HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 09-03-14 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/ 665-5651
Fax: 540/ 665-6395
Eric R. Lawrence, AICP
Director
107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Supervisors members
Planning Commission members
County Administrator
FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director
SUBJECT: September 3, 2014 Application Briefing/Work Session
DATE: August 22, 2014
The Planning Commission will hold a Staff Application Briefing/Work Session on
Wednesday, September 3, 2014 at 7:00PM in the Board of Supervisors Meeting Room, 107
N. Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. The Board of Supervisor members are encouraged to
attend and participate.
The Application Briefing is an opportunity for the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors to learn about an application deemed complicated and warranting detailed
explanations. Enabled per the Planning Commission’s Roles and Responsibilities, the
briefing is to apprise the Commissioners and Board members regarding the details of the
application, both those items that meet the ordinance and those that do not. This provides
the opportunity for the Commission and Board to have a common understanding of the
application prior to public hearing.
The application that will be discussed during this staff application briefing is the recently
submitted Heritage Commons rezoning application. An overview and evaluation of the
application and agency comments is attached.
Please contact staff should you have any questions. Thank you.
Attachment: Heritage Commons Application Briefing Package
Contents on pages to follow:
Staff Application Briefing – Heritage Commons rezoning application overview
Location Map
Staff Briefing Report content
Current Zoning of Site
Comprehensive Policy Plan
Potential Impacts
Fiscal Impacts
Transportation Impacts
Agency Review Comments
Proffer Statement review
Design Modifications Document
Use, Density, Mix
Capital Facility Impacts
Multi-Modal Transportation Improvements
Stormwater Quality Measures
Recreational amenities
Comprehensive Plan Conformity
Phasing
Heritage Commons Application content
Application
Proffer Statement
Market and Fiscal Impact Analysis
Russell 150 proffers (proffers of record, approved in 2005)
Comparison Table
STAFF APPLICATION BRIEFING – HERITAGE COMMONS
Staff Contacts: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner
John Bishop, AICP, Deputy Director - Transportation
Prepared: August 21, 2014
The Staff Briefing, scheduled for September 3, 2014, offers an opportunity for staff to review
with the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors the details of a complex
application. This briefing benefits the Board, Commission, and applicant, as details of the
complex application may be reviewed and clarified, and concerns expressed. Unresolved
issues concerning this application are noted throughout this report.
Overview
The Heritage Commons rezoning is a complicated application involving commercial, residential,
and an extensive proffer/modification document. In keeping with the Planning Commission’s
Roles and Responsibilities, the Staff Application Briefing has been utilized to apprise the
Commissioners regarding the details of the application, including those items that meet the
Comprehensive Plan and associated ordinances, and those items that do not.
The Heritage Commons rezoning application is a request to use the R4 zoning district, with
modifications and proffers, to achieve a mixed use development of 1,200 residential units and
700,000 square feet of commercial uses. The project is located on the 150 acre property
commonly known as Russell 150, located west of the intersection of Front Royal Pike (Route
522) and Airport Road (Route 645). The 1,200 residential units include 1,050 multifamily units
and 150 townhomes. The 700,000 square feet of commercial uses include 100,000 retail and
600,000 square feet office. Through the application’s design modification document, efforts are
being made to enable the project to be an urban center-type development with mixed uses in
single buildings, higher residential densities, reduced setbacks, and no buffers between uses.
While the land uses shown with Heritage Commons rezoning application are generally consistent
with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (with the exception of landbay 3), the application does not
adequately address the impacts associated with this request; in particular, the transportation and
fiscal impacts. The following items warrant discussion during the Staff Application Briefing, and
ultimately should be addressed to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors:
1) Many of the Review Agency concerns and comments remain unaddressed.
2) The fiscal impacts associated with the residential uses proposed on the property have
not been satisfactorily addressed.
3) It should be evaluated whether the transportation improvements proffered by the
Applicant are adequate to address the impacts generated by this rezoning request and
will facilitate the long range transportation goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
4) The lack of proffered phasing of the commercial land uses with the residential uses
results in limited if any revenue to offset the residential impacts.
5) The Comprehensive Plan designates the area in landbay 3 with employment land uses
not residential uses as proposed by the rezoning application.
CITY OFWINCHESTERSubdivision
WINCHESTERREGIONAL AIRPORTSubdivision
AIRPORTBUSINESS CENTERSubdivision
PRESTONBUSINESS PARKSubdivision
PRESTONPLACESubdivision
WINDY HILLSubdivision
01522
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
ST645 ST645 ST645
ST644
MUSK
O
K
A
C
T
SULGRAVE
CT
LONGVI
E
WAVE
BRO
A
D
V
I
E
W
S
T
CAST
L
E
B
R
I
D
G
E
C
T
AVI
A
T
O
R
P
L
LEAFIELD
CT
ROYA
L
S
T
PREMIE
R
P
L
NETHERFIELD CT
ROY
A
L
A
V
E
CIRC
L
E
D
R
AIRPORT RD
FRON
T
D
R
WIN
C
R
E
S
T
D
R
IMPE
R
I
A
L
S
T
BRIG
S
T
O
C
K
D
R
LONGCROFT RD
ELMWOOD RD
SUPE
R
I
O
R
A
V
E
P
A
P
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
BUFFL
I
C
K
R
D
F
R
O
N
T
R
O
Y
A
L
P
I
K
E
REZ0214
REZ0214
REZ0214
63 A116C
63 A116C63 A 118
63 A126A
63 A 124
63 A116A
64 A 18
64 A 18A 64 A 17 64C 2 3 64 A 4464 A 44 64C 2 45
64 A 40P
64C 2 4964C 2 5064C 2 5164C 2 52
63 3 B 64 A 16
64C 2 6
64C 2 464C 2 5 64C 2 11
64C 2 3364C 2 3464C 2 36
64C 2 3764C 2 38
64C 2 4164C 2 42
63 A 120
63 A 121
63 A 125 64C 2 764C 2 8
64C2 12
64C 2 13 64C 2 2664C 2 27 64C 2 2964C 2 3064C 2 31 64C2 32
63 A121A
63 A 119 64C A 1664C A16A 64C2 14
64C 2 15
64C 2 16
64C 216A
64C 2 1764C 2 1864C 2 1964C2 20
64C 2 2164C 2 22
64C2 23 64C2 24
63 A 122 63 A 123
64C A13A 64C A 14
64C A 15
63 A122A
63 A123A
64 A 15
64 A 45
64 A 45N
64 A 12
64 A 14 64C A 13
64C A 11
64 A45B
64 A 45B
64CA 10
64CA 9
64C 1 15 64 A45K1
64 A 45F
64 A45K8
64 A45K4
64C A 7 64 A45K11A
64 A45K12 64 A45K7
64 A 45H
64 A 45H 64 A 45C
64 A 45D
64C A 364C A 4
64BA 9064B A 9264C A 164C A 2
63 A 150
64 A 10
64B 4 39
64 A 45E
64B A 8964B A4 91
64B A 8664BA 85
64B A54A
64B A 54
64B 4 3564B 4 3764B 4 38
64B 4 1164B 4 13 64BA 87
64B A87A
64B A 88
64B A 84 64B A1 58
64B A 56
64BA 57
64B A54B
64B A 55
64B 4 2964B 4 30
64B 4 32 64B 4 264B 4 14
64B 4 1
64B A 83
64B A 6364B A 61
64B A 5964B A 60
64B A 4664B A 47
64B A 49
64 A 1164B 4 F
64B A 73
64B 4 H64B 425J64B 4 26
64B 4 A
64B 4 2064B 4 22
64B A 81 64B A 78
64B A 8264B A 3 79
64BA 68
64B A 6664B A 67
64B A 64
64B A 65
64B A 40
64B A 4164B A 43
64B A 44
64B A 4564B A 4864B 4 D64B 4 E 64B A 80 64B A 7564B A 7664B A 77
64B A 38
64B A41A
64 A10A 64B A 74
64B A 3664B A 37
64B A33B
64B A 39
64 A 9
64 A 9D
64 A 9C
64BA 72
64B A33A
64B A 34
64 A 88
64B A73B 64 A 9B
64 A 9E
64B A 31
64B A 32
64B A 30
64B 2 164B 2 264B 2 3
64 A 5 64 A 7
64 A 8
64B A 21
64B A 2364B A 24
64B A 2564B A 28 64B A 22 64 1 A2
64 A A464 1 A164B A 20
64B A 26
64 A 4H 64 A A
Applications
Parcels
Building FootprintsB1 (Business, Neighborhood District)
B2 (Business, General Distrist)
B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District)EM (Extractive Manufacturing District)HE (Higher Education District)
M1 (Industrial, Light District)
M2 (Industrial, General District)MH1 (Mobile Home Community District)
MS (Medical Support District)
OM (Office - Manufacturing Park)
R4 (Residential Planned Community District)
R5 (Residential Recreational Community District)
RA (Rural Area District)
RP (Residential Performance District)
I
Note:Frederick County Dept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: August 15, 2014Staff: cperkins
F
R
O
N
T
R
O
Y
A
L
P
I
K
E
P
A
P
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
AIRPORT RD
BUFF
L
I
C
K
R
D
SHAWN
E
E
D
R
TEVIS ST
SUMMI
T
A
V
E
SUPE
R
I
O
R
A
V
E
FRONT D
R
LONG
V
I
E
W
A
V
E
PLE
A
S
A
N
T
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
FR
O
N
T
R
O
Y
A
L
P
I
K
E
BATTAI
L
E
D
R
GRA
C
E
S
T
SEC
O
N
D
S
T
LONGCROFT RD
IMPERI
A
L
S
T
COVE
R
S
T
O
N
E
D
R
FIRST
S
T
ROYAL ST
BALD
W
I
N
S
T
AD
M
I
R
A
L
B
Y
R
D
D
R
ELMWO
O
D
R
D
BROA
D
V
I
E
W
S
T
JU
D
Y
D
R
BRUC
E
D
R
CI
R
C
L
E
D
R
WINDY HILL LN
PREMIER PL
RO
Y
A
L
A
V
E
R
U
S
S
E
L
C
R
O
F
T
R
D
BRA
D
F
O
R
D
C
T
ME
W
S
L
N
A
L
L
S
T
O
N
C
I
R
P
A
P
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
REZ # 02 - 14Heritage Commons, LLCPINs:63 - A - 150, 64 - A - 10,64 - A - 12
REZ # 02 - 14Heritage Commons, LLCPINs:63 - A - 150, 64 - A - 10,64 - A - 12
0 840 1,680420 Feet
Staff Application Briefing – Heritage Commons
August 21, 2014
Page 2
Current Zoning of the Site
The 150 acre site is composed of 3 parcels (64-A-10, 64-A-12, and 64-A-150) which were
rezoned in 2005 from the RA District to the B2 and RP Districts with Rezoning Application #01-
05 for Russell 150 with proffers. The proffers approved with Rezoning #01-05 are attached.
The application seeks to rezone the site to the R4 (Residential Planned Community) Zoning
District.
Comprehensive Policy Plan
Land Use
The parcels comprising this rezoning application are located within the County’s Urban
Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Urban
Development Area defines the general area in which more intensive forms of residential
development will occur. In addition, The Heritage Commons property is located within the
Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan. The Land Use Plan calls for the area north of
Buffalo Lick Run and between I-81 and the future Warrior Drive to be developed with
Employment land uses and the area south Buffalo Lick Run for High-Density Residential.
Areas planned for Employment land uses area are envisioned to allow for intensive Retail,
Office, Flex-Tech, and/or Light Industrial Land Use in planned business park settings. The
Heritage Commons rezoning allows for commercial uses within all seven land bays:
Landbay 1 – 7.51 acres – 100% Commercial
Landbay 2 – 8.03 acres – 100% Commercial
Landbay 3 – 9.73 acres – 5%-95% Commercial (remainder residential)
Landbay 4 – 21.91 acres – 100% Commercial
Landbay 5 – 29.91 acres – 10%-20% Commercial (remainder residential)
Landbay 6 – 6.83 acres – 100% Commercial
Landbay 7 – 59.95 acres – 10%-20% Commercial (remainder residential)
It should be noted that landbay 3 is the area located between I-81 and the future Warrior Drive.
The Comprehensive Plan calls for employment land uses within this area, and
therefore the designation of this area for mixed use and up to 95% residential uses
is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Areas planned for higher density residential development are slated to develop with 12-16 units
per acre and would generally consist of a mix of multifamily and a mix of other housing types.
This density is necessary to accommodate the anticipated growth of the County within the urban
areas and is essential to support the urban center concept identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
The Heritage Commons rezoning is proposing to develop up to 1,200 residential units (maximum
of 150 townhouse units, 1,050 multifamily units) on approximately 93.59 acres of the property
which would equate to 12.8 units per acre within the residential land bays. The types of
Rezoning #02-14 – Heritage Commons
August 21, 2014
Page 3
residential units and the proposed densities within the project are consistent with the goals of the
2030 Comprehensive Plan and specifically the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan.
Zoning Ordinance – R4 District
The R4 (Residential Planned Community) District is a district that allows for a mix of
commercial and residential land uses. The district is intended to create new neighborhoods with
an appropriate balance between residential, employment and service uses. Innovative design is
encouraged. Special care is taken in the approval of R4 developments to ensure that necessary
facilities, roads and improvements are available or provided to support the R4 development.
Planned community developments shall only be approved in conformance with the policies in the
Comprehensive Plan.
The R4 District is a flexible district that allows for an applicant to request a number of
modifications to the Zoning Ordinance to tailor the requirements to meet the needs of their
development. Done properly and in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, the R4 District
can produce a unique and beneficial development for the community. As stated in the intent of
the district “special care is taken in the approval of R4 developments to ensure that necessary
facilities, roads and improvements are available or provided to support the R4 development”.
As currently submitted, the Heritage Commons rezoning application does not
provide for the necessary facilities or roads to support the development.
Transportation
The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan provides the guidance regarding future arterial and
collector road connections in the eastern portion of the County by identifying needed connections
and locations. Plans for new development should provide for the right-of-ways necessary to
implement planned road improvements and new roads shown on the road plan should be
constructed by the developer when warranted by the scale, intensity, or impacts of the
development. Existing roads should be improved as necessary by adjacent development to
implement the intentions of the plan.
Warrior Drive and the extension of Airport Road from its current terminus, over Interstate 81,
into the City of Winchester are road improvement needs that are identified in the Eastern Road
Plan that directly relate to the Russell 150 property. Both are important improvements for the
County and the City of Winchester collectively. Warrior Drive in projects to the south of the
subject rezoning have provided for a four lane divided/raised median road section.
Accommodations for construction of these new major collector roads should be
incorporated into the project.
Corridor Appearance Buffers
The Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan calls for a significant corridor appearance buffer
along Route 522 similar to that established for the Route 50 West corridor in the Round Hill
Land Use Plan, which consisted of a 50 foot buffer area, landscaping, and bike path.
Rezoning #02-14 – Heritage Commons
August 21, 2014
Page 4
The Heritage Commons rezoning has not addressed this corridor enhancement.
Rezoning #02-14 – Heritage Commons
August 21, 2014
Page 5
Potential Impacts
Fiscal Impacts
The application’s 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. The proffer statement has
not placed any commitments on when the commercial landbays will be constructed.
The project could potentially build out the residential landbays without constructing
any commercial uses.
Therefore utilizing the future potential tax contributions of the commercial landbays to offset the
residential landbays without phasing the commercial to be built in conjunction with the
residential should carefully be evaluated. This reinforces the Board’s policy of not considering
credits as part of the capital facilities evaluation processes.
County Development Impact Model
The County’s Development Impact Model (DIM) is utilized to project the capital fiscal impacts
that a residential development will place on the county over a 20-year period. Through an
extensive review in 2013/2014, the DIM policy was reaffirmed that the DIM projection would
consider residential capital fiscal impacts and would not consider credits for commercial
components of a development proposal. On June 25, 2014, the Board of Supervisors adopted the
update DIM for use in FY2014.
The following is a breakdown of the projected impacts per dwelling unit for each capital facility.
When applied to the proffered residential mix (1,050 apartments and 150
townhouses), the DIM projects negative capital fiscal impacts of $15,347,400.
The application does not contain a proffered mitigation proposal to address these impacts. This
projection solely considers capital fiscal impacts; operational fiscal impacts are generally much
greater (recent analysis indicates expenses of a residential use exceed $100,000 over 20 years).
Capital facility Town
h
Apartment
Fire and Rescue $412 $418
General Government $33 $33
Public Safety $0 $0
Library $379 $379
Parks and Recreation $1,332 $1,332
School Construction $11,281 $10,535
Total $13,437 $12,697
Rezoning #02-14 – Heritage Commons
August 21, 2014
Page 6
Applicant’s Market and Fiscal Impacts Analysis (MFIA)
The applicant has submitted a Market and Fiscal Impacts Analysis (MFIA), authored by S. Patz
and Associates, dated October 2013 (copy is attached to this Staff Report). The applicant’s
MFIA is based on the development’s proposal of 1,200 housing units and 700,000 square feet of
commercial development, including a new Frederick County office building. The 1,200 housing
units include 1,050 apartments and 150 townhouses. The commercial space is modeled based
on: 220,000 square feet (county office and developer sponsored building); 380,000 square feet
office; and 100,000 square feet retail. The applicant’s MFIA evaluates on-site and off-site
revenue and expenses at build-out; build-out is projected to occur over a 15 year period. The
applicant’s MFIA projects an annual net fiscal benefit of $4,300,000 at build-out.
There are a number of concerns with the applicant’s MFIA that should be considered when
digesting the applicant’s MFIA’s conclusions. Many of the MFIA’s assumptions are not directly
tied to a proffered commitment and therefore do not directly relate to the development proposal.
Some of the concerns associated with the applicant’s MFIA include:
• The applicant’s MFIA presumes the establishment of a new county office building on
site, and associated positive synergies that would be catalysts for on-site commercial and
residential demands. This county office building concept would represent 1/3 of the
proposed commercial use. A new county office building envisioned for the site is a
speculative venture on the part of the applicant. If the county building does not
materialize, the demand for office and retail will be significantly hindered.
• The applicant’s MFIA models a development scenario that is not proffered. The proffer
does not guarantee that any taxable commercial land uses will be constructed, yet the
MFIA projects significant revenue generation from these commercial uses.
• The applicant’s MFIA states that “At best, Heritage Commons can attract 25,000 square
feet of office space per year”, which results in a 15+ year build out (page 37 of MFIA).
This statement further clarifies that the commercial land use is speculative, and therefore
may take over 15 years to be fully realized.
• The applicant’s MFIA states that apartment unit rents would target household incomes of
$40,000 (page 27 of MFIA). Yet, the MFIA calculates off-site revenues reflective of on-
site residents earning an average of $65,000 (page 38 of MFIA). It might also be noted
that the US Census indicates that the average wage in Frederick County in 2014 was
$40,117.
• The MFIA projects that the residential component of the project could be developed and
occupied before 2018 (page 30 of MFIA). The MFIA states that the commercial land use
would take more than 15 years to achieve build out. Therefore, residential uses would
dominate the site for many years prior to commercial build out and revenue recovery.
• The applicant’s MFIA is based on a phasing plan, including 3 5-year phases to add
residential and commercial in a fiscally balanced approach over a 15 year period. The
proffer does not adhere to this MFIA modeled 3 phase approach. In fact, the proffer
enables all residential units to be constructed within the first 6 years, regardless of a lack
of commercial development.
• The fiscal values are based on build-out, which is projected to be in 15 years. The MFIA
fails to discuss the negative fiscal realities if the housing units are front loaded (proffer
Rezoning #02-14 – Heritage Commons
August 21, 2014
Page 7
indicates a residential build-out within no sooner than 6 years), and commercial fails to
materialize. The proffer does not link residential and commercial development; one can
occur without the other.
• The MFIA uses an apartment Student Generation Ratio (SGR) of .1, while the County’s
DIM uses a SGR of .242. The DIM uses the county’s average SGR for new apartments
over the past 8 years.
• The MFIA utilizes a Cost Per Pupil value of $5,767, while the Frederick County Public
School’s budget is based on a Cost Per Pupil value of $9,773.
Presuming the applicant’s MFIA revenue projections are accurate, updating the MFIA to reflect
more realistic residential costs (SGR and Cost Per Pupil) results in a Net Fiscal Benefit of
$2,335,866 at buildout, but this projection would only be achieved when the site was fully
developed (1,050 apartments, 150 townhouses, and 700,000 square feet commercial uses).
The failure of the proffer to phase the development process as described in the MFIA, and
outlined below, will result in significant negative fiscal impacts until such time as the site is
fully developed.
Traffic Impact Analysis
The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) on file from the previously approved application projects that
the development of 294 single family attached residential units, 264,000 square feet of office use,
and 440,450 square feet of retail use would generate 23,177 vehicle trips per day. The report was
developed with primary access to the project to be via the proposed western extension of Airport
Road which would extend into the City of Winchester via East Tevis Street extended. A
secondary access point was modeled from the project onto Route 522. However, the applicant
has proffered this second point of access as a potential temporary connection with an interparcel
connection to the adjoining property to the south being preferred and ultimate solution. The
continuation of East Tevis Street from the property to Route 522 was not modeled in the TIA.
The TIA concludes that the traffic impacts associated with the Russell 150 application are
from MFIA
page 70
Phasing By Use
1st 5
Yrs.
2nd 5
Yrs.
3rd 5
Yrs. Total
Apartment
Units 300 375 375 1,050
Townhouse
Units 100 50
150
Commercial
Square Feet 50,000 25,000 25,000 100,000
Office Square
Feet 100,000 175,000 175,000 450,000
Rezoning #02-14 – Heritage Commons
August 21, 2014
Page 8
acceptable and manageable. It should be recognized that with the exception of the Route
522/50/17 intersection with the Interstate 81 ramp, a level of service “C” is achieved. The above
noted intersection is currently operating at a level of service C(F). When the 2010 background is
added this intersection is projected to operate at a level of service D(F). The inclusion of the
2010 build-out information results in a level of service D(F). *(*) represents AM(PM) LOS.
While the new rezoning application currently being considered did not appear to contemplate a
mix of uses that would increase the previously modeled traffic sufficiently to require a new TIA,
the numerous additional entrances on the proffered GDP have not been vetted through VDOT
and could be cause for concern.
Transportation Approach
The previous application, as noted on the companion document which compares the two proffer
packages, included detailed proffers which dedicated right of way and fully constructed Warrior
Drive, Airport Drive Extended, East Tevis Street Extended, and the Flyover Bridge on I-81.
These items were funded through the creation of a Community Development Association or
CDA.
Staff Note: In the time since the previously approved development began to
experience difficulty, the County has (of its own volition), secured in excess of
$8,000,000 in state funds to match with private dollars to aid in meeting these
proffered obligations.
The applicant’s proposed proffer package relies upon the GDP graphic to identify the road
network that is being committed to and states that the applicant will participate in revenue
sharing while noting that the match commitment could be met with a donation of real property.
In addition, the detail shown on the GDP image is insufficient to determine what is being
committed to or the timelines of said obligations unlike the previous proffer. The GDP also
introduces a number of entrances that have not been previously discussed.
In addition the commitment of capital in the amount of $3,500 per residential unit, for an
approximate total of $1,000,000, has been removed along with the commitment to bicycle
facilities along the roadways.
Finally, based on the GDP and the new written proffers it would appear that the applicant’s
commitment to connecting Warrior Drive to the south as called for in the Comprehensive Plan is
much reduced from the previously approved proffer package.
In summary, while we acknowledge that with the failure of the CDA, some form of update in the
proffer language is likely needed, the current proffers are inadequate and quite vague compared
to the previous package which was very specific in the commitments being made and the triggers
for implementation of those improvements as well as including significant capital contributions.
In addition the proffers specifically state the County acknowledges that the current proposed road
network is ‘substantially similar’ to the one approved in the previous package. With the reduced
Rezoning #02-14 – Heritage Commons
August 21, 2014
Page 9
commitment to Warrior Drive and the lack of detail on the GDP, this determination cannot be
made at this time.
AGENCY REVIEW COMMENTS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation (Dated September 18, 2013):
The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant
measurable impact on Route 522. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered
as the access to the property referenced.
VDOT is NOT satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Heritage Commons
Rezoning Application dated September 5, 2013 address transportation concerns associated with
this request. The lack of detail in this rezoning request raises numerous questions that will need
to be addressed prior to VDOT support of this rezoning request:
The request fails to mention how the proposed development trip generation compares to the
previous Russell 150 TIA.
There is not a clear detail (trip counts or approved site plans, etc.) as to when road facilities
are to be constructed.
The proposed bridge over Interstate 81, signals, as well as other on-site/off-site traffic
facilities are not clearly identified as being a responsibility of the developer.
Are the roadway typical cross-sections/right-of-way widths to remain as detailed in the
original Russell 150 MDP?
Constructed Warrior Drive needs to be shown extended all the way to the southern property
line. Warrior Drive is a critical part of the Frederick County Transportation Plan. The
developer could build it in phases, but it is a requirement for the streets to be eligible for
acceptance into the Secondary System.
The location shown in Exhibit “A” for Warrior Drive would cause the most damage to the
Buffalo Lick Run wetlands when the road is extended as it is shown crossing the widest
section of the wetlands.
The current Exhibit “A” lacks the details of how Land Bay VII & VIII are to access a public
highway.
There is no mention of an inter-parcel connections with the adjacent property
owners/developments.
Rezoning #02-14 – Heritage Commons
August 21, 2014
Page 10
Fire Marshal: Plans approved dated 9/20/13
Frederick-Winchester Service Authority (Dated September 9, 2013): No comments
Public Works Department (Dated September 20, 2013):
We have completed our review of the proposed rezoning application for Heritage Commons and
offer the follow comments:
Refer to the amended proffer statement, page 4, and paragraph 4, multi-modal transportation
improvements: Expand the narrative to adequately describe the road network that will be
installed by the owner. Also, revised the Generalized Development Plan included as proffer
Exhibit “A” to adequately depict the road network that will be responsibility of the owner
outlined on this rezoning application. For example, the GDP does not clearly indicate that the
bridge over I-81 is the total responsibility of the owner.
The amended proffer indicates that there will be a new design and installation that will occur as a
result of a Revenue Sharing Agreement entered into by and between the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) and Frederick County. This statement should be revised to indicate that
this opportunity may be a potential possibility, but does not relieve the owner of the ultimate
responsibility for installing the road network ultimately approved in this rezoning application.
Refer to Modification #8, Phasing: Phasing will be critical to the impact of this development on
the services provided by Frederick County. Without phasing accountability, the actual financial
impact cannot be realistically modeled. It could conceivably be possible to develop the entire
residential component of 1,200 units without developing any of the commercial development.
This occurrence would have a significant negative impact on Frederick County.
Refer to Impact Analysis, Assumption for Development Program, Item #1: the tabulation of
assumptions indicates that table #1 was based on 1,000 housing units. The narrative furnished
with the revised proffer statement indicates that the proposed development will included 1,200
units. Rectify the conflict in the number of residential units.
Sanitation Authority (Dated September 16, 2013):
Per your request, a review of the proposed rezoning has been performed. The Frederick County
Sanitation Authority offers comments limited to the anticipated impact/effect upon the
authority’s public water and sanitary sewer system and the demands thereon.
The parcel is in the water and sanitary sewer area served by the authority. Based on the location
both water service and sanitary sewer service is available. Sanitary sewer treatment capacity at
the waste water treatment plant is also presently available. Sanitary sewer conveyance capacity
and layout will be contingent on the applicant performing a technical analysis of the existing
sanitary sewer system within the area to be served and the ability of the existing conveyance
system to accept additional load. Likewise, water distribution capacity will require the applicant
to perform a technical analysis of the existing system within the area to be served to determine
Rezoning #02-14 – Heritage Commons
August 21, 2014
Page 11
available capacity. Both water and sanitary sewer facilities are located within a reasonable
distance from this site.
Since certain easements have already been filed, any modifications to the previous existing
layout will need to modify the FCSA easement for both water and sanitary sewer. In addition,
any material exposed to weather and contemplated to be used will require manufacturer
certification as integrity of the material to be used in constructing either the water or sanitary
sewer system.
Please be aware that the Authority does not review or comment upon proffers and/or conditions
proposed or submitted by the applicant in support of or in conjunction with this application for
rezoning, nor does the Authority assume or undertake any responsibility to review or comment
upon any amended proffer and/or conditions which the Applicant may hereafter provide to
Frederick County.
Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation (Dated September 30. 2013): Park and
Recreation would prefer trail along Buffalo Lick Run to have a public easement with the Home
Owners Association responsible for care/maintenance rather than county ownership. The trail
would appear to just serve residents of development.
Proffer alludes to recreation amenities presumably to be built as required by ordinance.
Recreation amenities to be proffered as part of the rezoning should be stated as such.
The 2005 proffer currently in force indicated “10-foot wide asphalt lanes separate from the
vehicular travel lane” (p.4) on all interior roads. This has been dropped in the current proffer
statement. Separate 10’ shared-use paths should be constructed along all interior roads and on
Rt. 522 property frontage.
It is unclear if applicant is proffering “pedestrian trails and/or sidewalk system” beyond those
required by ordinance. Multi-modal connectivity between residential, recreation, and
commercial areas should be constructed. All multi-modal transportation accommodation should
meet VDOT standards for construction. Multi-modal accommodation should be incorporated
into I-81 flyover bridge construction.
The development does not appear to offer the monetary resources needed to offset the impact the
residents of this development will have on the Parks and Recreations services provided by the
County.
Staff Note: The trails along Buffalo Lick Run are now intended to be owned by the HOA and
have public access. Recreational amenities are already an ordinance requirement because of
the housing type and lot size. Sidewalks are currently required along both sides of all streets.
Only the inclusion of the trail goes beyond ordinance requirement. Monetary contributions have
not been addressed.
Winchester Regional Airport: Please see attached letter dated October 10, 2013 Serena
Rezoning #02-14 – Heritage Commons
August 21, 2014
Page 12
Manuel.
Frederick County Public Schools (Dated: October 4, 2014): Frederick County Public Schools
has review the Heritage Commons rezoning application submitted to us on September 9, 2013.
We offer the following comments:
It is noted that there are no cash proffers and that the applicant’s consultant used and impact
calculation different from the County’s Development Impact Model. This calculation used
student generation rates that do not match our data and financial information regarding FCPS that
is incorrect. Please refer to the County’s Development Impact Model for student generation rates
based on our data. The FCPS budget document is available online for correct financial
information. The FCPS budget for fiscal year 2013, total for all accounts, was $160,949,463.
We spent $9,773 per student in FY2011.
The cumulative impact of this development and other developments in Frederick County will
require construction of new schools and support facilities to accommodate increase student
enrollment. We estimate that the 100 single-family attached units and 900 multi-family units in
this development will house 246 students: 64 high school student, 54 middle school students, and
128 elementary school students. In order to properly serve these additional students Frederick
County Public Schools would spend an estimated $2,568,000 more per year in operation costs(or
$2,568 average per unit per year) and an estimated $9,055,000 in one-times capital expenditures
(or $9,055 average per unit). You will find, enclosed with this letter, a more detailed assessment
of the estimated impact of Heritage Commons on FCPS, including attendance zone information.
Staff Comment: The applicant’s economic analysis utilized a student generation rate of 0.1 for
the multifamily units and 0.3 for the townhouse units. This is contrary to student generation
rates utilized in the County’s adopted fiscal impact model.
The applicant is also showing that the School system spends $5,767 in general fund taxes per
pupil which would equate to a total impact of $0.8 million per year for their projected 147
pupils.
The adopted fiscal impact model shows the following student generation rates:
Single Family-Attached (175) Student Generation Total
Students
Elementary 0.125 22
Middle 0.070 12
High 0.070 12
Multifamily (1,016)
Elementary 0.134 136
Middle 0.055 56
High 0.067 68
Rezoning #02-14 – Heritage Commons
August 21, 2014
Page 13
Therefore utilizing the County’s adopted numbers, this development would generate a total
of 306 students and a yearly impact of $2,770,830 (306 students x $9,055 per student).
Frederick County Attorney: Please see attached letter dated September 20, 2013 from
Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney.
City of Winchester : Does the proposed height modification affect, in any way, the future
growth of the Winchester Regional Airport. Proffer #4 on P. 4 of the Amended Proffer
Statement is titled “Multi-Modal Transportation Improvements,” but it only mentions one mode
of transportation. Is public transportation service contemplated given the very dense urban
development proposed? Please consider naming the roadway from the roundabout west as “E.
Tevis Street”.
Rezoning #02-14 – Heritage Commons
August 21, 2014
Page 14
Proffer Statement – Dated September 6, 2013; revised August 7, 2014.
Proffer statements are tools that enable an applicant to tailor a development
proposal to address use and design intentions as well as mitigate impacts.
Executive Summary
The applicant has proffered a Generalized Development Plan (Exhibit A) for the purpose of
identifying the general road layout and landbays within the development.
1.
The applicant has proffered a number of ordinance modifications with this rezoning
application. The R4 Zoning District allows an applicant to modify Zoning Ordinance
requirements so that they may tailor the development to meet their needs. Below is a
outline of the requested modifications contained within “Exhibit B” with staff’s
comments:
Design Modification Document
• Modification #1 – Proffered Master Development Plan. The applicant is requesting to
provide a Generalized Development Plan in lieu of a Master Development Plan. The
MDP would come before the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors as an
informational item at a later time.
• Modification #2 – Permitted Uses. The applicant is requesting to mix commercial and
residential land uses within the same structure and prohibit all M1 (Light Industrial)
District Uses. Currently the R4 may contain RP, B1, B2, B3 and M1 District uses.
The applicant should also consider removing the B3 District from the permitted
uses due to the industrial uses associated with this district.
• Modification #3 – Mixture of Housing Types Required. The applicant is requesting a
modification from the requirement that no more than 40% of the residential areas may be
used for housing other than single family (multifamily, townhouses, etc). The applicant
is requesting to utilize 100% of the residential area for single family attached (town
houses) and multifamily residential units.
• Modification #4 – Residential Density. The applicant is requesting a modification from
the maximum residential density of 4 units per acre. The applicant is requesting to utilize
the densities specified in RP District for townhouses (10 units/acre) and multifamily
residential (20 units/acre).
This area is slated for high density residential land uses in the Comprehensive
Plan with a density of 12-16 units/acre, therefore the requested modification is in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
• Modification #5 – Commercial & Industrial Areas. The applicant is requesting a
modification from the requirement that commercial or industrial uses may not exceed
50% of the gross area of the total planned community. The applicant would like the
ability to exceed the commercial area beyond 50% of the project.
The need for this modification is unclear, 50% of the project would be 75.2 acres,
the maximum commercial acreage shown under the applicant’s proffered table is
70.3 acres.
• Modification #6 – Open Space. The applicant is requesting a modification from the
minimum 30% open space requirement. They are requesting that a minimum of 15% of
the gross area of the development and 100% of the Buffalo Lick Run Stream Valley area
Rezoning #02-14 – Heritage Commons
August 21, 2014
Page 15
be designated as open space.
The decrease of open space from 30 to 10% seems excessive. The minimum open
space for B2 zoned developments is 15% and the minimum for mixed residential
development is 30%. The justification for the modification states that rooftop
green spaces and amenities could be provided, however there are no proffers or
guarantees that these types of amenities will be provided. This modification has
the potential to create a community with no outdoor areas for recreation, which is
contrary to the intent of the R4 residential planned community.
• Modification #7 – Buffers and Screening. The applicant is requesting a
modification/elimination from the requirement for buffers between the internal uses (uses
within the commercial and residential landbays). The applicant is proposing to provide
perimeter zoning district buffers where required.
The elimination of buffers enables residential uses (i.e. apartment building) to be
fronted on a street directly across from a commercial use, which creates more of
an urban setting.
• Modification #8 – Road Access. The applicant is requesting a modification from the
requirement that all streets within the planned community shall be provided with a
complete system of public streets. The applicant is requesting that all major collector
road systems identified in the Comprehensive Plan shall be public streets but that all
other streets within the development may be private. They are also requesting a
modification to allow them to exceed the maximum distance a residential structure may
be located from a public road.
Applicant should provide commitment that the Major Collector Roads will be
constructed by the applicant reflective and consistent with the MCR design as a
complete street.
• Modification #9 – Phasing. The applicant is requesting a modification/elimination from
the requirement that a schedule of phases be submitted. The ordinance requires an
applicant to specify the year the phase will be completely developed. The applicant is
not phasing the commercial portions of the development and has a proffered per year cap
for residential phasing.
The lack of a proffered phasing plan would enable all residential units to be
constructed without any commercial land use. This results in significant negative
fiscal impacts to the county but also undermines the mixed use development
concept and possibly more significant creates a large, intensive residential
development.
• Modification #10 – Height Limitation and Dimensional and Intensity Requirements.
The applicant requesting a modification of the maximum height of office buildings and
hotel buildings. The current height maximum for those structures is 60’. The applicant
is requesting that commercial buildings, retail buildings, office buildings, hotel buildings,
and shared commercial/residential buildings may be constructed up to 80’ in height, not
to include architectural features and antenna structures. The applicant is also proposing a
modification from the current floor to area ratio of 1.0 to 2.0.
• Modification #11 – Multifamily Residential Buildings. The applicant is requesting a
modification from the setback requirement for multifamily buildings. The ordinance
currently requires that buildings over 60’ be setback one foot for every foot over 60 up to
Rezoning #02-14 – Heritage Commons
August 21, 2014
Page 16
the maximum height of 80’. The applicant is proposing that all buildings may be
constructed within 20’ of public or private street systems serving the community.
This results in a more urban setting which is consistent with that envisioned in
Comprehensive Plan.
• Modification #12 – Modified Apartment Building. The applicant is requesting a
modification to the dimensional requirements for Garden Apartments (165-402.09I). The
garden apartment housing type has a maximum of 16 units per structure, a height of 55’
and setbacks of 35’ from public roads, 20’ from private roads, 20’ side and 25’ rear.
Building separation per ordinance is 20’ or 35’ depending on the orientation. The
applicant is proposing a modification that would allow for up to 64 units per structure, a
height of up to 80’ and setbacks of 20’ from public roads, 10’ from private roads, 15’
side and rear setbacks. Proposed building separation is 15’.
This results in more urban standards (density and setbacks) similar to those
envisioned for UDA Centers.
2.
The applicant has proffered a mix of residential types (single family attached,
multifamily, gated single family attached, gated multifamily), shared residential and
commercial structures, office and retail. There are seven land bays and a Buffalo Lick
Run landbay. Land bays 3, 5 and 7 total 93.59 acres and permit 90-95% of the total
landbay to be utilized for residential purposes. Landbays 1, 2, 4 and 6 total 44.31 acres
and consist of 100% commercial uses. The Buffalo Lick Run landbay consist of 12.35
acres of preserved environmental features.
Uses, Density and Mix:
Based on the proffered density mix table, it is reasonable to expect that over 60 %
of the land area will be residential land uses. The previously approved proffers for
Russell 150 proffers (which are the approved proffers for the site) limited
residential uses to 35% of the site.
The proffers place a cap of 1,200 residential units on the development. There will be a
maximum of 184 townhouse units within the development and townhouses are only
permitted within landbay 7. The remaining units will consist of multifamily units. There
is no cap or triggers on the commercial square footage.
This area is proposed to consist of business/commercial and residential land uses
and therefore B3 (Industrial Transition) uses should be prohibited on the site.
3.
The applicant has submitted an economic analysis preformed by S. Patz & Associates.
The applicant states “the capital benefits of the proposed uses on the Property more than
compensate Frederick County for any anticipated impact”.
Capital Facility Impacts:
The 2005 rezoning a proffered a monetary contribution in the amount of $3,000
per residential unit for the public school system, a lump sum contribution in the
amount of $10,000 for Fire and Rescue Services, a $2,500 HOA startup fund and
Rezoning #02-14 – Heritage Commons
August 21, 2014
Page 17
one million for the general transportation fund ($3,500 per unit); the previous
proffer included over $1.8 million in cash contributions. These monetary
contributions have all been removed from the new rezoning application.
4.
The applicant agrees to install the road network that is depicted on the GDP and in an
alignment and a form that meets VDOT geometric design standards. The applicant
further states that they will participate in a Revenue Sharing Agreement and that the
funding for the installation of the road network “shall be paid by Applicant in cash
contributions or cash equivalent contributions through the donation of real property”.
Multi-Modal Transportation Improvements:
Warrior Drive is depicted on the GDP as a future road and the Applicant proffers to
dedicate ROW at the time and exact alignment of Warrior Drive has been established.
This dedication will occur when the connecting section of Warrior Drive has been
dedicated by the owner of the property to the south.
The previous application, as noted on the companion document which compares
the two proffer packages, included detailed proffers which dedicated right of way
and fully constructed Warrior Drive, Airport Drive Extended, East Tevis Street
Extended, and the Flyover Bridge on I-81. These items were funded through the
creation of a Community Development Association or CDA. The new rezoning
proposes to remove the commitments for the construction of these roadways.
5.
The applicant will be utilizing Low Impact Development (LID) and Best Management
Practices (BMP). A no disturbance easement will also be provided within the Buffalo
Lick Run stream Valley.
Stormwater Quality Measures:
6.
Recreational amenities will be provided within Landbays 5 and 7 and identified on the
MDP. The applicant will provide walking trails and sidewalks within the community and
a 10’ wide path along the Buffalo Lick run stream Valley. The applicant may also install
an additional 10’ wide path along Buffalo Lick Run which if constructed would be
owned and maintained by the HOA but available for public access.
Recreational amenities:
Recreational amenities are already an ordinance requirement because of the
housing type and lot size. Sidewalks are currently required along both sides of all
streets. Only the inclusion of the trail goes beyond ordinance requirement.
7.
The generalized development plan shows the general area and location of the roads to
serve the property, exact locations will be based on final engineering. Acceptance of the
proffer statement constitutes approval of the public uses, facilities, and utilities and their
ability to e developed within the landbays.
Comprehensive Plan Conformity:
Rezoning #02-14 – Heritage Commons
August 21, 2014
Page 18
8.
No more than 400 units can be built within the first two years of the development (first
year commencing on the date of the rezoning if approved). The remaining residential
units will be installed with no more than 400 within the following two year term, and the
remaining residential units commencing no earlier than two years after the completion of
the 800th unit.
Phasing:
The lack of proffered phasing which assures commercial land uses will be
constructed prior to residential uses, result in limited revenues and a potential for
a significant negative fiscal impact on the county.
7. Adjoining Property:
PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING
63-A-123A Vacant land RA
64-A-9 Vacant land B2
64-A-10A Vacant land for Church RA
64-A-11 Residential RP
64-A-14 Vacant land B2
64-A-18 Vacant land B2/RP
64B-A-4-91 Residential RP
64B-A-73 Church B2
64B-A-73B Vacant land RP
64B-A-89 Residential RP
64B-A-92 Residential RP
64B-4-E Vacant land RP
64B-4-F Residential RP
64B-4-H Residential RP
64B-4-8 Residential RP
64B-4-9A Residential RP
64B-4-10A Residential RP
64B-4-25J Residential RP
64B-4-26 Vacant land RP
64B-4-27 Vacant land RP
64B-4-28 Residential RP
64B-4-29 Vacant land RP
64B-4-30 Residential RP
64B-4-31 Vacant land RP
64B-4-32 Vacant land RP
64B-4-33 Residential RP
64B-4-34 Residential RP
64B-4-35 Vacant land RP
64B-4-36 Vacant land RP
64B-4-37 Residential RP
64B-4-38 Residential RP
64B-4-39 Vacant land RP
64C-A-1 Residential RP
64C-A-2 Residential RP
64C-A-3 Residential RP
64C-A-4 Residential RP
64C-A-7 Residential RP
64C-A-9 Vacant land RP
64C-A-11 Residential RP
64C-A-13 Residential RP
64C-A-13A Residential RP
64C-1-15 Residential RP
15
Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property
abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public
right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The
applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the
parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of
Revenue.The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd floor of the Frederick County
Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street.
Name and Property Identification Number Address
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS
340 W. Parkins Mill RoadEFG Investments, LLC
Winchester, VA 2260263-A-123A
Madison II, LLC
64-A-18
Michael and Cheryl Shepard
64-A-14
Montie Gibson, Jr.
64C-A-13 and 64C-A-13A
558 Bennys Beach Road
Front Royal, VA 22630
179 George Drive
Winchester, VA 22602
867 Front Royal Pike
Winchester, VA 22602
William and Krista Lucas
64C-A-11
Winchester Outdoor
355 S. Potomac Street
64C-A-9
Cornerstone LP, LLP
64C-1-15
Elwood H. Whitacre, Sr.
64C-A-7
Charles and Darlene Barnard
64C-A-4
831 Front Royal Pike
Winchester, VA 22602
Hagerstown, MD 21740
PO Box 2497
Winchester, VA 22604
721 Front Royal Pike
Winchester, VA 22602
PO Box 4585
Winchester, VA 22604
16
Name and Property Identification Number Address
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Joseph and Lynnette Embree 687 Front Royal Pike
64C-A-2 and 64C-A-3
Ronald and Monica Grim
64C-A-1
Shelton and Geneve Conway
64B-A-92
Philip and Judy Young
655 Front Royal Pike
64B-A-4-91
Scottie D. Dotson
64B-A-89
Barbara Ann Hott, et al. c/o Wayne Godlove
64B-4-8
Winchester, VA 22602
673 Front Royal Pike
Winchester, VA 22602
667 Front Royal Pike
Winchester, VA 22602
Winchester, VA 22602
Winchester, VA 22601
116 Royal Avenue
131 Royal Avenue
371 Chimney Circle
Middletown, VA 22645
325 Tevis Street
Charles and Elener McFarland and Charles C. McFarland, Jr.
64B-4-9A and 64B-4-10A
Calvin and Dorothy Hott
Winchester, VA 22602
64B-4-38 and 64B-4-39
Winchester, VA 22602
John and Marsha Kelly
64B-4-36 and 64B-4-37
Eric P. Yowell
64B-4-34 and 64B-4-35
The Brincefield Group, LLC
64B-4-32 and 64B-4-33
Bonnie Jean Oates and Misty Dawn Miller
64B-4-30 and 64B-4-31
Charles and Betty Courtney
64B-4-26, 64B-4-27, 64B-4-28 and 64B-4-29
Thomas S. Mudd
64B-4-25J
137 Royal Avenue
Winchester, VA 22602
149 Royal Avenue
Winchester, VA 22602
PO Box 337
Ashton, MD 20861
151 Front Drive
Winchester, VA 22602
161 Front Drive
Winchester, VA 22602
179 Front Drive
Winchester, VA 22602
16
Name and Property Identification Number Address
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Name
Property #
Robert and Patricia Shank 185 Front Drive
64B-4-H
Tara M. Crosen
64B-4-F
Arthur and Juanita Belt
64-A-11
Daniel and Angela Hepner
256 Devland Drive
64B-4-E
Calvary Church of the Brethren
64-A-10A and 64B-A-73
FLG Residual Trust Properties, LLC
64-A-9
Winchester, VA 22602
189 Front Drive
Winchester, VA 22602
201 Front Drive
Winchester, VA 22602
Winchester, VA 22603
Winchester, VA 22604
PO Box 888
578 Front Royal Pike
Winchester, VA 22602
PO Box 888
FLG Residual Trust Properties, LLC and Campfield, LLC
64B-A-73B Winchester, VA 22604
HERITAGE COMMONS PROFFER STATEMENT
REZONING: RZ# 01-05
Rural Areas (RA), Business General (B2), and Residential
Performance (RP) to Residential Planned Community District (R4)
PROPERTY: 150.59 acres +/-;
Tax Map Parcels #63-A-150, 64-A-10 and 64-A-12 (collectively
the “Property”)
RECORD OWNER: R 150 SPE, LLC
APPLICANT: Heritage Commons, LLC (“Applicant”)
PROJECT NAME: Heritage Commons
ORIGINAL DATE
OF PROFFERS: September 6, 2013
REVISION DATE(S): August 7, 2014
Executive Summary
The Property was originally rezoned in September 2005 under the name of Russell 150.
The Property has since changed ownership and the new owner wishes to rezone the Property to
Residential Planned Community District (R4). The undersigned, Heritage Commons, LLC, its
successors and assigns, hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property
shall be in strict accordance with the following conditions and shall supersede and replace all
other proffers made prior hereto. It is further the statement and intent that with the acceptance of
the proffers contained herein any and all prior proffers affecting this Property shall be deemed
null, void, and terminated. In the event the above-referenced amendments are not granted as
applied for by Applicant, the below described proffers shall be withdrawn and be null and void.
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 site adjacent to the improvement, unless otherwise specified herein.
References made to the Master Development Plan, hereinafter referred to as the
Generalized Development Plan dated August 7, 2014, as required by the Frederick County
Zoning Ordinance, are to be interpreted to be references to the specific Generalized Development
Plan sheets attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as “Exhibit A.”
2
The exact boundary and acreage of each land bay may be shifted to a reasonable degree
at the time of site plan submission for each land bay in order to accommodate engineering or
design considerations.
Applicant is submitting a Generalized Development Plan, Exhibit A, as part of a rezoning
application. The Generalized Development Plan is provided in lieu of a Master Development
Plan and contains all information deemed appropriate by the Frederick County Planning
Department. The Generalized Development Plan does not eliminate the requirement for a
Master Development Plan for the portion of the site to be developed, which will be provided
following rezoning approval of the 150.59 +/- acre site.
1. DESIGN MODIFICATION DOCUMENT:
In order for Applicant and Frederick County to implement this Residential Planned
Community District, it will be important for Applicant and Frederick County Planning Staff to
have the opportunity to anticipate incorporate and develop new design types and configurations
that may be suitable. This is to include the allowance for the installation of multi-family
immediately adjacent and in some cases in the same structure as business (commercial) uses.
A. Pursuant to Article II, Amendments of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance,
the approval of this Amended Proffer Statement constitutes an amendment to the zoning
ordinance, which will allow for the implementation of the Residential Planned Community
District.
B. Applicant has proffered a Design Modification Document dated July 30, 2014,
that is attached and incorporated hereto as “Exhibit B.”
In addition to the above, by approving the Amended Proffer Statement, the Frederick
County Board of Supervisors agrees without need of any further Board of Supervisors or
Planning Department approval to any modifications of any matter which has been previously
agreed to and therefore approved by Frederick County. Further still, any submitted revisions to
the approved Generalized Development Plan, and/or any of its requirements for any development
zoned R4 which affect the perimeter of the development or which would increase the overall
density of the development shall require the Board of Supervisors’ approval. If, in the reasonable
discretion of the Frederick County Planning Department, the Planning Department decides any
requested modification should be reviewed by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, it may
secure said approval by placing this matter before the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at
its next regularly scheduled meeting. However, and not withstanding what is stated above, once
a modification has been approved administratively, Applicant shall not be required to seek
approval for any subsequent similar modification.
2. USES, DENSITY AND MIX:
A. (1) Applicant shall develop a mix of unit types that may include single-family
attached, multi-family, gated single-family attached, gated multi-family, shared residential and
commercial structures, office and retail. The following list in (2) below contains those uses
which could exist within the Property.
3
(2) The following list of Land Bays within the Land Bay Breakdown Table
sets forth the general development parameters on the Property and is consistent with the
proffered Generalized Development Plan identified as Exhibit A. The development will adhere
to the land bay breakdown depicted in the GDP and the Land Bay Breakdown Table.
LAND BAY BREAKDOWN
LAND
BAY
POTENTIAL LAND USE APPROX.
ACREAGE
RESIDENTIAL
MIN/MAX
ACREAGE %
COMMERCIAL
MIN/MAX
ACREAGE %
1 Uses allowed in B-1; B-2; B-3
Districts and Design
Modification Document
7.51 acres 0% MIN. AC.
0% MAX. AC
100% MIN. AC.
100% MAX. AC
2 Uses allowed in B-1; B-2; B-3
Districts and Design
Modification Document
8.03 acres 0% MIN. AC.
0% MAX. AC
100% MIN. AC.
100% MAX. AC
3 Uses allowed in B-1; B-2; B-3;
RP Districts and Design
Modification Document
9.73 acres 5% MIN. AC.
95% MAX. AC
5% MIN. AC.
95% MAX. AC
4 Uses allowed in B-1; B-2; B-3
Districts and Design
Modification Document
21.94 acres 0% MIN. AC.
0% MAX. AC
100% MIN. AC.
100% MAX. AC
5 Uses allowed in B-1; B-2; B-3;
RP Districts and Design
Modification Document
29.91 acres 80% MIN. AC.
90% MAX. AC
10% MIN. AC.
20% MAX. AC
6 Uses allowed in B-1; B-2; B-3
Districts and Design
Modification Document
6.83 acres 0% MIN. AC.
0% MAX. AC
100% MIN. AC.
100% MAX. AC
7 Uses allowed in B-1; B-2; B-3;
RP Districts and Design
Modification Document
53.95 acres 80% MIN. AC.
90% MAX. AC
10% MIN. AC.
20% MAX. AC
Buffalo
Lick
Run
Open Space; Trail System;
Utilities; Road Crossings
12.35 acres N/A N/A
The actual acreage identified for each Land Bay is based on the bubble diagram calculated on the
proffered Generalized Development Plan and may fluctuate based on final survey work.
4
B. For purposes of calculating density pursuant to the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance, all dedications and conveyances of land for public use and/or for the use of the
development or any Homeowners Association shall be credited in said calculations.
C. There shall be a unit cap of 1,200 residential units within Land Bays 3, 5, and 7.
Applicant may develop and build between one hundred fifty (150) and one hundred eighty-four
(184) townhouses on the Property and that any townhouses will only be built in Land Bay 7.
There are no limits on the percentage or square feet of business, commercial, office and/or retail
development as referenced above.
3. CAPITAL FACILITY IMPACTS:
Applicant acknowledges that Frederick County has adopted a fiscal impact model.
Applicant has attached an economic analysis, which has been performed by S. Patz &
Associates, Inc. (“S. Patz”). This analysis confirms that the proposed uses within Heritage
Commons will generate a net positive benefit to Frederick County. As a result there will not be a
need to make any payments towards Frederick County services. The specifics of the capital
benefit to Frederick County are $4,300,000.00 annually. In the event of any suggestion that a
payment ought to be made towards the impacts when factored in with the capital benefits to
Frederick County as a result of the installation of the proposed uses, it should be treated as an
offset. As stated in the S. Patz analysis the capital benefits of the proposed uses on the Property
more than compensate Frederick County for any anticipated impact.
4. MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS:
Applicant agrees to install the road network that is depicted on the Generalized
Development Plan and in an alignment and a form that meets Virginia Department of
Transportation (“VDOT”) geometric design standards. Both Frederick County and Applicant
acknowledge that the road network shown on the Generalized Development Plan, Exhibit A, is
substantially similar to the road alignment that was approved in the original rezoning. The
parties recognize that there will be a new design and installation that will occur as a result of a
Revenue Sharing Agreement entered into by and between VDOT and Frederick County and also
a separate agreement entered into by and between Frederick County and Applicant. Applicant
does agree to participate, pursuant to the terms of said agreements, in the design and funding of
the installation of the road network, which shall be in substantial conformance with the designs
set forth in Exhibit A. The funding for the installation of the road network shall be paid by
Applicant in cash contributions or cash equivalent contributions through the donation of real
property.
It should be noted that Warrior Drive is depicted on the Generalized Development Plan as
a future road to be dedicated and installed to provide access to Land Bays 3 and 5. Applicant
proffers to dedicate a right-of-way at the time the exact alignment of Warrior Drive has been
established. Warrior Drive will be installed under the current Revenue Sharing Agreement in
accordance with this exact alignment to a point no less than five hundred fifty feet (550’) from
the traffic circle. Applicant further proffers to dedicate a right of way sufficient for at least a
four-lane section of Warrior Drive at a time when it is deemed appropriate by Applicant to
connect with a four-lane section of Warrior Drive crossing the property to the south (Tax Map
5
No. 63-A-123A). Such dedication will occur when the connecting section of Warrior Drive has
been dedicated by the owner of the property to the south (Tax Map No. 63-A-123A). Such
dedication shall substantially conform to the general location of Warrior Drive shown on the
GDP. Applicant further proffers that it will reasonably cooperate with Frederick County and
VDOT to obtain a revenue sharing agreement for the road.
5. STORMWATER QUALITY MEASURES:
Applicant hereby proffers that all business (commercial) and residential site plans
submitted to Frederick County will be designed to implement Low Impact Development (LID)
and/or Best Management Practices (BMP) to promote stormwater quality measures. A statement
will be provided on each business (commercial) and residential site plan identifying the party or
parties responsible for maintaining these LID and/or BMP facilities as a condition of site plan
approval.
Applicant hereby proffers to establish a no disturbance easement within the Buffalo Lick
Run Stream Valley that is depicted on the Generalized Development Plan. The purpose of this
no disturbance easement is to prohibit development activities within the business (commercial)
and residential land bays that are located within the defined area. The only improvements that
may occur within this no disturbance easement will include road crossings, utility installations,
stormwater management facilities, landscaping and walking trails.
6. RECREATIONAL AMENITIES:
Applicant proffers that recreational amenities will be provided within Land Bays 5 and 7.
The exact amenities will be identified on the Master Development Plan to ensure conformity
with ordinance requirements. Applicant also proffers to install walking trails and sidewalks
within the community and to install a ten-foot (10’) wide asphalt or concrete trail along the
Buffalo Lick Run Stream Valley depicted on Exhibit A, of which, the location will be identified
on the Master Development Plan. In addition, and at Applicant’s discretion, Applicant may
install a second ten-foot (10’) wide asphalt or concrete trail (on the other side of Buffalo Lick
Run Stream). In the event the Applicant does construct a second trail, it is intended that the ten-
foot (10’) wide asphalt or concrete trail(s) will be owned and maintained by the Heritage
Commons HOA and will be available for public access.
Applicant shall construct pedestrian trails and/or sidewalk systems, which connect each
recreation area to the residential land uses within the defined Land Bay. The final location and
the granting of any such easements and/or trails shall be at the subdivision design plan stage.
Such trails or sidewalk system shall be constructed of materials selected by Applicant provided
they are not part of the sidewalk system within the public right-of-way.
7. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONFORMITY:
By accepting and approving this rezoning application, the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors authorizes the location and provision of those public uses, facilities, and utilities
specifically referenced on the Generalized Development Plan, in this Amended Proffer
Statement, and on design plans; as well as the extension and construction of water and sewer
6
lines and facilities and roads necessary to serve this Property pursuant to Virginia Code Section
15.2-2232 and the Frederick County Code. The general area of location for roads necessary to
serve this Property are as shown on the Generalized Development Plan with the exact locations
to be determined based on final engineering and as approved by Frederick County. Acceptance
of this Amended Proffer Statement constitutes approval of the public uses, facilities, and utilities
and their ability to be developed within the Land Bays identified on Exhibit A, and thereby
excepts said public uses, facilities, and utilities from further Comprehensive Plan conformity
review.
8. PHASING
Applicant states and acknowledges that the uses proffered to be installed on the Heritage
Commons’ Property are significant and will take a considerable amount of time to develop and
install on the Property. It is anticipated that the initial uses installed will be of a commercial use
and nature, and Applicant is committed to attempting to develop a multi-family component at the
initial commencement of development and construction. In response to comments received from
the County agencies, Applicant is prepared to commit that no more than four hundred (400)
residential units will be developed and built within the first two (2) years of development, with
the first year commencing on the date of the approval of the rezoning. The remaining residential
units will be proffered to be installed with no more than four hundred (400) residential units
within the next two (2) year term following, and the remaining residential units commencing no
earlier than two (2) years after the completion of the eight hundredth (800th) residential unit.
[remainder of page intentionally left blank]
HERITAGE COMMONS
DESIGN MODIFICATION DOCUMENT - PROFFER EXHIBIT B
July 30, 2014
MODIFICATION #1 § 165-501.02 Rezoning Procedure
Ordinance Requirement:
In order to have land rezoned to the R4 District, a master development plan meeting all
requirements of this chapter, shall be submitted with rezoning application.
Alternative Design Standard:
In order to have land rezoned to the R4 District, a proffered Generalized Development Plan
identifying the concept of the overall acreage and its relationship to adjoining properties and
adjoining roadways shall be submitted with rezoning application. The Generalized Development
Plan for Heritage Commons will provide Land Bays to demonstrate the proposed general land
use plan layout for the entire acreage. The Proffer Statement for Heritage Commons will also
provide a matrix identifying the residential and non-residential land uses within each Land Bay,
the projected acreage of each Land Bay and the percentage of residential and commercial land
use within each Land Bay classified as Mixed-Use Commercial/Residential.
Justification for Modification:
A densely planned community on 150.28 +- acres of land cannot be completely master planned
as a condition of rezoning approval. These communities are dynamic due to the market;
therefore, the exact location of residential units, internal roads, neighborhood commercial,
recreational amenities, open space and significant environmental features are difficult to identify
at this stage in the process. The Applicant should be prepared to identify basic information
pertaining to the overall development of the planned community to inform decision makers and
interested citizens how the general land use patterns and major road systems will be developed
should a rezoning be approved. The use of a Generalized Development Plan and Proffer
Statement as a tool for this purpose is reasonable, as it contains illustrative and general
development information that can assist in understanding the basic concepts of a planned
community and guide the more formalized Master Development Plan process following rezoning
approval. Therefore, it is requested that a Generalized Development Plan be permitted to
function in the place of a detailed Master Development Plan during the rezoning process. A
Master Development Plan will be provided subsequent to the rezoning approval process to
ensure consistency with subdivision design plans and site design plans within the project.
MODIFICATION #2 §165-501.03 Permitted Uses
Ordinance Requirement:
All uses are allowed in the R4 Residential Planned Community District that are allowed in the
following zoning districts:
RP Residential Performance District
B1 Neighborhood Business District
B2 Business General District
B3 Industrial Transition District
M1 Light Industrial District
Alternative Design Standard:
The Mixed-Use Commercial/Residential Land Bays identified on the proffered Generalized
Development Plan are slated for dense urban commercial and residential land use, which may
include commercial and residential land uses that are located within the same structure, or within
connected structures. No M1 (light industrial) uses will be permitted.
Justification for Modification:
Heritage Commons is planned as an urban center design form that will contain single-family
attached, multi-family units, commercial, retail and office structures, and structures that may
comprise a combination of these land uses. The ability to provide for mixed-use residential and
commercial, retail and/or office land use within the same structure or within connected structures
is in keeping with urban form design, which provides a very efficient use of land and provides
opportunities for residents to live, shop, and work within the same area of their community.
MODIFICATION #3 §165-501.05 Mixture of Housing Types Required
Ordinance Requirement:
Each planned community shall be expected to contain a mixture of housing types that is typical
for existing and planned residential neighborhoods in Frederick County. No more than 40% of
the area of portions of the planned community designated for residential uses shall be used for
any of the following housing types: duplexes, multiplexes, atrium houses, weak-link townhouses,
townhouses or garden apartments or any combination of those housing types.
Alternative Design Standard:
The Mixed-Use Commercial/Residential Land Bays identified on the proffered Generalized
Development Plan are slated for dense urban residential housing types. To achieve this type of
urban residential development, single-family detached residential units will not be required as a
component of the residential mix, and single-family attached and multi-family residential units
will be allowed to comprise 100% of the residential housing units within the Heritage Commons
project.
Justification for Modification:
Heritage Commons is planned as an urban center design form that will contain single-family
attached and multi-family housing units within a mixed-use commercial, retail and office
development. The Residential Planned Community District promotes suburban residential design
form that is predominately residential with a minimum percentage of non-residential land use.
The implementation of significant percentages of non-residential land use within Heritage
Commons dictates the need for higher density residential land use to facilitate this form of
development.
MODIFICATION #4 §165-501.06(C) Residential Density
Ordinance Requirement:
Residential Density. The maximum allowed gross density for residences in the planned
community development shall be four units per acre.
Alternative Design Standard:
The Mixed-Use Commercial/Residential Land Bays identified on the proffered Generalized
Development Plan are slated for dense urban residential housing types. To achieve this type of
urban residential development, the gross densities specified in Section 165-402.05B for multi-
family and single-family attached residential land use shall be permitted.
Justification for Modification:
Heritage Commons is planned as an urban center design form that will contain single-family
attached and multi-family housing units within a mixed-use commercial, retail and office
development. The Board of Supervisors recently approved increased densities for residential
development within the Urban Development Area (UDA) to maximize the residential
development potential within this portion of the County. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan
identifies this property as being planned for employment and high-density residential (12-16
units/acre) land use; therefore, it is appropriate to allow this type of residential density within the
Heritage Commons development.
MODIFICATION #5 §165-501.06(D) Commercial & Industrial Areas
Ordinance Requirement:
Commercial and industrial areas. The areas for commercial or industrial uses shall not exceed
50% of the gross area of the total planned community. Sufficient commercial and industrial
areas shall be provided to meet the needs of the planned community, to provide an appropriate
balance of uses and to lessen the overall impact of the planned community on Frederick County.
A minimum of 10% of the gross area of the project shall be used for business and industrial uses.
Alternative Design Standard:
Given the dense planning for the Heritage Commons Land Bays, the areas for commercial areas
may exceed, and should be encouraged to, exceed 50% of the gross area. Further, to be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, industrial uses should not be encouraged, and therefore,
not allowed in the Heritage Commons Land Bays. By doing this, the balance in the dense areas
will allow for higher density residential uses and will create Land Bays that lend themselves to
creating a community where residents can truly live, work and play all in the same immediate
community. A Land Bay Breakdown Table has been incorporated into the Heritage Commons
Proffer Statement to demonstrate the minimum and maximum acreages for commercial and
residential development throughout the project.
Justification for Modification:
A densely planned community in an area that is designated under the Comprehensive Plan as
such should provide for a higher percentage mix of commercial uses. Given the intensity and
extent of commercial uses they would be more harmonious if they were mixed in with or
adjacent to higher density residential development. The Generalized Development Plan will
depict the Land Bays where it is anticipated that the higher density residential and commercial
uses will be mixed and also areas that will be designated purely for commercial. With the
transportation networks and connectivity of all the Land Bays, however, it is anticipated that the
activity level of residences, commercial shopping, dining and work will be laid out so that the
residents will be able to walk back and forth between these uses and not need use their
automobiles to access these facilities and amenities.
MODIFICATION #6 §165-501.06(E) Open Space
Ordinance Requirement:
Open Space. A minimum of 30% of the gross area of any proposed development shall be
designated as common open space.
Alternative Design Standard:
A minimum of 15% of the gross area of the Mixed-Use Commercial/Residential Land Bays, and
100% of the gross area of the Buffalo Lick Run Stream Valley Land Bay identified on the
proffered Generalized Development Plan shall be designated as common open space.
Justification for Modification:
Heritage Commons is planned as an urban center design form that will contain single-family
attached and multi-family housing units within a mixed-use commercial, retail and office
development. This type of urban center design provides opportunities for indoor and outdoor
recreational amenities and facilities, pedestrian sidewalk and trail systems, central plazas and
squares, small exterior urban-scale green-space areas, and rooftop green-space or rooftop
amenity areas; therefore, vast expanses of green space area are not conducive for this type of
development. The location of open space areas and the types of recreational amenities will be
identified on the Master Development Plan to ensure conformity with ordinance requirements.
MODIFICATION #7 §165-501.06(G) Buffers and Screening
Ordinance Requirement:
Buffers and Screening. Buffers and screening shall be provided between various uses and
housing types as if the uses were located within the RP, B1, B2, or M1 Zoning District according
to the uses allowed in those districts. Buffers and screening shall be provided accordingly as
specified in Section 165-203.02 of this Chapter. Road efficiency buffers shall be provided
according to the requirements of that section. In addition, along the perimeter boundary of the
Residential Planned Community District, buffers and screens shall be provided in relation to
adjoining properties as if the uses in the planned community were located in the RP, B1, B2, or
M1 Zoning Districts.
Alternative Design Standard:
Buffers and screening shall be provided along the perimeter boundary of the Residential Planned
Community District where proposed Commercial Retail and Office Land Bays adjoin existing
residential land use, or where single-family attached and multifamily residential units adjoin
existing single-family detached residential land use. Buffers and screening shall be provided
accordingly as specified in Section 165-203.02(C), Section 165-203.02(D), and Section 165-
203.02(E) of this Chapter.
Justification for Modification:
Heritage Commons is planned as an urban center design form that will incorporate mixed-use
commercial and residential land use immediately adjacent to each other. Land uses within this
form of development are intended to be integrated, and in some instances located within the
same structures; therefore, the requirement for internal buffers and screening are not practical in
achieving this type of urban design. The alternative design standard provides for adequate
buffers and screening along the perimeter of the Heritage Commons project to protect existing
residential land uses. This buffer and screening standard is consistent with applicable residential
separation buffers and zoning district buffers utilized in other portions of the Urban
Development Area.
MODIFICATION #8 §165-501.06(I) Road Access
Ordinance Requirement:
Road Access. All planned community developments shall have direct access to an arterial or
collector road or to roads improved to arterial or collector standards. The planned community
development shall be provided with a complete system of public streets dedicated to the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
Alternative Design Standard:
The proffered Generalized Development Plan shall provide for major collector road systems
identified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan, which will be public streets dedicated to the
Virginia Department of Transportation. All other street systems located within the Heritage
Commons development may be designed and constructed as private streets, which will be
maintained by a master association or sub-associations created during the subdivision design and
site plan design process. All private streets shall be designed in general to meet vertical base
design standards utilized by the Virginia Department of Transportation based on projected traffic
volumes for the identified land uses within the project. All lots created within the Heritage
Commons development may be located on private streets, which shall not be subject to distance
limitations from planned public streets within the project.
Justification for Modification:
Heritage Commons is planned as an urban center design form that will contain a variety of street
systems that are designed in general to meet vertical base design standards utilized by the
Virginia Department of Transportation based on projected traffic volumes for the identified land
uses within the project. The ability to utilize private street design will provide design flexibility
throughout the project that would otherwise not be practical due to rigid Virginia Department of
Transportation street design standards. The ability to utilize private street design will also allow
for innovative storm water management low-impact design and landscaping design to assist in
meeting water quality measures for the project.
MODIFICATION #9 §165-501.06(M) Phasing
Ordinance Requirement:
Phasing. A schedule of phases shall be submitted with each proposed planned community. The
schedule shall specify the year in which each phase will be completely developed. No
subdivision or site plans shall be approved in the planned community unless they are in
accordance with the approved schedule.
Alternative Design Standard:
A Phasing Plan and Phasing Schedule shall not be required for the Heritage Commons project.
Justification for Modification:
Heritage Commons is planned as an urban center design form that will contain mixed land use
including commercial, retail, office, single-family attached and multi-family housing units within
a master planned project. Heritage Commons exceeds the commercial, retail and office land use
percentages from conventional residential planned community projects, and may incorporate
mixed commercial and residential land use within the same structure. Therefore, it is not
practical to require a phasing schedule and time line that limits the ability for the project to
develop, as this will be dictated by market conditions.
MODIFICATION #10 §165-201.03(B)(6) Height Limitations
§165-601.02 Dimensional and Intensity Requirements
Ordinance Requirement:
General office buildings in the B2 and B3 Districts and hotel and motel buildings in the B2
Zoning District shall be exempt from the maximum height requirements of those zoning districts.
In no case shall the height of such buildings exceed 60 feet. When such exemptions are
proposed adjacent to existing residential uses, the Board of Supervisors shall review the site
development plan pursuant to the provisions of Section 165-203.02A(3).
Alternative Design Standard:
Commercial buildings, retail buildings, office buildings, hotel buildings, and shared commercial
and residential buildings may be constructed up to 80 feet in height, not to include architectural
screening features and antenna structures. Additionally, commercial buildings, retail buildings,
office buildings, hotel buildings, and shared commercial and residential buildings may be
developed with a floor area to lot area ratio (FAR) of 2.0.
Justification for Modification:
Heritage Commons is planned as a dense urban center design form that will promote vertical
construction throughout the project. The ability to construct buildings to 80 feet in height is
consistent with the height allowance for multifamily residential buildings, which will be
developed within the project. Other zoning districts within the County allow for office buildings
and other structures to be constructed up to 90 feet in height and allow for a floor area to lot area
ratio of 2.0; therefore, the Heritage Commons urban center design form is consistent with these
more intensive types of development currently permitted by County Code.
MODIFICATION #11 §165-402.09(J)(D1) Multifamily Residential Buildings
Ordinance Requirement:
Principal building (max): 60 feet, provided that a multifamily residential building may be erected
to a maximum of 80 feet if it is set back from road right-of-ways and from lot lines in addition to
each of the required minimum yard dimensions, a distance of not less than one foot for each one
foot of height that it exceeds the sixty-foot limit.
Alternative Design Standard:
Commercial buildings, retail buildings, office buildings, hotel buildings, and shared commercial
and residential buildings may be constructed within 20 feet of public or private street systems
serving the community.
Justification for Modification:
Heritage Commons is planned as a dense urban center design form that will promote vertical
construction throughout the project. This design form should provide flexibility to promote
building construction that abuts wide pedestrian walkway areas that adjoin public and private
street systems. Urban center design promotes build-to setback lines, which are not proposed as a
requirement for Heritage Commons; however, this alternative design standard will allow for this
form of design should it be desired by the developer of the project.
MODIFICATION #12 §165-4002.09(I) Modified Apartment Building
Ordinance Requirement:
This housing type consists of buildings that contain multiple dwelling units that share a common
yard area. The entire dwelling unit does not necessarily have to be on the same floor. Garden
apartments shall be at least two stories high but no more than four stories and shall contain six or
more units in a single structure, not to exceed 16 units within a single structure. Dimensional
requirements shall be as follows:
A. Lot Dimensions
A1 Maximum site impervious surface ratio 0.60
B. Building Setbacks
B1 From public road right-of-way 35 feet
B2 From private road right-of-way, off-street parking lot or
driveway
20 feet
B3 Side (perimeter) 20 feet
B4 Rear (perimeter) 25 feet
B5 Rear for balconies and decks 20 feet
B6 Minimum on-site building spacing: Buildings placed side to side shall
have a minimum distance of 20 feet between buildings; buildings placed side
to back shall have a minimum distance of 35 feet between buildings.
Buildings back to back shall have a minimum distance of 50 feet between
buildings.
C. Minimum Parking
C1 Required off-street parking 2 per unit
D. Height
D1 Principal building (max): 55 feet
D2 Accessory building (max) 20 feet
Alternative Design Standard:
This housing type consists of buildings that contain multiple dwelling units that share a common
outdoor area. Dwellings can be on multiple floors with buildings being at least two stories but
not more than six stories. Dwellings can have internal or external corridors at the discretion of
the developer. Modified apartment buildings shall contain a minimum of 16 dwelling units but
may not exceed more than 64 dwelling units within a single structure. Dimensional requirements
shall be as follows:
A. Lot Dimensions
A1 Maximum site impervious surface ratio 0.60
B. Building Setbacks
B1 From public road right-of-way 20 feet
B2 From private road right-of-way, off-street parking lot or
driveway
10 feet
B3 Side (perimeter) 15 feet
B4 Rear (perimeter) 15 feet
B5 Rear for balconies and decks 20 feet
B6 Minimum on-site building spacing: 15 feet side to side; 15 feet side to
back; 15 feet back to back
C. Minimum Parking
C1 Required off-street parking 2 per unit,
inclusive of
garage
D. Height
D1 Principal building (max): 80 feet
D2 Accessory building (max): 50 feet
D3 Maintenance buildings (max): 20 feet
Justification for Modification:
Heritage Commons is planned as a dense urban center design form that will promote massing of
dwelling units throughout the project. This design form should provide flexibility to promote
building construction that accommodates an appropriate number of dwelling units within a single
structure. The dimensional requirements provided for the Modified Apartment Building achieve
appropriate setbacks for siting of buildings and protection of adjoining properties, while
providing densities more in keeping with a dense urban center design form.
DRAFT
Market and Fiscal Impacts Analyses
Heritage Commons
Frederick County, Virginia
Prepared for:
Mr. Bruce A. Griffin &
Mr. Matt Millstead
Frederick County Center, LLC
October, 2013
S. Patz and Associates, Inc.
46175 Westlake Drive, Suite 400
Potomac Falls, Virginia 20165
2
Introduction
The following is the market study and Fiscal Impacts Analysis (FIA) in support
of the proposed mixed-use development of the 150.6-acre Heritage Commons
development proposal (formerly Russell 150, LLC) located along the west side of Front
Royal Pike (U.S. Route 522), south of the I-81/U.S. Route 50 interchange and opposite
Airport Road. The site extends approximately 1,250 feet along Route 522 and has
frontage (1,300 feet) on the east side of I-81, at a location where a new overpass is
planned that will extend East Tevis Street in the City of Winchester east into the
Heritage Commons site and ultimately to an intersection with U.S. Route 522 at two
locations.
The following report is prepared in two sections. The first section presents the
market analysis in support of the mixed-use development proposal for Heritage
Commons. The market analysis demonstrates that market support for the Heritage
Commons proposal exists and is based on evolving market trends in a market area that
consists of the City of Winchester and Frederick County. The expected development
period for this 150± acre property, based on the development proposal, is approximately
15 years, from the projected start of building development in 2015.
The second section of the report is the Fiscal Impacts Analysis, which shows the
net revenues projected from project build-out compared with increased expenses to the
County from the proposed on-site development. Given the fact that the development
proposal has considerable commercial space planned within the 40± acres of
commercially zoned area, or 30.0% of the total developable acreage, Heritage Commons
will generate a positive FIA and will provide considerable new net tax revenue to
Frederick County over the 2015 to 2030 period and beyond.
The FIA is prepared in three five-year development phases to illustrate that net
revenues will accrue to the County during the entire 15+ year development period. All
revenue and expense data are presented in constant 2013 dollar values. The phasing of
new development is based, in part, on the sponsor’s existing commitments for site
3
development at the time of the start of development, and in part, on the evolving
development trends within the market area as calculated by the market analysis.
The following chart summarizes the overall development plan for Heritage
Commons. It shows a master plan for 1,200 housing units on 75.3 acres of residential
zoned land and 700,000 square feet of commercial development, including the new
Frederick County office building. The planned development program will be more fully
expanded upon in the following analysis.
Housing Units and
Square Footage of
Commercial Space
• Market Rate Apartments 1,050
• For-Sale Townhomes
(subtotal residential)
150
(1,200)
• Office Space, excluding County Bldg. 450,000
• County Office Building 150,000
• Retail & Service Commercial 100,000
(Subtotal) (700,000)
The site setting map of the Heritage Commons site is shown next. The site is
adjacent to the City of Winchester along I-81 and just over one mile south of the Route
50/17 interchange with I-81 near the Shenandoah University Campus. Number 5 on the
map shows the location to the primary site entrance to Heritage Commons across from
Airport Road. Number 6 is the location of the proposed new bridge over I-81. The
Shenandoah University Campus is shown by Number 7. The site frontage runs north
from just south of Buffalo Lick Run (No. 8) to the small residential subdivision along
Front Royal Avenue on the north.
Map A also shows the site’s close proximity to several of the Winchester area’s
regional highways. The Winchester Regional Airport, Shenandoah University Campus,
historic downtown Winchester and Apple Blossom Mall (Number 9) are all within close
proximity to the site. The new bridge over I-81, along with the extension of East Tevis
Street, will provide direct access to the Pleasant Valley Road corridor and to Jubal Early
4
Drive, both area roadways with an abundance of retail space, medical office space and
employment centers.
Map A – Heritage Commons Site Location Map
5
Site Description and Development Proposal
Site Description
The Heritage Commons site is a slightly rolling, irregularly shaped, 150-acre
property located between Interstate 81 on the west and Front Royal Pike (U.S. 522) on
the east at a location directly across from the entrance to Airport Road. The property is
vacant and partially covered with small trees and bushes, but the property is
predominantly meadowland. Part of the Buffalo Run stream runs through the property
in an east-west direction and will be retained as open space and an amenity featuere for
the development.
Following are photos of the site and it’s setting along U.S. Route 522. The photos
show views into the property from U.S. Route 522 West into the site and photos of the
Route 522 corridor. At present, this is an undeveloped section of Front Royal Pike, but a
second development proposal, adjacent to Heritage Commons, called Madison Village,
is also being studied for new development, as described below.
View Into Site Showing Topography and Tree Coverage
6
Photos of Heritage Commons & Route 522 Corridor
View West From U.S. Route 522 Expanded View of Site
View North Along U.S. Route 522
View South From U.S. Route
522/Airport Road Intersection
Adjacent land uses consist of residential developments and vacant land.
Development north of the site consists of the 40± unit Funkhouser single-family
subdivision, which was developed in the mid-1990s. East of the site, along Front Royal
Pike, are mature single-family homes in the Miller Heights subdivision.
Land south of the Heritage Commons site is largely vacant, but with the adjacent
parcel of 51.3 acres planned for a mixed-use development with a mix of towns and
7
apartments, called Madison Village (see Number 10). The developers of Madison Village
is currently in the early stages of rezoning from RA (Rural Area) to 46.26 acres of RP
(Residential Performance) and 5 acres to B2 (General Business). Collectively, this
rezoning application is planned to accommodate 480 apartment units, 160 townhomes
and 107,000 square feet of retail space. The application was tabled by the Planning
Commission in August, 2013 to allow the applicant to work out issues required by
County staff. The Planning Commission could revisit the application by the end of 2013.
A northern aerial view of the Heritage Commons site is shown below.
Aerial of Heritage Commons
The Heritage Commons site is presently only accessible via Front Royal Pike
(Route 522). Route 522 is a regional arterial that runs north-south from the Frederick
County line into the City of Winchester and then north somewhat circulating into West
Virginia. Relevant for the Heritage Commons proposal is its interchange with Route 50
and close proximity to the Route 50/17 interchange with I-81.
In front of the subject, Route 522 is a four lane, undivided roadway that runs in a
generally north-south direction parallel to Interstate 81. Route 522 provides quick access
8
to Millwood Pike (U.S. Route 68), about one mile north, which accesses Interstate 81’s
Exit 313 and the City of Winchester. Route 522 also provides direct access to a 150,000±
square foot Walmart south at its intersection with Tasker Road that opened in early-
2012. About 300 full-time employees work at the retailer, which includes a full grocery
store, garden center and pharmacy.
Heritage Commons Site Setting
Adjacent to the Walmart are two small industrial parks: Eastgate Industrial Park
and Jouan Global Center, which collectively include four tenants. The largest tenants in
the industrial park are the FBI Records Management Division, which occupies 160,300±
square feet at 170 Marcel Drive, and Home Depot Distribution Center, which occupies
9
755,860± square feet of space at 201 Rainville Road. Tenants in these parks are detailed
in the table below.
Developments at Eastgate Industrial Park and Jouan Global Center
Industrial Park Building Size
(Sq Ft) Years
Built Tenant
Eastgate Industrial Park
195 Rainville Rd 20,453 2003 Comcast Cable Communications
201 Rainville Rd 755,855 2003 Home Depot Distribution Center
(Subtotal) (776,308)
Jouan Global Center
141 Marcel Dr 70,000 1998 SpecialMade Goods & Services
170 Marcel Dr 106,296 1997
FBI Records Management
Division
(Subtotal) (176,296)
Total 238,151
The next important development area near Heritage Commons is located along
and off of Airport Road, immediately east of the Heritage Commons site. Developments
along Airport Road, which include residential, office and industrial uses, are detailed in
the paragraphs below.
Preston Place. East of the single-family homes that front Front Royal Pike is
Preston Place, a 236-unit affordable apartment complex that was built in three
phases under the federal LIHTC program during the 1992 to 1997 period. This
property is typically fully occupied and was recently renovated.
Winchester Regional Airport, a public use airport owned by the Winchester
Regional Airport Authority, is located along this roadway. The airport covers 375
acres and has one asphalt paved runway. Approximately 45 people work at the
airport.
Airport Business Park is located across the street from the Winchester Regional
Airport along Airport Road. The park consists of a total of nine structures on
Aviation Drive, Airport Road, Admiral Byrd Drive and Muskoka Court.
Collectively, development in this park contains 724,760± square feet of office and
industrial space on 110± acres, though much of this space is flex space with office
and industrial use.
The largest tenant in the industrial park is Kohl’s, which operates a 422,660±
square foot distribution center that opened on a 64.27-acre parcel in 1997 and
10
employs 300± people. M.I.C. Industries, a company that manufactures machines
that build steel buildings, operates its International Manufacturing Facility in a
150,000± square foot facility at 390 Airport Road. The company opened with 100
employees and added an additional 139 employees in 2004.
The most recent building to open in the industrial park is a 17,340± square foot
structure at 170 Muskoka Court, a service center operated by Averitt Express, a
provider of freight transportation and supply chain management.
Westview Business Centre is located east of the Winchester Regional Airport
along Millwood Pike’s intersections with Arbor Court and Victory Lane. This
industrial park consists of 27 structures. Collectively, Westview Business Centre
includes 802,310± square feet of space. The average structure size in this
industrial park is 29,720± square feet.
Several tenants in Westview Business Centre are not industrial in nature such as
Valley Cycle Center and Grove’s Winchester Harley-Davidson, two auto dealers
that occupy over 50,000 square feet in the park. The largest structure in the park
is a 100,000± square foot warehouse owned by Virginia Storage Services. Larger
tenants in the park include:
Blue Ridge Industries is a Winchester-based company that specialize in
manufacturing custom injecting molding. Blue Ridge Industries employs
60± people.
Annandale Millwork and Allied Systems Corporation is a Winchester-
based manufacturer of wall panels, hand rails and stairs. The company
employs 100± people on 40,000 square foot facility.
Clariant Corporation, a 30-employee chemical merchant wholesaler,
occupies 30,000 square feet.
Winchester Woodworking Corporation, a manufacturer of custom
millwork, employs 30 people and occupies 56,920 square feet.
Probuild, a manufacturer of wall panels, roof and floor trusses, employs
over 100 people and occupies 28,320 square feet.
Creative Urethanes, a manufacturer of castable and reaction injecting
molding and stamping, employs 30 people and occupies 30,000 square
feet.
11
A Prolawn Service Corp., a 15-employee Winchester-based landscaping
company that occupies 12,150 square feet.
Action Concrete Supplies, a 15-employee material merchant wholesaler
that occupies 24,000 square feet.
Navy Federal Credit Union, which operates in a 109,300 square foot
office structure on Security Drive, where it employees 900± people.
These area industrial and manufacturing firms employ approximately 3,000
people and represent a ready market for new retail space at Heritage Commons.
There are also five modest sized office buildings along Airport Road with a total
of nearly 70,000 square feet. These likely have 150+ employees.
The paragraphs to follow describe the developments north of Heritage
Commons along Front Royal Pike and Millwood Pike, east of Interstate 81. Included in
this area are structures occupied by FedEx Freight and Wilson Trucking Corporation,
among others. This area consists primarily of hotels, retailers, and offices. There are
older facilities but, in addition to the 3,000± employees at the industrial and office
buildings along Airport Road, another 1,500± employees are located here in the
following businesses.
Costco Warehouse. The Costco store is 129,220± square feet with 200± employee.
Delco Plaza is a 162,630± square foot retail center with a 52,690± square foot
Gabriel Brothers, a 29,000± square foot Food Lion, a 24,480± square foot Room
Store and a 14,400± square foot Body Renew.
Horizon Development Shopping Center has a 34,150± square foot Big Lots Store
and a 13,440± square foot Jo-Anne Fabrics & Crafts.
Restaurants in this area include: Cracker Barrel, IHOP, Texas Steakhouse &
Saloon, Hibachi Grill & Supreme Buffet, Golden Coral, Blue Fox Billiards Bar and
Grill Waffle House, Subway and Los Toltecos Mexican Restaurant.
Gas Stations in this area include: Citgo, Exxon, Shell and BP.
Office. The newest office developments built in this area were constructed in the
late-1980s and account for 73,100± square feet. The offices of the Middle East
District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, has 600± people employed here.
12
Hotels. Eight hotels consisting of a total of 808 rooms are located within this area.
Four were built during the 1980s, none were built in the 1990s and four were
built during the 2000s decade. The newest of these hotels is the 70-room, six-
story Aloft Winchester, which opened in June, 2010.
In summary, approximately 4,500± people are employed near the Heritage
Commons property in the locations described above. The larger County employers
close to the Heritage Commons site are shown in the map below. The purpose of the
detailed analysis of area employment is for the evaluation of one sours of demand for
market support for the retail space planned for Heritage Commons.
13
Several retailers are located west of Interstate 81 along S Pleasant Valley Road
and Millwood Pike, south of Shenandoah University and near the Heritage Commons
site. Retailers in this area are shown in the aerial below.
The above retailers consist of a mix of the large enclosed Apple Blossom Mall,
several retail strip centers (Winchester Commons, Winchester Station, Apple Blossom
Corners), and several large free-standing retailers such as K-Mart, Wal-Mart, Lowe’s,
and Best Buy. Major retailers in this area are listed in the chart below.
Retailers Along S. Pleasant Valley Road
Name Size Anchors
Apple Blossom Corners 240,560 Martin’s, Office Max, Kohl’s, Books-A-Million
Apple Blossom Mall 440,600 Belk, JCPenney, Sears
Delco Plaza 162,630 Gabriel Brothers, Food Lion, Room Store, Body Renew
Free Standing -- K-Mart, Lowe’s, Walmart, Best Buy
Pleasant Valley Marketplace 120,000 Staples, Dollar Tree
Winchester Commons 173,790 Target, T.J. Maxx, PetSmart, Home Depot, Pier 1 Imports,
Winchester Station 167,000 hhgregg, Ross, Bed Bath & Beyond, Michaels, Old Navy
Source: S. Patz & Associates field survey
Shenandoah University. The only university in Winchester-Frederick County is
Shenandoah University, a comprehensive private university, located approximately two
14
miles north of the Heritage Commons site. The university currently employs 229 full-
time and 171-part time employees for a total of 400 employees. Enrollment trends are
presented in the table below and show a Fall, 2012 enrollment of 4,176 students, of
which 58% are undergraduate students and 42% are graduate students in master’s or
doctoral-degree programs.
In terms of projected enrollment, Shenandoah University officials anticipate a
rough enrollment growth of about 5 percent by Fall 2017. This would push the
enrollment headcount to 4,380± students by Fall 2017. Most of this growth will be
realized in the undergraduate population.
Shenandoah University currently has 840 on-campus dorm beds for
undergraduates, which are typically fully occupied, with the remaining non-commuting
undergraduate and graduate students residing in off-campus, non-institutional
supported housing. No exclusive graduate housing is provided at the University.
Seventy-six percent of all First Year students (including transfer students) have lived on-
campus in recent years.
15
Shenandoah University has early plans to increase their on-campus bed count
from 840 to a target of 1,300 beds, which would allow the University to increase
enrollment. New construction in a phased-approach is planned to achieve this goal.
With the net gain of beds, several existing residence halls will be phased out while the
115-bed Parker Residence Hall will be remodeled for first year students and reduced to
95 beds.
Due to planned expansion at the university, the existing 840 beds could increase
to 950 beds by 2017, 1,190 beds by 2022 and 1,310 beds by 2027. This expansion plan
could be speculative, but will clearly be set in place well after Heritage Commons is
started and the addition of on-campus beds will be modest in the early stages of
expansion.
Data indicates that about 3,400± university students currently live off-campus,
primarily in private apartments with some students living at their family home. Even
with the expansion of on-campus beds to 1,300± in the future, there will be at least
3,000± students living off-campus not including increases in enrollment over the next 5+
years (e.g. a five percent growth is anticipated by 2017). The presence of these students
creates a strong market for apartments at nearby locations.
Summary. The above analysis has a three-fold purpose. First and foremost is to
identify the site location and determine whether the setting is marketable for the types of
land uses proposed. The site has excellent highway access, proximity to employment
centers and commercial facilities and no nearby blighting land uses. It is an ideal
location for students and staff from Shenandoah University.
Second, Heritage Commons will have 100,000+ square feet of retail space at build
out. The 4,500± employees working in the immediate area, along Airport Road and
Millwood Avenue, and 2,500± new employees in office and retail space to be built on
site, represent a ready market for new retail tenants.
16
The third issue is to establish that, along with the new County courthouse that is
planned for the site, this location will be competitive for new office space development.
The data presented above shows that between office space and flex industrial space, the
Route 522/Airport Road corridor, have an abundance of office and flex space, albeit
primarily mature space.
Heritage Commons Development Plan
The proposed Generalized Development Plan (GDP) for Heritage Commons is
presented below. It shows five commercial land bays with a total of 45± acres. These
are located on the north side of the property. Two have frontage along Front Royal Pike
and two have frontage on the new bridge that is planned for a I-81 crossing. The new
150,000 square foot county administration building is to be located in Land Bay IV at the
corner of Freedom Plaza and Front Royal Drive.
The residential area consists of two large land bays with about 75 acres. These
are designated for apartment unit development and townhome development, as shown
on page 3 above.
The GDP has 12.12 acres set aside for open space and an internal site trail system.
The open space area includes the attractive Buffalo Lick Run Stream Valley. There are
23.42 acres of road network planned within the 150-acre property, including the traffic
circle that connects Freedom Plaza Boulevard, Warrior Drive and Center Boulevard.
17
The GDP is prepared in a general format at this time, as the site requires
rezoning with Frederick County staff input to the plan. A more detailed development
plan will be prepared as the planning process progresses. However, at this time, 1,050
market rate, upscale apartment units are planned and these will likely be built in several
phases of 150 units per phase. This, of course, can change based on market trends, but a
phased development is likely.
The following elevations represent a design concept under study for the first
phase of the apartment unit development. It is possible that several apartment
developers will be involved so that other designs are likely for future phases.
18
The townhomes are to be priced at approximately $240,000, including any “add-
ons” to the base price. These will also be built in phases, with an expectation of 30±
home sales per year, with the development pace dependent on the expected sales pace.
(Townhome Prototype Elevation Here)
TBD
19
Frederick County officials have selected the Heritage Commons property for the
location of a new County administration building, which will be relocated from
downtown Winchester.
The County’s current 65,000+ square foot office building at 107 No. Kent
Street and other County occupied buildings contain approximately
100,000 square feet. The new building at Heritage Commons will have
150,000 square feet and may include employees of the County’s School
Board. In total, at least 300 people are expected to work at the building.
Project opening is likely in 2015/16. Following is the conceptual
rendering for the building with an exterior that is designed to resemble a
historic textile mill.
County Office Building Elevation
With the County office building on site, the sponsors of Heritage Commons have
committed to construct an adjacent 70,000± square foot office building to have offices for
companies that do business with County government staff. This building is planned to
be built at the same time frame as the County office building.
These two buildings will account for 220,000 square feet of the proposed 600,000
square foot office space. The remaining 380,000 square feet will be built over the
20
following 15± years, at a rate of 25,000 square feet per year on average, based on market
trends, as presented in the paragraphs which follow.
Heritage Commons will also have 100,000± square feet of retail space.
At this time, the Heritage Commons sponsor has verbal commitments for at least
30,000 square feet, including:
A convenience center
Two restaurants
Bank
Child day care center
This total is likely to be expanded to at least 50,000 square feet by project opening.
Retail/Commercial space includes a wide range of uses for both residential consumers
and area businesses.
Thus, at project opening, Heritage Commons is likely to have:
150± apartment units available for lease
30± townhomes for sale
220,000± square feet of office space built
50,000 square feet of retail space within a small center, on pad sites or as
ground floor space within office buildings
The remaining portions of the development will be built over time, as described in the
market analysis for each land use.
East Tevis Street/Freedom Plaza Bridge. In addition to the new County office
building on site, Winchester City officials and Frederick County officials have approved
the construction of the East Tevis Street extension through the Glaize Property in
Winchester east and on to the Heritage Commons property via a new bridge over I-81,
as shown in the aerial to follow. The road alignment through the Heritage Commons
property is also noted. It is possible that the roadway improvements will start in 2014
and be completed in 2017.
21
The Glaize Property is a proposed commercial site that will likely be developed
with new retail space in time. The original site proposal for the Glaize Property was a
project named The Shoppes at Tevis, but this is no longer active. The connection of the
bridge to East Tevis Street at Legge Boulevard provides a direct connection to the Apple
Blossom Mall area and the adjacent retail centers along Legge Boulevard and Pleasant
Valley Road. The bridge connection at Freedom Plaza Boulevard through Heritage
Commons extends to the primary site entrance at Front Royal Pike. Center Boulevard is
another major arterial through Heritage Commons and could be extended past the site
to Front Royal Pike near Patsy Cline Boulevard as part of this project, but that section is
not part of the bridge funding.
This will be a major roadway improvement for the Heritage Commons site and is
likely to be greatly used in time due to the planned replacement of the I-81 bridge at Exit
313 at the Route 50/522 interchange, as the current bridge requires replacement. This
construction project could take 10 years before construction begins.
Alignment of East Tevis Street Extension and New I-81 Overpass
22
Section I Market Analysis
This section of the report is a summary market analysis in support of the four
land uses proposed for Heritage Commons, including apartment unit development, for-
sale townhome sales, office space and retail space. The analysis of each land use follows
a demographic and economic analysis of the market area of Winchester and Frederick
County.
Demographic Analysis
The Census total population count for 2010 for the two jurisdictions of the
market area is a combined 104,510. The 2010 market area census is nearly 22,000 above
the 2000 count, which is an average net population growth of 2,000 per year. The
majority of the market area population, and most of the growth over the past 30± years,
has been in the County.
The population forecast of 118,800 by 2018 is based on a lower growth rate in the
market area compared with the 2000 decade. The growth during the 2010 to 2013 period
has been slower due to the past recession and the effects of expected continued modest
growth in the new home sales market. This trend is reflected in the American
Community Survey (ACS) by the Census, which shows a 2012 population of 107,200.
However, jobs and employment are now increasing and the FBI, in particular, is
expected to bring in 1,200 employees to the market area by 2016. While that is not a
“hard and fast” date, many of the new employees are likely to move to the market area
by 2018.
We used a five-year projection period, as that is likely the maximum period for a
comfort level in forecasting for real estate development. The first phase of development
at Heritage Commons will occur during this period. Thus, for housing, in particular,
current trends are used for the post-2018 time frame.
23
Additionally, the comparison between at-place jobs and employment is modest
in terms of out-commuting. The higher gas prices are a deterrent for market area
workers to commute to Northern Virginia. All of these factors were taken into account
for our forecast population of 118,800 by 2018.
Table 1: Trends and Projections of Population and Households by Tenure and Income,
Heritage Commons, VA Market Area, 1990-2018 (Constant 2013 Dollars)
1990 2000 2010 2018
Market Area Population 67,670 82,790 104,510 118,800
Winchester City 21,950 23,590 26,200 --
Frederick County 45,720 59,210 78,310 --
Group Quarters Population 1,220 1,570 1,940 2,100
Household Population 66,450 81,220 102,570 116,700
Persons Per Household 2.60 2.53 2.60 2.53
Households 25,550 32,100 39,470 46,130
Percent Renters 32.9% 30.5% 30.2% 30.7%
Renter Households 8,500 9,780 11,940 14,160
Renters Within Income Category 1/ 4,220 4,530 5,140 6,070
Percent Within Income Category 1/ 49.6% 46.4% 43.1% 42.9%
Note: 1/ Renter households with incomes exceeding $40,000.
Source: 1990, 2000 and 2010 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census; and S.
Patz and Associates, Inc.
Half of the market area’s Group Quarters population consists of students in on-
campus dorms at Shenandoah University. The other part of the Group Quarters
population is persons in hospitals, assisted living facilities and institutions. The growth
in Group Quarters shown in Table 1 is based on the new dorm rooms expected to be
built by Shenandoah University by 2018. The subtraction of Group Quarters population
from total population is Household Population, which are the basis for the projection
new housing unit demand.
Household Trends. In 2010, the market area had 39,470 households based on the
census count. This total is 7,400± more than in 2010. A key point in the growth of
households is that the average household size increased considerably during the 2000
decade from 2.53 to 2.60 in 2010. This is the result of persons doubling up during the
recession due to job losses and/or salary deductions. It is also the result of persons not
24
forming their own household due to the overall economy. The increase in the average
household size meant that growth in 2010 was below the level normally created by
population growth.
For 2018, a reversal of the increase in the average household size is expected to
decrease to 2.53, the same rate as in 2000. At this rate, households are expected to
increase to 46,130 by 2018, a net growth of nearly 6,700 households.
Renter Households. In 2010, the census count showed that 30.2 percent of all
market area households were renters. That percentage would include Shenandoah
University students who live off campus. The percentage of renters in the market area
declined over the past 20+ years. It has continuously been below the state and national
averages. However, based on the data to be presented below on new apartment unit
additions to the market area since 2010, and for the post-2013 period, a slight increase in
the percentage of renters is expected. The market area is projected to have 30.6 percent
renter households by 2018, or 14,110 renters.
Higher-Income Renter Households. We used $40,000 as the minimum
household income for renters who can afford the rents at new apartment developments.
Those rents are approximately $950 to $1,000 net for a new one-bedroom unit and $1,100
to $1,150 net for a two-bedroom with two full baths. At 30% of income allocated to net
rent, a household with an income of $40,000 can afford a net rent of approximately
$1,000. That is currently the market for new apartment units.
The 2010 Census did not provide income data. The ACS data are not fully usable
related to household income calculation, as they are not consistent with past biannual
census counts. Thus, the 2010 estimate for renters with incomes of $40,000, when
incomes are reported in 2013 dollars, is based on a calculation of trend data from the
1990 and 2000 census by the staff of SPA.
25
Our estimates show that the market area has 5,100+ renters in the income
category under study in 2010 and that total is expected to expand to 6,070 renters by
2018. The percentage of higher income renters is likely to continue to decline, due to the
expected increase in the for-sale home market, but the absolute totals are expanding.
Overall, there has been steady demographic growth in the market area and that
trend should continue. There has been a sizable growth in renters during the 2000
decade, with approximately 30 percent of net household growth renter households.
These data show a continued need for new rental housing. In the paragraphs below, the
rental household data and trends will be compared with past apartment unit
development and active proposals to calculate net apartment unit demand over the
forecast period.
Owner Households. As of 2010, the market area had 15,000± owner households
with incomes, reported in constant 2013 dollars, of $75,000 and above. That is the
income range identified as the target market for new home sales in the market area,
including the type of for-sale housing proposed at Heritage Commons. By 2018, the
number of home owners with incomes of $75,000 and above is expected to increase by
3,500.
Base Economic Trends. At-place jobs in the market area increased in 2010, 2011
and 2012, after a decline in 2009 during the recession. The 2013 data, not yet published,
are likely to show the market area’s at-place jobs are at or above the peak year of 2008
and are likely to continue to expand with an improving national economy.
This trend is also true for employment, which differs from at-place jobs and
refers to the number of market area residents who are employed. Market area
employment is increasing and unemployment is decreasing.
There are a few large developments in the market area that are expected to
generate net population, employment and job growth, including:
26
FEMA. The federal government presence is growing in the Winchester Region.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency opened an operation headquarters
at 430 Market Street in 2008. The facility houses more than 600 FEMA staff and is
the agency’s Disaster Operations Center.
Army Corps of Engineers. Also in the area is the US Army Corps of Engineers
located at 255 Fort Collier Road. The industrial site houses office, printing,
warehouse and secured facilities for headquarters of the agency’s Transatlantic
Division.
The FBI is currently planning on building a 256,430± square foot facility in
Frederick County, called the Records Management Facility. The facility will
consolidate FBI’s paper records and also provides storage for National Archives
and Records Administration’s (NARA) compliant records in an environmentally
conditioned, fire-protected space. The proposed facility will include a record
management building. This facility is anticipated to open in 2016 and could
employ as many as 1,200 people.
McKesson Corp., a health care services and information technology company, is
building a new distribution center in 2013 that will employ 205 people. The
company will distribute medical and surgical supplies to physician offices,
surgery centers, long-term care facilities and home care businesses.
Navy Federal Credit Union is building another facility on its Winchester campus
to add 400 jobs. The credit union currently has about 500 workers at its site on
Security Drive in Winchester. Most of the new jobs will be customer-support
positions with salaries above $40,000. The facility is scheduled to open in late-
2013.
Rubbermaid Commercial Products Inc. announced that it would expand its
operations in Winchester in 2011 and establish a distribution center in Frederick
County as the company invests in high-technology, energy-efficient injection
molding machines to upgrade the Winchester facility’s production capability into
a state-of-the-art logistics center. The result will be the creation of 71 new jobs.
HP Hood operates a 375,080± square foot milk plant at 160 Hood Way where it
employs over 420 people. The company announced that it would expand the
facility to increase ultra-high temperature production capacity, creating 75 new
jobs.
Apartment Market Analysis
Following is a summary market analysis for new apartment unit development in
the market area. For this analysis, we studied the market for 150-200 new units for
27
initial project development at Heritage Commons. The study is for a new modern
apartment complex with only one- and two-bedroom units. The forecast date for unit
delivery is 2016/17. Current market area net rents (2013 dollars) for new units are $950
to $1,000 for a one-bedroom and $1,100+ net for a two-bedroom with two full baths. We
also assume an apartment complex with a competitive mix of on-site amenities.
Within these parameters, market support is analyzed for renter households with
incomes of $40,000 and above. A $950 net rent will require an income of $38,000 and
above, based on 2013 dollars. Thus, to be somewhat conservative, we used $40,000 as
the minimum household income for the target market.
The demographic analysis is presented in Table 1 on page 23. The key
demographic factor under study for new apartment unit development is the magnitude
and growth of renters with incomes of $40,000 and above. Our analysis shows that the
market area had approximately 5,100 renter households with incomes of $40,000+ in
2010, at the time of the Census count. By 2018, this total is expected to increase to about
6,100, or a growth of 900+ renters for the 2010 to 2018 period, or 100+ households per
year on average.
Competitive Apartment Market. The following table shows a list of existing
rental housing units that would be competitive, or somewhat competitive, with new
units at Heritage Commons, once built. Except for twelve (out of 48 total) apartments at
Cedar hill that were just leased in August, 2013, the market area has only three
apartment complexes that were built since 2003 and none since 2005. Summerfield and
Stuart Hill are the two newer and better apartment properties in the market area. In
studying the Winchester area apartment market, only 40± percent of the identified better
rental units are in defined apartment complexes. There are condos for rent, a sizable
number of towns for rent by professional real estate companies, and currently 80 rentals
in adaptive reuse buildings in Old Town.
28
This list does not include rentals by individual owners – we found very few
available units on Craig’s List – and does not include single-family rentals. Some of the
units are rented by university students, but that is a small total of the occupancy shown
in Table 2.
There are five key points shown by the data in Table 2 in regard to the
magnitude and quality of the Winchester apartment market:
1. For a marketplace with 5,400+ renters (in 2013) with incomes of $40,000+,
the total competitive apartment unit count is modest, at 1,360±,
particularly given the fact that many of the apartment units listed in
Table 2 are below the rents proposed for new apartment unit
development and will not compete for the $40,000+ income renter;
2. The vacancy rate is near zero for the identified higher rent properties;
3. Most of the new apartment units being placed on the market at this time
are one-bedroom units in upper floors of renovated Old Town buildings;
(except for the units coming on line at Cedar Hill as noted below);
4. Nearly 60 percent of the apartment units that are listed in Table 2 were
built prior to 2000; and
5. Tasker Village, with 64 units, is the only market rent newer apartment
complex in the market area. Many of the other rental units in the County
are at towns and condos for rent.
29
Table 2 Characteristics of Competitive Apartment Complexes and
Other Higher End Rentals, Heritage Commons
Market Area, September, 2013
Date
Built
Total
Units
Vacant
Units
Apartment Complexes
Summerfield 2005 64
Treetops 1995 52
Stuart Hill 2003 180
Tasker Village 2005 64
Pemberton 1998 120
Peppertree 1987/89 194 ____
(Subtotal) (672) (0)
Other Rentals 1/
Lakeside Condo Mid-2000’s 50
Tevis St. Apartments 1997 20
Fox Court 2002/03 25
Windstone TH’s 2003 75
Limestone TH’s Mid-2000’s 20
Old Town Rentals 2006/13 45
Saunders Construction Rentals NA 120
Oakcrest Realtors NA 130
Hables Real Estate NA 210
(Subtotal) (695) (10)
Total 1,359 10
Notes: 1/ Totals include rentals that are managed by these companies.
Source: Field and telephone survey by S. Patz & Associates, Inc.
Pipeline Proposals. At this time, there are four active proposals for new
apartment unit development in the market area:
1. Jubal Square is a 140-unit apartment proposal that has been approved by
City officials for rezoning. Jubal Square is expected to attract Shenandoah
University students for at least 40 of the 140 planned units. This proposal
will likely be ready for occupancy by sometime in 2016. It includes 28
three-bedroom units and 20 two-bedroom units with dens. The
remainder are one- and two-bedroom units.
2. Old town Properties. City officials have approved the addition of 80
apartment units in adaptive reuse buildings in Old Town. These will
open for lease-up over the next year or so.
3. Cedar Creek Place is a 132-unit apartment proposal for a site along Cedar
Creek Grade at the western side of the City. It is in a preliminary study
phase at this time with a requirement for rezoning. The rezoning
application will be reviewed by the City planning commission in early-
30
October. It is likely that Cedar Creek Place will be approved and open by
early-2016.
4. Cedar Hill is a new construction 48-unit apartment building opening in
12-unit phases. The first building is now open and at least seven of 12
units are occupied. The second building is under construction and will
likely be ready for occupancy prior to the end of 2013. Site work has
started for the last two buildings. This is a non-amenitized property and
likely an attractive property for university students given its location.
The units are two- and three-bedroom.
These pipeline proposal data are summarized in the chart to follow with an
adjustment for apartment units expected to have some units occupied by Shenandoah
University students. These data show, if Jubal Square is built and Cedar Creek Place are
approved, the number of competitive market area apartment units for families will be
increased by 350 units.
Within the County, there are two active development proposals with apartment
units as plan components. One is Heritage Commons, the other is Madison Village,
which is located adjacent to the south side of Heritage Commons. Madison Village is
planned for 640 housing units, of which 250± units will be apartment units. The plan, as
reported to us, is for the apartment unit development to be the last phase of the
development.
Number of Planned Apartment Units
(2013-2018)
Jubal Square 100 1/
Cedar Hill 30 1/
Old Town Properties 80
Cedar Creek Place 132
Total 340 (rounded)
Note: 1/ Adjusted to exclude college
student occupancy.
Conclusions. Our demand analysis shows market support for 800± new
apartment units for the 2010 to 2018 period, excluding units to be occupied by area
college students. This projection could be conservative, given the large number of rental
units in investor-owned units and the recent increase and success of new apartment
31
complexes. The chart on page 30 shows that 340± units are likely to be built in the near
future, with the small Cedar Hill Apartment currently under construction and continued
addition of the 80 units planned in adaptive reuse buildings in Old Town Winchester.
The net demand for new units by 2018 is 460 units.
Jubal Square will be an attractive apartment property, but will have a large
percentage of large two’s and three’s. Cedar Creek Place is located on the west side of
the City and will contain all one’s and two’s in a mixture of four-story elevator buildings
and three-story gardens. Both will have a full range of amenities. Both are likely to be
in marketing in 2016 and 2017.
Prototype for Jubal Square Cedar Creek Place
Cedar Hill is a small, modest, non-amenitized apartment complex with a mix of
two’s and three’s. These units should be fully occupied by mid-2014.
32
Cedar Hill
Completed Building Building Under Construction
Madison Village, if approved by County officials, will have apartment unit
components, but likely the apartment units will not be developed for several years and
likely after the initial phases of development at Heritage Commons. The city of
Winchester has a future apartment site at Ward Plaza, if that site is redeveloped, and
another further site exists along the north end of Meadow Branch Avenue, but only after
Meadow Branch Avenue is extended to Route 50 in 2016 or after.
Thus, our analysis shows both a pent-up demand for new apartment units
currently and a net demand for 460± units over the next five years. There are no active
apartment proposals for new development at this time other than the apartment projects
listed above. The future apartment proposals – Madison Village, Ward Plaza and
Meadow Branch Avenue – are not yet ready to start and all of the pipeline proposals are
still several years in the future.
Thus, if the first 150 to 200 units are built at Heritage Commons in 2015/16 and
availability for occupancy by 2017, market support will clearly exist. The market for
better apartment units should continue to increase and a successful phase one of
apartment unit development should be a catalyst for future phases, as the market for
quality rental housing expands.
33
Townhouse Market Analysis
Heritage Commons will also have 150 townhomes that will be priced in the
$240,000 range, as an average, with upgrades to the base price, and reported in constant
2013 dollars. The chart below shows that there are four active new townhome
subdivisions in the market area at this time, and one, Orchard Hill, that was closed out
earlier this year. The average sales price for these homes is $225,700, but $236,300
without the lower priced Brookland Manor. These represent recorded sales prices with
current prices somewhat higher. These prices are in the same price range planned for
Heritage Commons.
Current Townhome Sale Prices
at Active Subdivisions
2013 Average
Sales Price
Autumn Glen $244,690
Brookland Manor $182,800
Fieldstone $240,000
Orchard Hill $240,000 2/
Snowden Bridge $234,540
(Average) 1/ ($236,300)
Note: 1/ Excludes Brookland Manor
2/ Currently sold out
There are only 100± lots available at these townhouse subdivisions at this time,
with another 200 or so lots with approvals that could be developed in time. The
Madison Village proposal has a mix of singles and towns and could add more
townhomes lots to this total, if approved, and a second rezoning proposal, Willow Run,
will add 1,390 homes on nearly 360 acres at build out, with approximately 400 of these
homes planned for townhomes. The owner of Willow Run has proffered that no more
than 200 homes would be built annually, so with other housing types planned, only a
limited number of townhomes can be added annually at this subdivision, which is
located on the west side of the market area near the SR 37 bypass near the Crest Hill
neighborhood of the County. The rezoning application was approved in Fall, 2012.
34
Following are photos of townhomes at four of the active subdivisions. Autumn
Glen is not included, as it is marketed as age-restricted housing.
Orchard Hill is now sold out and Autumn Glen is at near build out, as is
Brookland Manor. Current competition for towns at Heritage Commons will come from
Fieldstone and Snowden Bridge. Madison Village is approved and should be in
marketing at the same time as Heritage Commons.
Brookland Manor Fieldstone
35
Orchard Hill Snowden Bridge
The sales pace for new townhome sales in the market area was 72 in 2012 and
50± to date in 2013. The 2013 total will be near the 2012 figure, when reported on an
annualized basis. These two years represent start-up years for new home sales after the
recent recession. The market area annual average sale total should increase as buyer
confidence improves.
These data and analyses show full market support for the proposed price range
for towns at Heritage Commons. Data also show that 25 home sales annually during the
first year or two of marketing at Heritage Commons is likely the potential market,
indicating that a five to six year marketing period will be required for sell out of 150
townhomes, at the sale prices projected. The market area will have increased
competition for new townhome sales in 2014 and after. However, none of the
competitive sites have the locational advantages of Heritage Commons. Attractive and
well priced homes on Heritage Commons should be fully competitive, but within an
increasing competitive market.
36
Office Space
Heritage Commons is planned for 600,000 square feet of office space. That total
includes the proposed 150,000 square foot County Office Building and a 70,000 square
foot building planned for development by the sponsor of Heritage Commons as new
space for business that need close proximity to County government offices. The County
office building is likely to open in 2015/16. The sponsor’s planned building will open at
the same time. In addition to the 220,000 square feet of office space in these two
buildings, Heritage Commons will have land and approved master plan for 380,000
square feet of additional space.
Excluding some of the older office buildings in the historic downtown of
Winchester, and elsewhere in the region, and the buildings occupied by City agencies,
the market area has approximately 1.3 million square feet of newer office space, with
“newer” defined as space built since 1988. This total also excludes the existing 65,300
square foot County office building.
The following paragraphs summarize the findings of our research on the market
area office space:
Of the 1.3± million square feet of office space in the market area, 400,000
square feet (35%) is medical office space. These buildings are clustered
near the hospital on Amherst Street and along Jubal Early Drive. Both are
locations in the City. The Heritage Commons site is not likely to be a
competitive location for medical office space. One condo medical
building of 85,000 square feet is now under construction for early-2014
opening and is nearly full.
The medical office space is at a near 100% occupancy rate.
Excluding the large government buildings, such as FEMA and USACE,
the market area has 650,000± square feet of newer space. These are
building buildings of mostly 10,000 to 50,000 square feet.
For the 2000 to 2009 period, 12 non-medial related, general purpose office
buildings were built with a total of 280,000 square feet. For the 2000
decade, the average annual building pace for general purpose office space
37
was 28,000 square feet per year. This space has a 13± percent vacancy
rate.
The 501-519 Jubal Early Drive building with 39,500 square feet is the
newest office building in the market area. The building was started
during the recession and completed in 2012. It was recently purchased by
a tenant who will occupy the majority of the building.
The office space market in the market area “stopped” during the post-
2008 recession period. At present, there are no active proposals for new
space.
Along Airport Road are several “flex” office buildings with a mix of office
and industrial space. These buildings include 120,000 square feet of
space, plus the 110,000 square foot Navy Federal Credit Union.
Overall, the general purpose office space market is somewhat stagnant with only
the 39,000+ building on Jubal Early Drive built since 2009. The vacancy rate is high.
However, there are three positive issues to reemphasize:
1. The Federal Government is increasing its “pressure” in the area
and expanding the amount of office space that it requires;
2. Over half of the general office space in the market area is mature;
and
3. The County’s mature market area flex space represents an
expansion market for new office space.
The Heritage Commons site is well located for office space development,
particularly with the new County office building on site. Thus, Heritage Commons will
likely be competitive for new office space after the new County office building is open.
At best, Heritage Commons can attract 25,000 square feet of office space per year, with
expected additional County space and possibly a large federal government space. This
pace of development would require 15± year for full build out of the “available” sites for
380,000 square feet of office space over and above the 220,000 committed square feet.
Retail Space
Heritage Commons will have approximately 100,000 square feet of
retail/commercial space. This will be primarily restaurant space, personnel service
38
space and non-retail space such as banks, child day care center, business service space,
coffee shops, computer store, etc. Only half of the space is expected to be classified as
retail space for resident expenditure potential. As shown on page 19, the sponsor
already has discussions with businesses that would occupy 30,000 square feet, of which
20,000 square feet will compete for expenditure potential for consumer goods.
At build out, Heritage Commons will have 1,200 homes occupied by households
with an average income (2013 dollars) of $65,000. These households have a combined
household income of $78 million. Households in this income category will spend 15
percent of their income for: (1) food consumed away from home; (2) some food for home
preparation; (3) miscellaneous purchases; (4) personal services; etc. That total is $11.7
million, of which 20 percent can be “captured” by on-site retailers, if retail space is
available, or about $2.34 million.
On-Site Residential Retail Sales Analysis at Buildout
(2013 dollars)
Number
On-Site Households 1,200
Average Household Income $65,000
Total Household Income $7,800,000
Convenience Purchases (at 15%) $11,700,000
On-Site Capture (20%) $2,340,000
There will be 2,000 on-site employees at the 600,000 square feet of on-site office
space, if built, and 5,000± employees in area businesses. These employees will likely
spend an average of $10 per day for 260 work days for lunch and other local purchases,
for a total of $18.2 million. If attractive retail stores are available on site at Heritage
Commons, 20 percent of this expenditure potential, or $3.6 million can be captured by
on-site retail stores.
39
On-Site and Area Employee Retail Lunch Time
Expenditure Potential
(2013 dollars)
Number
On-Site and Area Employees 7,000
Lunchtime Daily Expenditure
Potential (260 days)
$10.00
Annual Lunchtime Expenditure
Potential
$18,200,000
Heritage Commons Retail Store
Capture (at 20%)
$3,600,000
These two sources of retail sales expenditure, plus a 20% inflow sales from other
area households will generate total retail sales of $7.13 million. At an average sales per
square foot of $200, this annual sales potential will support 35,600 square feet of retail
space.
Thus, to support 100,000 square feet of commercial space on Heritage Commons,
the majority of the space needs to be service and business related. This could be feasible
with quality office tenants on site.
Market Study Conclusion
The projection of real estate development over a 15+ year period is speculative,
at best. However, there are sufficient data to provide a comfort level that full market
support exists for the Heritage Commons proposal, as presented, with the following
qualifications:
Even with increased competition, the apartment unit and townhome
totals are marketable within a 15-year development period at Heritage
Commons.
To achieve 600,000 square feet of office space, in or beyond the 15± year
development period, will require one or more sizable users. The site
setting and new bridge over I-81 should allow for that.
40
To achieve 100,000 square feet of retail space, given the nearby
competition, at least one sizable tenant of 15,000+ square feet will be
required.
We used the proposed land use totals for the FIA to follow. Adjustments can be
made to this calculation, if required.
41
Section II Fiscal and Economic Impacts Analysis
The fiscal and economic impacts analysis to follow is presented in two ways:
first, those impacts which occur directly from activities on-site at Heritage Commons;
and, second, those impacts which occur off-cite due to multiplier or spin-off effects of
resident and business expenditures in the County. The off-site impacts will be explained
further on in this report; the present section deals with the on-site impacts. The on-site
impacts include taxes generated by the development that will accrue to the County,
such as the real property and personal property taxes for the development and its
residents and businesses.
The fiscal impacts analysis also projects the public service and facility costs to be
incurred by Frederick County by development on-site and for off-site spin-off effects.
The results of the fiscal impacts analysis will be to compare the tax revenues generated
by property development with the tax-supported costs incurred by the County to
determine the net fiscal impacts in terms of a revenue surplus or deficit over costs. This
is done for both on-site and off-site impacts. Total annual impacts for the property at
buildout of the project will be projected at the outset, to be followed by impacts by five-
year phases over the 15-year course of development of the site. Results are given in
constant year 2013 dollars, rounded to the nearest ten dollars.
Summary of Fiscal Impacts
This section of the report for Heritage Commons will detail the economic and
fiscal impacts of the development over its 15-year development period, with the
recognition that the off-site impacts may lag somewhat behind development and on-site
impacts as the market responds to changes in demand for goods and services. Table 3
presents a summary of the fiscal impacts that will be derived in this section of the report.
It shows the sources of net fiscal benefits, being the difference between tax revenues
generated and tax-supported costs incurred by the County to serve Heritage Commons.
These are annual impacts, expressed in constant 2013 dollars, to avoid projecting
inflation rates. The overall yearly impact of Heritage Commons after buildout and full
42
response by the local economy would be $4.3 million in net revenue surplus for
Frederick County. The paragraphs to follow present the derivations of these figures.
Table 3. Summary of Tax Revenues, Tax-supported Costs, and Net Fiscal
Benefits, On-site and Off-site, by Development Components at
Buildout, Heritage Commons, Frederick County, Virginia (constant
$2013)
Development Component
Tax
Revenue
Tax-supported
Costs
Net Fiscal
Benefit
Apartments
On-site Impacts $1,840,540 -$1,264,880 $575,660
Off-site Impacts $454,600 -$118,750 $335,850
Total Impact $2,295,140 -$1,383,630 $911,510
Townhouses
On-site Impacts $389,750 -$427,670 -$37,920
Off-site Impacts $130,920 -$31,380 $99,540
Total Impact $520,670 -$459,050 $61,620
Commercial Floor Space
On-site Impacts $445,240 -$66,280 $378,960
Off-site Impacts $637,270 -$118,750 $518,520
Total Impact $1,082,510 -$185,030 $897,480
Office Floor Space
On-site Impacts $1,421,610 -$451,930 $969,680
Off-site Impacts $1,887,940 -$399,700 $1,488,240
Total Impact $3,309,550 -$851,630 $2,457,920
Total Heritage Commons
On-site Impacts $4,097,140 -$2,210,760 $1,886,380
Off-site Impacts $3,110,730 -$668,580 $2,442,150
Total Impact $7,207,870 -$2,879,340 $4,328,530
Sources: FY2014 Adopted Budget of Frederick County, Virginia; U.S. Department
of Commerce; and S. Patz & Associates, Inc.
43
On-site Impacts: Tax Revenues
The revenues to be considered in this report are taxes collected by Frederick
County for General Fund use. These include the property taxes, utility tax, and other
smaller taxes. The paragraphs to follow document the derivation of the tax amounts for
the on-site development at the property.
Real Property Tax. For convenience, the real property (or real estate) tax is
treated, first, for the residential development on-site, and then for the non-residential
development on-site. This separation is done to simplify the presentation. Total taxes
for residential and non-residential will then be combined to give total on-site taxes.
Table 4 presents the findings for the real property tax for the residential units to be built
at Heritage Commons, which include both rental apartments and for-sale townhouses.
The table is straightforward: numbers of units are multiplied by average market value
per unit, and the result is taxes at the County tax rate of $0.585 per $100 of value.
Market values per unit were confirmed by field research on competitive projects. The
total tax from residential units at the property would be almost $920,000 at buildout.
Table 4. Derivation of Real Property Tax for Residential Units On-site at Heritage
Commons, at Buildout, Frederick County, Virginia (constant $2013)
Apartments Townhouses Subtotal
Value Per Unit $115,000 $240,000 $130.620
Number of Units 1,050 150 1,200
Total Market Value $120,750,000 $36,000,000 $156,750,000
Real Estate Tax Per $100 $0.585 $0.585 $0.585
Total Real Estate Tax $706,390 $210,600 $919,990
Tax Per Unit $673 $1,404 $764
Sources: FY 2014 Adopted Budget for Frederick County, Virginia, and S. Patz &
Assoc., Inc.
44
Market value for the non-residential (commercial and office) uses on site are
based on developer hard costs, plus soft costs, land costs and site work. The commercial
space includes both retail and services space. For the office space, only the taxable
amount is included, which is 450,000 square feet out of the total of 600,000 square feet to
be built on site. The remaining 150,000 square feet will be in public use and will be non-
taxable. The methodology follows that for the commercial uses, with unit costs
multiplied by number of square feet, and the resulting value multiplied by the real
property tax rate. Together, the non-residential uses would produce almost $555,000 in
taxes per year.
Table 5. Derivation of Real Property Tax for Non-residential Units On-site at
Heritage Commons at Buildout (constant $2013)
Commercial Office Subtotal
Cost Per Square foot $122.00 $183.50 $172.32
Number of Square Feet 100,000 450,000 550,000
Total Market Value $12,200,000 $82,575,000 $94,775,000
Real Estate Tax Per $100 $0.585 $0.585 $0.585
Total Real Estate Tax $71,370 $483,060 $554,430
Tax Per Square Foot $0.71 $1.07 $1.01
Sources: FY 2014 Adopted Budget for Frederick County, Virginia, and S. Patz &
Assoc., Inc.
The chart below summarizes real property taxes at the property for all residential
and non-residential uses. The total real property taxes from on-site development equals
approximately $1.5 million at buildout.
Residential Non-residential Total
Total Market Value $156,750,000 $94,775,000 $251,525,000
Real Estate Tax Per $100 $0.585 $0.585 $0.585
Total Real Estate Tax $916,990 $554,430 $1,471,420
45
Personal Property Taxes. Both residents and businesses are assessed personal
(business) property taxes. For residents, this is a tax on motor vehicles; for businesses it
is a tax on furniture, fixtures, and equipment (FF&E). To address residential personal
property taxes, the first step is to estimate the average depreciated value per vehicle in
the County. The sequence of calculation to achieve this are shown in Table 6 and
summarized as follows:
• The FY 2014 Adopted Budget for Frederick County gives an allocation of $41
million for expected personal property taxes.
• Based on the percent of real estate assessments that are residential – 69 percent –
it is estimated that residential personal property taxes are $28 million.
• To this base is added the amount of Personal Property Tax Relief Act (PPTRA)
funding the County is expected to receive from the State of Virginia, at 48
percent of residential property taxes, or about $14 million, bringing the total to
$42 million.
• Dividing the total residential personal property tax by the tax rate produces the
total assessed value of vehicles in the County, $864 million.
• According to the statistics section of the current budget, there are almost 30,000
households (occupied housing units) in the County, each having an average of
2.3 vehicles, for a County total of almost 69,000 vehicles.
• Dividing the number of vehicles into the total assessed value of vehicles gives an
average assessed value per vehicle of $12,600.
46
Table 6. Estimation of the Average Depreciated
Value of Residential Vehicles,
Frederick County, Virginia (constant
$2013)
Amount
Personal Property Tax FY 2014 $41,143,379
Percent Residential 0.69
Residential Prop. Tax $28,388,932
PPTRA @48% $13,626,687
Total Residential Tax $42,015,619
Residential Depreciated Value $864,518,902
Number of Households 29,858
Ave Vehicles Per Household 2.3
Number of Vehicles 68,673
Depreciated Value per Vehicle $12,589
Sources: FY 2014 Adopted Budget and Statistical
Section for Frederick County, Virginia,
and Frederick County Department of
Revenue
Table 7 applies the average assessed value per vehicle and the personal tax rate
in the County to the numbers of apartments and townhouses to be built at Heritage
Commons. This yields a personal property tax of $796,000 for the apartments and
$166,000 for the townhouses, for a residential total of $1.1 million. In the analysis, an
occupancy rate of 95 percent is assumed to account for normal vacancy and turnover.
This is a conservative figure, as actual occupancies may be higher.
47
Table 7. Personal Property Taxes For Residential Uses at Heritage Commons at
Buildout (constant $2013)
Apartments Townhouses Subtotal
Number of Households @95% 998 143 1,141
Vehicles Per Household 1.60 1.90 1.64
Number of Vehicles 1,596 271 1,867
Value Per Vehicle $12,589 $12,589 $12,589
Total Depreciated Value $20,091,799 $3,408,430 $23,500,229
Tax @ $4.86/$100 $976,460 $165,650 $1,142,110
Tax Per Unit $930 $1,104 $1,002
Sources: S. Patz & Associates, Inc.
For non-residential floor space, an average and total FF&E cost is shown in Table
8. This is depreciated to an average of 40. Multiplying by the tax rate yields the
projected business property tax for the proposed development, a total of $248,000 for the
non-residential properties.
Table 8. Personal Property Taxes For Non-residential Uses at Heritage
Commons, at Buildout (constant $2013)
Commercial Office Subtotal
Total Floor Space (Sq. Ft.) 100,000 450,000 550,000
FF&E/Square Foot $15 $25 $23
Total FF&E $1,500,000 $11,250,000 $12,750,000
Depreciated to 40% $600,000 $4,500,000 $5,100,000
Tax @ $4.86/$100 $29,160 $218,700 $247,860
Tax Per Square Foot $0.29 $0.49 $0.45
Sources: S. Patz & Assoc., Inc.
48
In the chart below, the on-site residential and non-residential personal property
taxes at Heritage Commons are added to give $1.3 million in annual taxes after
buildout.
Residential Non-residential Total
Total Depreciated Taxable Value $23,500,229 $5,100,000 $28,600,229
Tax at $4.86 Per $100 $1,142,110 $247,860 $1,389,970
Tax Per Unit/Square Foot $1,002 $0.45
Retail Sales Tax. Of the 100,000 square feet of commercial space, at Heritage
Commons it is estimated that 80 percent will be in convenience retail or restaurant
space, both subject to the retail sales tax. The remaining 20 percent would be comprised
of non-taxable personal and business services. This is a “best guess” est9mate at this
time. However, for the fiscal impacts analysis, it is a small tax and any changes will not
greatly affect the overall net tax revenue analysis.
With sales at buildout of $200 per square foot (an estimate that may change over
time depending on the retail/service space mix), sales receipts for the retail and
restaurant space would come to $16 million annually. These are modest levels of
business receipts because this center will not have an anchor tenant such as a big box
store or supermarket. These taxable sales yield $160,000 at 1.0 percent tax rate.
49
Table 9. Retail Sales Tax for the Commercial
Space at Heritage Commons at
Buildout (constant $2013)
Amount
Commercial Floor Space 100,000
Percent Retail/Restaurant 0.80
Retail/Restaurant Sq. Feet 80,000
Sales Per Square Foot $200
Total Taxable Sales $16,000,000
Sales Tax Rate 0.01
Total Sales Tax $160,000
Sales Tax Per Gross SF $1.60
Source: S/ Patz & Assoc., Inc.
Business License Taxes. Certain businesses are taxed in the County under the
Business, Professional, and Occupational License (BPOL) tax. The two cases in effect
here are taxes on retail sales and professional services, which include all private office
space. The commercial space is limited to retail space, and the office space excludes
government space. In Table 10, the respective BPOL tax rates are applied to the taxable
receipts in commercial and private office space, yielding a total of $685,000 in BPOL
taxes annually.
50
Table 10. Business, Professional, and Occupational (BPOL) Tax at the Non-
residential Uses at Heritage Commons at Buildout (constant $2013)
Commercial Office Total
Taxable Floor Space 80,000 450,000 530,000
Receipts Per Square Foot $300 $250
Total Receipts $24,000,000 $112,500,000 $136,500,000
Tax Rate Per $100 $0.20 $0.58
BPOL Tax $32,000 $652,500 $684,500
Tax Per Gross Square Foot $0.32 $1.45 $1.29
Source: S. Patz & Assoc., Inc.
Consumer Utility Taxes. Expenditures on utilities are typically taxed in Virginia
municipalities on at least three of the following utilities: electric, gas, water, land line,
cell phone, and internet. For households most utility taxes are approximately $3.00 per
month per utility; for three utilities this is $108 per household per year. For the
approximately 1,000 households in apartments, this comes to a tax of $107,730, and for
the approximately 140 households in townhouses this tax comes to $15,390, for a total in
residential units of $123,120.
Non-residential utility taxes are determined by backing residential utility taxes
out of the total County FY 2014 budget for utilities of $4.25 million. This is done in Table
11, resulting in an estimate of $40 in utility taxes per employee per year. With an
estimated 200 employees in commercial space, the utility tax for that space would come
to $8,060. Similarly, with 1,500 employees in private office space, the utility taxes in
offices would come to $60,470, for total non-residential utility taxes of $68,530.
51
Table 11. Utility Taxes Per Employee,
Frederick County, Virginia (constant
$2013)
Amount
County Utility Taxes FY 2014 $4,250,000
Number of Households 29,858
Utility Taxes Per Household $108
Residential Utility Taxes $3,224,664
Non-Residential Utility Taxes $1,025,336
Employment 25,433
Taxes Per Employee $40
Sources: FY 2014 Adopted Budget and Statistical
Section for Frederick County, Virginia
Total residential and non-residential utility taxes would total $191,660 annually
after buildout in constant year 2013 dollars.
Meals Tax. Of the 100,000 square feet of commercial space at the site, up to
80,000 square feet could be convenience retail or restaurants, the latter comprising 10,000
square approximately. Restaurants are fairly receipts intensive, here assumed at $300
per square foot, for sales(receipts) of $3.0 million. Tax on $3.0 million of sales at four
percent gives an amount of $120,000, as Table 12 shows.
52
Table 12. Meal Taxes at Heritage Commons at
Buildout (constant $2013)
Amount
Restaurant Floor Space Sq. Feet 10,000
Sales Per Square Foot $300
Total Sales $3,000,000
Tax at 4.0% $120,000
Tax Per Gross SF $1.20
Sources: S. Patz & Assoc., Inc.
Motor Vehicle Licenses. The analysis for personal property taxes estimated
1,596 vehicles at the apartments, and 271 at the townhouses. The license fee is $25 per
vehicle, giving total fees of $39,900 at the apartments and $6,770 at the townhouses.
Total fees would be $46,670.
Recordation Tax. Real estate ownership transfers are taxes at the state level at
the rate of $0.25 per $100 of value. One third of this is returned to the municipality, a
rate of $.0833 per $100. Assuming that townhouse units are registered for recordation
three times in 20 years – initial recordation plus resales every 10 years – and apartments
and non-residential are recorded twice in 20 years, the following annual average
recordation taxes would accrue (see Table 13).
53
Table 13. Annual Average Recordation Tax at Heritage Commons, at
Buildout (constant $2013)
Taxable Value
Total 20-
YearTax
Annual
Ave. Tax.
Apartments $241,500,000 $201,250 $10,060
Townhouses $108,000,000 $90,000 $4,500
Residential $349,500,000 $291,250 $14,560
Commercial $24,400,000 $20,330 $1,020
Office $165,150,000 $137,630 $6,880
Non-residential $189,550,000 $157,960 $7,900
Total Recordation Tax $539,050,000 $449,219 $22,460
Source: S. Patz & Assoc., Inc.
Summary of On-site Tax Revenues. Table 14 summarizes the taxes by type for
residential uses at the site, and Table 15 presents those taxes for non-residential uses.
Both tables are for project buildout. Residential taxes total $2.2 million and non-
residential taxes total $1.8 million. As Table 16 shows, the total tax revenue to accrue to
Frederick County at buildout of the site would come to $4.1 million annually, in constant
year 2013 dollars. Among the residential taxes, the major source is the apartments, as
they comprise many more units than do the townhouses.
54
Table 14. Summary of Taxes Residential Uses at Heritage Commons,
at Buildout, Frederick County, Virginia (constant $2013)
Apartments Townhouses Residential
Real Estate Tax $706,390 $197,440 $903,830
Personal Property Tax $976,460 $165,650 $1,142,110
Retail Sales Tax $0 $0 $0
BPOL Tax $0 $0 $0
Consumer Utility Tax $107,730 $15,390 $123,120
Meals Tax $0 $0 $0
Motor Vehicle Lic. Fee $39,900 $6,770 $46,670
Recordation Tax $10,060 $4,500 $14,560
Total Annual Taxes $1,840,540 $389,750 $2,230,290
Taxes Per Unit $1,753 $2,598 $1,989
Sources: S. Patz & Assoc., Inc.
Commercial space, being much less than office space, contributes a much smaller
portion of the non-residential tax revenue, just less than 25 percent. The total non-
residential tax of $1.8 million averages $3.35 per square foot in taxes.
55
Table 15. Summary of Taxes Non-residential Uses at Heritage
Commons, at Buildout, Frederick County, Virginia
(constant $2013)
Commercial Office Non-resid.
Real Estate Tax $71,370 $483,060 $554,430
Personal Property Tax $29,160 $218,700 $247,860
Retail Sales Tax $160,000 $0 $160,000
BPOL Tax $32,000 $652,500 $684,500
Consumer Utility Tax $8,060 $60,470 $68,540
Meals Tax $120,000 $0 $120,000
Motor Vehicle Lic. Fee $0 $0 $0
Recordation Tax $1,020 $6,880 $7,900
Total Annual Taxes $421,610 $1,421,610 $1,843,230
Taxes Per Sq. Foot $4.22 $3.16 $3.35
Sources: S. Patz & Assoc., Inc.
Among all taxes from the site, the two predominant ones are the two property
taxes, with approximately $1.4 million in tax receipts each for the County. This is about
35 percent of the taxes in each case, meaning that the property taxes account for almost
70 percent of total taxes. The BPOL tax is third in size, and $0.7 million, or 17 percent of
the total. This tax derives primarily from the office space.
56
Table 16. Summary of Taxes From Residential and Non-residential
Uses at Heritage Commons, at Buildout (constant $2013)
Residential Non-Resid. Total Amount
Real Estate Tax $903,830 $554,430 $1,458,260
Personal Property Tax $1,142,110 $247,860 $1,389,970
Retail Sales Tax $0 $160,000 $160,000
BPOL Tax $0 $684,500 $684,500
Consumer Utility Tax $123,120 $68,540 $191,660
Meals Tax $0 $120,000 $120,000
Motor Vehicle Lic. Fee $46,670 $0 $46,670
Recordation Tax $14,560 $7,900 $22,460
Total Annual Taxes $2,230,290 $1,843,230 $4,073,520
Sources: S. Patz & Assoc., Inc.
Costs to the County
The previous section has derived the major tax revenues that would accrue to
Frederick County from the on-site development at Heritage Commons. The fiscal
impacts analysis compares revenues with costs. In this case, since taxes are deposited in
the County’s General Fund, those revenues for the site are compared with the tax-
supported costs that the County would incur in serving the residents and businesses at
the site. Other sources of revenue and costs are excluded, since they accrue to separate
funds in which expenditures generally equal revenues.
The source for the tax-supported costs the County would incur for service to the
residences and businesses at Heritage Commons is the County’s FY 2014 Adopted
Budget. In the succeeding paragraphs the budget is presented both in terms of
budgeted revenues and budgeted expenses. The tax-supported portion of the budgeted
expenditures is derived and expressed on a per capita basis – for population
(representing residents), employment (representing businesses), and pupils
57
(representing costs of public education. The per capita costs to the County will be
applied to the population, employment and pupils at the site to determine the overall
costs to the County from the development of the site.
County Budget Expenditures. The recent history of expenditures in the
Frederick County budget is presented in Table 17. FY 2012 is the actual audited
expenditure, FY 2013 is the estimated expenditure, and FY 2014 is the current adopted
budget for the County. The total budget for FY 2014 of $133 million shows a small but
steady progression from FY 2012 through FY 2013. Of the total in FY 2014, the transfer
to the School Fund of $75 million represents 56 percent of the General Fund budget. The
School Fund has other sources of funding besides these tax transfers, such as state and
federal grants.
58
Table 17. Trends Annual General Fund Budgets, Frederick County, Virginia,
FY2012 to FY2014
FY2012 FY2013 FY2014
Actual Estimated Adopted
Functional Areas
Administration $7,807,957 $8,616,459 $8,394,217
Judicial Administration $1,909,957 $1,961,826 $2,124,752
Public Safety $23,653,636 $24,924,782 $25,469,242
Public Works $3,518,554 $3,405,482 $3,940,814
Health and Welfare $6,690,169 $6,411,108 $6,935,132
Community College $56,493 $56,493 $56,493
Parks, Rec. & Cultural $5,918,974 $4,690,909 $5,107,445
Community Development $1,680,290 $1,676,928 $1,818,346
Subtotal $50,235,750 $51,653,587 $53,846,441
Non-departmental
Transfers
School $71,021,559 $72,024,613 $75,353,472
Other $2,514,594 $2,561,645 $2,561,645
Subtotal $73,536,153 $74,586,258 $77,915,117
Other $335,501 $1,601,128 $1,262,849
Subtotal Non-departmental $73,871,654 $76,187,386 $79,177,966
Total General Fund $124,107,404 $127,840,973 $133,024,407
Sources: FY 2014 Adopted Budget for Frederick County, Virginia
County Budget Revenues. The purpose of presenting a summary of County
revenues in Table 18 is to show what portion is from by taxes. This proportion
represents the “tax burden” for the budget, representing the amount of the County’s
revenues that County residents and businesses must make up in taxes. Table 18 shows
that of the budgeted revenues for the last three fiscal years, taxes comprise 69 percent to
70 percent of the revenues for non-school expenditures. This is the non-school tax
burden. The transfer to the schools is 100 percent tax-supported
59
Table 18. Summary of General Fund Revenues, Frederick County, Virginia, FY2014
Actual Estimated Adopted
Revenue Source FY2012 FY2013 FY2014
General Property Taxes $86,822,543 $87,253,512 $87,168,379
Other Local Taxes $28,344,455 $30,134,962 $28,429,460
Total Taxes $115,166,998 $117,388,474 $115,597,839
Other Local Revenue $5,950,460 $7,078,590 $4,824,957
Total Local Revenue $121,117,458 $124,467,064 $120,422,796
Non-local Revenue $13,498,942 $13,215,840 $12,601,611
Total General Fund $134,616,400 $137,682,904 $133,024,407
Local Taxes $115,166,998 $117,388,474 $115,597,839
Less: School Transfer -$71,021,559 -$72,024,613 -$75,353,472
Taxes Except School $44,145,439 $45,363,861 $40,244,367
Total General Fund $134,616,400 $137,682,904 $133,024,407
Less: School Transfer -$71,021,559 -$72,024,613 -$75,353,472
Non-School Expenditures $63,594,841 $65,658,291 $57,670,935
Tax Burden Except Schools 69.4% 69.1% 69.8%
Sources: FY 2014 Adopted Budget for Frederick County, Virginia
Per Capita County Costs. In Table 19 budgeted General Fund expenditures for
FY 2014 are allocated to population, employment, and public school pupils. One
hundred percent of the General Fund transfer to the School Fund is tax supported,
meaning that General Fund tax-supported costs per pupil are $5,767 based on recent
enrollment of 13,066 pupils in the County school system. Non-school expenditures are
allocated by department to the two other classes of users, population and employment.
For most functional non-school departments, total FY 2014 expenditures are allocated to
the users in proportion to their numbers, 76 percent population and 24 percent
employment. The exceptions are health and welfare, community college, and parks,
recreation and culture, which are allocated in their entirety to population. The table
60
shows that the per capita cost of services and facilities for the population average $407
per capita; for employees, the amount is $301 per capita.
Table 20. General Fund Expenditures for Population and Employment, Frederick
County, Virginia, FY2014
Population Employment Total Gen. Fund
Administration $6,371,592 $2,022,625 $8,394,217
Judicial Administration $1,612,783 $511,969 $2,124,752
Public Safety $19,332,311 $6,136,931 $25,469,242
Public Works $2,991,257 $949,557 $3,940,814
Health and Welfare $6,935,132 $0 $6,935,132
Community College $56,493 $0 $56,493
Parks, Rec. & Cultural $5,107,445 $0 $5,107,445
Community Development $1,380,207 $438,139 $1,818,346
Other $2,902,965 $921,529 $3,824,494
Subtotal $46,690,184 $10,980,751 $57,670,935
Percent Tax Burden 69.8% 69.8% 69.8%
Total Tax Burden $32,581,697 $7,662,670 $40,244,367
Number of Persons 80,118 25,433 105,551
Per Capita $407 $301 $381
Schools Transfer $75,353,472 $0 $75,353,472
Percent Tax Burden 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Total Tax Burden $75,353,472 $0 $75,353,472
Number of Pupils 13,066 0 13,066
Per Capita $5,767 $0 $5,767
Total General Fund $122,043,656 $10,980,751 $133,024,407
Sources: FY 2014 Adopted General Fund Budget and Statistical Section, Frederick
County, Virginia, and S. Patz & Assoc., Inc.
On-site Costs to the County. Per capita costs for the County are multiplied by
population, employees and pupils at Heritage Commons to estimate the costs that
Frederick County will incur in serving the Heritage Commons development at buildout.
The following paragraphs derive the estimated costs to the County from the
development, first population, next pupils, and finally employment. Data in Table 21
show the number of households at 95 percent of all residential units, which it has been
61
shown is conservative. At $407 per capita, the apartments entail County population
costs of $690,000 annually, in constant year 2013 dollars. By comparison, the
townhouses entail $156,000 in population costs.
Table 21. General Fund Costs for Frederick County Allocated to
Residents at Heritage Commons,(constant $2013)
Apartments Townhouses Total
No. of Households 998 143 1140
Population/Household 1.7 2.7 1.83
Total Population 1,696 385 2,081
Cost Per Capita $407 $407 $407
Population Costs $689,610 $156,470 $846,080
Costs Per Unit $657 $1,043
Sources: FY 2014 Adopted General Fund Budget and Statistical
Section, Frederick County, Virginia, and S. Patz & Assoc.,
Inc.
School costs have the greatest cost impact from the site on the County. The key
to school costs is the pupil generation rate, that is, the number of public school pupils
that can be expected, on average, from each housing unit. The pupil generation rate for
apartments is based on the area’s two better and most comparable apartments. Both
happen to be in Winchester; there is only one non-subsidized apartment complex in the
County, and it is not of the quality that will be developed at the Heritage Commons site.
There are few decent apartment comparables to evaluate student generation rates for the
study of Heritage Commons, as most area apartment communities are at lower rents.
Pepper Tree and Stuart Hill are the two best examples of comparables to Heritage
Commons. Pupil generation rates for those two apartments are shown in the chart
below and used for the analysis of apartment unit pupil generation at Heritage
Commons.
62
Apartments Pupils Units Rate
Pepper Tree 20 194 0.103
Stuart Hill 9 180 0.050
Total 29 374 0.078
To be more conservative, a pupil generation rate of 0.1 pupils per apartment unit
is assumed. For townhouses, the rate for better properties is 0.3 pupils per unit. For the
townhouses, a similar approach had been taken, in the survey of existing new, active
comparable townhouse developments to assess their pupil generation rates. Overall,
these are 0.33 pupils per townhouse, as follows (these data are from the Frederick
County School District).
Townhouses Pupils Units Rate
Brookland Manor 20 68 0.294
Snowden Bridge 20 44 0.455
Fieldstone 8 34 0.235
Total 48 146 0.329
At $5,767 in General Fund taxes per pupil, the 147 pupils expected at the site
would generate $0.8 million in tax-supported school costs for the County, $0.6 million
from the apartments and $0.2 million for the townhouses.
63
Table 22. Costs to Support Public School Pupils at Heritage
Commons by Housing Type (constant $2013)
Apartments Townhouses Total
No. of Households 998 143 1,140
Pupils Per H'Hold 0.100 0.330 0.129
No. of Pupils 100 47 147
Cost Per Pupil $5,767 $5,767 $5,767
School Costs $575,270 $271,200 $846,470
Cost Per Unit $548 $1,808 $705
Sources: FY 2014 Adopted General Fund Budget and
Statistical Section, Frederick County, Virginia,
Frederick County School District, and S. Patz &
Assoc., Inc.
The following chart summarizes the costs to the County from the residential
development proposed for the site:
Apartments Townhouses Total
Population Costs $689,610 $156,470 $846,080
School Costs $575,270 $271,200 $846,470
Total Costs $1,264,880 $427,670 $1,692,550
Costs from the businesses at Heritage Commons come from the number of
employees at the establishments. Costs are relatively small from the commercial space
since it is of limited extent, at $60,000 annually. Costs attributed to employees in office
space would come to $450,000 for 1,500 employees.
64
Table 23. Costs for to Support Employees at Heritage
Commons (constant $2013)
Commercial
Office
(Taxable) Total
Floor Space SF 100,000 450,000 550,000
Sq. Ft./Employee 500 300 324
Employees 200 1,500 1,700
Cost Per Employee $301 $301 $301
Employment Costs $60,260 $451,930 $512,190
Costs Per Sq. Ft. $0.60 $1.00 $0.93
Sources: FY 2014 Adopted General Fund Budget and
Statistical Section, Frederick County, Virginia, and S.
Patz & Assoc., Inc.
Net Fiscal Impact. The net fiscal impact is the net benefit in terms of the surplus
(or deficit) of tax revenues compared to tax-supported costs for Frederick County from
Heritage Commons, as planned. At buildout Heritage Commons would produce a total
net surplus revenue of $1.9 million, as shown in Table 24. This is the difference between
revenue of $4.1 million and costs of $2.2 million annually. Over 70 percent of the net
benefit would come from the non-residential components of the development because of
the high costs of public school education for the residential components.
65
Table 24. Summary of On-site Tax Revenues, County Costs, and Net Fiscal
Benefit, by Type of Development at Heritage Commons at Buildout
(constant $2013)
Apartments Townhouses Residential
Total Tax Revenue $1,840,540 $389,750 $2,230,290
Tax-supported Costs -$1,264,880 -$427,670 -$1,692,550
Net Fiscal Benefit $575,660 -$37,920 $537,740
Number of Units 1,050 150 1,200
Net Benefit Per Unit $548 -$253
Commercial Office Non-residential
Total Tax Revenue $421,610 $1,421,610 $1,843,220
Tax-supported Costs $60,260 -$451,930 -$512,190
Net Fiscal Benefit $361,350 $969,680 $1,331,030
Number of Sq. Feet 100,000 450,000 550,000
Net Benefit Per S.F. $3.61 $2.15
Residential Non-residential Total
Total Tax Revenue $2,230,290 $1,843,220 $4,073,510
Tax-supported Costs -$1,692,550 -$512,190 -$2,204,740
Net Fiscal Benefit $537,740 $1,331,030 $1,868,770
Source: S. Patz & Associates, Inc.
Off-site Impacts: Economic and Fiscal
In addition to the revenues and costs that accrue to Frederick County from the
development “on-site,” as described above, there are also off-site impacts that occur as a
result of residents, employees and businesses expenditures throughout the County
County, and as other businesses re-spend the business receipts off-site for the purchase
of goods and services from other vendors in the County. The multipliers used in this
analysis are specific to Frederick County, Virginia. Consumer budgets are identified by
the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics by area and income level. There is no direct budget
information for Frederick County, and the income level for the Washington, D.C. area is
66
too high to be applicable here. Instead, national data for a budget for household income
in the $50,000’s has been chosen for the apartments, and household incomes of $90,000
for residents in the townhouses.
About 77 percent of this income is spent, other uses being taxes, savings and
transfers to others not living in the household. It is assumed that 40 percent of all
consumer and businesses expenditures from the on-site development are made outside
of Frederick County, and 60 percent are retained within the County. Among the larger
expenditures by consumers are 19 percent for shelter and 27 percent for retail trade,
including automobiles.
Consumer expenditures made off-site in the County are translated into economic
impacts in the County using multiplier matrices provided for the local area by the U.S.
Bureau of Economic Analysis. These multipliers capture the round-by-round flows of
expenditures in the County initiated by residents and businesses from on-site. There are
separate matrices for business receipts, employment and employee earnings. The items
in the consumer budget are multiplied in turn by these expenditure-specific categories
in each matrix and summed to give the “ripple effect,” “spin-off,” or “multiplier effect”
of circulation of money through the economy. The ripple effects, plus the original
consumer expenditures, equal the total economic impacts of apartment residents on the
City economy.
Business Receipts
The chart below sets forth the economic dollar flows set in motion by
expenditures off-site by residents and businesses at the Heritage Commons. The direct
expenditures represent the expenditures by on-site residents and businesses off-site
directly. They total $170 million when housing units are occupied and businesses in
operation. The largest component would come from the 450,000 square feet of privately-
occupied office space.
67
This $170 million in expenditures for goods and services would be expected to
comprise 60 percent in-county dollar flows, which would create another $220 million in
ripple effects or spin-off within the County. The ripple effect would be two to three
times direct expenditures. The exception is commercial, where retail trade can be
expected to make most of its wholesale purchases of goods and services from sources
outside the County. Residents of townhouses create relatively greater impacts than do
apartment renters because of higher income of households in townhouses. Altogether,
the business impact in Frederick County would come to $390 million. These off-site
impacts also create tax receipts and costs to the County as do on-site impacts (see
above).
Off-site Impacts by Land Use Apartments Townhouses Commercial Office
Direct Expenditures $23,207,000 $5,967,000 $28,000,000 $112,500,000
Indirect Spin-off Effect $47,255,000 $16,564,000 $8,026,000 $147,938,000
Total Business Receipts $70,462,000 $22,531,000 $36,026,000 $260,438,000
Employment and Earnings
Previous analysis identified 1,700 employees that would be on-site at the
property, most being occupants of office space. Another 2,240 jobs would be created off-
site by the spin-off from the on-site development. The office space on-site at Heritage
Commons would have the greatest impact, creating over 1,300 off-site jobs off-site in the
County. These off-site employment impacts would generate $149 million in employee
earnings in the County. This would be an average of about $67,000 per employee. This
is heavily influenced by the higher income jobs spun-off from the offices on site.
Off-site Fiscal Impacts
The methodology used in projecting fiscal impacts off-site mirror those used to
project fiscal impacts on-site. As before, revenues will be limited to taxes, and costs will
be those that must be tax-supported, as based on employment. The RIMS II multipliers
68
from the Bureau of Economic Analysis break receipts, employment and earnings
impacts down into 21 different sectors, and the impact dollar amounts (business
revenues) in the sectors form the basis for determining taxes. Many taxes can be
calculated directly from these receipts, or from employment created off-site in the same
fashion as for on-site taxes. Costs to the County can likewise be calculated from off-site
employment created.
Because of their commercial nature, the non-residential components at
Heritage Commons would be expected to yield considerably greater off-site impacts
than would the off-site expenditures of residents at the site. This is the case, with the
non-residential components having a net fiscal benefit of $2.0 million annually,
compared to $0.5 million for the residential components, for a total of $2.4 million
annually after buildout in constant 2013 dollars. Table 25 below summarizes the off-site
fiscal impacts by type of use. Appendix Tables A-4, A-5 and A-6 give the individual tax
sources for each type of use.
69
Table 25. Summary of Off-site Spin-off Impacts for Heritage Commons, at
Buildout, by Type of Use (constant $2013)
Type of Use
Tax
Revenue
Tax-supported
Costs
Net Fiscal
Benefit
Apartments $454,600 -$118,750 $335,850
Townhouses $130,920 -$31,380 $99,540
Commercial $637,270 -$118,750 $518,520
Office $1,887,940 -$399,700 $1,488,240
Total Off-site Impacts $3,110,730 -$668,580 $2,442,150
Sources: Bureau of Economic Development and Bureau of Labor Statistics,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Adopted FY2014 Budget for
Frederick County, Virginia, and S. Patz & Associates, Inc.
Summary of On- and Off-site Impacts
The overall annual impacts, both on-site and off-site spinoff, would be
substantial from Heritage Commons for Frederick County. Total tax revenue each year
would be $7.2 million, compared to costs to the County of $2.9 million. This would leave
a net fiscal benefit of $4.3 million annually for the County. These overall impacts are
summarized in Table 26 by type of use on-site at Heritage Commons. Table 3, above in
the introduction to this section, and Appendix Table A-7 provide detail on both the on-
site and off-site impacts from the development.
70
Table 26. Summary of Total On-site andOff-site Impacts for Heritage
Commons, at Buildout, by Type of Use (constant $2013)
Tax
Revenue
Tax-supported
Costs
Net Fiscal
Benefit
Apartments $2,295,140 -$1,383,630 $911,510
Townhouses $520,670 -$459,050 $61,620
Commercial $1,058,880 -$179,010 $879,870
Office $3,309,550 -$851,630 $2,457,920
Total Off-site Impacts $7,184,240 -$2,873,320 $4,310,920
Sources: Bureau of Economic Development and Bureau of Labor Statistics,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Adopted FY2014 Budget for
Frederick County, Virginia, and S. Patz & Associates, Inc.
Phasing of Heritage Commons
The development of Heritage Commons is planned for three five-year phases, for
a buildout period of 15 years. The chart below sets forth the phasing scheme for
Heritage Commons, and the discussion following the chart addresses the net fiscal
benefit to accrue to the County for each type of use for each phase.
Phasing By Use 1st 5 yrs 2nd 5 Yrs 3rd 5 Yrs Total
Apartment Units 300 375 375 1,050
Townhouse Units 100 50 150
Commercial Square Feet 50,000 25,000 25,000 100,000
Office Square Feet 100,000 175,000 175,000 450,000
The net fiscal benefits for each phase are calculated by multiplying the number of
units or square feet of development for each development component times the net
benefit per unit (for residential) or square foot (for non –residential). All of these benefit
parameters have been derived and set forth in previous tables in this economic and fiscal
71
impacts section of the report, or in Appendix tables in the case of off-site benefits. The
calculations are summarized in Appendix Tables A-8 and A-9.
Heritage Commons would generate on-site net benefits of $500,000 to $700,000
during each phase of the three five-year phases in the 15-year development program.
Only the townhouses show any deficits, as has been shown previously, due to the high
cost of educating public school students living in townhouses. These are annual
amounts, in constant 2013 dollars. Total on-site benefits over the 15-year development
program would come to $1.9 million each year. Off-site net fiscal benefits average about
$800,000 each year, for a total of $2.4 million over the 15-year buildout period. It should
be reiterated actual off-site benefits may lag behind on-site development and impacts
due to give the market time to respond to increased demand in the County from
Heritage Commons.
Total net fiscal benefits – on-site and off-site – would be in the $1.3 million to $1.5
million range for each five year development phase in the 15-year development
program. The apartments and the commercial space would contribute about $900,000 in
benefits over buildout, with the office space contributing $2.5 million. The total annual
net fiscal benefit for Heritage Commons would be $4.3 million. Total on-site and off-site
net fiscal benefits are summarized in Table 33 by type of development component and
five-year phase (see Appendix Table A-8 and A-9 for details).
72
Table 27. Total On-site and Off-site Net Fiscal Benefits for Heritage Commons, By
Five-Year Phase, at Buildout, Frederick County, Virginia (constant $2013)
Phases 1st 5 yrs 2nd 5 Yrs 3rd 5 Yrs Total
Apartments $260,430 $325,540 $325,540 $911,510
Townhouses $41,080 $20,540 $61,620
Commercial Floor Space $439,935 $219,968 $219,968 $879,870
Office Floor Space $546,200 $955,860 $955,860 $2,457,920
Total Net Benefit $1,287,645 $1,521,908 $1,501,368 $4,310,920
Source: S. Patz & Associates, Inc.
73
APPENDIX TABLES
74
Table A-1. Annual General Fund Expenditure Budgets, by Department or
Function, Frederick County, Virginia, FY2012-FY2014
FY2012 FY2013 FY2014
Actual Estimated Adopted
Functional Areas
Administration $7,807,957 $8,616,459 $8,394,217
Judicial Administration $1,909,957 $1,961,826 $2,124,752
Public Safety $23,653,636 $24,924,782 $25,469,242
Public Works $3,518,554 $3,405,482 $3,940,814
Health and Welfare $6,690,169 $6,411,108 $6,935,132
Community College $56,493 $56,493 $56,493
Parks, Rec. & Cultural $5,918,974 $4,690,909 $5,107,445
Community Development $1,680,290 $1,676,928 $1,818,346
Subtotal $50,235,750 $51,653,587 $53,846,441
Non-departmental
Transfers
School Operating Fund $55,456,793 $57,398,462 $60,727,321
School Debt Svc. Fund $14,626,151 $14,626,151 $14,626,151
School Construction $600,000 $0 $0
School Special Grants $41,499 $0 $0
School Capital Fund $297,116 $0 $0
Subtotal School $71,021,559 $72,024,613 $75,353,472
Other Transfers
Unemployment Fund $15,473 $0 $0
Co. Debt Svc. Fund $2,499,121 $2,561,645 $2,561,645
Subtotal Other Trans. $2,514,594 $2,561,645 $2,561,645
Subtotal Transfers $73,536,153 $74,586,258 $77,915,117
Other Expenditures
Merit/Fringe/COLA $335,501 $1,301,128 $606,507
Operating Contingency $0 $300,000 $656,342
Subtotal Other $335,501 $1,601,128 $1,262,849
Subtotal Non-depart. $73,871,654 $76,187,386 $79,177,966
Total General Fund $124,107,404 $127,840,973 $133,024,407
Source: Adopted FY2014 Budget, Frederick County, Virginia
75
Table A-2. General Fund Budgeted Revenues and Expenditures by Source,
Frederick County, Virginia, FY2012-FY2014
Actual Estimated Adopted
Revenue Source FY2012 FY2013 FY2014
General Property Taxes $86,822,543 $87,253,512 $87,168,379
Other Local Taxes $28,344,455 $30,134,962 $28,429,460
Total Taxes $115,166,998 $117,388,474 $115,597,839
Other Local Revenue $5,950,460 $7,078,590 $4,824,957
Total Local Revenue $121,117,458 $124,467,064 $120,422,796
Non-local Revenue $13,498,942 $13,215,840 $12,601,611
Total General Fund Revenue $134,616,400 $137,682,904 $133,024,407
Local Taxes $115,166,998 $117,388,474 $115,597,839
Less: School Transfer -$71,021,559 -$72,024,613 -$75,353,472
Taxes Except School $44,145,439 $45,363,861 $40,244,367
Expenditures
Total General Fund $134,616,400 $137,682,904 $133,024,407
Less: School Transfer $71,021,559 $72,024,613 $75,353,472
Non-School Expenditures $63,594,841 $65,658,291 $57,670,935
Tax Burden Except Schools 69.4% 69.1% 69.8%
Source: Adopted FY2014 Budget, Frederick County, Virginia
76
Table A-3. Allocation of General Fund Expenditures to Population (residents) and
Employment (Businesses), Frederick County, Virginia, FY2014
Department or Function Population Employment Total Gen. Fund
Administration $6,371,592 $2,022,625 $8,394,217
Judicial Administration $1,612,783 $511,969 $2,124,752
Public Safety $19,332,311 $6,136,931 $25,469,242
Public Works $2,991,257 $949,557 $3,940,814
Health and Welfare $6,935,132 $0 $6,935,132
Community College $56,493 $0 $56,493
Parks, Rec. & Cultural $5,107,445 $0 $5,107,445
Community Development $1,380,207 $438,139 $1,818,346
Other $2,902,965 $921,529 $3,824,494
Subtotal $46,690,184 $10,980,751 $57,670,935
Percent Tax Burden 69.8% 69.8% 69.8%
Total Tax Burden $32,581,697 $7,662,670 $40,244,367
Number of Persons 80,118 25,433 105,551
Per Capita $407 $301 $381
Schools Transfer $75,353,472 $0 $75,353,472
Percent Tax Burden 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Total Tax Burden $75,353,472 $0 $75,353,472
Number of Pupils 13,066 0 13,066
Per Capita $5,767 $0 $5,767
Total General Fund $122,043,656 $10,980,751 $133,024,407
Source: Adopted FY2014 Budget and Statistical Section, Frederick County, Virginia
77
Table A-4. Summary of Annual Tax Revenues, County Costs, and Net
Fiscal Benefit Created Off-site by the Residential Units at
Heritage Commons, at Buildout (constant $2013)
Apartments
Impacts
Townhouses
Impacts
Residential
Impacts
Real Estate Tax $103,750 $28,820 $132,570
Business Property Tax $86,200 $23,950 $110,150
BPOL Tax $81,440 $21,370 $102,810
Retail Sales Tax $73,020 $23,350 $96,370
Motel Tax $12,810 $4,100 $16,910
Meals Tax $64,740 $20,700 $85,440
Motor Vehicle Licenses $16,750 $4,430 $21,180
Utility Tax $15,890 $4,200 $20,090
Total Revenue $454,600 $130,920 $585,520
Less Costs -$118,750 -$31,380 -$150,130
Net Fiscal Benefit $335,850 $99,540 $435,390
Number Of Units 1,050 150 1,200
Net Benefit Per Unit $320 $664 $363
Sources: Bureau of Economic Development and Bureau of Labor
Statistics, U.S. Department of Commerce, Adopted FY2014
Budget for Frederick County, Virginia, and S. Patz & Associates,
Inc.
78
Table A-5. Summary of Annual Tax Revenues, County Costs, and Net
Fiscal Benefit Created Off-site by the Non-residential
Components at Heritage Commons, at Buildout (constant
$2013)
Commercial
Impacts
Office
Impacts
Non-residential
Impacts
Real Estate Tax $103,750 $349,240 $452,990
Business Property Tax $86,200 $290,140 $376,340
BPOL Tax $10,900 $961,280 $972,180
Retail Sales Tax $241,290 $21,040 $262,330
Motel Tax $4,220 $71,780 $76,000
Meals Tax $170,590 $84,600 $255,190
Motor Vehicle Licenses $4,430 $56,380 $60,810
Utility Tax $15,890 $53,480 $69,370
Total Revenue $637,270 $1,887,940 $2,525,210
$0 $0
Less Costs -$118,750 -$399,700 -$518,450
$0 $0
Net Fiscal Benefit $518,520 $1,488,240 $2,006,760
Number of Sq. Feet 100,000 450,000 550,000
Net Benefit Per S.F. $5.19 $3.31 $3.65
Sources: Bureau of Economic Development and Bureau of Labor Statistics,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Adopted FY2014 Budget for
Frederick County, Virginia, and S. Patz & Associates, Inc.
79
Table A-6. Summary of Annual Tax Revenues, County Costs, and Net
Fiscal Benefit Created Off-site by the Residential and Non-
residential Components at Heritage Commons, at Buildout,
Frederick County, Virginia (constant $2013)
Residential
Impacts
Non-residential
Impacts
Total
Impacts
Real Estate Tax $132,570 $452,990 $585,560
Business Property Tax $110,150 $376,340 $486,490
BPOL Tax $102,810 $972,180 $1,074,990
Retail Sales Tax $96,370 $262,330 $358,700
Motel Tax $16,910 $76,000 $92,910
Meals Tax $85,440 $255,190 $340,630
Motor Vehicle Licenses $21,180 $60,810 $81,990
Utility Tax $20,090 $69,370 $89,460
Total Revenue $585,520 $2,525,210 $3,110,730
Less Costs -$150,130 -$518,450 -$668,580
Net Fiscal Benefit $435,390 $2,006,760 $2,442,150
Sources: Bureau of Economic Development and Bureau of Labor Statistics,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Adopted FY2014 Budget for
Frederick County, Virginia, and S. Patz & Associates, Inc.
80
Table A-7. Summary of All Annual On-site and Off-site Impacts of
Heritage Commons by Type of Use on Site, at Buildout,
Frederick County, Virginia (constant $2013)
Apartments Townhouses Residential
Total Tax Revenue $2,295,140 $520,670 $2,815,810
Tax-supported Costs -$1,383,630 -$459,050 -$1,842,680
Net Fiscal Benefit $911,510 $61,620 $973,130
Units 1,050 150 1,200
Net Benefit Per Unit $868 $411
Commercial Office Non-residential
Total Tax Revenue $1,082,510 $3,309,550 $4,392,060
Tax-supported Costs -$185,030 -$851,630 -$1,036,660
Net Fiscal Benefit $897,480 $2,457,920 $3,355,400
Square Feet 100,000 450,000 550,000
Net Benefit Per S.F. $8.97 $5.46
Residential Non-residential Total
Total Tax Revenue $2,815,810 $4,392,060 $7,207,870
Tax-supported Costs $1,842,680 $1,036,660 $2,879,340
Net Fiscal Benefit $973,130 $3,355,400 $4,328,530
Sources: Bureau of Economic Development and Bureau of Labor Statistics,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Adopted FY2014 Budget for
Frederick County, Virginia, and S. Patz & Associates, Inc.
81
Table A-8. Summary of On-site Net Fiscal Benefits for Each Development Component
for Each Phase of the Development Program, Heritage Commons at
Buildout, Frederick County, Virginia (constant $2013)
Phases 1st 5 yrs 2nd 5 Yrs 3rd 5 Yrs Total
Number of Apartment Units 300 375 375 1,050
Net Benefit at $548/Unit $164,470 $205,590 $205,590 $575,660
Number of Townhouse Units 100 50 150
Net Benefit at -$253/Unit -$25,280 -$12,640 -$37,920
Number of Commercial Sq. Ft. 50,000 25,000 25,000 100,000
Net Benefit at $3.79/SF $180,675 $90,338 $90,338 $361,350
Number of Office Square Feet 100,000 175,000 175,000 450,000
Net Benefit at $2.15/SF $215,480 $377,100 $377,100 $969,680
Total Net On-site Benefit $535,345 $660,388 $673,028 $1,868,770
Source: S. Patz & Associates, Inc.
82
Table A-9. Summary of Off-site Net Fiscal Benefits for Each Development Component
for Each Phase of the Development Program, Heritage Commons at
Buildout, Frederick County, Virginia (constant $2013)
Phases 1st 5 yrs 2nd 5 Yrs 3rd 5 Yrs Total
Number of Apartment Units 300 375 375 1,050
Net Benefit at $320/Unit $95,960 $119,950 $119,950 $335,850
Number of Townhouse Units 100 50 150
Net Benefit at $664/Unit $66,360 $33,180 $99,540
Number of Commercial Sq. Ft. 50,000 25,000 25,000 100,000
Net Benefit at $5.19/SF $259,260 $129,630 $129,630 $518,520
Number of Office Square Feet 100,000 175,000 175,000 450,000
Net Benefit at $3.31/SF $330,720 $578,760 $578,760 $1,488,240
Total Off-site Benefit $752,300 $861,520 $828,340 $2,442,150
Source: S. Patz & Associates, Inc.
Heritage Commons Proffer Comparison
Approved Russell 150 Rezoning (#01-05) Heritage Commons Rezoning Application (#02-14)
• Rezoning for B2 (Business General) and RP (Residential
Performance) Districts.
• Proposal for R4 (Residential Planned Community) District with
extensive modification requests
•
• 96.28 acres of Commercial
• 54.0 acres of Residential
• Residential and Commercial acreage mixed (See % table)
• Maximum Commercial – 70 acres
• Minimum Commercial – 53 acres
• Maximum Residential - 67.6 acres
• Minimum Residential – 84.6 acres
• CDA that provided funding for all public infrastructure
(roads, trails, utilities)
• No CDA
• Detailed proffer for right of way and full construction of
Warrior Drive, Airport Road Extended, East Tevis Flyover
Bridge, and East Tevis within the property including
commitment to when these must be completed.
• Refers to road network shown on the Generalized
Development Plan and states that the applicant will “agree to
participate” in the design and funding of the road network.
• Notes that participation could be in cash or in “cash equivalent
through the donation of real property”.
• GDP not sufficiently detailed to determine extent of
commitment in terms of lanes and configuration.
• GDP leaves off a significant portion of Warrior Drive, a
comprehensive plan roadway.
• GDP identifies numerous entrances that have not been
discussed or vetted.
• Proffered one million dollars to the General Transportation
Fund
• Eliminated
• Interparcel Connection to Parcel 64-A-18
• Shown on GDP but not referenced in the proffers
Heritage Commons Proffer Comparison
• Bicycle Lanes along all major roadways
• Proffered walking trails along the stream valley and to connect
the residential land uses
• Prohibited certain housing types (SF rural/traditional and
garden apartments)
• Allows for multifamily (apartments) and single family attached
(townhouse)
• Maximum density at the time of 5.5 units per acre only
allowed for 297 units (approved with the MDP)
• Residential Phasing – 40 units per calendar year beginning
from the MDP approval (2006)
• Unit cap of 1,200 residential units.
• Multifamily density – 20 units/acre, Townhouse – 10 units/ac
• Phasing of 400 units every two years
• Max of 184 townhouses (leaving up to 1016 multifamily units)
• Architectural Treatment – all primary structures will be
constructed with masonry wall treatments over 80% of the
exterior surface.
• Eliminated
• HOA startup fund ($2,500 lump payment plus $100 per
platted lot)
• No monetary proffers
• Monetary Proffer of $3,000 per residential unit for schools
• No monetary proffers
• Monetary Proffer of $10,000 for Fire and Rescue
• No monetary proffers
• Stormwater Quality Measures
• Same
• District heights apply
• B2 – 35’ (60’ for hotels and offices)
• RP – 40’ townhouses
• Modification for 80’ tall commercial and residential buildings
• Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) – 1.0 • Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) – 2.0