but cleaned up where the requirements were placed. He said a discussion
was held with the Planning Commission on April 2, 2014 and although the Commission believed this
amendment was appropriate, they sought some additional changes and it was sent back to committee.
The DRRC (Development Review and Regulations Committee) met at the end of April with
representatives of the Business Friendly Committee and modified the ordinance through various other
discussions to include a minor site plan requirement provision. In addition, the minor site plan
requirement allowed for the Zoning Administrator to determine what the appropriate landscaping would
be. Mr. Lawrence said the DRRC reviewed this in June and forwarded their recommendations to the
Commission.
Commissioner Oates stated the amendment allows for landscaping improvements to be
proportional to the size of construction and this should address the concerns raised by the Business
Friendly Committee. Commissioner Oates referred to Section 165-802.03 Site Plan Contents (D) (16)
“Any other information determined by the Zoning Administrator necessary for the review of the minor
site plan,” and he suggested the addition of (17) “The Zoning Administrator may delete any of the above
criteria on a minor site plan if it is not warranted.”
Mr. Lawrence stated up until this time, there has been a minor site plan process; it simply
wasn’t codified and was a common sense approach. He said now it is being codified and the flexibility
Commissioner Oates is suggesting should be provided. Commissioners agreed the addition of a 17th
condition which provides that flexibility would be appropriate.
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3139
Minutes of August 20, 2014
Discussion of the Zoning District Buffer Waiver Option – Revision to the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance to allow for a Zoning District Buffer Waiver when the planned land use shown in the
Comprehensive Plan is compatible.
No Action Required
Commissioner Oates said he would abstain from all discussion on this item due to a
possible conflict of interest.
Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence stated the zoning ordinance requires various zoning
district buffers to lessen impacts, such as those buffers separating a commercial-industrial use from an
adjacent residential property. He said the staff has encountered situations where a commercially-zoned
property is adjacent to rural areas (RA-zoned property) with a dwelling and the owner of the rural areas
property has stated he doesn’t need the buffer because he plans to rezone his property at some point in the
future to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will seek a B2 Zoning. He explained that if the
buffer is installed, whether it is one year or ten into the future, there will be a buffer in the middle of a
commercial zone. Mr. Lawrence said if the adjacent property owner agrees in writing and the adjacent
property is consistent with zoning, this situation should qualify for a waiver of the buffer requirements.
Mr. Lawrence stated the DRRC (Development Review & Regulations Committee) reviewed this in June
and has forwarded it to the Commission for discussion and consideration.
Commissioner Kenney was in favor of this amendment. He was in favor of reducing the
amount of buffers to lessen the impact on the developer, as long as there is an agreement which is
enforceable.
Commissioner Thomas also agreed with the amendment, but he raised a concern about
possible repercussions. He asked if there should be a standard agreement the two property owners would
need to sign which would protect Frederick County from being caught in the middle, if the adjacent
property owners end up in court.
In response to Commissioner Thomas’ inquiry, County Attorney, Roderick Williams
stated it would be possible to draft a standard agreement. Mr. Williams said, hopefully, the property
owners would use the form, but he was not certain the county would be able to refuse a form the property
owners would draw up on their own or with their own attorneys.
Commissioner Unger was also in favor of a signed agreement in the event the property is
sold, so the future buyer knows a buffer was not required.
Commissioner Mohn said his only concern with this was future transitions of properties
that are most likely to happen, despite the fact the two adjoining property owners may now get along and
share a vision. Commissioner Mohn said if the properties do change hands, the only way for a
subsequent buyer to find out is through a title search; otherwise, the Planning Staff may be faced with an
issue as to why the buffer isn’t there and the owner has impacts which need to be mitigated.
Commissioner Mohn agreed with Commissioner Kenney that this was a good amendment and any
flexibility which can be provided within the ordinances relative to buffers is good. He said for him, it is
essentially working out the details and especially as attention moves toward mixed uses in future
development.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3140
Minutes of August 20, 2014
Mr. Lawrence suggested another approach which is “buyers beware.” He said if the
waiver is granted and the commercial activity is developed with no buffer, and then the adjacent property
is sold, there is no buffer in place for the new owner. Mr. Lawrence said the concern is if the property
changes before the construction occurs. He said there may be a way to make sure the future adjacent
property owners know about the waiver. He pointed out there are various actions and decisions made that
are part of the county record, but not a part of the courthouse record. Consequently, it’s always a “buyers
beware” situation, where the prospective buyer needs to obtain information on his own.
Mr. Lawrence pointed out the most important aspect of this is being consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. He said if the County’s vision for an area is commercial and not residential or rural,
this is where the waiver opportunity would apply. Mr. Lawrence said the staff would forward the
Commission’s comments on to the Board of Supervisors for their discussion.
-------------
Discussion on Revisions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance Regarding Screening
Requirements for Outdoor Storage Areas.
No Action Required
Commissioner Oates said he would abstain from all discussion of this item, due to a
possible conflict of interest.
Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, reported the current zoning ordinance requires all
outdoor storage areas to be completely screened from the view of the road and street right-of-way and
from surrounding properties by a fence, wall, mound, or screening (landscaping). Mr. Lawrence
explained if there are two adjacent property owners that both have outdoor storage, the ordinance requires
that both of those outdoor storage areas shall be enclosed with a screening mechanism. He said this
proposed amendment basically states that if there are two outdoor storage areas adjacent to each other, it
may not be necessary to screen between the two of them.
Mr. Lawrence said an issue raised during discussions on this matter was a scenario where
one of the adjacent property owners desires to redevelop their property and eliminate the outdoor storage
to have more productive use of the land; this would result in the absence of any screening against the
neighboring property.
Commissioner Kenney commented there was considerable discussion of this subject
during committee meetings, particularly as it pertains to the industrial areas. He said in the scenario
raised where someone desires to redevelop their property from outdoor storage to useable property, it
should be kept in mind the subject parcels are located within an M1 or M2 District, where this typically
would come into play. Commissioner Kenney said he has had many years of experience in the
development environment and most often, once a building is constructed for a particular purpose in an
industrial area, the use rarely changes. He said he has observed 12-foot wide strips of trees with a chain
link fence in between in some of the industrial areas; he believed it becomes redundant within some
industrial parks when you observe what is required there.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3141
Minutes of August 20, 2014
Commissioner Thomas added if the property use did change, the property which
converted use would then be required to install screening on their property. In essence, there would be
only one screen placed between the properties. He said the property owner who changed use would lose
nothing because he would still have use of the same amount of property, if the screen would have been
built originally. Commissioner Thomas said screening would still be required from sites of roads and
other non-similar uses.
Mr. Lawrence said he would forward the Commission’s comments on to the Board of
Supervisors.
-------------
OTHER
Cancelation of the Regular Meeting on September 3, 2014
Chairman Wilmot announced there were no pending items for the Planning
Commission’s August 6, 2014 meeting. However, that particular time will be used for the staff to hold a
briefing on a complex application that will soon be coming before the Commission. Chairman Wilmot
said the Board of Supervisors will be asked to join the Commission for this briefing.
A motion was made by Commissioner Thomas to cancel the September 3, 2014 meeting
of the Planning Commission and to replace it with a work session on the same day and time. This motion
was seconded by Commissioner Manuel and unanimously passed.
-------------
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and a motion was made by Commissioner Oates to adjourn
the meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas and unanimously passed. The
meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
June Wilmot, Chairman
____________________________
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors Page 3142
Application Staff Briefing - September 3, 2014
APPLICATION STAFF BRIEFING
FOR
REZONING #02-14 HERITAGE COMMONS, LLC
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on September 3, 2014.
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District;
Robert S. Molden, Opequon District; J. Stanley Crockett, Stonewall District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall
District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; J. Rhodes
Marston, Back Creek District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro
District; Kevin Kenney, Gainesboro District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; and Charles F.
Dunlap, Red Bud District.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PRESENT: Gene E. Fisher, Shawnee District; Gary A. Lofton, Back
Creek District; Robert W. Wells, Opequon District; and Robert A. Hess, Gainesboro District.
STAFF PRESENT: Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney; Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director;
Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director- Planning; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director-Transportation; Mark R.
Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; Renee S. Arlotta,
Clerk; Kris C. Tierney, Assistant County Administrator; Ellen Murphy, Commissioner of the Revenue.
APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT: Thomas (Ty) Moore Lawson, PC, Lawson &
Silek, P.L.C.; Matt Milstead; Bruce A. Griffin, President, B.A. Griffin, LLC; and Stuart M. Patz,
President, S. Patz & Associates, Inc., Real Estate Consultants.
-----------
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chairman Thomas called the September 3, 2014 application staff briefing and work
session to order at 7:00 p.m. Vice Chairman Thomas provided the proposed meeting format.
-------------
HERITAGE COMMONS REZONING APPLICATION SEEKING TO REZONE 150 ACRES
FROM THE B2, RP, & RA DISTRICTS TO THE R4 DISTRICT WITH REVISED PROFFERS
AND ORDINANCE MODIFICATIONS. The R4 (Planned Residential) District enables a mix of
uses, but more importantly, enables an applicant to modify the ordinance, tailoring it to the
envisioned development.
Frederick County Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors Page 3143
Application Staff Briefing - September 3, 2014
PLANNING STAFF OVERVIEW OF APPLICATION
Use, Modifications, & Proffers from Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, gave a brief overview of what is being proposed and
what the R4 District entails. Ms. Perkins stated this development was originally rezoned with proffers as
the Russell 150 development in 2005. The proposal consisted of 96.28 acres of commercial and 54 acres
of residential (297 townhouses). She said the Russell 150 rezoning contained an extensive proffer
package that contained a number of assurances for road construction (including the bridge) and fiscal
impacts. Ms. Perkins next showed the Russell 150 GDP on the screen.
Ms. Perkins said the Heritage Commons rezoning application includes a Market and
Fiscal Impact Analysis (MFIA); it proffers a maximum of 1,200 residential units (1,050 multi-family and
150 townhouses) with a density of 12.8 units per acre. The applicant’s proffer does not include a square
footage limit on commercial uses nor any maximums or minimums. The application would enable
residential and commercial development; it would enable a mixed use ‘town center’ which could include
mixed uses in a single structure (enabled with modifications, but not guaranteed); it includes a proffered
land use matrix table; and it includes a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) map to illustrate land bays.
Ms. Perkins said the modification document accompanying the R4 is requesting a
modification to do 100% townhouse/multi-family, as opposed to the R4 limit of 40%; to increase the
residential density from the R4 limit of 4 units/acre up to 12.8 units/acre; to decrease the open space from
the R4 limit of 30% to 15%; to use private streets instead of public streets; to allow commercial building
heights up to 80 feet; to increase the FAR from 1.0 to 2.0; and to modify the apartment building
dimensional requirements.
Ms. Perkins continued, stating that while the land uses proposed with the Heritage
Commons could be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, staff has identified a number of concerns
with this application. She provided a brief overview of those concerns, which included: agency
comments remain unresolved, including public schools and VDOT; no proffered assurances the enabled
mixed-use “town center” would be constructed; and there are a number of fiscal concerns and
transportation concerns.
Ms. Perkins commented that a number of commissioners and supervisors attended the
trip to the Woodland Park in Fairfax County hosted by the applicant. Ms. Perkins pointed out that staff
reviewed the proffer packages and GDP for that development and cash proffers were provided with that
development to offset residential impacts and the commercial square footage far exceeded that which is
envisioned with Heritage Commons.
Ms. Perkins next referred to the reviewing agency concerns that were still outstanding.
She said VDOT is not satisfied with the transportation proffers for the application; Frederick County
Public Schools (FCPS) expressed concern with the impact to the public schools system, the student
generation figures, and the student expenditure rates shown. She noted that using the County’s
Development Impact Model’s (DIM) adopted figures, this development could generate up to 306 students
with a yearly impact of $2,770,830 (306 students x $9,055 per student).
Frederick County Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors Page 3144
Application Staff Briefing - September 3, 2014
Fiscal Impacts from Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins
Ms. Perkins next reported the applicant submitted a Market and Fiscal Impacts Analysis
(MFIA), authored by S. Patz & Associates, dated October 2013. She said the analysis projects an annual
net fiscal benefit of $4,300,000 at build-out (15 years). Ms. Perkins noted there are a number of concerns
with the applicant’s MFIA; many of the MFIA’s assumptions are not directly tied to a proffered
commitment. Specifically, Ms. Perkins pointed out the proposed development of 1,200 residential
dwellings and 700,000 square feet of office/retail space may have a negative fiscal impact on the county;
she said there is no proffered fiscal impact mitigation; there are no commitments on when the commercial
land bays will be constructed; and the residential portion of the development could fully build out without
constructing any commercial uses. In addition, the applicant’s plan of utilizing future potential tax
contributions of the commercial land bays to offset the residential land bays, without phasing the
commercial to be built in conjunction with the residential, should be carefully evaluated. She said this
reinforces the Board’s policy of not considering credits as part of the capital facilities evaluation
processes. Ms. Perkins said that when applied to the proffered residential mix, the County’s DIM
(Development Impact Model) projects negative capital fiscal impacts of $13,865,197 (using the
applicant’s student generation figures).
Ms. Perkins stated that both the Commissioner of the Revenue and the County Treasurer
provided comments and have expressed significant concerns regarding the data used in the applicant’s
MFIA. This was provided to the Planning Commission and the applicant on August 29. She said the
analysis presumes the establishment of a new county office building on site and assumes this would be
the catalyst for the development of additional commercial space. Ms. Perkins said the county office
building concept would represent 1/3 of the proposed commercial use. In addition, Ms. Perkins said the
MFIA models a development scenario that is not proffered. She said the commercial development
proposed is speculative and could take 15 plus years to develop. The MFIA is based on a phasing plan
which is not proffered and it fails to discuss the negative fiscal realities, if the housing units are front
loaded. Furthermore, she said the MFIA suggests the project be developed in three five-year phases with
commercial and residential mixes. She said the MFIA indicates positive impacts to offset negatives, yet
the inputs in the MFIA appear inaccurate based on agency comments and it utilizes inaccurate multipliers,
values, and fundamental state tax code.
Transportation Impacts from Deputy Director-Transportation, John A. Bishop
Deputy Director-Transportation, John A. Bishop, provided an overview of the differences
between the transportation proffers currently approved for this property and those proffers being proposed
with this new development.
Mr. Bishop said the existing proffers currently on the books reference the use of CDA
(Community Development Authority) funding and only the first paragraph of those proffers deal almost
exclusively with CDA funds. He said the remainder of those proffers deal primarily with specific parts of
the road system and references the CDA, but states if CDA funding is not available, the developer will
build the road sections regardless. Other key points of the approved proffers included: Warrior Drive,
the Tevis Street Extension, the Airport Road Extension, and the bridge over I-81 all have specifically
dedicated right-of-ways and full construction to “ultimate section” with or without the CDA; there is
approximately $1.0 million in cash for transportation improvements, which is based on a per-unit proffer
for residential units; and bicycle/pedestrian accommodations along all of the roadways.
Frederick County Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors Page 3145
Application Staff Briefing - September 3, 2014
Mr. Bishop next reviewed the applicant’s new proposed proffer and said it basically
consists of two paragraphs, the second of which deals almost exclusively with situations in which they
will or will not participate in Warrior Drive. He said the applicant states they will participate in revenue
sharing pursuant to agreements with Frederick County; however, Frederick County has not yet reached
the point where those agreements have been developed. He said the new proposed proffers state the
applicant’s match will be paid in cash or land equivalent; however, Frederick County cannot use land as a
match for revenue sharing. Mr. Bishop pointed out there are no performance triggers in the current
proffer, compared to those within the previous proffers, which specifically relate to sections of roads
being built either before or concurrent with the first phase of development.
Mr. Bishop continued, stating that many of the details which were written out in the
previous proffer have been removed in the revised proffer and reference the GDP (Generalized
Development Plan); however, the GDP lacks considerable details in terms of showing specifically what is
being guaranteed to be constructed. He commented that typically, a GDP does not provide deadlines or
triggers. Mr. Bishop also noted there were a considerable number of entrances shown on the GDP that
have not previously been contemplated or analyzed by either the Planning Department Staff or VDOT.
Mr. Bishop believed it would put the staff in a difficult position if the Board were to approve a GDP as a
part of a proffer package which includes these entrances, especially since Frederick County is
Comprehensive Planning for better access management.
Mr. Bishop said the applicant’s proposed proffer specifically states that Frederick County
acknowledges the proposed network roadway is substantially similar to the one approved in the previous
package. However, with the lack of triggers and the severe rollback on a commitment to the Warrior
Drive connection to the south, it was difficult for Mr. Bishop to say that was true; he stated the County
Attorney has made previous references that a proffer package is not the appropriate place for the Board of
Supervisors to be committing themselves to things.
Mr. Bishop explained that prior to this application being submitted, Frederick County had
been accumulating revenue sharing dollars and for this particular roadway network in general, the County
has accumulated approximately $8.7 million in State funds--$6 million of which would assist
infrastructure commitments associated with the previous proffers. He commented there are only a few
other projects with this amount of dollars. He pointed out that despite having this much money available
in matching funds, a private partner is still needed. Mr. Bishop commented a number of various revenue
sharing projects are currently taking place throughout Frederick County with committed partners who
provide private funds. Mr. Bishop said there were hopes someone would come forward enabling
Frederick County to move this particular road project forward; however, that does not mean the County
Planning Staff is proposing that Frederick County citizens provide the matching dollars.
APPLICANT OVERVIEW OF APPLICATION AND FISCAL IMPACTS
Presentation by Applicant’s Representative, Thomas (Ty) Morre Lawson, P.C.
Mr. Thomas (Ty) Morre Lawson, P.C. with Lawson & Silek, P.L.C. was present on
behalf of the applicant. Mr. Lawson introduced the developers, Matt Milstead and Bruce A. Griffin; and
Stuart M. Patz, S. Patz & Associates, Inc., Real Estate Consultants.
Frederick County Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors Page 3146
Application Staff Briefing - September 3, 2014
Mr. Lawson said the previous proffers state that all of what is shown on the plan is
intended to be built with CDA money; it has nothing to do with matching funds, nor does it have anything
to do with the new layout. Mr. Lawson believed the original plan failed for many reasons, not simply
financial. He pointed out that the bridge design in the original plan does not meet VDOT standards. He
said their bridge design has been revised with new standards and flexibility, such as openings to allow for
the expansion of I-81. He said the signalized intersection in the original plan does not work because of
stacking and has also been redesigned. Mr. Lawson commented they do not understand why Warrior
Drive was designed to be six lanes, even though every other section is two and four lanes. Referring back
to the original plan, Mr. Lawson said that design proposed old style, segregated rezoning to accommodate
big box commercial. He said the proposed new GDP has mixed residential and commercial and the
residential density will be 12.8 units per acre, lower than what is called for in the Comprehensive Plan.
He said the R4 Zoning allows the mix of various uses and having an ordinance option to allow for a
denser project would work well in this area of Frederick County. He pointed out the location proposed
for a round-about which was recommended by VDOT and solves the problem of stacking. Mr. Lawson
said work is continuing with the engineer, the County, and the State to determine the final layout; he said
the applicant is willing to dedicate the land to allow for this round-about. Mr. Lawson said Mr. Bishop
was correct in saying the plan cuts off Warrior Drive and that is essentially due to budget; there was not
enough money to accomplish all of that. He commented the practical reason is that even under the
original plan, it was a road going nowhere. Mr. Lawson noted that even if funds were available to build
Warrior Road and the bridge, there were several parcels below them Warrior Drive would need to
traverse before connecting; he supposed it could be built, but asked to what end. He said that is why they
chose this layout under the new plan. Mr. Lawson believed what the applicant was proposing was a more
realistic development. He said examples of the commercial uses would be a convenience store, a bank, a
fast food restaurant, in addition to the multi-family. He said it provides an opportunity to do
neighborhood centers with different uses on different floors.
Mr. Lawson next showed some slides from the Northern Virginia area which depicted a
similar type of layout the applicant was proposing. Another slide showed the Heritage Commons layout
with a land bay breakdown; he pointed to the area at the front of the property where they were proposing
to locate the County’s administrative office building and stated they have proffered to build their own
private office building adjacent to the County’s office building.
Mr. Lawson next talked about the school impacts. He said with this proposed
development, there is a departure from what is normally anticipated in their modeling and from what one
would expect in terms of school children generation. Mr. Lawson said a development of this type doesn’t
exist in Frederick County and there will be an explanation of why this is different and why the impacts
from it are positive and not negative, as reported. He stated the residential proposed does not generate
school children and is tax positive. He said there is a strong demand for this type of product. Mr. Lawson
showed a video of a project Cathcart Group had done in Charlottesville, which is similar to the one
planned for Frederick County.
Market & Fiscal Impact Analysis from Stuart M. Patz, President of Patz & Associates, Inc.
Mr. Stuart M. Patz, President of Patz & Associates, Inc., author of the applicant’s fiscal
impact analysis, came forward to explain a little about the proposed project and to talk about the
developer, the Cathcart Group. Mr. Patz said as with Cathcart’s previous projects, they emphasize
attention to the project’s natural elements. For the Heritage Common’s project, they spoke with
Frederick County Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors Page 3147
Application Staff Briefing - September 3, 2014
Shenandoah University’s staff about how to best utilize the stream valley, which they believe is an asset
to their project. He pointed out that everything shown in the video clip, the amenities and the furnishings,
is standard and is a sample of the type of development Cathcart will do in Frederick County. He said this
same high-quality development was done in Charlottesville, Harrisonburg, and West Virginia and all of
their communities are 100% full and have no vacancies. In addition, in the Charlottesville community of
294 units, there are only four school children.
Mr. Lawson interjected that this type of housing option is not for everyone, but there is a
demand in the community for this type of life style. Mr. Lawson said this type of life style does not come
with a lot of school children; he said these are people with disposable income and they want to live in an
area where they can walk to restaurants, to shop, or to work. Mr. Lawson said they will provide the
market data and real numbers from existing Cathcart communities to the staff; he said this is why they
feel so strongly that their economic analysis is correct.
Mr. Patz continued, stating that when they conduct a fiscal impact analysis of an area,
they do a market analysis as well. He said the market analysis is designed to show market support for
what the developer would like to do. Mr. Patz discussed various specifics of their demographic analysis
and concluded that they would market to persons in Winchester and Frederick County with incomes of
$40,000 and above, which relates to a minimum of $1,000 per month of rent. He said their demographic
analysis concludes there is a demand in this area for new rental housing and nothing is being constructed
to serve this market; he believed this market was totally underserved in this area. He said there was a
need for apartments, townhouses, and commercial space.
In addition, Mr. Patz stated there is a very large off-site impact resulting from any
residential development. He said one is the off-site real estate taxes generated from on-site development;
families with incomes of $40,000 and above will be spending money in the community. Mr. Patz said the
money that goes into the retail stores, the office space and medical practices of this community is
considered off-site expenditures. He said off-site expenditures from residential are three or four times the
benefit of the actual real estate. Real estate generates taxes, revenues, and cost—those costs compared to
just real estate will show a negative. He said the estimated revenue from total build out is $7.3 million;
$3.7 million in tax supported cost; and $3.6 million in net benefits. Mr. Patz said there were two issues
from the staff’s presentation that he wanted to specifically address. The first was that the model used did
not use higher-end apartment communities, as an apples-to-apples comparison; he said the model used an
average apartment complex for the County. He said the fact remains that Frederick County does not have
a high-end apartment complex. Secondly, it totally eliminated the off-site impacts. Mr. Patz said retail
space in this community does not exist without rooftops supporting those retail sales. He said the
expenditure potential from households, both rental and ownership, supports the retail space. Without off-
site impacts, the expenditures in other retail space within the community would not exist. Mr. Patz said
they showed the economic benefits over three five-year periods and this data shows that for each period,
assuming a certain amount of development, the economic benefit is positive.
Mr. Patz stated that when they incorporated the modified comments from the Planning
Staff’s report which he believed were correct and he was in error, he came up with a $3.2 million benefit
at the end of 15 years, not the previously stated $3.6 million. He said if he took all of the Planning Staff’s
comments in terms of what they asked the applicant to change, they still came out with a $3 million net
benefit.
Frederick County Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors Page 3148
Application Staff Briefing - September 3, 2014
In conclusion, Mr. Patz provided examples of other similar apartment complexes and the
actual count of school students within those apartments. He said some within the county do have a higher
student generation. But if you do an apples-to-apples comparison, comparing apartment complexes with
slightly higher rents, you come up with less than a .1 student per apartment unit. Mr. Patz said they tried
to be conservative and so they used a .175 and it comes out to be 184 students in the total development.
Mr. Matt Milstead stepped forward and stated that Mr. Patz uses a $40,000 minimum
base for his market salary for persons living in these apartments; the reality is the average salary in
Frederick County is closer to $60,000. He mentioned all the additional discretionary spending that takes
place off site and said that none of this is included in their model. He provided some additional figures
and stated this project would generate over $9 million in additional tax revenue in Frederick County over
the life of this product. He believed that even with their conservative numbers, this project still has a
positive impact on Frederick County.
PLANNING COMMISSION & BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISCUSSION
Mr. Lawrence stated the comments made by Mr. Patz about the modified report reflected
the comments made by the Planning Staff two weeks ago. He said the applicant changed that report, but
he questioned whether it picked up the comments from the Commissioner of the Revenue and the
Treasurer of Frederick County that were circulated on Friday. Mr. Patz replied the report did incorporate
those comments. Mrs. Murphy thought Mr. Patz said he was accepting the Staff’s comments, so she
assumed they were incorporated. Mr. Patz noted the report read by Mr. Lawrence was dated October
2013; the report they were using this evening was an updated report dated May 2014. Mr. Patz said he
would provide the updated report, if anyone needed it.
Commissioner of the Revenue, Mrs. Ellen Murphy, said she spoke with the Albermarle
Chief County Assessor who spoke highly of the Cathcart Group, particularly their quality development
which has been well maintained and attracts buyers. She pointed out, however, that the Albemarle
County project was developed without commercial. Commissioner Thomas interjected that Albemarle
County has a higher median income than Frederick County.
Commissioner Thomas commented there is considerable financial analysis shown by the
applicant which is based on three five-year periods of proposed development; however, this development
is not tied to a proffer. He said if the development proceeds differently than the assumptions made by the
applicant’s economist and the numbers are thrown off, it creates doubt in his mind about what the benefits
will be to Frederick County. Commissioner Thomas stated that if the first and second five-year periods
are built with all the residential areas, there will be very little benefit to the County. He recognized the
considerable economic analysis conducted by the applicant on what is supportable; particularly, getting
rooftops to support commercial, but there was no proffer which commits the developer to meet the
assumptions used in coming up with the financial profile. Commissioner Thomas said this was one of his
biggest concerns. He stressed again his concern that there are no proffers tying the development down to
phasing, where there are so many of “X, Y, & Z” to ensure the profile of cost to Frederick County is what
is shown on the applicant’s analysis.
Commissioner Oates referred to Mr. Bishop’s comments regarding the County’s
available matching state funds in the amount of $8.7 million. Mr. Bishop stated the funds apply not only
to the bridge, the surface road system, the northern section of Warrior Drive, and the airport extension of
Tevis Street, but also to the connection which goes across the Glaize property and attaches to Route 522.
Frederick County Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors Page 3149
Application Staff Briefing - September 3, 2014
Commissioner Oates commented there is a proffer currently approved for Russell 150
which almost certainly guarantees matching funds for the $8.7 million in State funds. Mr. Bishop replied
those existing proffers obligate the developer to build the roads and the staff is happy to work with the
applicant and utilize those funds. Commissioner Oates said under the new rezoning application, there are
no proffers which guarantee any of those roads or any of the money; he asked if it would fall to Frederick
County taxpayers to match it or if the funds would need to go back to VDOT. Mr. Bishop confirmed that
returning the funds could potentially happen; he pointed out the new application relies on an agreement
that doesn’t exist, which is part of his concern. Mr. Bishop noted the staff seeks out these partnerships;
he said this is the way it has been done with all previous partners for revenue sharing projects in Frederick
County. He said private partners are found, the County gets State money, and roads are constructed
which benefit both the private partner and Frederick County. He stated these transportation projects tend
to be Comprehensive Planned roads. Mr. Bishop recognized that Warrior Drive is an expensive roadway;
nevertheless, he said it is a major road which has been in Frederick County’s Comprehensive Plan for
many years. He said eventually, it will be able to be traversed all the way passed Sherando High School.
Mr. Bishop said he could work with the applicant on simply stubbing it out or work on the possibility of
getting more revenue sharing funds to help complete that section when the time is right. Unfortunately,
the proposed proffer language has some references which include, “…at the applicant’s discretion…”
Mr. Bishop said he didn’t see why the applicant could not have gone with the original proffer, add
language concerning revenue sharing as opposed to CDA (Community Development Authority) language,
and continue with the commitments. Mr. Bishop believed it was good for everyone to use the available
State funds. He said if the funds are not used, they most likely will have to be returned. Mr. Bishop said
the County would like the opportunity to work with the applicant, but Frederick County needs some
guarantees. Mr. Bishop said he has no issues with the layout and alignment, but there are no details or
commitments.
Mr. Bishop said he received this rezoning application package from Senior Planner,
Candice Perkins, on August 19, 2014 and he didn’t request that the engineering firm focus exclusively on
the round-about until August 21. He said while the staff was considering a round-about at this location,
and the ability to access the parcel to the north, on-going work was taking place by the applicant’s
engineer and extra entrances along Route 522 and along Airport Road were added to the plans, but had
not yet been discussed with the staff. Mr. Bishop wanted to be careful there is not an impression that
those numerous extra entrances were the staff’s work, because they were not.
Commissioner Oates inquired if there was a TIA (traffic impact analysis) for all of those
entrances on Route 522 or if there was any TIA at all. Mr. Bishop replied there was no new TIA.
Commissioner Oates referred to Planning Director, Eric Lawrence, about contacting
Fairfax County concerning a similar development in their area. He asked Mr. Lawrence if the Fairfax
County development’s GDP and proffer statement were similar to this one. Mr. Lawrence stated it was
like comparing apples to oranges. Mr. Lawrence said after the applicant’s tour in Fairfax last week, he
contacted staff at the Fairfax County Planning Department to determine the similarities and Fairfax
County provided him with the GDP and the proffers. He said there were cash proffers for schools, parks,
and a baseball field with a mixed-use concept. Mr. Lawrence displayed the GDP on the screen, which
had considerable detail with a town center and showed exactly how everything was going to be laid out.
Frederick County Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors Page 3150
Application Staff Briefing - September 3, 2014
Mr. Ty Lawson asked Mr. Thomas if it would be appropriate for them to talk about the
issues raised. Mr. Thomas suggested that the Commission and Board provide the applicant with their
thoughts and some areas they are seeking additional information. He said if there is time left over, they
would get more details from the applicant; however, he believed things would get bogged down if the
group begins a question and answer period.
Mr. Lawrence believed it was important to recognize a separation between the big picture
and the actual proffer commitments. He said much of what the Commission and the Board saw on the
tour with the shopping centers and photos, and the fiscal analysis presented, are not in the applicant’s
proffer. Mr. Lawrence said he fully supports this type of apartments in this community and he believed
there was a market for them, but the proffer does not state the applicant is going to build the market-rate
apartments, it simply states the applicant will construct over 1,050 apartments. Mr. Lawrence stated this
needs to be kept in mind as this goes through. He advised the group not to be confused by what is being
told, but look at what is being proffered.
Mr. Thomas agreed and said there is a lot of discussion, but there is no commitment in
the proffer for the developer to produce what is being presented. Mr. Thomas said this is where he sees
the biggest disconnect. He was not questioning the quality, the developer, the layout, but what he is
questioning is the commitment. He said he sees a lot of talk, but he doesn’t see any black and white that
this is actually what the applicant will do. Mr. Thomas remarked this is the missing part of this
application.
Commissioner Oates commented under these new proffers, the applicant could build
1,000 apartments for any income level and zero commercial. He agreed the proposed proffers are too
loose and nothing is tied down with phasing or street schedule. Commissioner Oates stated, in addition,
the County is losing roads compared with what the original application had guaranteed. He believed
Frederick County was losing a lot. He noted the taxpayers will have to bear the burden of constructing
what the applicant does not.
Supervisor Wells agreed with Commissioner Oates’ comments. Supervisor Wells stated
that without the commercial development, it is not a winning situation for Frederick County. Supervisor
Wells said the applicants were quoted in the newspaper stating the county office building would be a
corner stone in bringing in commercial development. Supervisor Wells said he wouldn’t bank on that.
Supervisor Wells advised the applicant to say, “Can this development survive and do what it needs to
commercially, even if the relocation of the county office building does not transpire.” He said if it can’t,
the applicant needed to reconsider. Supervisor Wells said he still had a lot of unanswered questions.
Commissioner Oates agreed with Supervisor Wells’ comments. Commissioner Oates
said even if the County does not relocate their building, much of the business citizens conduct with
Frederick County can now be done electronically. He said he didn’t need to physically go to the County
Administration Building to conduct business. Commissioner Oates said the only commercial draw he
could see with the relocation of the County Administration Building would be to feed the lunch crowd.
Commissioner Dunlap raised a concern about Land Bay #3. Commissioner Dunlap
believed the Comprehensive Plan earmarked that particular area as an employment center and this
application is designating it as residential. Commissioner Dunlap believed this was not a good location
for residential because Warrior Drive is running north-south parallel to I-81 and the area between that
road and I-81 should be commercial. Likewise, he believed Land Bay #7 should be the same way, as
well.
Frederick County Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors Page 3151
Application Staff Briefing - September 3, 2014
Commissioner Thomas said this will be a community of 2,500-3,000 plus people, which
results in considerable traffic and lots of impacts. If the development remains solely residential, it results
in considerable impacts to Frederick County taxpayers and there is no hook with the developer to get the
commercial in there.
Commissioner Mohn agreed with all of the issues raised by the Supervisors and
Commissioners. Commissioner Mohn expressed concern there was no new TIA (traffic impact analysis).
He said on all levels, this proposal is an intensification of what was originally envisioned for the site; it is
certainly different in its composition. He felt the need to get a grasp of what that means from an impact
perspective; not just fiscally, but from a brass tacks traffic perspective to assess just how effective these
improvements will be and whether what is committed to at the end of the day is adequate for Frederick
County. Commissioner Mohn believed a new TIA is important with this new application.
Mr. Bishop responded there were things the applicant could do through proffers to keep
themselves from having to do a new TIA. He said if the balance for trip generation remains, they may
still be okay with the existing TIA. In response to Commissioner Mohn’s question about how old the
existing TIA was, Mr. Bishop believed it was dated November of 2004. Commissioner Mohn remarked
that if a new TIA is not done, it might not be a bad idea to at least do some type of addendum for the new
project and what the maximum assumptions might be. Commissioner Mohn said that decision was up to
Mr. Bishop and VDOT to determine, but this may be a middle ground. The applicant was not opposed to
doing this.
Commissioner Unger referred to the applicant’s comment about Warrior Drive going to
nowhere, but he believed Warrior Drive was needed. He said Warrior Drive is dead-end right now, but
the reason for that is it has not developed any further. He stated if this project is developed without
Warrior Drive, then Warrior will never tie together correctly. Commissioner Unger strongly believed
Warrior Drive needed to be incorporated within this project. He commented this same thing was done
several years ago when Route 37 was removed and it took a long time to get it back on the table; he
thought everyone regretted removing it.
Referring back to the discussion of the TIA, Commissioner Thomas stated there will be a
considerable amount of traffic generated with this development. He believed the demographics of this
new proposal were significantly different than those in 2004; he thought it would be to the developer’s
benefit to come up with a new analysis based on the current traffic. Commissioner Thomas noted that if a
motorist is trying to access a major highway at this location, there are only two connection points; if
3,000 vehicles are going to two connection points and other traffic is going in and out of the development,
there will be a considerable volume of traffic; he was concerned about this detail, along with Warrior
Road. He remarked that old commitments need to be examined and made sure they are incorporated.
Commissioner Oates said if Mr. Bishop and VDOT come back and say a new TIA is not
warranted, he would be fine with it; however, he was not ready to give up the Russell 150 package.
Supervisor Fisher suggested that the developer compile a list of all the comments made
this evening because he believed the impacts of this development have not nearly been mitigated, even
close to what they needed to be. Supervisor Fisher said he was still trying to accept that 1,200 units are
proposed off Route 522 South. Supervisor Fisher thought Ms. Murphy made a good comment about
where all the jobs were going to come from to generate income levels for these units. He believed the
comments made by everyone so far this evening have been right on.
Frederick County Planning Commission & Board of Supervisors Page 3152
Application Staff Briefing - September 3, 2014
Ms. Murphy was interested in any changes made by the applicant that may impact the
Treasurer.
Mr. Lawson, the applicant’s representative, believed many of the issues raised could be
addressed. Mr. Lawson said he would like to hear comments from the Commission and Board about the
proposed mix of housing because it was unique for Frederick County; he said the applicant is proceeding
under R4 for very specific reasons.
Commissioner Thomas’ thoughts were that the market will assimilate what it can
assimilate. He thought it was a good, unique concept; however, he questioned whether it is doable and if
it is economically feasible.
Supervisor Hess commented that if Frederick County were to have a development with
this mix within the county, then this is probably as good a location as any.
Commissioner Oates said he was fine with the mix, if the developer could mitigate the
impacts; however, he would like to see more specifics on phasing.
Mrs. Murphy questioned whether or not the proposed development could work without
the County complex being there.
ADJOURNMENT
No further discussion ensued and the work session adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
Roger Thomas, Vice 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: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP
Deputy Director
RE: Southern Frederick Area Plan - An amendment to the 2030
Comprehensive Plan; Appendix I – Area Plans
– Planning Commission Public Hearing.
DATE: September 15, 2014
The Board of Supervisors, at their September 10, 2014 meeting, directed the Planning
Commission to hold a public hearing on the Southern Frederick Area Plan - An
amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; Appendix I – Area Plans. Please find the
resolution attached to this memorandum.
Following the Public Hearing, Staff is seeking a recommendation from the Planning
Commission to the Board of Supervisors on this amendment. The Comprehensive Plans
and Programs Committee (CPPC) formally reviewed and endorsed the Southern
Frederick Area Plan at their September 8, 2014 meeting.
A recent work session with the Board of Supervisors, held on August 12, 2014, provided
an opportunity for the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission to discuss the
Southern Frederick Area Plan. At the work session, staff sought and obtained direction to
move the Southern Frederick Area Plan through the public process as an amendment to
the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The Board wanted additional clarification regarding the
changes and improvements to the mapping to highlight those changes. Staff has prepared
such a clarification in the form of a brief presentation which will be provided to the
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors under a separate attachment. It will also
be made available on-line. It is hoped that this is helpful to those interested in this Area
Plan.
Southern Frederick Area Plan – Planning Commission Public Hearing.
September 15, 2014
Page 2
Overview
The Southern Frederick Area Plan, which kicked off in 2013, was worked on by a group
of volunteers over the winter and into 2014. Most recently a public review and input
meeting was held on July 1, 2014. Additional outreach has continued and staff received
direction to move the Southern Frederick Area Plan through the public process as an
amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as discussed at the work session.
The study area encompasses the area generally east of Interstate 81 to the Clarke County
line and from the Opequon Creek in the north to Lake Frederick in the south. This study
area includes the Route 277 Triangle Study, Tasker Woods, and many of the existing
residential communities of the Stephens City area from Lakeside to Shenandoah and
everything in between. The study area includes both the Opequon and Shawnee
Magisterial Districts.
Public Input
The Southern Frederick Area Plan has provided an exciting opportunity for the
community to participate in and guide the future growth, development, and
redevelopment of this urbanizing area of the County. A Public Introduction meeting was
held at Robert E. Aylor Middle School to introduce the study, seek early input, and to
encourage participation in the study and working groups. Initial input was offered by
many of the participants and additional input was received following the meetings, both
in the mail and via the County’s website.
As a result of the initial recruiting effort, we were able to establish and fill the study’s
facilitator group and four working groups. The four working groups are as follows:
1. Urban Areas and Residential Development
2. Business Development
3. Transportation
4. Natural Resources, Historic Resources, and Public Facilities
The Working Groups completed their work and turned it over to the Facilitator Group
who met in March of 2014 to begin their compilation of the four sections into a cohesive
draft version of the Southern Frederick Area Plan.
Southern Frederick Area Plan – Planning Commission Public Hearing.
September 15, 2014
Page 3
The Facilitator Group draft was presented to the public at a Public Review and Input
meeting, again held at Robert E. Aylor Middle School, on July 1, 2014. In addition, Staff
presented the draft Southern Frederick Area Plan to the residents of Lake Frederick at
their Town Hall Meeting on July 21, 2014.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this item.
Attachments
MTR/pd
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
SoFred Area Plan 09/15/14 Public Hearing Draft for PC & BOS 1
SOUTHERN FREDERICK AREA PLAN
The Southern Frederick Area Plan builds on the Route 277
Triangle and Urban Center Plan, consolidates the Tasker Woods
Plan, and incorporates previously unplanned areas within the
study boundary into a cohesive and proactive area plan.
The Southern Frederick Area Plan continues to identify opportunities to
create new communities, integrate land use and transportation
choices, address community infrastructure needs, and expand the
County’s goals for economic development.
A series of maps have been prepared which identify Future Land Use,
Transportation, and Natural, Historical, and Community Facilities
within the study area.
The Southern Frederick Area Plan originally promoted five main areas
of new land use focus; the Sherando Center, the Route 277 Triangle;
Center of Economy, Interstate Commercial @ 307, White Oak Woods
Neighborhood Village, and Tasker Woods. In the 2014 update, several
additional areas of land use focus were envisioned; Lakeside
Neighborhood Village, Artrip Neighborhood Village, Warrior and Tasker
Neighborhood Village, and Lake Frederick Neighborhood Village.
The above areas combine to frame the southern boundary of the
County’s urban areas. In addition, Route 522 South within the study
area defines the eastern boundary of the County’s urban areas. South
and east of this study area; the County’s rural areas are strengthened
as the primary land use designation. The Lake Frederick Sewer and
Water Service Area (SWSA) is recognized in this area plan.
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
SoFred Area Plan 09/15/14 Public Hearing Draft for PC & BOS 2
An overview to planning in Frederick County.
Planning efforts, such as the Southern Frederick Area Plan, enable the
community to anticipate and deal constructively with changes
occurring in the community. Planning helps guide the future growth of
the community and is intended to improve the public health, safety,
convenience, and welfare of its citizens.
The Plan provides a guide for future land use and was a collaborative
effort of the citizens of Frederick County, County Planning Staff,
Planning Commissioners, and Board of Supervisors. However, it is the
property owners who are the ones who make the decision as to
whether or not to implement the Plan as it applies to their property.
Future rezoning is a means of implementing the Plan. Rezonings in
Frederick County have historically been initiated by the property
owner, or with their consent. There is no reason to expect that this
will change in the future.
Therefore, it is important to remember that the Plan is a guide for the
future of the community, but that the property owner is ultimately the
one who controls the future use of their property.
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
SoFred Area Plan 09/15/14 Public Hearing Draft for PC & BOS 3
Land Use.
The Sherando Center
The Sherando Center is envisioned to be an intensive, walkable urban
area that is well integrated with the surrounding community. The
center should be based on the principles of New Urbanism or
Traditional Neighborhood Design promoted in the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan. It shall contain a large commercial core, generally higher
residential densities with a mix of housing types, an interconnected
street system, and public open space around which the center is
designed. Community facilities shall also provide a focal point for the
center and surrounding community. Presently, Sherando High School
and Sherando Park provide this function. In the future, these
resources shall be complemented by a new Elementary School which
shall serve the existing and future population and be located within the
center. Public spaces in the form of pocket parks, plazas, or greens
shall be further integrated into the design of the Sherando Center.
The Sherando Center is centrally located to the community and is in
the short term, respectful to the Agricultural District. The commercial
and residential mix of land uses shall have a strong street presence
and shall relate to existing Route 277, Warrior Drive and Double
Church Road. The mix of commercial, residential, employment, and
community uses shall be linked to the surrounding community with
inter modal transportation choices and public open spaces.
Route 277 Triangle; Centers of Economy
Route 277 Triangle; Centers of Economy is designed to be a significant
area of commercial and industrial opportunity that is fully supportive of
the County Economic Development Commission’s targeted goals and
strategies. The intent of the mixed use designation is to further
enhance the County’s commercial and industrial areas and to provide
focus to the County’s future regional employment centers. In specific
areas a mix of flexible uses, with office uses in prominent locations is
encouraged. Such areas are supported by substantial areas of
industrial and commercial opportunity, and provide for areas that are
well designed with high quality architecture and site design. It is the
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
SoFred Area Plan 09/15/14 Public Hearing Draft for PC & BOS 4
intent of such areas to promote a strong positive community image.
Residential land uses are not permitted.
Lake Frederick Neighborhood Village
Lake Frederick Neighborhood Village serves as a focal point to the 277
Triangle; Centers of Economy and as a gateway feature for the
Shenandoah/Lake Frederick community and on a broader scale, a
gateway feature for Frederick County as citizens and visitors approach
the County from the east. This neighborhood village should promote a
strong positive community image. Residential land uses would be
permitted only as an accessory component of the neighborhood village
commercial land uses. Previously, a small area of neighborhood village
commercial was identified on the south side of Route 277 in the
general vicinity of the future entrance of Shenandoah and the existing
Sandy’s Mobile Home Park. The 2014 update to the Plan provides for
an overall greater area and greater mix of uses in this area that is
reflective of a stronger desire to create a more substantial focal point
for activity. This is primarily based on the growth and development of
the Lake Frederick Community and the involvement of new residents
from this area.
Interstate Commercial @ 307
Located at a highly visible location on a prominent interstate
interchange, this area of land use shall be designed specifically to
accommodate and promote highway commercial land uses. Particular
effort must be made to ensure that access management for the
supporting transportation network is a key priority as the function of
the interstate and primary road network is of paramount importance.
Access to the areas of interstate commercial land uses shall be
carefully designed. The building and site layout and design of the
projects shall be of a high quality. In addition, an enhanced buffer and
landscaping area shall be provided adjacent to the Interstate 81 right-
of-way, its ramps, and the new arterial road, the South Frederick
Parkway, and adjacent to Route 11.
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
SoFred Area Plan 09/15/14 Public Hearing Draft for PC & BOS 5
White Oak Woods Neighborhood Village
The White Oak Woods Neighborhood Village is a neighborhood village
commercial area that is proposed at White Oak Road and Route 277
which is sensitive to the existing character and scale of the location,
adjacent to Sherando Park and the White Oak Campground. The
orientation of this neighborhood commercial shall be to the park and
adjoining street network. A new Fire and Rescue Facility and
Community Facility shall provide an additional focal point to this area.
This facility and the commercial land uses shall be of a general scale
and context similar to projects such as Creekside. High quality
building and site design is a priority. Accessory residential uses are
only permitted as an accessory component of the neighborhood village
commercial land uses.
Tasker Woods
The Tasker Woods area provides guidance on the future land use for
all of the land area between Route 522, Tasker Road, and White Oak
Road. An area of Neighborhood Village Commercial is proposed
between the originally proposed residential areas and Route 522,
serving the Tasker Woods area. An internal access road serving this
area has been provided with the Tasker Woods project. Therefore, no
new commercial entrances shall be permitted on Route 522. Access
Management is a priority along the Route 522 corridor. A significant
corridor appearance buffer is proposed along Route 522 similar to that
established for Route 50 West corridor in the Round Hill Land Use Plan
which consisted of a 50’ buffer area, landscaping, and bike path.
Accessory residential uses are only permitted as an accessory
component of the neighborhood village commercial land uses within
the Neighborhood Village area.
The area of natural resources connecting Tasker Woods with Route
522, including the existing pond shall continue to be recognized in this
plan. An extension of the neighborhood commercial land uses may be
appropriate on the east and west sides of the existing pond if a
balance is achieved between protecting the environmental features
and allowing compatible neighborhood commercial uses, which may
also include commercial recreational uses.
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
SoFred Area Plan 09/15/14 Public Hearing Draft for PC & BOS 6
In addition to the Neighborhood Village Commercial land uses, an area
of commercial land use is proposed generally north of Tasker Road.
This is an extension of the previously planned commercial area on
Tasker Road. Two areas have been identified as recreational and
natural resources and have been connected together in an effort to
protect the existing natural resources and provide additional
recreational opportunities for the Tasker Woods area.
Lakeside Neighborhood Village
A Neighborhood Village Commercial area is proposed along Tasker
Road in the in the Lakeside area, in the vicinity of the Lakeside Library.
This small scale commercial area is sensitive to the existing character
and scale of the location, the Lakeside Library and the adjacent lake,
and the historic and natural resources in this area. The orientation of
this neighborhood commercial shall be on the opposite side of Tasker
Road to the library and lake with a new street network providing the
framework for the new neighborhood. The Lakeside Library, an
invaluable community facility for the area shall provide a focal point to
this area. The commercial land uses shall be of a general scale and
context similar to projects such as Creekside. High quality building
and site design is a priority. Accessory residential uses are only
permitted as an accessory component of the neighborhood village
commercial land uses within the core area. An area of residential land
use is proposed to surround the core neighborhood village area that
shall be of a higher density than that typically found in this general
area.
Artrip Neighborhood Village
The Villages at Artrip contains approximately 170 acres of land
designed as a neo-traditional village community. This neighborhood
village was designed to provide an urban feel in what was historically a
rural setting. This development was rezoned in 2006 and is anticipated
to include a mix of 900 single family homes and townhouses, over
100,000 square feet of retail, as well as numerous restaurants and
office space. A future elementary school is proposed in this area which
will ensure that such an important community facility will provide a
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
SoFred Area Plan 09/15/14 Public Hearing Draft for PC & BOS 7
focal point and valuable community resource for this area of new
development.
Warrior & Tasker Neighborhood Village
A Neighborhood Village Commercial area is proposed along Warrior
Drive, adjacent to the intersection of Warrior Drive and Tasker Road.
This small scale commercial area is sensitive to the existing residential
character of the area, in particular the scale of the adjacent
neighborhoods, yet seeks to build upon the existing commercial
character of this intersection. The commercial land uses shall be of a
general scale and context similar to projects such as Creekside. High
quality building and site design is a priority. Accessory residential uses
are only permitted as an accessory component of the neighborhood
village commercial land uses within the core area.
Defined Rural Areas
The Southern Frederick Area Plan has sought to further define the
boundary between the Rural and Urban Areas of the community. As
noted, the above areas of proposed land use combine to frame the
southern boundary of the County’s urban areas. In addition, the rural
areas to the east of Route 522 south further define the County’s urban
area in this location. The plan provides enhanced recognition of Double
Church Agricultural District. This recognition and the location and
boundaries of the proposed land uses further promote a clean
separation between the County’s rural and urban areas.
Armel Rural Community Center
The general location of the Armed Rural Community center was
identified in earlier versions of the Comprehensive Plan as one of
several rural community centers in Frederick County that have a role
to play as service centers for the County’s Rural Areas. This
identification was largely based on the historical role they played to
that end. The Southern Frederick Area Plan seeks to further define the
Armel Rural Community Center and promote future consideration of
this unique area, an area that should remain distinct from the general
urban development occurring in the urban areas of the plan. Future
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
SoFred Area Plan 09/15/14 Public Hearing Draft for PC & BOS 8
policies for this rural community center should reflect the particular
characteristics of the center and the desires of its residents. This could
be achieved through a broader effort to plan the County’s Rural
Community Centers.
Sherando-Lake Frederick Trailway
For the Southern Frederick Area Plan, it is recommended that a new
multi-purpose path be constructed from the planned lakeside path at
Lake Fredrick westward along Crooked Run and other connecting areas
to intersect with a Sherando Park trail. This pathway surface should
be consistent with that of the Sherando Park paths and trails. The
new pathway will connect large segments of Southern Frederick trails
and provide additional public to access Lake Frederick’s lakeside trails
and other constructed facilities. Such an environmental and
recreational resource would provide an excellent example for other
opportunities in the County.
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
SoFred Area Plan 09/15/14 Public Hearing Draft for PC & BOS 9
Residential Development
Outside of the Sherando Center and Neighborhood Villages described
above, the residential land uses in the Southern Frederick study area
are defined in two main categories:
R4 – these are generally reflective of our existing residential
densities at approximately 4 units per acre.
R6 – these are slightly higher residential densities that may fall
within the 6-12 units per acre range (this is generally attached
house and may also include multifamily and a mix of other
housing types).
These densities are necessary to accommodate the anticipated growth
of the County within the urban areas and are consistent with
established patterns within the study area and the densities needed to
support the future residential land uses envisioned in the Plan.
The residential land uses east of Route 522 South within the study
area are envisioned to be rural area residential in character. Route
522 South may generally be considered as the boundary between the
urban areas and rural areas within the eastern part of this study area.
This provides a transition area to the Opequon Creek and Wrights Run
and to the well-established rural character of adjacent Clarke County.
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
SoFred Area Plan 09/15/14 Public Hearing Draft for PC & BOS 10
Business Development
The business development section of the plan seeks to identify items
that would be complementary to the Urban Areas and Residential
Development, Transportation and Natural Resources, Historic
Resources and Public Facilities portion of the plan.
The business development recommendations are also intended to
implement the 2030 Comprehensive Plan by promoting the efficient
utilization of existing and planned land areas and transportation
networks. Further, the recommendations promote commercial,
industrial, and employment land use areas to assure the County’s
desired taxable value ratio of 25 percent commercial/industrial to 75
percent residential and other land use is achieved.
The Plan provides for new industrial park and employment center
areas to match the Economic Development Commission’s vision for
this portion of Frederick County.
The Plan identifies a prime area for Mixed Use development, the
Sherando Center, to capitalize on future commercial and employment
opportunities. In addition, areas are identified for neighborhood village
commercial use, including retail, to accommodate existing residential
communities.
The relocation of the Exit 307 Interchange on interstate 81 provides a
significant commercial opportunity that the Plan seeks to take
advantage of by identifying the Interstate Commercial @ 307 area of
land use.
The business development recommendations identified desirable
business types to draw to the area. Including, but not limited to;
Light Industrial/High Tech targeted businesses.
Lodging / Event / Dining along the Route 522 corridor and at the
interstate.
Home Office (versus home based)
Fast-Casual Dining (EG - Panera, Chipotle)
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
SoFred Area Plan 09/15/14 Public Hearing Draft for PC & BOS 11
Higher-end dining (Chain and Local businesses) as well as
casual Pub’s and Cafes.
Premium Grocery & Retail in the UDA Center area (EG -
Wegman’s)
The business development group also provided the following general
comments:
1. All areas should be designed to promote/support pedestrian and
bike access, making this a walkable community. This will
decrease reliance on cars and enable residents to more readily
access business and employment centers.
a. To expand the pedestrian & bike access the undeveloped
land zoned as Natural Resource / Flood Plain should
include walking/biking trails.
2. Identify ways to leverage abundant supply of natural gas in the
RT 522 corridor.
3. Determine if incentives to rezone to commercial uses for land
owners with agricultural zoned property should be made
available.
4. Promote development of small parcels of land that already
contain residential structures along transportation corridors for
business purposes, examples of which may include doctors,
dentist offices, and other professional offices. Promotion could
be in the form of incentives or credits to offset the cost of site
improvements and transportation improvements required by the
site development.
5. Restaurants and community based businesses such as Dry
Cleaners, Convenience Stores, and the like, should be located
close to and easily accessible by car or by foot to the areas
targeted as industrial, commercial and office uses. This could
also be within the Sherando Center or Neighborhood village
commercial areas which are located within accessible distances
from these areas.
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
SoFred Area Plan 09/15/14 Public Hearing Draft for PC & BOS 12
6. Identify ways to draw more Light Manufacturing and targeted
economic development businesses to the area around the FBI
facility off of Tasker Rd.
7. The Southern Frederick County area would be a natural fit for
various outdoor events and festivals, especially once the road
and walking path networks have been enhanced and more
lodging and dining options are available. This type of business
has a low impact on the environment and provides an external
infusion of revenue.
The business development group identified several additional areas
east of Route 522 South for potential modifications to the Southern
Frederick Area Plan that would better promote the business
development objectives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. However, it
was determined through the facilitator group stage of this planning
effort that these areas should remain rural in character.
Specific Implementation Steps have been identified which would
further promote business development opportunities in the Southern
Frederick Area Plan and Frederick County in general. This is consistent
with those identified in the Senseny/Eastern Frederick County Urban
Area Plan. These include:
The creation of a Future Land Use Revenue Incentive Program
that provides property owners with the ability to sell residential
density rights to keep their property available for future
employment, commercial, or industrial land use as
recommended by the Comprehensive Policy Plan. This program
would incentivize the property owner by providing a revenue
income source in the near term and future revenue income
when the property is zoned for employment, commercial or
industrial land use.
Incentivize the property owner with automatic placement of the
property into the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) if a
rezoning application is processed for future employment,
commercial, or industrial land use.
Incentivize the property owner with County endorsement of
Economic Development Access (EDA) funds and/or Revenue
Sharing Funds to assist in the financing of major road
infrastructure needed to serve the development project.
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
SoFred Area Plan 09/15/14 Public Hearing Draft for PC & BOS 13
Additionally, provide for County-managed support of the major
road infrastructure projects to streamline the approval process
for project design and construction management.
Incentivize the property owner through the implementation of
expedited rezoning processes for future employment,
commercial, or industrial land use as recommended by the
Comprehensive Policy Plan.
The creation of new Zoning Ordinance requirements that
facilitate more intensive FAR and height allowances for future
employment, commercial or industrial land use, especially in the
urban centers.
The County should support and partner with various athletic
organizations to sponsor regional or state tournaments and
events using existing facilities to promote tourism in support of
existing hotels, restaurants, and attractions.
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
SoFred Area Plan 09/15/14 Public Hearing Draft for PC & BOS 14
Transportation
In support of the new areas of land use, a transportation network has
been proposed which relates to the location and context of the areas of
land use, promotes multi-modal transportation choices and walkability,
furthers the efforts of the Win-Fred MPO, and reaffirms the planning
done as part of the Route 277 Triangle Area plan. In this study there
is a direct nexus between transportation and land use.
The relocation of Interstate 81, Exit 307, provides a new orientation
for the County’s primary road system and provides new opportunities
to create a transportation network which supports the future growth of
the community in the right locations. This area is also heavily
influenced by the ongoing and future improvements to I-81 Exit 310
and the future extension of Warrior Drive. Minor modifications are
proposed to the alignment of the Tasker Road flyover of I-81.
Access Management is a significant consideration of this study and
general transportation planning in Frederick County. This concept is
supportive of providing for key connections to the south. The use of
frontage roads, minor collector roads, and inter parcel connections to
bring traffic to access points is promoted.
Roundabouts will be considered as a priority preference for intersection
design. Roundabouts are particularly effective when used in series
and when used where intersection spacing may be an issue.
The context of the collector road network is proposed to be
significantly different with the focus being placed on a more walkable
and complete street thoroughfare design. The change in context is
based upon classification of road and to ensure compatibility with
adjacent land uses and community goals. Particular attention should
be paid to street network within the Urban Centers. The surrounding
land use, site design, and building design are features that will help
create context and promote the creation of new communities, places,
and focal points. Attention should also be provided to the context of
the street in the Neighborhood Village Commercial Areas to ensure
that these prominent locations are safe and accessible to all modes of
transportation. Bicycle and pedestrian accommodations should be
fully integrated to achieve complete streets. Appropriately designed
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
SoFred Area Plan 09/15/14 Public Hearing Draft for PC & BOS 15
intersection accommodations should include pedestrian refuge islands
and pedestrian actualized signals.
More specific transportation considerations for Sherando Park include
taking a proactive approach in creating safe interconnected routes to
the park from the adjacent areas and creating additional access points.
Traffic calming across the entire frontage of Sherando Park is
warranted with special attention placed on providing a safe and
efficient main entrance to the park.
Consistent application of Comprehensive Plan goals to achieve an
acceptable level of service on area roads and overall transportation
network, level of service C or better, should be promoted. Further,
efforts should be made to ensure that additional degradation of the
transportation beyond an acceptable level of service shall be avoided.
Consideration of future development applications within the study area
should only occur when an acceptable level of service has been
achieved and key elements and connections identified in this plan have
been provided.
Other recommendations from the transportation group:
Emphasize the role of the State and the development
community in the implementation of the planned road system.
Use modeling to determine lane needs based upon build out of
planned land uses, but consider plans of neighboring localities
when making recommendations. Consider the needs of bicycle
users and pedestrians in the following ways:
o Continue to plan all streets as “complete” streets which
consider all users.
o Within residential neighborhoods, this would mean that
sidewalks be used and cyclists share the roads. Use of
striping that defines parking bays or cycling areas would
be preferred.
o On collector roadways or higher, make use of separated
multi-use paths at least 10 feet in width.
o Incorporate wide shoulders or bike lanes into roadways
that have budgetary or right-of-way limitations. This
would be viewed as a step toward the ultimate goal of a
separated facility.
o Make use of paved shoulders with striping on rural
roadways as a long term measure. Rural roadways would
be defined by traffic count or as roadways outside of the
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
SoFred Area Plan 09/15/14 Public Hearing Draft for PC & BOS 16
UDA that are not part of the Primary System (ex. Route
522).
o Bike paths should be constructed on the same grade as
the adjacent roadway.
o Bike path maintenance should be addressed by adjacent
property owner groups whenever possible.
Continue to enforce improved access management with
redevelopment or new development.
o This includes, but is not limited to, entrance location and
spacing as well as traffic signal location and spacing.
Roundabout use is preferred over signalization of intersections
where traffic control is needed.
Attractive median treatments (as alternative to standard grey
concrete median) other than grass or other landscaping should
be considered when maintenance agreements with VDOT cannot
be achieved.
o Treatments should be reasonably consistent
Street sections could be modified due to DCR changes specific to
drainage requirements.
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
SoFred Area Plan 09/15/14 Public Hearing Draft for PC & BOS 17
Natural Resources, Historic Resources, and Public Facilities
Natural Resources
Frederick County should be a community that understands, values,
and protects its natural resources.
The natural resources element of the Southern Frederick Area Plan
should directly correlate to the Natural Resources chapter of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan.
To that end, Frederick County should focus on the creation of
greenways, stream valley parks and stream buffers around waterways.
Shared use trails should be constructed that connect these features to
other public facilities. Consideration should be given to creating linear
parks with shared use trails along major streams, particularly the
Opequon Creek, with buffering vegetation appropriate for preventing
erosion, filtering pollutants, and providing wildlife habitat.
Shared use trails should provide connections to other shared use trails
as well as other public facilities in the study area.
New construction within the study area should take into account the
natural resources located on and around their property.
Ensure that when new developments are planned, connectivity of
greenways is included through the project.
Preserve and maintain existing natural wetlands, woodlands, and
grasslands to the maximum feasible extent to provide wildlife habitats
for animals and plants. Buffer wetlands and creeks using latest water
management principles to promote environmental protection of those
localities, stabilize stream banks, and promote such protective steps
during residential development throughout the South Frederick County
area.
All types of urban open spaces like greenways, squares, plazas, urban
parks, playgrounds and street medians should be considered as part of
urban development planning and implemented wherever reasonable.
Ensure that storm water is managed in accordance with the County’s
Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance and Virginia’s storm water
Requirements, and work to implement Low Impact Development (LID)
measures where appropriate.
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
SoFred Area Plan 09/15/14 Public Hearing Draft for PC & BOS 18
Provide for best storm water management practices at urban centers,
residential developments, and industrial areas to facilitate
environmental protection.
Protect floodplains and steep slopes from unsuitable uses and
recognize their value for storm water management and ecological
functions.
Ensure that with new development, people and wildlife are protected
from unhealthy levels of noise and light.
Historic Resources
Frederick County should recognize and protect the historic structures
and sites within the study area.
The historic element of the Southern Frederick Area Plan should
directly correlate to the Historic Resources chapter of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan.
To that end, the rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, or restoration of
historic structures should be increased. The Comprehensive Plan calls
for the adaptive reuse of historic structures, future development
applications that have historic resources on the property should
incorporate the site into development.
Developmentally Sensitive Areas, including historic areas are shown on
the land use map for the study area. By recognizing these historic sites
and structures, the Southern Frederick Area Plan is implementing the
policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Significant structures and properties shown with a developmentally
sensitive/historic designation should be buffered from adjacent
development activity.
Require archaeological surveys to be conducted prior to development,
particularly any that involve battlefield areas, homesteads, Indian
encampments, and waterways.
The Rural Landmarks Survey should be updated and maintained
regularly in order to keep current the inventory of structures older
than fifty years.
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
SoFred Area Plan 09/15/14 Public Hearing Draft for PC & BOS 19
There are at least six historic sites and markers in the Southern
Frederick Area Plan. Those sites and markers should be buffered from
adjacent development activities and preserved in their original
condition whenever possible during any development or land use
planning.
The Melvin Sandy house is located immediately adjacent to Sherando
Park and would be ideal for use as an element of the Park. In the
event that it cannot be included as part of the park, it would be
appropriate for the use on the property to develop as something which
would encourage the protection of the structure and provide a use
which encourages park users to utilize the property.
Frederick County should assist property owners that want to register
their properties with the State or National Register.
Increasing shared use trails throughout the study area would give
emphasis to the preservation and rehabilitation of nearby historic sites
and structures. Developments should incorporate and/or convert
historic properties into recreational elements, including shared use
trails, parks, and museums. The Zig-Zag trenches should be preserved
and connected via a linear park/trail network to Crosspointe.
Developers of any urban center developed in the study area should
integrate into the center’s development plans both the preservation
and prominence of historical and natural resources within the urban
center boundaries such as the restoration, rehabilitation, or adaptive
reuse of historic homes, churches, other buildings, Civil War site
markers, Civil War earth works, significant stone outcroppings, etc..
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
SoFred Area Plan 09/15/14 Public Hearing Draft for PC & BOS 20
Community Facilities
The need for public spaces within the study area needs to be
acknowledged.
The public facility element of the Southern Frederick Area plan should
directly correlate to the Public Facilities chapter of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan. The public facilities element should also expand
upon the existing 2030 Comprehensive Plan and ensure that
opportunities for needed public facilities, which are not currently
identified, are not missed.
To that end, the following recommendations are offered.
The development community should work with FCPS, Fire & Rescue,
and Parks and Recreation to determine future public facility needs.
A potable water tank will be needed within the study area to
accommodate future growth (Lake Frederick area).
The County should focus on the development of the north side of
Sherando Park (north of Route 277).
The 2007 Win-Fred MPO Bicycle & Pedestrian Mobility Plan should be
adopted by the Board of Supervisors and pedestrian facilities shown in
the plan should be constructed. This plan should also be utilized as a
reference for accommodation recommendations and guidelines.
Ensure connectivity with existing or proposed bicycle or pedestrian
transportation accommodations wherever possible.
Pedestrian facilities should be constructed that connect neighborhoods
to school and park facilities to promote access and walkability.
Trails should be planned and constructed that connect Sherando Park,
the proposed S. Frederick Parkway and Lake Frederick (see the
Sherando-Lake Frederick Trailway example described in the land use
section).
A trail network should be constructed around the Lake at the Bowman
Library.
Linear parks should be constructed along creeks where permissible
due to topography.
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
SoFred Area Plan 09/15/14 Public Hearing Draft for PC & BOS 21
A new Fire & Rescue station is needed within the study area. As
proposed, a new Fire and Rescue Facility and Community Facility shall
provide an additional focal point to the White Oak Woods
Neighborhood Village area.
The 13 acre parcel owned by the Frederick County adjacent to Bass
Hoover Elementary should be planned as a combined school, park and
recreation facility.
The existing schools within the study area, including Bass Hoover,
Aylor, and Sherando need to be upgraded as outlined in the CIP. New
schools identified in this plan and in the CIP should be pursued and
may be used as focal points for future community development.
APPENDIX I - AREA PLANS
SoFred Area Plan 09/15/14 Public Hearing Draft for PC & BOS 22
Zoning Amendments to implement the plan
Revised/more flexible B2 Overlay concept
Neighborhood Village Commercial areas are envisioned to be
compact commercial centers that focus and complement the
surrounding neighborhoods, are walkable and designed at a
human scale, and which are supported by existing and planned
road networks.
Accessory residential uses within the neighborhood Villages are
only permitted as an accessory component of the commercial
land uses within the core area. However, the residential uses
are allowed in a variety of configurations and are not just
limited to the second and third floors of commercial
buildings. They may also be located in separated
buildings, again provided that they are accessory to the
commercial uses. This provides a greater amount of flexibility
with the residential design, while still affording the commercial
land uses primary status. Previously, residential land uses were
only permitted on the second floor and above commercial
buildings.
Traditional Neighborhood Design Zoning Classification
This flexible zoning classification is intended to enable
Neighborhood and Urban Village Centers, or a part thereof, to
be developed.
Mars
h
B
r
o
o
k
H
o
g
e
R
u
n
Ope
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Croo
k
e
d
R
u
n
Wrigh
t
s
R
u
n
Wrig
h
t
R
u
n
S
h
e
e
p
R
u
n
Wes
t
R
u
n
Ste
p
h
e
n
s
R
u
n
Wes
t
R
u
n
Ste
p
h
e
n
s
R
u
n
S
h
e
e
p
R
u
n
Opequ
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Opequon Creek
Wrigh
t
s
R
u
n
Ope
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Opequon C
r
e
e
k
Ste
p
h
e
n
s
R
u
n
Op
e
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Opeq
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Ste
p
h
e
n
s
R
u
n
Wrights R
u
n
Opequ
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Opequon
C
r
e
e
k
Wrig
h
t
s
R
u
n
Ope
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
We
s
t
R
u
n
C
r
o
o
k
e
d
R
u
n
Opequon Creek
S
t
e
p
h
e
n
s
R
u
n
S
t
e
p
h
e
n
s
R
u
n
Cr
o
o
k
e
d
R
u
n
Cr
o
o
k
e
d
R
u
n
O
p
e
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
C
r
o
o
k
e
d
R
u
n
Opequon Creek
Op
e
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
O
p
e
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
C
r
o
o
k
e
d
R
u
n
S
h
e
e
p
R
u
n
O
p
e
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Wri
g
h
t
s
R
u
n
CLARKE COUNTY
WARREN COUNTY
Town ofStephens City
Southern Frederick Area Plan
Land Use
F0120.5 Miles
SoFred Public Hearing Draft - August 2014 Artrip Neighborhood Village
LakesideNeighborhood Village
Warrior & TaskerNeighborhood Village Tasker Woods
Armel Rural Community Center
Sherando Center White Oak WoodsNeighborhood Village Route 277 Triangle:Center of Economy
Lake FrederickNeighborhood Village
Lake FrederickSWSA
Interstate Commercial at 307
Rural Areas
Rural AreasERR
High Density Residential
Southern Frederick Area Plan
Urban Development Area
Sewer & Water Service Area
Parcels
Long Range Land Use Plan
Residential
Urban Center
Business
Highway Commercial
Mixed-Use
Mixed Use Commercial/Office
Mixed Use Industrial/Office
Industrial
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwWarehouse
Heavy Industrial
Extractive Minin
Commercial Rec
Community Center
Fire & Rescue
Historic
Institutional
PUD
Park
Recreation
School
Neighborhood Village
Mobile Home
Hog
e
R
u
n
Ma
r
s
h
B
r
o
o
k
Ope
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Croo
k
e
d
R
u
n
Wrigh
t
s
R
u
n
Wrig
h
t
R
u
n
S
h
e
e
p
R
u
n
Wes
t
R
u
n
Ste
p
h
e
n
s
R
u
n
Ope
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
O
p
e
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Ope
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Ope
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
S
h
e
e
p
R
u
n
S
t
e
p
h
e
n
s
R
u
n
Opequon C
r
e
e
k
Opequ
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
S
t
e
p
h
e
n
s
R
u
n
Opequon Creek
Wrights R
u
n
Ste
p
h
e
n
s
R
u
n
Wes
t
R
u
n
Ste
p
h
e
n
s
R
u
n
Opequon
C
r
e
e
k
Opeq
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Cr
o
o
k
e
d
R
u
n
W
e
s
t
R
u
n
Opequ
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Wrigh
t
s
R
u
n
C
r
o
o
k
e
d
R
u
n
C
r
o
o
k
e
d
R
u
n
O
p
e
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Opequon Creek
Cr
o
o
k
e
d
R
u
n
Op
e
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Opequon Creek
C
r
o
o
k
e
d
R
u
n
S
h
e
e
p
R
u
n
C
r
o
o
k
e
d
R
u
n
O
p
e
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Wrig
h
t
s
R
u
n
Wri
g
h
t
s
R
u
n
CLARKE COUNTY
WARREN COUNTY
Town ofStephens City
Southern Frederick Area Plan
Transportation Map
F0120.5 Miles
SoFred Public Hearing Draft - August 2014
Southern Frederick Area Plan
Urban Development Area
Sewer & Water Service Area
Transportation
New Major Arterial
Improved Major Arterial
New Minor Arterial
Improved Minor Arterial
New Major Collector
Improved Major Collector
New Minor Collector
Improved Minor Collector
Ramp
Trails
Roundabout
Armel Community Center
Hog
e
R
u
n
Ma
r
s
h
B
r
o
o
k
Ope
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Croo
k
e
d
R
u
n
Wrigh
t
s
R
u
n
Wrig
h
t
R
u
n
S
h
e
e
p
R
u
n
Wes
t
R
u
n
Ste
p
h
e
n
s
R
u
n
Op
e
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
O
p
e
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Ope
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Ope
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
S
h
e
e
p
R
u
n
S
t
e
p
h
e
n
s
R
u
n
Opequon C
r
e
e
k
Opequ
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
S
t
e
p
h
e
n
s
R
u
n
Opequon Creek
Wrights R
u
n
Ste
p
h
e
n
s
R
u
n
Wes
t
R
u
n
Ste
p
h
e
n
s
R
u
n
Opequon
C
r
e
e
k
Opeq
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Cr
o
o
k
e
d
R
u
n
W
e
s
t
R
u
n
Opequ
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Wrigh
t
s
R
u
n
C
r
o
o
k
e
d
R
u
n
C
r
o
o
k
e
d
R
u
n
O
p
e
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Opequon Creek
Cr
o
o
k
e
d
R
u
n
Op
e
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Opequon Creek
C
r
o
o
k
e
d
R
u
n
S
h
e
e
p
R
u
n
C
r
o
o
k
e
d
R
u
n
O
p
e
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Wrig
h
t
s
R
u
n
Wri
g
h
t
s
R
u
n
CLARKE COUNTY
WARREN COUNTY
Town ofStephens City
Southern Frederick Area Plan
Transportation w/ Trails Map
F0120.5 Miles
BASS-HOOVER ELEMENTARY
ROBERT E. AYLOR MIDDLE Armel Community Center
SoFred Public Hearing Draft - August 2014
Urban Development Area
Sewer & Water Service Area
Transportation
New Major Arterial
Improved Major Arterial
New Minor Arterial
Improved Minor Arterial
New Major Collector
Improved Major Collector
New Minor Collector
Improved Minor Collector
Ramp
Trails
Roundabout
SHERANDO HIGH
ARMEL ELEMENTARY
BOWMAN LIBRARY
Hog
e
R
u
n
Ma
r
s
h
B
r
o
o
k
Ope
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Croo
k
e
d
R
u
n
Wrigh
t
s
R
u
n
Wrig
h
t
R
u
n
S
h
e
e
p
R
u
n
Wes
t
R
u
n
Ste
p
h
e
n
s
R
u
n
Op
e
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
O
p
e
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Ope
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Ope
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
S
h
e
e
p
R
u
n
S
t
e
p
h
e
n
s
R
u
n
Opequon C
r
e
e
k
Opequ
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
S
t
e
p
h
e
n
s
R
u
n
Opequon Creek
Wrights R
u
n
Ste
p
h
e
n
s
R
u
n
Wes
t
R
u
n
Ste
p
h
e
n
s
R
u
n
Opequon
C
r
e
e
k
Opeq
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Cr
o
o
k
e
d
R
u
n
W
e
s
t
R
u
n
Opequ
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Wrigh
t
s
R
u
n
C
r
o
o
k
e
d
R
u
n
C
r
o
o
k
e
d
R
u
n
O
p
e
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Opequon Creek
Cr
o
o
k
e
d
R
u
n
Op
e
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Opequon Creek
C
r
o
o
k
e
d
R
u
n
S
h
e
e
p
R
u
n
C
r
o
o
k
e
d
R
u
n
O
p
e
q
u
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
Wrig
h
t
s
R
u
n
Wri
g
h
t
s
R
u
n
CLARKE COUNTY
WARREN COUNTY
Town ofStephens City
Southern Frederick Area Plan
Historic and Natural Resources Map
F0120.5 Miles
BASS-HOOVER ELEMENTARY
ROBERT E. AYLOR MIDDLE Armel Community Center
SoFred Public Hearing Draft - August 2014
Future Fire & Rescue Facility
Sewer & Water Service Area
Parcels
#Historic Rural Landmarks
Land Use
Rural Comm Center
Park
Institutional
Recreation
Urban Development Area
C
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/ 665-5651
Fax: 540/ 665-6395
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Public Hearing - Zoning District Buffer Waivers
DATE: September 16, 2014
Staff has received a request to revise the Zoning Ordinance to include a zoning district buffer
waiver that allows the Board of Supervisors to eliminate or modify the buffer, if the adjoining
land is designated in the adopted Comprehensive Plan for a use which would not require a
buffer. The waiver as drafted would require support from the adjacent property owner.
This item was discussed by the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) at
their June 26, 2014 meeting. The DRRC endorsed the proposed revision as drafted and
recommended it be sent to the Planning Commission for discussion. The Planning Commission
discussed the request at their August 20, 2014 meeting. Commission members were in favor of
reducing the amount of buffers to lessen the impact on developers, but were concerned about
possible repercussions with future property transitions and suggested the need for a signed
agreement between the two property owners. They noted that despite the fact the two
adjoining property owners may now get along and share a vision, it doesn’t guarantee that
situation into the future. A standard form, or some form of County record, were considered as
ways to make sure the future adjacent property owners know about any waivers granted.
Commissioners agreed that any flexibility which can be provided within the ordinance relative
to buffers is good and they were in favor of this amendment, but working out the details was
the next challenge, especially as attention moves toward mixed uses in future developments.
(Commissioner Oates abstained from discussion; Commissioners Crockett and Dunlap were
absent.) The Board of Supervisors discussed the request at their September 10, 2014 meeting.
The Board questioned why the RA District wasn’t included in the buffer matrix and requested
changes to the waiver text. The changes requested by the Board of Supervisors have been
incorporated in Attachment 1.
-2-
The attached document shows the existing ordinance with the proposed changes supported by
the DRRC (with strikethroughs for text eliminated and bold italic for text added). This item is
presented for public hearing. A recommendation from the Planning Commission on this
proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment is sought. Please contact me if you have any
questions.
Attachments: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold underlined italics.
2. Graphic
CEP/pd
Buffer - Waiver
Chapter 165
Article II - SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS, PARKING, BUFFERS,
AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES
Part 203 – Buffers and Landscaping
§ 165-203.02 Buffer and screening requirements.
D. Zoning district buffers. Buffers shall be placed on land to be developed when it adjoins land in certain
different zoning districts.
(1) Buffers shall be provided on the land to be developed according to the categories in the following
tables:
(a) Buffer categories:
Distance Buffer Required
Category
Screening
Provided
Inactive
(Minimum) (feet)
Active
(Maximum) (feet)
Total
(feet)
A No screen 25 25 50
B Full screen 25 25 50
B Landscape
screen
75 25 100
B No screen 150 50 200
C Full screen 75 25 100
C Landscape
screen
150 50 200
C No screen 350 50 400
Buffer - Waiver
(b) Buffer categories to be provided on land to be developed according to the zoning of the
adjoining land:
(2) If a lot being developed is adjacent to developed land which would normally be required to be
provided with a buffer but which does not contain the buffer, the required buffer shall be
provided on the lot being developed. The buffer to be provided shall be of the larger category
required on either the lot being developed or the adjacent land. Such buffer shall be in place of
the buffer normally required on the lot being developed. The buffer may include required
setbacks or buffers provided on the adjacent land.
(3) Whenever land is to be developed in the B-1 (Neighborhood, Business) or B-2 (Business, General)
Zoning District that is adjacent to land primarily used for residential use in the RA (Rural Areas)
Zoning District, a B Category buffer shall be provided on the land to be developed. The Board of
Supervisors may grant a waiver to reduce the required buffer distance requirements between
land primarily used for residential purposes and the B-1 (Neighborhood, Business) or B-2
(Business, General) Zoning District with the consent of the adjacent (affected) property owners.
Zoning of Adjoining Land
Zoning of Land to
be Developed RP R4 R5 MH1 B1 B2 B3 OM M1 M2 EM MS
RA(Primarily
used for
residential
purposes
RP - - - - A A A A A A A A -
R4 - - - - A A A A A A A A -
R5 - - - - A A A A A A A A -
MH1 C C C - B B B B B A A C -
B1 B B B B - - A A A A A B B
B2 B B B B - - - A A A A B B
B3 C C C C B - - - - - - C C
OM C C C C B B - - - - - C C
M1 C C C C B B - - - - - C C
M2 C C C C B B B B B - - C C
EM C C C C B B B B B - - C C
MS C C C C B B B B B B C - C
Buffer - Waiver
Should a waiver be granted by the Board of Supervisors, the distance requirements of § 165-
203.02D(1)(a) may be reduced, provided the full screening requirements of this section are met.
(4) Whenever land is to be developed in the B3, OM, M1 or M2 Zoning District that is adjacent to
land primarily used for residential purposes in the RA Rural Areas Zoning District, a C Category
buffer shall be provided on the land to be developed.
(5) Whenever land is to be developed in the MS Zoning District that is adjacent to land primarily used
for residential purposes in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District, a C Category buffer shall be
provided on the land to be developed. Whenever land is to be developed in the MS Zoning
District that is adjacent to all other land zoned RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District, the requirements
for buffer and screening shall be provided in accordance with §165-402.07 of this chapter.
(4) The Zoning Administrator may waive any or all of the requirements for the zoning district buffers
on a particular site plan when all uses shown on the site plan are allowed in the zoning district in
which the development is occurring and in the adjoining zoning districts.
(5) The Zoning Administrator may waive, reduce and/or modify buffer yard requirements (distance
and landscaping) if in his opinion the topography of the lot providing the buffer yard and the lot
being protected is such that the required yard would not be effective. The buffer may also be
modified to maintain highway sight distances.
(6) Land proposed to be developed in the OM (Office-Manufacturing Park), the M1 Light Industrial
District and the M2 Industrial General District may be permitted to have a reduced buffer
distance that is consistent with the required side or rear building setback line, provided that the
following requirements are met:
(a) The property to be developed with a reduced buffer distance is part of an approved master
planned industrial park.
(b) There are no primary or accessory uses within the reduced buffer distance area, including
driveways, access drives, outdoor storage areas, parking areas, staging areas, loading areas
and outdoor dumpster areas. All-weather surface fire lanes necessary to meet the
requirements of Chapter 90, Fire Prevention, of the Code of Frederick County, Virginia, shall
be exempt from this performance standard.
(c) A full screen is required to be created within the reduced buffer distance area which shall be
comprised of a continuous earth berm that is six feet higher in elevation than the highest
elevation within the reduced buffer distance area and a double row of evergreen trees that
are a minimum of six feet in height and planted a maximum of eight feet from center to
center.
(9) Proposed developments required to provide buffers and screening as determined by § 165-
203.02D(1)(b) of this chapter may be permitted to establish a common shared buffer and
screening easement with the adjoining property. The common shared buffer and screening
easement shall include all components of a full screen which shall be clearly indicated on a site
design plan. A legal agreement signed by all appropriate property owners shall be provided to the
Department of Planning and Development and shall be maintained with the approved site design
Buffer - Waiver
plan. This agreement shall describe the location of the required buffer within each property, the
number and type of the plantings to be provided and a statement regarding the maintenance
responsibility for this easement. The required buffer distance may be reduced by 50% for a
common shared buffer easement if existing vegetation achieves the functions of a full screen.
(7) When a flex-tech development is split by a zoning district line, the Zoning Administrator may
allow for a reduction of the distance buffer and the relocation of the screening requirements.
Such modifications shall be allowed at the Zoning Administrators discretion, provided that all of
the following conditions are met:
(a) The zoning district boundary line for which the modification is requested is internal to the
land contained within the master development plan.
(b) The required landscape screen is relocated to the perimeter of the flex-tech development.
This relocated landscape screen shall contain the same plantings that would have been
required had the screen been placed along the zoning district boundary line.
(8) Whenever land is to be developed in the B1, B2, B3, OM, M1 or M2 Zoning District that is
adjacent to a railroad right-of-way that has property zoned B1, B2, B3, OM, M1 or M2 on the
opposite side, zoning district buffers shall not be required. In the event that residential uses are
located on the opposite side of the railroad right-of-way, a zoning district buffer as required by
§ 165-203.02D shall be provided. In the event that a zoning district buffer is required, the width
of the railroad right-of-way may be counted towards the required zoning district buffer
distance.
(9) The Board of Supervisors may grant a waiver that modifies or eliminates a required zoning
district buffer between land being developed in the B1, B2, B3, OM, M1 or M2 Zoning Districts
that is adjacent to land primarily used for residential purposes in the RA Rural Areas Zoning
District provided that:
(a) The adjoining land is designated in the adopted Comprehensive Plan for a use which
would not require a buffer between the land under site plan and the adjoining property.
(b) The owner of the adjoining RA property provides written and notarized consent to the
waiver of the required buffer.
Zoning District Buffer
Waiver Detail
Property Zoned M1 Category C Buffer waived Property Zoned RA but planned
With adjacent owner’s consent for future industrial
D
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/ 665-5651
Fax: 540/ 665-6395
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Public Hearing - Screening for Outdoor Storage Areas
DATE: September 16, 2014
Staff has received a request to revise the Zoning Ordinance to modify the screening
requirements for outdoor storage areas. The current ordinance requires that all outdoor
storage areas be completely screened from the view of road and street right-of-way and from
surrounding properties by a fence, wall, mound or screening (landscaping).
Staff has prepared a revision that would eliminate the screening element when an outdoor
storage area adjoins a property also utilized for outdoor storage; screening shall not be required
for their common property lines. Other amendments include surface material specifications and
a landscaping exemption.
The DRRC discussed the request at their June meeting; the DRRC agreed with the change and
sent the amendment forward to the Planning Commission for discussion. The Planning
Commission discussed this request at their August 20, 2014 meeting. An issue was raised
concerning a situation where a property owner in an industrial area desires to redevelop their
property from outdoor storage to usable property. In this particular scenario, the property
which converted the use would be required to install screening on their property. An
observation was made that once a building is constructed for a particular purpose in an
industrial area, the use rarely changes; however, if this occurs, the parcels are still both located
within an industrially-zoned area. Comments were made about excessive and redundant
screening between properties within some of the existing industrial parks. Commission
members believed the proposed amendment was appropriate. (Commissioner Oates abstained
from discussion; Commissioners Crockett and Dunlap were absent from the meeting.) The
Board of Supervisors discussed this item at their September 10, 2014 meeting. The Board
discussed the potential conversion of a storage area to another use and who would install the
buffer at that time. Ultimately the Board of Supervisors sent the amendment forward for public
hearing as drafted.
-2-
The attached document shows the existing ordinance with the proposed changes supported by
the DRRC (with strikethroughs for text eliminated and bold italic for text added). This item is
presented for public hearing. A recommendation from the Planning Commission on this
proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment is sought. Please contact me if you have any
questions.
Attachments: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold underlined italics.
2. Graphic
CEP/pd
Article II
SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS, PARKING, BUFFERS, AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES
Part 201 – Supplementary Use Regulations
§ 165-201.10 Outdoor storage and processing.
The outdoor storage or processing of products, equipment or raw materials is allowed in the business
and industrial districts or in association with business uses allowed in any other zoning district only if the
outdoor storage is directly associated with the primary uses of the property.
A. In such cases, the outdoor storage or processing shall be completely screened from the view of road
and street right-of-way and from surrounding properties by a six foot tall opaque fence, wall, berm
or by screening, or evergreen screen. In no case shall chain link fencing with slats be utilized for
screening.
1. When an outdoor storage area adjoins a property also utilized for outdoor storage, screening
shall not be required for their common property lines.
B. Outdoor storage surface areas shall consist of asphalt, concrete, stone, gravel or any other
impervious surface approved by the Zoning Administrator.
B. C. Such outdoor storage and processing shall not be permitted in any required front setback yard.
C. D. The Zoning Administrator may require that the storage of hazardous materials or any materials
which may contribute to contaminated runoff be fully enclosed. Where such materials are stored
outdoors, they shall be contained within an impervious structure designed to contain spillage or
contaminated runoff.
D. E. The display of vehicles for sale by a vehicle dealer or nursery stock by a commercial nursery, along
with other products for sale that are normally displayed outdoors, shall be exempt from the above
requirements.
E. F. Agricultural and forestry operations shall be exempted from the above requirements.
F. G. Such requirements shall not apply to motor vehicle parking and loading areas.
H. Landscaping shall not be required for impervious areas designated for outdoor storage.
Outdoor Storage Requirements
Property Boundary
Outdoor storage yard Outdoor storage yard
Buffer area no longer required
E
REZONING APPLICATION #03-14
GOVERNORS HILL (JGR Three L.L.C.)
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: September 18, 2013
Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Director
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission: 10/01/14 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 10/08/14 Pending
PROPOSAL: To revise proffers associated with Rezoning #05-13. This revision relates specifically to
the Transportation section of the proffers and applies only to parcels owned by JGR Three L.L.C. within
the Governors Hill Project (64-A-86 and 64-A-87).
LOCATION: The properties are located approximately one mile east of Interstate 81 on the south side
of the Millwood Pike (Route 50 East), across from Sulphur Springs Road (Route 655) and The Ravens
subdivision.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSION FOR THE 10/01/14 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING:
The applicant is seeking approval of a minor proffer revision. The proposed proffer revision specifically
changes the amount of office space that may be developed on the property utilizing access to the
existing completed portion of Coverstone Drive. The current amount is 200,000 square feet of office
space. The applicant is seeking to increase this to 300,000 square feet of office space. The improvement
that is triggered by this figure/benchmark is the design and construction of Phase 1 of Coverstone Drive
from Route 50, Millwood Pike, into the property; Point A to Point B as depicted on the MDP.
Notwithstanding the above, triggers remain to ensure the ultimate extension and completion of
Coverstone Drive, generally consistent with the original proffer statement. Proffer 15.2 and 15.11 are
the modified proffers. New proffer 18 states that this revision applies only to the properties owned by
JGR Three L.L.C. (64-A-86 and 64-A-87) and does not impact other properties identified under the
Governors Hill Proffer Statement (RZ#05-13).
Previously, the Governors Hill proffer statement was changed under rezoning RZ#05-13 to remove
items that had already been dealt with or were proposed to be dealt with by others and changed the date
of performance provision for road improvements from 2015 to 2025.
Executed proffers are provided along with a redline version to make clear where changes have been
made.
A recommendation regarding this rezoning application to the Board of Supervisors would be
appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the
Planning Commission.
Rezoning #03-14 – Governors Hill
September 18, 2014
Page 2
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this
application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues
concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report.
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission: 10/01/14 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 10/08/14 Pending
PROPOSAL: To revise proffers associated with Rezoning #05-13. This revision relates specifically to
the Transportation section of the proffers and applies only to parcels owned by JGR Three L.L.C. within
the Governors Hill Project (64-A-86 and 64-A-87).
LOCATION: The properties are located approximately one mile east of Interstate 81 on the south side of
Millwood Pike (Route 50 East), across from Sulphur Springs Road (Route 655), and The Ravens
subdivision.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee
PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 64-A-86, 64-A-87
PROPERTY ZONING: R4 (Residential Planned Community) District
PRESENT USE: Undeveloped/Vacant
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
North: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Single Family Residential
South: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Regional Airport
East: M1 (Light Industrial) Use: Industrial and Residential
MH1 (Mobile Home Community)
West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Regional Airport and Office
B2 (Business General)
Rezoning #03-14 – Governors Hill
September 18, 2014
Page 3
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Planning & Zoning:
1) Site History
The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies the subject
parcels as being zoned R-1 (Residential Limited). The parcels were re-mapped from R-1 to A-2
(Agricultural General) pursuant to the County’s comprehensive downzoning initiative (Zoning
Amendment Petition #011-80), which was adopted on October 8, 1980. The County’s agricultural
zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption
of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding
revision of the zoning map resulted in the re-mapping of the subject properties and all other A-1 and
A-2 zoned land to the RA District.
On October 12, 2005 the Board of Supervisors approved Rezoning #11-05 which rezoned parcels
64-A-82, 64-A-83, 64-A-83A, 64-A-86, 64-A-87, 64-A-87A to the R4 District with proffers. On
January 28, 2009, Rezoning #10-08 to R4 with proffers was approved by the Board of Supervisors.
The January 28, 2009 updated transportation and land use layouts. Most significant of the
transportation changes was the severing of a planned connection to Route 50 at the location of
Sulphur Springs Road and the focusing of traffic flow to Route 50 at Inverlee Drive. On November
13, 2013, Rezoning #05-13 was approved by the Board of Supervisors. This amendment to the
proffers removed items that had already been dealt with or were proposed to be dealt with by others
and changed the date of performance provision for road improvements from 2015 to 2025.
2) Comprehensive Policy Plan
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan is Frederick County’s 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
A portion of the site is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA); specifically the
residential portion of the development is within the UDA. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan
envisions the area comprised by the subject parcels as developing with business/office land use.
The existing and proposed R4 zoning is generally consistent with this plan as it relates to this area.
The subject parcels are also located within the boundaries of the Airport Support Area that
surrounds the Winchester Regional Airport. Business and industrial uses should be the primary
uses in the airport support area.
Rezoning #03-14 – Governors Hill
September 18, 2014
Page 4
3) Proffer Statement
The proposed proffer revision specifically changes the amount of office space that may be developed on
the property utilizing access to the existing completed portion of Coverstone Drive. The current amount
is 200,000 square feet of office space. The applicant is seeking to increase this to 300,000 square feet of
office space. The improvement that is triggered by this figure/benchmark is the design and construction
of Phase 1 of Coverstone Drive from Route 50, Millwood Pike, into the property; Point A to Point B as
depicted on the MDP.
Proffer 15.2 and 15.11 are the modified proffers. New proffer 18 states that this revision applies only to
the properties owned by JGR Three L.L.C. (64-A-86 and 64-A-87) and does not impact other properties
identified under the Governors Hill Proffer Statement (RZ#05-13).
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 10/16/13 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The applicant is seeking approval of a minor proffer revision. The proposed proffer revision specifically
changes the amount of office space that may be developed on the property utilizing access to the
existing completed portion of Coverstone Drive. The current amount is 200,000 square feet of office
space. The applicant is seeking to increase this to 300,000 square feet of office space. The improvement
that is triggered by this figure/benchmark is the design and construction of Phase 1 of Coverstone Drive
from Route 50, Millwood Pike, into the property; Point A to Point B as depicted on the MDP.
Notwithstanding the above, triggers remain to ensure the ultimate extension and completion of
Coverstone Drive, generally consistent with the original proffer statement.
Executed proffers are provided along with a redline version to make clear where changes have been
made.
A recommendation regarding this rezoning application to the Board of Supervisors would be
appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the
Planning Commission.
WINCHESTERREGIONAL AIRPORTSubdivision
AIRPORT BUSINESSCENTERSubdivision
J I C LTD.Subdivision
WESTVIEWBUSINESS CENTRESubdivision
GOVERNORSHILLSubdivision
PRINCE FREDERICKOFFICE PARTSubdivision
GARBERBUSINESS CENTERSubdivision
DELCO PLAZASubdivision
0150
ST645
ST645
ST655
ST645
ST645
ST645
ST728
WINSLOWCT
AVIA
T
I
O
N
DR
REMEY
AVE
STANLE
Y
CIR
LILAC
L
N
SOMER
S
E
T
S
T
IND
E
P
E
N
D
E
N
C
E
DR
D
O
N
E
G
A
L
C
T
TA
G
G
A
R
T
D
R
S
T
A
N
L
E
Y
D
R
YALE
D
R
PUR
D
U
E
D
R
TU
L
A
N
E
D
R
ET
N
A
M
S
T
SUMM
E
R
F
I
E
L
D
D
R
S
T
A
N
E
L
Y
D
R
DELCO PLZ
K
I
N
R
O
S
S
D
R
CAHILLE DR
CUSTE
R
AVE
PE
G
A
S
U
S
C
T
SULPHURSPRING RD
PRINCE
T
O
N
D
R
KI
L
L
A
N
E
Y
C
T
P
E
M
B
R
I
D
G
E
D
R
P
E
N
D
L
E
T
O
N
D
R
BUFFL
I
C
K
R
D
AIR
P
O
R
T
R
D
RY
C
O
L
N
D
A
R
B
Y
D
R
COV
E
R
S
T
O
N
E
D
R
F
L
A
N
A
G
A
N
D
R
COSTEL
L
O
D
R
INV
E
R
L
E
E
WAY
PRIN
C
E
F
R
E
D
E
R
I
C
K
D
R
VICTO
R
Y
R
D
ARBOR
C
T
MILL
W
O
O
D
PIKE
AD
M
I
R
A
L
B
Y
R
D
D
R
CLARENDON CT
BARNSTON CT
64 A 40C 64 A 40G64 A 40H
64 A 40J
64 A40O
64 A 40P
64 A45I7
64 A 51
64 A 59A
64 A 6964 A 70
64 A80C
64 A 80F
64 A80N
64F 1 8
64F1 10
64G 21 32
64G 13 135
64G 21 1
64G 21 3
64G 21 12
64G 21 18
64G 21 22
64G 21 41
64G 21 71
64G 21 7764G 22 85
64G 22 91
64 A 40E
64 A40N
64 A 45G
64 A 4A
64 A 40K
64 A 45M
64 A 45P
64 A 5264 A 56
64 A 60
64 A 66
64 A 71
64 A 79
64 A 80D 64 A 80H
64 A 80I
64 A 80L
64G 13 133
64G 21 5
64G 21 39
64G 21 63A
64G 21 67
64G 21 55
64G 21 59
64G 21 64
64G 2 3146 64G 2 3175 64G 3 510864G 35 111
64G 35 119
64G 3 5125
64 A 63
64 A 67
64 A 72
64 A79G
64 A 80A
64 A 80O
64 A80R
64G 23 148
64G 35 140
64G 3 5154 64G 36 2864G 36 74
64G 21 49
64G2 152A
64G 21 75
64G 22 81
64G 22 105
64G 22 107
64G 22 109
65 A 2
64 A 81B
64 A 82
64 A 83
64 A 87A
64 A 89A
64 A 91
64 A 91A64 A 92
64 A 97
64 A 116
64 A 119
64 A 124
64 A124A
64 A 13064 A 134
64 A159L
64 A159O
64 A159R
64 7 2
64 9 1
64 10 4
64 10 5
64A A 12
64G 36 37
64G 36 83
64 A 81A
64 A 84
64 A 89
64 A 90
64 A 9364 A 100
64 A101A
64 A 123
64 A123A 64 A125
64 A 127
64 A 147
64 A 148
64G 2 2191A
64G 22 191A
64G 23 155
64G 23 186A
64G 35 133
64G 36 34
64G 36 77
64G 36 80
64G 22 118
64G 22 121
64 A40A
64 A 40B
64 A 40D
64 A 40I
64 A 40M
64 A 45I
64 A 45J
64 A 4764 A 4964 A 50
64 A 59
64 A 62
64 A 64 64 A 68
64 A 74
64 A 80E
64 A 80J
64 A 80K
64 A 80M
64 A 80P
64 A80Q 64 A 80S
64 A 81
64G 35 113
64G 3 5129
64G 3 5145 64G 36 30
64 A 85
64 A 88
64 A 89B
64 A 96
64 A100A
64 A 103 64 A 112
64 A 120
64 A 122
64 A122A
64 A 126
64 A 129
64 A 132
64 A 136
64 A 13864 A 139
64 A 153
64 A 159
64 A159E
64 A159M
64 A159Q
64 6 Y
64 9 2
64 10 1
64 10 2
64A A 6A
64A 4 3
64A 4 17 64A 62 7
64A 83 35
64A 101 159
64A 101 187
64B A 51
64A2 1
64A 2 9
64A 62 11
64A 71 2
64A7 1 4
64A 101 B
64A 101 8
64 A159I 64 A159K
64 A159S
64 8 2
64AA 2
64A A 13
64A 12 44
64A 2 5
64A 2 11
64A 3 A
64A 4 6 64A 52 19
64A 62 4
64A 62 6
64A 71 8
64A 112 167
64A 112 23
64B 3 A64B 3 B
64G 36 85
64G 3 6107A
64 A 83A
64 A 83B
64 A 95
64 A100B
64 A 10164 A 102
64 A 117
64 A14064 A 142
64 A 145
64 A159D
64 A159N
64 7 1
64 7 3
64 9 4
64 10 3
64A 12 23
64A 12 25
64A 12 42
64A 2 7
64A 2 1564A 2 16
64A2 21
64A 4 764A4 9
64A 4 14 64A 4 18
64A 4 20 64A 62 9
64A 7 112A
64A 83 37
64A 101 147
64A 112 17
64A 112 132
64 A 82
64 A 83
64 A 83A
64 A 83B
64 A 84
64 A 85
64 A 87A 64 A 86
64 A 87 64 A 87
Proposed Rezoning
Current Rezoning
Parcels
Building Footprints
B1 (Business, Neighborhood District)
B2 (Business, General Distrist)
B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District)
EM (Extractive Manufacturing District)
HE (Higher Education District)
M1 (Industrial, Light District)
M2 (Industrial, General District)
MH1 (Mobile Home Community District)
MS (Medical Support District)
OM (Office - Manufacturing Park)
R4 (Residential Planned Community District)
R5 (Residential Recreational Community District)
RA (Rural Area District)
RP (Residential Performance District)
I
Note:Frederick County Dept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: September 18, 2014Staff: mruddy
MILLW
O
O
D
P
I
K
E
AIRP
O
R
T
R
D
BUFF
L
I
C
K
R
D
VICTO
R
Y
R
D
ARBOR C
T
COSTELL
O
D
R
INV
E
R
L
E
E
W
A
Y
INDEPEN
D
E
N
C
E
D
R
COV
E
R
S
T
O
N
E
D
R
0150
G
R
E
E
N
W
O
O
D
R
D
CUSTER AVE
PRIN
C
E
F
R
E
D
E
R
I
C
K
D
R
ST
A
N
L
E
Y
D
R
P
E
N
D
L
E
T
O
N
D
R
REMEY AVE
STANLE
Y
C
I
R
WINSLOW CTDUNER CT
REZ # 03 - 14Governor's HillPINs:64 - A - 86, 64 - A - 87Rezoning Proffer Revision
REZ # 03 - 14Governor's HillPINs:64 - A - 86, 64 - A - 87Rezoning Proffer Revision
0 1,100 2,200550 Feet
A
Page 1 of 12
PROFFER STATEMENT
REZONING:
PROPERTY:
RECORD OWNER:
APPLICANT:
PROJECT NAME:
ORIGINAL DATE OF
PROFFERS:
REVISION DATE:
RZ. #10 -08: R4 and RA to R4
278.0 Acres +/-:
Tax Map & Parcels 64-A-83, 83A, 84, 85, 86, and 87 (the
“Property”)
Carpers Valley Development, LLC and Governors Hill
LLC
Carpers Valley Development, LLC and Governors Hill
LLC
Governors Hill
March24, 2008
September 2, 2008; October 31, 2008; December 8, 2008;
January 9, 2009; May 1, 2013; June 17, 2013, July 23,
2013; August 15, 2013; September 6, 2013; September 26,
2013; September 18, 2014
The undersigned owners hereby proffer that the use and development of the
subject property ("Property"), as described above, shall be in conformance with the
following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made
prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced rezoning is not granted as applied for
by the Applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null
and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with
"Final Rezoning" defined as that rezoning that is in effect on the day upon which the
Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the "Board") grants the rezoning.
The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience
or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an
interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall
be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or
including the improvement or other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified
herein. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all
future owners, assigns, and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the
"Master Development Plan" shall refer to the plan entitled "Master Development Plan,
Governors Hill" prepared by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, (the "MOP") dated March
2008 revised January 9, 2009.
1. LAND USE
1.1 The project shall be designed to establish interconnected mixed-use
residential and commercial/employment Land Bays in general
conformance with the MOP, and as is specifically set forth in these
Page 2 of 12
proffers subject to minor modifications as necessary upon final
engineering including but not limited to intersection alignments.
1.2 All development, including street landscaping, shall be accomplished in
general conformance with the "Governors Hill, Design and
Development Standards", prepared by PHR&A attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference (the "Design and Development
Standards").
1.3 Residential uses shall be prohibited in the area identified as Land Bay 2
on the MDP. Furthermore, Land Bay 2 shall be restricted to those uses
permitted in the General Business (B-2) zoning district as specified in
the Frederick County Code Article X, §165 -82B(1).
1.4 Except as modified herein, areas of residential development on the
Property shall be limited to Land Bay 1 and shall be developed in
conformance with the regulations of the Residential Planned Community
("R4") zoning district, including permissible housing types set forth in
the Frederick County Code Article VII, §165-67 through §165-72, as
cross-referenced to Article VI, §165-58, through §165-66. Unit types
and lot layouts within residential Land Bays may comprise any of the
permitted unit types as set forth in the Design and Development
Standards, and authorized for the R4 district, and these Proffers.
1.5 Residential development on the Property shall not exceed 550 dwelling
units, with a mix of housing types permitted in the R4 district. Multi-
family units, as defined by the Design and Development Standards, shall
not exceed 50% of the total number of dwelling units developed in the
project. No residential structures shall be closer than 2000 feet from the
centerline of the existing Winchester Airport runway.
1.6 Prior to the Property exceeding 1,285,000 square feet of commercial
building floor area, the Applicant shall submit to the County a revised
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the Property. The total permitted
commercial building floor area may increase provided that the Applicant
completes a revised traffic impact analysis which identifies the impacts
of trips for commercial development in excess of 45,815 Average Daily
Trips (ADT) and mitigation , if necessary for said impacts is provided by
the Applicant in a form that is acceptable to the County and VDOT.
2. CONSTRUCTION OF A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT
2.1 The Property shall be developed as one single and unified development
in accordance with applicable ordinances and regulations for the R4
zoning district, the MDP as approved by the Board, and this Proffer
Statement.
Page 3 of 12
3. ACCESS TO ARMORY PARCEL
3.1 The Applicant has designed and constructed a two lane public roadway,
identified on the MDP as Pendleton Drive, from Arbor Court to the
entrance of the Armory Site (TM 64-A-82). At such time that Tazewell
Road is constructed as depicted on the MDP, the Applicant shall extend
Pendleton Drive to connect with Tazewell Road.
4. PHASING OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
4.1 Building permits for Land Bay I of the Property shall be issued on the
following phasing schedule:
Year 1 (Months 1-12):
Year 2 (Months 13-24):
Year 3 (Months 25-36):
Year 4 (Months 37-48):
140 building permits
140 building permits
140 building permits
130 building permits
The above identified phasing schedule is taken from the Date of Final
Rezoning (DFR). Any building permits not issued within any given year
may be carried over to the following year, however the Applicant shall not
make application for more than 200 residential building permits in any given
year.
4.2 Commercial and employment uses may be constructed at any time.
4.3 Improvements including a 3,000 square foot community center, 3,500
square feet of neighborhood swimming pools, and a dog park shall be
constructed in conjunction with residential development in Land Bay I
and the land therefor shall be dedicated upon completion of the
improvements to the Property Owners Association. The location thereof
shall be depicted on final subdivision plans for such residential
development. These recreational amenities shall serve to meet the
requirement of 1 recreation unit per 30 dwellings. These improvements
shall be completed prior to the issuance of the 281st residential building
permit.
5. ARCHITECTURE, SIGNAGE, AND LANDSCAPING:
5.1 All buildings on the Property shall be constructed using compatible
architectural styles. The Applicant shall establish one or more Architectural
Review Boards through the required Property Owner Association to be
created to enforce and administer a unified development plan in general
conformity with the Design and Development Standards.
Page 4 of 12
5.2 All signage within the Property shall be in substantial conformity with a
comprehensive sign plan that meets the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance for signage, which shall be submitted in conjunction with the
first final site or subdivision plan for the Property.
6. PEDESTRIAN TRAIL SYSTEM AND RECREATION AREAS
6.1 The Applicant shall design and build a public pedestrian-bicycle trail
system to Virginia Department of Transportation standards that links
residential and commercial areas within the development. Said trails shall
be in the locations generally depicted on the MDP. To the extent that such
trails are not depicted on the MDP at the time of Final Rezoning, such
trails shall be connected with or linked to the internal street and sidewalk
network. Sidewalks shall be constructed on public streets to VDOT
standards, and a minimum of four-foot sidewalks shall be constructed on
private streets. All combined pedestrian/bicycling trails shall be 10 feet
wide, and shall have an asphalt surface.
7. FIRE & RESCUE:
7.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $422 per dwelling
unit for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building
permit for each dwelling unit.
7.2 Following Final Rezoning, the Master POA to be created in accordance
herewith shall contribute annually, on or before July 1st of each year, the
sum of $100 per constructed residential unit, and $100 per 1000 square
feet of constructed commercial (not including any land in public use), to
the fire and rescue company providing first response service to the
Property. Such contribution shall be monitored and enforced by the
master POA, and the Board may require an accounting of such payments
at such times and upon such conditions as it may determine necessary.
Said monetary contribution shall cease at such time that the fire and rescue
company providing first response service is no longer a volunteer
operation or should the County adopt a fee for service plan to provide fire
and rescue services.
8. SCHOOLS:
8.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $1,714 per
dwelling unit for educational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a
building permit for each dwelling unit.
Page 5 of 12
9. PARKS & OPEN SPACE:
9.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $343 per dwelling
unit for recreational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building
permit for each dwelling unit.
10. LIBRARIES:
10.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $79 per dwelling
unit for library purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit
for each dwelling unit.
11. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING:
11.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $79 per dwelling
unit upon issuance of a building permit for each dwelling unit to be used
for construction of a general governmental administration building.
12. CREATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION:
12.1 The Master Property Owners Association to be created in accordance
herewith shall be created contemporaneously with the first final site or
subdivision plan submitted for the Property.
12.2 The Applicant shall establish a Master Property Owners' Association
(hereinafter "Master POA") for Governors Hill, in its entirety, that shall,
among other things, have responsibility for assuring compliance with
design guidelines and standards, signage requirements, landscape
maintenance, and similar matters. Any homeowners' or property owners'
associations created for commercial or residential uses individually shall act
as a subset of the Master POA.
12.3 The residential portion of the development shall be made subject to one or
more Property Owners' Association(s) (hereinafter "Residential POA")
that shall be responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of the
community center, walking trails in Land Bay 1, swimming pools, all
common areas, including any conservation areas that may be established
in accordance herewith not dedicated to the County or others, and
stormwater management facilities not dedicated to public use in Land Bay
1, for each area subject to their jurisdiction, and shall be provided such
other responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such
associations or as may be required for such Residential POA herein.
12.4 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, a
Residential POA shall have title to and responsibility for the following in
Land Bay 1: (i) all common open space areas not otherwise dedicated to
public use, (ii) common buffer areas located outside of residential lots;
(iii) private streets serving the residents who are members of such
Page 6 of 12
association; (iv) common solid waste disposal and recycling programs,
including curbside pick-up of refuse by a private refuse collection
company, and (v) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any
street, perimeter, or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be
located within easements to be granted to the Residential POA if platted
within residential or other lots, or otherwise granted to the Residential
POA by appropriate instrument.
12.5 The Residential POA shall be so established that it possesses all necessary
powers to set and revise fees and dues in sufficient sums to perform the
responsibilities assigned to it hereunder and under the Declaration to be
recorded creating such Association. In addition, upon any conveyance of
a residential unit from the builder thereof to a home purchaser, there shall
be a fee paid by the home purchaser to the Residential POA in an amount
equal to three times the then-current monthly residential dues applicable to
the unit so conveyed.
12.6 Any commercial portion of the development (with the exception of any
property owned or leased by the United States, or Frederick County) shall
be made subject to one or more Property Owners' Association(s)
(hereinafter "Commercial POA"). Such Commercial POA(s) shall be
responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of all common
areas in Land Bay 2, including any conservation areas that may be
established in accordance herewith not dedicated to the County or others,
and stormwater management facilities (under common (open space)
ownership) not dedicated to public use for each area subject to their
jurisdiction, and shall be provided such other responsibilities, duties, and
powers as are customary for such associations or as may be required for
such Commercial POA herein.
12.7 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, a
Commercial POA, in Land Bay 2, shall have title to and responsibility for
(i) all common open space areas not otherwise dedicated to public use, (ii)
common buffer areas located outside of commercial lots; (iii)
responsibility for the perpetual maintenance of any street, perimeter, or
road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas shall be located within
easements to be granted to the Commercial POA if platted within
commercial or other lots, or parcels, or otherwise granted to the
Commercial POA by appropriate instrument.
13. WATER& SEWER:
13.1 The Applicant shall be responsible for connecting the Property to public
water and sewer. It shall further be responsible for constructing all
facilities required for such connection at the Property boundary. All water
and sewer infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with the
requirements of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority.
Page 7 of 12
14. ENVIRONMENT:
14.1 Stormwater management and Best Management Practices (BMP) for the
Property shall be provided in accordance with the Virginia Stormwater
Management Regulations, First Ed. 1999, Chapter 2, Table 2-3.
14.2 The Applicant shall provide notice in all sales literature, in covenants,
conditions and restrictions for any Property Owners' Associations, of the
adjacency of the Winchester Regional Airport. The Applicant shall
provide noise attenuation treatment for all residential units.
15. TRANSPORTATION:
15.1 The major roadways to be constructed on the Property shall be constructed
in the locations depicted on the MDP, with reasonable adjustments
permitted for final engineering.
15.2 Excluding 200,000300,000 square feet of office uses which may be
developed at any time utilizing access to the existing completed portion of
Coverstone Drive, the Applicant shall design and construct Coverstone
Drive as a full section with raised medians on a minimum 90' right -of-way,
utilizing the following phasing schedule:
PHASE 1: Phase 1 shall consist of the full four lane section including a
ten-foot trail from Millwood Pike to the first intersection on
Coverstone Drive as depicted on the MDP from Point A to
Point B. Said roadway shall be constructed to base asphalt
prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any
commercial building for the Property and/or prior to issuance
of a building permit for any residential units, excluding model
homes, located in Land Bay 1. Phase 1 improvements shall
consist of all necessary improvements, including signalization
when warranted by VDOT, to create a four way intersection at
the existing intersection of Inverlee Way and Millwood Pike as
shown on the MDP.
Page 8 of 12
PHASE 2: Phase 2 shall consist of construction of a two lane section of
Coverstone Drive from Point B to Point C as depicted on the
MOP. Said roadway improvements shall be completed prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any use that would
cause the Property to exceed 400,000 square feet of
commercial building area.
PHASE 3: Phase 3 shall consist of construction of the remaining two lane
section of Coverstone Drive from Point B to Point C as
depicted on the MDP. Said roadway improvements shall be
completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for
any use that would cause the Property to exceed 800,000
square feet of commercial building area.
PHASE 4: The Applicant shall design Coverstone Drive Extended as a four-
lane section from Prince Frederick to Relocated Route 522 as
depicted from Point D to Point E or for a maximum distance of
800 feet when the alignment of Relocated 522 has been
determined by VDOT, and the right of way for this segment of
Coverstone Drive has been acquired by VDOT or Frederick
County. In the event that the alignment for relocated Route 522
has not been determined or if the right of way for Coverstone
Drive Extended is not secured by June 30, 2018 then the
Applicant shall pay to the County $20,000 for transportation
improvements within the vicinity of the Property in lieu of
designing said portion of Coverstone Drive. The Applicant
shall further pay to the County $1 ,000 for each permitted
residential unit as a contribution towards the future
construction of Coverstone Drive Extended, but if the
conditions above have not been met by June 30, 2018 then
these funds may be used for other projects in the vicinity of the
Property that have a rational nexus to the Property. Such funds
shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance for each of
the permitted residential units.
15.3 Notwithstanding any other provisions of these proffers, the
Applicant shall construct Coverstone Drive as a full four-
lane section as required in Proffer 15.2 from Millwood
Pike to Prince Frederick Drive prior to November 1, 2025.
A median break and eastbound left turn lane shall be
constructed at the existing Millwood Pike and Inverlee
intersection prior to November 1, 2015.
Page 9 of 12
15.4 The Applicant shall design and construct Tazewell Road as shown on the
MOP as a minimum two lane roadway within a variable width right of
way with a maximum right of way width of 60' to provide access to
residential uses within Land Bay 1 and other commercial areas of Land
Bay 2. Said 60' right of way width shall be required for Tazewell Road
between Coverstone Drive and Pendleton Drive. The right of way and
road width shall decrease for the remaining portions of Tazewell Road.
Said roadway shall be constructed in phases as needed for future
subdivision plans. Furthermore, no certificate of occupancy for any
residential dwelling that is served by Tazewell Road, excluding model
homes, shall be issued until such time that access to Land Bay 1 from
Millwood Pike is provided via Coverstone Drive and Tazewell Road.
15.5 The Applicants shall pay to the County the amount of $75,000 for
signalization or other road improvements at the intersection of Millwood
Pike (US Route 50) and Victory Road (Route 728). Such funds shall be
paid within sixty (60) days of the issuance of the first residential building
permit in Land Bay 1.
15.6 The Applicants shall pay to the County the amount of $175,000 for
signalization or other road improvements at the intersection of Costello
Drive and Prince Frederick Drive. Such funds shall be paid within sixty
(60) days of receiving written request from the County and VDOT after
acceptance of Phase 2 Coverstone Drive Improvements per Proffer 15.2
into the State highway system.
15.7 Access to Millwood Pike shall be limited to Coverstone Drive as shown
on the MOP with the exception of the private driveway currently serving
TM 64-A-838. The Applicant shall close said driveway once access is
provided to TM 64-A-83B via the internal residential street network as
depicted on the MOP. Additionally, the Applicant shall close the existing
crossover previously used for access to the golf course concurrent with
Phase 1 improvements as provided by Proffer 15.2.
15.8 All public right-of-ways shall be dedicated to Frederick County as part of
the subdivision approval process, consistent with applicable Virginia law.
15.9 All public streets and roads shall be designed in accordance with the
Virginia Department of Transportation specifications, subject to review
and approval by Frederick County and VDOT.
15.1 0 All private streets and roads shall be constructed in accordance with the
current Virginia Department of Transportation structural standards, and as
may be modified by the County, and shall be owned and maintained by the
Property Owners Association served by such streets or roads.
Page 10 of 12
15.11 The design of off-site road improvements shall be in general conformance
with the plan entitled "Governors Hill Road Improvements" Sheets 1-2, as
prepared by Patton Harris Rust and Associates, dated October 30, 2008.
Excluding 200,000300,000 square feet of office uses which may be
developed at any time utilizing access to the existing completed portion of
Coverstone Drive, off-site improvements shall be constructed in three
phases as depicted on the aforementioned plans as follows:
Phase A: Phase A improvements shall consist of improvements at the
intersection of Millwood Pike/Inverlee Way/Coverstone Drive
and shall be completed coincident with Phase 1 Coverstone
Drive construction per Proffer 15.2.
Phase B: Phase B improvements shall consist of improvements at the
intersections of Millwood Pike/Prince Frederick Drive and
Prince Frederick Drive/Costello Drive. Phase B improvements
shall be completed coincident with Phase 2 Coverstone Drive
construction per Proffer 15.2.
Phase C: Phase C improvements shall consist of improvements at the
intersection of Millwood Pike/Sulphur Spring Road. Phase C
improvements shall be completed coincident with Phase 3
Coverstone Drive construction per Proffer 15.2.
15.12 The Applicant shall make good faith efforts to obtain any off-site right of
way needed to complete any proffered off-site transportation
improvements. In the event that the Applicant is not able to obtain the
right of way and, further, the County and/or State of Virginia do not obtain
the necessary right of way, in lieu of constructing the road improvement,
the Applicant shall provide a monetary contribution to Frederick County
that is equivalent to the estimated construction cost of those road
improvements that could not be implemented. The construction cost
estimate shall be subject to review and approval by VDOT. The monetary
contribution shall coincide with the commercial area threshold that
triggers the off-site road improvement as identified in Proffer 15.11.
15.13 Any future transportation analyses which may be required for the
Property, shall utilize Code 820 "Retail" per the I.T.E. Trip Generation
Manual 7th Edition for any commercial use other than office use.
Page 11 of 12
15.14 In the event any proffered off-site road improvements are constructed by
others, the Applicant shall provide a monetary contribution to Frederick
County that is equivalent to the estimated construction costs of those
proffered road improvements not installed by the Applicant. The
construction cost estimate shall be subject to review and approval by
VDOT. The monetary contribution shall coincide with the commercial area
threshold that triggers the off-site road improvements as identified in
Proffer 15.11.
16. CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATION AND PRESERVATION
The Applicant shall conduct or cause to be conducted a Phase I Archaeological
Investigation of the Property, prior to the approval of the first final site or
subdivision plan for the Property, and shall complete Phase II and III
investigations thereof as may be demonstrated to be necessary by the Phase I
study.
17. ESCALATOR CLAUSE
17.1 In the event any monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement
are paid to the Frederick County Board County Supervisors ("Board")
within 30 months of October 12, 2005, as applied for by the Applicant,
said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary
contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to the Board
after 30 months following October 12, 2005 shall be adjusted in
accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index ("CPI-U") published by
the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time contributions
are paid, they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI-U
from that date 30 months after October 12, 2005 to the most recently
available CPI-U to the date the contributions are paid, subject to a cap of
5% per year, non-compounded.
18. SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 PROFFER REVISION
18.1 The revisions dated September 18, 2014 applies only to the properties owned by JGR Three L.L.C. and do not impact other properties identified under the Governors Hill Proffer Statement. These modifications include the increase from 200,000 to 300,000 square feet of office floor space which may be developed utilizing access from the completed portion of Coverstone Drive. This increase in floor space is located in Sections 15.2 and 15.11 of this document.
SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES
Page 12 of 12
JGR Three L.L.C.
By: JPG Three L.L.C. Managing Member
_________________________________
Richard Dick, Manager
STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE
FREDERICK COUNTY, To-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of _____________,
2014, by ___________________________________.
My commission expires _______________________
Notary Public______________________________________
F
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/ 665-5651
Fax: 540/ 665-6395
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Discussion – Black Diamond Site Plan (Stonewall Industrial Park)
DATE: September 17, 2014
At the October 1, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, staff will present the site plan for
the Black Diamond site to the Planning Commission for review. This site plan is being
presented to the Planning Commission due to its implications on the planned route for
Route 37. The site is located in the Stonewall Industrial Park in the Stonewall
Magisterial District. The plans for Stonewall Industrial Park do not accommodate the
Route 37 right-of-way. The property is located on McGhee Road and is in the path of
Route 37. In an effort to keep the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
apprised of the Route 37 right-of-way, site plans and subdivisions that impact the right-
of-way will be presented to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors for
their review.
An 11” x 17” copy of sheet 2 from the site plan has been included in your agenda, along
with a map that shows the planned route for Route 37, in regards to the location of this
property. Action on the site plan is not required; this site plan is being brought for
informational purposes only. Comments and suggestions are appropriate and will be
forwarded to the Board of Supervisor at their October 8, 2014 meeting. Please contact
me if you need any additional information. A representative from GreyWolfe, Inc. will
be present at the meeting.
CEP/pd
Attachments
MC
G
H
E
E
R
D
43 A 19
43 94 73
43 A 16
43 19 64
43 19 43
43 19 63
43 19 40
43 19 31
43 19 61
43 19 62
43 94 72 43 19 60
43 19 65
43 1959A
43 19 59
43 19 66 43 19 58
43 19 54
43 19 67
43 19 44
43 A 15B43 20 16
Lenoir
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)0 150 30075 Feet
I
Note:Frederick County Dept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: September 17, 2014Staff: cperkins
RT37 N
TYSO
N
D
R
LENO
I
R
D
R
UN
I
O
N
V
I
E
W
L
N
WE
L
L
T
O
W
N
R
D
MCG
H
E
E
R
D
GL
O
U
C
E
S
T
E
R
D
R
CE
N
T
U
R
Y
L
N
TYSO
N
D
R
0137
GLENDOBB
I
N
R
D
GLENDOB
B
I
N
R
D
RT37, ACCESS
AP
P
L
E
P
I
E
R
I
D
G
E
R
D
MARTINS
B
U
R
G
P
I
K
E
MARTINSBU
R
G
P
I
K
E
KE
N
T
M
E
R
E
C
T
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
X
I
T
R
A
M
P
S
FORTRESS DRWILLIAMS CIR
I
8
1
,
A
C
C
E
S
S
WE
L
L
T
O
W
N
R
D
MCGH
E
E
R
D
GL
O
U
C
E
S
T
E
R
D
R
WE
L
L
T
O
W
N
R
D
W
E
L
L
T
O
W
N
R
D
LEN
O
I
R
D
R
TYSO
N
D
R
W
E
L
L
T
O
W
N
R
D
MCGHEE RD
MCG
H
E
E
R
D
Site PlanBlack DiamondPINs:43 - 19 - 66
Site PlanBlack DiamondPINs:43 - 19 - 66