PC 04-04-07 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
April 4, 2007
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) Adoption of Agenda:
Pursuant to established procedures, the Planning Commission should adopt the Agenda for
themeeting.............................................................................................................. (no tab)
2) February 21, 2007 Minutes.............................................................................................. (A)
3) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab)
4) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab)
PUBLIC MEETING
5) Master Development Plan 417-06 for Crosspointe Center, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust
& Associates, to develop 547.37 acres for up to 1,578 single family homes at Phase III build -out,
and commercial uses. The properties are located in the Kernstown Area— east and adjacent to
Interstate 81 where VA Route 37 terminates in the Shawnee Magisterial District, and are
identified by Property Identification Numbers 75-A-89, 75 -A -89A, 75 -A -90,75 -A -91,75-A-92,
75-A-94, 75-A-95 and 75-A-96.
Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (B)
6) Shenandoah Development Master Development Plan #06-00 Update
Mr. Suchicital................................................................................................................... (C)
DISCUSSION
7) Zoning Ordinance Amendments — Zoning — Chapter 165 — Article VI, RP Residential
Performance District. Introduction of Age -Restricted Multifamily Housing,
Mrs. Eddy......................................................................................................................... (D)
8) Other
FILE COPY
•
•
�7
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 February 21, 2007.
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon
District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red
Bud District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon
District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -
Large; Philip E. Lemieux, Board of Supervisors Liaison; Barbara Van Osten, Board of Supervisors Liaison;
Walter E. Hibbard, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; City of Winchester
Liaison.
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision
Administrator; Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner; John A. Bishop, Transportation Planner; Candice Perkins, Planner
I1; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Upon motion made by Commissioner
Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this
evening's meeting.
MINUTES
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Oates, the
minutes of the December 20, 2006 Planning Commission meeting were unanimously approved as presented.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the
minutes of the January 3, 2007 Planning Commission meeting were unanimously approved as presented.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1982
Minutes of February 21, 2007 0 N ]g
811 R#
-2 -
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) — 02/12/07 Mtg.
Commissioner Light reported that the CPPS discussed work priorities for the upcoming year,
including community facilities and services, and text amendments.
Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) — 02/20/07 Mtg.
Commissioner Oates reported that the HRAB discussed a pending rezoning application proposed
for the southeast corner of Senseny and Greenwood Roads. Commissioner Oates said the historic structure,
identified as the Greenwood School, was the primary concern since it is located in the center of the property and
would have to be removed, if the parcel is developed. Commissioner Oates reported the HRAB's
recommendations, if the property is developed.
Sanitation Authority (SA) — 02/20/07 Mtg.
Commissioner Unger reported that rainfall for the month of January was down; the water flow
was down because of less rain in January; and water usage was up about 5.3 mgd, which was contributed to
warmer January temperatures. Commissioner Unger said the SA is anticipating the bid for the pump station,
which will supply the new subdivision, Snowden Bridge; condemnation of some property is involved.
Winchester Planning Commission (WPC) — 02/20/07 Mtg.
Commissioner Oates reported that the WPC discussed six items: 1) recommended approval of
CUP renewal for the Piccadilly Brew Pub; 2) recommended approval of Phase 3 of Glen Lea Court, a five -lot
subdivision; 3) recommended approval of a down -zoning from M2 to C l of a parcel along Valley Avenue at the
O'Sullivan Plant; 4) recommended approval of a corridor enhancement district along Valley Avenue from Cedar
Creek Grade to Bell -view Avenue; 5) discussed the next segment of the corridor enhancement along Berryville
Avenue; 6) recommended approval of an ordinance amendment to allow breweries to the CMI, M1, and M2
Districts.
In addition, Commissioner Oates reported that the WPC will hold a public meeting from 5:00 to
7:00 p.m at City Hall on February 28, 2007 to discuss the final leg of Valley Avenue for corridor enhancements.
He recalled that at the previous CPPS meeting, there was a discussion about applying something similar within a
mile or two of the city limits. Commissioner Oates said this would be a good opportunity to see the City's
process for implementation.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of February 21, 2007
Page 1983
-3 -
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any item that was not on this evening's agenda.
No one came forward to speak.
PUBLIC HEARING
Rezoning Application #01-07 of Jordan Springs, submitted by Bowman Consulting, to rezone 185.43 acres
from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, 28.30 acres from RA (Rural
Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District, 3.42 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2
(General Business) District with a Historic Area (HA) Overlay Zone, and 3.42 acres from B2 (General
Business) District with a Historic Area (HA) Overlay Zone to RP (Residential Performance) District (with
6.91 acres to remain B2 (General Business) District with a Historic Area (HA) Overlay Zone), with
proffers, for commercial land uses and up to 604 residential units. The property is located at 1160 Jordan
Springs Road and fronts the east and west side of Jordan Springs Road (Route 664) and fronts the west
side of Wood's Mill Road (Route 660). The property is further identified with P.LN.s 44-A-294 and 44 -A -
294A in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Denial
Senior Planner, Susan K. Eddy, reported that there are two properties that make up the site,
totaling 227 acres; she proceeded to describe the various acreages and the rezoning requested which comprise the
total site. She commented that the applicant's engineers have worked closely with the staff to get the acreages
correct because a surveying error was made in 2001 when a portion of the property was rezoned to B2. She said
the staff is trying to rectify this error and the remainder is a completely new rezoning. Ms. Eddy said the site is
within the limits of the North East Land Use Plan (NELUP); however, it lies outside of the Urban Development
Area (UDA) and only a small portion of the site (around the B2 area) is within the Sewer and Water Service Area
(SWSA). Since the UDA is the appropriate location for dense residential development, the proposal is not in
conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Ms. Eddy stated that in 2004 and 2005, the property owners
had applied for a Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment (CPPA) to bring the entire site into the UDA and both
in 2004 and 2005, the Board of Supervisors chose not to study the request further. Ms. Eddy said in August of
2006, another similar CPPA request was submitted to the Planning Department, however, it was submitted after
the June I deadline for CPPAs and was returned to the applicant.
Ms. Eddy stated that the site contains a significant amount of environmental features and the
NELUP calls for identifying environmental resources and developing methods to protect those resources. She
said the applicant has clearly identified the resources, but has not yet committed to protecting those resources.
Ms. Eddy read the Sanitation Authority's comment which stated that a wastewater pump station would provide
service to the property and water facilities have the capacity to meet demand. She said the Service Authority,
however, noted that waste water capacity given to this project would take away capacity to other previously -
approved projects in the Opequon Service Area. Ms Eddy reported that a portion of the site is historically
significant and will be retained within the HA (Historic Area) Overlay; however, the historic setting should be
buffered from the proposed new uses. She added that Woods Mill Road is not proposed by the applicant to be
improved to a minor collector road status, as called for in the Eastern Road Plan and not all surrounding roads
will function at a LOS "C." Furthermore, the applicant is introducing a new housing type and new housing
standards which are not allowed in the RP Zoning District.
Frederick County Planning Comir6ssion
Minutes of February 21, 2007
Page 1984
-4 -
Commissioner Kriz asked about State Code time limits on accepting monetary proffers for
transportation. Ms. Eddy replied that the proffer states that contributions will be made as the permits come in for
the units, which could be several years. Ms. Eddy said the State Code has a time limitation of seven years for the
money to be used by the locality.
Commissioner Thomas asked if the property was ever within the UDA. Ms. Eddy replied that a
portion of the land was within the UDA and a portion was within the SWSA. She said the change came in
September of 2006 when all the boundaries of the UDA were comprehensively examined and at that point, the
UDA and SWSA lines were moved slightly to the north to correspond with the R4 Zoning of the Snowden Bridge
(Stephensons Village) development. Commissioner Thomas inquired how long those portions of the property had
been in the UDA. Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, replied that the UDA appeared on this property with the
Snowden Bridge exercise, which came through only two to three years ago.
Referring to the traffic study, Commissioner Thomas pointed out the staffs comment indicating
the LOS at the intersection of Route 7 and Woods Mill falls to a LOS `B" and "F." Commissioner Thomas
contended that the LOS from background traffic at this location is already "E" and "F" and there was little impact
from this development alone on any of the intersections in the LOS analysis. Ms. Eddy commented that the
Comprehensive Policy Plan and the NELUP do not recommend the entertainment of rezonings if there is not a
LOS "C." She believed the project would exacerbate the problem, as opposed to solely causing the problem.
Mr. Thomas Moore (Ty) Lawson, PC, with Lawson & Silek, P.L.C., stepped forward on
behalf of the property owners, Greig D. W. Aitken and Tonle M. Wallace -Aitken, and the developers, Drees
Homes. Mr. Lawson said this process started back in 2005 with the owners interviewing prospective developers
for their site and to consider, preserve, and emphasize the historic hotel and surrounding buildings. He said initial
meetings with the Planning Department were held in October of 2005; and, a historic plaque was presented for
Jordan Springs by the Board of Supervisors in June of 2006. Mr. Lawson said they attended meetings held by the
County on the UDA/ SWSA boundary modifications and discussion was held concerning a portion of this
property that was within the UDA/ SWSA boundaries. Mr. Lawson said that at this point in time, his client was
well underway with their rezoning application and comments from agencies were being sought in duly and August
of 2006. He noted that comments from the agencies were coming back in the Fall of 2006 and they were
responding to those comments. He wanted to point out that considerable work has been taking place on this
project over the past couple years.
Mr. Lawson next proceeded to provide the Commission with details about the project, pointing
out the commercial areas, the trail system, and the green space. He talked about the possibility of re-establishing
the old historic pub for a full-service facility and the proffered Generalized Development Plan (GDP). Mr.
Lawson said the applicants are working on a forest management plan and proffers include: the protection of
wildlife corridors and wetlands; the provision of open space along the stream; the provision of neighborhood
commercial; design standards incorporated into surrounding residential development to compliment existing
historic elements; the provision of monetary proffers which total approximately 14.746 million dollars for about
604 units; funding of regional road improvements will be placed in an interest-bearing account for use by the
County; inclusion of walking trails and a recreational center; and the dedication of easements for a 30 -inch
sewage main. Mr. Lawson stated that the applicants hosted a meeting at Jordan Springs with the neighbors last
evening; he said about 34 people attended and, generally, favorable comments were received.
Mr. Greig D. W. Aitken stated that he and his wife, Tonle M. Wallace -Aitken, own Jordan
Springs and their business is located at Jordan Springs. Mr. Aitken said they currently reside on the other side of
the hospital, but planned to move to the property after it starts to develop. Mr. Aitken said they voluntarily added
the historic overlay in order to protect the historic structures into the future. He commented that they wanted to
make sure development of the property is done tastefully to enhance the property. Mr. Aitkens said that he and
his wife traveled to Indianapolis and Nashville to look at projects done by Drees Homes and they were very
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of February 21, 2007
Page 198-')
—j—
pleased with how the projects looked. He added that they have recently removed some of the Virginia Pines from
the property to begin implementation of their forest management plan.
Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak:
Mr. Michael Hoffman, a resident of Opequon Ridge HI, said he learned about this public
hearing just this morning because the public hearing sign was not in a location he could view from his
development. He was concerned that many of his neighbors were also unaware of the hearing. Mr. Hoffman said
he called the Stonewall District Supervisor and requested that he ask the Planning Commission to postpone this
request so he could meet with his neighbors and gather information on the project. He was concerned about the
proposed location for the commercial area because of the steep topography and wetlands on the property. Mr.
Hoffman said he was opposed to the rezoning and he questioned whether the County will continue to keep
changing the UDA every time someone wants to sell their property for development.
Mr. Mark Stivers came forward and stated that his office was located at Jordan Springs. Mr.
Stivers thought there was adequate notification of the public hearing; he said there was a sign placed across the
street from Jordan Springs and there was also a sign on Woods Mill Road; there were also some advertisements in
the newspaper. Mr. Stivers said that he attended last night's meeting held by the applicant and many of those
residents had received a notification in the mail. He expressed confidence that the owners, Tonle and Greig
Aitkens, care about this property. Mr. Stivers recalled that when the Planning Commission was discussing the
UDA and SWSA Boundary Modifications, Jordan Springs was discussed; he said the recommendation from the
Planning Commission, as he recalls, was not to remove the Jordan Springs property because this Commission was
aware steps had already been undertaken to propose development of the property. He also recalled that the Board
of Supervisors included the Northeast Land Use Area into the SWSA and he believed it was more than a couple
years ago. Mr. Stivers was in favor of the project proposed by Drees Homes and he supported Mr. and Mrs.
Aitkens.
Mr. Clark D. Fortney, adjoining property owner at 1281 Jordan Springs Road, was concerned
about the impacts to the overall traffic pattern in this area; he said this proposal, unlike Redbud Run and Snowden
Bridge, is not close to a major highway. He believed the project would create significant traffic issues in the area
and transportation needs to be addressed by the applicant. In addition, Mr. Fortney said this is a rich, bio -diverse
woodland area and is habitat to many game species; he was concerned about the removal of significant stands of
timber from the property; and, he was concerned that development of the property would interfere with the
biodiversity of the stream and the wildlife associated with the stream. He commented that this property is
probably the last significant woodland stand in the eastern area of Frederick County and he thought it should be
preserved. Mr. Fortney was also concerned with the B2 designation on the east side of Jordan Springs Road,
adjacent to his property. He did not think this was a proper location for commercial development because of the
steep topography and it was not contiguous with the other B2 -zoned areas near the hotel.
Mr. David Darsie, a resident of the Stonewall District, was opposed to this proposal and he
spoke about quality of life issues for the long-time residents of this area. He spoke about the limited water
supplies in the two quarry systems and that the Opequon Water Treatment Plant was nearing capacity. He was
concerned about the precedent of additional development with the future installation of a force main through this
area. Mr. Darsie said that he was not in favor of UDA expansion in this area.
No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the
meeting.
Frederick County Planning CommissionMO !� l� AA
V
Page 1986
Minutes of February 21, 2007 j0;;�
Mr. Lloyd Ingram, VDOT representative, came forward to answer questions from the
Commission. Commissioner Thomas asked if it would be financially feasible and practical to improve Woods
Mill Road, Jordan Springs Road, and the intersections onto Route 7 and Route 11 to adequately and safely handle
the traffic from these developments and provide a LOS that will remain at "C." Mr. Ingram believed the
transportation improvements were practical, but he did not want to comment on the financial aspect until he had
an opportunity to study the numbers. Mr. Ingram said he just received a copy of the revised TIA and has not had
an opportunity to conduct a detailed study. He said the proffers were significantly improved over the initial
submittal, but VDOT wanted more time to analyze the figures and respond.
Ms. Eddy returned to the podium and stated that the proffer statement in the Commission's
agenda packet is dated January 10, 2007 and is the same proffer version the staff and the County Attorney have
been working from. She said several items came up this evening that were not in the January 10, 2007 proffer
version, and included the trail on the east side of the property, turn lanes at Old Charlestown Road, and the
dedication of land on Woods Mill Road.
Commissioner Thomas said he attended the applicant's meeting at Jordan Springs last evening
and a considerable number of people were in attendance. He believed a revised proffer statement was distributed
at the meeting that was different from what was in the Commission's agenda. Commissioner Thomas believed
there was a significant amount of work that needed to be done by the applicant, and the Commission should
consider tabling for 90 to 120 days to allow the developer additional time to continue work on the issues. He
thought the most significant area requiring additional work was the transportation issues. He said the developer
needs to get together with VDOT and possibly, other developers in the area and discuss ways to improve Woods
Mill Road, the intersection at Route 7, and Jordan Springs Road to accommodate not only the traffic from this
development, but the background traffic as well. He recognized it was not this developer's responsibility to pay
for all of that impact or improving all the LOS, but the applicant may be the catalyst that pulls it all together to
get it accomplished in conjunction with VDOT. Without specific transportation information, he didn't believe the
Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors had the necessary data to be able to act on the proposal in a
responsible manner. He also expressed concern that no minimum square footage was proffered for the
commercial area; he questioned whether the minimum would be zero, and the possibility of the County getting
just that. He also understood how the applicant could have had a reasonable expectation a couple years ago that
the property could be incorporated within the UDA and SWSA, since one-third of the property was already within
its boundaries. He recalled previous occasions where the Commission and Board have placed an entire parcel
within the UDA and SWSA boundaries, if the property was partially within those borders.
Commissioner Unger stated that normally, with a project of this size, the applicant should first
attempt to get the property included within the UDA, and then secure availability of water and sewer. He was
also concerned that there were no plans for schools with this proposal and the roads were terrible. Mr. Unger said
he could see this development occurring in the future; however, without the property first being in the UDA, he
didn't know if the proper steps were being followed.
Commissioner Light, who was also a member of the CPPS, stated that the reason this proposal
was twice turned down through the Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendments (CPPA) process was, in part,
because the Eastern Road Plan designates the roads in this area as rural and, therefore, a strategy has not been
developed to handle the traffic this proposal could create. He said without the improvements to Woods Mill
Road, with uncertainty about Route 37, and considering the potential loading of Route 11 by Stephenson Village,
ro
the Rutherford site, West Virginia traffic, and other possible developments, the potentials serious
transportation problems exist. He said that a plan has not been submitted by the applicant that proposes to
address any of these impacts, nor does the County have that planning in process. Commissioner Light said the
staff has raised 23 concerns in the agenda package and 13 statements were provided from the County's attorney
addressing the proffers. He said that none of these concerns have been adequately addressed by the applicant and,
in addition, a revised set of proffers was being discussed. Commissioner Light did not believe the proposal was
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of February 21, 2007
Page 1987
-7 -
ready.
Commissioner Mohn agreed the project had potential; however, before he would consider it, the
property would have to be within the UDA and would have to be subjected to a study that examined the portion of
the site previously within the UDA and the remainder of the site outside of the UDA. Commissioner Mohn also
wanted to see some conclusions about the transportation system. He said that if any move is made with this
property in terms of rezoning, it should not only be consistent with the process, but a land use study needs to be
completed and the UDA expanded.
Commissioner Oates made a motion to recommend denial of the rezoning application for the
following reasons: 1) the proffers before the Commission do not adequately address nor mitigate the regional
transportation impacts created by this development. 2) the proposal does not address its portion of Woods Mill
Road that is shown for future improvement in the County's Eastern Road Plan. 3) the proffers do not adhere to the
requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance in regards to housing types, lot sizes, and setbacks. 4) the
application identifies environmental features, but does not satisfactorily address nor mitigate the environmental
and ecological impacts to the streams, woodlands, and wildlife; 5) the mitigations to the impacts of parks and
recreation county -wide are not sufficiently addressed; 6) buffering and screening are not addressed in regards to the
historical features and settings; 7) the application does not conform to the Comprehensive Policy Plan due to its
location outside of the UDA and SWSA; and, 8) the comments received from the Sanitation Authority and the
Service Authority, indicate the sewer capacity is not sufficient to serve the project_ This motion was seconded by
Commissioner Light.
BE IT RESOLVED, THAT by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
recommend denial of Rezoning Application #01-07 of Jordan Springs, submitted by Bowman Consulting, to
rezone 185.43 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, 28.30 acres from
RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (General Business) District, 3.42 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2
(General Business) District with a Historic Area (HA) Overlay Zone, and 3.42 acres from B2 (General Business)
District with a Historic Area (HA) Overlay Zone to RP (Residential Performance) District (with 6.91 acres to
remain B2 (General Business) District with a Historic Area (HA) Overlay Zone), with proffers, for commercial
land uses and up to 604 residential units.
The majority vote was as follows:
YES (TO REC. DENIAL): Unger, Watt, Manuel, Oates, Light, Kriz, Triplett, Mohn, Wilmot
NO: Thomas, Ours
(Please Note: Commissioners Morris and Kerr were absent from the meeting.)
PUBLIC MEETING
Rezoning Application #18-06 of Woodside Commercial Center, submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., to rezone
8.835 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B3 (industrial Transition) District, with proffers,
for commercial and industrial uses. The property is located on the east side of Route 11, approximately
3,000 feet north of Hopewell Road (Route 672). The property is further identified by P.I.N. 33 -A -124A in
the Stonewall Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Approval
Frederick County Planning Commission ' [) 0) hF Page 1988
Minutes of February 21, 2007 �U I� t u
!l.
Due to a potential conflict of interest, Commissioners Oates and Light abstained from all
discussion and voting on this application.
Planner Candice E. Perkins reported that a public hearing for this application was held on
December 20, 2006 and the Commission tabled the rezoning for up to 90 days and requested the staffto evaluate
the applicant's transportation proposal. Ms. Perkins said that since that meeting, staff has met with VDOT and
has a better understanding of that proposal. Ms. Perkins said she would provide an overview of the rezoning
application first, and then, the County's transportation planner, Mr. John A. Bishop, will review the
transportation proposal separately.
Ms. Perkins reported that the applicant has submitted a revised proffer statement which has
limited the total square footage for high -traffic uses, such as retail, restaurant, and indoor recreation, but has not
limited the types of uses allowed within the B3 area. Recognizing that the Comprehensive Policy Plan calls for
industrial uses on this property, Ms. Perkins said the staff believes that commercial uses such as general office,
amusement and recreational services operated indoors, garden supply and retail nurseries, and gas stations should
be eliminated from this development to ensure the intent of the Comprehensive Policy Plan is implemented. She
added that the land use proposed in this rezoning could be consistent with the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP),
if a number of uses were prohibited on the site.
Transportation Planner, John A. Bishop, stated that staff was directed by the Commission at
their December 20 meeting to coordinate with VDOT and develop a review of the financing structure proposed by
the applicant. Mr. Bishop said that one of the key questions with this proposal is if the cost offered by the
applicant is appropriate. Upon reviewing cost estimates on a per unit basis from the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) Plan and from VDOT, the numbers shown on the applicant's spreadsheet are roughly a
quarter of what the MPO and VDOT's estimates show for the same improvements. Those improvements
included the improvement of Route I 1 for approximately 2'/z miles from a three -lane section to a four -lane
divided roadway as called for in the Eastern Road Plan and also, to align Brucetown Road with Hopewell Road
and to make improvements to that intersection.
Mr. Bishop said the full build -out will have an affect on the value of the $100 per trip over time.
In addition to the $100 per trip, the applicant is providing their frontage improvements and the County would be
looking for future applicants to do the same, should this scenario be adopted. Another key component raised by
Mr. Bishop was project inflation. He said the costs of asphalt and other materials are quickly increasing. He said
that VDOT has experienced approximately 12% project inflation cost on an annual basis for the past two to three
years. If this was projected out, in just six years, this amount would double, thus weakening even further what
the $100 per trip would accomplish, even if it were the correct starting cost. As the County is waiting for that
fund to build up over build -out, the project costs are inflating, and there is no way to determine how fast those
dollars are going to come in.
Commissioner Kriz inquired if there was some area of transportation improvement the applicant
could immediately pursue with the funds he had proposed. Commissioner Kriz asked if there was a maximum
amount that could be collected considering the proposed uses and the $100 per vehicle trip. In addition, he
wanted to know if there was a time limitation on when money contributed to the County needs to be utilized
before it has to be given back to the developer. Mr. Bishop said his understanding was the State Code designates
a seven-year time frame for using a cash -type proffer. As far as where specifically the applicant could put their
funds as opposed to the $100 per trip, Mr. Bishop said the County would be looking at a sub -regional solution
because the Comprehensive Policy Plan calls for a four -lane corridor with an aligned intersection. Mr. Bishop
recognized that the applicant can not solely complete the project; however, he believed there were portions that
could likely be done, such as the average preliminary engineering -type costs for a project because it is roughly ten
percent. Another idea would be for the applicant to pursue right-of-way acquisition for the traffic signal at
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of February 21, 2007
Page 1989
Brucetown and Hopewell.
Chairman Wilmot asked the staff for a dollar amount that the $100 per vehicle trip would
generate. Mr. Bishop replied that it would depend on the final land use, according to the proffer; he said it could
generate an amount anywhere from $10,000 to $500,000.
Commissioner Thomas commented about the lack of transportation and traffic evaluation in the
staff report; he said this rezoning application has failing intersections and failing LOS_ Commissioner Thomas
said he was opposed to accepting a cash proffer for transportation improvements because of the significantly
increasing costs associated with asphalt and concrete.
Chairman Wilmot asked the VDOT representative, Mr. Lloyd Ingram, if he could estimate the
cost of improving one of the intersections with signalization. Mr. Ingram stated that the biggest obstacle is the
acquisition of right-of-way and realignment to make the signals function properly and to obtain a LOS "C." He
estimated it would cost approximately $750,000 to $1,000,000 to re -align Route 672 for signalization and right-
of-way acquisition.
Chairman Wilmot next called for the applicant to come forward.
Ms. Trudy Dixon, representing GreyWolfe, Inc., the applicant, stated that the proffers offered
with a 16 -acre rezoning across the street only amounted to about one-third of the $100/ trip that GreyWolfe was
proffering for their site. She estimated the $100/per vehicle trip would generate about $200,000 with a 5,000
square -foot restaurant and 75,000 square feet of office space. Referring to the staff's report regarding
disallowing office use in B3, Ms. Dixon believed this was an interpretation issue; she thought B3 was more of a
transition between the concrete plant behind and the residential and B2 across the street. In addition, she felt that
if the office space was proffered out, they might as well simply go with M1 Zoiung. Ms. Dixon said they
removed the limitations from the square footage because they were proffered "per trip."
Chairman Wilmot next called for public comments and the following persons came forward to
speak:
Mr. Claus Bader, a resident of the Red Bud District, commented that all of the small parcels in
this area are designated for business or industrial by the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Bader said that if all the
improvements are tied to any one project, no commercial development will occur and the County will end up with
five -acre lots. He said that GreyWolfe Inc. has taken the first step in order to promote a commercial and
industrial tax base in this area that others could build upon.
Mr. George Sempeles, a resident of the Stonewall District, anticipated that the area between
Clearbrook and the State Line will continue to grow. He said he made substantial proffers to the County for his
120 -acre parcel to the north; however, he suggested economies to scale with smaller parcels. Mr. Sempeles
thought business would be stymied and doors would be closed by putting limits on small parcels of land and there
were quite a number of them along this corridor. He believed the County's tax base needed to be increased. He
believed the County needed to open the doors and not make it so prohibitive for investors to develop these five
and ten -acre lots and cause the economy of their project not to work.
No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the
hearing.
Commissioner Thomas was concerned about the Commission setting a precedent that the County
may not be able to live with. He said a cash proffer for transportation based on a projected trip level may not be
appropriate. He realized a small -acreage developer can not be expected to pay for all the transportation
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of February 21, 2007
Page 1990
-10 -
improvements in an area, but the Commission could suggest that developer pay for half the cost of one
intersection, or a percentage of the cost of signalization or engineering for an intersection. He thought the task of
providing the cost estimates should fall on the applicant, rather than the staff.
Commissioner Kriz did not want to delay the application any longer. He suggested the applicant
provide a cash proffer in the amount necessary to improve an intersection.
Mr. Bishop returned to the podium and said he had no objection to the suggestion, but the staff
was not tasked to determine the cost of improving an intersection from the previous meeting; and therefore, the
figure has not yet been prepared. He said that staff has some general ideas of what Brucetown and Hopewell will
cost; he cautioned the Commission against making a general judgment and to give the staff the opportunity to
study the matter.
Chairman Wilmot asked Mr. Ingram for input on what would be appropriate at a specific level.
Mr. Ingram said he would have several questions, such as, at what point through the development is the
determination made on how many trips are being generated; will it be a two-year or a ten-year build -out. He said
ten years from now, the $100 will not buy what it will today. He said he was not necessarily opposed to aper -unit
fee, but there were just too many variables at the moment for him to provide an answer.
Ms. Dixon said their proffer intentions were first presented to the Planning Department in July
of 2006. She said part of the first proffer was a portion of the signalization of Hopewell Road and VDOT said
they did not want that and she removed it. Ms. Dixon said that as an alternative, they were now offering the $100
per trip, which is significantly more than a partial signalization agreement for that intersection. Ms. Dixon said
the applicant was asking the Commission to set a precedent; she said they were asking the Commission to hold
everyone else down the line to this number. Ms. Dixon said she had received an estimate from an engineering
firm to redesign the intersection at $43,000.00.
Ms. Dixon presented the proposal she received from Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates on July 6,
2006 with the cost estimate for the design realignment of Hopewell/ Brucetown Road. She said the applicant was
willing to pay this amount and withdraw the $100 per trip, if that would make everyone more comfortable. Ms.
Dixon then stated the applicant was willing to submit a revised proffer for the engineering costs for the
realignment of Brucetown/ Hopewell Road, instead of the $100 per trip
In light of the revised proffer, Commissioner Kriz made a motion to recommend approval of
Rezoning Application #18-06 with the revised proffer. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Ours and
was passed by a unanimous vote.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Rezoning Application # 18-06 of Woodside Commercial Center, submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc., to
rezone 8.835 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B3 (Industrial Transition) District, for commercial
and industrial uses with a revised proffer to provide the funds necessary for engineering costs for the realignment
of Brucetown/ Hopewell Road, instead of the $100 per trip previously proffered. The vote was as follows:
YES (REC. APPROVAL W/ REVISED PROFFER): Mohn, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Thomas, Wilmot, Manuel,
Watt, Unger
ABSTAIN: Oates, Light
(Note: Commissioners Moms and Kerr were absent from the meeting.)
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of February 21, 2007
Page 1991
ME
Master Development Plan Application 410-06 for Governors Hill, submitted by Patton Harris Rust &
Associates, for Residential (550 units) and Commercial Uses on 281 acres, zoned R4 (Residential Planned
Community) District. The properties are located approximately one mile east of Interstate 81 on the
south side of Millwood Pike (Route 50 E), across from Sulphur Springs Road (Route 655) and The Ravens
Subdivision. The property is identified with P.LN.s 64-A-82, 64-A-83, 64 -A -83A, 64 -A -86,64-A-87 and
64 -A -87A in the Shawnee Magisterial District
Action — Recommended Approval
Commissioner Unger and Commissioner Mohn abstained from all discussion and voting, due to
a potential conflict of interest.
Planner Candice E. Perkins reported that this master development plan (MDP) is a proposal to
develop commercial uses and 550 residential units on a 281 -acre parcel of land, which was rezoned to the R4
District in 2005 with a proffered generalized development plan (GDP). Ms. Perkins noted that the GDP shows a
revised road layout for the townhouses' internal streets, as well as the number of entrances onto Coverstone
Drive. These revisions present a modification to the proffered GDP. Another modification, showing a portion of
the area previously designated for condominiums, is now shown as single-family attached and is proposed to be
developed with townhouses. She noted that these modifications are permissible and do not create a planning
inconsistency.
Ms. Perkins stated that the applicant has also shown that the townhouse portion of the
development will contain lots that are located 1,250 feet from a state -maintained road. The subdivision ordinance
allows a waiver for lots greater than 500 feet from a state -maintained road, but not more than 800 feet; therefore,
the 1,250 feet could not be approved. Ms. Perkins said that if a waiver is granted by the Commission to allow
800 feet from a state -maintained road, the applicant would need to adjust their road network prior to review by
the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Patrick Sowers, with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, was representing the owners,
Governors Hill, LLC. Regarding the requested waiver from a state -maintained road, Mr. Sowers said the code
allows lots to be 500 feet, or 800 feet with a waiver, from a public street as measured along the private street
network. Mr. Sowers said that in order to stay within the confines of the subdivision ordinance, they are reducing
their request to 800 feet. He said they will extend the public street to meet the requirement. He added that VDOT
prefers not to see townhouses fronting on public streets.
Chairman Wilmot called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak.
No issues or areas of concern were raised by the Commission.
Commissioner Manuel made a motion to recommend approval of the waiver request for lots to
be located up to 800 feet from a state -maintained road. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz and
unanimously passed.
Commissioner Manuel made a motion to recommend approval of MDP 410-06 for Governors
Hill. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz and unanimously passed.
Frederick County Planning CommissionUO
UNVY
Page 1992
Minutes of February 21, 2007
-12 -
BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Master Development Plan Application # 10-06 for Governors Hill, submitted by Patton Hams Rust &
Associates, for Residential (550 units) and Commercial Uses on 281 acres, zoned R4 (Residential Planned
Community) District, with a waiver to allow lots to be located up to 800 feet from a state -maintained road.
(Note: Commissioners Unger and Mohn abstained from voting; Commissioners Morris and Kerr were absent
from the meeting.)
OTHER
PLANNING COMMISSION RETREAT
Chairman Wilmot reminded everyone about the Planning Commission's Annual Retreat,
scheduled for February 24, 2007, at the Wayside Inn in Middletown. Chairman Wilmot had an additional item
for the discussions regarding the 25 -percent rule for commercial and industrial classifications.
ADJOURNMENT
vote.
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m, by a unanimous
Respectfully submitted,
June M. Wilmot, Chairman
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Frederick County Planning CommissionUP
I D) � Page l993
Minutes of February 21, 2007 H
u
•
•
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #17-06
CROSSPOINTE CENTER
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: March 22, 2007
Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins, Planner II
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist in the review of this application.
It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter.
Reviewed
Planning Commission: 04/04/07
Board of Supervisors: 04/25/07
Action
Pending
Pending
LOCATION: The subject site is located in the Kemstown area, east of the southern terminus of
Route 37, north and adjacent to Lakeside Subdivision, and east and adjacent to Tasker Road
(Route 642).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee
PROPERTY ID NUMBER s : 75-A-89, 75 -A -89A, 75-A-90, 75-A-91, 75-A-92, 75-A-94, 75-
A-95 and 75-A-96
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
Zoned: B2 (Business General) Use: Vacant and Agricultural
RP (Residential Performance) Use: Vacant and Agricultural
ZONING & PRESENT USE OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES:
North: RA (Rural Areas)
South: RP (Residential Performance)
East: RA (Rural Areas)
R4 (Residential Recreational)
West: M1 (Light Industrial)
B2 (Business General)
B3 (Industrial Transition)
Use:
Residential and Agricultural
Use:
Residential (Lakeside Subdivision)
Use:
Residential and Agricultural
Use:
Villages at Artrip
Use:
Commercial, Industrial & Utility
Commercial, Industrial & Utility
Commercial, Industrial & Utility
MDP #17-06, Crosspointe Center
March 22, 2007
Page 2
PROPOSED USE: Up to 1,578 single family homes at Phase III build -out, and 960,000 square
feet of commercial uses
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Department of Transportation: The master development plan for this property
appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 642, 37, 81 and 11, the VDOT facilities
which would provide access to the property. VDOT offers the following comments:
• The MDP does not address the future phasing of the Tasker Road/Crosspointe Boulevard
conversion to a grade -separated intersection. Unless the overpass is properly designed
and constructed with the Phase 1 extension of Crosspointe Boulevard, it does not appear
that the future conversion can be feasibly accomplished without severely restricting
and/or shutting down both Tasker and Crosspointe Boulevard.
• The MDP does not reflect necessary improvements to the Route 81/37 interchange
currently under review by the Federal Highway Administration. The Residency cannot
officially endorse this partial submittal (which does not include the 81/37 improvements
under consideration by FHWA) until the Limited Access Control modification is
approved by FHWA and the Virginia Commonwealth Transportation Board.
• There are numerous secondary roads shown in the MDP that have not been identified as
to whether they will be public or private streets. Clarification is required.
Before making any final comments, this office will require a complete set of site plans, drainage
calculations and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual Seventh Edition for
review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way
dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Prior to
construction on the State's right-of-way, the developer will need to apply to this office for
issuance of appropriate permits to cover said work.
Staff Note: While this MDP can be reviewed by the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors, it cannot be administratively approved until VDOT has provided an approval
comment.
Frederick County Fire Marshal: Plan approval recommended.
Frederick County Public Works: The revisions provided on March 23, 2006 have addressed
all of our February 22, 2006 comments except the requirement for a detailed wetlands
delineation study. We understand that this study is currently in progress and will be incorporated
in the final MDP document. Please provide this office with a copy of the final wetland study.
Receipt of this report will constitute our approval of the MDP.
Frederick County Sanitation Authority: 2nd review - approved
Frederick Winchester Service Authority: I would like to make one general comment with
regards to this project; that is that the staff and applicant should be aware that, with nutrient
restrictions placed on Frederick -Winchester Service Authority facilities, there will be future
limited capacity. In the case of the Parkins Mills Wastewater Treatment Facility, presently under
an expansion mode to expand from 2 to 5 MGD, future capacity will be available. However,
MDP #17-06, Crosspointe Center
March 22, 2007
Page 3
there will, at some point, be a limit reached that may be outside of the completion span of this
project.
Frederick County Inspections Department: Demolition permit is required prior to removing
any structures. No additional comment required until review of subdivision or site plans. Please
set 100 year FEMA flood plain elevations on all plans submitted.
GIS Department: Crosspointe Boulevard has been entered into the Frederick County Road
Naming and Structure numbering system. Changes to Tasker Road will be a big problem — not
enough numbering available to cover distance. Recommend denial of Tasker Extension road
name.
Winchester Regional Airport: The proposed rezoning request has been reviewed and it
appears that it will not impact operations at the Winchester Regional Airport.
Department of Parks and Recreation: Developer has indicated that an open space summary
will be provided at the time of subdivision or site plan review. Developer has indicated on plan
that required recreational units will be detailed for approval by staff at time of site approval.
When considering the scope of this development, it concerns staff that the developer has not
been required to provide a comprehensive recreational amenities plan prior to this point in the
process. The concept presented for the pedestrian/bicycle trail system appears to be appropriate.
Trail detail also appears to meet department standard. Developer states that all trail signage to be
submitted for approval at site plan review phase for each landbay. The monetary proffer for
Parks and Recreation does not appear to be adequate to offset the impact this development will
have on the capital facility development needs for the Park and Recreation Department.
Frederick County — Winchester Health Department: No objection if public water and sewer
is provided.
Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the
proposed Phase I, Phase II and Phase III will have an impact as follows: Phase I having 616
single family homes with 100 being age restricted will yield 201 elementary school students, 72
middle school students and 88 high school students; Phase II having 513 single family homes
with 100 being age restricted will yield 161 elementary school students, 58 middle school
students and 70 high school students; and Phase III having 449 single family homes will yield
175 elementary school students, 63 middle school students and 76 high school students. This
will total 361 students in Phase I, 289 students in Phase II and 314 students in Phase III with a
grand total of 964 new students upon build -out of Phases 1, II and III. Significant residential
growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student
enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of
this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped
residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new schools facilities to
accommodate increased student enrollments. The impact of this master development plan on
current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process.
Planning & Zoning:
MDP #17-06, Crosspointe Center
March 22, 2007
Page 4
A) Master Development Plan Requirement
A master development plan is required prior to development of this property. Before a
master development plan can be approved, it must be reviewed by the Planning
Commission, Board of Supervisors and all relevant review agencies. Approval may only
be granted if the master development plan conforms to all requirements of the Frederick
County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The purpose of the master development
plan is to promote orderly and planned development of property within Frederick County
that suits the characteristics of the land, is harmonious with adjoining property and is in
the best interest of the general public.
B) Location
The subject site is located in the Kernstown area, east of the southern terminus of Route
37, north and adjacent to Lakeside Subdivision, and east and adjacent to Tasker Road
(Route 642).
C) Site History
The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Stephens City Quadrangle)
identifies the subject parcels as being zoned R-2 (Residential, Limited) and R-3
(Residential, General). The subject parcels were remapped to the A-2 (Agricultural,
General) District via the county -wide downzoning adopted on October 8, 1980. A
portion of parcel 75-A-89 totaling approximately 17 acres was rezoned from A-2 to B2
(Business General) through approval of rezoning application # 003-88 of SHIHO, Inc. on
March 9, 1988. No proffers were included with this rezoning. The County's agricultural
zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon
adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989.
The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject
properties and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. The subject parcels
which make up this MPD were then rezoned to the B2 (Business General) and RP
(Residential Performance) with Rezoning application #13-03 which was approved with
proffers by the Board of Supervisors on February 11, 2004.
D) Site Suitability & Project Scope
Comprehensive Policy Plan:
The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy 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. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1]
Land Use Compatibility:
The parcels comprising this MDP application are located within the boundaries of the
South Frederick Land Use Plan (SFLUP) and are described as being within the SFLUP
MDP 917-06, Crosspointe Center
March 22, 2007
Page 5
Central Area. The 574.37 acres subject to this MDP are located within the Urban
Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA).
The SFLUP designates the project site for mixed use and residential land uses,
respectively. The residential designation applies to the portion of the site adjacent and
north of Lakeside Subdivision and extends northward to the planned path of Route 37
extended, as shown on the adopted SFLUP map. The residential designation is intended
to complement and expand the suburban residential land use pattern already established
south of the site.
The development program which was proffered by the applicant for Crosspointe Center
would enable a maximum of 1,578 dwelling units (of which 200 shall be age -restricted)
and 960,000 square feet of commercial floor area. To ensure that a variety of housing
types are available within Crosspointe Center, the applicant proffered that no more than
1,042 (66%) of the total permitted dwelling units will be developed as single family
detached housing types.
The proffered phasing program for the development can be summarized as follows:
Phase 1: Commercial: Minimum of 210,000 square feet of gross leaseable floor
area. (shall be completed prior to commencement of Phase
2 residential)
Residential: Maximum of 616 dwelling units, to include 100 age -
restricted.
Phase 2: Commercial: Minimum of 390,000 square feet total gross leaseable floor
area. (additional 180,000 square feet developed during this
phase; shall be completed prior to commencement of Phase
3 residential)
Residential: Maximum of 513 dwelling units, to include 100 age -
restricted.
Phase 3: Commercial: Phase 2 minimum commercial development shall be
completed, which, as noted above, will yield 390,000
square feet of total gross leaseable floor area. This
minimum floor area shall be completed prior to
commencement of Phase 3 residential development.
Commercial development will continue until maximum
proffered floor area of 960,000 square feet is reached.
Residential: Remainder of residential program to be developed,
consisting of a maximum of 449 dwelling units.
Environment:
There are areas of floodplains, wetlands and steep slopes located within this
development; however, there are no conditions which exist on the subject site that would
preclude or significantly limit development.
MDP # 17-06, Crosspointe Center
March 22, 2007
Page 6
Transportation
With the rezoning, the applicant proffered a series of transportation improvements
intended to enhance the existing system and ensure adequate accommodation of projected
trips. The improvements proffered by the applicant are depicted on the MDP as well as
the Generalized Development Plan (GDP) from the rezoning. Each improvement is
labeled and corresponds to the text in the proffer statement which is included with the
agenda. The principal improvements proffered by the applicant may be summarized as
follows:
• Realignment and Extension of Tasker Road (Route 642) - Proffered to extend
across site and intersect with Warrior Drive within project;
• Extension of Route 37 in the form of Crosspointe Boulevard - Proffered to extend
from southern terminus at I-81 to eastern project boundary;
• Extension of Warrior Drive - Proffered to be constructed through eastern portion
of site following a general north - south alignment; ultimate location and design
will facilitate connections with sections of road to be constructed via adjoining
developments;
• Construction of an Additional Southbound Lane on Route 11 - Additional lane to
be constructed at Route 37/Route 11 interchange between Route 11 ramps.
The TIA identified certain improvements as necessary prior to the commencement of
project development. The applicant has therefore proffered to complete the following
improvements prior to the issuance of the first building permit for Crosspointe Center:
• Crosspointe Boulevard will be constructed to extend east from the current
terminus of Route 3 7 approximately 1,100 feet.
• Tasker Road (Route 642) will be realigned to intersect with the terminus of the
Crosspointe Boulevard extension and will be constructed beyond this intersection
as depicted on the MDP and the proffered Generalized Development Plan (GDP).
• Hilandale Road will be realigned and extended.
• Northbound Interstate 81 interchange ramps will be modified to achieve a LOS C.
Prior to ramp relocation, the applicant shall secure necessary design approvals
from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Virginia Department
of Transportation (VDOT) and obtain the funding necessary to complete the
approved work plan.
Historic Preservation
During the rezoning, the applicant proffered to establish three preservation parks within
Crosspointe Center development, around Hilandale House, the Camp Russell
MDP #17-06, Crosspointe Center
March 22, 2007
Page 7
encampment area, and the Carysbrook Redoubt, respectively. The Hilandale House itself
will be preserved within the proffered five -acre preservation park, and may be adaptively
reused as deemed appropriate by the applicant. The Camp Russell preservation park will
consist of ten acres and the Carysbrook Redoubt Park will be comprised of two acres.
The three preservation parks will be accessible to the public via the proffered pedestrian
trail system.
Proffers
Please see attached proffer statement
Issues
Proffer 3.3 stated that a comprehensive sign plan would be presented as part of the
Master Development Plan submission for approval by Frederick County. The applicant
has only provided a statement on sheet 2 regarding commercial and residential signage
within the development. The "sign specifications" provided by the applicant are not
adequate and a complete sign package with sign details needs to be provided to
implement this proffer.
There is a parcel owned by Glaize Developments, Inc. (Property Identification Number
75-4-2) which has not been included in this MPD. This property is technically shown
under relocated Tasker Road but the parcel number has not been included in the project
summary.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 04/04/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The master development plan for Crosspointe Center depicts appropriate land uses and appears
to be consistent with the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning
Ordinance. This MDP is for 574.37 acres of land which is zoned RP and B2 and is intended to
accommodate 1,578 dwelling units and 960,000 square feet of commercial uses. The master
development plan for Crosspointe Center depicts appropriate land uses and appears to be
consistent with the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning
Ordinance. The preliminary master development plan is also in accordance with the proffers for
Rezoning #13-03. All of the issues brought forth by staff and the Planning Commission should
be appropriately addressed prior to a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
Following the Planning Commission discussion, it would be appropriate to forward a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding this MDP conformance with County
codes and review agency comments. All issues and concerns raised by the Planning
Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. Staff is
ultimately seeking administrative approval authority of the Master Development Plan once all
issues have been addressed.
Page 1 of 2
Candice Perkins
From: Alexander, Scott [Scott.Alexander@VDOT.Virginia.gov]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 10:20 AM
To: 'Patrick R. Sowers'; Ingram, Lloyd
Cc: Copp, Jerry; 'Eric Lawrence'; Candice Perkins (E-mail); Bishop, John A.; Funkhouser, Rhonda;
John Callow -''Ronald A. Mislowsky'
Subject: RE: Crosspointe MDP
Patrick:
Our prior comments from December 2006 remain unaddressed. To reiterate:
The MDP geometry does not appear to provide for the future Tasker Road/Crosspointe Boulevard
conversion to a grade -separated intersection (i.e. the interim Tasker is too close to the ultimate Tasker
alignment).
. In a meeting on February 20, 2007 PHR&A provided a cross-section of the alignments, but did not
include the bridge dimensions in the section.
a To illustrate our concern, I have taken the section provided at the meeting and added the
approximate bridge elevation (attachment). Note that there is only about 15' between the edge of
interim Tasker and the pile cap. Sheeting, whales, tieback hardware, traffic barrier, etc. further
reduces this clearance.... Please review this clearance and demonstrate how a pile driving crane will
maneuver in this area. Also of concern would be the NW abutment wing construction.
• That being said, in the February 20 meeting it was revealed that the applicant plans on constructing
the bridge. If this is the case, and it is constructed with Phase I of the project, then there is no
issue. Please denote this on the MDP.
• As discussed at the meeting, there are similar phasing concerns with the Warrior crossing that
should be clarified.
2. The MDP does not reflect the 1-81 ramp relocations, which are currently part of the Interchange
Modification Request and a necessary improvement demonstrated by the TIA.
3. There are numerous (apparent) secondary roads shown on the MDP with obvious geometric issues.
Please advise if these are to be public streets.
The preliminary right-of-way reservation for a Warrior interchange appears adequate for MDP purposes. Please
note, however, that this interchange was not in the original ROD. While the Residency and MPO supports this
interchange, and it is included in the ROD Reevaluation currently underway, the eventual MDP
concurrence/approval alone does not obligate VDOT or the Commonwealth to the interchange. We look forward
to sharing the results of the Reevaluation as soon as available.
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to give me a call.
Scott
Scott Alexander
Assistant Residency Administrator
VDOT - Edinburg Residency
14031 Old Valley Pike
Edinburg, VA 22824
Phone: 540-984-5605
Fax: 540-984-5607
3/22/2007
rage of
From: Patrick R. Sowers[mailto:Patrick.Sowers@phra.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:29 AM
To: Ingram, Lloyd
Cc: Alexander, Scott
Subject: Crosspointe MDP
Lloyd,
Frederick County Planning Staff has asked if VDOT has any additional comments on the most recent Crosspointe
MDP (which depicts the ROW location for the future Warrior/Route 37 interchange). We are going forward with
an April 4th Planning Commission date and wanted to give you the opportunity to provide any additional
comments that VDOT may have regarding the newest plan.
Thanks,
Patrick
Patrick R. Sowers
Planner
Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc
117 East Piccadilly Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
P 540.667.2139
F 540.665.0493
www.phra'.com
3/22/2007
MDP # 0- 06 Loca n
_ Map
MDP # W. 06
Lanige Map
PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT
REZONING: R7,_ 4 : RA -I to RP and B-2
PROPERTY: 574.37 acres +1-:
Tax Map Parcels 75-A-89. 89A, 91, 92,
95, 96 and a portion of 75-A-90 and 75-A-94 ( the
"Property")
RECORD OWNER: Glaize Developments, Inc., a Virginia corporation.
APPLICANT: Glaize Developments, Inc_
PROJECT NAME: Crosspointe Center
ORIGINAL DATE
OF PROFFERS: August 27, 2003
REVISION DATA: October 22, 2003
January 23, 2004
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 tnay have been made
prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced rezoning is not granted as applied for
by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be.
null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property
with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning 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_ If this
application is denied by the Board, but in the event that an appeal is for any reason
thereafter remanded to the Board for reconsideration by a court of competent jurisdiction.
then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn unless the. Applicant shall affimIativels=
readopt all or any portion hereof in a writin specifically for that purpose.
The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience
or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an
interpretation of any provision of' the proffers. The impmvcments proffered liercin sha11
be provided at the time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or
including the improvement or other proffered requirement. unless otherwise specified
herein_ The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all
fixture owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized
Development Plan" shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan,
Crosspointe Center" dated August 12, 200', as revised October 20. 200> (the "0DP"1.
Page 1 of I,
(7r(.).5spoinle Center
and shall include the following:
P7 -Q7 Pr Sfaienlenl
1. the "Overall GDP," dated August 12, 2003, as revised October 20, 2003;
2. the "GDP, Phase l," dated August 12, 2003. as revised October 20, 2003:
the "GDP, Phase II," dated August 12, 2003, as revised October 20, 2003;
4. the "GDP, Phase Ii I," dated August 12, 2003, as revised October 20, 2003_ and
the "Parks, Trails & Buffer Exhibit," dated October 20, 2003.
LAND USE:
1.1. Areas of commercial development on the Property shall be developed in
conformance with the regulations of the Business General ("B2") zoning
district, as set forth in the Frederick County Code. All commercial
development on the Property shall comply with the aforesaid regulations,
or as may be approved by Frederick County.
1.2. Commercial development on the Property shall not exceed a maximum of
960,000 square feet, in the locations generally depicted on the GDP.
1.3. Areas of residential development on the Property shall be developed in
conformance with the regulations of the Residential Performance ("RP'')
zoning district, as set forth in the Frederick County Code. All residential
development on the Property shall comply with the aforesaid regulations.
or as may be approved by Frederick County.
1.4. Residential development on the Property shall not exceed a unaxiinurn of
1,578 dwelling units, of which 200 shall be age -restricted housing units in
the locations generally depicted on the GDP, and no more than 1,042 shall
be single family detached twits. No rental garden apartments shall be
permitted.
1.5. Except to the extent otherwise prohibited by the Virginia Fair Housing
Law, the Federal Fair Housing Law, and other applicable federal, state. or
local legal requirements, any dwelling unit within the portions of the
Property identified as "age -restricted" housing shall be restricted to
"housing for older persons" as defined in Va. Code Ann. § 36-96.7, or a
surviving spouse not so qualifying. No persons under 19 years of age
shall be permitted to be regularly domiciled or to reside permanently
therein. The restriction provided for herein shall also be in the form of a
restrictive covenant with respect to the residential portion of the Property,
and any Homeowners' Association created N ith respect thereto shall ]lave
assigned responsibility for the enforcement and administration of the said
covenant_
Pane 2 of 12
Crosspoinfe Center
Proffer ,Ctc IC177ent
2. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO TIIE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND PLAN
APPROVALS. -
2 1.
PPROVALS:
Z1. The Property shall be developed as one single and unified development in
accordance with applicable ordinances, regulations, and design standards,
and this Crosspointe Proffer Statement as approved by the hoard_
However, the commercial portion Property shall be phased in accordance
with the Frederick County Impact Statement, as stated below.
22. The Property shall be developed in three phases. The minimum
commercial floor space proffered in this section is that predicted by the
Frederick County Impact Model as that necessary to mitigate the phase
residential fiscal impact without consideration of cash proffer
contributions. The three phases shall be authorized as follows:
2.2.1 Phase I shall include not less than 210,000 SF of conunercial /retail
gross leaseable floor space. Residential development in Phase I
shall not exceed 616 dwelling units, of which 100 units shall he
single-family small lot dwelling units for age restricted users.
2.22 Phase II development shali not commence until the minimum
commercial/retail gross leaseable floor space required in Phase I is
constructed. Thereafter, residential development in Phase Il shall
not exceed 513 dwelling units, of which 100 units shall be single-
family small lot dwelling units for age restricted users.
22.3 Phase III development shall not continence until a total of 390,000
square feet of commercial/retail gross leaseable floor space is
constructed. Residential development in Phase III shall not exceed
449 dwelling units.
ARCHITECTURE, SiGNAGE. AND LANDSCAPING:
3.1 _ Materials utilized for all exterior facades of the commercial buildin-s shall
include but not be limited to concrete masonry units (CMU) brick,
architectural block, dryvit, or other simulated stucco (EFIS), real or
simulated wood and/or glass. Standard concrete masonry block shall not
be used for the front facades of any buildings.
32. All buildings within the development on the property shall he constructed
using compatible architectural stylets and materials, and signage for such
buildings shall be of a similar style and materials in order to maintain a
in development plan. The Applicant shall establish one or more
Architectural Review Board/s to enforce a unified development plan.
3.3. A comprehensive sign plan shall be presented as part of the Master Plan
submission for approval by Frederick County.
Page 3 of 12
Crosspointe Center
Pro f er Statement
3.4. The major collector roadways (Tasker Road and Warrior Drive) in
Crosspointe shall have a minimum 35' width buffer adjacent to dedicated
rights of way and, except at entrance locations, be improved with
landscape features and lighting to create a quality "boulevard" appearance.
Illustrative details of these improvements shall be presented for approval
by Frederick County at Master Plan.
4. PEDESTRIAN TRAIL SYSTEM AND RECREATION AREAS
4.1. The Applicant shall design and build a public pedestrian -bicycle trail
system to Department of Parks and Recreation standards that links
residential and commercial areas within the development_ Said trails shall
be in general conformance with the Southern Frederick Land Use Map and
as such, shall be in the locations generally depicted on the GDP. The trails
shall be 10 feet wide, have an asphalt surface and shall be approved by the
Director of Parks and Recreation and the Planning Commission.
FIRE & RESCUE;:
5.1. The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $250.00 per
dwelling unit for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the issuance of a
building permit for each such unit.
5.2. The Applicant shall contribute a total of $300,000.00 to the Volunteer Fire
Department providing service to the Property as first responder, payable in
three equal installments of $100,000.00, upon issuance of the first building
permit for each of the three phases as described herein.
6. SCHOOLS:
6.1. The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $3,000.00 per
dwelling unit for school purposes. payable upon the issuance of a building,
permit for each such unit with the exception of age -restricted units.
7. PARKS & OPEN SPACE,:
7.1. The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the stun of $500.00 per
dwelling unit for recreational purposes, payable upon the issuance of u
building permit for each such unit.
LIBRARIES:
9.1. The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the surn of $100.00 per
dwelling unit for library purposes. payable upon the issuance of a building
, ,^ it f^r each suer. unif.
9. S11FRIF 'S OFFICE:
Paf>e 4 of 12
Crosspoinfe Censer
Pr�lfjcr .Statement
9.1. The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $5-000.00 for the
Sheriffs Office upon issuance of the first building pen -nit for fhc.
development.
10. ADM IN] STRATION BUILDING:
10.1. The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the Stull of $5,000-00 to be
used for construction of a general governmental administration building,
upon issuance of the first building permit for the development.
11. CREATION OF HOMEOWNERS' AND PROPERTY OWNERS'
ASSOCIATION:
11.1. The residential portion of the development shall be made subject to one or
more homeowners' association(s) (hereinafter "HOA') that shall be
responsible for the ownership, maintenance and repair of all common
areas, including any conservation areas that may be established in
accordance herewith not dedicated to the County or others, for each area
subject to their jurisdiction, and shall be provided such other
responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such associations
or as may be required for such HOA herein. If there is more than one such
association, the Applicant shall create an umbrella HOA with respect to
the entire development that shall, among other things, have responsibility
for assuring compliance with design guidelines and standards, signage
requirements, and similar matters.
11.1 In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned, an
HOA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all common open space
areas not otherwise dedicated to public use, (ii) common buffer areas
located outside of residential lots-, (iii) common solid waste disposal
programs, including curbside pick-up of refuse by a private refuse
collection company, and (iv) responsibility for the perpetual maintenance
of any street, perimeter, or road buffer areas, all of which buffer areas
shall be located within easements to be granted to the HOA if platted
within residential or other lots, or otherwise granted to the IIOA by
appropriate instrument.
11.3. The commercial portion of the development shall be made subject to one
or more property owners' association(s) (hereinafter "POA'') that shall be
responsible for the o,,inership, maintenance and repair of all common
areas, including any conservation areas that may be established in
accordance herewith not dedicated to the County or others, for each area
subject to their jurisdiction, and shall be provided such other
responsibilities, duties, and powers as are customary for such associations
or as may be required for such POA herein. If there is more than one such
association, the Applicant shall create an umbrella POA with respect to the
entire development that shall, among other things, have responsibility !m-
I'age 5 of 12
C'r0.c.cp0i771e Center
12
13
Prgfic-.r stalemel71
assuring compliance with design guidelines and standards, signage
requirements, and similar matters.
11.4. In addition to such other duties and responsibilities as may be assigned. a
POA shall have title to and responsibility for (i) all common open space
areas not otherwise dedicated to public use, (ii) common buffer areas
located outside of commercial lots; (iii) common solid waste disposal
programs to include durripster and contract carrier services provided by a
private refuse collection company, and (iv) responsibility for the perpetual
maintenance of any street, perimeter. or road buffer areas, all of which
bufTer areas shall be located within casements to be granted to the POA if
platted within commercial or other lots, or otherwise granted to the POA
by appropriate instrument.
WATER & SEWER:
12-1. The Applicant shall be responsible for connecting the Property to public
\rater and sewer, and for constructing all facilities required for such
connection. All water and sewer infrastructure shall be constructed in
accordance with the requirements of the Frederick County Sanitation
Authority.
ENVIRONMENT:
13.1. Stormwat.er management and Best Management Practices (BMP) for the
Property shall be provided in accordance with the Virginia Stormwater
Management Regulations, First Ed. 1999, Chapter 2, Table 2-3 which
results in the highest order of stormwater control in existing Virginia law
at the time of construction of any such facility.
13.2. Stream presen.-ation buffers shall be constructed in general conformance
with the. Parks, "trails & Buffer Exhibit, so as to create buffers in excess of
that required by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to protect the
Opequon and Hoge Run streams from disturbance. No clearing or grading
shall occur within those buffers, except for the construction of road
crossings, trails, sanitary sewer, or other utilities.
14_ TRANSPORTATION:
14.1- Transportation improvements shall he associated with and initiated "with
each phase of the development as set forth below. It is the Applicant's
intent to utilize public road funding as it may be available for portions of
this project, however, the responsibility for causing the construction to
occur prior to issuance of building permits shall rest with the Applicant.
Furthermore, design of the roadway system shall be consistent with the
study entitled "A Phased 'Traffic impact Analysis of Crosspointe Center.'
prepared by Patton Harris Rust & Associates. dated September 10, 22003
(the "FIA'').
Noe 6 of 12
Crosspointe Center
Proffer SYnlement
14.2. The following traffic improvements shall be designed and constructed
during Phase I. The exact location and design of such improvements shall
be subject to reasonable adjustment upon final engineering thereof_
14.2.1 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit the Applicant shall
design and construct an extension of Crosspointe Boulevard in an
easterly direction for 1,100 feet as generally depicted on the GDP.
Such design shall be in accordance with the Virginia Department
of ,Transportation ("VDOT") specifications, and subject to review
and approval by the Frederick County and VDOT. ("F" to "G" on
the GDP).
14.2.2 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the development
the Applicant shall design and construct a realigned intersection of
Tasker Road with the extension of Crosspointe Boulevard as
generally depicted on the GDP- Such design shall be in
accordance with VDOT specifications and subject to review and
approval by Frederick County and VDOT. ("F" to "G" to 11" to
"J" on the GDP).
14.2.3 Prior to the issuance of the first Building peril-iit the Applicant shall
design and construct an extension of 1-111andale Road from
Crosspointe Boulevard extended in an easterly direction between
the Phase I commercial and residential developments as generally
depicted on the GDP. Such design shall be in accordance with
VDOT specifications and subject to review and approval by
Frederick County and VDOT. ("I'" to "H" on the GDP).
14.2.4 At a time approved by VDOT the Applicant shall design and
construct an additional lane on S13L U.S. Route I 1 between the
interchange ramp intersections with Route 37 as generally depicted
on the GDP. Such design shall be in accordance with VDO"f
specifications and subject to review and approval by Frederick
County and VDOT. ("A" to "B" on the GDP).
142.5 The Applicant shall perform design studies and secure. approval of
a ramp modification plan for the I-81 NBL off ramp and the 1-81
NBL on ramp in order to meet LOS "C" conditions in accordance
with the `I -IA. VDOT and FHWA approvals and funding for the
required improvements shall be secured to perform the work plan
as approved prior to the issuance of the first building permit in
Phase 1. ("D" and "E" as shown on the GDP).
14.2-6 Full left and right turn commercial entrances to Warrior Drive shall
be limited to one location approximately nlidwa_y between '14"
and "K"-
14.2.7 Full left and right turn commercial entrances to Tasker Road shall
Noe 7of12
Crosspointe Center Proffer S/atc /cent
be limited to flour with two allowed between "F" and "G" and one_
each allowed at "H" and "J".
14.3. Road entrances to Crosspointe Boulevard shall be limited to two entrances
at "Ci" and at "M" as shown on the CIDP- No other entrance or road
connections to Crosspointe Boulevard shall be allowed without the
express approval of Frederick County and VDUT- The following traffic
improvements shall be designed and constructed during Phase 11 and shall
be completed prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit in Phase Il.
unless noted otherwise herein. The exact location and design Of such
improvements shall be in substantial conformance with the GDP but
subject to reasonable adjustment upon final engineering thereof.
14.3.1 The Applicant shall design and construct Tasker Road extended to
Warrior Drive. ("J" to "K" on the GDP).
14.3.2 The Applicant shall design and construct Warrior Drive from
Crosspointe Boulevard to the north limits of the development.
("L" to "K" to "M" on the GDP) -
14.3.3 The Applicant shall design and construct a two-lane extension of
Crosspointe Boulevard to Warrior Drive. ("G" to "M" on the
GDP).
14.4. The following traffic improvements shall be designed and constructed
during Phase III and shall be completed prior to issuance of the first
occupancy permit in Phase III, unless otherwise noted herein. The exact
location and design of such improvements shall be subject to reasonable
adjustment upon final engineering thereof:
14.4.1 The Applicant shall design and construct Warrior Drive from
Crosspointe Boulevard to the south property houndary. ("TA" to
"N" on the GDP).
14.42 The Applicant shall design and construct two additional lanes to
Crosspointe Boulevard from the intersection with Tasker Road to
Warrior Drive. ("G" to "M" on the GDP).
14.4.3 The Applicant shall design and construct a four lane, divided
roadway from Warrior Drive to the cast limits of the development.
("M" to "0" on the GDP).
14.4.4 No construction permits for commercial or residential uses in
Phase Al shall be applied for until one of the three following
conditions exist:
1. Warrior Drive is extended from the south across olfsitc
properties to intersect with 'Lasker Road (S -R. 642) (at "N) or
Pa -e 9 of 12
CI-osscpoiwe Center
Pry%jc'r .Sturen,em
with Iinks provided to U.S. Route 527- (At" 0").
2_ Warrior Drive is extended from the north across offsite
properties to intersection with Paper Mill Road (S -R. 644). (At.
"L").
3. A revised Transportation Impact Analysis is prepared, reviewed
and approved by Frederick County and VDOT, whichprovides
justification for Phase I11 transportation impacts.
14.5. The Applicant understands that the route of Crosspointe Boulevard may, be
used for an improved arterial road location in the future- The Applicant
shall plan for a 220' wide corridor with additional right of way to allow
for interchanges at the intersections of 1-81 and Warrior Drive. The limits
of the additional right of way shall be determined at the tune of Master
Plan approval. The area outside of the 90' to 110' right of way required
for Crosspointe Boulevard shall be planned as open space, and in the event
such a program is funded to provide for an upgraded roadway with a hill
transportation intersection at Warrior Drive, such right of way shall be
dedicated at no cost to the County. ("F" to "G" to "M" to "O" on the
GDP).
15. CULTURAL .RESOURCES INVESTIGATION AND PRESERVATION
15.1. The Applicant shall preserve Hilandale House for such uses as .may be
deemed appropriate by the Applicant- The Applicant shall further create a
five -acre preservation park immediately surrounding the House, as
generally depicted on the GDP.
15.2. The Applicant shall create a ten -acre preservation park immediately
surrounding the encampment area associated with Camp Russell, as
generally depicted on the GDP.
153. The Applicant shall create a two -acre preservation park surrounding the
Carysbrook Redoubt area, as generally depicted on the GDP.
15.4. Prior to the commencement of any Mind disturbing activities on the
Property, the Applicant shall perform a Phase I ArcheolocicaI Study for
investigation of those portions of t11e development outside the
development area previously studied in the Route 37 I incl Environmental
Impact Statement/Section 4(f) Evaluation (the 'F>✓IS"). In the event that
the Phase 1 study indicates that further study is required, then the
Applicant shall take such further preservation studies as may be indicated.
1 ti.5, Tf ibe Applica::t constructs t?;e extension of �Jb'` —1- r Road the alignme1,1,
contemplated by and studied in the. I4E1S, the Applicant will coordinate
that constriction with the Federal Highway Administration (' 1 HA"), the
Virginia State historic Preservation Officer (" SI -IPO"), VIX)T, and
Pave 9 of 12
( "ras.V)ointe Center
Prof
kr Statenwnt
Frederick County, to assure implementation of the Memorandum of
Agreement previously entered into between the County_ , the FHA and the
State Historic Presentation Officer pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.6(a).
15.6. Any additional archeological features identified during the. Phase 1 study
will be evaluated in accordance with VDHR guidelines, and in the event
that a National Register -eligible site is identified, the Applicant will work
with VDHR and the County to mitigate any adverse effects that may result
from the proposed development.
16. DEDICATION OF AREA FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICES
16.1. At such time as the Board intends to construct a facility as provided
herein, the Applicant shall dedicate to the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors, or such entity as the Board may direct approximately nine
acres of land in a location agreeable to the Board and the Applicant for the
placement of government services, for satellite offices including a public
safety building, and any other governmental services as the Board may
direct, provided, however that this shall not permit construction of a motor
pool maintenance facility or impoundment yard or similar uses. The
dedication shall occur within thirty (30) days of the Board's written
request to the Applicant. Any such facility shall be compatible «-ith the
design of the Project as othenvise provided in Proffer 2.1 herein.
16.2_ The dedication provided for hercin shall be made within three years from
the date of approval of the rezoning as applied for, provided that the Board
upon its written request shall be granted two additional years within which
to request such dedication. In the event that dedication or extension is not
requested within the time here provided, the Applicant shall pay to the
County the sum of $200,000.00 in lieu of such dedication or extension
within sixty days of the expiration of the applicable period.
17. ESCALATOR CLAUSE
17.1. In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement
are paid to the Frederick County Board County Supervisors ("Board')
within 30 months of the approval of this retuning, as applied for by the
Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any
monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to
the Board after 30 months following the approval of this rezoning shall be
adjusted in accordance «lith the Urban Consumer Price Index ("CPI -U")
published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time
contributions are paid, they shall be adiusted by the percentage change in
the CPI-tl from that date ?4 months after the approval of this rezoning 10
the most recently available CPI -U to the date the contributions are paid.
subject to a cap of 6% per year, non -compounded.
Page 10 of 12
eros poinfe Denier
Profji?r Stalemeni
SIGNATURES APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGES
►�� i i or
Cro.t'spoinle (-enter" I'f"OffC'Y.SIttTE7tTC'T71
GLAIL1: ll1VELOPMENTS. INC.
Title.-
COMMONWEALTH
itle:
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA;
CITY/eebi4W OF `��rnc��e>� :to -wit
it
The foregoing instrument Nvas acknowledged before me this 2-1- clay of
\ 2004, by C ^ L
My Commission expires
Notary Public
J:\4 "14346%RE70NIN(;\REZONING\]'ROI-YERS,Pruffcr 012+.duc
Page 12of 12
r
.t
• y�,y, I TO PAPER MILL ROAD
(FUTURE)
r
RESIONIIAU RP t
(M,xe� U9g}
1
\{' •Ir v! zu RESIDENTIAL RP
4N,El
G'' .ir ` rd' ° t s• �l. �1' �f :�.. } w
ES DENITI w.�'
9F-S Lo#) RE3# ENTIAL fXP 7 's QMMBiZGIpIB 2'Yy'� ( ' �PwsEn e �. I i
xcRE4 (SF &7iRlIILo#1 r .tf't i 1 a(Re#e,1) Sis MM(ERC#ALyB
2700�•GR4 -.r N i t �rt I 4 l f��Fi �5 '�GGt ACPES. I - V
\}?8#210
f
a
.:s .viitsEr ' x�obA r/.�.
j1 t f g DN hr nsem:
i; 60MF1ERLilSY �s { i4s �r. 0 I D}yil(L.RC4Aiy�$ _
r¢ ! stlju 9naJtRetail} Y ; # r �• LCFN rLq IMrLk?�tarfj
.p�E1y .,'--ol:-
V..rya RES#DEjJT#AL RP ,. #
1 (M1xe4 Use}.
/! V TE
O #v1Ei1L B
TO WARRIOR ROAD
y S hxt { j .✓ Fw�4E iA
RESIDE
NT#RL
.F: Ex,su7aG4xtar+E� RESIUENTIAC``�i
's : OMMERCIPL G,�flle:Fam{IY}
1 ttRe4a,¢) l t s
SD+tr!�FtiS
C R O S S P O I N T E* {( tt
1 )t U 1 N I.\
,.� ., is �,t k:-,„ �,t •: � � �,,,�,,,.� � ��t,,� .. ...A,
ti ! 1. I. �k fJ t 7
"
/
/
/
'
/
20 OAtun) T-INWLLIRA
4
id
TO PAPER MILL ROAD
(FUTURE)
�/iC71
AL RP;
ESIDEN(T�{I% --JTP 0.
' f9.R2DLVfy �. PMASlI 'fir ..i A I Na.G
r ..RESID&NTIAL AP
00
P445E�
COMMERCIAL
q'.LA, {7XEx.TENSlom
CQMIvi€RCIAL.B 2 �
is
'rR0ssPClttiTj'l-v
I Ri;>I It It'. 4: i'„f \'i'Y, vI it(:I.IA
{. \Ilt 1 �. U ,��., ,.. ��t••a r:♦'t' t'�. t} "”" ., -.— 4 �.. .ua..,n ew.,..wPI RA
/J
_ �- O PAPER t,"iLL ROAD
{1 -. - ti_... ^`•.+'max (FUTURE)
. •-,!tl:`� .. ..,^''� �'..+ yam'
�Ll
tc
FF
�MAy
I RESIDEN}TIAL f3P' fl� t�� 1 �
- - -
_` i°,+ • ++' `• t RESIDENTIAL RP ff
IVt. D1 rbwt. us'un�_c
ES10ENt+1gl�ia �� sEr+ea+ ` erre t+' 11 P. 4: N A (^, t` M�
v acs • R£5tD I IAL RP
t < /y. !eotRC2a Mf0ERC1AL8&
4 ..'CQ@ttMEFtC.IA46 Ex
1 ;EOoA RE$
i COMMERfCIAL 1 iygl0�.j n AYta, '
1 t 4 LANE E}CTENSION
RESIDENTIAL .RP
VA f�TE e ya ncvEs..
I 14COMMERGIAL'8.2 '{
Fly -
TO WARRIOR ROAD
L
PMl�afi l"
RESIDENTiA
Y A {• - 7116 ACRES
`\ ': 1.-.�•,M1.VS4GNE') ��'`��,.i }(50 /, /,i:liES . i .. .
1 -
' j •..It,C i 1 L:6 ROWY�Al7D ,IED'AN 3 RO+y-ay�
's�p.paow is c+uoaupe '
t _ 100 R 0 tY ,1N9 11NDSC Ft kREA
pMANpInLE Yi LOIfKGRGAi OMLEYr RP3+Q�rciut'
RESIDENTITI AL - RP f TYPICAL STREETSCAPE SECTION
TASKER & WARRIOR ROADS
NORTH OFCROSSPOINTEBLVD
I. U '9(.'SE?YA riDry
' ►� ER FiO�'..-. i....-� "`,., _ RESIDENTIAL -RP
�00
�RESIDENTIAL-RP PHASE I
RESIDENTIAL-RP�1% W. q
_ I COMMERCIAL B-
jy-p i 2 y6�,
)) �W'OMMERCIAL B.
ffII'L NAN EPWVRE1
_ .iANE + -� COMMERCIAL B-2
lY�-1 • PIWFIR
fi''•\.j ! COMMERCIAL 8-2
.� OMMERCIAL `
ij
ti..'.1wa n..t.un ,�; _ -t
RESIDENTIAL - R? �rREs7rierlt.:
ER nrtEN
/ \` ` =� .. - r 4 ! �I ..i_4 'r - �•' i GRO'�P01N7y uu> F : �✓
'i - -• - �•�'�•�_---' �'- VA;RTE��T -1 }.� � �`<`,J ap�lFE�i�l "� iha, ^ Fy'a -'vm.m a ••�,
COMMERCIAL B:2 :j?q
Lu
X1,
�P
�l - =_yY(F It, PNfSFiit '
RESIDENTIAL- P
PLAN KEY ij ''-! tQ •'�f. R
PROPOSED STREAM PRESERVATION BUFFER `, ' I E%tsnN�fi F 2 ZaNF r '1V
COMMERCIAL PwsEn-379E°1.r
PROPOSED POCKET PARK _ _/ ��� RESIDENTIAL -RP
.......... PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN TRAIL
III CR05SP01NTEa - `.✓ — Y.,J
FRl'.D 1'.RiCK COLINVY. VIRGINL\
Iq� r7 •.. �]��AE .P4R .. NIRH �I(Y. t u•sWu• IN,
HR A
C I•.\1•. ItALIT,GU <)ItVI:LUI'M R. N'1' Pt•:1\ oEa >r� w^^+• ,Mv...
«. ».
['r1Rl{;�TFtAIL, ANDBUFFCR LX1-[tBiT' " 'ruzs=" =P-ct?'az-,t•�•,;".�
r 2 2 2006
Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package
APPLICATION
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Department of Planning and Development Use Only
Date application received Application
Complete - Date of acceptance
Incomplete - Date of Return
1. Project Title: Crosspointe Center
2. Owner's Name: Glaize Development, Inc.
(Please list the names of all owners or parties in interest)
3. Applicant: Patton Harris Rust & Associates
Address: 117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200
Winchester Virginia 22601
Phone: (540) 667-2139
4. Design Company: Patton Harris Rust & Associates
Address: 117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200
Winchester Virginia 22601 _
Phone Number: (540) 667-2139
Contact Name: Patrick Sowers
1
Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package
APPLICATION cont'd
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
5. Location of Property: Kernstown Area — East and adjacent to
Interstate 81 where VA Route 37 terminates
6. Total Acreage: 574.37
7. Property Information:
a) Property Identification Number (PIN)
b) Current Zoning:
c) Present Use:
d) Proposed Use:
e) Adjoining Property Information:
Property Identification
Please See Attached
North
South
East
West
t) Magisterial District:
75-A-89, 89A, 90, 91, 92,
94, 95 and 96
RP & B2
Vacant
Residential & Commercial
Property Uses
8. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan?
Original X Amended
I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the Frederick
County Department of Planning and Development. I also understand that the master development
plan shall include all contiguous land under single or common ownership. All required material
will be complete prior to the submission of my master development plan application.
Signature:
Date:
2
Crosspointe MDP Application
Adjoining Property Owners
Tax ID #
Name
Address
Zoning
Use
63-A-116
John C. Russel Jr. & Frances L
285 Caldwell Lane, Winchester, VA 22602
RA
Agricultu
75-A-93
Paul Xi Haldeman, Jr. Trust C/O First Bank — Trust
1835 Valley Avenue, Winchester, VA 22601
RA
Agricultu
Division
64-A 24
Paul Ni Haldeman, Jr. Trust CSO First Bank — Trust
1835 Valley Avenue, Winchester, VA 22601
RA
Agricultu
Division
76-A 13
W. F. Jr. Artrip
1726 Front Royal Pike, Winchester, VA 22602
RA
Agricillni
75 -A -99A
--A-97
Winchester Artri, LLC C/O The Tower Companies
11501 Huff Court, N. Bethesda, MD 20895
RA
Vacant
T5
Steve Dubrueler
346 Saddleback Lane, Winchester, VA 22602
RA
Vacant
75G -54B -136A
N/A
N/A
RP
Vacant
75G -54B -135A
N/A
N/A
RP
Vacant
75G -7-6-165A
N/A
N/A
RP
Open S
75G -7-6-173A
N/A
N/A
RP
a
Open Spa
75G -7-6-193A
N/A
N/A
RP
Open Spa
75G -6-5-189A
N/A
N/A
RP
S
75-A-84
Coreen M. Dade
244 Picket Lane, Ste hens City, VA 22655
RA
en a
Residenti
75-A-88
Andy C. Cornejo-Rivera & Silvia V. Guilleu
266 Picket Lane, Stephens City, VA 22655
RA
Residenti
75-4-1
Brubaker Enterprises, Ltd. PR
3407 Cedar Creek Grade, Winchester, VA 22602
B2
Commerc
63-2-A
Shenandoah Gas Company
N/A
RA
Ind. Offi�
3- -2-B
Hamman Investment Co., Inc.
931 Pinto Circle, Nohomis, FL 34275Ml
Commerc
75G -44B-63
Patricia Beardslee
125 Belle Haven Circle, Stephens City, VA 22655
RP
Vacant
75G -44B-62
John & Melissa Corder, C/O VA Credit Union
123 Belle Haven Circle, Stephens City, VA 22655
RP
Vacant
75G -44B-60
Rodney & Suzanne Torp
102 jade Court, Stephens City, VA 22655
RP
Residenti
75G -44B-59
Daniel & Nina Dunleavy
105 Jade Court, Stephens qty, VA 22655
RP
Residenti
75-A 87A
Ross & Patricia Halbersma
176 Picket Lane
RA
Residenti
75-1-A
Frederick Counry Sanitation Authority
107 N. Kent Street, Winchester, VA 22601
B2
Office
Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia,
107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601
Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395
Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We)
(Name) GLAIZE DEVELOPMENTS. INC. (Phone) (540) 662-7980
(Address) PO Box 888 Winchester, Va 22604
the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by
Pin Numbers: 75 -A -90,75-A-91, 75 -A -92,75 -A -94,75-A-95, 75 -A -96,75-A-97, 75-A-89 and 75 -A -89A
(Name) Chuck Maddox, Patrick Sowers John Callow Ron Mislowski and Steve Pettler
Phone: (540) 667-2139
(Address)117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester Va 22601
To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and
authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described
Property, including:
Rezoning (including proffers)
Conditional Use Permits
X Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final)
Subdivision
Site Plan
My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously
approved proffered conditions except as follows:
This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or
modified.
In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this day of At: -C : , 200 U
Signature(s)''�
State of Virginia, City/County of FREDERICK ,To -wit:
I, (Y- \a.Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction
aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personally appeared before me
and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this ? 2. day c X200 tv=
v My Commission Expires:
Notary Public
•
�7
•
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Bernard S. Suchicital, Planner I a
RE: FYI — Shenandoah Development
DATE: March 14, 2007
This is a public meeting item regarding revisions to the Shenandoah Master Development Plan
(MDP #06-00); no action is required. Since it has been approximately six (6) years since the
Planning Commission has reviewed the Shenandoah project, staff felt it appropriate to update the
Commission and community on the status of this project.
On May 1, 2001, the County administratively approved the Shenandoah MDP, an age -restricted
community for 2,130 mixed use residential units, two acres for a fire and rescue site, and a
village/retail center on 926.266 acres. The applicant is currently requesting minor revisions to the
MDP that may be handled administratively. The overall allowed residential unit total has not
increased; the applicant is only proposing to shift the phase lines, modify the housing -type totals, and
realign a few internal neighborhood streets.
Since the initial MDP approval, the applicant has built a new water treatment plant, extended water
lines to the property, and had a total of 90 residential building permits issued to date.
BSS/bad
Attachment
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
IFraderick 'CO ;I�n ty, VA
Location in the County
Map Features
C`p Shenandoah Development
i3 Lakes/Ponds
-�— Streams
Streets
Primary
Secondary
'�. Terciary
O Property Lines
Shenandoah
Development
Parcel ID:
"Parent Tracts"
87-A-102
87-A-103
.._
0 600 1,200 2,4p0
eet
Case Planner: Bernie
10
9
22 18
20
19 21 ._
16
tt
15
2
N
31
.e� -y owl o a
rA
7,W4. ��+► � T P,
� �
7
;
12
Vale: i7ais is an a. Meted community.
...wat:��e i•.- - ,,�+._-.�.a�.>.-s.�.• .. " ..;awes,•- -
WMSYON8
l(I
Patton Harris Rust 8 Associates
Eng -tecrs. Surveycrs. t2pcnne•s. Lards Case Arc•:tcctx.
—. -
- -- - -- --SM M R -A
_ usb�e� VA 10t7�
PH
IF J' 777 3725
M01 DAM r W d«n_
G
LEDGEND
`. MAJOR \'htI1C.IJl.AR
- - CIRCULATION
F
MIV()R VI -1110 LAR
HIKER/BIKER TRAIL DETAIL
CIRC 01 ANON
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
a
PHASE I INI:
----------- PRO VyA1K\VAY'1'R.A11.
- J^..' ,Rnx: Sty E•:..
— — — — PRO IHKFIBIK 'RAIL
'
32 WALKWAY TRAIL DETAIL
--`—` - — PRO LAKE I'RAII-
NO f[: Lake trait to be constructed as mutually agreed with VDGIF.
I'll PkSING NUMBER
PROPOCFDAREA FOR SING LE
FAMIL\ A17ACULD HOUSING
IDurll x)
rW I
n'
PROPOSED AREA FOR SINGLE
FAMILY DF.)'.1C1iED HOUSING
j (SFD)
11 PRINUSED AREA FOR (SFA)
\ / 17 / . SINGI L FAMILY AT1':1CHFD
\ / HOUSING CrOWNII(.)IISI.)
\\ 13 /� PROPOSED AREA I'ORIMFA)
-Nit )L'I FAMILY ATTACHED'
llOt'SIN(i iAPARTV1EaN-i')
PROPOSED ARE'A htJR
R!-CREAF'IONFACILITIES
25rRorosEDAluA FOR F1 ruR1
R-IA'All FACILITIES
S
"�' �� Pmx 1 Summart
Total Area 926.266 Acre;
,.rn / 1 Existing Zoning: R5 IRcsidcntiaP0nvtridnial)
j« 1a "\� 26 24 Pin Nurobcr 8? --1 102 8 9'A- ..'01(Parent
� v�..r, _ -► ,.,* :r Tracti) Includirn any lot: recorded as pan of
Phasc 1 or 11 currently.
Prupowd Use- Residential
f r No. cf Units: 2.130
Notes
i
1. All proposed utilities will be placed
w`.". t•:nderground.
? \II roads to confoini to the cunstaxtion
dztails and malcxials of VDOT.
> M
NPI!,
,. z j -� a�� � : ash Ga• uvr _ry ,:
MASTER PLAN
OVERALL
23
SHENANDOAH �^
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
F7.:1 HICK (:Ci.'1:f� Vi—MA
•
C
:7
MEMORANDUM
To: Frederick County Planning Commission
From: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner S kl=
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of P!annir.g .and Development
54-0/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
Subject: Planning Commission Discussion — Age -Restricted Multifamily Housing
Date: March 19, 2007
1
Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR&A) submitted a Zoning Ordinance text amendment to the
County to enable age -restricted multifamily housing. The requested changes are based on a desire to
incorporate elevators in a cost effective manner by permitting taller buildings, with more units per
building, than allowed in the garden apartment housing type.
The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DDRS) at their
meeting on February 22, 2007. The DRRS was supportive of the text amendment with some
modifications. The main concern of the DRRS was parking. The DRRS endorsed more parking per
unit (2.0 spaces per unit) than the applicant had originally suggested (1.0 — 1.5 spaces per unit
depending on the size of the unit). The DRRS was supportive of the maximum height (60 feet), but
wanted to limit the number of habitable floors to four.
The principle change to the ordinance would be the introduction of a new housing type in the RP
(Residential Performance) District called age -restricted multifamily housing. It would be added to
the list of allowed RP housing types. The proposal calls for the new housing type to be allowed only
with proffered age -restricted housing. At the present time there are only eight developments to
which this could apply — Snowden Bridge (part), Orrick Commons, Crosspointe (part), Cedar
Meadows, Harvest Ridge, Westbury Commons, Westminster Canterbury and Willow Run (part).
As evident in the attached text, the applicant loosely based the new housing type on the existing
garden apartment housing type (§ 165-65L). Differences from that section include: a higher density
(20 units per acre), a higher maximum number of dwelling units per building (110), a higher
maximum building height (60 feet), a reduced (five feet) setback from parking areas or driveways, a
greater (60 feet) setback from the road right-of-way, a greater (100 feet) setback from the side and
rear, and a requirement for an elevator.
Text changes are needed in a number of other sections of the Zoning Ordinance and one section of
the Subdivision Ordinance to ensure consistency throughout the ordinances. In general, the new
housing type was treated similarly to a garden apartment. The modified sections are listed below and
detailed in the attachments:
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 a Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Planning Commission
Re: Age -Restricted Multifamily Housing
March 19, 2007
Page 2
RP Residential Performance District
§ 165-59. Permitted uses.
§ 165-61, Number of uses restricted.
§165-62. Gross Density.
§165-62.1. Multifamily housing. (Note: Proposed changes would apply to all
multifamily housing types)
§165-65. Dimensional requirements.
Supplemental Use Regulations
§ 165-37 Buffer and screening requirements.
Definitions
§165-156 Definitions and word usage
Design Standards
§144-24. Lot requirements.
The attached documents show the existing ordinances, the changes to the ordinance supported by the
DRRS (with strikethroughs for text eliminated and bold italic for text added) and a clean version of
the proposed text as it is proposed to be adopted.
This item is presented for discussion. Comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission
will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.
Attachments: 1. Existing ordinances
2. Existing ordinances with proposed changes shown in blackline
3. Proposed ordinances (clean version)
SKE/bad
Current Ordinance
APPENDIX 1 - CURRENT ADOPTED ORDINANCE
Chapter 165 - Zoning
ARTICLE VI
RP Residential Performance District
§165-59. Permitted uses.
A. All uses shall be developed in accordance with an approved master development
plan unless otherwise waived under Article V of this chapter.
B. Structures are to be erected or land used for one or more of the following uses:
(1) Any of the following residential structures: single-family detached
traditional rural, single-family detached traditional, single-family detached
urban, single-family detached cluster, single-family detached zero lot line,
single-family small lot, duplex, multiplex, atrium house, weak -link
townhouse, townhouse or garden apartment. [Amended 10-27-1999]
(2) Schools and churches.
(3) Fire stations and companies and rescue squads.
(4) Group homes.
(5) Home occupations.
(6) Utilities necessary to serve residential uses, including poles, lines,
distribution transformers, pipes and meters.
(7) Accessory uses and structures. Accessory structures attached to the main
structure shall be considered part of the main structure. Mobile homes and
trailers, as defined, shall not be considered as accessory structures or
buildings.
(8) Required or bonus recreational facilities and public parks, playgrounds
and recreational facilities.
(9) Business signs to advertise the sale or rent of the premises upon which
they are erected, church bulletin boards and identification signs, signs for
non-profit service clubs and charitable associations (off-site signs not to
exceed eight square feet) and directional signs.
(10) Temporary model homes used for sale of properties in a residential
development.
(11) Libraries. [Added 6-8-1994]
(12) Adult -care residences and assisted -living care facilities. [Added 8-24-
2004]
Appendix 1 — Current Ordinance
Current Ordinance
§165--61. Number of uses restricted.
More than one principal structure or use and its customary accessory structures or uses
are permitted in the RP Residential Performance District for duplexes, multiplexes,
atrium houses, weak -link townhouses and garden apartments.
§165-62. Gross density. [Amended 5-11-19941
A gross density shall be established for each proposed development, including all land
contained within a single master development plan, according to the characteristics of the
land, the capacity of public facilities and roads and the nature of surrounding uses.
Because of these characteristics, some developments may not be allowed to employ the
maximum density allowed by these regulations. The following density requirements
shall apply to all parcels as they exist at the time of the adoption of this section:
A. Subsequent divisions of land shall not increase the allowed density on parcels
of land.
B. In no case shall the gross density of any development within an approved
master development plan exceed 10 dwellings per acre.
C. In no case shall the gross density of any development within an approved
master development plan which contains more than 10 acres and less than 100
acres exceed 5.5 dwellings per acre.
D. In no case shall the gross density of any development within an approved
master development plan which contains more than 100 acres exceed four
dwellings per acre.
§165-62.1. Multifamily housing. [Added 5-11-1994]
A. Developments that are less than 25 acres in size may include more than 50%
multifamily housing types.
B. Developments that are more than 25 acres and less than 50 acres in size shall
be permitted to contain up to 50% multifamily housing types.
C. Developments that are over 50 acres in size shall be permitted to contain up to
40% multifamily housing types.
Appendix ] —Current Ordinance - 2 -
Current Ordinance
§165-65. Dimensional requirements.
The following dimensional requirements shall be met by uses in the RP Residentail
Performance District. The Administrator shall make the final determination as to the
classification of housing types. Unless otherwise specified, all housing types shall be
served by public sewer and water.
L. Garden apartments. "Garden apartments" are multifamily buildings where
individual dwelling units share a common outside access. They also share a
common yard area, which is the sum of the required lot areas of all dwelling
units within the building. Garden apartments shall contain six or more
dwellings in a single structure. Required open space shall not be included as
minimum lot area.
(1) Maximum gross density shall be 10 units per acre.
(2) Dimensional requirements shall be as follows:
Minimum Lot
Area per
Number of Dwelling Unit Off -Street
Bedrooms (square feet) Parking Spaces
Efficiency 1,300 1.50
1 1,700 2.00
2 2,000 2.25
3 plus 2,550 2.50
(3) Maximum site impervious surface ratio (on lot) shall be 0.50.
(4) Minimum lot size shall be one acre.
(5) Minimum yards shall be as follows:
(a) Front setback:
[1] Thirty-five feet from road right-of-way.
[2] Twenty feet from parking area or driveway.
(b) Side: 50 feet from perimeter boundary.
(c) Rear: 50 feet from perimeter boundary.
(6) Minimum on-site building spacing shall be 50 feet.
(7) Maximum number of dwelling units per building shall be 16.
(8) Maximum building height shall be as follows:
(a) Principle building: 40 feet.
(b) Accessory buildings: 15 feet
Appendix 1 — Current Ordinance - 3 -
Current Ordinance
ARTICLE IV
Supplemental Use Regulations
§165-37 Buffer and screening requirements. [Amended 6-13-19901
C. [Amended 5-11-1994] Residential separation buffers.
(2) Perimeter apartment or multiplex separation buffers.
(a) Wherever possible and practical, garden apartments and multiplex
structures shall not be placed adjacent to other types of residential
structures. If other types of residential structures must be placed
adjacent to garden apartments or multiplex structures, the following
buffers are required.
(b) Buffers shall be placed between the garden apartment or multiplex
structures and the lot line of the lots containing the other housing
types.
ARTICLE XXII
Definitions
§165-156. Definitions and word usage. [Amended 11-13-1991]
AGE -RESTRICTED COMMUNITY — A designated area of at least 250 acres in size
within a residential recreational community development which is intended to be absent
of school age children and which ensures, through covenants, management regulations or
other similar legal instruments, enforceable by a homeowners' association or other
similar private entity, that at least one of the residents of at least 80% of the units is 55
years of age or older. [Added 8-9-2000]
Appendix ] — Current Ordinance - 4 -
Distance Buffer Required
Screening
Inactive
Active
Provided
(Minimum)
(Maximum)
Total
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
Full screen
75
25
100
Landscape screen
150
50
200
No screen
350
50
400
(b) Buffers shall be placed between the garden apartment or multiplex
structures and the lot line of the lots containing the other housing
types.
ARTICLE XXII
Definitions
§165-156. Definitions and word usage. [Amended 11-13-1991]
AGE -RESTRICTED COMMUNITY — A designated area of at least 250 acres in size
within a residential recreational community development which is intended to be absent
of school age children and which ensures, through covenants, management regulations or
other similar legal instruments, enforceable by a homeowners' association or other
similar private entity, that at least one of the residents of at least 80% of the units is 55
years of age or older. [Added 8-9-2000]
Appendix ] — Current Ordinance - 4 -
Current Ordinance
Chapter 144 — Subdivision of Land
ARTICLE V
Design Standards
§144-24. Lot requirements.
C. Lot Access. All lots shall abut and have direct access to a public street or right-
of-way dedicated for maintenance by the Virginia Department of Transportation
(2) Multifamily and single-family small lot housing. [Amended 10-27-1999]
(a) Lots in subdivisions to be used for the following housing types, as
defined by Chapter 165, Zoning, need not abut public streets:
[ 1 ] Duplexes.
[2] Multiplexes,
[3] Atrium houses.
[4] Townhouses.
[5] Weak -link townhouses.
[6] Garden apartments.
[7] Single-family small lot housing.
Appendix l — Current Ordinance - 5 -
Proposed Changes - Blackline
APPENDIX 2 - PROPOSED CHANGES WITH STRIKETHROUGHS AND BOLD
ITALIC
Chapter 165 - Zoning
ARTICLE VI
RP Residential Performance District
§165-59. Permitted uses.
A. All uses shall be developed in accordance with an approved master development
plan unless otherwise waived under Article V of this chapter.
B. Structures are to be erected or land used for one or more of the following uses:
(1) Any of the following residential structures: single-family detached
traditional rural, single-family detached traditional, single-family detached
urban, single-family detached cluster, single-family detached zero lot line,
single-family small lot, duplex, multiplex, atrium house, weak -link
townhouse, townhouse, or garden apartment or age -restricted multifamily
housing. [Amended 10-27-1999]
(2) Schools and churches.
(3) Fire stations and companies and rescue squads.
(4) Group homes.
(5) Home occupations.
(6) Utilities necessary to serve residential uses, including poles, lines,
distribution transformers, pipes and meters.
(7) Accessory uses and structures. Accessory structures attached to the main
structure shall be considered part of the main structure. Mobile homes and
trailers, as defined, shall not be considered as accessory structures or
buildings.
(8) Required or bonus recreational facilities and public parks, playgrounds
and recreational facilities.
(9) Business signs to advertise the sale or rent of the premises upon which
they are erected, church bulletin boards and identification signs, signs for
non-profit service clubs and charitable associations (off-site signs not to
exceed eight square feet) and directional signs.
(10) Temporary model homes used for sale of properties in a residential
development.
(11) Libraries. [Added 6-8-1994]
(12) Adult -care residences and assisted -living care facilities. [Added 8-24-
2004]
Appendix 2 — Proposed Changes-Blackline
Proposed Changes - Blackline
§165-61. Number of uses restricted.
More than one principal structure or use and its customary accessory structures or uses
are permitted in the RP Residential Performance District for duplexes, multiplexes,
atrium houses, weak -link townhouses, and garden apartments and age -restricted
multifamily housing.
§165-62. Gross density. [Amended 5-11-19941
A gross density shall be established for each proposed development, including all land
contained within a single master development plan, according to the characteristics of the
land, the capacity of public facilities and roads and the nature of surrounding uses.
Because of these characteristics, some developments may not be allowed to employ the
maximum density allowed by these regulations. The following density requirements
shall apply to all parcels as they exist at the time of the adoption of this section:
A. Subsequent divisions of land shall not increase the allowed density on parcels
of land.
B. In no case shall the gross density of any development within an approved
master development plan exceed 4-0 20 dwellings per acre.
C. In no case shall the gross density of any development within an approved
master development plan which contains more than 10 acres and less than 100
acres exceed 5.5 dwellings per acre.
D. In no case shall the gross density of any development within an approved
master development plan which contains more than 100 acres exceed four
dwellings per acre.
§165-62.1. Multifamily housing. [Added 5-11-1994]
A. Developments that are less than 25 acres in size may include more than
60% multifamily housing types.
B. Developments that are more than 25 acres and less than 50 acres in size shall
be permitted to contain up to 5 60% multifamily housing types.
C. Developments that are over 50 acres in size shall be permitted to contain up to
40 -OA 50% multifamily housing types.
Appendix 2 — Proposed Changes -Blackline - 2 -
Proposed Changes - Blackline
§165-65. Dimensional requirements.
The following dimensional requirements shall be met by uses in the RP Residentail
Performance District. The Administrator shall make the final determination as to the
classification of housing types. Unless otherwise specified, all housing types shall be
served by public sewer and water.
L. Garden apartments. "Garden apartments" are multifamily buildings where
individual dwelling units share a common outside access. They also share a
common yard area, which is the sum of the required lot areas of all dwelling
units within the building. Garden apartments shall contain six or more
dwellings in a single structure. Required open space shall not be included as
minimum lot area.
(1) Maximum gross density shall be 10 units per acre.
(2) Dimensional requirements shall be as follows:
Minimum Lot
Area per
Number of Dwelling Unit Off -Street
Bedrooms (square feet) Parking Spaces
Efficiency 1,300 1.50
1 1,700 2.00
2 2,000 2.25
3 plus 2,550 2.50
(3) Maximum site impervious surface ratio (on lot) shall be 0.50.
(4) Minimum lot size shall be one acre.
(5) Minimum yards shall be as follows:
(a) Front setback:
[1] Thirty-five feet from road right-of-way.
[2] Twenty feet from parking area or driveway.
(b) Side: 50 feet from perimeter boundary.
(c) Rear: 50 feet from perimeter boundary.
(6) Minimum on-site building spacing shall be 50 feet.
(7) Maximum number of dwelling units per building shall be 16.
(8) Maximum building height shall be as follows:
(a) Principle building: 40 feet.
(b) Accessory buildings: 15 feet
Appendix 2 — Proposed Changes-Blackline - 3 -
Proposed Changes - Blackline
Q. A, -e -restricted multifamily housing. "Age -restricted multifamily housing"
are multifamily buildings where individual dwelling units share a common
outside access. They also share a common yard area, which is the sum of
the re uired lot` ureus of all dweiiiii"- urtitS within the buildin Age -
restricted multifamily housing shall only be permitted within proffered age -
restricted developments. Elevator service shall be provided to each floor of
age -restricted multifamily housing structures for use by residents.
(1) Maximum gross density shall be 20 units per acre.
(2) Dimensional requirements shall be as follows:
Minimum Lot
Area per
Number of Dwelling Unit Off -Street
Bedrooms (square feet) Parking Spaces
Efficiency 1,300 2.00
1 1,700 2.00
2 2,000 2.00
3 plus 2,550 2.00
(3) Maximum site impervious surface ratio (on lot) shall be 0.50.
(4) Minimum lot size shall be three acre.
(5) Minimum yards shall be as follows:
(a) Front setback:
[I J Sixty feet from road right-of-way.
[21 Five feet from parking area or driveway.
(b) Side: 100 feet from perimeter boundary.
(c) Rear: 100 feet from perimeter boundary.
(6) Minimum on-site building spacing shall be 50 feet.
(7) Maximum number of dwelling units per building shall be I10.
(8) Maximum building height shall be as follows:
(a) Principle building: 60 feet.
(b) Accessory buildings: 15 feet
(9) Maximum number of habitable floors shall be four.
Appendix 2 — Proposed Changes-Blackline - 4 -
Proposed Changes - Blackline
ARTICLE IV
Supplemental Use Regulations
§165-37 Buffer and screening requirements. [Amended 6-13-19901
C. [Amended 5-11-1994] Residential separation buffers.
(2) Perimeter apartment, of -multiplex or age -restricted multifamily housing
separation buffers.
(a) Wherever possible and practical, garden apartments, aftd multiplex
structures and age -restricted multifamily housing structures shall not
be placed adjacent to other types of residential structures. If other
types of residential structures must be placed adjacent to garden
apartments, or multiplex structures; or age -restricted multifamily
housing structures the following buffers are required.
(b) Buffers shall be placed between the garden apartment, or multiplex
structures or age -restricted multifamily housing structures and the lot
line of the lots containing the other housing types.
Appendix 2 — Proposed Changes -Blackline - 5 -
Distance Buffer Required
Screening
Inactive
Active
Provided
(Minimum)
(Maximum)
Total
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
Full screen
75
25
100
Landscape screen
150
50
200
No screen
350
50
400
(b) Buffers shall be placed between the garden apartment, or multiplex
structures or age -restricted multifamily housing structures and the lot
line of the lots containing the other housing types.
Appendix 2 — Proposed Changes -Blackline - 5 -
Proposed Changes - Blackline
ARTICLE XXII
Definitions
§165-156. Definitions and word usage. [Amended 11-13-1991]
AGE -RESTRICTED — Housing intended for and occupied by persons fifty-five years
of age or older. At least 80% of the occupied units shall be occupied by at. least one
person fifty-five years of age or older per unit. The housing must include the
publication of, and adherence to, policies and procedures which demonstrate an intent
by the owner(s) and manager(s) to provide housing for person fifty-five years of age or
older.
HABITABLE FLOOR — Any floor usable for living purposes, which includes working,
sleeping, eating, cooking, or recreation, or a combination thereof, except for a floor
used only for storage purposes.
Appendix 2 — Proposed Changes -Blackline - 6 -
011
i NM
wg
AGE -RESTRICTED — Housing intended for and occupied by persons fifty-five years
of age or older. At least 80% of the occupied units shall be occupied by at. least one
person fifty-five years of age or older per unit. The housing must include the
publication of, and adherence to, policies and procedures which demonstrate an intent
by the owner(s) and manager(s) to provide housing for person fifty-five years of age or
older.
HABITABLE FLOOR — Any floor usable for living purposes, which includes working,
sleeping, eating, cooking, or recreation, or a combination thereof, except for a floor
used only for storage purposes.
Appendix 2 — Proposed Changes -Blackline - 6 -
Proposed Changes - Blackline
Chapter 144 — Subdivision of Land
ARTICLE V
Design Standards
§144-24. Lot requirements.
C. Lot Access. All lots shall abut and have direct access to a public street or right-
of-way dedicated for maintenance by the Virginia Department of Transportation
(2) Multifamily ^~ a Single-family small lot housing, single family attached
housing and multifamily housing. [Amended 10-27-1999]
(a) Lots in subdivisions to be used for the following housing types, as
defined by Chapter 165, Zoning, need not abut public streets:
[ 1 ] Duplexes.
[2] Multiplexes,
[3] Atrium houses.
[4] Townhouses.
[5] Weak -link townhouses.
[6] Garden apartments.
[7] Single-family small lot housing.
[81 Age -restricted multifamily housing
Appendix 2 — Proposed Changes -Blackline - 7 -
Proposed Ordinances (Clean Version)
APPENDIX 3 - PROPOSED ORDINANCES (CLEAN VERSION)
Chapter 165 - Zoning
AR T ICLE V I
RP Residential Performance District
§165-59. Permitted uses.
A. All uses shall be developed in accordance with an approved master development
plan unless otherwise waived under Article V of this chapter.
B. Structures are to be erected or land used for one or more of the following uses:
(1) Any of the following residential structures: single-family detached
traditional rural, single-family detached traditional, single-family detached
urban, single-family detached cluster, single-family detached zero lot line,
single-family small lot, duplex, multiplex, atrium house, weak -link
townhouse, townhouse, garden apartment or age -restricted multifamily
housing. [Amended 10-27-1999]
(2) Schools and churches.
(3) Fire stations and companies and rescue squads.
(4) Group homes.
(5) Home occupations.
(6) Utilities necessary to serve residential uses, including poles, lines,
distribution transformers, pipes and meters.
(7) Accessory uses and structures. Accessory structures attached to the main
structure shall be considered part of the main structure. Mobile homes and
trailers, as defined, shall not be considered as accessory structures or
buildings.
(8) Required or bonus recreational facilities and public parks, playgrounds
and recreational facilities.
(9) Business signs to advertise the sale or rent of the premises upon which
they are erected, church bulletin boards and identification signs, signs for
non-profit service clubs and charitable associations (off-site signs not to
exceed eight square feet) and directional signs.
(10) Temporary model homes used for sale of properties in a residential
development.
(11) Libraries. [Added 6-8-1994]
(12) Adult -care residences and assisted -living care facilities. [Added 8-24-
2004]
Appendix 3 — Proposed Ordinances (Clean Version) - I -
Proposed Ordinances (Clean Version)
§165-61. Number of uses restricted.
More than one principal structure or use and its customary accessory structures or uses
are permitted in the RP Residential Performance District for duplexes, multiplexes,
atrium houses, weak -link townhouses, garden apartments and age -restricted multifamily
housing.
§165-62. Gross density. [Amended 5-11-19941
A gross density shall be established for each proposed development, including all land
contained within a single master development plan, according to the characteristics of the
land, the capacity of public facilities and roads and the nature of surrounding uses.
Because of these characteristics, some developments may not be allowed to employ the
maximum density allowed by these regulations. The following density requirements
shall apply to all parcels as they exist at the time of the adoption of this section:
A. Subsequent divisions of land shall not increase the allowed density on parcels
of land.
B. In no case shall the gross density of any development within an approved
master development plan exceed 20 dwellings per acre.
C. In no case shall the gross density of any development within an approved
master development plan which contains more than 10 acres and less than 100
acres exceed 5.5 dwellings per acre.
D. In no case shall the gross density of any development within an approved
master development plan which contains more than 100 acres exceed four
dwellings per acre.
§165-62.1. Multifamily housing. [Added 5-11-19941
A. Developments that are less than 25 acres in size may include more than 60%
multifamily housing types.
B. Developments that are more than 25 acres and less than 50 acres in size shall
be permitted to contain up to 60% multifamily housing types.
C. Developments that are over 50 acres in size shall be permitted to contain up to
50% multifamily housing types.
Appendix 3 — Proposed Ordinances (Clean Version) - 2 -
Proposed Ordinances (Clean Version)
§165-65. Dimensional requirements.
The following dimensional requirements shall be met by uses in the RP Residentail
Performance District. The Administrator shall make the final determination as to the
classification of housing types. Unless otherwise specified, all housing types shall be
served by public sewer and water.
L. Garden apartments. "Garden apartments" are multifamily buildings where
individual dwelling units share a common outside access. They also share a
common yard area, which is the sum of the required lot areas of all dwelling
units within the building. Garden apartments shall contain six or more
dwellings in a single structure. Required open space shall not be included as
minimum lot area.
(1) Maximum gross density shall be 10 units per acre.
(2) Dimensional requirements shall be as follows:
Minimum Lot
Area per
Number of Dwelling Unit Off -Street
Bedrooms (square feet) Parking Spaces
Efficiency 1,300 1.50
1 1,700 2.00
2 2,000 2.25
3 plus 2,550 2.50
(3) Maximum site impervious surface ratio (on lot) shall be 0.50.
(4) Minimum lot size shall be one acre.
(5) Minimum yards shall be as follows:
(a) Front setback:
[1] Thirty-five feet from road right-of-way.
[2] Twenty feet from parking area or driveway.
(b) Side: 50 feet from perimeter boundary.
(c) Rear: 50 feet from perimeter boundary.
(6) Minimum on-site building spacing shall be 50 feet.
(7) Maximum number of dwelling units per building shall be 16.
(8) Maximum building height shall be as follows:
(a) Principle building: 40 feet.
(b) Accessory buildings: 15 feet
Appendix 3 — Proposed Ordinances (Clean Version) -3 -
Proposed Ordinances (Clean Version)
Q. Age -restricted multifamily housing. "Age -restricted multifamily housing"
are multifamily buildings where individual dwelling units share a common
outside access. They also share a common yard area, which is the sum of the
required lot areas of all dwelling units within the building. Age -restricted
multifamily housing shall only be permitted within proffered age -restricted
developments. Elevator service shall be provided to each floor of age -
restricted multifamily housing structures for use by residents.
(1) Maximum gross density shall be 20 units per acre.
(2) Dimensional requirements shall be as follows:
Minimum Lot
Area per
Number of Dwelling Unit Off -Street
Bedrooms (square feet) Parking Spaces
Efficiency 1,300 2.00
1 1,700 2.00
2 2,000 2.00
3 plus 2,550 2.00
(3) Maximum site impervious surface ratio (on lot) shall be 0.50.
(4) Minimum lot size shall be three acre.
(5) Minimum yards shall be as follows:
(a) Front setback:
[1] Sixty feet from road right-of-way.
[2] Five feet from parking area or driveway.
(b) Side: 100 feet from perimeter boundary.
(c) Rear: 100 feet from perimeter boundary.
(6) Minimum on-site building spacing shall be 50 feet.
(7) Maximum number of dwelling units per building shall be 110.
(8) Maximum building height shall be as follows:
(a) Principle building: 60 feet.
(b) Accessory buildings: 15 feet
(9) Maximum number of habitable floors shall be four.
Appendix 3 — Proposed Ordinances (Clean Version) - 4 -
Proposed Ordinances (Clean Version)
ARTICLE IV
Supplemental Use Regulations
§165-37 Buffer and screening requirements. [Amended 6-13-1990]
C. [Amended 5-11-1994] Residential separation buffers.
(2) Perimeter apartment, multiplex or age -restricted multifamily housing
separation buffers.
(a) Wherever possible and practical, garden apartments, multiplex
structures and age -restricted multifamily housing structures shall not
be placed adjacent to other types of residential structures. If other
types of residential structures must be placed adjacent to garden
apartments, multiplex structures or age -restricted multifamily housing
structures the following buffers are required.
(b) Buffers shall be placed between the garden apartment, multiplex
structures or age -restricted multifamily housing structures and the lot
line of the lots containing the other housing types.
Appendix 3 — Proposed Ordinances (Clean Version) - 5 -
Distance Buffer Required
Screening
Inactive
Active
Provided
(Minimum)
(Maximum)
Total
(feet)
(feet)
(feet)
Full screen
75
25
100
Landscape screen
150
50
200
No screen
350
50
400
(b) Buffers shall be placed between the garden apartment, multiplex
structures or age -restricted multifamily housing structures and the lot
line of the lots containing the other housing types.
Appendix 3 — Proposed Ordinances (Clean Version) - 5 -
Proposed Ordinances (Clean Version)
ARTICLE XXII
Definitions
§165-156. Definitions and word Usage. Amended 11-13-1991
AGE -RESTRICTED — Housing intended for and occupied by persons fifty-five years of
age or older. At least 80% of the occupied units shall be occupied by at least one person
fifty-five years of age or older per unit. The housing must include the publication of, and
adherence to, policies and procedures which demonstrate an intent by the owner(s) and
manager(s) to provide housing for person fifty-five years of age or older.
HABITABLE FLOOR — Any floor usable for living purposes, which includes working,
sleeping, eating, cooking, or recreation, or a combination thereof, except for a floor used
only for storage purposes.
Appendix 3 — Proposed Ordinances (Clean Version) - 6 -
Proposed Ordinances (Clean Version)
Chapter 144 — Subdivision of Land
ARTICLE V
Design Standards
§144-24. Lot requirements.
C. Lot Access. All lots shall abut and have direct access to a public street or right -
of --way dedicated for maintenance by the Virginia Department of Transportation
(2) Single-family small lot housing, single family attached housing and
multifamily housing. [Amended 10-27-1999]
(a) Lots in subdivisions to be used for the following housing types, as
defined by Chapter 165, Zoning, need not abut public streets:
[ 1 ] Duplexes.
[2] Multiplexes,
[3] Atrium houses.
[4] Townhouses.
[5] Weak -link townhouses.
[6] Garden apartments.
[7] Single-family small lot housing.
[8] Age -restricted multifamily housing
Appendix 3 — Proposed Ordinances (Clean Version) - 7 -
AM -4 +o o jf j\j q
MEMORANDUM
To: Frederick County Planning Commission
From: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner 5 k E
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Departmenat of Planning .and Development
Subject: Planning Commission Discussion — Monument Heights
Date: April 2, 2007
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
Staff has recently heard concerns about tall monuments in the area. Currently the Frederick County
Zoning Ordinance allows monuments to be higher than the height limitation of the zoning district in
which they are located. Under §165-24 (Height limitations; exceptions) of the Zoning Ordinance,
certain uses including barns and silos, church spires and towers, masts and aerials, and monuments
are exempt from the height restrictions of the zone in which they are located. The height restriction
in most zoning districts is 35 feet.
A discussion of monument heights took place at the Development Review and Regulations
Subcommittee (DDRB) meeting on March 22, 2007. The DRRS discussed the uses included in the
list of exceptions to the height limitations. Members also discussed the heights of monuments in the
Winchester/Frederick County area. Both the monument of the Confederate Soldier in front of the
Old Courthouse and the monument to Admiral Byrd in front of the Joint Judicial Center are less than
20 feet in height. Members agreed that the height of monuments should be the same as for the
underlying district. A height exception was not considered warranted for monuments. Members
endorsed a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that removed monuments from § 165-24.
The attached documents show the existing ordinances, the changes to the ordinance supported by the
DRRS and a clean version of the proposed text if it were to be adopted.
This item is presented for discussion. Comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission
will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.
Attachments: 1. Existing ordinance
2. Existing ordinance with proposed changes shown in blackline
3. Proposed ordinance (clean version)
SKE/bad
107 North Ke -at Street, Suite 202 a Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Current Ordinance
APPENDIX 1 - CURRENT ADOPTED ORDINANCE
Chapter 165 - Zoning
ARTICLE IV
Supplementary Use Regulations
§165-24. Height limitations; exceptions. [Amended 4-1-1991]
A. No structure shall exceed the height limitations described in this chapter.
B. Exceptions
to height requirements.
(1) The
maximum height requirements shall not apply to the following:
(a)
Barns and silos.
(b)
Belfries.
(c)
Bulkheads.
(d)
Chimneys.
(e)
Church spires and towers.
(f)
Flagpoles.
(g)
Monuments.
(h)
Domes and skylights.
(i)
Masts and aerials.
(j)
Radio and television transmission towers and commercial
telecommunications facilities. [Amended 4-9-1997]
(k)
Smokestacks and cooling towers.
(1)
Utility poles and towers.
(m)
Water tanks.
(n)
Windmills.
Appendix 1 — Current Ordinance - 1 -
Proposed Changes - Blackline
APPENDIX 2 - PROPOSED CHANGES WITH STRIKETHROUGHS AND BOLD
ITALIC
Chapter 165 - Zoning
ARTICLE IV
Supplementary Use Regulations
§165-24. Height limitations; exceptions. [Amended 4-1-19911
A. No structure shall exceed the height limitations described in this chapter.
B. Exceptions to height requirements.
(1) The
maximum height requirements shall not apply to the following:
(a)
Barns and silos.
(b)
Belfries.
(c)
Bulkheads.
(d)
Chimneys.
(e)
Church spires and towers.
(f)
Flagpoles.
(g)
Me ei4s.
(h)
Domes and skylights.
(i)
Masts and aerials.
(j)
Radio and television transmission towers and commercial
telecommunications facilities. [Amended 4-9-1997]
(k)
Smokestacks and cooling towers.
(1)
Utility poles and towers.
(m)
Water tanks.
(n)
Windmills.
Appendix 2 — Proposed Changes-Blackline - 1
Proposed Ordinances (Clean Version)
APPENDIX 3 - PROPOSED ORDINANCES (CLEAN VERSION)
Chapter 165 - Zoning
ARTICLE IV
Supplementary Use Regulations
§165-24. Height limitations; exceptions. [Amended 4-1-19911
A. No structure shall exceed the height limitations described in this chapter.
B. Exceptions
to height requirements.
(1) The
maximum height requirements shall not apply to the following:
(a)
Barns and silos.
(b)
Belfries.
(c)
Bulkheads.
(d)
Chimneys.
(e)
Church spires and towers.
(f)
Flagpoles.
(g)
(Reserved)
(h)
Domes and skylights.
(i)
Masts and aerials.
(j)
Radio and television transmission towers and commercial
telecommunications facilities. [Amended 4-9-1997]
(k)
Smokestacks and cooling towers.
(1)
Utility poles and towers.
(m)
Water tanks.
(n)
Windmills.
Appendix 3 — Proposed Ordinances (Clean Version) 1 -