PC 12-02-15 Meeting Agenda AGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
December 2, 2015
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) Adoption of Agenda: Pursuant to established procedures, the Planning Commission
should adopt the Agenda for the meeting ................................................................ (no tab)
2) November 4, 2015 Minutes.............................................................................................. (A)
3) Committee Reports .................................................................................................. (no tab)
4) Citizen Comments .................................................................................................... (no tab)
PUBLIC HEARING
5) Rezoning #11-15 of Freedom Manor, submitted by Pennoni Associates, to rezone 13.8596
acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the RP (Residential Performance) District and
33.6819 acres from the RP (Residential Performance) to the RP (Residential Performance)
with proffers. The properties are located east and adjacent to Papermill Road (Route 644),
approximately 2,300 feet north/west of the existing signalized intersection of Front Royal
Pike (Route 522) and Papermill Road (Route 644), in the Shawnee Magisterial District, and
are identified by Property Identification Numbers 64-A-23, 64-A-20, and 64-A-19.
Ms. Perkins ..................................................................................................................... (B)
6) Conditional Use Permit #04-15 for Jerry Lee and Kyung Lee, submitted for modification
of CUP #22-04 to add a monument sign. The property is located at 549 Valley Mill Road
(Route 659), and is identified with Property Identification Number 55-A-56 in the Red Bud
Magisterial District.
Mr. Cheran ........................................................................................................................ (C)
7) Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code – Chapter 165 Zoning, ARTICLE
II SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS; PARKING; BUFFERS; AND
REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES; Part 201 – Supplementary Use Regulation
§165-201.02 Setback Requirements. Revision to the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance to remove the R5 (Residential Recreational Community) District
Supplementary Use Regulations for setback extensions.
Ms. Perkins ...................................................................................................................... (D)
-2-
INFORMATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS
8) Annual Review of the Planning Commission Bylaws and Roles and Responsibilities.
Ms. Perkins ..................................................................................................................... (E)
9) Other
Adjourn
Commonly Used Planning Agenda Terms
Meeting format
Citizen Comments – The portion of the meeting agenda offering an opportunity for the public to provide
comment to the Planning Commission on any items not scheduled as public hearing items.
Public Hearing– A specific type of agenda item, required by State law, which incorporates public comment as
a part of that item prior to Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors action. Public hearings are held for
items such as: Comprehensive Plan policies and amendments; Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance amendments;
and Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit applications. Following the Public Hearing, the Planning
Commission will take action on the item (see below).
Action Item–There are both public hearing and non-public hearing items on which the Planning Commission
takes action. Depending on the actual item, the Planning Commission may approve, deny, table, or forward a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding the agenda item. No public comment is accepted during
the Action Item portion of the agenda.
Information/Discussion Item– The portion of the meeting agenda where items are presented to the Planning
Commission for information and discussion. The Planning Commission may offer comments and suggestions,
but does not take action on the agenda item. No public comment is accepted during the Information/Discussion
Item portion of the agenda.
Planning Terminology
Urban Development Area or UDA – The UDA is the county’s urban growth boundary identified in the
Comprehensive Plan in which more intensive forms of residential development will occur. The UDA is an area
of the county where community facilities and public services are more readily available and are provided more
economically.
Sewer and Water Service Area or SWSA – The SWSA is the boundary identified in the Comprehensive Plan
in which public water and sewer is or can be provided. The SWSA is consistent with the UDA in many
locations; however the SWSA may extend beyond the UDA to promote commercial, industrial, and institutional
land uses in area where residential land uses are not desirable.
Land Use – Land Use is the nomenclature which refers to the type of activity which may occur on an area of
land. Common land use categories include: agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial.
Zoning District - Zoning district refers to a specific geographic area that is subject to land use standards.
Frederick County designates these areas, and establishes policies and ordinances over types of land uses,
density, and lot requirements in each zone. Zoning is the main planning tool of local government to manage the
future development of a community, protect neighborhoods, concentrate retail business and industry, and
channel traffic.
Rezoning – Rezoning is the process by which a property owner seeks to implement or modify the permitted
land use activities on their land. A rezoning changes the permitted land use activities within the categories
listed above under Land Use.
Conditional Use Permit or CUP - A CUP allows special land uses which may be desirable, but are not always
appropriate based on a location and surrounding land uses. The CUP requested use, which is not allowed as a
matter of right within a zoning district, is considered through a public hearing process and usually contains
conditions to minimize any impacts on surrounding properties.
Ordinance Amendment – The process by which the County Code is revised. Often the revisions are the result
of a citizen request with substantial justification supporting the change. Amendments ultimately proceed
through a public hearing prior to the PC forwarding a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
County Bodies Involved
Board of Supervisors or BOS - Frederick County is governed by an elected Board of Supervisors composed of
seven members, one from each magisterial district, and one chairman-at-large. The Board of Supervisors is the
policy-making body of the county. Functions of the Board of Supervisors related to planning include making
land use decisions, and establishing growth and development policies.
Planning Commission or PC - The PC is composed of 13 members, two from each magisterial districts and one
at-large, appointed by the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission serves in an advisory capacity to the
Board of Supervisors which then takes final action on all planning, zoning, and land use matters.
Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee or CPPC – The CPPC is a major committee of the PC whose
primary responsibility is to formulate land use policies that shape the location and timing of development
throughout the County. Included in the work are studies of specific areas to develop guidelines for future land
use within those areas. The CPPC also considers requests for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
Decisions by CPPC are then forwarded to the PC for consideration.
Development Review and Regulations Committee or DRRC – The DRRC is the second major committee of the
PC whose primary responsibilities involve the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan in the form of
Zoning and Subdivision ordinance requirements. Requests to amend the ordinances to the DRRC are made by
the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, local citizens, businesses, or organizations. DRRC decisions
are also forwarded to the PC for consideration.
A
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3277
Minutes of November 4, 2015
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on November 4, 2015
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice
Chairman/Opequon District; Robert S. Molden, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; J.
Stanley Crockett, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel,
Shawnee District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; J. Rhodes Marston, Back Creek District; Charles
F. Dunlap, Red Bud District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Kevin Kenney, Gainesboro
District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney; Robert Hess,
Board of Supervisors Liaison.
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director; John A.
Bishop, Deputy Director Transportation; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator; and
Shannon L. Conner, Administrative Assistant.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Wilmot called the November 4, 2015 meeting of the Frederick County
Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Wilmot commenced the meeting by inviting
everyone to join in a moment of silence.
-------------
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the
Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening’s meeting.
-------------
MINUTES
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Crockett, the
Planning Commission adopted the minutes of their October 7, 2015 meeting.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3278
Minutes of November 4, 2015
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Transportation Committee – Mtg. 10/26/15
Commissioner Oates reported discussion was held on a request from Trex for Industrial
& Developmental access funds, the committee was supportive and Trex will be applying for this on their
own. Mr. Oates also reported a discussion was held regarding the current revenue sharing projects:
$500,000 for the balance of funds required to finish the Route 37/Route 11 North exit 317 study;
$550,000 which is the balance to complete the right-of-way for Renaissance Drive ; $9 million for the
Jubal Early extension project.
City of Winchester Planning Commission – Mtg. 11/03/15
Commissioner Fieo reported there was not a public meeting held in October. He
continued the Members held a work session to begin discussion on a rezoning request to apply the
Corridor Enhancement District to approximately 110 parcels comprising land and buildings along
Millwood Avenue.
Board of Supervisors Report – Mtg. 10/28/15
Board of Supervisors’ Liaison, Supervisor Robert Hess, reported prior to the regular
meeting the Board of Supervisors held a work session with the Economic Development Authority.
Supervisor Hess then noted the Planning items that were discussed: approval of the Transportation
Committee recommendation to improvements at the Shawnee Drive/ Valley Pike intersection and
inclusions to House Bill 2; approval for a CUP #02-15 for a kennel on Barley Lane; approval for REZ
#05-15 Hiatt Run Condos; REZ #09-15 Artillery Business Center was tabled until November 12, 2015 at
the applicants request. Supervisor Hess reported the following items were also discussed: Site plan for I-
81 Distribution Park due to the location in the proposed path of Route 37; Agreement to move forward to
Public Hearing the proposed Ordinance Amendments regarding the supplementary use regulation setback
extension; Approved a resolution supporting rail access funding for an application by Trex; Adopted a
resolution in support of the application for revenue sharing funds. Supervisor Hess concluded there was
no public comment on these items.
-------------
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any subject not currently on the
Planning Commission’s agenda or any item that is solely a discussion item for the Commission. No one
came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the citizen comments portion of the meeting.
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3279
Minutes of November 4, 2015
PUBLIC HEARING
Rezoning #06-15 Opequon Crossing submitted by Pennoni Associates, to revise proffers associated
with Rezoning #04-07 and Rezoning #12-07. This revision relates specifically to the monetary
transportation credits. The properties are located south of the existing terminus of Eddys Lane
(Route 820) approximately south of Route 7 and adjacent to Opequon Creek. The properties are
identified with Property Identification Numbers 55-A-210, 55-A-212, and 55-A-212A in the Redbud
Magisterial District
Action – Recommend Approval
Commissioner Manuel would abstain from all discussion on these items for a possible
conflict of interest.
Deputy Director Transportation, John A. Bishop reported this zoning request will be
combining two previous rezonings, the Opequon Crossing and the Haggerty rezoning. Mr. Bishop noted
this current rezoning is to modify the proffers to enable transportation credits. Mr. Bishop continued, in
2014 the Board of Supervisors adopted policy (approved for 2 years) to allow for the value of proffered
transportation improvements that are over and above what is needed to mitigate the impacts of the
development. Mr. Bishop briefly summarized the transportation credits for this rezoning:
Route 37 right-of-way
Haggerty Boulevard alignment and associated Route 7 improvements
Route 37 turn lanes
Reduction in units from 625 to 574, all reduced units are multifamily
Mr. Bishop offered to address any questions at this time. He noted this is the first time
this policy has been enacted and after lengthy discussions with the applicant, Staff feels the credit values
are appropriate at this time.
Commissioner Thomas noted when reading through the proffers regarding transportation
the first few proffers have a timeframe attached and the rest do not. He inquired if this is accurate. Mr.
Bishop explained those parts of the proffer are consistent with the previous two rezonings and this action
is to seek out the credits and the reduction of units. He noted the rest of the language in the proffers was
left untouched.
Mr. Patrick Sowers of Pennoni Associates Inc. came forward on behalf of the applicant.
Mr. Sowers reiterated this is composed of multiple rezonings. He presented a brief overview of each of
the exiting rezonings. He explained in 2013 the property owner did get a proposal for the construction of
Haggerty Boulevard (the spine road). He continued, what the applicant is trying to accomplish is to take
the transportation credit policy adopted in January 2014, combine the entire project under one rezoning
application and under the current proffer model for the entirety of the project and then apply the
transportation credits after everything is brought under the current model. Mr. Sowers elaborated on how
the credits are determined. He reviewed the existing proffers for the Haggerty property and the proffers
for the Adams property. Mr. Sowers explained the existing proffer amounts for the Haggerty portion of
this rezoning are $10,211.00 for detached residential and $8,051.00 for attached residential. Mr. Sowers
noted the existing proffers for the original Opequon portion are $26,664.00 for detached residential and
$18,441.00 for attached residential. Mr. Sowers reported the current Development Impact Model (DIM)
projects capital facility impacts of $19,583.00 for detached residential and $13,437.00 for attached
residential. He noted this is the amount that would be applied as a starting point before credits for the
entire development. Mr. Sowers provided a basic description of what is eligible for transportation credits.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3280
Minutes of November 4, 2015
He explained it is basically what goes above and beyond what it takes to mitigate the impacts of the
project.
Mr. Sowers discussed the spine road, noting in order to implement the County’s long
range land use plan and transportation plans, the spine road has to align with the future ramps for Route
37, which will be very costly. Mr. Sowers clarified the applicant is not proposing an alternative
alignment. Mr. Sowers provided a visual profile of Haggerty Boulevard and reviewed the extensive
construction process that will have to take place. He discussed the transportation credits calculation as
follows:
1. Route 37 right-of-way 600,000.00
2. Haggerty Blvd. location to suite future 687,090.00
Route 37 on/off ramps
3. Route 7 eastbound left turn lane 50,266.80
4. New Route 7 pavement and 328,806.32
Demolition of existing Route 7 pavement 56,908.80
5. Maintenance of traffic 250,000.00
6. Relocation of force mains 121,352.00
Total transportation credit value: 2,094,423.90
Per unit value (based on 574 dwelling units) 3,648.00
Mr. Sowers reviewed the proffer revision submitted by the applicant with the following
contributions to address the capital facility impacts. He noted the amount has changed for parks and
recreation due to this project including a community center, community pools, and asphalt trails which
are all included in a proffer.
Single Family Detached Single Family Attached
Fire and Rescue $446 $298
General Government $1,118 $770
Public Safety $0 $0
Library $360 $248
Parks and Recreation $0 $0
Schools $14,108 $8,716
TOTAL $16,031 $10,032
Mr. Sowers presented a brief overview of the additional proffer modifications associated
with this rezoning application:
Reduction of maximum dwelling units from the currently approved 625 to 574,
all of which are single family attached
Removal of the right-of-way dedication of the east/west collector road previously
planned to go to Valley Mill Road
Removal of a section of Haggerty Blvd. extending south to the property line
within the Route 37 right-or-way area
Addition of the ability to use Transfer of Development Rights as an option to the
monetary proffers
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3281
Minutes of November 4, 2015
Commissioner Thomas inquired some of the proffers have a time frame associated with
them, when would the applicant propose the rest of the proffers that do not have a time frame allotted be
obligated to a time. Mr. Sowers commented regarding transportation credits: the Route 37 right-of-way,
it is triggered within 90 days by proffer; other portions they are seeking credits on, it is only Haggerty
Blvd. that enters the site and that has to be built before the initial building permit can be issued. Mr.
Sowers noted the applicant is not seeking any credits for any built improvement that would not be
triggered by the County requesting it or constructed initially complete. Commissioner Thomas requested
confirmation that Route 37 interchange is all linked to the construction of Haggerty Blvd. Mr. Sowers
noted that is correct.
Commissioner Dunlap requested clarification regarding the alignment of the alternate
road, why the alignment was chosen as it appears to go through the water treatment plant property. Mr.
Sowers explained the alignment for current Haggerty Blvd. went through what used to be the Service
Authority property that was negotiated to provide the right-of-way. He continued the alignment shown as
the alternative reflects the existing improvements for the Service Authority.
Chairman Wilmot called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing
to come forward. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment
portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Thomas asked is it reasonable to expect the alternate alignment route
shown would have been obtainable from the Service Authority. Mr. Bishop noted that is a reasonable
statement.
Commissioner Oates noted he is not in favor of this project. He continued there is only
one way in and one way out after it is built and it will drastically affect Route 7. He commended Mr.
Sowers on the preparation and presentation of this project.
Commissioner Dunlap commented he feels this project has vastly improved and he is in
turn supportive.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Mohn and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Rezoning #06-15 Opequon Crossing submitted by Pennoni Associates, to revise proffers
associated with Rezoning #04-07 and Rezoning #12-07. This revision relates specifically to the monetary
transportation credits. The properties are located south of the existing terminus of Eddys Lane (Route
820) approximately south of Route 7 and adjacent to Opequon Creek. The properties are identified with
Property Identification Numbers 55-A-210, 55-A-212, and 55-A-212A in the Redbud Magisterial District
-------------
INFORMATION/ DISCUSSION ITEM
Subdivision Request #07-15 for Regents Crest, submitted by Painter-Lewis, P.L.C., is requesting 42
townhouses and 24 single family small lots. The property is located on North Frederick Pike (Route
522 North), approximately 450 feet south of Oakside Lane, in the Sunnyside neighborhood. The
properties are identified with Property Identification Numbers 53-6-1-1, 53-6-1-2,53-6-1-3, 53-6-1-4,
53-6-1-5, 53-6-1-6,-53-6-1-7, 53-6-1-8, 53-6-1-9, 53-6-1-10, 53-6-1-11, 53-6-1-12, 53-6-1-13, 53-6-1-14,
53-6-1-15,-53-6-1-16, 53-6-1-17, 53-6-1-18, 53-6-1-19, 53-6-1-20, 53-6-1-21, 53-6-1-22, 53-6-1-25, 53-
6-1-26, 53-6-1-27, 53-6-1-28, and 53-6-1-28C in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3282
Minutes of November 4, 2015
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran reported the property is currently
zoned RP (Residential Performance) and is vacant. He continued this property is subject to Master
Development Plan (MDP) #02-03 knows as Regents Crescent that was approved by the Frederick County
Board of Supervisors on September 8, 2014. Mr. Cheran explained the MDP was approved for 28 single
family detached cluster and 42 townhouse lots on 8.77+/- acres of RP (Residential Performance) zoned
land. It also included a property that was zoned B2 (General Business) fronting North Frederick Pike.
Mr. Cheran noted the prior owner started infrastructure on the properties to include roads, water and
sewer lines, and sidewalks. Mr. Cheran highlighted the most significant change is some of the units will
not be built and will now be open space.
Mr. Cheran reported this proposed subdivision will enable the current owner to subdivide
this 9 +/- acre parcel into 42 townhouses and 24 single family small lots for a total of 66 lots with open
space. He continued the B2 property fronting North Frederick Pike will not be included with this
subdivision. Mr. Cheran concluded this project will be served by a private road which will access the
public road known as Trafalger Square.
There were no questions or comments from the Planning Commission at this time.
-------------
OTHER
Annual Review of the Planning Commission Bylaws and the Roles and Responsibilities
Director, Eric R. Lawrence reported each year the Bylaws, Roles, and Responsibilities
are presented for review. He is asking everyone to review them and provide any comments or feedback
to him within the next few weeks. These will be presented at the December 2, 2015 meeting.
-------------
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and a motion was made by Commissioner Oates to adjourn
the meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas and unanimously passed. The
meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
June M. Wilmot, Chairman
____________________________
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
B
REZONING APPLICATION #11-15
FREEDOM MANOR
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: November 19, 2015
Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, CZA, Senior Planner
Staff Contact: John A. Bishop, AICP, Deputy Director-Transportation
PROPOSAL: To rezone 33.6819 acres from the RP (Residential Performance) District and 13.8596
from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers. This
application would enable the construction of up to 300 residential units.
LOCATION: The properties are located east and adjacent to Papermill Road (Route 644),
approximately 2,300 feet north/west of the existing signalized intersection of Front Royal Pike (Route
522) and Papermill Road (Route 644).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 12/02/15 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING:
The Freedom Manor Rezoning application seeks to rezone 33.68 acres from the RP (Residential
Performance) District and 13.86 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the RP (Residential
Performance) District with proffers. Of the 33 acres of existing RP zoned acreage, 26 acres of that was
previously rezoned in 2005 under the same name of Freedom Manor. This application seeks to revise
the proffers for the 26 acre portion tract (64-A-23) as well as include the acreage from parcels 64-A-20,
and 64-A-19. This proposed development seeks to allow the construction of up to 300 residential
dwelling units (Phase I - single family detached, Phase II - townhouse and multi-family units). The
development has an overall density of 6.3 units per acre).
The Freedom Manor rezoning application is generally consistent with future land use designations of
the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Areas Plan which provide
guidance on the future development of the property. A few elements of the rezoning application have
been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure that they fully address the impacts
associated with this rezoning request. The Planning Commission should pay particular attention to the
density and monetary contribution proposed with this development.
Confirmation of the issues identified in the staff report, and any issues raised by the Planning
Commission, should be addressed prior to a recommendation by the Planning Commission.
Following the required public hearing, a recommendation regarding this rezoning application to
the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately
address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission.
Rezoning #11-15 Freedom Manor
November 19, 2015
Page 2
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this
application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues
concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report.
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission: 12/02/15 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 01/13/16 Pending
PROPOSAL: To rezone 33.6819 acres from the RP (Residential Performance) District and 13.8596
from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers. This
application would enable the construction of up to 300 residential units.
LOCATION: The properties are located east and adjacent to Papermill Road (Route 644),
approximately 2,300 feet north/west of the existing signalized intersection of Front Royal Pike (Route
522) and Papermill Road (Route 644).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee
PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 64-A-23, 64-A-20, and 64-A-19
PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District and RP (Residential Performance) District
PRESENT USE: Vacant
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
North: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Vacant (Madison Village)
RA (Rural Areas) Vacant/Agricultural
South: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Shenandoah Memorial Park
East RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential
RA (Rural Areas) Residential
West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential/Vacant/Agricultural
Rezoning #11-15 Freedom Manor
November 19, 2015
Page 3
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: VDOT’s District Planning Section has completed their review of
the 2nd submission of the Freedom Manor TIA. The TIA is in compliance with VDOT’s TIA
regulations (24 VAC 30-155) and we have no outstanding or additional comments that need to be
addressed.
We would like to provide the following recommendation on the proffers dated September 4, 2015,
submitted with the TIA:
Update the references to “hiker/biker trail” in proffers 2.1 and 3.1 to “shared use path”.
Update the minimum right-of-way dedication of 56’ from centerline in proffer 2.1 to 58’ to
accommodate the 10’ wide shared use path, if provided in the right-of-way. The provided 48’
width without the shared use path in the right-of-way is adequate.
Correct the spelling error of Papermill Road in proffer 2.2.
Fire Marshal: Plans Approved.
Public Works Department: We have completed our review of the site plan for the rezoning
application for the proposed Freedom Manor Subdivision and offer the following comments:
Refer to the Impact Analysis Statement: Add a paragraph dedicated to the discussion of stormwater.
Refer to Page 4, Solid Waste: Expand the discussion to indicate that the residential development shall
include the requirement for a private refuse hauler.
Refer to the Proffer Statement, Page 3 of 4, Paragraph 6: Expand the discussion of the property owners’
associate (POA) to include the requirements for maintaining open space and stormwater management
facilities. In addition, the POA shall be responsible for a solid waste collection and disposal (i.e.,
curbside pickup, dumpster, etc.).
Frederick County Sanitation Authority: Please see attached letter from Uwe E. Weindel, PE, dated
January 20, 2015.
Frederick-Winchester Health Department: Health Department has no objection to the Rezoning
request at this time.
Department of Parks & Recreation:
Monetary proffers applied only to 75 of the proposed 100 detached units does not appear to
meet impacts of the development.
The north/south hiker-biker trail recommended to follow the west side of connector road rather
than property boundary as shown. This is to match the approved trail in Madison Village.
Hiker-biker trail recommended along east/west inter-parcel connector.
Frederick County Public Schools: Frederick County Public Schools has reviewed the Freedom
Manor rezoning application submitted to us on January 16, 2015. We offer the following comments:
Rezoning #11-15 Freedom Manor
November 19, 2015
Page 4
The cumulative impact of this development and other developments in Frederick County will require
construction of new schools and support facilities to accommodate increased student enrollment. This
development proposal includes a range of possibilities. The case that generated the most students is 100
houses, 100 townhouses, and 100 apartments. We estimate that, in this case, the development will
house 93 students: 25 High school students, 23 middle school students, and 45 elementary school
students. In order to properly serve these additional students, Frederick County Public Schools would
spend an estimate $1,048,000 more per year in operation costs (or $3,493 average per unit per year) and
an estimated $3,891,000 in one-time capital expenditure (or $12,970 average per unit). You will find,
enclosed with this letter, a more detailed assessment of the estimated impact of Freedom Manor on
FCPS, including attendance zone information.
Frederick County Attorney: Please see attached letter from Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney,
dated March 2, 2015
Frederick County Inspection: Asbestos inspection/Abatment required for all buildings removed that
were constructed prior to 1985.
Historic Resources Advisory Board: Upon review of the proposed rezoning, it appears that the
proposal does not significantly impact historic resources and it is not necessary to schedule a formal
review of the rezoning application by the HRAB. Furthermore, the majority of this property was
previously rezoned in 2005. According to the Rural Landmarks Survey, there are no significant historic
structures located on the property nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It was also
noted that the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in Shenandoah Valley does not identify a
core battlefield within this area.
Planning & Zoning:
1) Site History:
The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies this
property as being zoned R-1 (Residential Limited). The parcels were re-mapped from R-1 to A-
2 (Agricultural General) pursuant to the County’s comprehensive downzoning initiative (Zoning
Amendment Petition #011-80), which was adopted on October 8, 1980. The County’s
agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District
upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989.
The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re-mapping of the subject property
and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. Parcel 64-A-19 and a portion of parcel
64-A-20 were originally slated to be part of the Westwood Subdivision (Section B) and appear
to retain their R-1/RP zoning designation.
In 2002, Rezoning Application RZ#07-02, Doris F. Casey, was submitted to the County for a
request similar to the 2005 Freedom Manor Rezoning. The rezoning proposal requested the
development of seventy (70) single family detached residential lots on 30.31 acres with access
being via Route 522. At that time, the property had frontage on Route 522. Ultimately, the
Board of Supervisors denied Rezoning Application #07-02 on December 17, 2002. On August
Rezoning #11-15 Freedom Manor
November 19, 2015
Page 5
20, 2003 a Minor Rural Subdivision (Family Division) was approved creating the 26.87 acre
parcel for PIN 64-A-23. On September 14, 2005 the Board of Supervisors approved Rezoning
#09-05 of Freedom Manor which rezoned parcel 64-A-23 from the RA District to the RP
District with proffers. This rezoning was approved for 70 single family dwellings on 26.87
acres of land.
2) Comprehensive Policy Plan:
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's
guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key
components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the
living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to
plan for the future physical development of Frederick County.
Land Use:
The parcels comprising this rezoning application are located within the County’s Urban
Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The UDA defines the
general area in which more intensive forms of residential development will occur. In addition,
the Freedom Manor development is located within the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Area
Plan of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan
designates the area where this site is located with a residential land use (4 units per acre density)
and a high-density residential land use (12-16 units per acre).
Phase I of the project consists of 33.68 acres and is limited to 100 single family detached
residential units, which would be three units per acre. Phase II of the project consists of 13.66
acres and is limited to a maximum of 200 single family attached or multi-family units, which
would be 14.6 units per acre. While the density shown with the Freedom Manor rezoning is
generally consistent with the comprehensive plan, there are no assurances that the area
designated for high density residential will develop as indicated; there are no proffered
minimum densities.
Staff Note: While these densities and land uses are generally consistent with the
comprehensive plan, there are no assurances that the area designated for high density
residential will develop as indicated as there are no proffered minimums. The development
of Phase II with single family attached (townhouse) units and multifamily units does not
assure densities consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Transportation and Site Access:
Initial access is gained to the site via a roundabout intersection with Papermill Road to be
constructed by the applicant. Future additional access shall be gained through interparcel
connections to the west and to the north at the Madison Village development. The transportation
network also includes a 10’ pedestrian trail along Papermill Road, and the internal public roads
shown on the GDP and a trail that runs the length of the common boundary with the
Shenandoah Memorial Park.
3) Site Suitability/Environment:
Rezoning #11-15 Freedom Manor
November 19, 2015
Page 6
The site is currently vacant and contains two existing ponds; there are no floodplains on the
property. The majority of the site drains from west to east. Soils on the site are identified as
Blairton silt loams, Clearbrook channery silt loams and Weikert-Berks channery silt loams.
Development of the property will be subject to the revised Stormwater Management regulations
addressing both stormwater quantity and quality.
4) Potential Impacts:
A. Transportation
Traffic Impact Analysis.
According to the included traffic impact analysis, at full build out the development is
projected to generate 1200 average daily trips (ADT) with all studied nearby intersections
expected to operate at level of service C or better with the proffered improvements.
Staff note: It should be noted that the TIA included was for the previous version of
this rezoning and the current rezoning actually has the potential to generate 2,620
ADT. The additional traffic was not significant enough to trigger an updated TIA
under Virginia Chapter 527 standards.
Transportation Program.
In addition to creating a roundabout intersection with Papermill Road, the Applicant is
constructing a through road to Madison Village prior to the issuance of the 150th building
permit. This connection will offer alternative access in and out of the development via
the Madison Village signal at Route 522. The Applicant will also be providing
interparcel connection to the west.
B. Sewer and Water
The Applicant’s Impact Analysis Statement projects that the development could produce
up to 60,000 gallons per day of sewage flow. An existing 8” sewer line within Westwood
Drive would serve as the connection point for sanitary service for the property which
flows to the Opequon Wastewater Treatment facility. A pump station may be required to
service the easternmost portions of the site. Water supply will be provided by way of an
existing 8” water main extending from Westwood Drive to the property.
C. Community Facilities
The Applicant has proffered a monetary contribution to community facilities to offset the
impact of the residential development. The amount per single family attached, and multi-
family dwelling unit is consistent with the County’s Development Impact Model values
for 2015. It should be noted that the applicant has reduced the proffer payment for the
single family attached units in recognition of the existing 6.81 acres of unrestricted RP
Zoned land. The full proffer amount would be $19,680 per single family detached unit.
The 6.81 acres could yield 20 units at the anticipated density of three units per acre (80
remaining units x $19,680 = $1,574,400 /100 = $15,744). The Applicant has also
proffered to allow Transferred Development Rights to pay for the monetary contribution
Rezoning #11-15 Freedom Manor
November 19, 2015
Page 7
specified in the proffer for any of the 300 dwelling units.
Staff Note: The Applicant has reduced the proffer payment for the single family
attached units in recognition of the existing 6.81 acres of unrestricted RP zoned land.
The full proffer amount would be $19,680 per single family detached unit. The 6.81
acres could yield 20 units at the anticipated density of 3 units per acre (80 remaining
units x $19,680 = $1,574,400 /100 = $15,744).
5) Proffer Statement – Dated December 30, 2014; revised September 4, 2015, November 4,
2015, November 18, 2015:
1) Site Development:
1.1 The development is limited to 300 dwelling units; Phase 1 with up to 100 single
family detached and Phase 2 with up to 200 dwelling units (single family
attached/detached or multi-family).
1.2 The property shall be developed in general conformance with the Generalized
Development Plan (GDP).
2) Transportation:
2.1 Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall
dedicate right-of-way across the Papermill Road frontage in order to provide for
a minimum of 58 feet of right-of-way as measured from the centerline to provide
for the future road improvements and a hiker/biker trail.
2.2 Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first dwelling unit, the
Applicant shall construct a single lane roundabout to access the property from
Papermill Road as shown on the GDP. No additional site entrances shall be
permitted on Papermill Road.
2.3 The Applicant shall complete the following transportation improvements prior
to the issuance of a building permit for the 150th dwelling unit:
Design and construct the north/south connector road from the Papermill
Road entrance to the northern property limits to connect into Madison
Village.
Design and construct a public roadway to provide an interparcel
connection to the western property limits in the general location depicted
in the GDP. This connection can occur with Phase 1 or Phase 2.
3) Pedestrian/Biker Improvements:
3.1 Prior to the issuance of the 50th building permit, the Applicant shall construct a
10’ asphalt path across the Papermill Road frontage and across the southern
property boundary.
3.2 As part of the design and construction of the north/south connector road, the
Applicant shall construct a 10’ asphalt path from the site entrance on Papermill
Road to the northern property limits linking into the adjacent development.
Rezoning #11-15 Freedom Manor
November 19, 2015
Page 8
4) Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development:
4.1 For the single family detached dwelling units the Applicant shall pay $15,745
per unit. TheAapplicant shall pay $13,680 for each single family attached
unit and $13,880 for each apartment unit.
Staff Note: The Applicant has reduced the proffer payment for the single family
attached units in recognition of the existing 6.81 acres of unrestricted RP Zoned land.
The full proffer amount would be $19,680 per single family detached unit. The 6.81
acres could yield 20 units at the anticipated density of 3 units per acre (80 remaining
units x $19,680 = $1,574,400 /100 = $15,744).
5) Option for use of Transfer of Development Rights Ordinance:
5.1 The Applicant may utilize Transferred Development Rights to pay for the
monetary contribution specified in Proffer 4.1 for any of the 300 dwelling units.
6) Creation of and Initial funding for Property Owners Association:
6.1 The property shall have a Property Owners Association (POA) which is
responsible for common areas, stormwater management facilities and solid
waste collection and disposal.
6.2 The Applicant shall establish a start-up fund for the POA in the amount of
$5,000.
7) Landscape Buffer:
7.1 Prior to the issuance of the 50th dwelling unit, the Applicant shall install a single
row of evergreens (minimum of 4 feet tall, spaced 10 feet on center) along the
common boundary with the Shenandoah Memorial Park.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 12/02/15 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The Freedom Manor Rezoning application seeks to rezone 33.68 acres from the RP (Residential
Performance) District and 13.86 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the RP (Residential
Performance) District with proffers. Of the 33 acres of existing RP zoned acreage, 26 acres of that was
previously rezoned in 2005 under the same name of Freedom Manor. This application seeks to revise
the proffers for the 26 acre portion tract (64-A-23) as well as include the acreage from parcels 64-A-20,
and 64-A-19. This proposed development seeks to allow the construction of up to 300 residential
dwelling units (Phase I - single family detached, Phase II - townhouse and multi-family units). The
development has an overall density of 6.3 units per acre).
The Freedom Manor rezoning application is generally consistent with future land use designations of
the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Areas Plan which provide
guidance on the future development of the property. A few elements of the rezoning application have
been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure that they fully address the impacts
associated with this rezoning request. The Planning Commission should pay particular attention to the
Rezoning #11-15 Freedom Manor
November 19, 2015
Page 9
density and monetary contribution proposed with this development.
Confirmation of the issues identified in the staff report, and any issues raised by the Planning
Commission, should be addressed prior to a recommendation by the Planning Commission.
Following the required public hearing, a recommendation regarding this rezoning application to
the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately
address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission.
SOUTHVIEWSubdivision
CHAPEL HILLSubdivision
ST644
ST644
64 A 25
64 A 24
64 3 A
64 A 35
64 3 A1
64 A 36
64D4 7
64D4 564D4 6
64 A 23
64D4 4
64 A 23A
64D4 3
64D4 2
64D4 1
64 2 D
63D 2 19
63D 2 21
63D2 1563D 2 17 64 2 D2
63 A 146
63D 2 13 63D 2 11 64D A 30
63D2 14
63D 2 16
63D2 9
64D8 1 1A
63D 2 12 63D2 8
63D 2 10 64 A 19 64D 1B A 64D2 A 6
64D2 A 5 64D 2A 4
64D2 A 3
64D 2 2 64D 2A 1 64D A 28 64D A 27
64D8 1 1
64D 81 2
63D 1 5
63D 1 663D 1 7
63D 1 3
63D 1 4
63 A 145
64 A 20
64D 2A 7 64D 2A 15 64D A 23 64D A 24 64D A 25 64D A 26
64D 81 86A
64D 81 86
64D 81 85
63D 1 2
63 A 147
64 A21A
64D 2A 8 64D 2A 14 64D 3 A
64D 3 B 64D A 21
64DA 22 64D A 20
64D8 1 69
63D1 1 64D 2A 9
64D2 A 13 64D A 19
64D 81 68 64D 81 70
63D 1 A 64D 2A 10
64D 2A 11 64D2 A 12 64D A 16 64D A 18
64D A 15
64D A 12
64D A 17
64 2 C
64D 81 67 64D 81 66
63 A146A
64D A 10
63 A 124
64D A 14 64 2 A2 64 2 B2
64D A 7
64D A 8 64D A 9 64 2 A1 64 2 A3
64 A 18
64D A 5
64D A 6
64 2 A 64 2 A3
64D A 364D A 4
64 A 42
64 A 18A
64D A 2 64 A 41
64D A 1 64 A 43
64 A 4464C 2 1
W
E
S
T
W
O
O
D
C
I
R
BENTLEYAVE
HARRISO
N
L
N
WESTWOOD DR
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
Applications
Parcels
Sewer and Water Service Area
Building Footprints
B1 (Business, Neighborhood District)
B2 (Business, General Distrist)
B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District)
EM (Extractive Manufacturing District)
HE (Higher Education District)
M1 (Industrial, Light District)
M2 (Industrial, General District)
MH1 (Mobile Home Community District)
MS (Medical Support District)
OM (Office - Manufacturing Park)
R4 (Residential Planned Community District)
R5 (Residential Recreational Community District)
RA (Rural Area District)
RP (Residential Performance District)
I
Note:Frederick County Dept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: November 10, 2015Staff: cperkins
Winchester
P
A
P
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
VINE LN
BENTLEY A
V
E
CALD
W
E
L
L
L
N
MCCLURE WAY
LONGCROFT RD
WESTWOOD DR
ELMWOOD RD
REZ # 11 - 15Freedom ManorPINs:64 - A - 19, 64 - A - 20, 64 - A - 23Rezoning from RA/RP to RP with Proffers
0 440 880220 Feet
REZ #11-15
REZ # 11 - 15Freedom ManorPINs:64 - A - 19, 64 - A - 20, 64 - A - 23Rezoning from RA/RP to RP with Proffers
REZ #11-15
REZ #11-15
01522
01522
SOUTHVIEWSubdivision
CHAPEL HILLSubdivision
ST644
ST644
64 A 25
64 A 24
64 3 A
64 A 35
64 3 A1
64 A 36
64D4 7
64D4 564D4 6
64 A 23
64D4 4
64 A 23A
64D4 3
64D4 2
64D4 1
64 2 D
63D 2 19
63D 2 21
63D2 1563D 2 17 64 2 D2
63 A 146
63D 2 13 63D 2 11 64D A 30
63D2 14
63D 2 16
63D2 9
64D8 1 1A
63D 2 12 63D2 8
63D 2 10 64 A 19 64D 1B A 64D2 A 6
64D2 A 5 64D 2A 4
64D2 A 3
64D 2 2 64D 2A 1 64D A 28 64D A 27
64D8 1 1
64D 81 2
63D 1 5
63D 1 663D 1 7
63D 1 3
63D 1 4
63 A 145
64 A 20
64D 2A 7 64D 2A 15 64D A 23 64D A 24 64D A 25 64D A 26
64D 81 86A
64D 81 86
64D 81 85
63D 1 2
63 A 147
64 A21A
64D 2A 8 64D 2A 14 64D 3 A
64D 3 B 64D A 21
64DA 22 64D A 20
64D8 1 69
63D1 1 64D 2A 9
64D2 A 13 64D A 19
64D 81 68 64D 81 70
63D 1 A 64D 2A 10
64D 2A 11 64D2 A 12 64D A 16 64D A 18
64D A 15
64D A 12
64D A 17
64 2 C
64D 81 67 64D 81 66
63 A146A
64D A 10
63 A 124
64D A 14 64 2 A2 64 2 B2
64D A 7
64D A 8 64D A 9 64 2 A1 64 2 A3
64 A 18
64D A 5
64D A 6
64 2 A 64 2 A3
64D A 364D A 4
64 A 42
64 A 18A
64D A 2 64 A 41
64D A 1 64 A 43
64 A 4464C 2 1
W
E
S
T
W
O
O
D
C
I
R
BENTLEYAVE
HARRISO
N
L
N
WESTWOOD DR
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
Applications
Parcels
Sewer and Water Service Area
Building Footprints
I
Note:Frederick County Dept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: November 10, 2015Staff: cperkins
Winchester
P
A
P
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
VINE LN
BENTLEY A
V
E
CALD
W
E
L
L
L
N
MCCLURE WAY
LONGCROFT RD
WESTWOOD DR
ELMWOOD RD
REZ # 11 - 15Freedom ManorPINs:64 - A - 19, 64 - A - 20, 64 - A - 23Rezoning from RA/RP to RP with Proffers
0 440 880220 Feet
REZ #11-15
REZ # 11 - 15Freedom ManorPINs:64 - A - 19, 64 - A - 20, 64 - A - 23Rezoning from RA/RP to RP with Proffers
REZ #11-15
REZ #11-15
01522
01522
MEMORIAL HEIGHTSSubdivision
SOUTHVIEWSubdivision
RED FOX RUNSubdivision
WESTWOODSubdivision
CHAPEL HILLSubdivision
ST644
ST644
64 A 24
64 A 24
64 A 25
64 3 A 64 A 35
64 A 36
64 3 A1
64D 4 7
64D 4 6
64 A 23
64D 4 4
64D 4 5
63 4 5A
64 A 23A
64D 4 3
64D 4 164D 4 2
63D 2 27
63D 2 25 64 2 D
63D 2 21
63D 2 23
63D 2 17
63D 2 19
63D 2 22
63D 2 24
63D 2 20
63D 2 15
63 A 146
63D 2 11
63D 2 13 64D A 30
64 2 D2
63D 2 18
63D 2 16
63D 2 14
63D 2 9
64D8 1 1A
63D 1 7 63D 2 10
63D 2 12
63D 2 8
64 A 19 64D1 B A 64D2 A 6
64D2 A 5 64D2 A 4 64D2 A 3
64D 2 2 64D2 A 1
64D 81 1
63D 1 563D 1 663D 216A 64D A 23 64DA 24 64DA 25 64D A 26
63 A 147
63D 1 263D 1 3
63D 1 4
63 A 145
64 A 20
64 A 21A 64D 2A 7
64D 2A 1464D 2A 15 64D 3 B 64D A 21
64D 81 86A
64D 81 86
63D 1 1
64D 2A 8
64D 2A 9 64D 2A 13 64D A 19
64D 3 A 64DA 22 64D A 20
64D 81 69
63 4 4
63 A 149
63D 1 A
64D 2A 10
64D 2A 11 64D2 A 12 64D A 16 64D A 18 64D 81 68
64D A 15
64D A 12
64D A 17
64 2 C
64D 81 67
63 A 148
63 A146A
64D A 10
63 A 124
63 A 143
64D A 14 64 2 A2
63 A 142
64D A 8 64D A 9 64 2 A1 64 2 A3
63 A141 63 A124B
64 A 18
64D A 5
64D A 7 64D A 6
64 2 A 64 2 A3
64D A 3
64D A 4
64 A 18A
64 A 41
64 A 42
63 A 127
63 A 12963 A 130 64D A 2
64D A 1
64C 2 1
64 A 43
64 A 44
64C 2 2
64C2 9
64 A 17 64C 2 3
BENTLEYAVE
W
E
S
T
W
O
O
D
C
I
R
HARRISO
N
L
N
WESTWOOD DR
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
Applications
Parcels
Sewer and Water Service Area
Building Footprints
Long Range Land Use
Residential
Neighborhood Village
Urban Center
Mobile Home Community
Business
Highway Commercial
Mixed-Use
Mixed Use Commercial/Office
Mixed Use Industrial/Office
Industrial
Warehouse
Heavy Industrial
Extractive Mining
Commercial Rec
Rural Community Center
Fire & Rescue
Historic
Institutional
Planned Unit Development
Park
Recreation
School
Employment
Airport Support Area
B2 / B3
Residential, 4 u/a
High-Density Residential, 6 u/a
High-Density Residential, 12-16 u/a
Rural Area
Interstate Buffer
Landfill Support Area
Natural Resources & Recreation
Environmental & Recreational Resources
I
Note:Frederick County Dept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: November 10, 2015Staff: cperkins
Winchester
P
A
P
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
VINE LN
BENTLEY A
V
E
CALD
W
E
L
L
L
N
MCCLURE WAY
LONGCROFT RD
WESTWOOD DR
ELMWOOD RD
REZ # 11 - 15Freedom ManorPINs:64 - A - 19, 64 - A - 20, 64 - A - 23Rezoning from RA/RP to RP with Proffers
0 510 1,020255 Feet
REZ #11-15
REZ # 11 - 15Freedom ManorPINs:64 - A - 19, 64 - A - 20, 64 - A - 23Rezoning from RA/RP to RP with Proffers
REZ #11-15
REZ #11-15
01522
01522
PROFFER STATEMENT
REZONING: RZ # _____
Residential Performance (RP) and Rural Areas (RA) to Residential
Performance (RP)
PROPERTY: 47.5415 acre +/- total (the “Property”) comprised of the following;
Tax Map Parcel 64-A-23 (26.8733 Acres – RP to RP)
Tax Map Parcel 64-A-19 (2.2021 Acres – RP to RP)
Portion of Tax Map Parcel 64-A-20 (4.6065 Acres – RP to RP)
Remainder of Tax Map Parcel 64-A-20 (13.8596 Acres – RA to RP)
RECORD OWNER: Shen-Valley Land Holdings, LLC
APPLICANT: Shen-Valley Land Holdings, LLC
PROJECT NAME: Freedom Manor
ORIGINAL DATE
OF PROFFERS: December 30, 2014
REVISION DATE(S): September 4, 2015; November 4, 2015; November 18, 2015
The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property
(“Property”), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which
shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above
referenced RP conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant (“Applicant”), these
proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent
upon final rezoning of the Property with “final rezoning” defined as that rezoning which is in effect on
the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the
“Board”) decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board’s
decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is
resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the
decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the
decision has been affirmed on appeal. The term “Applicant” as referenced herein shall include within
its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the
“Generalized Development Plan” or “GDP” shall refer to the plan entitled “Generalized Development
Plan, Freedom Manor” dated November 3, 2014 and revised November 4, 2015.
1. Site Development
1.1 Development of the Property shall not exceed a total of 300 dwelling units developed in
two phases. Phase 1 shall include a maximum of 100 single family detached dwelling
units within the area depicted as Phase 1 by the GDP. Phase 2, as depicted by the
GDP, shall consist of the remaining 200 dwelling units which may be single family
attached units, apartment units, or any combination thereof.
1.2 The Property shall be developed in general conformance with the Generalized
Development Plan, subject to minor modifications to accommodate final engineering.
Proffer Statement Freedom Manor
Page 2 of 4
2. Transportation
2.1 Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for any dwelling constructed on the
Property, the Applicant shall dedicate right of way across the Papermill Road frontage of
the Property in order to provide for a minimum of 58 feet of right of way, as measured
from the centerline of Papermill Road, to provide for both future road improvements and
a hiker/biker trail within the right of way. In the event that the Applicant chooses to
locate the hiker/biker trail as proffered across the Papermill Road frontage within a public
access easement, the right of way dedication may be reduced to provide for a minimum
of 48 feet of right of way, as measured from the centerline of Papermill Road.
2.2 Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the initial dwelling unit constructed on
the Property, the Applicant shall construct a single lane roundabout to access the
Property from Papermill Road in the general location and configuration depicted on the
GDP. Design of the roundabout shall be subject to VDOT review and approval. No
additional site entrances shall be permitted along Papermill Road.
2.3 The Applicant shall complete the following transportation improvements, subject to
VDOT approval, prior to issuance of a building permit for the 150th dwelling unit
constructed on the Property:
• The Applicant shall design and construct the north/south connector road as a
public roadway from the Property entrance at Papermill Road to the northern
Property limits to connect with the planned interparcel connector for the adjoining
Madison Village project in the general location depicted on the GDP.
• The Applicant shall design and construct a public roadway to provide an
interparcel connection to the western Property limits in the general location
depicted on the GDP. Said interparcel connection may be constructed within the
Phase 1 or Phase 2 area of the Property.
3. Pedestrian/Biker Improvements
3.1 Prior to issuance of a building permit for the 50th dwelling unit constructed on the
Property, the Applicant shall construct a 10’ asphalt shared use path across the Property
frontage on Papermill Road and across the southern Property boundary in the general
location depicted on the GDP. Public access easements shall be provided for these
trails if not constructed within public right of way.
3.2 As part of the design and construction of the north/south connector road, the Applicant
shall construct a 10’ asphalt shared use path to extend from the site entrance on
Papermill Road to the northern Property limits to link trail facilities planned for the
adjoining development as depicted on the GDP.
Impact Analysis Statement – Freedom Manor
1
FREEDOM MANOR - IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
Revised November 2015
The following is a summary of the proposed rezoning of Freedom Manor (the “Property”)
to the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District to provide for up 300 dwelling units
on 47.5 acres located east and adjacent to Papermill Road, approximately ½ mile
north/west of the intersection of Papermill Road and Route 522.
Proposed Development
The proposed development plan is depicted on the attached Exhibit A. As shown, the
project would consist of two phases that would provide for a maximum of 300 total
dwelling units served by a north/south connector road extending from a proposed
roundabout at the project entrance on Papermill Road through the site and to the
northern project limits where it would connect with the transportation network approved
for the adjoining Madison Village project. Phase 1, located on the southern portions of
the Property, is approximately 33.68 acres in size and would consist of a maximum of
100 single family dwelling units. Phase 2 would be comprised of the remaining 13.66
acres at the northern limits of the Property and consist of a maximum of 200 dwelling
units which could be single family attached, apartments, or a combination thereof.
The proposed Proffer Statement also provides an option to utilize Frederick County’s
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program in order to construct any of the
proposed dwelling units. The TDR option could be utilized in lieu of the proposed
monetary proffers, as the TDR option mitigates impacts by transferring development
rights from elsewhere in the County, but all other proffers including those relating to site
use and layout would remain unchanged under the TDR option, thus ensuring a
cohesive project.
A location map is attached as Exhibit B. As shown, the project is located between
Papermill Road and Route 522 near the existing signalized intersection of the two
roadways. Adjoining land to the south, zoned RA, is the current Shenandoah Memorial
Park. Lands adjoining the site to the east are generally single family detached uses
zoned RA and RP. To the north of the site is the recently approved Madison Village
project, zoned RP and slated for up to 640 dwelling units as a mixture of apartments and
townhomes. Additional RA zoned lands are located west and adjacent to the Property
and are planned for high density residential and public park uses by the Frederick
County Comprehensive Plan (the “Comprehensive Plan”).
Site Location
The project is comprised of three tax map parcels identified as 64-A-19, 20, and 23 and
is a mixture of RP and RA zoning currently. The attached Exhibit C provides a summary
of the existing zoning for the project. As shown, the southernmost 26.87 acres is zoned
RP and represents an area that was rezoned to the RP district in 2005 to provide for up
to 70 single family dwelling units. The 2005 rezoning application proposed access at
both Papermill Road as well as to Route 522 through an adjoining property. This new
rezoning application would remove the direct access to Route 522, which would be
preferred from an access management perspective, and also expand the area of the
project to the north to include an adjoining 20.63 acres. As shown on Exhibit C, this
Impact Analysis Statement – Freedom Manor
2
adjoining acreage is a mixture of 6.81 acres of existing RP zoning (without proffers
currently) and 13.86 acres of RA zoning.
Site Characteristics
Attached Exhibit D depicts the existing site conditions. The Property is currently vacant
aside from some fencing and small outbuildings. Two ponds are located on the subject
Property. Any wetland areas located on the property are limited to areas associated with
the two existing ponds. There are no mapped floodplains on the Property.
As depicted on Exhibit D, The site has a high elevation of 745 feet and a low elevation of
approximately 720 feet with existing slopes generally in the 2-5 percent range. The
majority of the site drains from west to east.
Soils on the site are identified as Blairton silt loams, Clearbrook channery silt loams, and
Weikert-Berks channery silt loams. The characteristics of this soil type and any
implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process.
Comprehensive Plan
The Property is located wholly within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer
and Water Service Area (SWSA). Further, the Eastern Frederick County Long Range
Land Use Plan (the “Land Use Plan”) identifies the southern portions of the site for
“Residential” land uses intended for 4 units per acre. The Land Use Plan identifies the
intended use of the northern portions of the Property for “High Density Residential” uses
at a density of 12-16 units per acre.
The proposed development plan for the Property recognizes the planned land uses
included in the Comprehensive Plan. Phase 1 of the project is proposed at a density of
approximately 3.0 units per acre, consistent with the “Residential” planned land use
identified by the Comprehensive Plan. Phase 2 is proposed at a density of up to 14.4
units per acre, which is consistent with the “High Density Residential” land use as
specified by the Comprehensive Plan.
Access and Transportation
Access to the Property would be provided by a single access point on Papermill Road
utilizing an off-set roundabout design. The initial traffic study for the project assumed a
typical entrance on Papermill Road. However, the relatively narrow existing right of way
for Papermill Road precluded the construction of a southbound left turn lane to
accommodate traffic heading south on Papermill Road and turning into the site. The
Applicant approached the adjoining property owner across Papermill Road to seek
additional right of way necessary to construct the turn lane or a typical four way
roundabout, which would also accommodate the turn movements. The adjoining
property owner respectfully declined offers by the Applicant to purchase right of way for
either of those improvements. In order to safely accommodate turning movements at
the project entrance, the Applicant has revised the TIA and prepared an associated
Roundabout Justification Study, attached as Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively.
These two studies are referred to collectively as the “TIA.”
Impact Analysis Statement – Freedom Manor
3
A north/south connector road, as shown on the proffered Generalized Development Plan
(GDP), would extend from the proposed entrance on Papermill Road to the northern
Property limits where it would connect with the planned transportation system for the
adjoining Madison Village project. For reference, the GDP includes the transportation
program approved as part of the Madison Village rezoning and master development
plan. While not included as part of the County’s long range transportation plans, this
north/south connection between Freedom Manor and Madison Village would improve
connectivity in the area and also help to minimize new access points along Route 522.
The TIA identifies the impacts associated with and levels of service (LOS) that can be
expected after development of the subject Property. The phased analysis assumes
background traffic growth and development of adjoining projects as well to provide for an
accurate depiction of the future functionality of the transportation network. At full build-
out, the proposed rezoning is expected to generate 2,643 average daily trips.
The TIA assumes two phases. Phase 1 includes development of 100 single family
detached units on a single access point at Papermill. Phase 2 adds the development of
200 single family attached or apartment units and assumes a connection through the
Madison Village project. Accordingly, the Phase 2 scenario includes vehicle trips
through the Madison Village site that would utilize the north/south connector road for
access to Papermill Road.
The TIA identifies that the roundabout on Papermill Road will function at an overall LOS
B or better under both the 2020 Phase 1 and 2026 Phase 2 scenarios. This
improvement is proffered to be completed prior to issuance of occupancy permits for any
dwelling units for the project thereby ensuring safe and efficient traffic movements for
Papermill Road traffic and vehicles accessing the site.
The TIA recommends lengthening the eastbound Papermill Road right turn pocket at
Route 522 and also to revise the signalization at that intersection to provide for a right
turn overlap phase to run concurrently with the northbound Route 522 left-turn phase
into the signal timing. This would allow for a continuous right turn movement as
opposed to a right-on-red situation for vehicles turning from Papermill Road onto
southbound Route 522. That suggested improvement would be required as a condition
of background traffic, regardless of the development of Freedom Manor.
The TIA identifies acceptable levels of service at full build-out for the intersections within
Madison Village and at Route 522 and Justes Drive without the need for any additional
improvements.
The proposed proffer statement limits access to Papermill Road to a single entrance as
shown on the GDP. The Applicant has proffered the following improvements prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the 150th dwelling unit:
• Extension of the north/south connector road from the roundabout on Papermill
Road to the northern property limits (to connect with Madison Village)
• Construction of an interparcel connection to the western Property limits (as
shown on the GDP).
Impact Analysis Statement – Freedom Manor
4
In addition, the Applicant has proffered to provide for additional right of way across the
Property frontage on Papermill Road to accommodate its share of the ultimate 80 foot
right of way for Papermill Road, planned as a major collector. To provide for a multi-
modal transportation system, the proposed proffer statement includes the extension of a
10’ hiker/biker trail through the site.
Resulting from the 2005 rezoning application process for a portion of the Property, an
existing restrictive covenant would preclude the connection of Westwood Drive to the
north/south connector road.
Historic Sites and Structures
The Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks identified the Evendale School (file #34-433)
within the vicinity of the site. However, that structure has been converted to a private
residence. Review of the application by the Historic Resources Advisory Board has
been deemed unnecessary.
Stormwater Management
The site currently drains generally from west to east. Development of the Property will
be subject to the revised Stormwater Management regulations addressing both
stormwater quantity and quality. As opposed to a single large stormwater management
facility, the final design of the stormwater management system will likely include the use
of several bioremediation filters to provide quality and quantity controls that meet current
requirements. Ownership and maintenance of any open space areas, including
stormwater facilities, will be the responsibility of the HOA per the proposed proffer
statement.
Sewage Conveyance and Water Supply
Using a standard rate of 200 gallons per day/dwelling unit it is projected that the
proposed development could produce up to 60,000 gallons per day of sewer flow. An
existing 8” sewer line within Westwood Drive, adjacent to the site, would serve as the
connection point for sanitary service for the Property directing flows ultimately to the
Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant. A pump station may be required to service the
easternmost portions of the site. Alternatively, it may be possible to provide gravity
service to the entirety of the Property by extending service to the existing sewer main
within Route 522 via an existing “pipe stem” that extends from the Property to Route
522. The final design of the sanitary system would be identified as part of the site
engineering process.
Water supply will be provided by way of an existing 8” water main extending from
Westwood Drive to the Property. Water usage of the project would be roughly
equivalent to its sewer flows of up to 60,000 gallons per day. The water system will be
designed to provide adequate pressure for potable water service and fire-fighting
services.
Impact Analysis Statement – Freedom Manor
5
Solid Waste
The following table provides a projection of the potential solid waste generation as a part
of this project.
Unit Type Units Waste Generation Total Waste (lbs)
Single Family Detached 100 12 lbs/day 1,200
Single Family Attached 200 9 lbs/day 1,800
Total 3,000
The Regional Landfill will be utilized for solid waste disposal. Waste collection by private
hauler will be the responsibility of the HOA for Freedom Manor in order to minimize
impacts to citizen convenience sites.
Impact on Community Facilities
To mitigate any impacts to community facilities, the Applicant has proffered a monetary
contribution consistent with the current Frederick County Impact model. The proffer
statement provides the Applicant with the option to develop the Property utilizing the
County’s TDR Ordinance in lieu of monetary proffers. If the TDR option is not utilized,
the proffer statement requires that the monetary contribution would be necessary for any
dwelling units constructed on the Property.
Approximately 6.81 acres of the proposed Phase 1 area is currently zoned RP with no
associated proffers. Accordingly, this portion of the site could develop under the RP
provisions of the zoning ordinance with no proffers for capital facilities or limitations on
housing types. To ensure a cohesive development, this area has been included within
the proffer statement and GDP thereby limiting development on the existing 6.81 acres
of RP zoning to only single family detached uses and also ensuring that the proposed
north/south collector road is extended through that portion of the site. The monetary
proffers for the 100 single family detached dwellings proposed within the Phase 1 area
of the development have been adjusted to reflect the 20 potential dwellings that would
result within the existing 6.81 acres of un-proffered RP zoning based on the proposed
single family density for the entirety of Phase 1 of approximately 3.0 dwelling units per
acre. The resulting per unit monetary proffer for any single family detached dwellings
constructed on the Property is $15,745. The calculation for this value is as follows:
• Phase 1 is proposed with 100 units on 33.6819 Acres for an effective density of
2.969 units/acre.
• 6.8086 acres of existing, un-proffered RP zoning could therefore yield 20.21 units
(20 units).
• Removing 20 units from the 100 unit maximum for single family dwellings within
Phase 1 results in 80 units.
• Capital impacts for 80 dwelling units at the current County Impact Model is 80 x
$19,681 = $1,574,480 total impact to capital facilities resulting from the rezoning
application.
• $1,574,480 then divided by 100 total units rounds up to $15,745 per single family
dwelling unit.
Impact Analysis Statement – Freedom Manor
6
The specific monetary proffers proposed for the single family detached units proposed
within Phase 1 of the project and the single family attached or apartment units proposed
within Phase 2 of the project is as follows:
Purpose
Single Family
Detached Units
Single Family
Attached Units
Apartment
Units
Fire and Rescue $438 $406 $412
General Government $1,098 $1,050 $1,050
Library $354 $338 $338
Parks and Recreation $1,455 $1,391 $1,391
School Construction $12,400 $10,495 $10,689
TOTAL $15,745 $13,680 $13,880
C
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #04-15
JERRY LEE AND KYUNG LEE
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: November 16, 2015
Staff Contact: Mark Cheran, Zoning Administrator
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on
this request. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter.
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission: 12/02/15 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 01/13/16 Pending
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This application is requested to enable a monument sign to be
erected in association with a previously approved adult care facility known as Rose Memorial
(CUP #22-04). Should the Planning Commission find this use to be appropriate, Staff would
recommend the following conditions:
1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times, to
include the approved conditions for this adult care facility.
2. Only one (1) monument sign 44 square feet in size and 5 foot in height allowed on the
property.
Following this public hearing, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to offer a
recommendation concerning this application to the Board of Supervisors.
Page 2
CUP #04-15, Jerry Lee and Kyung Lee
November 16, 2015
LOCATION: This property is located at 549 Valley Mill Road (Route 659)
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Red Bud
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 55-A-56
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
Zoned: RP (Residential Performance)
Land Use: Adult Care Facility
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
North: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential
South: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential Use: Residential
East: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential
West: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential
PROPOSED USE: Conditional Use Permit to add a monument sign
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Department of Transportation: VDOT has no objection to the proposed sign for the
Green Valley Commons at 549 Valley Mill Road provided the following conditions are met:
Proposed sign must be located on Green Valley Commons’ lot and not on Valley Mill Road
right-of-way. The sign should be no closer than 18’ from the edge line of the east bound lane of
Valley Mill Road.
Frederick County Inspections: Sign structure shall comply with The Virginia Uniform
Statewide Building Code and Section 312, use group U (Utility and Miscellaneous) of The
International Building Code 2012. Construction of the ground mounted sign requires a building
permit. Construction documents shall be submitted at the time of the building permit
application.
Winchester-Frederick County Health Department: The Health Department has no objection
to the sign being constructed as long as the existing well is not negatively impacted.
Frederick County Sanitation Authority: The existing private sanitary sewer lateral serving
this property is within the island where the proposed sign would be placed. FCSA suggests that
the sign location and construction does not damage nor hinder future maintenance or repair of
the sanitary sewer lateral.
Page 3
CUP #04-15, Jerry Lee and Kyung Lee
November 16, 2015
Winchester Regional Airport: No comments.
Frederick County Fire Marshall: Plans approved.
City of Winchester: No comments.
Planning and Zoning: This property is subject to two (2) Conditional Use Permits (CUP #02-96
& #22-04) for an adult care facility that was approved by Frederick County. CUP #02-96 was
approved for a 26 bed adult care facility, known as Rose Memorial. CUP #22-04 was approved
for an expansion. The expansion of this adult care facility was to add eight (8) beds for a total of
34 beds. Neither of these Conditional Use Permits provided for signage. There will be no other
changes to the conditions of CUP #02-96 or CUP #22-04. All of the assigned conditions of the
previous approved Conditional Use Permits have been met.
The Applicant has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to erect one (1) monument sign on the
property. This sign will be 44 square feet in size and 5 foot in height. (See attachment)
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 12/02/15 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
Should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, Staff would recommend the
following conditions:
1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times, to
include the approved conditions for this adult care facility.
2. Only one (1) monument sign 44 square feet in size and 5 foot in height allowed on the
property.
Following this public hearing, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to offer a
recommendation concerning this application to the Board of Supervisors.
112VANBUREN PL
118WOODYS PL
116WOODYS PL
114WOODYS PL
113WOODYS PL
109WOODYS PL
107WOODYS PL107VANBUREN PL
112WOODYS PL
110WOODYS PL
136PEBBLEBROOK LN 138PEBBLEBROOK LN
140PEBBLEBROOK LN
108WOODYS PL 106WOODYS PL
104WOODYS PL
139PEBBLEBROOK LN 102WOODYS PL
100WOODYS PL
100VANBUREN CT
137PEBBLEBROOK LN
104VANBUREN CT
105VANBUREN CT
543VALLEYMILL RD
533VALLEYMILL RD
107HILLVALLEY DR 105HILLVALLEY DR
103HILLVALLEY DR
106HILLVALLEY DR 104HILLVALLEY DR
102HILLVALLEY DR
100HILLVALLEY DR
108HILLVALLEY DR
111HILLVALLEY DR
113HILLVALLEY DR
110HILLVALLEY DR
114HIGHPOINTE CT 116HIGHPOINTE CT
118HIGHPOINTE CT
55 A 56
55 A 56
HILL VALLEY DR
VALLEY MILL RD
W
O
O
D
Y
S
P
L
Applications
Parcels
Building Footprints
B1 (Business, Neighborhood District)
B2 (Business, General Distrist)
B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District)
EM (Extractive Manufacturing District)
HE (Higher Education District)
M1 (Industrial, Light District)
M2 (Industrial, General District)
MH1 (Mobile Home Community District)
MS (Medical Support District)
OM (Office - Manufacturing Park)
R4 (Residential Planned Community District)
R5 (Residential Recreational Community District)
RA (Rural Area District)
RP (Residential Performance District)
I
Note:Frederick County Dept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: November 3, 2015Staff: mcheran
VALLEY MILL
R
D
GR
E
E
N
W
O
O
D
R
D
HILL VALLEY DR
WOODYS
P
L
PEBBLE BRO
O
K
L
N
A
S
T
O
R
I
A
C
T
HIGHPOINTE CT
CUP # 04 - 15Jerry Lee and Kyung LeePIN:55 - A - 56Monument Sign
0 140 28070 Feet
CUP 04-15
CUP # 04 - 15Jerry Lee and Kyung LeePIN:55 - A - 56Monument Sign
CUP 04-15
55 A 56
55 A 56
112VANBUREN PL
118WOODYS PL
116WOODYS PL
114WOODYS PL
113WOODYS PL
109WOODYS PL
107WOODYS PL107VANBUREN PL
112WOODYS PL
110WOODYS PL
136PEBBLEBROOK LN 138PEBBLEBROOK LN
140PEBBLEBROOK LN
108WOODYS PL 106WOODYS PL
104WOODYS PL
139PEBBLEBROOK LN 102WOODYS PL
100WOODYS PL
100VANBUREN CT
137PEBBLEBROOK LN
104VANBUREN CT
105VANBUREN CT
543VALLEYMILL RD
533VALLEYMILL RD
107HILLVALLEY DR 105HILLVALLEY DR
103HILLVALLEY DR
106HILLVALLEY DR 104HILLVALLEY DR
102HILLVALLEY DR
100HILLVALLEY DR
108HILLVALLEY DR
111HILLVALLEY DR
113HILLVALLEY DR
110HILLVALLEY DR
114HIGHPOINTE CT 116HIGHPOINTE CT
118HIGHPOINTE CT
HILL VALLEY DR
VALLEY MILL RD
W
O
O
D
Y
S
P
L
Applications
Parcels
Building Footprints
I
Note:Frederick County Dept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: November 3, 2015Staff: mcheran
VALLEY MILL
R
D
GR
E
E
N
W
O
O
D
R
D
HILL VALLEY DR
WOODYS
P
L
PEBBLE BRO
O
K
L
N
A
S
T
O
R
I
A
C
T
HIGHPOINTE CT
CUP # 04 - 15Jerry Lee and Kyung LeePIN:55 - A - 56Monument Sign
0 140 28070 Feet
CUP 04-15
CUP # 04 - 15Jerry Lee and Kyung LeePIN:55 - A - 56Monument Sign
CUP 04-15
D
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/ 665-5651
Fax: 540/ 665-6395
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment
Supplementary Use Regulations – Setback Extensions
DATE: November 19, 2015
In 2011 the RP (Residential Performance) District setbacks and dimensional requirements were
revised to introduce setbacks for unroofed decks and structures. With that revision, the allowance
for extensions into the setback within the supplementary use regulations was changed to eliminate
the RP and R4 (Residential Planned Community) Districts. Since the RP dimensional requirements
also apply to the R5 District, the R5 (Residential Recreational Community) District should also have
been removed from the supplementary use regulations extension provision (leaving only the RA
and MH1 in the supplementary use section).
Staff has prepared a minor revision to remove the R5 from the supplementary use regulation
setback extension to ensure that R5 developments (Lake Holliday, Lake Frederick, Shawneeland,
and Mountain Falls) all utilize the RP Zoning District deck and stoop setback extension as intended.
The DRRC discussed this amendment at their August 2015 meeting. The DRRC agreed with the
proposed changes as drafted and the item was forwarded to the Planning Commission for
discussion. The Planning Commission discussed this item on September 9, 2015; the Planning
Commission agreed with the changes and sent the item forward for review by the Board of
Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors discussed this item on October 28, 2015; the Board of
Supervisors agreed with the proposed changes and sent the amendment forward for public hearing.
The attached document shows the existing ordinance with the proposed changes (with
strikethroughs for text eliminated and bold italic for text added). This item is presented for public
hearing. A recommendation from the Planning Commission on this proposed Zoning Ordinance
text amendment is sought. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Attachments: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold underlined italics and deletions
in strikethrough.
2. RP District (single family small lot) dimensional requirements.
CEP/pd
Attachment 1
Original language
Draft revisions
Article II
SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS; PARKING; BUFFERS; AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES
Part 201 – Supplementary Use Regulations
§ 165-201.02 Setback requirements.
F. Extensions into setback yards. The following features may extend into setback yards as described:
(1) Air conditioners and similar equipment. Air conditioners, heat pumps and similar mechanical
equipment that are attached to the primary structure may extend three feet into any side or
rear yard area but shall not be closer than five feet to any lot line.
(2) Architectural and structural features. Cornices, canopies, awnings, eaves, gutters or other similar
overhanging features which are least eight feet above the grade may extend three feet into any
required yard setback area. Chimneys, sills, headers, belt courses and similar structural features
may extend three feet into required yard setback areas.
(3) Porches and related features. In the RA and MH1, and R5 Zoning Districts, balconies, porches,
stoops, decks, bay windows, steps and stairways which comprise less than 1/3 of the length
of the wall of the primary structure may extend three feet into a required setback yard. In
no case shall such features be closer than five feet to a lot line.
Attachment 2
E
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/ 665-5651
Fax: 540/ 665-6395
107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, CZA, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Annual Review of the Planning Commission’s Guiding Documents – the
Bylaws, and the Roles and Responsibilities
DATE: November 20, 2015
The guiding documents of the Planning Commission – the Bylaws, and the Roles and
Responsibilities – are reviewed each fall, revised as appropriate, and then adopted
during the first meeting of the calendar year. Staff solicited comments and suggested
revisions from the Planning Commission in November. Minor Bylaws revisions were
suggested; no revisions were suggested for the Roles and Responsibilities document.
Staff will present suggested minor revisions to the Bylaws during a discussion at the
Planning Commission’s December 2, 2015 meeting. Any revisions that result from the
discussion will be incorporated into the final documents, and returned to the Planning
Commission in January for adoption.
Attachments:
Planning Commission Bylaws, with suggested revisions
Planning Commission Roles and Responsibilities, no revisions suggested
CEP/pd
PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS
County of Frederick, Virginia
Proposed For Discussion
Includes Suggested Revisions
December 2, 2015
ARTICLE I - AUTHORIZATION
1-1 The Frederick County Planning Commission is established by and in conformance with
Chapter 21 of the Code of Frederick County, and in accord with the provisions of Section
15.2-2210 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
1-2 The official title of this body shall be the Frederick County Planning Commission,
hereinafter referred to as the "Commission".
ARTICLE II - PURPOSE
2-1 The primary purpose of the Commission is to advise the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors and to carry out all duties and functions described by the Code of Virginia, as
amended.
ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP
3-1 The membership of the Commission shall be determined by the Frederick County Board
of Supervisors as specified in Chapter 21 of the Code of Frederick County. Methods of
appointment and terms of office shall be determined by Chapter 21 of the Code of
Frederick County.
3-2 Within the first month of initial appointment, new Commissioner appointees shall: 1)
participate in an orientation to familiarize themselves with the operations of the
Department and the Commission, and 2) meet with planning staff representatives in an
effort to review and better understand specific agenda items by no later than their second
Planning Commission meeting.
Page 2
Planning Commission Bylaws
Proposed For Discussion December 2, 2015
ARTICLE IV - OFFICERS
4-1 Officers of the Commission shall consist of a chairman, vice-chairman and secretary.
The chairman and vice-chairman must be voting members of the Commission. The
secretary shall be a member of the Commission or a county employee.
4-2 Selection
4-2-1 The officers shall be elected by the voting members of the Commission at
the first meeting of the calendar year.
4-2-2 Nomination of officers shall be made from the floor. Elections of officers
shall follow immediately. A candidate receiving a majority vote of the
entire voting membership shall be declared elected.
4-3 Duties
4-3-1 The Chairman shall:
4-3-1-1 Preside at meetings.
4-3-1-2 Appoint committees.
4-3-1-3 Rule on procedural questions. A ruling on a procedural question by the
chairman shall be subject to reversal by a two-thirds majority vote of the
members present.
4-3-1-4 Report official communications.
4-3-1-5 Certify official documents involving the authority of the Commission.
4-3-1-6 Certify minutes as true and correct copies.
4-3-1-7 Carry out other duties as assigned by the Board of Supervisors and the
Commission.
4-3-2 The Vice-Chairman shall:
4-3-2-1 Assume the full powers of the chairman in the absence or inability of the
chairman to act.
4-3-2-2 When acting as chair, the vice-chairman shall carry out other duties as
assigned by the Board of Supervisors and the Commission Chairman.
Page 3
Planning Commission Bylaws
Proposed For Discussion December 2, 2015
4-3-3 The Secretary shall:
4-3-3-1 Ensure that attendance is recorded at all meetings.
4-3-3-2 Ensure that the minutes of all Commission meetings are recorded.
4-3-3-3 Notify members of all meetings.
4-3-3-4 Prepare agendas for all meetings.
4-3-3-5 Maintain files of all official Commission records and reports. Official
records and reports may be purged in accordance with applicable state
codes.
4-3-3-6 Give notice of all Commission meetings, public hearings and public
meetings.
4-3-3-7 Provide to the Board of Supervisors reports and recommendations of the
Commission.
4-3-3-8 Attend to the correspondence necessary for the execution of the duties and
functions of the Commission.
4-4 Term of Office
4-4-1 Officers shall be elected for a one-year term or until a successor takes office.
Vacancies shall be filled for an unexpired term by a majority vote of the
Commission. In such cases, the newly elected officer shall serve only until the
end of the calendar year or until a successor takes office.
4-5 Temporary Chairman
4-5-1 In the event of the absence of both the chairman and the vice-chairman from any
meeting, the Commission shall designate from among its members a temporary
chairman who shall act for that meeting in the absence of the chairman or vice-
chairman.
Page 4
Planning Commission Bylaws
Proposed For Discussion December 2, 2015
ARTICLE V - COMMITTEES
5-1 The Commission shall establish committees necessary to accomplish its purpose.
5-2 In establishing committees, the Commission shall describe the purpose for each
committee.
5-3 Members of the committees shall be appointed by the chairman and will serve for a term
of one year. The chairman may request recommendations from the Commission or
committee members on committee appointments.
5-4 Commission members, employees of the County, and citizen volunteers may be members
of the committee.
5-5 The chairman and vice-chairman of the Planning Commission shall be ex-officio
members of every committee.
5-6 The committees will elect a chairman and vice-chairman annually. These officers shall
be current Commission members and should represent different Magisterial Districts, if
possible.
5-7 The committees may operate as a committee of the whole or by executive committee,
with current and past Commission members serving as members of the executive
committee.
5-8 The committees may establish standing subcommittees whose activities will be a specific
responsibility of the parent committee. One executive committee member will serve as
liaison to the standing subcommittee and will assist staff in managing its activities.
Membership will be comprised of past Commission members and citizens. Membership
will be appointed by the chairman of the Committee with concurrence by the
Commission Chairman.
5-9 The committees may establish working groups to assist in specific, carefully-defined tasks
for a limited period of time. Important considerations for membership on the working
group are skills and experience necessary to assist in providing acceptable solutions.
Membership will be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee with concurrence by
the Commission Chairman.
Page 5
Planning Commission Bylaws
Proposed For Discussion December 2, 2015
ARTICLE VI – COMMISSION MEETINGS
6-1 At the first meeting of each calendar year, the Commission shall fix the date, time, and
place of all its regular meetings for the ensuing calendar year, and shall fix the day on
which a regular meeting shall be continued should the Chairman declare that weather or
other conditions make it hazardous for members to attend.
6-2 Special meetings may be called by the chairman or by the secretary after due notice and
publication by the secretary.
6-3 Notice of all meetings shall be sent by the secretary with an agenda at least five days
before the meeting.
6-4 All meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public except for Closed Sessions
held in accordance with the provision specified under Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended.
6-5 Work sessions shall be held at the adjournment of regular meetings or at the time and
place set by the Commission and/or the Board of Supervisors.
ARTICLE VII - VOTING
7-1 A majority of voting members shall constitute a quorum. No action shall be taken or
motion made unless a quorum is present.
7-2 No action of the Commission shall be valid unless authorized by a majority vote of those
present and voting.
ARTICLE VIII - OPERATING RULES
8-1 Order of Business for a regular meeting
8-1-1 Call to Order.
8-1-2 Adoption of the Agenda.
8-1-3 Consideration of Minutes.
8-1-4 Committee Reports.
Page 6
Planning Commission Bylaws
Proposed For Discussion December 2, 2015
8-1-5 Citizen Comments on Items not on the Agenda.
8-1-6 Public Hearings.
8-1-7 Action Items.
8-1-8 Information/Discussion Items
8-1-9 Other.
8-1-10 Adjournment.
8-2 Minutes
8-2-1 The Commission shall keep minutes of each meeting. The chairman and
secretary shall sign all minutes following approval by the Commission certifying
that the minutes are true and correct. Minutes made available to the public prior
to formal approval by the Commission shall be clearly identified as a draft version
of the meeting.
8-3 Procedures
8-3-1 Parliamentary procedure in the Commission meetings shall be governed by
Robert's Rules of Order, except where otherwise specified in these procedures.
8-3-2 Whenever an agenda item involves a recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors, the Commission shall continue to consider the item until a definite
recommendation is made. If a motion has been made and defeated, additional,
different motions may be made concerning the item under consideration.
8-3-3 The initial motion on an agenda item shall be made by a member representing the
application’s Magisterial District. If both District representatives are absent or
decline to make the initial motion, then any other Commissioner may act.
8-3-4 Business items on the agenda shall be considered using the following procedures:
8-3-4-1 Report by County Staff.
8-3-4-2 Presentation by Applicant.
8-3-4-3 Citizen Comment.
Page 7
Planning Commission Bylaws
Proposed For Discussion December 2, 2015
8-3-4-4 Applicant Response.
8-3-4-5 Staff Summary.
8-3-4-6 Discussion by Commission.
8-3-4-7 Motion and Action by Commission.
8-3-5 Public comment shall be allowed in all cases required by the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended, or the Code of Frederick County. In other cases, the chairman
may allow public comment.
8-3-6 The Commission members may ask questions of clarification and information
after the staff report, applicant presentation, and/or citizen comment.
8-3-7 Petitions, displays, documents or correspondence presented at a meeting may be
made part of the official record of the meeting by motion of the Commission and
are to be kept on file by the secretary. Such items need not be made part of the
published minutes.
8-3-8 Public Hearings
8-3-8-1 The Commission shall hold public hearings on all items for which
hearings are required by the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, or by the
Code of Frederick County. Such public hearing shall be advertised and
notifications provided as required by the Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended.
8-3-8-2 The Chairman may establish special rules for any public hearing at the
beginning of said hearing. These rules may include limitations on the time
of staff report, applicant presentation and citizen comment.
8-3-8-3 In addition to those required by law, the Commission may hold public
hearings on any matter, under the purview of the Commission, which it
deems to be in the public interest. In such cases, the public hearings shall
follow all procedures described for public hearing in these bylaws.
8-3-8-4 The 90-day period (Section 165-102.03 of the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance) for the Planning Commission to make a rezoning
recommendation to the Board will start after the first Commission
meeting following the referral of the amendment to the Commission.
8-3-9 Tabling
Page 8
Planning Commission Bylaws
Proposed For Discussion December 2, 2015
8-3-9-1 The Planning Commission shall have the authority to table agenda items
45-days (less if reaching the limits of Section 165-102.03) for any one of
the following:
A) The agenda item does not meet the requirements of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended.
B) The agenda item does not meet the requirements of the Code of
Frederick County.
C) Insufficient information has been provided for the agenda item.
D) Revised proffers have been received from the applicant less than
twenty-one (21) fourteen (14) days of the advertised Planning
Commission meeting.
E) Issues or concerns that arise during formal discussion of the
agenda item warrant additional information or study.
F) The applicant provides the Frederick County Planning Department
with a written request to table the agenda item.
G) The Frederick County Planning Department is advised of an
emergency situation that prevents attendance by the applicant.
H) The applicant fails to appear at the meeting in which the
application has been advertised to appear.
8-3-9-2 The applicant shall be permitted to request that an agenda item be tabled
from a scheduled Planning Commission meeting one time. The Planning
Commission shall table the application for a specific period of time to
ensure that the requirements of Section 165-102.03 of the Frederick
County Zoning Ordinance are not exceeded unless the applicant requests a
waiver from this requirement. In no case shall an application be tabled for
more than 12 months from the time the complete application was received
by the Zoning Administrator or applicable staff.
8-3-9-3 An application that has been tabled for an unspecified period of time shall
be re-advertised for consideration by the Planning Commission once the
following steps have been completed:
A) The applicant has requested in writing that the agenda item be
Page 9
Planning Commission Bylaws
Proposed For Discussion December 2, 2015
considered by the Planning Commission.
B) The applicant has provided all required information to the
Frederick County Planning Department which addresses all
concerns of the Planning Commission.
8-3-10 Work sessions
8-3-10-1 The Commission may hold work sessions at which the procedural rules of
these bylaws shall not apply.
8-3-10-2 Work sessions shall be held after the adjournment of regular meetings or
at the time and place set by the Commission and/or the Board of
Supervisors.
8-3-10-3 Notice of work sessions shall be sent to the Planning Commissioners at
least five days before the session.
8-3-10-4 The chairman shall lead the session and require orderly behavior and
discussion.
8-3-10-5 No actions shall be taken or motions made at a work session.
8-3-10-6 Work sessions shall be open to the public. Public comment is not required
at a work session.
8-3-10-7 The secretary shall keep a general record of all work sessions and the
items discussed.
8-3-11 Adjournment
8-3-11-1 In no case shall the Commission consider any new items
after 10:30 P.M. and the meeting shall be adjourned by
11:00 P.M. In the instance that an item begun before
10:30P.M. has not been acted on by the 11:00 P.M. hour,
the Commission may, by majority vote, lift the
adjournment time until a recommendation has been made,
or such time, after 11:00 P.M., as the Commission may fix.
Page 10
Planning Commission Bylaws
Proposed For Discussion December 2, 2015
ARTICLE IX - AMENDMENTS
9-1 These bylaws may be amended by a majority vote of the entire voting
membership after thirty days prior notice at any time during the calendar year.
9-2 The Planning Commission shall conduct an annual review of these bylaws each
calendar year to ensure their accuracy.
9-3 At the first meeting of the calendar year, the By-Laws will be adopted.
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Proposed for Adoption at the
January 6, 2016 Meeting
This document has been prepared to assist Frederick County Planning Commissioners in
understanding what their role and responsibilities are in the myriad of activities that they
accept as a member of the Planning Commission. This compilation is a companion
document to the Commission’s By-Laws.
APPLICATION COMMUNICATIONS
There are three primary sources of information gathered by and weighed by the Planning
Commission in order to make quality planning recommendations to the Board of
Supervisors. They are ex-parte communications, staff reports and public input.
Ex-Parte Communications:
Individual meetings between Commissioners and an applicant/developer regarding a
specific application shall follow the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. During this
discussion or at any other time prior to action taken by the Commission on the
application, a Planning Commissioner should make no commitments or endorsements.
Any new written materials provided by the applicant to any one Commissioner shall be
made available to all commissioners and staff by the applicant prior to the application
appearing on the agenda. To not do so may result in the application being tabled at the
Planning Commission public hearing.
Staff Application Briefings/Work Sessions:
Prior to the first public hearing being held, staff will hold a briefing for the Planning
Commissioners, with an invitation extended to the Board of Supervisors to participate,
regarding any application deemed sufficiently complicated / controversial to warrant
detailed explanation. The purpose is to apprise the Commissioners regarding the details
of the application, both those items that meet the ordinance and those that do not. This
provides the opportunity for the Commissioners to have a common understanding of the
application prior to the public hearing. The decision to hold a briefing on a specific
application will be made jointly by the Director of Planning and the Chairman of the
Planning Commission. In addition to complexity, the application shall be basically
complete prior to scheduling the briefing.
Page 2
Planning Commission Roles and Responsibilities
Proposed for Adoption at the January 6, 2016 Meeting
The Planning Commission may request a work session for an application which, after the
first public hearing is concluded, is subsequently tabled. The purpose of the work session
is to discuss amongst each other and with staff details of the application, any revised
proffers provided or anticipated by the applicant, and other improvements which could be
made to the application.
For either a briefing or a work session:
-The applicant should attend, but will not have an active role.
-The format of a Planning Commission work session as identified in paragraph 8-
3-10 of the Commission’s By-Laws will be used.
-In no case will the legal timeline for consideration before the Planning
Commission be changed.
Public Hearing/Meeting:
Efficient and effective public hearings are an essential part of enabling the Commission
to make reasoned recommendations to the Board of Supervisors.
Every attempt will be made to obtain focused and broad representation of opinion or
information from the public. When possible, specific time limitations will not be used.
However, both rules of order as well as time constraints most appropriate for the specific
application will be implemented when there is either large interest in or controversy
regarding an application.
One constant during this process on both the part of the public, the applicant and the
Commission itself is civility and respect for information offered or a differing opinion.
Deviation from this behavior is unacceptable.
COMMISSIONER DEVELOPMENT:
Each Commissioner shall be committed to preparing for and keeping knowledge current
in order to do the most effective job for the community.
New initial appointees should strive to obtain Planning Commissioner certification from
an acceptable training program within the first year of appointment. This training is
supported by the Planning Department budget.
Further continuing education through many offerings should be pursued and will be
supported by the Planning budget as possible. These opportunities should be shared
Page 3
Planning Commission Roles and Responsibilities
Proposed for Adoption at the January 6, 2016 Meeting
amongst the number of Commissioners who are serving. Examples include PlanVirginia
annual meeting, other special offerings as well as the American Planning Association’s
readings and meetings. A library is maintained by the Planning office.
COMMISSIONER ATTENDANCE
Commissioners are expected to participate in 80% of the regularly scheduled meetings
per year. Members who cannot attend a meeting due to illness, business, and other
governmental or family reasons should notify the Commission Chairman and/or staff
Administrative Assistant prior to the scheduled meeting in order for the absence to be
noted. It may affect quorum considerations.
Especially essential is preparation and readiness for each of the Commission’s meetings
in order to use not only the Commission’s but the staff’s and public’s time wisely.
COMMISSION COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS:
Appointments to a Commission committee or liaison assignments are made by the
chairman and shared by the membership. Generally, they involve a once per month
meeting.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
Each Commissioner needs to be familiar with Commonwealth of Virginia information on
conflict of interest. If a Commissioner is unsure if there is conflict, the County Attorney
is the correct resource.
Upon determination that there is or might be perceived to be a conflict, the Commissioner
should state immediately after the agenda item is read that recusal action is necessary
(with, preferably, stating the reason) then step down from the dais until the item is
concluded.
PUBLIC REPRESENTATION:
Commissioners are citizens, too. If there is a public item that is of interest, the
Commissioner should participate, but not identify themselves as members of the
Frederick County Planning Commission unless acting in an official capacity and directed
to do so. Implied endorsements by the Commission should be avoided.