PC 07-16-03 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
JULY 16, 2003
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) June 4, 2003 Minutes ................................................... (A)
2) Committee Reports ................................................. (no tab)
3) Citizen Comments .................................................. (no tab)
PUBLIC HEARING
4) Proposed Amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance,
Article VII, R4 - Planned Residential Community District; Section 165-72.0., Other
Regulations, to Allow Modifications of Ordinance Requirements for Greater Design
Flexibility in the R4 District.
(Mr. Mohn)........................................................... (B)
5) Rezoning #06-03 of Stephenson Village, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone
821.7 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to R4 (Planned Residential Community). This property
is located east of Milburn Road (Route 662), south of Old Charles Town Road (Route 761),
and southwest of Jordan Springs Road (Route 664), approximately 2,000 feet east of
Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 North). The properties included with this application are
identified with Property Identification Numbers 44-A-31 [portion], 44-A-31 A, 44-A-292, and
44-A-293 in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
(Mr. Mohn).......................................................... (C)
6) Other
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 June 4, 2003.
PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice
Chairman/Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Pat
Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District;
Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District.
George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Lynda Tyler, Board of Supervisors Liaison; Vincent DiBenedetto,
Winchester City Liaison; and Lawrence Ambrogi, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Christopher M. Mohn, Deputy Planning
Director; Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEETING MINUTES -APRIL 16, 2003
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Fisher, the minutes
of April 16, 2003 were unanimously approved as presented.
PUBLIC HEARING
Proposed Amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Article IV,
Section 165-24, Height Limitations; Exceptions; which addresses height exceptions for accessory parts
of school structures.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of June 4, 2003 Page 1070
-2 -
Action - Recommended Approval
Planner Jeremy F. Camp stated that the proposed amendment would allow for portions of
school buildings, which are used for accessory functions, to exceed the maximum height of the underlying
zoning district. He said this would include architectural features, such as stage towers, gymnasium ceilings,
arched roofs, etc.; the proposed amendment is not intended to allow for additional floors for school buildings.
Planner Camp noted that, just as with the other height exemptions in the zoning ordinance, an increased setback
of one foot would be required for every foot the school building exceeds the maximum height of the underlying
zoning district. Planner Camp advised that the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS)
recommended approval of the proposed amendment on March 27, 2003. He said that during the Planning
Commission's discussion on May 7, 2003, Commissioners requested written comments from the fire marshal
and the school board. Planner Camp noted that the requested letters were in the Commission's agenda package
for this evening. He added that the word, "structure," was replaced with the word, "building," at the Board
of Supervisors' request during their discussion on May 14, 2003.
Commissioner Straub inquired about the possible situation where a setback may encroach on
an environmentally or historically -sensitive area. Two options mentioned were for the applicant to exceed their
required setback to avoid the area or to apply for a variance to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Commissioner Morris inquired ifthe proposed ordinance specifically identified what is allowed
within the height limit. Planner Camp replied that only architectural features which are accessory components
of the building itself are permitted; additional floors would not qualify.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one came forward to speak.
Chairman DeHaven noted that Mr. Evan A. Wyatt of Greenway Engineering, the engineering
and design firm representing the Lord Fairfax Community College, who initially proposed the amendment,
could not be present at the Commission's meeting this evening. Chairman DeHaven said that Mr. Wyatt
requested that his letter be read into the minutes. There being no objections, Chairman DeHaven read the letter,
as follows:
June 2, 2003
The Frederick County Planning Commission
Re: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Section 165-24 Height Limitations; Exceptions
Dear Planning Commission Members:
On behalf of Lord Fairfax Community College, Greenway Engineering has prepared a letter to formally
support a referenced amendment as presented by staff. The proposed height exception will assist Lord Fairfax
Community College and the Frederick County Public Schools in their facilities planning needs by providing
additional flexibility, particularly in roof system design. The Fire and Rescue Director has acknowledged the
proposed maximum building height is well within the capabilities of roof access by the local fire and rescue
companies for emergency response purposes.
Unfortunately, 1 am unable io attend the Planning Comm scion meeting to address this matter due to a
scheduling conflict. Therefore, it is requested that this letter of support is recognized in the official minutes
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of June 4, 2003 Page 1071
-3 -
for this agenda item.
Sincerely,
Greenway Engineering
Evan A. Wyatt, AICP
The Planning Commission had no other issues of concern and believed the amendment as
presented was appropriate.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of the proposed amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Article
IV, Section 165-24, Height Limitations; Exceptions, which addresses height exceptions for accessory parts of
school structures.
PUBLIC MEETING
Master Development Plan #04-03 for Red Bud Run, LLC, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates,
Inc., for 285 single-family detached urban lots on approximately 157 acres of RP -zoned land. The
property is located on the north side of Berryville Pike (Rt. 7) and south of Red Bud Road (Rt. 661);
Woods Mill Road (Rt. 660) bisects the property. The property is identified with P.I.N.s 55 -A -105,55-A-
106, and 55-A-107 in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions
Planner Jeremy F. Camp reviewed the proffers that were approved along with the rezoning by
the Board of Supervisors at their meeting of October 9, 2002. Planner Camp pointed out that a revised tree -
clearing plan was submitted which protects an additional 2.25 acres of woodlands and moves development lot
lines further away from Berryville Pike. Planner Camp stated that the overall concept for the Red Bud Run
Master Development Plan is consistent with the approved rezoning proffers, the Frederick County
Comprehensive Policy Plan, and the requirements of Article XVII, Master Development Plan, ofthe Frederick
County Zoning Ordinance. Planner Camp proceeded to describe several issues that remained a concern to the
staff. Those issues included: 1) the closure of Berryville Pike Median Crossover to Morgans Mill Road;
2) the Morlyn Drive Road Connection to Morgans Mill Road; 3) the Open space/Buffer Strip Adjacent to the
West Property Line (Morgans Mill Road); and 4) the Open Space Plan for the Preservation Parcel.
Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., Vice President of G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., the
design engineering firm representing Red Bud Run, LLC, addressed each of the issues raised by the staff. Mr.
Maddox advised that Morgans Mill Road will be closed, due to the significant improvements and increased
capacity proposed for the Rt. 7 intersection, the three-laning of Woodsmill Road, and the proffering in Phase
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of June 4, 2003 Page 1072
-4-
I to connect Morgans Mill with Woodsmill Road by a state road connection; he said the road closure has been
shown on their master plan. Regarding the internal road connection proposed for Phase I, to connect Morgans
Mill with Woodsmill, Mr. Maddox said that traffic generated on Morgans Mill could access the traffic light
for safe turning; he said the School Board was in favor of the connection because it would allow school buses
rear access without negotiating Rt. 7 traffic.
Mr. Maddox stated that an open spacelview shed buffer is not required against Morgans Mill
Road, since it is not a major collector road; however, they have shown a 20' buffer strip, which is not a part
of the individual lots, and they will maintain the existing vegetation along the roadway.
Mr. Maddox next described a substantial buffer system totaling 31 acres which completely
surrounds the site, as opposed to the 28.3 acres originally proffered. He pointed out the permanently-protected
stream preservation buffer that will be dedicated to a public agency; he noted that the stream preservation
parcel is in addition to the open space required by the project. He said the preservation parcel will be free and
clear for transfer to a public agency which, at this point in time, may be the Virginia Department of Game and
Inland Fisheries (VDG&IF).
In addition, Mr. Maddox described the road efficiency buffers along both sides of Woodsmill
Road and the substantial tree viewshed buffer along Rt. 7. He noted that the view shed buffer was particularly
significant to the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Commission (SVBC) to create the proper approach into the
historic areas. He said that Mr. Kittell, the Director of SVBC, preferred to have the cul-de-sacs pulled back
away from Rt. 7, allowing for additional existing vegetative screening and to supplement the existing vegetative
deciduous buffer with additional conifers. Mr. Maddox further added that VDOT preferred to see a continuous
road through the development, rather than cul-de-sacs, for ease of snow removal and emergency vehicle access.
As a result, he noted that they redesigned the subdivision to allow a continuous road loop, which moved the
majority of the lots between 100-300' from Rt. 7. Mr. Maddox pointed to the only area where one lot intrudes
into the road efficiency buffer and for which they were requesting waiver. He commented that they've added
a dense screen, which is also shown on the master plan.
The following agencies were identified by Mr. Maddox as groups they have been working with
throughout the project: Department of Parks and Recreation, Opequon Watershed Committee, Trout
Unlimited, Forest Service, Department of Conservation and Recreation, Shenandoah Valley Battlefields
Commission, and the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries.
He explained that the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries will have frontage for public
access on both Woodsmill Road and Morgans Mill Road; they do not anticipate any conflicts between the
public access area and the adjoining lot owners. Mr. Maddox said that planning with the various outside
agencies is continuing and his intentions are to come back before the Commission with an "Open Space Plan"
that will specify the particular issues involved regarding land conveyance, easements, ownership, etc.
Several questions from the Commission involved the closing of Morgans Mill Road, the
accommodation of traffic calming, the impact of additional children on Red Bud school, and the timing between
roadway improvements and phasing of development.
Board of Supervisors' Liaison, Mr. Richard Shickle, raised the issue of Frederick County
reserving the rights for the easement along the creek, should VDOT or another agency decide they did not want
to continue with the maintenance. Mr. Maddox believed a reversion clause could be included as a part of the
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of June 4, 2003 Page 1073
-5 -
open space plan.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to
speak
Mr. James Lawrence, President of the Opequon Watershed and representing the Winchester
Chapter of Trout Unlimited, stated that a managed, recreational trout fishery for Red Bud Run has been a long-
time goal for Winchester Trout Unlimited and the Opequon Watershed. Mr. Lawrence said they have had quite
a few meetings with the DG&IF and a number of assessments were made of the stream; it was determined that
if the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program was implemented, which would protect Faye Spring and
the other water sources for Red Bud Run, then the State believed the stream would be of the quality where they
could reintroduce Brook Trout, which is one of the most fragile of the trout species. Mr. Lawrence said they
were very pleased when the DG&IF recognized the long-term possibilities and expressed a positive reaction
to accepting this property. Mr. Lawrence said they are working on the development of a "greenway" for the
entire corridor; they are working together with the SVBF, and they are working with Millbrook High School
on plans for an environmental land lab. Mr. Lawrence thanked Mr. Maddox and the property owners for the
opportunity to work on this project; they were hoping this project could serve as an example to the entire
region.
Mr. Carl Rettenberger, a resident at 116 Windy Pine Lane and President of the Winchester
Chapter of Trout Unlimited, believed this project was a unique opportunity; he stated this was the first time,
in the 40 years he's been in business, that he has seen a developer work with an outside organization for the
purpose of establishing a useable parcel of land with ownership being conveyed outside of the subdivision for
maintenance and development. Mr. Rettenberger said that Trout Unlimited is excited about the opportunity
to develop Red Bud Run as a cold water fishery. He said the temperature, flow, and pH of these waters were
perfect for trout management. Mr. Rettenberger also mentioned their work with several landowners on access
easement agreements.
The Commission was pleased and encouraged that the developers and landowners were
actively working together with the various outside agencies on the stream preservation areas, the open space
areas, and public access areas. It was their preference, however, that Morgans Mill Road remain open until
such time as VDOT and the Board of Supervisors agreed it should be closed. They also were in favor of the
applicant's request for a road efficiency buffer waiver.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Light and seconded by Commissioner Kriz,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Master Development Plan #04-03 of Red Bud Run, LLC, submitted by G. W. Clifford &
Associates, Inc., for single-family detached urban lots with the granting of the road efficiency buffer waiver
request and with the condition that Morgans Mill Road remain open until such time as VDOT and the Board
of Supervisors agree it should be closed.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of June 4, 2003 Page 1074
M
PRESENTATION BY BUILDERS FOR THE BAY
Action - Recommended Approval
Planning Director Eric R Lawrence announced that representatives from the Alliance for the
Chesapeake Bay and the Center for Watershed Protection were present this evening to give a presentation
regarding the Builders for the Bay Program. Director Lawrence said the Board of Supervisors had previously
listened to the presentation and wanted to give the Planning Commission the opportunity to also review the
program and provide comments.
Mr. Scott Meyer, with the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay in Richmond, introduced himself
and Hye Yeong Kwon, the Assistant Director for the Center for Watershed Protection. Mr. Meyer defined the
Builders for the Bay as a partnership building initiative through the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, the
Center for Watershed Protection, and the National Association of Homebuilders to promote better site design
principles through round -table discussion.
Ms. Hye Yeong Kwon, the Assistant Director for the Center for Watershed Protection,
described the goals of Builders for the Bay, as follows: 1) to achieve better environmental goals with site
design; and, 2) to increase flexibility resulting in decreased costs for developers. Ms. Kwon explained that they
will investigate existing codes and ordinances and find ways to make them more flexible and, at the same time,
encourage environmentally -sensitive site design. Ms. Kwon next gave a slide presentation on the model
development principles and she pointed out some of the environmental and economic benefits.
Commissioners asked who was the driving force behind the effort, who would be involved, who
would facilitate, etc. A comment was made that the real work would begin after the workshop when the County
Planning Department staff would have to rewrite all the codes and ordinances to meet the suggestions.
Questions were raised concerning man hours and how long it would take. Ms. Kwon said that on their previous
endeavor, they actually made code language recommendations as a part of the process and completion occurred
in nine months. She said the cost includes a consensus document and code language recommendations crafted
specifically for Frederick County. Ms. Kwon added that the recommendations are directed more to the rural
and suburban areas rather than urban areas. She also pointed out that the changes would only apply to new
development, not redevelopment and in -fill.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following person came forward to
speak:
Mr. James Lawrence, President of the Opequon Watershed and representing the Winchester
Chapter of Trout Unlimited, believed this was an educational process, a community-based process, and stake-
holder driven. He stated that the low -impact development principles described by Ms. Kwon and Mr. Meyers
are basically the same innovative approaches presented to the Commission at a workshop by Dr. Waldon
Kerns, entitled, "Environmentally -Sensitive Design." Mr. Lawrence spoke to the Commission about why he
believed it would be advantageous for the County to be involved in this program.
Commissioner Kriz stated that he has seen this type of program be successful in other
communities and he believed it would be beneficial for Frederick County. He said the process can break down
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of June 4, 2003 Page 1075
-7 -
barriers between many State agencies and everyone works together.
Chairman DeHaven believed that open discussion and consensus -building, particularly when
it's based on science and results in environmental benefits, could only be beneficial to the community.
Other Commissioners also believed it was an excellent idea that needed to be pursued.
Commissioner Kriz moved for a positive recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on
accepting this program. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Moms.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously favor the
County's involvement in the program presented by the Builders for the Bay for the development of model
principles, through round -table discussion, to protect the County's streams, lakes, and wetlands.
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION OF THE REVISED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (CIP) PROCESS
Senior Planner, Abbe S. Kennedy, reported that this year, in response to concerns regarding
the prioritization of departmental project requests, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to research other
jurisdictions and the methods used in forming their respective Capital Improvements Plans. Planner Kennedy
said that the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) met on May 12, 2003 regarding
process revisions to the existing CIP; she said the CPPS endorsed the revised procedural modifications which
are intended to better reflect departmental priorities in current policy and future planning decisions. Planner
Kennedy next proceeded to explain in detail the proposed revised CIP process and the time -line included for
the process up until its adoption.
Commissioner Morris inquired who or what office would ensure that the proposed process is
carried out according to schedule. He also inquired if an item on the CIP could be denied if the Commission
believed it was not in keeping with the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Deputy Planning Director, Christopher M. Mohn, replied to Commissioner Morris' questions.
He said that the Planning Department will facilitate the process, but ultimately, County Administration will
be responsible for ensuring that the schedule and process is adhered to by the other departments that are
obviously outside of the Planning Department's jurisdiction. In answer to Commissioner Morris' second
question, Deputy Director Mohn stated that the goal of the revised process from a Planning Department
perspective, for the CPPS, and for the Commission, is to ensure effectively that a disconnect does not occur
between the department's capital requests and the Comprehensive Plan. He further explained that, instead of
focusing on prioritization, the focus should be on the alignment of policy and the capital needs that the
departments are expressing.
Overall, the Commission members were greatly encouraged by the proposal and were in favor
of establishing bencbmarks, standards, and objectives. They were, encouraged by the potential and by the idea
of having tools to measure a project's merit on the CIP. Commissioners recommended, however, that there
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of June 4, 2003 Page 1076
-8 -
should be some executive level oversight to make certain the process would occur according to schedule
Chairman DeHaven believed there was great benefit to look five, ten, or even 15 years to the
future to predict needs. He cautioned, however, that if the goal was a concern over the ranking of different
departments' priorities overall, then the process may not realize its potential goals. Chairman DeHaven pointed
out that this will be a nearly year-long process and, there were a considerable number of other long-range
planning issues that require the CPPS's and the Commission's attention. Chairman DeHaven suggested that
there be a separate committee to perform a portion, at least, of the functions being considered in this proposal.
Commission members also recommended that the oversight committee be made up of not only
staff, but Board and Commission members, department heads, a member of the Finance Committee, and other
citizens; this ultimate overlook committee could address the capital spending of the County and could work
directly with the CPPS.
Planner Kennedy said that staff would forward the Planning Commission's comments and
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors.
OTHER
PRESENTATION BY COMMISSIONER LIGHT REGARDING THE NELUP
Commissioner Light expressed his disappointment with the Planning Commission's
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on May 21, 2003 regarding the Northeast Land Use Plan
(NELUP). His disappointment stemmed from the fact that neither the Comprehensive Plans and Programs
Subcommittee (CPPS), nor the Planning Commission, had discussed Alternative Map 44, the alternative plan
which was officially recommended to the Board. Commissioner Light also stated that, as the Chairman of the
CPPS, he was also personally disheartened with the CPPS's inability to establish a recommendation that was
acceptable to all the parties involved.
Commissioner Light next presented to the Commission his own proposal for an alternative
NELUP that he believed might be an acceptable alternative for all the parties involved. His described his
proposed plan for the Commission that would allow for approximately 138 homes, approximately 229 acres
of industrial, and approximately 240 acres of business. Commissioner Light stated that the numbers were
flexible, however, if his plan were supported, the NELUP would contain RA -zoned land, the Rt. 3 7 Zone within
the RA, preservation of the historic battlefield and the Milburn Road corridor, the road plan, fewer homes, and
sewer to Stephenson. He was not in favor of the R4 designation in the Alternative Map #4 and the residents
of the Stephenson community were not in favor of it either.
Although Commissioner Light recognized it was possibly too late for the Commission to
change its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, he suggested that individual Commissioners contact
their elected officials on the Board to express their views, if they believed this was a workable solution.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of June 4, 2003 Page 1077
ADJOURNMENT
unanimous vote.
No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. by a
Respectfully submitted,
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of June 4, 2003 Page 1078
►-�
C�
•
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
of
MEMORANDUM
_. >......_. _. x...y.. .�. _...
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Christopher M. Mohn, AICP, Deputy Planning Director
DATE: June 11, 2003
RE: Public Hearing - Proposed Amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter
165, Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, R4 - Planned Residential Community
District; Section 165-72.0., Other Regulations
The recent effort by a landowner to prepare a rezoning application for R4 (Planned Residential
Community) zoning has revealed the important role of regulatory flexibility in the design of mixed
use projects. The current R4 District standards provide latitude for applicants to employ innovative
design techniques and maximize the benefits of planned development, to include the mixing of
housing types and choices and the integration of land uses. Indeed, the current R4 ordinance
establishes an appropriate framework for the development of sustainable communities wherein one
may live, work, and play.
It is acknowledged that additional latitude may be necessary for some applicants to realize their
unique vision for a planned residential community. At present, exemptions and/or waivers to the
requirements of the Frederick County Code applicable to planned residential communities are
enabled pursuant to Section 165-72.0. of the Zoning Ordinance, which states:
Other regulations. The planned community development shall conform with all
regulations of this chapter and the Frederick County Code unless specifically
exempted by this article.
This provision plainly articulates that an exemption of waiver cannot be legally proposed or
considered for a planned residential community except where said exemption is expressly permitted
by Article VII of the Zoning Ordinance. The provisions of Article VII limit exemptions to proposals
for alternative dimensional requirements and alternative landscaping and buffering plans.
An alternative method would therefore be required to provide an R4 applicant with additional
flexibility to pursue design innovations not contemplated by the current ordinance. As an option,
staff has proposed an amendment to Article VII that would provide opportunities for modifications
to ordinance provisions applicable to planned residential communities. Through this approach, an
107 North bent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
applicant for R4 zoning would be allowed to seek modifications to any provision of the Code
impacting physical development. The applicant would be required to provide justification for the
request to include a proposed alternative - or "modified" - standard in lieu of the ordinance
requirement for which the modification is being sought. The applicant would further be expected
to identify the need or role of the alternative standard in the overall design concept. A blanket
waiver or exemption would not be permitted.
As envisioned by staff, following Planning Commission review, the Board of Supervisors would
consider and approve each modification request included with an R4 rezoning application on its
merits pursuant to the applicant's justification. Moreover, modifications would be considered
concurrent with the rezoning application and, if accepted with the proffer statement, the alternative
or modified standards would be included as conditions of the rezoning approval. The legislative
approval of modifications would both accommodate and codify the innovation of the applicant while
simultaneously assuring the relevance of both the public process and the public purposes of the
Code.
The proposed amendment should be considered on its own merit, as an independent measure
intended to improve the R4 ordinance for future use. Indeed, regardless of the applicability of this
proposal to the pending Stephenson Village application, staff contends that an enhanced modification
process is appropriate in the limited context of planned residential community projects.
Included with this memorandum is the current text of Section 165-72.0. as well as the proposed
amendment, which, if approved, would replace the existing language in its entirety. Also attached
for your reference is the complete text of Article VII.
The proposed amendment is being presented as a public hearing item. Staff is seeking a
recommendation from the Planning Commission to be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter.
CMM/bad
Attachments
Prolosed Amendment to the Frederick County Code,
Cha ter 165 Zoning Ordinance
Article VII, R4 - Planned Residential Community District-,
Section 165-72.0., Other Regulations
Section 165-72.0. - Current Text:
O. Other regulations. The planned community development shall conform with
all regulations of this chapter and the Frederick County Code unless
specifically exempted by this article.
Section 165-72.0. - Amended Text (replaces current text in its entirety):
O. Modifications; applicability of other regulations.
(1) An applicant may request as part of an application for rezoning to the
R4 District that a modification to specific requirements of the
subdivision ordinance, this chapter or other requirements of the
Frederick County Code applicable to physical development be
granted. The applicant shall demonstrate that the requested
modification is necessary or justified in the particular case by a
demonstration that the public purpose of these ordinances, as applied
to the particular case, would be met to at least an equivalent degree
by such modification. The Board of Supervisors may approve or
disapprove such request, in whole or in part.
(2) The applicant shall provide sufficient information to enable
evaluation of the request by the Board of Supervisors. Materials
submitted should include or be supplemented by: (a) specification of
the code section(s) to be modified and the proposed alternative
standard; (b) exhibits demonstrating application of the modified
standard such as a detailed plan and/or elevation drawing; and (c)
identification of the relationship of the modification to the overall
community concept.
(3) The planned community development shall conform with all
regulations of this chapter and the Frederick County Code unless
specifically exempted by this article or modified by the Board of
Supervisors through the rezoning process.
U-\Chris\Common\R4 Amendment. wpd
§ 165-66 ZONING § 165-68
(3) Provisions shall be made to incorporate all phases or sections of
the planned development under one homeowners'
association/corporation.
B. In order to provide sufficient, safe access, the Planning Commission
and the Board of Supervisors may require that the phases be arranged
so that essential street entrances to the development are provided in
the initial phases of the development.
ARTICLE VII
R4 Residential Planned Community District
§ 165-67. Intent.
The intention of the Residential Planned Community District is to provide for
a mixture of housing types and uses within a carefully planned setting. All land
to be contained within the Residential Planned Community District shall be
included within an approved master development plan. The layout, phasing,
density and intensity of development is determined through the adoption of
the master development plan by the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors. Special care is taken in the approval of the master development
plan to ensure that the uses on the land are arranged to provide for
compatibility of uses, to provide environmental protection and to avoid adverse
impacts on surrounding properties and facilities. The district is intended to
create new neighborhoods with an appropriate balance between residential,
employment and service uses. Innovative design is encouraged. Special care is
taken in the approval of R4 developments to ensure that necessary facilities,
roads and improvements are available or provided to support the R4
development. Planned community developments shall only be approved in
conformance with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan.
§ 165-68. Rezoning procedure.
In order to have land rezoned to the R4 District, a master development plan,
meeting all requirements of Article XVII of this chapter, shall be submitted with
the rezoning application. The rezoning shall be reviewed and approved
following the rezoning procedures described by this chapter, including
procedures for impact analysis and conditional zoning. In adopting the rezoning,
the master development plan submitted will be accepted as a condition
16599 10-25-2001
§ 165-68 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-70
proffered for the rezoning. The master development plan review procedures
described by Article XVII must also be completed concurrently with or
following the consideration of the rezoning.
A. Impact analysis. Impact analysis, as required by this chapter, shall be
used to evaluate all potential impacts, including impacts on
surrounding lands, the environment and on public facilities and
services.
B. Land dedication. Land shall be dedicated in planned community
developments for roads and facilities necessary to serve the
development as described by the Comprehensive Plan, the Capital
Improvements Program and adopted road improvement programs.
C. Addition of land. The Board of Supervisors may approve the addition of
land to an approved planned community through the procedures set
forth in this chapter for the original approval of a planned community
development.
§ 165-69. Permitted uses.
All uses are allowed in the R4 Residential Planned Community District that
are allowed in the following zoning districts:
RP Residential Performance District
B1 Neighborhood Business District
B2 Business General District
B3 Industrial Transition District
M1 Light Industrial District
§ 165-70. Conditional uses.
Uses listed as conditional uses shall not require a conditional use permit, but
all uses shall meet the specific requirements set forth in this chapter for such
uses.
16600 10-25-2001
§ 165-71 ZONING § 165-72
§ 165-71. Mixture of housing types required.
Each planned community shall be expected to contain a mixture of housing
types that is typical for existing and planned residential neighborhoods in
Frederick County. No more than 40% of the area of portions of the planned
community designated for residential uses shall be used for any of the
following housing types_ duplexes, multiplexes, atrium houses, weak -link
townhouses, townhouses or garden apartments or any combination of those
housing types.
§ 165-72. Design requirements.
A. Minimum size. No planned community master development plan nor
rezoning to the Residential Planned Community District shall be
approved for less than 100 contiguous acres.
B. Dimensional requirements.
(1) Areas shall be specifically designated for each different use on
the master development plan. Within those areas, the uses shall
meet the applicable dimensional requirements set forth for those
uses in the RP, B1, B2 and M1 Zoning Districts.
(2) Alternative dimensional requirement plan. An alternative
dimensional plan may be included with the master development
plan for the development. This plan shall describe a system of
dimensional requirements for all planned uses in the
development. When these dimensional requirements are
approved, they shall constitute enforceable amendments to this
chapter, applying to the land included in the development, and
shall replace other dimensional requirements contained in this
chapter. Such alternative dimensional requirements shall be
based on general concepts described by the plan submitted. The
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors shall only
approve an alternative plan if the plan meets all of the intentions
of this chapter, conforms to policies set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan and follows generally accepted good
planning practices. [Added 6-9-19931
C. Residential density. The maximum allowed gross density for
residences in the planned community development shall be four units
per acre.
16601 10-25-2001
§ 165-72 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-72
D. Commercial and industrial areas. The areas used for commercial or
industrial uses shall not exceed 50% of the gross area of the total
planned community. Sufficient commercial and industrial areas shall
be provided to meet the needs of the planned community, to provide
an appropriate balance of uses and to lessen the overall impact of the
planned community on Frederick County. A minimum of 10% of the
gross area of the project shall be used for business and industrial
uses.
E. Open space. A minimum of 30% of the gross area of any proposed
development shall be designated as common open space. This open
space shall be for purposes of environmental protection and for the
common use of residents of the development. No more than 50% of
the required open space shall be within the following environmental
areas: lakes and ponds, wetlands or steep slopes. The Director of
Planning, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission, may
allow a larger amount of steep slopes to be utilized where the
developer can demonstrate a viable plan for the use of these areas.
Open space land shall be dedicated to the property owners'
association or to Frederick County. Land shall only be dedicated to
Frederick County with the approval of the Board of Supervisors.
F. Recreational facilities. One recreational unit or equivalent recreational
facilities shall be provided for each 30 dwelling units. The facilities
shall be in a configuration and location that is easily accessible to the
dwelling units that they are designed to serve. The design and amount
of facilities shall be approved by the Planning Commission in
conjunction with the Director of Planning and the Department of Parks
and Recreation. A recreational unit is designed to meet the
recreational needs of 30 dwelling units. The units may be broken into
smaller units or added together to meet the needs of the planned
community.
G. Buffers and screening
(1) Buffers and screening shall be provided between various uses
and housing types as if the uses were located in the RP, B1, B2
or M1 Zoning District according to the uses allowed in those
districts. Buffers and screening shall be provided accordingly as
specified in § 165-37 of this chapter. Road efficiency buffers shall
be provided according to the requirements of that section. In
addition, along the perimeter boundary of the Residential Planned
16602 10-25-2001
§ 165-72 ZONING § 165-72
Community District, buffers and screens shall be provided in
relation to adjoining properties as if the uses in the planned
community were located in the RP, 131, B2 and M1 Zoning
Districts.
(2) Alternative buffer and screening plan. An alternative plan for
buffers and screening and the separation of uses may be
included with the master development plan for the development.
This plan shall describe a specific system of buffers, screening
and use separation for all planned uses in the development.
When these dimensional requirements are approved, they shall
constitute enforceable amendments to this chapter applying to
the land included in the development and shall replace other
buffer and screening requirements contained in this chapter.
Such alternative requirements shall be based on general concepts
described by the plan submitted. The Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors shall only approve an alternative plan if the
plan meets all of the intentions of this chapter, conforms to
policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and follows
generally accepted good planning practices. Buffer and screening
requirements for the perimeter boundary of the planned
community shall not be included in the alternative buffer and
screening plans. [Added 6-9-19931
H. Sewer and waterfacil[ties. All planned community developments shall
be served by public sewer and water facilities owned by or dedicated
to a public authority.
Road access. All planned community developments shall have direct
access to an arterial or collector road or to roads improved to arterial or
collector standards. The planned community development shall be
provided with a complete system of public streets dedicated to the
Virginia Department of Transportation. All roads in the development
shall be provided with curbing and gutters. The Board of Supervisors
may approve certain exceptions to the requirement for curbs and
gutters, after review by the Planning Commission, in order to
implement a particular stormwater management plan. The road
system shall conform with the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan
and with road improvement plans adopted by the county.
J. Pedestrian access. A system of pedestrian access, in the form of
paved sidewalks or paved interior waIkvvays, shUll be provided to allow
16603 10-25-2001
§ 165-72 FREDERICK COUNTY CODE § 165-72
walking between every use, structure or recreational facility. Such
walkways shall be connected with existing walkways adjacent to the
planned community development.
K. Stormwater management. The requirements of § 165-32 of this
chapter shall apply to the total planned community development.
L. Landscaping. Landscaping shall be in conformance with an overall
landscaping plan or unifying concept for the development.
M. Phasing. A schedule of phases shall be submitted with each proposed
planned community. The schedule shall specify the year in which each
phase will be completely developed. No subdivision or site plans shall
be approved in the planned community unless they are in accordance
with the approved schedule.
(1) If a Residential Planned Community District is proposed to be
developed in phases, over a period of time, common open space
shall be provided with each phase in proportion to the fraction of
the total area of the development in each phase. Recreational
facilities shall be provided with each phase in proportion to the
fraction of the total dwelling units in each phase.
(2) Essential street entrances to the --planned residential community
shall be provided with the initial phases of the development.
(3) A reasonable balance shall be maintained between residential and
nonresidential uses. The phasing plan for the development shall
include a reasonable portion of the nonresidential uses in all
phases of the development. [Amended 6-9-19931
N. Property owners' association. All phases of a planned community
development shall be included under a single property owners'
association according to the requirements of this chapter.
0. Other regulations. The planned community development shall conform
with all regulations of this chapter and the Frederick County Code
unless specifically exempted by this article.
16604 10-25-2001
REZONING APPLICATION #06-03
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
Staff Report for the Planning Commission Public Hearing
Prepared: June 27, 2003
Staff Contact: Christopher M. Mohn, AICP, Deputy Director
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this
application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues
concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. As this
application proceeds through the legislative review process, the response or method of resolution for
each issue offered by the applicant and/or recommended by the Planning Commission or Board of
Supervisors will be stated in the text of this report.
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission: 07/16/03 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 08/13/03 Pending
PROPOSAL: To rezone 821.7 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to R4 (Residential Planned Community).
LOCATION: The property is located east of Milburn Road (Route 662), south of Old Charles Town
Road (Route 761), and southwest of Jordan Springs Road (Route 664), approximately 2,000 feet east
of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 North).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall
PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 44-A-31 [portion]; 44 -A -31A; 44-A-292; 44-A-293
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE.:
Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Agricultural/Unimproved
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING AND PRESENT USE:
North: Zoned RA (Rural Areas)
South: Zoned RA (Rural Areas)
East: Zoned RA (Rural Areas)
West: Zoned RA (Rural Areas)
Use: Agricultural/Residentiall
Unimproved
Use: Agricultural/Residential/
Unimproved
Use: Agricultural/Residential/
Unin-iproved
Use: Agricultural/Residential/
Unimproved
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 2
June 27, 2003
INTENDED USE: Residential Planned Community comprised of mixed housing types totaling
2,800 dwelling units with 250,000 square feet of commercial uses (190,000
square feet - retail; 60,000 square feet - office) and 44 acres dedicated for public
school and recreation uses. The applicant has proposed to serve the
development with a multi -modal transportation system consisting of a major
collector road, a system of pedestrian and bicycle trails, and a linear park trail
within the Hiatt Run Corridor. The gross residential density proposed for this
development is 3.40 dwelling units per acre.
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: All roads providing access to the site will experience "significant
measurable impact" from proposed development. However, proffered transportation improvements
appear to be adequate to address traffic impacts. Please see the attached letter dated 02/21103 from Ben
Lineberry, Jr. P.E., Transportation Assistant Resident Engineer, VDOT Edinburg Residency.
Fire Marshal: Proposed standards for private streets, culs-de-sac, alleys, and common driveways will
allow adequate fire protection access. Applicant's proposed use of home sprinkler systems in certain
housing types is a "first" for Frederick County and is commended as a positive life safety measure.
Please see the attached comment sheet dated 03/03/2003 from Timothy L. Welsh, Assistant Fire
Marshal.
Clearbrook Fire & Rescue Co.: No comment offered. Please see the attached letter dated
02/26/2003 from Mark D. Smith, P.E., L.S. on behlaf of Chief Tommy Price.
County Engineer: Concerned that Homeowner's Association responsibility for private curbside trash
collection will be ineffective without an enforceable guarantee. It is further noted that any such
guarantee must be fully enforceable without County intervention. Please see attached letter dated
05/05/03 from H.E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E., Director of Public Works.
Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: Adequate capacity is available at the Opequon Water
Reclamation Facility to accommodate the projected sewage flows of the proposed development. The
conceptual plans for the sewer system for Stephenson Village include infrastructure capable of
eliminating capacity concerns involving the Abrams Creek Interceptor. It is recommended that an
adequately sized pumping station site be provided pursuant to Frederick County Sanitation Authority
standards to enable ultimate expansion of the station to a regional facility. Moreover, the main sewage
collector line should be adequately sized and appropriately routed to enable future extension of the
collection system to off-site development. Please seethe attached memorandum dated 02/12/2003 from
Jesse W. Moffett, Executive Director.
Sanitation Authority: Capacity in the existing sewer lines, especially the Frederick -Winchester
Service Authority Abrams Creek Trunk Main, is limited. While the majority of the flow generated by
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 3
June 27, 2003
the project may be within the capacity of the existing lines, it is prudent to have a pump station built
sometime during this development to transmit sewage directly to the Opequon Water Reclamation
Facility. Gravity lines will need to be sized to convey sewage from areas in the watershed outside the
development and from the SWSA in the Clearbrook/Rest Church Road area. Please see the attached
comment sheet with attachment dated 02/12/2003 from John G. "itacre, Engineer, and W. H. Jones,
P.E., Executive Director.
Historic Resources Advisory Board: No adverse comments were offered regarding this application.
However, the HRAB did offer the following suggestions to the applicant: (1) avoid bisecting the
battlefield preservation tract with the proposed major collector road by locating the road on the
northeast portion of the tract; (2) avoid creation of a "false sense of history" along the major collector
road by limiting treatments to minimal landscaping comprised of indigenous plantings; (3) develop an
interpretive plan for the preservation tract; (4) consider conducting archaeological studies of the
property and ensure that artifacts are properly inventoried and preserved; and (5) consider preserving
the Sam Byers House on a large parcel of land. Please see attached letter from Rebecca Ragsdale,
Plannerl, dated 01/27/03.
Parks & Recreation: Please see attached letter dated 02/04/03 from James M. Doran, Director of
Parks & Recreation.
Frederick County Public Schools: The proposed development is anticipated to generate a total of
1,156 students at project build -out. Pursuant to the outputs of the Frederick County Fiscal Impact
Model, the combination of proffered land donations and monetary contributions will meet the
recommended levels to mitigate projected capital facilities impacts. It is noted that continued
residential growth in Frederick County, to include the proposed development, will necessitate the
construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. Please see
attached letter dated 03/20/03 from Al Orndorff, Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent.
County Attorney: Proffers appear to be in proper form. Please see attached comment sheet dated
04/28/2003 from Jay Cook, Assistant County Attorney.
Winchester Regional Airport: The proposed development will not have an impact on Winchester
Regional Airport operations. Although the proposed development lies within the Regional Airport's
airspace, it is located outside of the airport's Part 77 surface. Please see attached letter dated 02112103
from Serena R. Manuel, Executive Director.
Planning & Zoning
1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Stephenson Quadrangle)
identifies the subject parcels as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). The County's
agricultural zoning districts were 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
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 4
June 27, 2003
and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District.
2) Location The subject site is located east of Milburn Road (Route 662), south of Old Charles
Town Road (Route 761), and southwest of Jordan Springs Road (Route 664), approximately
2,000 feet east of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 North). The parcels comprising the site are
located wholly within the Stonewall Magisterial District and are used primarily for agricultural
purposes. Numerous parcels adjoin the 821.7 -acre site, all of which are zoned RA (Rural Areas)
and are either undeveloped or established with residential or agricultural land uses.
3) Comprehensive Policy Plan The four parcels comprising this rezoning request are all located
within the boundaries of the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP). The properties are located
wholly within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The NELUP envisions the area
comprised by the subject parcels as developing with industrial land use. Indeed, this designation
is consistent with the overarching purpose of the NELUP, which is the facilitation of business
and industrial development in a well planned, coordinated manner. (Comprehensive Policy
Plan, p. 6-36, p. 6-39)
The policies of the Comprehensive Plan governing planned communities stipulate that such
development is to occur within the Urban Development Area (UDA). The NELUP does not
provide for the expansion of the UDA within the study area. Planned communities and other
forms of suburban residential development are therefore not accommodated within the bounds
of the study area. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-36.1, 6-60, 6-61)
The preservation of environmentally sensitive areas and significant historic resources is
encouraged by the NELUP. The area proposed for rezoning is adjacent to the core area of the
Stephenson's Depot battlefield (Second Battle of Winchester) and includes the Byers House
(#34-1124), both of which are identified by the Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA)
designation. Resources identified as DSA constitute community and historical preservation
areas that are to be protected from incompatible land uses through the use of adequate buffers
and screening. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-36.1)
Consistent with the transportation policies ofthe Comprehensive Plan, the NELUP specifies that
proposed development should only occur if impacted road systems will function at Level of
Service (LOS) "C" or better. The NELUP indicates that improvement of roads to maintain this
level of service objective is the responsibility of the private property owner or developer.
(Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-36.2, 6-36.3, 7-5)
The land use policies of the Comprehensive Plan identify the planned community approach as
a preferred method for establishing new neighborhoods within the UDA. It is expected that
such communities consist of an appropriate balance between residential, service, and
employment uses. Indeed, by providing an environment wherein people can live, work, and
shop, the planned community approach promises to more effectively mitigate the impacts of
new development on the County as a whole. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-60, 6-61)
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 5
June 27, 2003
Planning Staff Comment
The applicable land use policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan promote the establishment
of non-residential land uses on the subject parcels. The proposed rezoning of the site to
accommodate a 2,800 -unit planned residential development is, therefore, inconsistent with
adopted policy.
It is noted that an extensive review of the NELUP was recently concluded, during which several
alternative land use proposals were considered by the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors. One such alternative proposed that the subject parcels be designated for planned
community land use. However, this alternative was not adopted, and the industrial land use
designation applicable to the subject properties was ultimately retained.
4) Site Suitability/Environmental Features
Impact Analysis Statement (p. 2. 3, 4): The subject site contains a variety of environmental
features to include a perennial stream, flood plain, wetlands, steep slopes, and woodlands. The
applicant proposes to incorporate the conservation of these sensitive environmental features into
the overall development plan through a variety of proffered methods.
The applicant has endeavored to accomplish resource conservation through the identification
of two resource protection areas, which are identified as the Hiatt Run Corridor and the Wetland
Intermittent Ravine Channel. The majority of the site's sensitive environmental features are
captured within these two areas, the protection of which will occur through a combination of
approaches, to include riparian buffers, easements, supplemental plantings, and development
of resource management plans in collaboration with relevant state and non-profit environmental
organizations. The proffered Generalized Development Plan delineates the location of the
proposed resource protection areas. (See Proffer Statement, p. 19 - 21 and Generalized
Development Plan, dated March 2003)
The environmental features present on the subject parcels do not represent an impediment to site
development. Such features may be described as follows:
A. Flood Plain: Flood plain data for the subject parcels is delineated on the Flood
Insurance Study Map for Frederick County prepared by the U. S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development, Community Panel #510063-0110-B, effective date July 17,
1978. The majority of the site is located in Flood Zone C, which denotes areas of
minimal flooding located outside of the 100 -year flood plain. As reported by the
applicant, 100 -year flood plain, Flood Zone A, exists coincident with Hiatt Run, a
perennial stream that traverses the subject site. The applicant has proffered to protect
identified flood plain resources through a combination of easements and buffer areas
adjacent to the 100 -year flood plain comprising the Hiatt Run Corridor. Moreover, the
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 6
June 27, 2003
applicant has proffered that disturbance within the flood plain will be limited to
establishment of the proposed linear park trail system, to include the trail, pedestrian
bridges, benches and signage. Any disturbance within the designated flood plain area
will be subject to the Flood Plain (FP) District requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
[Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, § 165-31.B. (1)]
B. Wetlands: The National Wetland Inventory Map (Stephenson Quadrangle) produced
by the U.S. Department of the Interior identifies seven wetland features on the subject
site. The identified wetland features correspond with ponding areas adjacent to the
stream system that drains to Hiatt Run. The applicant proposes to incorporate these
wetland resources into the stormwater management plan for Stephenson Village and
further proffers to provide buffers adjacent to wetlands located within the Hiatt Run
Corridor. Pursuant to the environmental standards of the Zoning Ordinance, disturbance
of wetlands is only permitted in accordance with the requirements of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers or other qualified state or federal agency. [Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance, § 165-31.B.(3)]
C. Soils and Steep Slopes: The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County,
Virginia indicates that the soils on the site are consistent with the Weikert-Berks-
Blairton soil association, which is the predominant association in Frederick County east
of Interstate 81. It is noted that the Weikert-Berks-Blairton soil association presents
some limitations to site development due to a seasonal high water table, depth to
bedrock, and slope. The management of such soil characteristics will be addressed
through subsequent site engineering activities.
Steep slopes (land areas of 50% slope or greater) are located within the eastern and
central portions of the site, generally coincident with the ravines and drainage ways
associated with Hiatt Run and the Hiatt Run stream valley. The applicant has proffered
the establishment of riparian buffers along the Hiatt Run Corridor, which will minimize
disturbance of steep slope areas located on the site. The applicant has acknowledged
that some disturbance of steep slopes will be necessary to accommodate planned
stormwater management facilities, pedestrian trail systems, and the proffered
transportation program. The Zoning Ordinance stipulates that no more than 25% of
steep slopes shall be disturbed or regraded. The management of steep slopes pursuant
to this disturbance limitation will be addressed through subsequent site engineering
activities. [Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, § 165-31.B. (6)]
n_ Woodlands: Areas of mature woodlands exist on the site, most of which are coincident
with the Hiatt Run Corridor. Other woodland areas are dispersed throughout the site.
The applicant has proffered to preserve those woodland areas located within the Hiatt
Run Corridor through the employment of 100 -foot riparian buffers. The applicant has
further proffered to collaborate with the Virginia Department of Forestry to prepare a
forest management plan to guide conservation of woodland resources within the project.
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 7
June 27, 2003
5) Potential Impacts
A. Transportation
Impact ,4nalvsis Statement /n, 4 - 5): The traffic impact analysis (TLA) prepared for this
application calculated transportation impacts based upon the following proffered
development program:
• Residential: 2,800 dwelling units (mixed housing types)
• Retail: 190,000 square feet
• Office: 60,000 square feet
• Public: 550 pupil elementary school
Using traffic generation figures from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 6" Edition, the
applicant projects traffic impacts for the development in terms of three phases that
correspond with years 2006, 2008, and 2015, respectively. For the purposes of the TIA,
2015 represents the year in which project build out will occur. The TIA indicates that
at project build out, the planned uses will result in the generation of 25,178 new average
daily trips (ADT).
The total ADT generated by the development is projected by phase as follows:
• Phase I (Year 2006):
10,570 ADT
• Phase II (Year 2008):
17,699 ADT
• Phase III (Year 2015):
25,178 ADT
The new trips generated by the development will be absorbed by an external road
network consisting of Old Charles Town Road (Route 761), Martinsburg Pike (Route
11), and the Exit 317 interchange of Interstate 81. This external network will be linked
to the development via a proffered major collector, or "spine," road. The major
collector road is the principal organizing component of the project's internal
transportation system, and will ultimately consist of four travel lanes that will bisect the
development and connect Old Charles Town Road and Martinsburg Pike. (See
Generalized Development Plan, dated March 2003)
The applicant has proffered to phase construction of the major collector road pursuant
to trip volume benchmarks that will be measured through actual traffic counts recorded
at the entrance to the development. As enumerated by the proposed proffer, the major
collector road and related improvements will be planned, designed, and implemented
when the traffic counts reach 80% of specified trip volume benchmarks. Each
benchmark triggers development of a particular section of the major collector road
and/or associated improvements. Moreover, the proffer indicates that construction of
REZ 906-03, Stephenson Village
Page 8
June 27, 2003
said improvements will be completed within eighteen (18) months of attainment of the
80% volume figure. (See Proffer Statement, p. 10, Section F.)
Based upon the proffered trip volume benchmarks, the incremental construction of the
major collector road will occur in relation to the three overall transportation phases as
follows:
• Phase I (2006): Fully constructed within development boundaries - four
(4) lane section extending from project entrance at Old
Charles Town Road to limits of the project.
• Phase II (2008): Extension of two (2) lane half -section from terminus of
four (4) lane section at development limits to
Martinsburg Pike; intersection with Martinsburg Pike
will be aligned with entrance to Rutherford's Farm
Industrial Park.
• Phase III (2015): Remaining additional lanes constructed between
development limits and Martinsburg Pike; construction
completed.
In addition to construction of the major collector road, the transportation program
proffered by the applicant includes signalization of off-site intersections, turn lane
additions and lane widening on external roads, and the provision of pedestrian and
bicycle lanes. The proffered traffic signalization agreements will involve the
intersections of Martinsburg Pike and Old Charles Town Road, Old Charles Town Road
and the major collector road, and the entrance of Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park on
Martinsburg Pike, which will ultimately align with the terminus of the major collector
road. (See Proffer Statement, p. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
The analysis anticipates that background traffic in the study area will increase by 5%
annually through 2010 and by 3% between 2010 to 2015. Moreover, estimated
background conditions assume development of 1,400,000 square feet of commercial and
industrial land uses in the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park during the same time
period. Background traffic is that which is not generated by the proposed development.
The TIA concludes that the improvements proffered by the applicant will ensure Level
of Service (LOS) Category "C" conditions or better on study area roads during peak
traffic periods throughout Phase I and Phase H. However, with the conclusion of Phase
III, at project build out, several study area intersections are projected to function at LOS
Category "D" during peak traffic conditions. (See "A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis
of Stephenson Village, "p. 11, 19, & 27).
REZ 906-03, Stephenson Village
Page 9
June 27, 2003
VDOT Comment All roads providing access to the site will experience "significant
measurable impact" from proposed development. However, proffered transportation
improvements appear to be adequate to address traffic impacts. (See attached letter
dated 02/21/03 from Ben Lineberry, Jr. P.E., Transportation Assistant Resident
Engineer, VDOT Edinburg Residency)
Planning Staff Comment The infrastructure policies of the Northeast Land Use Plan
(NELUP) stipulate that new development should only occur if impacted road systems
will function at Level of Service (LOS) Category "C" or better. Indeed, this NELUP
provision reinforces the general transportation policies of the Comprehensive Policy
Plan, which establish LOS Category "C" as the desired condition on roads adjacent to
and within new development.
The transportation program proffered by the applicant achieves the functional standards
established by policy until the latter stages of development, when the combined effect
of background traffic growth and new vehicle trips originating from the proposed
development yield diminished levels of service. Indeed, at project build out, peak hour
LOS Category "D" conditions are shown at several study area intersections, most
notably those intersections located at or near the Interstate 81 interchange.
B. Historic Resources
Impact Analysis Statement (p. 8 - 9): As reported by the applicant, the Frederick County
Rural Landmarks Survey includes one structure located on the subject site, which is
identified as the Samuel Byers House (# 34-1124). This structure is identified as
potentially significant due to its architectural style. The applicant has proffered to
preserve and adaptively reuse this resource as they deem appropriate.
The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey further includes several potentially
significant resources that are located on properties adjoining the subject site.
Specifically, the Helm McCann property (# 34-703) and the Milburn Chapel and
Cemetery (# 34-950) are located to the west of the site and the Jordan Springs Hotel (#
34-110) is located to the southeast of the site. Also located near the project site is
Milburn Road (Route 662), which is identified by the 1995 Frederick County -
Winchester Battlefield Network Plan as a significant historic corridor as it provides a
linkage between areas associated with the Second and Third Battles of Winchester. The
Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP) further identifies the Milburn Road corridor as a
developmentally sensitive area (DSA). The applicant has suggested that development
of the Stephenson v inage planned community will not impact the viewsheds associated
with these off site resources.
The 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of
Virginia identifies the core battlefield area of Stephenson's Depot on property located
immediately adjacent to the subject site. The property containing this resource is not
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 10
June 27, 2003
included in this rezoning application. However, as shown on the proffered Generalized
Development Plan (GDP), the major collector road planned with this project will
traverse a portion of core battlefield land. Moreover, the GDP depicts the development
of mixed residential land uses adjacent to the core battlefield area. (See Generalized
Development Plan, dated March 2003)
C. Sewer and Water
ImpactAnalysis Statement (p. S. 6): At full build -out, the planned residential community
is projected to equally impact the public water and sewer system, consuming and
conveying approximately 689,000 gallons per day (GPD) of water and wastewater,
respectively. Water supply will originate from the Global Chemstone Quarry and be
distributed from the Northern Water Treatment Plan via an existing 10 -inch water main
that will be supplemented by a planned 20 -inch line, both of which extend along
Martinsburg Pike. At present, this water source is yielding 1.5 million gallons per day
(MGD).
Sewage conveyance will occur through an 8 -inch sewer force main that will flow to the
Redbud Run Pump Station, which will convey the project's effluent to the Opequon
Water Reclamation Facility. The Frederick - Winchester Service Authority (FWSA)
reports that adequate capacity is available at the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility
to accommodate the projected sewage flows of the proposed development.
It is noted that all water and sewer infrastructure will be provided by the applicant
pursuant to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority's (FCSA) Route 11 North Sewer
and Water Service Area Plan, which was approved by the Board of Supervisors in 2002.
Included with this plan is the development of the Lower Hiatt Run Pump Station, a
regional facility that the applicant has proffered to construct.
7) Proffer Statement (dated January 8, 2003, revised through April 24, 2003):
A proffer analysis report, dated April 16, 2003, was prepared for the applicant delineating staff
concerns regarding proffer language, implementation methods, and the structure of the proffer
statement. The applicant responded to this report with a revised proffer statement that addressed
staff concerns. The proffer statement included with this application is therefore acceptable to
staff as a technical document. Should this application be approved, staff is comfortable that the
proffer statement will result in the development program outlined by the applicant in the impact
analysis statement. A copy of the proffer analysis report is included with the review agency
comments attached with this staff report.
It is noted that the proffer statement for Stephenson Village is extensive, involving twenty-three
distinct sections. Arguably the most critical component of the proffer statement is the
Community Design Modification Document, which includes a series of nine requests for
modifications to certain provisions of the Frederick County Code. The viability of these
REZ 06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 11
June 27, 2003
requests is dependent upon the approval of an amendment to Article VII of the Zoning
Ordinance to allow Code modifications with requests for R4 zoning. This proposed amendment
is scheduled for public hearings on the same dates as the subject rezoning application. The
remainder of the proffer statement is fundamentally dependant upon the regulatory flexibility
sought through the modification document.
Given the importance of these requests to the applicant's proffer statement and, therefore, the
overall rezoning proposal, staff has provided an overview of the modification process as well
as a detailed discussion concerning each request. Following the modification discussion, the
remainder of the proffer statement is briefly summarized by section.
A. Section 1: Community Design Modification Document (Proffer Statement, p. 2):
Background of Modification Concept: The applicant initially included a series of
twenty-two requests for waivers from certain requirements of the Frederick County
Code ("the Code") applicable to planned residential developments with the proffer
statement. The majority of these waiver requests involved provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance and were proposed as a means of facilitating the
design plan for Stephenson Village.
Exemptions and/or waivers to the requirements of the Code applicable to planned
residential developments are currently enabled pursuant to Section 165-72.0. of the
Zoning Ordinance, which states:
Other regulations. The planned community development shall conform with
all regulations of this chapter and the Frederick County Code unless
specifically exempted by this article.
This provision plainly articulates that an exemption or waiver cannot be legally
proposed or considered for a planned residential community except where said
exemption is expressly permitted by Article VII of the Zoning Ordinance. The
provisions of Article VII limit exemptions to proposals for alternative dimensional
requirements and alternative landscaping and buffering plans. As such, the majority of
the waiver requests originally sought by the applicant through the proffer statement were
determined to not be permitted due to the absence of language in Article VII specifically
enabling the desired exemptions.
It was recognized that an alternative method would be required for the applicant to
achieve the regulatory flexibility necessary for the Stephenson Village design concept.
As an option, staff proposed an amendment to Article VII that would expand
opportunities for modifications to ordinance provisions applicable to planned residential
development. Through this approach, an applicant for R4 zoning would be allowed to
seek modifications to any provision of the Code impacting physical development. The
applicant would be required to provide justification for the request to include a proposed
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 12
June 27, 2003
alternative - or "modified" - standard in lieu of the ordinance requirement for which the
modification was being sought. The applicant would further be expected to identify the
need or role of the alternative standard in the overall design concept. A blanket waiver
or exemption would not be permitted.
As envisioned by staff, following Planning Commission review, the Board of
Supervisors would consider and approve each modification request included with an R4
rezoning application on its merits pursuant to the applicant's justification. Moreover,
modifications would be considered concurrent with the rezoning application and, if
accepted with the proffer statement, the alternative or modified standards would be
included as conditions of the rezoning approval. Such legislatively approved
modifications would serve as an effective means of accommodating the unique vision
expected with a planned residential community while simultaneously assuring the
relevance of both the public process and the public purposes of the Code.
The proposed amendment would replace the current language of Section 165-72.0. with
the following:
§ 165-72.0. Modifications; applicability of other regulations.
(1) An applicant may request as part of an application for rezoning to the R4
District that a modification to specific requirements of the subdivision
ordinance, this chapter or other requirements of the Frederick County
Code applicable to physical development be granted. The applicant shall
demonstrate that the requested modification is necessary or justified in
the particular case by a demonstration that the public purpose of these
ordinances, as applied to the particular case, would be met to at least an
equivalent degree by such modification. The Board of Supervisors may
approve or disapprove such request, in whole or in part.
(2) The applicant shall provide sufficient information to enable evaluation
of the request by the Board of Supervisors. Materials submitted should
include or be supplemented by: (a) specification of the code section(s)
to be modified and the proposed alternative standard; (b) exhibits
demonstrating application of the modified standard such as a detailed
plan and/or elevation drawing; and (c) identification of the relationship
of the modification to the overall community concept.
(3) The planned community development shall conform with all regulations
of this chapter and the Frederick County Code unless specifically
ixeiilpLcu Uy ti>ls at LIc1e ori —no dilieu uy tuc Board of JUpei visors through
the rezoning process.
The applicant accepted this option and staff is processing the proposed ordinance
amendment concurrently with this rezoning application. The applicant subsequently
condensed the original waivers into nine modification requests. These requests and the
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 13
June 27, 2003
applicant's justification for each are delineated through the Community Design
Modification Document, which is included as Exhibit F of this application.
If approved, each alternative design standard specified in the proffered Community
Design Modification Document will constitute a condition of rezoning approval, and
will therefore be incorporated as a provision of the Zoning Ordinance uniquely
applicable to Stephenson Village. As with any proffered condition, an adopted
alternative design standard may only be changed pursuant to Board of Supervisors
approval through the rezoning process delineated in Article H of the Zoning Ordinance.
Indeed, unless amended in accord with said provisions, an alternative design standard
will apply to development within Stephenson Village in perpetuity, regardless of action
subsequent to application approval either amending or deleting the underlying Zoning
Ordinance requirement.
It is noted that approval of both the proposed ordinance amendment and modification
document is critical to the viability of subsequent provisions of the applicant's proffer
statement. Indeed, disapproval or alteration of the amendment or any of the proposed
modifications will likely necessitate adjustments to the overall development program.
Should either the proposed amendment or the requested modifications be
disapproved, either in whole or in part, the remainder of the proffer statement and
the proffered Generalized Development Plan must be altered to reflect such action
prior to further consideration of this application.
Community Design Modification Document (Rezoning Exhibit F)
• Modification #1 - � 165-71. Mixture of Housing Types Required
The R4 District requirements stipulate that no more than 40% of the residential uses
in a planned residential community shall consist of duplexes, multiplexes, atrium
houses, weak -link townhouses, townhouses, or garden apartments or any
combination of said housing types. The applicant is requesting that this standard be
modified to allow housing types identified under the townhouse, multi -family, and
active adult categories included in the proposed "Mixed Residential Matrix" to
comprise a maximum of 60% of the residential uses in Stephenson Village.
The proposed "Mixed Residential Matrix" includes four categories ofhousing types:
single family dwellings, townhouse dwellings, multi -family dwellings, and active
adult dwellings. A minimum and maximum ratio is proposed for each category.
The employment of such ranges is intended to ensure a mix of housing types while
allowing for variation in the ultimate composition of the overall housing mix.
Specific housing types are identified under these categories, to include several that
are permitted and defined by the current Zoning Ordinance as well as new housing
types proposed in Section 21 of the Proffer Statement. (See Proffer Statement, p. 23,
24)
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 14
June 27, 2003
If Modification #1 is approved, the proposed "Mixed Residential Matrix" will
govern the categorization of housing types and the residential mix for Stephenson
Village. (See "Rezoning Exhibit F" for applicant's justification)
Planning Staff Comment: The current requirement of § 165-71. ensures that single
family detached dwellings will comprise a minimum of 60% of the residential mix
in a planned residential community. As proposed by the applicant, non -age
restricted single family dwellings will comprise a minimum of 30% and a maximum
of 64% of the residential mix of Stephenson Village. In contrast to the current
ordinance requirement that yields a housing mix predominated by single family
detached units, the applicant's modified standard could result in the opposite
scenario, with 51 ° U of the housing in Stephenson Village consisting of townhouse
and multi -family unit types.
It is noted that the applicant has committed to developing a minimum of 19% of the
project with active-adult/age-restricted units, which could be increased to a
maximum of 53% of the overall mix. In the event the latter ratio develops, the
predominant housing in Stephenson Village would be active-adult/age-restricted,
which could develop with either single family or multi -family unit types.
• Modification #2 - & 165-69. Permitted Uses,
§ 165-72.B(2) - Alternative Dimensional Requirement Plan
The R4 District requirements allow for all uses permitted in the RP District within
the planned residential community. Moreover, the Zoning Ordinance permits the
adoption of an alternative dimensional requirement plan for the residential uses
planned for the development. The applicant is requesting a modification to the
permitted uses section to allow the introduction of new housing types to complement
those permitted by the RP District. The new housing unit types are identified in
Section 21 of the Proffer Statement, and include the following: carriage house, non -
alley carriage house, cottage house, and courtyard cluster. This request also includes
modified standards for single family small lot and townhouse units, which are
permitted RP District housing types. (See Proffer Statement, p. 23, 24)
If Modification #2 is approved, the new housing types identified in Section 21 of
the Proffer Statement will be permitted in Stephenson Village pursuant to the
dimensional standards delineated in "Rezoning Exhibit F." Moreover, through
approval of this modification, alternative dimensional standards will be accepted for
single family small iot and townhouse housing types in lieu of tlne current RP
District requirements. (See "Rezoning Exhibit F" for applicant's justification)
Planning Sta E Comment: The proposed new housing types represent a notable
departure from the typical suburban residential development experienced by
Frederick County under RP zoning. Indeed, these housing types and the
REZ 906-03, Stephenson Village
Page 15
June 27, 2003
accompanying alternative dimensional standards are the foundation for the
distinctive residential form envisioned by the applicant for Stephenson Village. It
is noted that all relevant review agencies have examined the proposed dimensional
standards and determined that said standards satisfy all applicable technical
requirements.
• Modification #3 - & 165-72.D. Commercial and Industrial Areas;
§ 165-72.M. Non-residential Land Use Phasing
The R4 District requirements stipulate that a minimum of 10% of the gross area of
a planned residential community shall be used for business and industrial land uses,
and that such uses shall not exceed 50% of the gross land area. Moreover, the
Zoning Ordinance requires that each phase of a planned community development
shall include a reasonable amount of non-residential land uses. The applicant is
requesting that both of these standards be modified to (1) allow a minimum of 4%
of the gross area of the proposed planned residential community to be used for
business land uses and (2) eliminate the requirement that non-residential uses be
integrated throughout the development in favor of centralizing business uses in a
single commercial node.
The applicant has proffered a development program that allocates approximately 4%
of the gross land area for commercial land uses, the majority of which will form a
26 -acre commercial center (Land Bay V). The remaining business land uses are
planned within the mixed residential area (Land Bay III) and will comprise
approximately 7 acres, which are likely to develop with a day care or other service-
oriented use. The applicant has guaranteed that a minimum of 60,000 square feet
of commercial uses will develop in Stephenson Village, with maximum possible
business development comprising 250,000 square feet (190,000 square feet ofretail;
60,000 square feet of office). (See Proffer Statement, p. 4, S, 16, & 17 and
Generalized Development Plan, dated March 2003)
If Modification #3 is approved, the applicant will be permitted to limit commercial
development to 4% of the gross land area of the planned residential community,
which equates to approximately 33 acres devoted to commercial land uses.
Additionally, this modification will relieve the applicant of the requirement that each
phase of development include non-residential land uses, thereby enabling
commercial development to occur entirely within a centralized node. Approval of
this modification is necessary for acceptance of both the applicant's proffered
development program delineated in Section 3 of the Proffer Statement, and the
proffered Generalized Development Plan dated March 2003. (See "Rezoning
Exhibit F"for applicant's justification)
Planning Staff Comment: The non-residential component of a planned community
development is necessary to achieve a dynamic mixed use land use pattern that
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 16
June 27, 2003
facilitates efficiencies of form and function impossible through the one dimensional
residential focus of RP zoning. The R4 District therefore requires a mix of retail,
business/office, and light industrial land uses, which, when integrated with a mix of
housing types, provides internal service and employment opportunities accessible
via the community's multi -modal transportation system. The non-residential ratios
required by the ordinance are intended to ensure that the advantages of planned
community developments are maximized for both the residents of such communities
and the County as a whole. Without a diverse array of non-residential uses that
includes sufficient employment -oriented business and industry, the development
program for Stephenson Village will fail to achieve a land use pattern that is
distinguishable from other suburban residential areas of Frederick County.
• Modification #4 - � 165-72.F. Recreational Facilities
The R4 District requirements stipulate that one (1) recreational unit be provided for
every thirty (30) units developed within a planned residential community. The
applicant is requesting a modification to allow the monetary value of a "tot lot"
facility to represent the equivalent of one recreational unit. This value figure would
be applied to the recreational facilities being proffered by the applicant as a method
to quantify ordinance compliance. The applicant is not seeking a modification of the
recreational facility ratio required by the ordinance. Rather, the applicant is
proposing a means for evaluating the value of the proffered recreational facilities
vis-a-vis the required ratio.
If Modification #4 is approved, the monetary value of a tot lot facility will be the
equivalent of one recreational unit for the purposes of determining the number of
recreational units represented by the applicant's planned recreational facilities. (See
"Rezoning Exhibit F" for applicant's justification)
Planning Staff Comment: It is noted that the RP District requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance identify a tot lot as an example of a single recreational unit. No comment
has been formally submitted by the Department of Parks and Recreation concerning
the requested modification.
• Modification #5 - § 165-72.I. Road Access
§ 165-29.A.(14) Motor Vehicle Access
§ 144-24.C., C.2(a), C.2.(b) Lot Access
The R4 District requirements stipulate that a planned community development be
developed with a complete system of public streets dedicated to the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT). Moreover, both the Zoning Ordinance and
Subdivision Ordinance limit private road access only to those developments
comprised exclusively of single family small lot and multi family housing. The
applicant is requesting a modification of these road access standards to (1) allow for
REZ 906-03, Stephenson Village
Page 17
June 27, 2003
a complete system of private streets within the active -adult portion of the community
(Land Bay IV), and (2) permit private access roads extending from public streets to
serve a maximum of five dwelling units, or ten dwelling units if the private access
road connects two public streets, within the mixed residential land bay (Land Bay
III). The applicant proposes that all private roads will be constructed to meet or
exceed VDOT public road standards. The remainder of the project will be served
by public roads as required by ordinance.
If Modification #S is approved, the active adult portion of Stephenson Village will
be allowed to develop with a complete system ofprivate roads, regardless of the mix
of housing types provided. Moreover, in the mixed residential portion of the
community, private access roads will be permitted to serve no more than five (5)
single family dwelling units, or a maximum of ten (10) units if the private access
road connects two public streets. (See "Rezoning Exhibit F" for applicant's
justification)
Plannin,�Sta Comment: The maintenance of private roads and access ways will be
the exclusive responsibility of the property owners through the governing
Homeowner's Association (HOA). The granting of this modification would enable
the creation of "flag" or "pipestem" lots, which can cause confusion for property
owners and result in administrative challenges for staff. At present, private road
access to single family lots is permitted only in the context of minor rural
subdivisions in the RA (Rural Areas) District. A minor rural subdivision involves
no more than three (3) lots. It is noted that the relevant review agencies have been
consulted regarding the dimensional standards proposed for the private roads and
access ways, and are satisfied that such standards will meet applicable technical
requirements.
• Modification #6 - § 165-72.M. Phasing
The R4 District requirements stipulate that a phasing plan must be submitted that
identifies the year in which each phase of development will be completed. The
applicant is requesting modification of this requirement to eliminate the need to
specify the concluding year for each phase and to instead enable phasing of land bay
development to be determined at the time of master plan approval. The applicant
has committed to completing phases in a specified sequence in those cases where a
sequence or schedule is included with the Master Development Plan. However, the
applicant is seeking greater flexibility to develop multiple phases simultaneously and
to contract with a variety of builders who will operate on independent schedules.
The phasing of development of non -age restricted dwelling units will occur at an
annual rate of 8% pursuant to Section 2 of the Proffer Statement. (See Proffer
Statement, p. 3)
If Modification #6 is approved, land bay development within Stephenson Village
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 18
June 27, 2003
will not follow a schedule or plan delineating the overall sequence of development
or the concluding year of a given land bay's development. Phasing will be governed
exclusively by the proffered limitation on permits for non -age restricted dwelling
units specified in Section 2 of the Proffer Statement. Said provision stipulates that
non -age restricted dwelling units will be developed at a rate not to exceed 8%
annually. There is no phasing proposed for the active adult/age restricted housing
component of the project. (See "Rezoning Exhibit F" for applicants justification)
Planning Staff Comment: The applicant has proffered phasing mechanisms for
development of the non -age restricted residential component of the project as well
as the planned transportation system. Thus, the overall pace of development is
clearly defined, as is the timing and sequence of improvements comprising the
proposed transportation system. However, pursuant to this modification request,
the progression of development within each land bay and the coordination of
improvements during "multi -phase" development will remain undetermined until
Master Development Plan (MDP) approval. (See Proffer Statement, p. 3, 10, & 11)
• Modification #7 - � 165-72.G.(1) Buffers and Screening
Road efficiency buffers are utilized to lessen the impacts of interstate, arterial,
primary, and major collector roads on adjoining residential land uses. The R4
District requirements stipulate that road efficiency buffers shall be provided in
accordance with the specifications of § 165-37 of the Zoning Ordinance. As such
the inactive portion of a road efficiency buffer must be a minimum of forty (40) feet
in depth, measured from the edge of the right-of-way of a major collector road. The
inactive buffer area must contain the screening elements of a full buffer as defined
by ordinance. A road efficiency buffer also requires an active buffer component
comprised of forty (40) feet, for a total buffer distance of eighty (80) feet. The
applicant is requesting modification of the road efficiency buffer requirements to
allow variations in the width of the inactive buffer area required adjacent to the
planned major collector road. Pursuant to the applicant's illustrative renderings, the
inactive buffer width would be a minimum of twenty five (25) feet. The applicant
has indicated that the screening requirements of the ordinance would be exceeded
where buffer distance is reduced.
If Modification #7 is approved, the road efficiency buffer required adjacent to the
planned major collector road will include an inactive portion that varies in width
from a maximum of forty (40) feet to a minimum of twenty (25) feet. Although the
distance buffer would be reduced in size, the screening comprising the inactive
buffer area would exceed standard ordinance requirements. (See "Rezoning Exhibit
F" for applicant's justification)
Planning Staff Comment: The effective combination of distance and screening is
critical to the mitigation of traffic impacts on adjoining residential uses. As
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 19
June 27, 2003
proposed by the applicant, the significant enhancement of screening to off -set the
reduction in size of the inactive buffer is essential to ensure the mitigative value of
the road efficiency buffer. If granted, this modification would not impact the
inactive portion of the buffer, which the applicant will be required to provide as
specified by ordinance.
• Modification #8 - � 165-68. Rezoning Procedure
The R4 District requirements stipulate that a complete Master Development Plan
(MDP) shall be submitted with an application for R4 zoning. The applicant is
requesting modification of this request to allow submission of a proffered
Generalized Development Plan (GDP) at the time of rezoning instead of the
complete MDP. The GDP would identify the relationship of the project site to the
surrounding transportation network and adjoining land uses. Moreover, the GDP
would provide a general layout for the proposed development, organizing the entire
acreage into land bays identified for either residential or non-residential land uses.
The GDP would further include a table delineating the approximate size of each land
bay as well as housing types and ratios for residential land bays. The applicant
would submit MDP applications for review subsequent to rezoning approval, at
which time greater detail concerning land bay development would be provided. (See
Generalized Development Plan, dated March 2003)
If Modification #8 is approved, a proffered Generalized Development Plan (GDP)
will be processed with this application instead of a detailed Master Development
Plan (MDP). MDP submission would follow rezoning approval pursuant to the
application sequence typical for development in other zoning districts as outlined by
the Zoning Ordinance.
Planning Stag' Comment: The applicant has include a proffered Generalized
Development Plan (GDP) with this application and is seeking the requested
modification pursuant to discussions with staff. The level of detail required with a
complete Master Development Plan (MDP) is difficult to provide with a rezoning
application when considering a project of the scope and scale of Stephenson Village.
A proffered GDP will effectively represent the overall development concept and can
sufficiently guide the implementation of proffered conditions via subsequent
development applications.
• Modification #9 - U65-133.13. Master Development Plan, Contiguous Land
x165-14LA.(8) Maser Development Pian, Contents
§ 165-141.B.(2);(4);(8) Master Development Plan, R4 Contents
The referenced provisions of the Zoning Ordinance govern the required scope and
contents of a Master Development Plan (MDP). Collectively, these provisions
stipulate that the entirety of a project site shall be included and planned under a
REZ 906-03, Stephenson Village
Page 20
June 27, 2003
single MDP. Citing the size and scope of the Stephenson Village project, the
applicant is requesting modification of the referenced provisions to enable the
submission of a series of MDP applications to accommodate the incremental
development of Stephenson Village over time. Each successive MDP application
will provide aggregate development data for the project, effectively tabulating the
status of the project relative to the proffered development program and other
proffered conditions. The proffered Generalized Development Plan (GDP) will
serve as the guide for all MDP submissions.
If Modification #9 is approved, the applicant will be permitted to submit a series of
Master Development Plan (MDP) applications to address the incremental
development of the project. This process would occur in lieu of a singular MDP
accommodating the "total development" of the planned community. Each MDP
would provide aggregate development data thereby ensuring effective monitoring
of project status and conformity with proffered conditions. (See "Rezoning Exhibit
F" for applicant's justification).
Planning Staff Comment: The proffering of a Generalized Development Plan (GDP)
is appropriate for a project the size of Stephenson Village. A series of Master
Development Plan (MDP) submissions will facilitate the incremental
implementation of the development program that will be conceptually represented
by the GDP and detailed by the proffer statement. Indeed, through such an
approach, each MDP will serve as a discernable "building block" toward completion
of the overall development program. The modified process requested by the
applicant would arguably not compromise the comprehensive orientation of the
MDP program.
B. Section 2: Phasing Plan to Minimize Sudden Impacts on County Services
(Proffer Statement, p. 2, 3)
• Additional Proffer Payment - The applicant has proffered to double the monetary
contribution to Frederick County for public schools for each student that exceeds "a
cumulative yearly total increase of 60 students per year." The additional monetary
payment of $3,925 will be adjusted every seven years to reflect the Consumer Price
Index (CPI).
• Limitation on Permits - The applicant has proffered that no more than 2,800
residential units will be developed within Stephenson Village. This unit limitation
results in a maximum gross residential density of 3.40 units per acre. The applicant
has further proffered to phase development of the non -age restricted units at a rate
of 8% per year. Active adult/age restricted housing and elderly housing are excluded
from the phasing program.
C. Section 3: Uses, Density and Mix of Housing Types
(Proffer Statement, p. 3, 4, S)
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 21
June 27, 2003
• Land Bay Breakdown Table - The applicant has proffered a Generalized
Development Plan (GDP) that includes five distinct land bays. The land uses
planned for these land bays have been proffered through the Land Bay Breakdown
Table, which sets the fundamental parameters for the development. The table may
be summarized as follows: Land Bay I - Elementary School (land dedication); Land
Bay H - Public Park (land dedication); Land Bay III - Mixed Residential (mix of
single family detached, townhouse, and multi -family units); Land Bay IV - Active
Adult (mix of unit types); Land Bay V - Commercial Center. The table further
identifies the minimum and maximum ratios permitted for the housing categories
proffered within each land bay.
• The total commercial area is proffered to consist of 33 acres that will be located
within Land Bays III and V, respectively. It is noted that the business uses planned
for Land Bay III, which is the mixed residential area, are intended to be
neighborhood -scale service-oriented uses. The planned 26 -acre commercial center
will serve as the principal commercial node for Stephenson Village and will be
located within Land Bay V.
• Open Space - The Hiatt Run Corridor and the Wetlands Intermittent Ravine
Channel, both of which are proffered resource protection areas, total approximately
125 acres. The applicant has proffered to disperse the remaining 121.5 acres of
required open space throughout the four residential land bays.
• Active Adult and/or Affordable Housing for the Elderly - The applicant has
proffered that active adult housing may comprise up to 53% of the total housing
units in Stephenson Village, which, if developed to this maximum ratio, would
involve development of active adult units in both Land Bay III and Land Bay IV.
Regardless of the ratio of active adult units, in no case shall the total number of
housing units exceed 2,800.
• Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial Land Uses - The applicant has proffered to
exclude all uses permitted in the B3 (Industrial Transition) and M1 (Light Industry)
Zoning Districts, unless such uses are otherwise permitted in the B 1 (Neighborhood
Business), B2 (General Business), or RP (Residential Performance) Zoning Districts.
Truck stops are expressly prohibited.
D. Section 4: Applicant to Pay 100% of Capital Facilities
(Proffer Statement, p. S, 6)
• Fiscal Impact Model - The Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact Model
demonstrated a fiscal impact to capital facilities in the amount of $5,327 per
residential unit. The applicant has proffered to accommodate 100% of this figure
through a combination of monetary contributions and land donations. It is noted that
land donations are assigned a value of $30,000 per acre.
• Consumer Price Index (CPI) - All proffered monetary contributions will be adjusted
every seven (7) years to reflect the Consumer Price Index (CPI) - All Urban
Consumers (Current Series).
• Active Adult Contributions & Premium - Capital facilities that are not directly
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 22
June 27, 2003
impacted by active adult housing, such as public schools, will not receive a monetary
contribution for such housing. However, the applicant has proffered to pay a 50%
premium on proffer contributions for fire and rescue per each active adult unit, in
excess of the impact figure identified by the impact model. The applicant has also
proffered to pay a 100% premium for fire and rescue per each elderly housing unit.
These premiums are intended by the applicant to off -set the increased demand on
fire and rescue services common with such populations.
E. Section 5: Monetary Contribution to Develop Heritage Tourism
(Proffer Statement, p. 7)
• Matching Funds - The applicant has proffered to make a direct contribution to
Shenandoah University Historical and Tourism Center in the amount of $75,000.
This contribution will be made in the form of matching funds intended to promote
heritage tourism.
• Implementation Note: The above -referenced contribution is not enforceable by
Frederick County and will occur as a private transaction between the applicant and
Shenandoah University Historical and Tourism Center.
F. Section 6: Monetary Contribution to Clear Brook Volunteer Fire and Rescue, Inc.
(Proffer Statement, p. 7)
• Direct Contribution - The applicant has proffered to make a direct contribution to
Clear Brook Volunteer Fire and Rescue, Inc. in the amount of $200,000. The
proffered funding will be dispersed in four installments pursuant to development
thresholds identified by proffer. This contribution is intended to mitigate the impact
of the development on volunteer fire and rescue services.
• Implementation Note: The above -referenced contribution is not enforceable by
Frederick County and will occur as a private transaction between the applicant and
Clear Brook Volunteer Fire and Rescue, Inc.
G. Section 7: Multi -Modal Transportation Improvements
(Proffer Statement, p. 7, 8, 9, 10, & 11)
• Major Collector Road - The applicant has proffered to dedicate an 80 foot right-of-
way and construct a major collector road from the project entrance on Old Charles
Town Road through Stephenson Village, and across properties currently owned by
McCann and Omps to U.S. Route 11 (Martinsburg Pike). The major collector road
will ultimately be completed as a four lane boulevard constructed pursuant to VDOT
standards. The applicant has proffered to include landscaped medians and bicycle
lanes with the major collector road.
• Major Collector Road Construction - The major collector road will be contructed in
phases, beginning with its development within Stephenson Village as a two lane
half -section. The major collector road will be constructed to its ultimate four -lane
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 23
June 27, 2003
configuration in increments, the development of which will be triggered by a series
of traffic volume thresholds measured through trip counters located at the project
entrance. The applicant has proffered that design of improvements will occur when
80% of a given volume threshold is reached and the completion of improvements
will occur within 18 months of the date of the 80% measurement.
• Active Adult Gated Community - The applicant has proffered that the entrance to
the active adult section of the development will be gated. The applicant intends to
serve the active adult community exclusively with private roads constructed to
VDOT public road standards.
• Old Charles Town Road Improvements - The applicant has proffered to complete
all necessary entrance improvements at the intersection of the major collector road
and Old Charles Town Road during the first phase of development. Moreover, the
applicant has proffered to execute signalization agreements with VDOT for the
intersections of Old Charles Town Road and Route 11 and the major collector road.
Actual signalization will occur when warranted by VDOT. Pursuant to a specified
traffic volume threshold, the applicant has proffered to bond and commence
construction of a three -lane section of Old Charles Town Road from the Stephenson
Village entrance to Route 11.
• Interstate 81 Interchange Improvement Contribution - The applicant has proffered
to contribute $50,000 in matching funds for use by either VDOT or Frederick
County for improvements to the Interstate 81 - Route 11 interchange at Exit 317.
H. Section 8: School and Ball Field Sites, Community Facilities and Public Use Areas
(Proffer Statement, p. 11, 12)
• School Site - The applicant has proffered to dedicate 20 acres of land to the
Frederick County School Board for use as a public school site. This site is shown
on the proffered Generalized Development Plan (GDP) as Land Bay I. The
applicant intends to apply this acreage to the open space requirement for the
development.
• Soccer and Ballfield Site - The applicant has proffered to dedicate 24 acres of land
to Frederick County or such other entity as Frederick County designates for public
recreation sites. This site is shown on the proffered Generalized Development Plan
(GDP) as Land Bay II. The applicant intends to apply this acreage to the open space
requirement for the development.
I. Section 9: Recreational Amenities and Linear Park
(Proffer Statement, p. 13, 14)
• Recreational Center - The applicant has proffered to construct a recreation center
within the mixed residential area (Land Bay III). This facility may be located
anywhere within said land bay at the discretion of the applicant. However, the
location of the recreation center will be identified on the Master Development Plan
(MDP) applicable to this portion of the development. The applicant has proffered
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 24
June 27, 2003
that the recreation center will include a bathhouse and a 6 -lane, 25 meter
competition swimming pool. This facility is intended for use by residents of the
development. The bonding and completion of this amenity will occur pursuant to
development thresholds specified by proffer.
• Active Adult Recreation Center - The applicant has proffered to construct a
recreation center within the active adult land bay (Land Bay IV) for use by residents
of the active adult community. The bonding and completion of this amenity will
occur pursuant to development thresholds specified by proffer.
• Pedestrian Trail Sidewalk System - The applicant has proffered to construct a
pedestrian trail or sidewalk system to link the recreation centers to the surrounding
neighborhoods.
• Linear Park Trail - The applicant has proffered to dedicate a fifteen -foot wide trail
easement to the Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department for the purposes
of a linear park trail. The trail will be located within the Hiatt Run Corridor and
extend along the length of the corridor, a distance of approximately 3,800 linear feet,
as depicted on the proffered Generalized Development Plan (GDP). The applicant
has proffered to construct a six-foot wide asphalt or concrete trail within the
dedicated easement. The applicant intends to apply the area of the Hiatt Run
Corridor, to include the trail, to the open space requirement of the development.
J. Section 10: Active Adult Age -Restricted Housing
(Proffer Statement, p. 14, 1 S)
• Deed Language - The applicant has included the language to be recorded with the
deeds for designated active adult age -restricted properties.
• Implementation Note - The provisions included in this section are not enforceable
by Frederick County. Implementation of rules and regulations concerning the
occupancy of designated active adult age -restricted units is the sole responsibility
of the applicant and/or the governing Homeowner's Association.
K. Section 11: Affordable Housing for the Elderly
(Proffer Statement, p. 15)
• Provision of Affordable Housing for the Elderly - The applicant has proffered to
develop affordable housing for the elderly at such time that 50% of the proffered
retail space (95,000 square feet) has been developed and pursuant to all necessary
state and federal approvals. Moreover, such housing will only be constructed if the
project qualifies for government funding dispersed through the Multi -Family Loan
Program and the Low income Housing Tax Credit Program or equivalent. The
applicant has proffered that should such funding prove unattainable, any units
planned for affordable elderly housing will be developed as active adult age -
restricted units.
L. Section 12: Preservation of Historical and Cultural Resources
(Proffer Statement, p. 16)
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 25
June 27, 2003
• Byers House - The applicant has proffered to preserve the potentially significant
Samuel Byers House. The applicant has reserved the right to adaptively reuse the
structure as they deem appropriate.
• Cemeteries -The applicant has proffered to identify and preserve any cemeteries
found on the project site.
M. Section 13: Commercial Center
(Proffer Statement, P. 16, 17)
• Commercial Center Location and Development - The applicant has proffered to
locate a commercial center on land identified as Land Bay V on the proffered
Generalized Development Plan (GDP). The applicant has proffered a maximum of
250,000 square feet of commercial land use in Stephenson Village, of which the
majority will be located in the commercial center. Smaller commercial nodes may
be located within the mixed residential land bay (Land Bay III).
• Minimum Commercial Space Guaranteed - The applicant has proffered to construct
60,000 square feet of commercial space within the commercial center no later than
the issuance of the 1,500' non -age restricted residential building permit. The
applicant has further proffered to complete development of this space within 18
months of commencement of construction. The applicant has attached two caveats
to the timing of construction of the proffered commercial space. Notably, the
applicant reserves the right to delay commencement of commercial construction for
a two year period beyond the date of issuance of the 1,500`h residential building
permit should either of the following occur: (1) an elementary school has not been
constructed within the community; or, (2) a building permit is obtained for
development of a new grocery store within a three mile radius of the planned
Stephenson Village commercial center location.
N. Section 14: Rent Free County Office Space
(Proffer Statement, p. 17)
• Office Space - The applicant has proffered to provide up to 2,500 square feet of shell
space for a ten (10) year period within the commercial center for the location of a
public service satellite facility for Frederick County. Per the proffer, Frederick
County must build out and occupy the space within two (2) years of completion of
the base building. Should such occupancy fail to occur with the two year time
period, the space will revert back to the applicant.
O. Section 15: Community Design for a Strong Sense of Place
(Proffer Statement, p. 17, 18, 19)
• Design - The applicant has proffered to coordinate design to ensure aesthetic
continuity throughout the development. Such continuity will be achieved through
the use of uniformly applied custom treatments, such as: custom street sign and
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 26
June 27, 2003
fixtures, standardized fencing, and community color themes. Also, the applicant has
proffered to employ decorative treatments at all entrance monuments. No
illustratives detailing design features are provided with the proffer statement.
• Architecture - The applicant has proffered to employ the architectural styling
depicted on the housing unit type exhibits for the following housing unit types:
carriage house, non -alley carriage house, cottage house, and courtyard cluster. It is
further proffered that other housing types utilized in the development will
incorporate compatible architectural treatments.
• Fire Protection System - The applicant has proffered to install 13-D type sprinkler
systems in all courtyard cluster and cottage houses as well as in the garages
accompanying these housing types.
P. Section 16: Environmental Features and Habitat Preservation
(Proffer Statement, p. 19, 20, 21)
• Buffer and Conservation Easements - The applicant has proffered a one-bundred
(100) foot wide "non -disturbance" buffer adjacent to each side of Hiatt Run and the
Wetlands Intermittent Ravine Channel. This buffer will be located wholly outside
of platted lots. The Hiatt Run Corridor and the Wetlands Intennittent Ravine
Channel are located as shown on the proffered Generalized Development Plan
(GDP) and are designated by the applicant as resource protection areas.
• Flood Plain Buffer - No platted lot will be located closer than twenty (20) feet to the
limits of the 100 -year flood plain. The ten (10) feet of this buffer located
immediately adjacent to the flood plain will remain undisturbed. Should this area
be disturbed during development, it will be replanted as specified by proffer.
• Hiatt Run Corridor - As noted above, the Hiatt Run Corridor is identified as a
resource protection area by the applicant. The applicant has proffered a minimum
buffer of twenty (20) feet adjacent to all wetland preservation areas, which are
generally coincident with or in close proximity to the Hiatt Run Corridor. The
vegetation located on the south side of the corridor will be preserved and/or
reforested pursuant to a Forest Management Plan that will be developed with input
from the Virginia Department of Forestry. Moreover, the applicant has proffered to
install native plantings on the north side of the corridor in an effort to protect
riparian resources and enhance wildlife and bird habitats.
• Wetlands Intermittent Ravine Channel - As noted above, the Wetlands Intermittent
Ravine Channel is identified as a resource protection area by the applicant. The
applicant has proffered to provide native plantings within this area to form an upland
buffer. Individual platted lots may be located within this zone; however, clearing
and grading will be prohibited via restrictive covenants, with the Homeowner's
Association bearing responsibility for enforcement of said restrictions.
• Forest Management Plan - The applicant has proffered to prepare a Forest
Stewardship and Management Plan with technical assistance from the Virginia
Department of Forestry. This plan will identify native vegetation and tree clusters
to be preserved on the site and delineate resource management practices to ensure
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 27
June 27, 2003
effective conservation.
Q. Section 17: Community Curbside Trash Collection
(Proffer Statement, P. 21, 22)
• Commercial Trash Collection - The applicant has proffered that the proposed
development will be served by private trash removal contractors. The applicant
intends to assign full responsibility for enforcement of this proffer to the
Homeowners Association.
R. Section 18: Water and Sewer Improvements in the Stephenson Area
(Proffer Statement, p. 22)
• Pump Station Construction - The applicant has proffered to dedicate land for a
regional pump station pursuant to the selection of said property by the Frederick
County Sanitation Authority (FCSA). The applicant has further proffered to
construct the pump station prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit in
Stephenson Village.
• Infrastructure Construction - The applicant has proffered to construct all water and
sewer lines required to serve private land uses within Stephenson Village in
accordance with the provisions of the FCSA Route 11 North Sewer and Water
Service Area Plan. Moreover, the applicant has proffered to extend adequately sized
water and sewer lines to the property boundary of all land dedicated for public uses.
S. Section 19: Comprehensive Plan Conformity
(Proffer Statement, p. 22)
• Public Facilities - Acceptance of the proffer statement will serve as the formal
authorization for the provision and location of those public uses and facilities
referenced in the proffer statement and on the Generalized Development Plan
(GDP), to include the extension of water and sewer lines, pursuant to Virginia Code
Section 15.2-2232 and the Frederick County Code. No further review for
Comprehensive Plan conformance would be necessary.
T. Section 20: Creation of Homeowners Association(s)
(Proffer Statement, p. 23)
• This proffer provision acknowledges the applicant's responsibility to establish one
or more Homeowners Associations for Stephensons Village.
U. Section 21: Proffered Housing Types
(Proffer Statement, p. 23, 24)
• Unique Housing Types - The applicant has proffered the inclusion of several
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 28
.lune 27, 2003
housing types that will be new to the Frederick County market. Specifically, the
following unique housing types will be developed: Carriage House, Non -Alley
Carriage House, Cottage House, Courtyard Cluster, and Elderly Housing. The
applicant has also proffered alternative dimensional standards for single family
detached and townhouse housing types, which the applicant refers to as "modified
single family detached" and "modified townhouse attached dwelling."
V. Section 22: Streetscape Design and Landscaping
(Proffer Statement, p 24, 25)
•
Major Collector Road Landscaping - The applicant has proffered to provide
landscaped areas on each side of the major collector road as detailed in Exhibit D.
Such landscaping is proposed coincident with a request for modification of the road
efficiency buffer required by ordinance. The applicant has proffered to install
landscaping along the roadway as specified by proffer.
W. Section 23: Community Signage Program
(Proffer Statement, p. 25, 26)
• Entrance Si -ng_age - The applicant has proffered dimensions for the monument style
entrance signs to Stephenson Village. Moreover, entry features distinguishing the
neighborhoods within the community will be provided. No illustratives have been
provided for such signage.
• Freestanding Commercial Signns - The applicant has proffered that freestanding
commercial signs shall be monument style and will be limited in height to twenty
(20) feet. Such signs shall be spaced a minimum of one hundred (100) feet.
Commercial signage will incorporate design elements comprising the entrance
features of surrounding neighborhoods.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 07/02/03 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
This application is a request to rezone approximately 821 acres of RA -zoned property to the R4 District
to facilitate development of a planned residential community consisting of 2,800 dwelling units and
250,000 square feet of commercial uses with 44 acres dedicated for public uses. The Comprehensive
Policy Plan specifically addresses the planned land use of the subject parcels through the policies
adopted with the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP). These policies recommend the establishment of
industrial land use on the parcels. The requested rezoning is, therefore, inconsistent with the adopted
land use policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
It is important to reiterate that the modifications requested by the applicant are essential to the viability
of the proffered development program. Absent these modifications, the development parameters
proposed for Stephenson Village will not comply with the requirements of the R4 District.
OUTPUT MODULE
APPLICANT: Stephenson Village Net Fiscal Impact
LAND USE TYPE planned resident! Costs of Imoact Credit, Credits to be Taker
REAL EST VAL $252,146,793 Required (entered in Cur.
Total Potential
Adjustment For
Budget Cur. Budget Cap, Future CIP/
FIRE & RESCUE: 1 Capital Facilities col sum only) Oper Cap E% Exoend/Debt S. Taxes. Other
Tax Credits
Revenue- Net Capital
Net Cost Per
(Unadiusted)
Cost Balance Facilities Impact
Dwelling Unit
Fire and Rescue Department $1,114,428
Elementary Schools $8,329,104
$0
$0 $1,114,428
$398
Middle Schools $4,691,301 $1,306,095 $6,340,279
High Schools . $6,203,164
$7,646,374
$7,646,374 $11,577,196
$4,135
Parks and Recreation $3,215,147 $724,587
Public Library $558,949
$724,587
$724,587 $2,490,560
$889
$156,324
Sheriffs Offices $330,810 $373,481 $0 $67,565
$156,324
$441,046
$156,324 $402,625
$441,046
$144
Administration Building $424,539 $0
$0
$0
Other Miscellaneous Facilities $541,618 $724,920 $800,357
$0
$1,525,278
$0 $424,539
$1,525,278
$152
$0
$0
SUBTOTAL $25,409,061 $2,404,496 $7,140,636 $948,477
LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT $0
$10,493,609
$10,493,609 $14,915,452
$5,327
NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT
$0
$0
� •�"
s
INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Included: 1.0
INDEX: "I.0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Cc Avg: 0.0
Rev -Cost Bal =
0,878
PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES - 1.0 1.0 Ratio
------------------------ —------------------------ --------------p
to Cc Avg =
1.178
---- -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
METHODOLOGY: 1. Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model.
----------
2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input in row total of second column
(zero if negative); included are the one-time taxes/fees for one year only at full value.
3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts.
4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated in fiscal impacts.
5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as
calculated for each new facility.
6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital
facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues
from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development).
NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include interest If
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the projects are debt
financed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model Run Date 01109/03 ERL
-----------------------------------
Project Description: Assumes 1,020 Single Family, 580 Townhouses, and 1,200 Multi -Family Dwellings; and
190,000 square feet Retail and 60,000 feet
square Office on 825 acres zoned R4 District.
Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this
Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date.
2002MODEL
M1 MADISON
RA MADISON
Lr C
CRIDER 1 \ 4d A lass
mi
& SHOCKE 'ROAR
RP RA
4e J
`761
T"
636 44 A 31
d STT°
i STEPHENSON ASSOCIATES, LC
Fm
662
44 A 292
' ,,�.. �• �
STEPHENSON ASSOCIATES, LC
44 A 25 SLAUGHTER 7�
BENHAMp�
M 44RA29 opp+ f
44 A 293
44 A 28 STEPHENSON ASSOCIATES, LC
PA
BENHAM
* .001
FRAA 294
4 � . AITHEN: -
\B2
44 A 31 A
STEPHENSON ASSOCIATES, LC 44 A 294A
55 7 15 AI7KEN
` RA YSIRBAUGHT�
RA -- 955 7 14 RA
\ G MEIER
7 13 RA a
e v^ti+0 c "m k1 MIDDLETON ���' 660
ffiZ « OQ «OQ c m RA 7 aglr
661
N PENTON
Y q
/ � 'I
REZ #06 - 03
Sterhansoo : Village
PINs:
44 -A -31,31A
44 - A - 292, 293
N
WG
S
0 300600 Feet
PROFFER STATEMENT
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED COMMUNITY
Rezoning #
Property Owner/Applicant: Stephenson Associates, L.C.
Property: 821.7+/- Acres, Tax Map Nos. 44 -((A)) -31A, 44-((A))-292, 44-((A))-293, and
A Portion of Tax Parcel 44-((A))-31
Stonewall Magisterial District
Frederick County, Virginia
Date: January 8, 2003
Revised: March 7, 2003
Revised: April 24, 2003
Stephenson Associates 030703
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Stephenson Associates 030703
P2ge
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
i
1.
COMMUNITY DESIGN MODIFICATION DOCUMENT
2
2.
PHASING PLAN TO MINIMIZE SUDDEN IMPACTS ON
COUNTY SERVICES
2
3.
USES, DENSITY AND MIX OF HOUSING TYPES
3
4.
APPLICANT TO PAY 100% OF CAPITAL FACILITY IMPACTS
5
5.
MONETARY CONTRIBUTION TO DEVELOP HERITAGE TOURISM
7
6.
MONETARY CONTRIBUTION TO CLEAR BROOD VOLUNTEER FIRE
AND RESCUE, INC.
7
7.
MULTI -MODAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
7
8.
SCHOOL AND BALLFIELD SITES, COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND PUBLIC
USE AREAS
11
9.
RECREATIONAL AMENITIES AND LINEAR PARK
13
10.
ACTIVE ADULT AGE -RESTRICTED HOUSING
14
11.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY
15
12.
PRESERVATION OF HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
16
13.
COMMERCIAL CENTER
16
14.
RENT FREE COUNTY OFFICE SPACE
17
15.
COMMUNITY DESIGN FOR A STRONG SENSE OF PLACE
17
16.
ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES AND HABITAT PRESERVATION
19
17.
COMMUNITY CURBSIDE TRASH COLLECTION
21
18.
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE STEPHENSON AREA
22
19.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONFORMITY
22
20.
CREA'T'ION OF HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION(S)
23
21.
PROFFERED HOUSING TYPES
23
22.
STREETSCAPE DESIGN AND LANDSCAPING
24
23.
COMMUNITY SIGNAGE PROGRAM
25
Stephenson Associates 030703
Executive Summary
Of the Proffer Statement for the
Stephenson Village Residential Planned Community
The proffers for Stephenson Village define the conditions for the construction and
maintenance of a residential planned community based on Smart Growth principles. As
envisioned, Stephenson Village will feature a school, public ball fields, recreation
centers, trails and convenient shopping that will tie the neighborhoods of Stephenson
together and serve as a vital center. Stephenson Village itself will have a distinctive look,
a strong architectural theme, and a mixture of housing types to meet the needs of people
of all ages, including an age -restricted active adult community and affordable housing for
the elderly.
The plan emphasizes walkable neighborhoods—with boulevards, sidewalks, bike
paths and trails throughout. In addition to the 108.5 acres in the core battlefield area
(which is not included in the rezoning request), the 822 -acre parcel will have
approximately 200 to 250 acres of open space.
Build -out of Stephenson Village is anticipated to take 20 to 25 years. The proffers
provide a balance of design and market flexibility and County control over uses and
densities.
Planned Community Design
Stephenson Village will use compact building design with extensive architectural
and landscaping standards to create distinctive streetscapes. The proffers specify six new
housing types and illustrate floor plans for each. The housing types will be mixed within
each neighborhood. To assure overall mixing while maintaining flexibility, the proffers
establish maximum percentages for single-family detached, multi -family (townhouse and
semi-detached) and age -restricted housing.
The design will provide opportunities for people to live, work and shop in the
same community. The school and public ball field sites will be located on the north side
of the property, along Old Charles Town Road. The center of Stephenson Village will
have affordable housing for the elderly and 250,000 square feet of commercial and office
space (60,000 square feet guaranteed), including space for a rent-free Frederick County
satellite office. Land will be set aside for a day care center in an appropriate location.
The south side of Stephenson Village will include a large age -restricted (55 and
over) "active adult" community. This will be a gated community with its own, recreational
facilities and private streets and alleys. In addition, the Applicant will provide a minimum
of 144 units for the elderly after sufficient retail space has been occupied to qualify for
Federal affordable -housing programs.
Stephenson Associates 030703
The proffers establish an overall density cap of 2,800 units, an average of 3.4
units per acre. To avoid sudden impacts on County schools and other services, the
proffers establish a cumulative yearly construction cap of 8% on all units that are not age -
restricted. Since age -restricted housing has positive tax impact on County budgets and no
impact on schools, these unit types will be exempt from the phasing plan.
Covering 100% of Capital Facilities Impacts
Economic analysis of Stephenson Village indicates that its proffer payments,
taxes and fees will more than cover the cost of County services.
The Applicant will cover 100% of the capital costs predicted by the County fiscal
impact model for each housing type. These proffer fees will be adjusted periodically
using the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
Additional proffer fees may be assessed by Frederick County if school population
from the project is higher than projected. If the cumulative total increase in students from
Stephenson Village exceeds 60 students a year, the County may assess an additional
proffer fee of $3,925 for each additional student.
Transportation Improvements
The Applicant will make transportation improvements to maintain acceptable
levels of service on existing roads. These improvements will be triggered by actual traffic
counts, with levels specified in the proffers, at permanently installed traffic counters at
the entrance on Old Charles Town Road and the southwestern entrance. This will allow
us to anticipate traffic increases rather than react to them. Design and construction will
begin when traffic reaches 80 percent of the trigger point.
A four -lane boulevard will serve the community as the major collector road. This
road, identified in the County Comprehensive Policy Plan, runs from Old Charles Town
Road in the north to Route 11 in the south. The sides and medians of this boulevard will
be heavily landscaped outside of conservation and tree -save areas. The boulevard will
have bicycle lanes on each side, and sidewalks or walking trails for the entire length in
Stephenson Village. The road will be built first in a two-lane half section, beginning at
Old Charles Town Road. The road will be extended to Route 11 and the second two-lane
section constructed when traffic counts reach specified limits. This major collector road
will be dedicated to VDOT.
The Applicant has obtained rights-of-way and easements for off-site
transportation improvements and will execute agreements with VDOT. Traffic
improvements will include: completing the two-lane half -section of the major collector
road, extending the major collector road to the Rutherford Farm intersection at Route 11,
widening Old Charles Town Road to three lanes between the entrance and Route 11,
signalizing (with tum lanes) the northern entrance, and signalizing (with turn lanes) of the
ii Stephenson Associates 030703
intersection between Old Charles Town Road and Route 11. Stephenson Village will also
contribute its share of regional improvements to I-81 interchange 317.
School Site and Recreation Facilities
As envisioned, Stephenson Village will have a public school and extensive public
ball fields within walking distance of the community. The Applicant will dedicate 20
acres to the County for a school site, accessible from Old Charles Town road and
Stephenson Village. Next to the school site, the Applicant will dedicate 24 acres, which
when combined with the school playing fields will provide six soccer fields and six
baseball fields for soccer and Little League teams.
The recreation center at Stephenson Village will be fully bonded at the outset and
constructed early in the project. This recreation center will include a bathhouse and a six -
lane 25 -meter competition swimming pool.
The Applicant will dedicate a 15 -foot linear park trail easement to the County
within the Hiatt Run Corridor from one end of the property to the other, and will
construct at no cost a six-foot wide asphalt trail.
Additional recreation facilities (such as playgrounds, tot lots, multipurpose courts,
basketball courts, picnic areas and volleyball courts) will be built to satisfy any remaining
requirements of County zoning. The Applicant will also construct a recreation center for
the private use of the active adult community.
Environmental Improvements
There is an opportunity to improve the quality of Hiatt Run and associated
wetlands through better stormwater control. Most (over 90%) of the soils on the property
will not support crops without heavy amendment. Much of the soil has low permeability,
which has historically caused stormwater runoff problems in the streams, ditches and
ravines.
Approximately 200 to 250 acres of the property will be left in open space. The
Applicant will identify and preserve all significant wildlife habitats and steep slopes.
Streams will be protected by 100 -foot buffers between the centerline of the stream and
adjacent lots. The Hiatt Run Corridor and the Wetlands Intermittent Ravine Channel will
be resource protection areas. To the maximum extent possible, intermittent streams and
associated stands of mature trees will not be disturbed, and native plants and trees will be
used in the forest management plan.
Low impact development methods will be used as appropriate for stormwater
management and road construction. These will include measures to direct runoff from
steep slopes and use existing ponds where beneficial to the environment. Additional
ponds, infiltration areas and bio -retention facilities will be developed to limit runoff to
111 Stephenson Associates 030703
Hiatt Run. When conditions permit, vegetated open channels will be used along streets
for storm water runoff.
Utility Improvements
Stephenson Village will use public water and sewer, and bring the opportunity for
sewer connections to surrounding neighborhoods with access to gravity mains. Currently,
the Northern Water Treatment plant provides 1.5 million gallons per day from the Global
Chemstone Quarry, which is more than adequate to supply the 683,000 gallons per day
demand of the completed community. None of the utility infrastructure associated with
the project will cost the County taxpayers money. The Applicant will dedicate land to the
Frederick County Sanitation Authority, build a pump station, and build a force main and
associated infrastructure. Low impact construction methods will be used where force
mains and buried utility lines cross sensitive areas.
Electric, broadband and telephone utilities will be buried throughout the project.
Public lighting, as well as the exterior lighting of homes, will use fixtures that direct light
down and minimize stray illumination. Trash collection will be provided by a commercial
service and will not use Frederick County Citizen Convenience Centers.
In lieu of land for a fire/rescue site, the Applicant has increased the cash proffers.
The Applicant has proffered to contribute $200,000 to Clear Brook Volunteer Fire
and Rescue Inc. This contribution is not counted as part of the proffer fees to the County.
Preservation of Historic and Cultural Resources
The Byers House will be preserved and used as deemed appropriate by the
Applicant. Significant archeological areas and cemeteries (if any) will be preserved.
The Applicant is proffering $75,000 in matching funds to help the County
develop heritage tourism.
Smart Growth
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency encourages smart growth communities
like the proposed Stephenson Village. Cluster development controls sprawl and its
associated environmental and fiscal impacts by making development more predictable
and cost effective, and by directing resources toward existing communities. Stephenson
Associates L.C. is committed to making Stephenson Village --the first smart growth
community in Frederick County --a success and a model for development in the region.
1V Stephenson Associatcs 03070,
PROFFER STATEMENT
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
1R FS YDF,NTI A 1, PT ,, A NNF I) COMM! TNITV
Rezoning #
Property Owner/Applicant: Stephenson Associates, L.C.
Property: 821.7+/- Acres, Tax Map Nos. 44 -((A)) -31A, 44-((A))-292, 44-((A))-293, and
A Portion of Tax Parcel 44-((A))-31
Stonewall Magisterial District
Frederick County, Virginia
Date: January 8, 2003
Revised: March 7, 2003
Revised: April 24, 2003
The undersigned, Stephenson Associates, L.C., (hereinafter referred to as Applicant), its
successors and/or assigns, hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property shall
be in strict accordance with the following conditions and shall supersede all other proffers made prior
hereto. In the event the above -referenced amendments are not granted as applied for by the Applicant,
the below described proffers shall be withdrawn and null and void. The headings of the proffers set
forth below, the Table of Contents and the Executive Summary have been prepared for convenience or
reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any
provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of
development of that portion of the site adjacent to the improvement, unless otherwise specified herein.
References made to the Master Development Plan, hereinafter referred to as the Generalized
Development Plan, as required by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, are to be interpreted to be
references to the specific Generalized Development Plan sheets prepared by Greenway Engineering
and Land Planning and Design Group dated March 2003, attached as Exhibit A.
The exact boundary and acreage of each land bay may be shifted to a reasonable degree at the
time of site plan submission for each land bay in order to accommodate engineering or design
considerations.
The Applicant is submitting a Generalized Development Plan (Exhibit A) as a part of the
rezoning application. The Generalized Development Plan is provided in lieu of a Master Development
Plan, and contains all information deemed appropriate by the Frederick County Planning Department.
The Generalized Development Plan does not eliminate the requirement for a Master Development
Plan for the portion of the site to be developed, which will be provided following rezoning approval
but prior to any development of any portion of the 821.7+/- acre site (Property)_
Stephenson Associates 030703
COMMUNITYDESIGN MODIFICATION DOCUMENT.
In order for the Applicant and Frederick County to implement the Residential Community, it will be
important for the Applicant and Frederick County Planning Staff to have the opportunity to anticipate,
inco—orate and to develop new advanced housing types and configurations that may be suitable in a
Residential Planned Community. These housing types will include many of the neo -traditional
housing types which are proffered in this Proffer Statement which allow for the creation of a true
community and for the maximization and preservation of natural corridors and open space for the use
and enjoyment of the community at large.
A. Pursuant to Article II, Amendments of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, the
approval of this Proffer statement constitutes an amendment to the zoning ordinance, which will
allow the expansion of the R4 District and the Urban Development Area.
B. The Applicant has proffered a Community Design Modification Document that is
attached and incorporated by reference herein as Exhibit F, and which is accepted by Frederick
County.
In addition to the above, by approving this Proffer Statement, the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors agrees without need of any further Board of Supervisors or Planning Department approval
to any modifications for any matter which has been previously agreed to and therefore approved by
Frederick County. Further still, any submitted revisions to the approved Generalized Development
Plan, the approved Master Development Plan and/or any of its requirements for any development
zoned R-4 which affect the perimeter of the development or which would increase the overall density
of the development shall require the Board of Supervisors' approval. If, in the reasonable discretion of
the Frederick County Planning Department, the Planning Department decides any requested
modification should be reviewed by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, it may secure said
approval by placing this matter before the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at its next regularly
scheduled meeting. However, and not withstanding what is stated above, once a modification has
been approved administratively, the Applicant shall not be required to seek approval for any
subsequent similar modification.
2. PHASING PLAN TO MINIMIZE SUDDEN IMPACTS ON COUNTY SERVICES:
A. Additional Proffer Payment
To minimize sudden increases in the Frederick County Public School population and sudden impacts
on other county services, the Applicant shall implement the following phasing plan on all residential
housing that is not age -restricted.
To ensure that unanticipated increases in Frederick County Public School population do not burden
the county with extra costs, Frederick County may assess the Applicant to effectively double school -
related proffers for each student that exceeds a cumulative yearly total increase of 60 students per year.
The total number of new Frederick County Public School students generated by Stephenson Village
will be determined from the September 30 report produced by Frederick County Public Schools. The
Applicant proffers to reimburse Frederick County Public Schools for its cost of creating the September
2 Stephenson Associates 030703
30 report data related to Stephenson Village. This additional proffer payment will be provided to
Frederick County by the Applicant within 30 days of receipt of the September 30 report produced by
Frederick County Public Schools.
If the reported number of Frederick County Public School students generated by Stephenson Village
exceeds the cumulative total of 60 students per year (9/30/03=60, 9/30/04=120, etc.), the Applicant
shall pay an additional proffer payment of $3,925 as assessed by Frederick County for each Frederick
County Public School child that exceeds the cumulative total. The additional proffer payment will be
adjusted every seven years by the Consumer Price Index.
B. Limitation on Permits
(1) Calculation
The active adult housing units and the affordable housing for the elderly have been
removed from the restrictions imposed by the phasing plan and are not part of the
following phasing plan formula nor will they be included in the yearly building permit
tracking system. The overall density cap for Stephenson Village is 2,800 units. Once
the planned number of active adult housing units and the affordable housing for the
elderly have been removed, the adjusted total number of units subject to phasing
restriction is 2,125. The phasing allowed quantities shall be limited to 8% per year on a
cumulative yearly basis beginning with the date of approval of this rezoning based on
the following formula:
(2,800 — 675 to 1,475 range of age restricted units) x 8% + unused permits from
prior year(s) = maximum non -age restricted permits for current year
Any units not used in a given year shall be carried forward.
3. USES, DENSITY AND MIX OF HOUSING TYPES:
A. (1) The Applicant shall develop a mix of housing unit types to include those single-family
detached, townhouse and multifamily housing unit types described in the Land Bay
Breakdown Table in §3A(2) and further described in §21 of this proffer statement. Each of
the housing unit types in the R4 District, Section 165-67 of the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance, is either a single-family dwelling, townhouse or multifamily unit type. For
purposes of this Proffer, all of the above housing types shall be referred to as Mixed
Residential. The following list could be used as they currently exist within the R-4 portion
of the zoning ordinance.
(2) The following list of Land Bays within the Land Bay Breakdown Table sets forth
the development parameters on the Property and is consistent with the proffered
Generalized Development Plan identified as Exhibit A:
Stephenson Associates 030703
LAND BAY BREAKDOWN
LAND
LAND USE
ACREAGE
% OF TOTAL
BAY
HOUSING UNtiT
TYPES
MIN.
MAX.
I
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
20 Ac.
NA
NA
II
COMMUNITY PARK
24 Ac.
NA
NA
(6 baseball fields & 6 soccer fields)
III
MIXED RESIDENT IAL
502 Ac.
CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL/DAYCARE
7 Ac.*
NA
NA
SFD
30
64
(Housing Unit Type 1,2,4,5 & RP District SFD)
TOWNHOUSE
10
30
(Housing Unit Type 6 & RP District Townhouse)
MULTIFAMILY
7
35
(Condominiums, Elderly Housing, Housing Unit Type
3 & RP District Duplex, Multiplex & Atrium)
IV
ACTIVE ADULT
126 Ac.
19
53
SFD (Housing Unit Type 1,2 &5)
Multifamily (Condominiums, Elderly Housing,
Housing Unit Type 3)
V
COMMERCIAL CENTER
26 Ac.*
NA
NA
(Commercial Retail, Office & Public Service Satellite
Facility)
The actual acreage identified for each Land Bay is based on the bubble diagram calculated on the
proffered Generalized Development Plan and may fluctuate within 5% of the total acreage based on
final survey work.
Land Bay Breakdown Notes
(1) The above table represents the ranges for the referenced housing types as
proposed. The final mix will not exceed the 2800 unit cap and will be
comprised of house type combinations representing a mixture identified in the
table. The minimum and maximum percentages established apply to the
general categories of single family, townhouses, multifamily and active adult
4 Stephenson Associates 030703
units and are not intended to pertain to any one housing type in those
categories. The housing unit type maximum percentage for the general
categories of single family, townhouse, multifamily and active adult will not
exceed the percentages identified in the table and will not exceed the total unit
cap of 2,800 based on any combination.
*(2) The total commercial area will be a minimum of 4 % of the gross site area or
33 acres and will be located within Land Bays III and V.
(3) The Hiatt Run Corridor and the Wetlands Intermittent Ravine Channel are
approximately 125 acres. The remaining 121.5 acres of required open space will
be provided within Land Bays I, II, III and IV.
(4) The Applicant reserves the right to convert more of Land Bay III to active adult or
affordable housing for the elderly. In no case shall the percentage of active adult
or affordable housing for the elderly exceed 53% of the 2,800 total housing units.
B. For purposes of calculating density pursuant to the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance, all dedications and conveyances of land for public use and/or for the use of the
development or any Homeowners Association shall be credited in said calculations.
C. There shall be a unit cap of 2,800 dwelling units on the subject property.
D. In order to preclude unwanted industrial and heavy commercial uses, all land uses
within the B-3 District and the M -I District shall be prohibited, unless otherwise permitted in the RP
District, the B-1 District or the B-2 District. In no case shall truck stops be permitted within
Stephenson Village.
4. APPLICANT TO PAY 100% OF CAPITAL FACILITY IMPACTS:
The Frederick County Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model was applied to the Stephenson
Village rezoning on January 9, 2003. The results of this model run demonstrate a fiscal impact to
capital facilities in the amount of $5,327 per residential unit.
The Applicant will pay 100% of these impacts through monetary contributions and land
donations to Frederick County, unless otherwise specified by the proffer. The parties agree that the
value used for the land donations of $30,000 per acre is appropriate and acceptable.
These monetary contributions provide for the capital facilities irrr acts created by Stephenson
Village and shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance for each unit. The monetary
contribution will be adjusted every seven years by the Consumer Price Index — All Urban
Consumers (Current Series) See example at the end of this section.
The Applicant will pay for active adult units a 50% premium on proffer fees for fire and
rescue over and above the Frederick County Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model to cover any
5 Stephenson Associates 030703
increased service demand; similarly, the applicant will pay for affordable apartment units for the
elderly a 100% premium. However, these age -restricted units will not include monetary proffers for
various capital facilities, such as schools, that they do not impact.
The per unit monetary proffer for single family, townhouse and multifamily provides for:
$3,925.00 for Frederick County Public Schools ($4,135 per model less
$210 for land donation)
$635.00 for Frederick County Parks and Recreation ($889 per model less
$254 for land donation)
$400.00 for Frederick County Fire and Rescue
$145.00 for Public Library
$152.00 for Administration Building
The per unit monetary proffer for active adult units provides for:
$635.00 for Frederick County Parks and Recreation ($889 per model less
$254 for land donation)
$400.00 for Frederick County Fire and Rescue
200.00 50% Premium
$600.00 Total for Frederick County Fire and Rescue
$145.00 for Public Library
$152.00 for Administration Building
The per unit monetary proffer for the affordable housing for the elderly provides for:
$400.00 for Frederick County Fire and Rescue
400.00 100% premium
$800.00 Total for Frederick County Fire and Rescue
Should the index as currently published by the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics cease to be
published then the most nearly comparable index shall be used.
The following is an example of how the adjustment for inflation will be made.
Consumer Price Index — all Urban Consumers (Current Series) 1982-84=100
2003 Index (upon approval) estimated 183.00
2010 Index (seven years) estimated 225.00
2010 Index
2003 Index X Proffer Amount = Revised Proffer Amount
183 X $5,327 = $6,550
Stephenson Associates 030703
MONETARY CONTRIBUTION TO DEVELOP HERITAGE TOURISM:
In consideration of the approval of rezoning application # the Applicant shall
contribute $75,000 in matching funds to Shenandoah University Historical and Tourism Center to
promote heritage tourism. The money will be made available to the Shenandoah University Historical
and Tourism Center within 30 days of a written request for said funds by the Shenandoah University
Historical and Tourism Center for their disbursement.
6. MONETARY CONTRIBUTION TO CLEAR BROOK VOLUNTEER FIRE AND
RESCUE, INC:
To further mitigate the impact on fire and rescue services, the Applicant will pay to Clear
Brook Volunteer Fire and Rescue Inc. the sum of $200,000.00 for its general fund. This is over and
above the monetary contributions to Frederick County Fire and Rescue identified in §4 of this proffer
statement. This amount will be payable as follows:
$50,000.00 to be paid not later than nine months after zoning approval.
$50,000.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the 500' building permit in
Stephenson Village but not later than December 31, 2008.
$50,000.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the 1,000' building permit in
Stephenson Village but not later than December 31, 2013.
$50,000.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the 1,500`h building permit in
Stephenson Village but not later than December 31, 2018.
7. MULTI -MODAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS:
A. The following are improvements the Applicant will make to roads within the Property:
(1) Major Collector Road
(a) Pursuant to Section 7F (2), 7F (4) and 7F(5) of this proffer statement,
the Applicant shall dedicate an 80 foot right of way and construct the Major Collector Road from Old
Charles Town Road through Stephenson Village, and the properties currently owned by McCann and
Omps to U.S. Route 11 (Martinsburg Pike) in accordance with existing agreements executed between
all parties to insure conformance with the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. The width and
configuration of all travel lanes, medians and other elements of the major collector road shall be
provided by the Applicant as determined by VDOT.
Stephenson Associates 030703
(b) The Applicant shall provide landscaped areas along, within, and/or adjacent to
each side of the Major Collector Road in accordance with § 22-A of this
proffer.
(c) When the Major Collector Road is finally completed as a four lane divided
boulevard, the median will be naturally vegetated with a combination of both
woodland conservation areas and grassed areas supplemented with landscape
plantings. If approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT),
all plantings, other than those in woodland conservation areas, will be installed
by the Applicant and will have a maintenance agreement between VDOT and
the Applicant which will transfer to the Homeowners Association of
Stephenson Village (HOA) to cover all mowing, weeding, pruning, plant
replacements, and irrigation maintenance responsibilities. Irrigation systems
within the right-of-way will be designed as a separate system to allow the
portion of the irrigation system falling within the right-of-way to be terminated
if necessary without affecting the overall system.
(d) The Applicant shall provide bicycle lanes within the Major Collector Road
right of way over the property to be rezoned that are four feet in width and are
contiguous with the outside travel lanes of the Major Collector Road.
(e) The Applicant shall prohibit individual residential and commercial entrances
from intersecting Milburn Road (Route 662) and further proffers that the Major
Collector Road will be the only road crossing of Milburn Road.
(2) Interparcel Connections
The Applicant agrees to provide interparcel connections between land bays
within the Property at the time the respective land bays are developed and to the extent reasonably
possible.
(3) Private Streets, Alleys and Common Drives
(a) The Applicant shall provide for a gated community entrance for the
active adult portion of the overall community and shall serve the active adult community with a
complete system of private streets. The cross sectional dimension of pavement thickness and
compacted base thickness will meet or exceed the public street pavement section standards utilized by
VDOT.
(b) Where private alleys are utilized, the Applicant will provide one-way
alleys within a sixteen -foot (16') wide easement having twelve feet (12') of pavement with a two foot
(2') shoulder on both sides of the pavement throughout the entire community. All private alleys,
which intersect other private alleys at 90 degree angles or have turns at 90 degree angles shall provide
for a minimum turning radius of 25 feet. Private alleys, intersection, public or private streets, shall
provide curb cuts extending two feet beyond the paved edge of the standard alley width.
8 Stephenson Associates 030703
(c) Where private alleys are utilized to serve housing types that front on
private streets the Applicant shall provide for a minimum travel aisle width of 24 feet for the private
street. The 24 foot travel aisle shall be in addition to on street parking designed for the private street.
(d) When Housing Unit Type 4 (courtyard cluster) is developed, the
common drive shall meet the following standards:
(i) A minimum width of 20 feet
(ii) A minimum depth of pavement section shall be a four inch
compacted stone base and six inches of concrete or equivalent
material.
(iii) A "No Parking" sign shall be posted at the entrance to the
courtyard.
(iv) A fire hydrant shall be provided at the entrance to each corner
drive to the courtyard clusters. When common drives are
adjacent to or across the street from other courtyard cluster
common drives, only one hydrant shall be required.
(v) Visitor parking areas will be provided outside of the courtyard
cluster common drive area.
B. The applicant has acquired easements and/or rights of way over the properties
currently owned by McCann and Omps for the purpose of dedicating and constructing the Major
Collector Road and for improvements along the south side of Old Charles Town Road from Route
11 north to the CSX railroad. The Applicant will acquire any additional rights-of-way and/or
easements for all off-site transportation improvements proffered hereinafter. In the event the
Applicant is not able to acquire any of the said rights-of-way and/or easements, Frederick County
agrees to attempt to acquire such rights-of-way and/or easements by appropriate eminent domain
proceedings at the request of Applicant and Applicant shall be responsible for all payments made
to property owners for rights-of-way and/or easements so acquired. In the event that neither the
Applicant nor Frederick County successfully obtains the required rights-of-way or easements for
the offsite transportation improvements as required by the traffic study, the Applicant shall be
permitted to continue with the development as proposed without any further requirement of right-
of-way or easement acquisition or improvement.
C. The Applicant will install full size entrance improvements with right and left turn
lanes, in accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation design guidelines, at the
intersection of Old Charles Town Road and the Major Collector Road serving as the entrance to the
Stephenson Village Community during the first phase of development.
D. The Applicant will execute a signalization agreement with the Virginia Department of
Transportation for the intersection of U.S. Route 11 and Old Charles Town Road. Additionally, the
Stephenson Associates 030703
9
Applicant will construct full size entrance improvements with both a right turn lane and left turn lane
on Old Charles Town Road, and a right turn lane on U.S. Route 11 at said intersection. These
improvements will be installed in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation design
guidelines when warranted by VDOT.
E. The Applicant will execute a signalization agreement with the Virginia Department of
Transportation for the intersection of Old Charles Town Road and the Major Collector Road serving
as the entrance to the Stephenson Village Community. The Applicant will provide for the
signalization at the intersection of Old Charles Town Road and the Major Collector Road based on
the terms of this agreement when warranted by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
F. The Applicant will design and construct a four -lane boulevard Major Collector Road
for the Stephenson Village Community in substantial conformance with the proffered Generalized
Development Plan. The Major Collector Road will be constructed in two phases. The first phase
will be a two-lane half section that is constructed from Old Charles Town Road to the limits of the
development as depicted on the approved Master Development Plan. This phase of the Major
Collector Road will be constructed and bonded in segments in accordance with the approved
Subdivision Design Plan for Stephenson Village. The second phase of the Major Collector Road
will provide for the ultimate four -lane section with appropriate right and left turn lanes based on the
following program:
(1) The design of the transportation improvements identified in Sections 7(F)2 -
7(F)5 of this proffer statement will begin when 80% of the actual traffic count volume is
realized as identified in each Section. The completion of the improvements specified in each
Section will occur within 18 months of initial design.
(2) Once actual traffic counts of 7,996 vehicle trips per day have been
documented on the Major Collector Road, the Applicant will bond and
commence construction of the additional lanes to the existing Major
Collector Road to its ultimate four -lane section from Old Charles Town Road
to the limits of the Major Collector Road within the development.
(3) Once the actual traffic count reaches 10,570 vehicle trips per day on the
Major Collector Road, the Applicant will bond and commence construction
of a three -lane section of Old Charles Town Road, from the Entrance to
Stephenson Village to U.S. Route 11 using the existing bridge.
(4) Once the actual traffic count reaches 17,699 vehicle trips per day on the Major
Collector Road, the Applicant will bond and commence construction of a two lane
half section of the Major Collector Road from the limits of the four -lane section to
U.S. Route 11 at the Rutherford Farm Industrial Park intersection to include right and
left turn lanes on the east side of U.S. Route l 1 as determined by VDOT. The
Applicant agrees to enter into a signalization agreement with VDOT at the 1J.S.
Route 11/Rutherford Farm Industrial Park intersection if traffic signalization is not
otherwise provided at that time. Traffic counters will be installed at the southwestern
- entrance to Stephenson Village on the property as part of this improvement.
10 Stephenson Associates 030703
(5) Once the actual traffic count at the southwestern entrance to Stephenson
Village near the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park intersection reaches 7,996 vehicle
trips per day on the Major Collector Road, the Applicant will bond and commence
construction of the remaining additional lanes to the existing Major Collector Road
from the limits of the four -lane section to provide for the ultimate four -lane section
ending at the east side of U.S. Route 11.
G. The Applicant will provide $50,000 that shall be utilized as matching funds by
VDOT and/or the County of Frederick for future improvements to the Interstate 81/U.S. Route 11
interchange at Exit 317. This dollar amount is intended to assist VDOT and the County of
Frederick with this regional improvement. The $50,000 will be made available to VDOT or to
the County of Frederick, within 30 days of written request for said funds by the appropriate parry.
8. SCHOOL AND BALLFIELD SITES, COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND PUBLIC USE
AREAS:
A. School Site:
The Applicant shall dedicate 20 acres of land to the Frederick County School
Board for use as a public school site which shall count towards the overall
open space requirement for the development. Said site will occur within the
general location identified as Land Bay I on the Generalized Development
Plan (Exhibit A), adjacent to Old Charles Town'Road, which will allow
direct access to the site for citizens living outside of Stephenson Village. The
Applicant will allow access for Stephenson Village residents to the site from
a local neighborhood street, and will provide access to water and sewer at a
point reasonably acceptable to the School Board of Frederick County,
Virginia, along the property boundary, at the time the adjacent land bays are
developed. The Applicant shall convey said school site not later than six
months after it is requested by Frederick County or its designee in writing, at
no cost.
B. Soccer and Baseball Field Site:
(1) The Applicant shall dedicate 24 acres of land to Frederick County or such
other entity as Frederick County designates and as more specifically set forth below which, when
combined with school ball fields, will be used for 6 soccer fields and 6 baseball fields as shown on
the layout for School/Park Site (Exhibit C, graphic for illustrative purposes only), which shall count
towards the overall open space requirement for the development. Said site will occur within the
general location identified as Land Bay lI on the Generalized Development Plan (Exhibit A),
adjacent to Old Charles Town Road, which will allow direct access to the site for citizens living
outside of Stephenson Village. The Applicant will allow access for Stephenson Village residents to
the site from -a local neighborhood street and will allow access to water and sewer at a point
11 Stephenson Associates 030703
reasonably acceptable along the property boundary, at the time the adjacent land bays are developed.
The Applicant shall convey said soccer and baseball field site, not later than six months after it is
requested by Frederick County or designee in writing, at no cost.
(2) Frederick County at its sole discretion may convey or lease its ownership
interest in the soccer and baseball field sites to a corporation, trust or other entity which incorporates
the direction of both the public and private sectors to provide recreation opportunities for the public.
C. At the time the school and soccer and baseball fields sites are deeded to the County,
the Applicant shall provide, at the Applicant's expense, a boundary survey and shall stake the
corners of each site.
Before Frederick County assigns or conveys any ownership interest in the Property
conveyed herein by the Applicant to any third party, including, but not limited to the School Board
of Frederick County, Virginia, the third party will execute an agreement in recordable form which is
satisfactory to the applicant which will provide and confirm that said third party agrees to be bound
by the provisions of this Proffer Statement, including, but not limited to, provisions governing the
use of the Property to be conveyed and also the application of all restrictive covenants governing the
use of the Property and the construction of improvements upon it. By executing this Proffer
Statement, Frederick County also agrees to be bound to and comply with the same.
D. Notwithstanding the potential uses of the parcels referenced in subparagraphs A and
B above, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors shall have flexibility to determine the specific
use located within each land bay dedicated for public use purposes, provided that said uses are one of
those listed in subparagraphs A and B. Any other similar types of public uses shall be permitted
only with the consent of the Applicant and provided that the use is of an architectural style and uses
construction materials that are consistent with the restrictive covenants recorded against the property
conveyed. Furthermore, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors agrees that if the public purposes
are not constructed or installed, completed and in use on the parcels which are identified in
subparagraphs A and B above within ten years of the conveyance from the Applicant, said properties
may be purchased by the Applicant for the land value specified in §4 of this proffer statement. The
Frederick County Board of Supervisors hereby instructs and empowers its County Administrator to
execute such other deeds or documents, which shall be required to effect the terms of this provision.
E. The Applicant reserves the right to retain temporary and permanent grading, slope, utility,
drainage, storm water management and access easements on all public use parcels which
are dedicated to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors or the School Board of
Frederick County, Virginia, provided said easements do not preclude reasonable use and
development of the property for the intended purpose.
12 Stephenson Associates 030703
9. RECREATIONAL AMENITIES AND LINEAR PARK:
A. Recreational Center
The Applicant shall construct one (1) recreation center within the Land Bay identified as Land Bay
III as shown on the Generalized Development Plan (Exhibit A), for the use of the residents of the
Property and as determined by the Home Owners Association. The Applicant shall have the sole and
absolute right to determine within said land bay, where the facility shall be located. The Applicant
shall designate the location of the above facility on the Master Development Plan. The recreational
center shall include a bathhouse and a 6 -lane, 25 -meter competition swimming pool. The facility
will be fully bonded prior to the issuance of the first building permit. Work on this facility shall
commence prior to the issuance of the 250`h non -age restricted building permit and be completed
prior to issuance of the 8001h building permit for the non -age restricted housing products.
B. Active Adult Recreational Center
The Applicant shall construct one (1) recreation center within one of the Land Bays identified as
shown on the Generalized Development Plan, for the private use of the residents of the Active Adult
Community. This facility will be fully bonded prior to the issuance of the first building permit in the
Active Adult Community. Work on this facility shall commence prior to the issuance of the 150d'
building permit and be completed prior to issuance of the 350"' building permit in the Active Adult
Community.
C. Pedestrian Trail Sidewalk System
The Applicant shall construct a pedestrian trail or sidewalk system, which connects each recreation
area to the surrounding neighborhood. The final location and the granting of any such easements
and/or trails shall be at the subdivision design plan stage. Such trails or sidewalk system shall be
constructed of stone dust or wood chips or such other materials selected by the Applicantprovided
they are not part of the sidewalk system within the public right of way.
D. Linear Park Trail
A fifteen -foot wide trail easement shall be dedicated to Frederick County Parks and Recreation. The
location is to be determined by the Applicant and approved by the Frederick County Parks and
Recreation Department. The trail shall be provided within the Hiatt Run Corridor and run the length
of said corridor on the subject property for 3,800 +/- linear feet as shown on the proffered General
Development Plan (Exhibit A). The Applicant shall convey said easement after development of
adjoining parcels, or reasonable access is provided, and not later than six months after it is requested
by Frederick County Parks and Recreation in writing at no cost to Frederick County or Frederick
County Parks and Recreation. Any area so dedicated shall be included in the calculation of required
open space, and shall entitle the Applicant to recreational credit units for the value of the
construction of the trail and dedicated land. The Applicant reserves the right to retain temporary and
permanent grading. utility, sewer force main, slope, storm water management, construction and
drainage easements within said dedicated area, although only temporary easements shall be retained
as needed for. -the construction by the Applicant of the six-foot (6') wide asphalt or concrete trail
13 Stephenson Associates 030703
described herein. The asphalt or concrete trail at the discretion of the Frederick County Parks and
Recreation Department may be changed to other surface materials in an effort to promote low impact
development techniques.
Construction of said trail by the Applicant is contingent upon the proposed trail being allowed by all
applicable County and State ordinances, and limitations due to terrain and constructability
considerations. In the event that the public linear park trail is unable to be constructed due to County
or State ordinances, the Applicant shall develop the linear park trail as a private trail system for the
use of the residents of Stephenson Village. This private linear park trail shall count towards the open
space and recreational amenities requirements for Stephenson Village and will be constructed of
similar materials and standards identified in section 9C of this proffer statement.
10. ACTIVE ADULT AGE -RESTRICTED HOUSING
A. Applicant agrees that the following language shall be included in the deeds conveying
real property designated as age -restricted housing on that portion of the property.
At least eighty percent (80%) of the occupied residential units shall be occupied by at least
one person fifty-five (55) years of age or older and within such units the following conditions
shall apply:
(1) All other residents must reside with a person who is fifty-five (55) years of
age or older, and be a spouse, a cohabitant, an occupant's child eighteen (18)
years of age or older, or provide primary physical or economic support to the
person who is fifty-five (55) years of age or older. Notwithstanding this
limitation, a person hired to provide live-in, long term or terminal health care
of a person who is fifty-five (55) years of age or older for compensation shall
also occupy a dwelling during any time such person is actually providing
such care.
(2) Guests under the age of fifty-five (55) are permitted for periods of time not to
exceed sixty (60) days total for each such guest in any calendar year.
(3) If title to any lot or unit shall become vested in any person under the age of
fifty-five (55) by reason of descent, distribution, foreclosure or operation of
law, the age restriction covenants shall not work a forfeiture or reversion of
title, but rather, such person thus taking title shall not be permitted to reside
in such lot or unit until he/she shall have attained the age of fifty-five (55) or
otherwise satisfies the requirements as set forth herein. Notwithstanding, a
surviving spouse shall be allowed to continue to occupy a dwelling unit
without regard to age.
B. A maximum of twenty percent (20%) of the occupied age -restricted residential units
shall be allowed to be occupied by at least one person fifty (50) years of age or older and within such
units the following conditions shall apply:
14 Stephenson Associates 030703
(1) All other residents must reside with a person who is fifty (50) years of age or
older, be a spouse, a cohabitant, an occupant's child eighteen (18) years of
age or older, or provide primary physical or economic support to the person
who is fifty (50) years of age or older. Notwithstanding this limitation, a
person hired to provide live-in, long term or terminal health care to a person
who is fifty (50) years of age or older for compensation shall also occupy a
dwelling during any time such person is actually providing such care.
(2) Guests under the age of fifty (50) are permitted for periods of time not to
exceed sixty (60) days total for each such guest in any calendar year.
(3) If title to any lot or unit shall become vested in any person under the age of
fifty (50) by reason of descent, distribution, foreclosure or operation of law,
the age restriction covenant shall not work a forfeiture or reversion of title,
but rather, such person thus taking title shall not be permitted to reside in
such lot or unit until he/she shall have attained the age of fifty (50) or
otherwise satisfied the requirements as set forth herein. Notwithstanding, a
surviving spouse shall be allowed to continue to occupy a dwelling unit
without regard to age.
(4) The above-described use restrictions shall be amended from time to time in
accordance with applicable local and state regulations governing age
restricted housing and the Federal Fair Housing Act so long as the
substantive intent as set forth herein is maintained. In no event shall the
minimum age of residents be less than the ages set forth hereinabove.
C. Applicant agrees that the language in this Section or such other language as may be necessary
to comply with the requirements to qualify as Housing for Older Persons under the Federal Fair
Housing Act and the Fair Housing Act of Virginia shall be included in the deeds conveying real
property designated as age -restricted on that portion of the property.
11. AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY:
Subject to the provisions of this proffer statement, the Applicant will develop and build
apartment units to provide much needed affordable housing for the elderly. The Applicant will
comply with the necessary requirements to qualify these apartment units for the "Housing for
Older Persons" exception to familial status discrimination as allowed under the Federal Fair
Housing Act and the Fair Housing Act of Virginia. The construction of these apartment units will
begin after at least 50 percent of the retail space has been developed, provided that the approval of
appropriate federal and state housing authorities is obtained, and the project qualifies for the
Multi -Family Loan Program and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program or equivalent. In
the event that funding for the affordable housing for the elderly is not obtained, the Applicant
proffers to reapportion those units to the active adult community housing units.
15 Stephenson Associates 030703
12. PRESERVATION OF HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES:
A. Byers house: The Byers house will be preserved as deemed appropriate by
the Applicant.
B. Cemeteries: Prior to commencement of any earth disturbing activity in any
section of the Property, the applicant shall mark and identify any cemeteries which may be located
there. In the event any onsite cemeteries are found, the applicant shall preserve those cemeteries
in accordance with all County and State regulations.
13. COMMERCIAL CENTER:
The Applicant has identified an area as shown on the Generalized Development Plan (Exhibit
A) for a commercial center that will be developed at a time to be determined by Applicant. Within
the commercial center development, the following shall be provided:
A. The Applicant shall provide for all turn lanes and traffic signalization on the Major
Collector Road serving the commercial center as warranted by VDOT. The
Applicant shall conduct traffic impact analysis studies for each commercial site plan
submitted to Frederick County that will be reviewed and approved by VDOT to
determine when these improvements are warranted. A traffic signalization agreement
will be executed with VDOT by the Applicant to ensure that commercial uses
developed prior to the warrants for traffic signalization contribute their pro -rata share
for this improvement.
B. The Applicant shall record architectural and design restrictive covenants for the
commercial center and shall submit a copy to the Frederick County Planning Director
and the Frederick County Building Official with the first site plan within the
commercial center. Said covenants shall provide for the establishment of an
architectural review board for the purpose of review and approval of all architectural
elevations and signage for all commercial uses to assure a continuity of overall
architectural appearances within the entire commercial development.
C. The Applicant shall ensure that all commercial site plans submitted to Frederick
County for the commercial center are designed to implement best management
practices (BMP) to promote storm water quality measures. A statement will be
provided on each commercial site plan identifying the party or parties responsible for
maintaining these BMP facilities as a condition of site plan approval.
D. The areas within the commercial center that are not required to be graded or
cleared for the implementation of all approved site plans will remain undisturbed.
One-way travel aisles will be utilized where practical to reduce the impervious
- areas of parking lots within the commercial center.
16 Stephenson Associates 030703
E. The Applicant shall provide for a maximum of 250,000 square feet of commercial
land use in Stephenson Village. The majority of the commercial land use will be
located within the commercial center identified on the Generalized Development
Plan (Exhibit). The development of smaller areas of commercial land use will be
allowed in other areas of Stephenson Village. These commercial land use areas will
be provided on the detailed Master Development Plan associated with the
development of Stephenson Village.
F. The Applicant has identified an area as shown on the Generalized Development Plan
(Exhibit A) for a commercial center. The development of 60,000 square feet of
commercial space will begin within the commercial center no later than the issuance
of the 1,500`h non -age restricted residential building permit with completion of this
commercial space within 18 months. The Applicant will be allowed to extend the
commencement of commercial construction for an additional two year period if any
one of the following circumstances has occurred: An elementary school has not been
constructed on the Property; or a building permit is obtained for the development of a
new grocery store within a three mile radius of commercial center within Stephenson
Village.
14. RENT FREE COUNTY OFFICE SPACE:
The Applicant shall provide up to 2,500 square feet of shell space for a 10 year period rent
free exclusive of utility and common area maintenance (CAM) charges in the commercial center for
the location of a Public Service Satellite Facility for Frederick County. The shell space shall be
made available and commence upon the completion of the base building in which the space is
located. Frederick County must complete build out and occupy the space within two (2) years of the
completion of the base building. If Frederick County fails to build out and occupy the space within
the two (2) year period then the space will revert to the Applicant.
15. COMMUNITY DESIGN FOR A STRONG SENSE OF PLACE:
A. Design
The Applicant agrees to provide an overall continuity of design within the community
by means of selecting standards for the following elements, which will be uniformly specified and
applied over the entire project:
• Custom fixture street lighting program.
• Custom mailbox design
• Standardized common area fencing style and color
• Standardized private residential fencing styles and color
• Community color selections to create neighborhood theme
• uniform site furnishing selection (benches and trash receptacles)
• Custom designed street signage and stop signage
17 Stephenson Associates 030703
Landscaping at the entrance monuments, along the collector road buffers and
within the medians selected to provide for a repetition of the neighborhood
flower color scheme and theme trees throughout the community
The Applicant agrees to utilize innovative design techniques and quality design for
the recreational center and bathhouse, common area landscaping, site design, and architectural
design.
B. Architecture
(1) The architectural styling of Housing Unit Types 1 through 4 shall be
constructed in accordance with the Housing Unit Types Exhibit(s) proffered
herein. Housing Unit Types 5 and 6 shall be compatible with Housing Unit
Types 1 through 4.
(2) Access to garages by the use of alleys shall be allowed on Housing Unit
Types 1 (Carriage House), 3 (Cottage House), 5 (Modified Single -Family
Small Lot, and 6 (Modified Townhouse).
(3) Specific architectural elements that are allowed on Housing Unit Types, to
include Housing Unit Types 5 and 6 shall include, but are not limited to, the
use of peaked roofs, gables, chimneys, balconies or decks, porches and/or
garages.
C. Housing Unit Type 3 (Cottage House) and Unit Type 4 (Courtyard Cluster)
(1)
Decks and Patios
All deck planks shall be Class I (A) fire rated composite lumber or
approved equal of a standardized color to be selected by the Applicant. A
maximum of two styles of deck railing shall be used on all decks and shall
be made of the same composite lumber and the same matching color
selection.
(2) Fire Protection System
Courtyard Cluster and Cottage houses will have a 13-D sprinkler system in
the home and the garages.
D. Li htin
Any exterior lighting of individual homes or common use recreation areas shall be
directed downward and inward on the site to reduce glare on adjacent properties, the
public and/or private right-of-way, and upward stray illumination.
18 Stephenson Associates 030703
E. Architectural and Design Covenants
Stephenson Associates, L.C. shall develop architectural and design covenants for the
overall community. Said covenants will establish an architectural review board for
the purpose of review and approval of all architectural elevations, exterior
architectural features (fences, railings, walls and decks) for all uses within
Stephenson Village, as well as any publicly provided structures located on sites
dedicated for public use. These covenants are intended to assure a continuity of
overall architectural appearance, quality material selection, and a cohesive color
palate for all structures within the entire development.
16. ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES AND HABITAT PRESERVATION:
A. Environmental Features and Easements:
(1) Significant wildlife habitats shall be identified and preserved by the
Applicant with technical assistance from the Virginia Department of Game
and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). Wildlife or bird habitats shall be further
enhanced by providing native plantings selected to encourage feeding areas
while reestablishing forest in and around environmentally sensitive areas.
(2) The Applicant shall limit the clearing and grading on each lot to the area
needed for structures, utilities, access and fire protection to maximize tree
save areas.
(3) Unbuildable wetlands, unbuildable floodplain, and unbuildable steep slopes
shall be designated and shall be subject to the following:
(a) Grading: Protection of steeply sloped areas will be provided
by the Applicant as follows: clearing and grading will not occur on
any slopes of twenty five percent (25%) or greater, except for trails,
road crossings, utilities, drainage and storm water management
facilities.
(b) Floodplain Areas: Development within floodplain areas shall be
limited to the public Linear Park Trail system to include the trail,
pedestrian bridges, benches and signage.
(c)
Buffers and Conservation Easements:
(i) Buffer and Conservation Easements: A one -hundred foot
(100') wide nondisturbance buffer shall be provided outside of any platted lot immediately adjacent
to Hiatt Run and the Wetlands Intermittent Ravine Channel.
19 Stephenson Associates 030703
(ii) Conservation Easements/Floodplain: A twenty -foot (20')
wide buffer shall be provided outside of any platted lot immediately adjacent to the 100 -year
floodplain. The ten feet (10') adjacent to the floodplain shall be undisturbed. The ten feet (10')
adjacent to the lots shall be disturbed and, if disturbed, shall be re -vegetated by planting trees equal
to the number of trees in excess of six inches (6") caliper removed by the disturbance, OR at the rate
of 50 (2" caliper) trees per acre of disturbance, at the option of the Applicant.
(iii) The above disturbed and undisturbed buffers as well as
conservation easements not located within a platted lot and/or parcel shall be part of the common
areas owned by the Homeowners Association(s). Covenants to be created as part of the
Homeowners Association(s) documents shall provide for maintenance of said areas by the
Homeowners Association(s).
(4) Resource protection areas are identified for the Hiatt Run Corridor and the
Wetlands Intermittent Ravine Channel that are further identified on the
Generalized Development Plan. These resource protection areas contain
various environmental features and provide different resource management
plans for their treatment and protection by the Applicant.
B. Hiatt Run Corridor:
(1) The Hiatt Run Corridor shall be considered a resource protection area.
Clearing and grading by individual lot owners is prohibited within this zone.
(2) A one -hundred foot (100') foot non -disturbance buffer shall be provided
outside of any platted lot adjacent to the Hiatt Run Corridor and shall serve as
the clearing limit for all lots that border the Hiatt Run Corridor as measured
from the center line of the stream.
(3) A minimum buffer of twenty feet (20') shall border all wetland preservation
areas. Clearing and grading by individual owners is prohibited within this
buffer.
(4) Native plants and cluster trees will be preserved and/or reforested in
accordance with the Forest Management Plan along the south side of the
Hiatt Run Corridor.
(5) Wildlife or bird habitats will be further enhanced by providing native
plantings selected to encourage feeding areas while reestablishing forest in
and around environmentally sensitive areas including steep slopes,
woodlands and flood plain areas along the north side of the Hiatt Run
Corridor. The planting plan along the north side of the Hiatt Run Corridor
will be created with technical assistance from VDGIF and the Lord Fairfax
Soil and Water Conservation District.
20 Stephenson Associates 030703
C. Wetlands Intermittent Ravine Channel:
The Wetlands Intermittent Ravine Channel shall be considered a resource protection area.
Restrictive covenants recorded against the property will provide that clearing and grading by
individual lot owners is prohibited within this zone. The Wetlands Intermittent Ravine Channel will
be fiirther enhanced, by providing native plantings, to establish an upland buffer. The planting plan
for this upland buffer will be created with technical assistance from VDGIF and the Lord Fairfax
Soil and Water Conservation District.
D. Forest Management Plan:
(1) The Forest Stewardship and Management Plan will be created with technical
assistance from the Department of Forestry. Native plants and cluster trees
will be preserved and/or reforested in accordance with the Forest
Management Plan.
(2) Existing ponds will be identified and, if beneficial and appropriate, shall be
used as storm water management facilities. In addition, the Applicant shall
establish additional ponds on the site wherever possible and in such locations
as the Applicant directs. The ponds shall be located and designed to promote
water infiltration on the site. A minimum area of twenty feet (20') wide
surrounding each such pond shall be developed as a park setting.
(3) The Forest Management Plan will be created with technical assistance from
the Department of Forestry.
E. Environmental Utility / Road Impacts:
Construction of utilities, roads, trails, bio -retention areas, or wetlands creation shall
be allowed within the environmental features listed in § 16A-§ 16D of this proffer statement. Any
construction of the above listed items will use low impact construction methods such as 90 -degree
crossings, minimal soil, and tree disturbances. When linear utility impacts such as force mains or
transmission lines are required low impact construction techniques will be utilized.
F. Implementation of Enhancements and Amendments
The Applicant shall provide the location of the resource protection areas as a component of the
Master Development Plan. Information pertaining to proposed enhancements and amendments to
the resource protection areas shall be included as narratives of the Master Development Plan to
ensure that these treatment measures will be implemented.
17. COMMUNITY CURBSIDE TRASH COLLECTION:
A. The Applicant shall see that the properties within Stephenson Village shall be
serviced by a -commercial trash pickup and waste removal service. Said service shall provide
21 Stephenson Associates 030703
curbside trash removal unless otherwise provided by Frederick County, for all residential uses and
dumpster disposal for all high-density residential uses and commercial uses. Waste and trash
removal services shall not dispose of trash and waste at any Frederick County Citizen Convenience
Center. The Applicant shall be relieved of its obligations to see to the performance of this Proffer by
assigning all of its obligations to a Homeowners Association for any portion or all of the
development.
B. Notwithstanding the above, Applicant shall locate dumpster sites as unobtrusively as
possible. The area immediately surrounding each dumpster site shall be planted with vegetation
similar to or identical to that planted in the median open vegetated areas, including, but not limited
to, deciduous trees and evergreen shrubbery in addition to the required fence and gate enclosure.
18. WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE STEPHENSON AREA:
A. The Applicant shall dedicate land to be utilized for the location of a regional pump
station as determined by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) in an area that is
mutually agreed upon by both parties.
B. The Applicant shall construct a pump station in conformance with the Frederick
County Sanitation Authority Route 11 North Sewer and Water Service Area Plan as required to serve
the Property and shall dedicate the pump station to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority
(FCSA) for operation and maintenance. The pump station shall be constructed and operational prior
to the first occupancy permit in Stephenson Village.
C. The Applicant shall construct water and sewer lines in conformance with the
Frederick County Sanitation Authority Route 11 North Sewer and Water Service Area Plan as
required to serve all private land uses within Stephenson Village and shall dedicate the applicable
water and sewer lines to FCSA for operation and maintenance. Furthermore, the applicant shall
provide water and sewer lines of adequate size to the property line for all publicly dedicated
properties.
19. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONFORMITY:
By accepting and approving this rezoning application, the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors authorizes the location and provision of those public uses and facilities specifically
referenced on the Generalized Development Plan, in this Proffer Statement, and the extension and
construction of water and sewer lines and facilities and roads necessary to serve this Property
pursuant to the Virginia Code Section 15.2-2232 and the Frederick County Code. The general area of
location for these uses and facilities are as shown on the Generalized Development Plan with the
exact locations to be determined based on final engineering and as approved by Frederick County.
Acceptance of this Proffer Statement constitutes approval of the public uses and facilities and their
general locations and thereby accepts said uses and facilities from further Comprehensive Plan
conformity review.
22 Stephenson Associates 030703
20. CREATION OF HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
A. Creation of Association(s)
A homeowners association or more than one homeowners association ("HOA") shall
be created and shall. be made responsible for the review and approval of all construction within the
development to insure that all design standards for the Stephenson Village Development are satisfied
and for the maintenance and repair of all common areas, together with such other responsibilities,
duties and powers as are customary for such associations or as may shall be required for such HOA
herein.
B. Additional Responsibility
In addition to such other responsibilities and duties as shall be assigned; the HOA
shall have title to and/or responsibility for:
(1) All common open space including storm water facilities areas not
otherwise dedicated to public use or maintained by commercial entities.
(2) Common buffer areas located outside of residential lots.
(3) Residential curbside trash collection.
21. PROFFERED HOUSING TYPES:
The following plan(s), exhibit(s) and Housing Unit Types are proffered herein. Each may be
altered at the time of final engineering and equivalent Housing Unit Types may be substituted with
the approval of the Director of Planning or his/her designee. Any existing or future Housing Unit
Type, which is permitted under the R4 Residential Planned Community District, may also be
utilized.
Housing Unit Types Exhibit(s) prepared by The Land Planning and Design Group, Inc. dated
December 2002, listed below and attached hereto as Exhibit B (graphic for illustrative purposes
only).
The minimum design standards for the following housing types are summarized and listed on
the attached chart prepared by Land Planning and Design Group, Inc., dated March 2003 and
referred to as Exhibit E — Minimum Design Standards.
"Housing Unit Type 1" (Carriage House):
Carriage House Illustrative
Carriage House Typical
Carriage House Landscape Typical
23 Stephenson Associates 030703
"Housing Unit Type 2" (Non -Alley Carriage House):
Non -Alley Carriage House Illustrative
Non -Alley Carriage House Typical
Non -Alley Carriage House Landscape Typical
"Housing Unit Type 3" (Cottage House):
Cottage House Illustrative
Cottage House Typical
Cottage House Landscape Typical
"Housing Unit Type 4" (Courtyard Cluster):
Courtyard Cluster Illustrative
Courtyard Cluster Typical
Courtyard Cluster Landscape Typical
"Housing Unit Type 5" (Modified Single Family Detached Lot):
Modified Single Family Detached Lot Typical
"Housing Unit Type 6" (Modified "Townhouse" Attached Dwelling):
Modified "Townhouse" Attached Dwelling Typical
"Housing Unit Type 7" (Elderly Housing Dwelling):
Elderly Housing Dwelling Specifications
Elderly Housing Dwelling Illustrative
Elderly Housing Dwelling Specifications and Illustrative Design provided in
Community Design Modifications Document
Other housing types shall be added, if approved, by Frederick County.
22. STREETSCAPE DESIGN AND LANDSCAPING:
A. The Applicant shall provide landscaped areas on both sides of the Major Collector
Road as illustrated on the attached Exhibit D (Typical Major Collector Road Section) dated March
2003 and in accordance with the following:
(1) The landscaped area described above is designed to be a scenic urban linear
park, which shall contain woodland conservation areas. (For purposes of this
Proffer, a woodland conservation area shall be defined as an area designated
24 Stephenson Associates 030703
for the purpose of retaining land areas predominantly in their natural, scenic,
open or wooded condition.)The woodland conservation area shall have a
varying width of no less than fifteen feet. Woodland conservation areas shall
be provided where feasible based upon final engineering and design of the
development. The Applicant shall provide, within the landscaped area, a
mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees, to include native types of trees
originally found in this area and replacing any trees removed during
development. Such trees shall be planted at the minimum rate of one tree
every 40 linear feet along the roadway frontage and shall be planted in
clusters rather than a linear pattern.
(2) The minimum planting standard for street landscaping or landscaped
areas/woodland conservation areas shall be a mixture of deciduous trees,
ornamental trees, evergreen trees, and shrubbery. At the Applicants option,
trees and shrubs shall be planted in clusters and shall be planted at an
equivalent rate of ten plant units per 40 linear feet of collector street roadway
frontage. The plant unit credits are determined as follows: Shade Trees (2"
min. caliper) = 10 plant units, Ornamental trees (1.5" minimum caliper) = 5
plant units, Evergreen trees (6' min. height) = 5 plant units, Shrubs (18"
minimum height) = 2 plant units.
B. The Applicant shall have the option of utilizing landscaped central islands within cul-
de-sacs. When landscaped islands are utilized a twenty-eight foot (28') foot paved area shall be
provided to accommodate on -street parking and travel aisles.
C. Where conditions permit, vegetated open channels shall be used in street right-of-
ways for storm water runoff, instead of curb and guttering.
D. To the extent possible, stone fines or wood chip trails/paths shall be used instead of
asphalt trails/paths. Where practical, such trails/paths shall be located on only one side of each
interior road provided sidewalks are not required or practical within the adjacent road right-of-way.
23. COMMUNITY SIGNAGE PROGRAM:
A. The Applicant reserves the right to construct community entry features including a
monument style sign at the entrances to the development in accordance with the following
parameters: Such signage shal I not exceed two signs per intersection, one occurring on either side of
the entrance. The sign panel area shall not exceed 65 square feet per sign, and shall be attached to a
wall not to exceed 8 feet in height, excluding piers, which shall be 9.25 feet in height. The wall
supporting the signage will not be included in the allowable square footage for the sign panel.
B. The Applicant reserves the right to construct neighborhood entry features including a
monument style sign at the entrance to each neighborhood in accordance with the following
parameters: Such signage shall not exceed two signs per intersection one occurring on either side of
25 Stephenson Associates 030703
the entrance. The sign panel area shall not exceed 40 square feet per sign, and shall be attached to a
wall not to exceed 7 feet in height, excluding piers, which shall be 8.25 feet in height. The wall
supporting the signage will not be included in the allowable square footage for the sign panel.
C. Commercial freestanding business signs shall be monument style with similar design
and materials as the community entry feature signs. These commercial freestanding business signs
shall be no more than 20' in height measured from the base and shall be spaced a minimum of 1.00
feet apart.
26 Stephenson Associates 030703
SIGNATURE PAGE
The conditions set forth herein are the proffers for Stephenson Village and supersede all
previous proffer statements submitted for this Development.
Respectfully submitted,
Stephenson Associates, L.C.
By:
e: J. Donald Shockey, Jr.
Title: Manager
Subscribed and sworn before me this day of %l f , 2003.
Susan D. Stahl
(Typed Name of Notary)
My Commission Expires:
Notary Public
Stephenson Associates 030703
27
SIGNATURE PAGE
ACCEPTED BY THE COUNTY OF
FREDERICK
Name:
Title:
Subscribed and sworn before me this day of , 2003.
Notary Public
(Typed Name of Notary)
My Commission Expires:
REVIEWED AND ACCEPTED BY THE
FREDERICK COUNTY ATTORNEY
IC
Name:
Title:
Subscribed and sworn before me this day of , 2003.
(Typed Name of Notary)
My Commission Expires:
Notary Public
28 Stephenson Associates 030703
I
RT -161p�
- —nlV1V ft.
--
RTE 838
3.5 +/- ACRES
AREA NOT TO
BE REZONED
j:
i%
I00
wo
ME no No
GDP LEGEND
�'
MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD
INTER PARCEL CONNECTIONS
NOTE: THIS GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL
AND FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. THE FINAL LOCATION
OR ORIENTATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL LANDBAYS AND/OR THEIR
ASSOCIATED COMPONENTS MAY BE SLIGHTLY ALTERED TO
REFLECT MORE ACCURATE ENGINEERING.
i a
MAJOR /
COLLECTOR
COMMUNITY .r
RECREATION
CENTER
j Ilk
l l
l i
SAMUEL BYERS
LANDMARK #
34-1124
-i WETLANDS
INTERMEDIATE
RAVINE, CHANNEL
LINEAR PARK
OPEN SPACE TRAIL
r
HIATT RUN /£ i
HIATT RUN
CORRIDOR
MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD
ACTIVE ADULT -
RECREATION
CENTER
IV
4-,
-1
HIATT R
k
O
CM
z CQ
0 m
W 02
W 2
W CQ sN
Z wo �m
C3
LLN
00
W 4,
LLN
a a
CIS �� F
4) A
to
w rn
n m
❑ 0 N m
0 o n
>h N
W � ❑ m rn
In � o 0
U)
U o 0
O w0
N W
LL
0 0
zz()
�zU)D
Ld
=Io°U
PO-Cb6z
I
U
a
LAND BAY BREAKDOWN
ND BAN
LAND USE
ACREAGE
% RANGE OF
HOUSING UNIT TYPE
MIN.
MAX.
I
ELEM. SCHOOL
20 Ac. +/—
NA
NA
II
COMMUNITY PARK
(6 baseball fields & 6 soccer fields)
24 Ac. +/—
NA
NA
W
�U
III
MIXED RESIDENTIAL:
502 Ac. t/—
CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL/DAYCARE
7 Ac.+/—
NA
NA
W
SFD (Housing Unit Type 1,2,4,5 & RP District SFD)
W
30
64
U
TOWNHOUSE (Housing Unit Type 6 & RP District Townhouses)
10
30
MULTIFAMILY:
(Condominiums, Elderly Housing, Housing Unit Type
3—Cottage House & RP District Duplex, Multiplex,
Atrium & Garden Apartment)
7
35
IV
ACTIVE ADULT:
SFD (Housing Unit Type 1,2, & 5)
Multifamily (Condominiums, Elderly Housing, Housing
Unit Type 3—Cottage House)
126 Ac.+/—
19
53
V
COMMERCIAL CENTER
(Retail, Office & Public Service Satellite Facility) I
2 Ac. + —
NA
i
NA
SEE NOTES ADDRESSING ABOVE CHART IN PROFFER 3. USES DENSITY & MIX OF HOUSING TYPES A. (2) (14)
O
d
(x
7
Q
O
~
UJ �D
�O
d
W
Zj
W
�U
Q
Q'
W
a
W
W
0
U
Ew
DATE: MARCH 2003
SCALE: 1"=1000'
DESIGNED BY:MDS/JNT
JOB NO. 2760C
SHEET - 1 OF 1
EXHIBIT B
HOUSING UNIT TYPES
HOUSING UNIT TYPE 1
CARRIAGE HOUSE
(3 sheets)
NOTE: FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY
OPTIONAL PORCH SHOWN
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
CARRIAGE HOUSE ILLUSTRATIVE
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
STANDARDS: Living Space (min.) Decks (min.)
1400 square feet Side yard setback: 5'-0" interior lot line
Side yard setback: 10'-0" corner lot perimeter lot line
Rear yard setback: 15'-0"
*decks must be located in rear yards and shall not be
erected forward of the rear plane of a dwelling unit
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
CARRIAGE HOUSE TYPICAL
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
Front Facade
*porches, stoops,
and steps may
extend 6-0" into
front yard
setback
e --r v_ r v'T"
L-3
NOTE: FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY
OPTIONAL FENCE SHOWN
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
CARRIAGE HOUSE LANDSCAPE TYPICAL
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
HOUSING UNTI' TYPE 2
NON -ALLEY CARRIAGE HOUSE
(3 sheets)
NOTE: FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY
OPTIONAL PORCH SHOWN
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
NON—ALLEY CARRIAGE HOUSE ILLUSTRATIVE
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
17 N J KJ
f
STr-EET
STANDARDS: Living Space (min.) Decks (min.)
414.
1400 square feet Side yard setback: 5'-0" interior lot lines
Side yard setback: 10'-0" corner lot perimeter lot line
Rear yard setback: Y-0"
*decks must be located in rear yards and shall not be
erected forward of the rear plane of a dwelling unit
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
NON—ALLEY CARRIAGE HOUSE TYPICAL
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
0
Front Facade
*porches, stoops,
and steps may
extend 6-0" into
front yard
setbacks
NOTE: FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY
OPTIONAL PORCH SHOWN
OPTIONAL FENCE SHOWN
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
NON -ALLEY
CARRIAGE HOUSE LANDSCAPE TYPICAL
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
HOUSING UNIT TYPE 3
COTTAGE HOUSE
(3 sheets)
NOTE: FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY
OPTIONAL PORCH SHOWN
OPTIONAL FENCE SHOWN
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
COTTAGE HOUSE ILLUSTRATIVE
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
to, Him. For- CorNEK. 4� Mirk. S�
LOTS
� I
AultY
14.
STANDARDS: Lot Width(min.) Living Space (min.) Decks (min.) Front Facade
34'-0" 1400 square feet Side yard: 5'-0" interior unit
*porches, stoops,
Side yard: 10'-0" end/comer unit
and steps may
Rear yard: 5'-0"
extend 6'-0" into
*decks must be located in rear yards
front yard setback
and shall not be erected forward of
the rear plane of a dwelling unit
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
COTTAGE HOUSE TYPICAL
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
ALLEY
NOTE: FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
COTTAGE HOUSE LANDSCAPE TYPICAL
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
DOUSING UNIT TYPE 4
COURTYARD CLUSTER
(3 sheets)
NOTE: FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
COURTYARD CLUSTER ILLUSTRATIVE
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
Courtyard Clusters Typical This housing type consists of single-family dwellings combined to form a
multi -family cluster of units. The cluster creates a private parking court, therefore removing garages from the main travel ways. No
fewer than two and no more than seven units shall be combined in any courtyard cluster. Each unit has direct access to a private yard.
A fence or fence and wall combination shall be located between units to enclose the courtyard. Each unit shall have at least one 3'
gate providing access to the rear yard from the courtyard. The following table specifies the minimum standards for this Courtyard
Cluster house type.
Minimum Area Per Unit:
2,000 sq. ftJdwelling unit
Minimum Setbacks:
To garage from street or common driveway:
19 ft.
To dwelling from street:
18 ft.
Distance between units:
10 ft.
To dwelling from common driveway:
3 ft.
To dwelling from interior lot line:
3 ft.
To dwelling from perimeter property line:
10 ft.
To deck and/or patio from interior lot line:
5 ft.
To deck and/or patio from perimeter property line:
6 ft.
Maximum Building Height:
35 ft.
138'
10
10'
STEPHENSON 'VILLAGE
COURTYARD CLUSTER TYPICAL
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
!rty Line
,r trrrr iii�iilIgloo
a
=Mill r
HOUSING UNIT TYPE 5
MODIFIED SINGLE-FAMILY SMALL LOT
(I sheet)
Modified single-family small lot. Single-family small lot housing shall be a
single-family detached or attached residence on an individual lot. No more than two
units may be attached together.
(i) Dimensional requirements shall be as follows:
(a) Minimum lot size: 3,750 square feet
(b) Off-street parking spaces: 2
(c) Setback from state road: 20 feet
(d) Setback from private road: 20 feet
(e) Rear yard: 15 feet
(fl Side yard: Zero lot line option may be used with this housing type.
If chosen, the minimum side yard shall be 10 feet for that yard opposite
the zero lot line side. If not chosen, the minimum side yard shall be five
feet on both sides.
(g) When the attached option for the single-family small lot housing unit is
chosen, the minimum building spacing requirement shall be 10 feet.
(h) Supplementary setbacks:
[ 1 ] With the single-family small lot housing type, decks may extend
five feet into rear yard setback areas.
[2] Where single-family small lot housing abuts open space, decks
may extend up to 12 feet into rear yard setback areas.
[3] Front porches, stoops and steps may extend 12 feet into front yard
setback areas.
(2) Maximum building heights shall not exceed 35 feet in height.
(3) Detached accessory buildings may be permitted, not to exceed 20 feet in height,
will adhere to the same side yard setbacks as the house, and will have the same
rear yard setback as a deck.
HOUSING UNIT TYPE 6
MODIFIED TOWNHOUSE
(I sheet)
Modified townhouse. The "townhouse" is a single-family attached dwelling
with one dwelling unit from ground to roof, having individual outside access. Rows of
attached dwellings shall not exceed 10 units and shall average no more than eight
dwellings per structure.
(1) Dimensional requirements shall be as follows:
Minimum Average Off -Street Minimum
Lot Area Lot Area Parking Lot Width
(square feet) (square feet) Spaces (feet)
1200 1300 2.00 16
1400 1500 2.25 18
1600 1700 2.50 20 or larger
(2) Minimum yards shall be as follows:
(a) Front setbacks:
[ 1 ] 20 feet from road right-of-way for front loaded garage townhouses
[2] 20 feet from parking area, private street, or driveway for front
loaded townhouses
[3] 10 feet for rear loaded or rear loaded detached garage townhouses
[4] 10 feet for non garage townhouses with offstreet parking
(b) Side: 10 feet from lot line (end unit)
(c) Rear: 20 feet from lot line
(3) Minimum on-site building spacing:
(a) Side: 25' between adjacent end units
(b) Rear: 50' from rear building plane to adjacent rear building plane
(4) Maximum building height shall be as follows:
(a) Principle building: 35 feet
(b) Accessory buildings: 20 feet
(5) Minimum yard setbacks for garages
(a) Side: 10 feet from lot line (end unit) for detached garage option
(b) Side: 0 feet from interior lot line for detached garage option
(c) Rear: 5 feet from lot line for detached garage option
(6) Supplementary setbacks:
(a) With the modified townhouse housing type, decks may extend 15 feet into
rear yard setback areas.
(b) Where modified townhouse abuts open space, decks may extend up to 15
feet into rear yard setback areas.
(c) Front porches, stoops and steps may extend 6 feet into a 10 foot front yard
setback and 12 feet into a 20 foot front yard setback.
FATE. 761 OLD
ACCESS ROAD
PAVED PARKING TYPICAL
OVERFLOW PARKING TYPICAL
SERVICEIEMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD
jw
i '\\i I s JR. SOCCER FIELDS
��. MAJOR COLLECTOR
ROAD Ll
NOTE:
TM LAYOUT FOR THE SCHOOL/PARE SITE IS
CONCEPTUAL AND FOR ULUSnUTIVE PURPOSES ONLY.
THE FINAL LOCATION OR OR]MATION OF THE
INDIVIDUAL I"DBAYS AND/OR nMR ASSOCIATED
COMPONENTS MAY BE SLIGHTLY ALTERED TO REFLECT
MORE ACCURATE ENGMCERMC.
W� d�
JR. BA L F ELDS
i
�`R
C,
�c
\L'T
` oq
CHARLES
ACCESS ROAD
SOCCER FIELDS f
•
�7v
F/E
-4os
Li
cQ
d' O m
41 cmv m
4� 02 d
0 m
Li m ot
Q0 c
bur ol
tocQ
CQ
CQ
Op, too
La
C2 F G»
b
0
A
a
z
z
z
g
0
z
3
DATE: MARCH 2003
SCALE: 1'=125'
DESIGNED BY: MPR
JOB NO. 2760C
SHEET 1 OF 1
W
w
E-
E-
E-
E. Z
o
^
U)�
—o
ul
Za
w
W
Q
ow
W
F
ul
DATE: MARCH 2003
SCALE: 1'=125'
DESIGNED BY: MPR
JOB NO. 2760C
SHEET 1 OF 1
EXHIBIT D
TYPICAL MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD SECTION
(1 sheet)
tAt4aSC.,%M AREA 111 n+,Te .T�.E` -r raw.
� L-&*inscAm A".A �,
NOTE: For illustrative purposes only
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
"EXHIBIT W
TYPICAL MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD SECTION
Scale: NTS March 2003
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
HOUSING
HOUSING NAME
MINIMUM
AVERAGE
MIN. LOT
MIN.
MIN. FRONT YARD
MIN. REAR
MIN. SETBACK
MIN. SETBACK
MIN. SIDE YARD SETBACK
MIN.
MIN. SETBACK FROM
DECK MIN. SETBACK
DECK MIN.
FRONT
DETACHED
MAXIMUM
OFF
UNIT TYPE
LOT WIDTH
LOT AREA
AREA
SQUARE
SETBACK FROM
YARD
TO DWELLING
DISTANCE BETWEEN
ON INTERIOR LOT LINE
SETBACK TO
GARAGE TO INTERIOR
INTERIOR LOT LINE
SETBACK
PORCHES,
ACCESSORY
BUILDING
STREET
SQUARE
SQUARE
FOOTAGE
R/W OR PRIVATE
SETBACK
FROM
DWELLING UNITS
SIDE / COMBINED TOTAL
GARAGE
LOT LINE SIDE YARD
SIDE YARD /CORNER
REAR YARD/
STOOPS, AND
BUILDING
HEIGHT
PARKING
FEET
FEET
LIVING
STREET TO
TO
COMMON
SIDE YARD SETBACK /
FROM
/CORNER LOT (OR
LOT (OR END UNIT
REAR YARD
STEPS MAY
MAX. HEIGHT
SPACES
SPACE
DWELLING
DWELLING
DRIVEWAY
CORNER LOT (OR END
STREET/
END UNIT
TOWNHOUSE) SIDE
ABUTTING
EXTEND INTO
UNIT TOWNHOUSE) SIDE
ALLEY
TOWNHOUSE) SIDE
YARD
OPEN SPACE
FRONT YARD
YARD
YARD
SETBACK
1
CARRIAGE
40'
NA
4,000
1,400
15'
25'
NA
10'
5'/10'/10'
NA/20'
3710'
5110
157NA
6'
20'
35'
2
2
NON -ALLEY
47'
NA
4,700
1,400
15'
25'
NA
10'
51/15'110'
20'/NA
3'/10'
5710'
3'/3'
6'
20'
35'
2
CARRIAGE
3
COTTAGE
34'
NA
3,264
1,400
15'
20'
NA
10' ON NON
0'/5'110'
NA/20'
O'INA
51/10'
5'/NA
6'
NA
35'
2
ATTACHED SIDE
NA/NA
3'/NA/NA (10' FROM
NA/NA
NA1NA
(6' FROM
4
COURTYARD
NA
3,300
NA
2,000
10'
NA
3'
10'
DWELLING TO
(19' FROM
37NA
(5' FROM INTERIOR
PERIMETER
6'
NA
35'
2
PERIMETER PROPERTY
COMMON
LOT LINE)
PROPERTY
LINE)
DRIVEWAY)
LINE
5'/10710'
5710' (0' FOR ZERO
5710' (0' FOR ZERO
5
MODIFIED
38'
NA
3750
NA
20'
15'
NA
10' (0' FOR THE
(0' FOR ZERO LOTLINE
20'/15'
LOT LINE OR
LOT LINE OR
10'/3'
12'
20' HT.
35'
2
SINGLE FAMILY
,
ATTACHED OPTION)
SIDE WITH A COMBINED
ATTACHED SIDE)
ATTACHED SIDE)
TOTAL OF 10')
20' (10' FOR NON
0' (25' FROM NON
12' FOR A 20'
6
MODIFIED
i6'
1,300
1,200
NA
GARAGE OR REAR
20'
NA
ATTACHED SIDE
WALL OF END UNIT
0'/0'/10'
20'15'
0'/10'
01/10'
5'15'
SETBACK, 5'
20' HT.
35'
2
TOWNHOUSE
LOADED GARAGE
FOR A 10'
UNITS)
TO ANY OTHER
SETBACK
HOME
20' (10' FOR NON
0' (25' FROM NON
12' FOR A 20'
6
MODIFIED
18
1,500
1,400
NA
GARAGE OR REAR
20'
NA
ATTACHED SIDE
WALL OF END UNIT
01/01/10'
20'15'
0710'
01/10'
5'/5'
SETBACK, 5-
20' HT.
35'
2.25
TOWNHOUSE
LOADED GARAGE
FOR A 10'
UNITS)
TO ANY OTHER
SETBACK
HOME
20' (10' FOR NON
0' (25' FROM NON
12' FOR A 20'
6
MODIFIED
20' OR >
1,700
1,600
NA
GARAGE OR REAR
20'
NA
ATTACHED SIDE
WALL OF END UNIT
01/01/10'
20'/5'
010'
01/10'
S'/5'
SETBACK, 5-
20' HT.
35'
2.5
TOWNHOUSE
LOADED GARAGE
FOR A 10'
UNITS)
TO ANY OTHER
SETBACK
HOME
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
"EXHIBIT E"
MINIM[TM DESIGN STANDARDS
Scale: NTS March 2003
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
•
a
•
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED COMMUNITY
Community Design Modifications Docuhient
Prepared By: Greenway Engineering & The Land Planning and Design Group, Inc.
April 2003
(Rezoning Exhibit F)
MODIFICATION #1 § 165-71 Mixture of housing types required
Ordinance Requirement:
No more than 40% of the area of portions of the planned community designated for
residential uses shall be used for any of the following housing types: duplexes,
multiplexes, atrium houses, weak -link townhouses, townhouses or garden apartments or
any combination of those housing types.
Alternative Design Standard:
No more than 60° � of the area of portions of the planned community for residential uses
shall be used for the housing types identified in the townhouse, multifamily and active
adult
MIXED RESIDENTIAL MATRIX
Housing Unit Type
Minimum %
Maximum %
Single Family Dwellings
30
64
(Hosing Unit Type 1,2,4,5 & RP District SFD)
Townhouse Dwellings
10
30
(Housing Unit Type 6 & RP District Townhouse)
Multifamily Dwellings
7
35
(Condominiums, Elderly Housing, Housing Unit Type 3
& RP District Duplex, Multiplex, Atrium and Garden Apt.
Active Adult Dwellings
19
53
Single Family Dwelling (Housing Unit Type 1,2 & 5)
Multifamily (Condominiums, Elderly Housing, Housing
Unit Type 3)
Justification for Modification:
The proffered Generalized Development Plan identifies that residential land uses will be
located within Land Bays III and IV. The Generalized Development Plan does not
account for the approximate 125 acres within the Hiatt Run Corridor and the Wetlands
Intermediate Ravine Channel that is contiguous to Land Bays III and IV. Therefore, the
Generalized Development Plan accounts for approximately 621 acres to be utilized for
residential land use within Stephenson Village.
The required calculation of 401/0 of the approximate 621 -acre area of portions of the
planned community designated for residential use in this case amounts to approximate]%
248.5 acres that can be utilized for duplexes, multiplexes, atrium houses, weak -link
townhouses, townhouses or garden apartments.
The residential program that has been developed for Stephenson Village is designed to
provide for housing opportunities for all age groups in the community. Stephenson
Village will also provide for an active adult community that may develop beyond the
designated 126 -acre land bay identified on the Generalized Development Plan. The
success of the active adult community and housing for young professionals may expand
beyond the program limits identified in the program; therefore, a modification of the 40%
of residential land area is appropriate. Stephenson Village requests a modification to
allow a maximum of 60%, or approximately 372.5 acres of the residential land area to
provide for the development of housing types identified in the mixed residential matrix
table. Stephenson Village further commits to the provision of a mixture of housing types
by establishing minimum and maximum percentages for the variety of housing types
identified in the mixed residential matrix table. This commitment exceeds the current
ordinance requirement by ensuring that a residential mix will be provided in lieu of one
housing type (i.e. garden apartments) occupying 40% of the residential land area.
MODIFICATION #2 § 165-69 Permitted uses
§ 165-72B(2) Alternative dimensional requirement plan
Ordinance Requirement:
All uses are allowed in the R4 Residential Planned Community District that are allowed
in the RP Residential Performance District. An alternative dimensional plan may be
included with the master development plan for the development, which shall describe a
system of dimensional requirements for all residential uses planned for the development.
Alternative Design Standard:
Residential housing types other than those permitted in the RP Residential Performance
District may be allowed in the R4 Residential Planned Community District. The Board
of Supervisors may allow new housing types only if information describing the minimum
lot area, minimum lot width, minimum yard setbacks, maximum building heights for
primary and accessory structures, and minimum off street parking spaces is determined to
be acceptable.
Justification for Modification:
Stephenson Village desires to provide for a mixture of housing types that allow for a
community including a range of economic and demographic levels from young
professionals, family households, empty nesters and elderly affordable dwellings. In
order to create this type of community, it is necessary to provide for housing types that
are currently allowed by ordinance and to introduce housing types that are successful in
the current housing market. With the exception of the single-family small lot, the
remaining housing types allowed by current ordinance were established over ten years
ago. The introduction of new housing types, or modifications to the design standards for
existing housing types is necessary to accomplish this goal. The R4 District allow for a
residential planned community to develop only one type of multifamily housing unit to
achieve the goal of a housing mix. Stephenson Village is committed to provide for a
variety of housing types as evident by the minimum percentages specified in the mixed
residential matrix table; therefore, it is justified to allow for new housing types, as well as
alternative dimensional requirements for existing housing types in the RP District as
described in this Community Design Modification Document to achieve this purpose.
EXHIBIT B
HOUSING UNIT TYPES
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
WAIVER #2 SUPPORT GRAPHIC
Scale: NTS April 2003
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
s-rr-bEY
STANDARDS: Living Space (min.) Decks (min.)
41A
1400 square feet Side yard setback: 5'-0" interior lot lines
Side yard setback: 10'-0" corner lot perimeter lot line
Rear yard setback: 3'-0"
*decks must be located in rear yards and shall not be
erected forward of the rear plane of a dwelling unit
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
NON -ALLEY CARRIAGE HOUSE TYPICAL
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
Front Facade
*porches, stoops,
and steps may
extend 6'-0" into
front yard
setbacks
S'T F -6E T-
zz
I
STANDARDS: Living Space (min.) Decks (min.)
1400 square feet Side yard setback: 5'-0" interior lot line
Side yard setback: 10'-0" corner lot perimeter lot line
Rear yard setback: 15'-0"
*decks must be located in rear yards and shall not be
erected forward of the rear plane of a dwelling unit
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
CARRIAGE HOUSE TYPICAL
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
Front Facade
*porches, stoops,
and steps may
extend 6'-0" into
front yard
setback
STAT
44 sl
i v' MIN. rod COME
LOTS
i
5` II` (W
� I
1
I
1
AL"Y
STANDARDS: Lot Width(min.) Living Space (min.)
34'-0" 1400 square feet
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
COTTAGE HOUSE TYPICAL
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
Decks (min.)
Side yard: 5'-0" interior unit
Side yard: 10'-0" end/comer unit
Rear yard: 5'-0"
*decks must be located in rear yards
and shall not be erected forward of
the rear plane of a dwelling unit
Front Facade
*porches, stoops,
and steps may
extend 6'-0" into
front yard setback
Courtyard Clusters Typical This housing type consists of single-family dwellings combined to form a
multi -family cluster of units. The cluster creates a private parking court, therefore removing garages from the main travel ways. No
fewer than two and no more than seven units shall be combined in any courtyard cluster. Each unit has direct access to a private yard.
A fence or fence and wall combination shall be located between units to enclose the courtyard. Each unit shall have at least one 3'
gate providing access to the rear yard from the courtyard. The following table specifies the minimum standards for this Courtyard
Cluster house type.
Minimum Area Per Unit: 2,000 sq. ftJdwelling unit
Minimum Setbacks:
To garage from street or common driveway: 19 ft.
To dwelling from street: 18 ft.
Distance between units: 10 ft.
To dwelling from common driveway: 3 ft.
To dwelling from interior lot line: 3 ft.
To dwelling from perimeter property line: 10 ft.
To deck and/or patio from interior lot line: 5 ft.
To deck and/or patio from perimeter property line: 6 ft.
Maximum Building Height: 35 ft_
138'M
10' Min
10' Min
6' Minimum
5' Minimum 5' Minimmn
51 minimum --1 `��-� _ 3' Minimum
LOT 2 111 LOT 3 I--1 Li LOT 4
Minimum
MI2801I-Mail1 1
LOT 5
1 6, rtF—l0' Minimum I \ I 10' Mi+imam`� I I
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
COURTYARD CLUSTER TYPICAL
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
Minimum
Minimum
10�Mmm
0' Minimum
Perimeter Property Line
Typical
Interior Lot Line
Typical
Fence
Typical
Gale
Typical
Deck or Patio
Minimum
Common Driveway Street
26' or 28'
Modified singe -family small lot. Single-family small lot housing shall be a
single-family detached or attached residence on an individual lot. No more than two
units may be attached together.
(1) Dimensional requirements shall be as follows:
(a) Minimum lot size: 3,750 square feet
(b) Off-street parking spaces: 2
(c) Setback from state road: 20 feet
(d) Setback from private road: 20 feet
(e) Rear yard: 15 feet
(f) Side yard: Zero lot line option may be used with this housing type.
If chosen, the minimum side yard shall be 10 feet for that yard opposite
the zero lot line side. If not chosen, the minimum side yard shall be five
feet on both sides.
(g) When the attached option for the single-family small lot housing unit is
chosen, the minimum building spacing requirement shall be 10 feet.
(h) Supplementary setbacks:
[1] With the single-family small lot housing type, decks may extend
five feet into rear yard setback areas.
[2] Where single-family small lot housing abuts open space, decks
may extend up to 12 feet into rear yard setback areas.
[3] Front porches, stoops and steps may extend 12 feet into front yard
setback areas.
(2) Maximum building heights shall not exceed 35 feet in height.
(3) Detached accessory buildings may be permitted, not to exceed 20 feet in height,
will adhere to the same side yard setbacks as the house, and will have the same
rear yard setback as a deck.
Modified townhouse. The "townhouse" is a single-family attached dwelling
with one dwelling unit from ground to roof, having individual outside access. Rows of
attached dwellings shall not exceed 10 units and shall average no more than eight
dwellings per structure.
(1) Dimensional requirements shall be as follows:
Minimum
Average
Off -Street
Minimum
Lot Area
Lot Area
Parking
Lot Width
(square feet)
(square feet)
Spaces
(feet)
1200
1300
2.00
16
1400
1500
2.25
18
1600
1700
2.50
20 or larger
(2) Minimum yards shall be as follows:
(a) Front setbacks:
[ 1 ] 20 feet from road right-of-way for front loaded garage townhouses
[2] 20 feet from parking area, private street, or driveway for front
loaded townhouses
[3] 10 feet for rear loaded or rear loaded detached garage townhouses
[4] 10 feet for non garage townhouses with offstreet parking
(b) Side: 10 feet from lot line (end unit)
(c) Rear: 20 feet from lot line
(3) Minimum on-site building spacing:
(a) Side: 25' between adjacent end units
(b) Rear: 50' from rear building plane to adjacent rear building plane
(4) Maximum building height shall be as follows:
(a) Principle building: 35 feet
(b) Accessory buildings: 20 feet
(5) Minimum yard setbacks for garages
(a) Side: 10 feet from lot line (end unit) for detached garage option
(b) Side: 0 feet from interior lot line for detached garage option
(c) Rear: 5 feet from lot line for detached garage option
(6) Supplementary setbacks:
(a) With the modified townhouse housing type, decks may extend 15 feet into
rear yard setback areas.
(b) Where modified townhouse abuts open space, decks may extend up to 15
feet into rear yard setback areas.
(c) Front porches, stoops and steps may extend 6 feet into a 10 foot front yard
setback and 12 feet into a 20 foot front yard setback.
Elderly housing. Elderly 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. Elderly housing
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 45 units per acre.
(2) Development requirements shall be as follows:
Number of Bedrooms
Efficiency
2
3 plus
Off -Street Parking Spaces
1.50
2.00
2.25
2.50
(3) Maximum site impervious surface ratio (on lot) shall be sixty -hundredths
(0.60).
(4) Minimum lot size shall be one (1) acre.
(5) Minimum yards shall be as follows:
a. Front setback:
i. Twenty-five (25) feet from road right-of-way.
ii. Ten (10) feet from parking area or driveway.
b. Side setback:
i. Twenty-five (25) feet from perimeter boundary.
c. Rear setback:
i. Fifty (50) feet from perimeter boundary.
(6) Minimum on-site building spacing shall be twenty five (25) feet.
(7) Maximum number of dwellings units per building shall be (125)
(8) Maximum building height shall be as follows:
a. Principal building height: forty five (45) feet.
b. Accessory buildings: twenty (20) feet.
NOTE: FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
ELDERLY HOUSING ILLUSTRATIVE
Scale: NTS April 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
MODIFICATION #3 § 165-72D Commercial and industrial areas
§ 165-72M(3) Nonresidential land use phasing
Ordinance Requirement:
A minimum of 10% of the gross area of the project shall be used for business and
industrial uses. The phasing plan for the development shall include a reasonable portion
of the nonresidential uses in all phases of the development.
Alternative Design Standard:
Elimination of the requirement for both business and industrial land uses in Stephenson
Village; establish a minimum of 4% of the gross area of the project to be used for
commercial land use; allow for the majority of the commercial land uses to be located in
a defined commercial center instead of all phases of Stephenson Village.
Justification for Modification:
A minimum lot size of 100 acres is required for a residential planned community
development. The provision of 10% of the gross area of the project for business and
industrial land use would equate to a minimum of 10 acres to meet the ordinance
requirement. A conservative FAR of 0.2 would equate to 60,000 square feet of industrial
development on 7 acres of land and 26,000 square feet of commercial on 3 acres of land.
This ratio would be reasonable if both industrial and commercial land use were proposed
for the residential planned community.
An industrial component is not planned for Stephenson Village, nor is an industrial
component desired by the immediate outlying community. The required 10% minimum
of the gross area of the project for business and industrial land use would account for
approximately 82.2 acres within Stephenson Village to meet the ordinance requirement.
This amount of acreage is not feasible for commercial land use alone; therefore, a
sufficient amount of commercial land use to meet the needs of the residential planned
community is important to determine. The market and economic analysis for Stephenson
Village suggests that the maximum amount of commercial land use that can be sustained
is 250,000 square feet. A developed FAR of 0.2 would require less than 29 acres (3.5%)
to meet the 250,000 square feet of commercial development n Stephenson Village.
Therefore, it is reasonable to expect a minimum of 4% of the gross area of the project to
be utilized for commercial land use when industrial land use is not part of the residential
planned community design. Furthermore. it is reasonable to plan for the majority of the
commercial land use to occur within a defined commercial center within the community
in lieu of many smaller undefined commercial pods located within each phase of the
residential planned community. Stephenson Village has been designed to provide for a
defined commercial center that will accommodate a variety of commercial land uses and
serve the residents of this community, as well as the outlying community.
The request to eliminate industrial land use; to establish a minimum of 4% of the gross
area for commercial land use; and to establish a defined commercial center in lieu of
requiring commercial land use in all phases of the residential planned community is
reasonable. Stephenson Village would be required to provide for a minimum of 33 acres
for commercial land use. This acreage would allow for the provision of a variety of
commercial land uses that would provide convenient shopping, services and employment
opportunities for the residents within Stephenson Village and the outlying community.
The 33 acres would accommodate a maximum of 250,000 square feet of commercial land
use, which is reasonable for a community of this size.
MINIMUM REQUIRED GROSS AREA OF
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL USES WITHIN PLANNED
COMMUNITY
GROSS AREA
OF
COMMERCIAL
USES
3%
GROSS AREA
OF
INDUSTRIAL
USES
7%
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
WAIVER #3a SUPPORT GRAIPHIC
Scale: NTS April 2003
THE LAND PLANNING is DESIGN GROUP, INC.
PROPOSED GROSS AREA OF BUSINESS
USES WITHIN PLANNED COMMUNITY'
I GROSS AREA
OF BUSINESS
STEPH-ENSON VILLAGE
WAIVER Ob SUPPORT GRAPHIC
Seale: NTS April 1003
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP. INC.
MODIFICATION #4 § 165-72F Recreational facilities
Ordinance Requirement:
A recreational unit is designed to meet the recreational needs of 30 dwelling units. The
units may be broken into smaller units or added together to meet the needs of the planned
community.
Alternative Design Standard:
A recreational unit is designed to meet the recreational needs of 30 dwelling units. The
units may be broken into smaller units or added together to meet the needs of the planned
community. The value of one recreational unit shall be equivalent to the value of one
recreational tot lot unit described in § 165-64B(1) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Justification for Modification:
Stephenson Village will provide the equivalent of one recreational unit for every 30
dwelling units developed in the entire community. The recreational facilities will include
two recreational centers, a competition swimming pool, a linear park trail and pedestrian
trail systems. The Applicant should be given credit for the value of these planned
recreational facilities based on a formula that is the value of one recreational tot lot x the
number of required recreational units to serve the entire community. The planned
recreational facilities for the overall community and for the active adult community
provides for year-round recreational opportunities for the Stephenson Village community
that traditional outdoor recreational units do not. Therefore, it is reasonable to utilize the
recreational unit value formula to meet the recreational needs of this community.
RECREATION VALUE EQUIVALANCY COMPARISON
A single recreational unit is designed to meet the recreational needs of 30 dwelling units,
which has a monetary value of approximately 17,000 dollars which may by adjusted to
reflect the current value of a tot lot. The items listed below illustrate a methodology used
to achieve the required overall recreational needs by assigning recreational units to the
actual costs of the recreational facilities provided. The units may be broken into smaller
units or added together to meet the needs of the total development. Following is a list of
possible recreational facilities, which may be proposed at Stephenson Village and their
associated monetary value. The actual cost of the items listed below may indeed differ f
from these estimates at time of construction, but should compare similarly.
1 Tot Lot Unit
Linear Park Trail (approx. 3,800 linear feet)
Community Pool (6 lane 25 Meter Lap Pool)
Clubhouse / Bath House
Half -court Basketball Court
Tennis Court (1 Court)
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
WAIVER #4 SUPPORT GRAPHIC
Scale: NTS April 2003
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
= ± $ 17,000 (1 Rec. Unit)
=± $ 42,000 (2.45 Rec. Units)
= ± $ 266,300 (15.66 Rec. Units)
= ± $ 375,000 (22.06 Rec. Units)
= ± $ 19,500 (1.15 Rec. Units)
=± $ 21,750 (1.28 Rec. Units)
MODIFICATION #5 § 165-72I Road access
§ 165-29A(14) Motor vehicle access
§ 144-24C; C2(a); C2(b) Lot access
Ordinance Requirement:
The planned community development shall be provided with a complete system of public
streets dedicated to the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Alternative Design Standard:
The planned community development shall be provided with a complete system of public
streets dedicated to the Virginia Department of Transportation, excluding the street
system serving the active adult community and/or private access drives serving no more
than five single family dwelling units or ten single family dwelling units if the private
access drive connects to two public streets. The minimum distance from a public street
shall not apply in the active adult community provided that the lots are served by a road
system that provides for multiple street intersections to enhance looping and provide for
safe and efficient emergency access. The cross sectional base and pavement standard for
private streets shall meet or exceed VDOT requirements, with the allowance of using a
decorative cap on the private street to promote enhanced design. The cross sectional
standard for private access drives serving limited single family dwellings shall include an
8" aggregate type 12 1 -B compacted base and a 2" SM -12.5A surface.
Justification for Modification:
The active adult community in Stephenson Village is planned to be a gated community.
Market analysis of active adult communities has identified a gated community as being
very desirable for residents due to security and safety concerns. Creating a gated
community necessitates the planning of a complete system of private streets, which has
also been determined to be very desirable for the residents of this type of community.
The Applicant has met with the Office of the Fire Marshal to review private street design
standards and private alley design standards for emergency access and has implemented
those standards in the proffer statement. Furthermore, the Applicant has included a cross
sectional base and pavement width standard that will meet or exceed VDOT standards.
The alternative design standard also requires the design of the private street system to
provide for multiple street intersections and looping to ensure that vehicular access is not
limited and that good circulation patterns are provided. Therefore, it is reasonable to
allow for a complete system of private streets within the active adult community that do
not need to be a minimum distance from a public street as traffic circulation, appropriate
construction standards and emergency service access have been considered.
Instances will occur in the design of Stephenson Village where it is desirable to preserve
stands of trees or other environmental features, maintain open views at the end of cul-de-
sacs, and front houses towards main road systems. To accomplish these goals during
design, it will be necessary to utilize private access drives to serve small numbers of
single family dwellings. Current ordinance requirements do not provide for this design
flexibility; therefore, residential lots are designed to maximize public street frontage due
to construction costs and density yields. Stephenson Village will be planned to account
for the measures described in this paragraph, which will be beneficial in achieving these
design goals and will serve as a model for other developments to follow. The cross
sectional base and surface standards are consistent with VDOT standards for a
subdivision street serving 450 vehicle trips per day.
rLl 13 Lr i c,- STY-Et;T
■v�� .. .l&
1'oTB+4TIAL T -.A✓E
4o' i falt£ss,/ ess E4seHE -r _ --
�f
r •
' sip
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
WAIVER #Sa SUPPORT GRAPHIC
Scale:
April 2003
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
Tyrie -AL. SFD F!A% L.er
107
r'ISIT A
rol
LAM
�>Li6F-AIT,Dt4 AC-TIVE Ai>dL-T Cor(rjdHITr
rv-I vATE STr+ET SYsTE N
VISTAPiLE FCZoil FlIdT A To P'oiHT 1�, A5
MCAS F -ED Alorlj -1114F STV-EET- c+HTtr-4At-jb
f OLIALS 3300 FEET.
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
WAIVER #5b SUPPORT GRAPHIC
Scale: April 2003
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
l "t'1 T it)
r
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
WAIVER #5c SUPPORT GRAPHIC
Scale
April 2003
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
ST9-9.&T
MODIFICATION #6 § 165-72M Phasing
Ordinance Requirement:
A schedule of phases shall be submitted with each proposed planned community. The
schedule shall specify the year in which each phase will be completely developed.
Alternative Design Standard:
A detailed master development plan will be required to be approved by Frederick County
for each development phase of Stephenson Village. If applicable, each development
phase will be designed as a phase plan to ensure that a logical sequence of development
occurs for the provision of roads, other infrastructure, and applicable open space and
recreational facilities. It will be appropriate for multiple development phases to be under
construction at any given time; however, development phases that are designed as a phase
plan must be completed in sequence.
Justification for Modification:
Stephenson Village is planned to contain a mixture of housing types that will be
developed by multiple builders. Some development phases within Stephenson Village
will contain only one type of housing, while other development phases will contain
multiple housing products. The market will dictate the type of housing and the rate at
which housing is completed within Stephenson Village; therefore, it is impossible to
provide a schedule that identifies the year when each phase will be complete. However,
it is reasonable to require a phase plan for larger development phases within Stephenson
Village to ensure that larger phases in the community are developed accordingly so that
road systems and other improvements are provided in a timely fashion. Frederick County
will require each development phase, large or small, to provide a surety guarantee for all
improvements identified on the final development plans. Therefore, the County has the
ability to ensure that all development phases that are permitted are developed
accordingly.
MODIFICATION #7 § 165-72G(1) Buffers and screening
Ordinance Requirement:
Buffers and screening shall be provided accordingly as specified in § 165-37 of this
chapter. Road efficiency buffers shall be provided according to the requirements of that
section.
Alternative Design Standard:
The distances required for the road efficiency buffer along the major collector road
serving Stephenson Village may be reduced in accordance with the attached matrix,
provided that the described screening and landscaping measures are met or exceeded
throughout the community.
Justification for Modification:
The ordinance currently requires the first 40 feet of the road efficiency buffer to be
inactive and contain an opaque element that is six feet in height with three trees per 10
linear feet. It may be appropriate to reduce the inactive distance for the road efficiency
buffer to some degree, provided that enhanced screening measures are provided including
higher opaque elements such as decorative walls or a combination earth berm and wall
and a planting scheme that enhances the attractiveness of the major collector road
corridor. Stephenson Village desires to have the flexibility to utilize a variety of road
efficiency buffer standards including those currently provided by ordinance and those in
accordance with the attached matrix.
IArIPSc.ApE AFfA L.It,-RHATE ST9fZ-r F- A. I.
V^F-IES Z5'111 . f, I 1-1 l -it .i
1 oTEtiT1AL 15' FLIFUG 11TILATY eAS-etluAT P11Ter-r1AL 15' FUEL 1z- UTILITY EA6 tjEt4'(
xHOTF-: -rA L,-AP^P-. ACEA oftU Ar A rtttltritln fib 25' t1; LIIPf1i, PeovIM 10- PIAHT U01TS PEE loo ttriE-,v- FELT (Pt" Pt; -4j5 f LAH-r rt11TtrjAt_ 110 To EXcMp SO/ of rLA41 doti20
FLAi1T MATEWAL, FOE t.AtIVSGApE ACEA To ft VFTELUitrieD AT FINAL. DBV4(74.
FV*vlM A SIX f6T rfididgri 44.9T sr-Feetd i1T1U2,1t{1, AtiY 4ar{6t4ATlor4 of gt„leV- A sdr-this HF-ub&, FEHcE, WA—, HvL1tgD or- pcm.
T141S t%XHw-r Ls YLwIbw iv Q- ILLLISTRATtvE FL1 WoSES ari L'(.
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
"EXHIBIT W
TYPICAL MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD SECTION
Scale: NTS March 2003
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
MODIFICATION #8 § 165-68 Rezoning procedure
Ordinance Requirement:
In order to have land rezoned to the R4 District, a master development pian, meeting all
requirements of Article XVII of this chapter, shall be submitted with the rezoning
application.
Alternative Design Standard:
The provision of a proffered Generalized Development Plan for. Stephenson Village to
identify the concept of the overall acreage and its relationship to adjoining properties and
adjoining roadways. The Generalized Development Plan for Stephenson Village will
provide Land Bays to demonstrate the proposed general land use layout for the entire
acreage. The Generalized Development Plan for Stephenson Village will also provide a
matrix identifying the residential and non-residential land uses within each Land Bay, the
projected acreage of each Land Bay and the percentage of housing unit types that are
proposed to ensure that a mixture of housing types is provided.
Justification for Modification:
A residential planned community on 800+ acres of land cannot be completely master
planned as a condition of rezoning approval. These communities are dynamic due to the
market; therefore, the exact location of residential units, internal roads, neighborhood
commercial, recreational amenities, open space and significant environmental features
are difficult to identify at this stage in the process. The Applicant should be prepared to
identify basic information pertaining to the overall development of the residential
planned community to inform decision makers and interested citizens how the general
land use patterns and major road systems will be developed should a rezoning be
approved. The use of a Generalized Development Plan as a tool for this purpose is
reasonable, as it contains illustrative and general development information that can assist
in understanding the basic concepts of a residential planned community and guide the
more formalized Master Development Plan process following rezoning approval.
Therefore, it is requested that a Generalized Development Plan be permitted to function
in the place of a detailed Master Development Plan during the rezoning process.
R- 61 JES To,r
RTE 838
3.5 +/- ACRES
AREA NOT TO
BE REZONED
i/
i/
��I
4ww,owlav
GDP LEGEND
oa_ MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD
INTER PARCEL CONNECTIONS
NOTE: THIS GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL
AND FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. THE FINAL. LOCATION
OR ORIENTATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL LANDBAYS AND/OR THEIR
ASSOCIATED COMPONENTS MAY BE SLIGHTLY ALTERED TO
REFLECT MORE ACCURATE ENGINEERING.
MAJOR/
COLLECTOR
Ro �D
r�
COMMUNITY
RECREATION
CENTER
SAMUEL BYERS /! ,,(li = �/ /'i /�/' / +%_ //. !• /- //
LANDMARK #
34-1124 L� �( WETLANDS
l INTERMEDIATE
RAVINE CHANNEL
'111
4 -
OPEN
OPEN SPACE
I /
,
® HIATT RUN
7717 1 �/
HIATT RUN
CORRIDOR
MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD
ACTIVE ADULT)
RECREATION
CENTER
�U�
Z/c*
ISI
III
LINEAR PARK
CEOs
HIATT RUN
O
LAND BAY BREAKDOWN
w
ND BAY
LAND USE
ACREAGE
% RANGE OF
HOUSING UNIT TYPE
MIN.
MAX.
1
ELEM. SCHOOL
20 Ac. +/—
NA
NA
11
COMMUNITY PARK
(6 baseball fields & 6 soccer fields)
24 Ac. +/—
NA
NA
A �;
111
MIXED RESIDENTIAL:
5
07
/
o
CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL/DAYCARE
Ac.+/
NA
NA
SFD (Housing Unit Type 1,2,4,5 & RP District SFD)
®
30
64
TOWNHOUSE (Housing Unit Type 6 & RP District Townhouses)
10
30
MULTIFAMILY:
(Condominiums, Elderly Housing, Housing Unit Type
3—Cottage House & RP District Duplex, Multiplex,
Atrium & Garden Apartment)
7
35
IV
ACTIVE ADULT:
SFD (Housing Unit Type 1,2, & 5)
Multifamily (Condominiums, Elderly Housing, Housing
Unit Type 3—Cottage House)
126 Ac.+/—
19
I
53
V
COMMERCIAL CENTER
(Retail, Office & Public Service Satellite Facility)
26 Ac. +7--
NA
NA
SEE NOTES ADDRESSING ABOVE CHART IN PROFFER 3. USES, DENSITY & MIX OF HOUSING TYPES A. (2) (1.4)
cm
z 02
ac o
Co
W cv
W C12 d'
m
7 ��
a p
LILMLLNE
4)w
m
W�
�mmcvrn
O O h N
W � �
w
U)
3 u o O
oE
O w w
m w
� w
w
w
Of
7
U
w
U
a
w
a
U
N
z
3
DATE: MARCH 2003
SCALE: 1"=1000'
DESIGNED BY:MDS/JNT
JOB NO. 2760C
SHEET - 1 OF 1
w
E-
F
E
z
A �;
M—I
>
o
fa�
�
�
y
A
®
V)�
BOO
W
W
W
ow
DATE: MARCH 2003
SCALE: 1"=1000'
DESIGNED BY:MDS/JNT
JOB NO. 2760C
SHEET - 1 OF 1
MODIFICATION #9 § 165-133B Master development plan, contiguous land
§ 165-141A(8) Master development plan, contents
§ 165-141B(2);(4);(8) Master develop. plan, R4 contents
Ordinance Requirement:
The Master Development Plan shall include all contiguous land under single or common
ownership in the R4 District. The Master Development Plan shall provide for a schedule
of phases, with the appropriate location of phase boundaries and the order in which the
phases are to be developed. The Master Development Plan shall provide for the acreage
of common open space, each use, each housing type and streets for the total development;
the number of dwelling units of each type in each phase for the total development, and
the approximate boundaries and location of common open space of the total acreage of
the site.
Alternative Design Standard:
The provision of a detailed Master Development Plan for Stephenson Village that is
designed to reflect the acreage within the community that is planned for development by
specific phase and provides an aggregate tabulation of all required development
percentages to ensure that the requirements of the R4 District and the proffered
Generalized Development Plan are met throughout the development of the Stephenson
Village community.
Justification for Modification:
A residential planned community on 800+ acres of land cannot be completely master
planned at the onset due to the complexities associated with planning and design of the
community and the uncertainties of what land uses will ultimately be developed in later
years of the community's development. Each developed phase of a residential planned
community is a "building block process" that will have an impact on the type and rate of
development in ensuing phases of the community. Stephenson Village will be planned,
designed an engineered continuously over the life of its development; therefore, the
ability to meet the design requirements for the "total development" as specified by
County Code cannot be accomplished. A series of Master Development Plans will be
prepared for Stephenson Village over the years that will provide aggregates to account
for the community's growth and to ensure that all totals are either met or not exceeded.
All required information, reviews and processes will be achieved for each Master
Development Plan submitted for Stephenson Village; however, information for the total
community will not be available until the project is much further along. The proffered
Generalized Development Plan will serve as a guide to ensure consistency in the land
planning process, as well as that the desired housing unit mixes and percentages are
achieved for this community.
IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED COMMUNITY
Stonewall Magisterial District
Frederick County, Virginia
Tax Map # 44-((A))-31 (Portion), 44 -((A)) -31A, 44-((A))-292 & 44-((A))-293
821.7 t Acres
January 8, 2003
Revised March 7, 2003
Current Owners: Stephenson Associates L.C.
Contact Person: Evan A. Wyatt, AICP
Greenway Engineering
151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, VA 22602
540-662-4185
File #2760C EAW
Greenway Engineering January 8, 2003 Stephenson Village Residential
Revised March 7, 2003 Planned Community Rezoning
STEPHENSON VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED COMMUNITY
INTRODUCTION
This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Frederick County by the
proffered rezoning of an 821.7± -acre parcel owned by Stephenson Associates L.C., sometimes
referred to as the Applicant. The proffered rezoning includes all of tax parcels 44 -A -31A, 44-A-
292, and 44-A-293, and the portion of tax parcel 44-A-31 that is located outside of the
Stephenson's Depot Core Area Boundary identified by the September 1992 National Park
Service Study of Civil War Sites In The Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. The subject properties
are located east of Milburn Road (Route 662), south of Old Charles Town Road (Route 761), and
southwest of Jordan Springs Road (Route 664), approximately 2000' east of Martinsburg Pike
(U.S. Route 11 North). The entire acreage within the subject site is zoned RA, Rural Areas
District. Stephenson Associates L.C. proposes to rezone the 821.7± acres to R4, Residential
Planned Community District in order to create the first residential planned community in
Frederick County. The Stephenson Village development will provide positive impacts to
surrounding neighborhoods including local shopping, ball fields and school, sewer and
water infrastructure, affordable housing for the elderly, as well as positive revenue
generation to the County. The first residential planned community in the County,
Stephenson Village will serve as a model for future development. The proposed residential
planned community zoning boundary is shown on a Zoning Boundary Plat prepared by Mark D.
Smith, P.E., L.S., dated March 2003 and is attached as Exhibit A. The 821.7± acres proposed for
rezoning is further described on a Composite Plat of the land of Stephenson Associates, L.C.
prepared by Mark D. Smith, P.E., L.S., dated March 7, 2003. This Composite Plat has been
submitted to the Department of Planning and Development as a component of the rezoning
application.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The parcels that will comprise the proposed residential planned community are a component of
the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan's Northeast Land Use Plan. This plan
identifies the general area associated with this acreage as future industrial use and includes the
entire acreage within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Crider & Shockey Inc., of
West Virginia, a predecessor in title, submitted a rezoning request for 404 acres of Ml, Light
Industrial District that was denied by the Board of Supervisors in 2001. The approval of the
Stephenson Village Residential Planned Community will necessitate the extension of the Urban
Development Area (UDA) to follow the current SWSA boundary associated with this acreage.
Currently, the UDA boundary is located just to the west of the subject site at the intersection of
McCann's Road (Route 838) and the CSX Railroad. The proposed proffered rezoning requests
the extension of the UDA boundary to follow the SWSA boundary associated with this acreage.
The proposed extension of the UDA boundary is shown on a map entitled Residential Planned
Greenway Engineering January 8, 2003 Stephenson Village Residential
Revised March 7, 2003 Planned Community Rezoning
Community and Urban Development Area & Sewer and Water Service Area Extension Plan
dated March 2003 and is attached as Exhibit B.
SITE SUITABILITY
Access
The subject property is strategically located 2000' east of Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11
North) and south of Old Charles Town Road (Route 761). The primary access to the residential
planned community is proposed on Old Charles Town Road, continuing through a new major
collector road that will intersect with Martinsburg Pike at a signalized cross intersection with the
Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park. The primary access for Stephenson Village implements the
Northeast Land Use Plan proposed collector road plan within this area of the study. Stephenson
Associates L.C. has executed an agreement with McCann and Omps that will allow for the
development of the new major collector road through all properties to Martinsburg Pike. The
Stephenson Village residential planned community will also allow for access on Old Charles
Town Road to serve a 550 -student elementary school and to serve a public park site that will
contain soccer fields and baseball/softball fields. Access to all land uses within Stephenson
Village will be accomplished through a system of internal streets, bicycle paths and pedestrian
walkways and trail systems.
Flnnd Plninc
The subject site is located on FEMA NFIP map # 510063-0110-B. The majority of the site is
located within a "ZONE C" area that is outside of the flood plain limits with the exception of the
Hiatt Run stream valley that is located in the central portion of the subject site. Hiatt Run is
identified as a perennial stream, which is in a 100 -year flood plain and classified as a "Zone A".
The proffered rezoning proposes to establish riparian buffers to protect this resource and also
proposes to protect the integrity of the stream valley through the development of a forest
management plan on the south side of Hiatt Run and through a stream bank enhancement plan
that will utilize existing vegetation and new plantings to stabilize the stream bed on the north
side of Hiatt Run.
WPtlnrick
The National Wetlands -Inventory Map identifies wetlands on the subject site within six ponding
areas that have an approximate surface area of four acres. These wetland areas are located
within the central portion of the subject site and drain through pronounced ravines and drainage
ways that feed Hiatt Run. The wetland areas will be utilized in the overall storm water
management plan for Stephenson Village that will incorporate retention ponds, detention ponds
and bioretention facilities. Any disturbance of the identified wetland areas will be in
conformance with all Corps of Engineers permitting procedures.
Greenway Engineering
Mature Woodlands
January 8, 2003 Stephenson Village Residential
Revised March 7, 2003 Planned Community Rezoning
The subject site contains areas of mature woodlands that are located primarily in the central and
southern portions of the subject site with additional scattered areas in the far eastern portion of
the subject site. An open space corridor associated with the Hiatt Run stream valley is proposed,
which will preserve portions of the mature woodland area. The developed portions of
Stephenson Village will preserve woodland areas to the extent possible through the development
of boulevard road systems with landscaped medians and open space pockets. A forest
management plan is proffered to preserve woodlands along the Hiatt Run stream valley that will
protect the integrity of this environmental feature. All disturbances of woodlands will comply
with the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance.
Soil Types
Information for soil types on this site has been obtained from the Soil Survey of Frederick
County by the USDA Soil Conservation Service.
The subject site is located on map sheet nos. 24, 25, 30 and 31 and contains six different soil
types:
Berks-Channery Loams 2-7% slopes
Blairton Silt Loams 2-7% slopes and 7-15% slopes
Carbo Oaklet Silt Loams and Rock Outcrop 2-15%
Chilhowie Silty Clay Loams 7-15% slopes
Clearbrook Channery Silt Loams 2-7% slopes and 7-15% slopes
Weikert-Berks Channery Silt Loams 7-15% slopes, 15-25% slopes and 25-65% slopes
Please refer to attached Soils Map prepared by, Greenway Engineering, dated March 2003,
attached as Exhibit C.
Prime Agricultural Soils
The Blairton Silt Loams 2-7% is the only soil type on the subject site that is identified as prime
agricultural soils. The majority of the Blairton Silt Loams exist on the portion of parcel 44-A-31
that is not proposed to be rezoned. All of the aforementioned soils do not support crops without
heavy fertilization, liming, and soil management. They do support pasture for livestock and hay
cultivation if there is adequate rainfall. Weikert-Berks loam soils are listed as moderately to
poorly suited for pasture and hay cultivation.
Steep Slopes - 25% and Greater
Steep slopes as defined exist within the central and eastern portion of the subject site. These
steep slope areas are generally located within the pronounced ravines and drainage ways
associated with Hiatt Run, as well as the Hiatt Run stream valley. The majority of the defined
steep slope areas will remain undisturbed through the establishment of riparian buffers, with
disturbance generally limited to road crossings, storm water management facilities and
3
Greenway Engineering January 8, 2003 Stephenson Village Residential
Revised March 7, 2003 Planned Community Rezoning
pedestrian trail. systems. All disturbances of steep slope areas will comply with the requirements
of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance.
Construction Concerns
Shrink swell characteristics of the predominant soils are listed as low and therefore, will not be a
major construction consideration. Depth to shale bedrock will typically average 30" in thickness
on most of the site.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
The properties surrounding Stephenson Village include residential land uses on small lots along
Old Charles Town Road (Route 761) and Jordan Springs Road (Route 664) and residential land
uses on large lots along the southern and eastern boundaries of the subject site. Additional land
uses surrounding Stephenson Village include agricultural land use to the south and west, as well
as unimproved land. Several residential land uses on large lots and the Stephenson Rural
Community Center exist within the proximity of Stephenson Village. The surrounding
properties will benefit from the public uses and services, certain recreational amenities, public
utilities and commercial development that will be made available to the outlying community by
the development of Stephenson Village residential planned community project.
TRAFFIC IMPACT
The impact of the proposed rezoning of the 821.7± acres from RA, Rural Areas District to R4,
Residential Planned Community District, on transportation is based on the proffered land use of
2,800 residential dwelling units, 190,000 sq. ft. of retail use, 60,000 sq. ft. of office use and a 550
student elementary school. The Stephenson Village development will provide for the
construction of a major collector road system to implement the recommendations of the
Comprehensive Policy Plan and will provide additional offsite improvements and monetary
contributions to mitigate impacts to the regional transportation system.
To determine the impacts associated with the proffered land use rezoning, the Applicant has
prepared a detailed traffic impact analysis (TIA) for Stephenson Village. This TIA, prepared by
John Callow, Vice President of Patton Harris Rust & Associates, considers impacts to Old
Charles Town Road (Route 761), Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) and Interstate 81 Exit
317. The TIA provides for existing lane geometry and levels of service for the aforementioned
road systems during AM and PM peak hours and provides for build -out lane geometry and levels
of service during AM and PM peak hours as a three phase analysis for resulting years 2006, 2008
and 2015. The TIA phase periods accelerate the expected development schedule of Stephenson
Village to identify the anticipated transportation improvements, and accelerate these
improvements to prevent degradations to the transportation system. The background data for the
TIA assumes a 5% annual traffic increase rate for the surrounding road systems through 2010, a
3% annual traffic increase rate between 2010 and 2015 and the development of 1,400,000 sq. ft.
4
Greenway Engineering January 8, 2003 Stephenson Village Residential
Revised March 7, 2003 Planned Community Rezoning
within the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park. The background data provides for the traffic that
is not generated by Stephenson Village. The TIA provides for land use traffic generation from
the various residential land uses, retail and office square footage and elementary school that will
be developed in Stephenson Village. These generation rates have been taken from the Institute
of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Manual, 6th Edition utilizing the appropriate codes for each land use.
The results of the TIA account for a total of 25,178 new average daily trips (ADT) in 2015 for
the build out of Stephenson Village. The phased period for year 2006 accounts for 10,570 new
ADT and the phased period for year 2008 accounts for 17,699 ADT. The results of the TIA
suggest incremental improvements are necessary to ensure that the transportation system
functions at an acceptable level of service. The Applicant will provide various measures to
improve the transportation system including traffic signalization, turn lanes, road widening,
bicycle paths and sidewalks. These improvements will occur as the Stephenson Village project
develops based on the needs identified by the actual traffic counts and will be planned,
designed and constructed when 80% of the actual traffic counts are realized to anticipate and
mitigate the traffic impacts from the development program.
The Applicant has proffered to utilize traffic counters at each end of the major collector road
entering Stephenson Village to provide real time vehicle trip information associated with the
development. This proffer is a proactive approach to determine actual traffic impacts associated
with this development and provides a mechanism to provide for anticipated improvements to the
transportation system. This proactive approach will ensure that the planning, design and
implementation of all necessary transportation improvements begins when 80% of the
actual traffic count volume is realized for the thresholds identified in the detailed traffic
impact analysis (TIA). Completion of each proffered transportation improvement will
occur within 18 months of the 80% actual traffic count volume to maintain an acceptable
level of service for the road systems serving this development.
Please refer to the attached Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village prepared by
Patton Harris Rust & Associates, p.c. and dated February 7, 2003.
SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT AND WATER SUPPLY
The impact of the proposed rezoning of the 821.7± acres from RA, Rural Areas District to R4,
Residential Planned Community District, on sewage conveyance and water supply is based on
the proffered land use of 2,800 residential dwelling units, 250,000 sq. ft. of retail and office use,
and an elementary school. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) and Frederick
Winchester Service Authority (FWSA) design figures estimate 225 GPD per residential unit for a
mixed residential community, while design figures show an estimated 200 GPD, for both the
sewer and water systems, per 1,000 square feet of ultimate commercial floor space (These
numbers are in reference to the Land Development Handbook, Dewberry & Davis, 1996, page
461).
The figures below represent the impact that Stephenson Village would have to the sewage
conveyance system and water supply system at full build -out:
5
Greenway Engineering January 8, 2003 Stephenson Village Residential
Revised March 7, 2003 Planned Community Rezoning
Q = 225* GPD per dwelling unit
Q = 225 GPD x 2,800 dwelling units
Q = 630,000 GPD
Q = 200* GPD per 1,000 sq. ft. commercial floor area
Q = 200 GPD x 250 (1000) commercial floor area
Q = 50,000 GPD
Q = 9,000 GPD for public elementary school
TOTAL Q = 689,000 GPD total for Stephenson Village
* The GPD projections for mixed residential and commercial land uses exceed the average GPD
experienced by the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority and the Frederick County Sanitation
Authority.
The Board of Supervisors approved the Frederick County Sanitation Authority Route 11 North
Sewer and Water Service Area Plan in 2002. This plan identifies the water and sewer
infrastructure necessary to serve the land areas identified within the Northeast Land Use Plan
that fall within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), as well as the Stephenson and
Brucetown Rural Community Centers. The first phase of this plan has been bid and will be
complete before the end of 2003. This plan calls for the development of a 20 -inch water line to
supplement the existing 10 -inch water line along Martinsburg Pike that is receiving water from
the Northern Water Treatment Plant and for the development of an 8 -inch sewer force main that
will connect to the Redbud Run Pump Station near the CSX Railroad.
The Northern Water Treatment Plant is currently providing 1.5 MGD of water from the Global
Chemstone Quarry, which is more than twice the amount of water needed to serve Stephenson
Village at build out.
The 8 -inch sewer force main is accessible to the subject site through easement agreements that
exist between Stephenson Associates L.C. and McCann. The development of Stephenson
Village will supplement flow to the 8 -inch sewer force main, thus improving its function as very
few users exist in the area to be served by the first phase of this sewer infrastructure project. The
Applicant has advised the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) and the Frederick
Winchester Service Authority (FWSA) that Stephenson Village will direct flows to the Redbud
Run Station initially and the Applicant is amenable to working with both groups to redirect flows
in the future should a -new route be planned. The development of Stephenson Village will
provide for the development of the Lower Hiatt Run Pump Station by the Applicant that is
identified in the plan. The Applicant has proffered to construct this regional pump station and
dedicate the land for this facility to the FCSA, as well as construct all water and sewer lines
throughout Stephenson Village and bring this infrastructure to the property lines for the public
uses.
6
Greenway Engineering January 8, 2003 Stephenson Village Residential
Revised March 7, 2003 Planned Community Rezoning
DRAiNAGF.
Currently, storm water runoff from the 821.7± acre site drains into pronounced ravines, fingers,
natural streams, and drainage ditches. These conveyances flow primarily into Hiatt Run, which
flows east and off the site to the Opequon Creek. The extreme southeastern portion of the
subject site drains to Lick Run, which then converges with Hiatt Run near the Jordan Springs
Hotel.
Stephenson Village will be designed to utilize a variety of storm water management techniques
including retention facilities, detention facilities, and bioretention facilities. Best management
practices will be implemented in the Stephenson Village commercial center and in other areas
that provide large parking areas to promote storm water quality measures. The Applicant has
solicited technical assistance from several environmental groups to determine appropriate storm
water management techniques and appropriate low impact development techniques. These
environmental groups include the Potomac Conservancy, the Center for Watershed Protection,
the Department of Conservation and Recreation Water Quality Division, the Potomac Watershed
Partnership and the Department of Forestry.
Soil conditions on the subject site are poorly drained; therefore, techniques will be implemented
to slow storm water runoff including the development of street systems that utilize open ditch
sections, flooding of small pockets of designated open space areas, bioretention filter design with
under drains to promote infiltration, and the use of retention ponds throughout the development.
The design of detention areas does not mandate the removal of existing forest cover and
vegetative areas. These techniques will promote appropriate water quality and water quantity
measures and will serve as a model for urban projects in the community. The Applicant will
work with the aforementioned environmental groups and the Frederick County Public Works
Department to ensure that drainage impacts are mitigated as the Stephenson Village project
develops.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
The impact on solid waste disposal facilities can be projected from an average annual per
household consumption of landfill volume figure of 5.4 cubic yards and an average annual
business consumption of landfill volume figure of 5.4 cubic yards per 1,000 sq. ft. of commercial
floor area. (This number can be found in the Civil Engineering Reference Manual, 4"' edition).
The following figures show the increase in average annual volume based on the proffered
residential unit density of 2,800 dwellings and 250,000 sq. ft. of commercial and office
development:
AV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. per dwelling
AV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. x 2,800 dwellings
AV = 15,120 Cu. Yd.
AV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. per 1,000 sq. ft.
7
Greenway Engineering January 8, 2003 Stephenson Village Residential
Revised March 7, 2003 Planned Community Rezoning
AV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. x 250 (1,000 sq. ft.)
AV =1,350 Cu. Yd.
TOTAL AV = 16,470 Cu. Yd. at build out
PERCENTAGE OF 2002 ANNUAL DISPOSAL VOLUME AT BUILD OUT = 5.9%
Stephenson Village will be developed within the parameters of a proffered phase plan; therefore,
the comparison of projected solid waste disposal at build out to the 2002 annual disposal volume
of 275,000 cubic yards for the Municipal Solid Waste area of the Regional Landfill is greater
than it would be in ensuing years due to overall annual volume increase. The following provides
for an average annual disposal volume based on a projected 15 -year build out phase plan:
TOTAL AV = 16,470 Cu. Yd. at build out
AV = 1,098 Cu. Yd. annually over a 15 year period
1,098 Cu. Yd./275,000 Cu. Yd. = 0.39% PROJECTED AVERAGE ANNUAL
DISPOSAL VOLUME
The Municipal Solid Waste area of the Regional Landfill has a current capacity of 7,800,000
cubic yards (7.8 Million Cu. Yd.) that will serve the projected growth of the community through
the year 2034. The Frederick County Public Works Department has been working through the
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) permitting process to expand the vertical air space
of the landfill to increase the capacity to 13,100,000 cubic yards (13.1 Million Cu. Yd.), which
expands the life of the Regional Landfill through the year 2048. It is anticipated that the DEQ
permit for the Regional Landfill will be issued in April 2003. It should be noted that the
Construction Demolition Debris area of the Regional Landfill has capacity through the year 2050
based on construction growth projections developed by the Department of Public Works.
The Stephenson Village residential planned community will provide curbside trash collection for
all residential and commercial land uses. This service will be provided to mitigate impacts to the
citizen convenience center located at the Clearbrook Park and will generate revenues to
Frederick County through tipping fees at the regional landfill that will offset solid waste impacts
associated with this project. The covenants guiding the Stephenson Village Homeowners
Association will provide for curbside trash collection as a line item for the annual dues
assessment for each residential unit. The language within the covenants will also provide for
Stephenson Village Homeowners Association funded County collection service should the Board
of Supervisors expand the Urban Service Area.
HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES
The 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia
identifies a core battlefield area of Stephenson's Depot, of which a portion is located on parcel
Greenway Engineering January 8, 2003 Stephenson Village Residential
Revised March 7, 2003 Planned Community Rezoning
44-A-31. The Applicant has not requested a rezoning of this portion of parcel 44-A-31, which
accounts for approximately 68.5 acres of land.
The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey identifies the Samuel Byers House (#34-1124)
as a potentially significant property due to architectural style. This structure is located in the
central portion of the property and will be preserved and used as deemed appropriate by the
Applicant. Additionally, in the event that any onsite cemeteries are found, the Applicant will
preserve those areas in accordance with all applicable state regulations.
Offsite areas of potential significance include the Helm McCann property (#34-703) and the
Milburn Chapel and Cemetery (434-950) located to the west of the project site and the Jordan
Springs Hotel (#34-110) located to the southeast of the project site. The viewshed associated
with these historic features will not be impacted by the development of Stephenson Village.
Furthermore, the 1995 Frederick County Winchester Battlefield Network Plan identifies Milburn
Road (Route 662) as a significant historic corridor that provides a linkage between areas
associated with the Second and Third Winchester Battlefields. The Applicant has met with the
property owners of the McCann and Jordan Springs parcels who have approved of these
measures and the Stephenson Village rezoning.
The Stephenson Village development will be designed to complement historic elements as
themes for the project. Monumental entrances may include fence styles and stacked stonewalls
that were from the Civil war era. The Northeast Land Use Plan calls for the development of a
new major collector road that will serve as the primary road system for Stephenson Village. This
major collector road intersects Old Charles Town Road (Route 761) and moves through the core
battlefield area into the project site, crossing Hiatt Run and then proceeding west across Milburn
Road to Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North). The Applicant is responsible for implementing
this road system and will develop this infrastructure improvement in accordance with the
Comprehensive Policy Plan. The major collector road crossing of Milburn Road will be the only
crossing or intersection associated with the Stephenson Village project.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
The design for Stephenson Village provides 20± acres of land for a public elementary school and
24± acres of land for a public park to ensure that appropriate public services are available in this
geographic area of the community. The location of the public school site and the public park site
provides for access on Old Charles Town Road (Route 761) to serve the outlying community and
will have internal access to serve the residents of Stephenson Village.
In addition to the proffered land for public services, the Applicant is committed to further offset
additional impacts through monetary contributions. The Frederick County Capital Facilities
Fiscal Impact Model identifies impacts to fire and rescue, public schools, parks and recreation,
public library and county administration building. The Applicant will provide for monetary
contributions that are consistent with, or exceed the results of the Fiscal Impact Model for
residential land uses. The Applicant's proffer statement provides for this monetary contribution,
which address all identified county services. It should be noted that the monetary contribution
9
Greenway Engineering January 8, 2003 Stephenson Village Residential
Revised March 7, 2003 Planned Community Rezoning
for the residential units within the active adult community and the affordable housing for the
elderly has been reduced accordingly based on no impacts to public schools; however, a 50%
premium has been provided to Fire and Rescue for each active adult unit and a 100%
premium has been provided to Fire and Rescue for each affordable housing for the elderly
unit. Additionally, the Applicant has proffered a 100% premium for Frederick County
Public Schools for each student that exceeds the annual 60 -student cap generation from
this community, a $200,000.00 monetary contribution to Clear Brook Volunteer Fire and
Rescue, Inc., and a $75,000.00 monetary contribution to Frederick County for Heritage
Tourism.
OTHER IMPACTS
The firm of Robert Charles Lesser & Co., LLC has been retained by the Applicant to prepare an
economic analysis for the Stephenson Village project to determine the economic impact to
Frederick County. Furthermore, the Applicant has agreed to pay all costs associated with an
independent review of this analysis that is being conducted by two qualified firms selected by
Frederick County. The results of this economic analysis demonstrate a positive fiscal impact
to Frederick County even before considering the monetary and land contribution proffers
in this rezoning application; therefore, the Stephenson Village project will more than pay
its own way and will be a net positive revenue generator for the County.
The program that has been developed for the Stephenson Village residential planned community
will adequately mitigate all impacts to the County and will also provide the following benefits to
the local community:
• Mix of housing type reduces impact to schools and provides affordable housing for the
elderly
• Water and sewer infrastructure will be developed by the Applicant which will be made
available to the area
• Self-sufficient development so impacts to community are not increased
• Comprehensive in-depth proffers to protect the community, as well as the County
• Control of suburban sprawl
• Creating an opportunity for better appreciation for local historic resources
• Community shopping
• Community employment opportunity during and after development
• Ball fields and school within walking distance of neighborhoods
IN
Greenway Engineering January 8, 2003 Stephenson Village Residential
Revised March 7, 2003 Planned Community Rezoning
• Public trail systems
• Preserve open space and create open space corridor along Hiatt Run
i Increase in local land values
• Positive water quality impacts to Hiatt Run
• Internal traffic capture and walkable community to minimize impacts to the
transportation system
Stephenson Village will be the first residential planned community built in Frederick
County. It will tie the neighborhoods of Stephenson together and serve as a vital center, as
well as bringing positive solutions to many of the concerns facing the County at this time.
Stephenson Associates L.C. is committed to making this community a success and a model
for development in the region.
.. .......
--- ------ --- - ------ ;If
lh
RTE. 701
..........
. .............. fj
.. ....... ...
.......... ...
. ................... ........
................ .........
f....................
%m
-A-REA:-'NO-T:-T,
AREA NOT To
BE REZONED
3-51 ACRES
TM: 44 -((A)) -31A
fi
. . .. ...... .
u
e.
.... . . .. .
. ... . . . .
f
�
TM; 44-((A))-31
RLJ17
// f� J 1'
Z,
0%
TM: 44-((A))-292
AREA TO BE REZONED
R4 DISTRICT
821.1i ACRES
TM: 44-((A))-293
w
MARK D. SMITH
No.022837
L
(9
Z
Z
0
N
W
LL
W
0
J_
Z
c0
o
Z
W
x
a.
W
1�-
co
DATE: MARCH 2003
SCALE: 1" = 1000'
DESIGNED BY: MDS
JOB NO. 2760C
SHEET 1 OF 1
--- ------ --- - ------ ;If
AREA NOT To
BE REZONED
3-51 ACRES
TM: 44 -((A)) -31A
fi
. . .. ...... .
u
e.
.... . . .. .
. ... . . . .
f
�
TM; 44-((A))-31
RLJ17
// f� J 1'
Z,
0%
TM: 44-((A))-292
AREA TO BE REZONED
R4 DISTRICT
821.1i ACRES
TM: 44-((A))-293
w
MARK D. SMITH
No.022837
L
(9
Z
Z
0
N
W
LL
W
0
J_
Z
c0
o
Z
W
x
a.
W
1�-
co
DATE: MARCH 2003
SCALE: 1" = 1000'
DESIGNED BY: MDS
JOB NO. 2760C
SHEET 1 OF 1
EXISTING & PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES
■ ■ ■ URBAN DEVEIAPMKNT AREA (UDA)
SEWER/WATER SERVICE AREA (SRSA)
._ UDA & SMSA EXTENSION
AREA NOT TO BE REZONED
MARK Q. SMITH
No.022837
EXISTING ZONING DISTRICTS
RA
RURAL AREAS DISTRICT
I IB2
i
BUSINESS GENERAL DISTRICT
RP
RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT
i B3
INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION DISTRICT
--- R4
RESIDENTIAL. PLANNED COIDEUNITY
� �� C �:'.' Mi
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
_ R5
RESIDENTIAL RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY
M2
INDUSTRIAL GENERAL DISTRICT
11H3
MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY DISTRICT
_ EM
EXTRACTIVE MANUFACTURING DIS
® BI
NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT
HE
HIGHER EDUCATION DISTRICT
EXISTING & PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES
■ ■ ■ URBAN DEVEIAPMKNT AREA (UDA)
SEWER/WATER SERVICE AREA (SRSA)
._ UDA & SMSA EXTENSION
AREA NOT TO BE REZONED
MARK Q. SMITH
No.022837
I DATE: MARCH 2003 1
SCALE: .1"=1500'
DESIGNED BY:EAW/JNT
JOB NO. 2780
SHEET i OF 1
W
W
U
� W
z�
E-
F.
Z
z
0
w
004
�
W
Qw
a
I
a
ca
z��Wo
�U
w
W
z
w
v
zw
a
Qwul
a
o
W
f� w
Q
z
I DATE: MARCH 2003 1
SCALE: .1"=1500'
DESIGNED BY:EAW/JNT
JOB NO. 2780
SHEET i OF 1
...............
................
...............
................
................. ... _
................... ..
.................
... ... ..... .
``•� .e:ii ':.�::; :iii• �iiii .ii �� ; %;:...;.\ \l\ \ , _
�., ..........r
. ............
r1Q
Tim
..ii
. B \
r � r
B
................................
.
....................................
............... .
........ . .
A
i
Ell
I
SOILS LEGEND
1 B - Berks Channery 2-7°%
3B - Blairton 2-7%
3C - Blairton 7-15%
n 6C - Carbo Oaklet (rocky) 2-15%
7C - Carbo Oaklet (outcrop) 2-15%
8C - Chilhowie 2-7%
98 - Clearbrook Channery 2-7°%
- 9C - Clearbrook Channery 7-15%
41 C - Weikert Berks 7-15%
0 41 D - Weikert Berks 15-25%
41 E - Weikert Berks 25-65%
Source: Soil Survey of
Frederick County, VA
N
W E
S
500 0 500 1000 Feet
SOILS MAP
IMPACT ANALYSIS
Greenway Engineering
March 2003
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of
Stephenson Village
Located in:
Frederick County, Virginia
Prepared for:
Stephenson Associates, L.C.
Box 2530
Winchester, Virginia
22604
prepared by
Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc
Engineers. surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects.
Pk-R+A
208 Church Street, SE
Leesburg, Virginia 20175
T 703.777.3616
F 703.777.3725
February 7, 2003
OVERVIEW
Report Summary
This study considers the traffic impacts associated with the build -out of the
proposed Stephenson Village development, to be located southeast of the Route 11 & Old
Charles Town Road intersection, in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed project is to
include 2,793 residential units, a 550 student elementary school, 60,000 square feet of
office, and 190,000 square feet of retail. For the purposes of this analysis, full build -out is
to occur over three (3) transportation phases by the year 2015.
Methodology
The traffic impacts accompanying the Stephenson Village development were
obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document:
• Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of
impact,
• Calculation of trip generation for the proposed Stephenson Village development,
• Distribution and assignment of the Stephenson Village development -generated trips
onto the completed roadway network,
• Analysis of capacity and level of service with the newest version of the highway
capacity software, HCS -2000, for existing and future conditions.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) conducted manual traffic counts at
the following intersections: 1) Route 11 & SB I-81 on-ramp/off-ramp; 2) Route 11 & NB
I-81 off -ramp; 3) Route 11 & NB I-81 on-ramp/Redbud Road; and 4) Route 11 & Old
Charles Town Road. Figure 1 shows the existing ADT (Average Daily Traffic) and
AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area. Figure 2 shows
the respective existing lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All traffic
count data and HCS -.2000 level of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section
of this report.
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
PH_��
February 7, 2003
Page I
No Scale
/
ti
ti
rs��Z�"
�50A9�
JlL
Figure 1
PH R+A
I
ISO ,�ti5aal 0.51 `
lA6Al�l�9 66 /
Existing Traffic Volumes
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
February 7, 2003
Page 2
ti
ti
��~ L2jC4j
x`69(1 p1
old 2)
C�ar1eS
-.Road
°th `•.
ob
erf°rds�,. l'►." SITE
lb- ry
ISO ,�ti5aal 0.51 `
lA6Al�l�9 66 /
Existing Traffic Volumes
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
February 7, 2003
Page 2
No Scale
1 i
j�
Unsignalized
Intersection
r:
Figure 2
Signalized
Intersection
LOS = C(C)
f CQ
IC, x J
Unsignalized Rural Two -Lane
Intersection Roadway
LOS = C(C)
Z _ $(C)- /
' "k'n Road ►
J �
Ful �
etf •� �
ords�� SITE
• V
fi� •''•`•� ?4
�cb. i
0000�
�A
t Unsignalized
I�d Intersection
� J
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
--Denotes Free -Flow Movement
K Denotes Critical Unsignalized Movement
Existing Lane Geometry and Level of Service
/� A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
PH _�{ -F / \ February 7, 2003
`l 1 Page 3
PHASE 1 (2006
The purpose of this Phase 1 scenario is to maximize the Stephenson Village
development while assuming the following roadway conditions:
1) All traffic will enter and exit the property via a single unsignalized site -
driveway located to the south of Old Charles Town Road.
2) The intersection of Route 11 & Old Charles Town Road is to be signalized.
3) The intersections of Route 11 with I-81 will include signalization and geometric
improvements.
2006 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
The existing traffic volumes were increased using an historic growth rate of 5% per
year (compounded annually). Additionally, PHR+A estimated trip generation for the Year
2006 Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park (350,000 square feet) based upon information
provided in the report titled: A Traffic Impact Analysis of Rutherford's Farm Industrial
Park, dated October 26, 2001. The trips were then assigned throughout the study area
based upon methodology included in the aforementioned report. Figure 3 shows the 2006
background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study
area. Figure 4 shows the respective 2006 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak
hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 level of service worksheets and 2006 Rutherford's
Farm Industrial Park trip generation are included in the Appendix section of this report.
TRIP GENERATION
The number of trips produced by and attracted to this site were established using
the 6th Edition of ITE's Trip Generation Report. Table 1 shows the trip generation results
for the proposed Phase 1 Stephenson Village development. Internal and pass -by trip
reductions were not assumed during this Phase 1 condition.
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
R -A PHFebruary 7, 2003
Page 4
No Scale
11
h
q
�26(S7
char 4(12 4)
Ai
�1A�'13
11les
T °wn Road
"1 6th
�11h�
�iertOf
fhb
i
oiio
Z�
"b
O,�`ewa��
d'
l9ALl�a
w o
O o v
-
(61
SITE
�-
(22j��� fir► ��
d �
`< �
�
•��
Cba
y♦
o.
d�A
O
P7
11
01
1 �15�13
�o�A���lti3l
r
` X05 0001,
O��d�
11
�l� Z laps
O
661
AA1139A ��r ✓
11615`L'llL�
A
Z
. I
66
PY TR+/ \
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Figure 3 2006 Background Traffic Volumes
-PH
R+A
a..t� iiuYa��.-�iiai.yJ1J VI JLCIJIICllSI)rl VI11agC
HFebruary 7, 2003
Page 5
No Scale
11
Signalized
Intersection Ra e
Signalized
Roadwayral
CLOS = C(C) LOS = C(C)
Intersection
C(C)
LOS = C C
(��Gi
O Id Charles
11
To Road
f r
Signalized
Intersection
o
LOS =13
IGIC �x ✓
dsD�i`
p
eway
SITE;�;�
O
J� GLGIGL0
a
✓ 'f'a� r
Signalized
n
,
°
Intersection
s
Tj
J
Los = c(c>
,-NC
0�� o
a
661
Signalized
Intersection
661
LOS = C(C)
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
(7---,Denotes Free-Flow Movement
PY TR+/
/� \
" Denotes Critical Unsignalized Movement
Figure 4 2006 Background Lane Geometry and Level of Service
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
PH R+A February 7, 2003
Page 6
Table 1
Phase 1 Stephenson Village
Trip Generation Summary
Code
Land Use
Amount
AM
In
Peak
Out
our
Total
PM
In
Peakour
Out
Total
ADT
Te—rcentage
of Total
210
Single -Family Detached
429 units
77
232
310
255
144
399
4,290
220
Apartment
240 units
20
103
123
100
49
149
1,573
230
Townhouse/Condo
390 units
26
125
150
127
62
189
3,393
251
Elderly Housing - Detach
266 units
29
51
80
78
44
123
1,064
253
Elderly Housing - Attach
72 units
3
2
5
4
3
7
251
Total Trips
155
513
667
564
302
866
10,570
100%
Total Internal
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
Total Pass -by
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
Total "New
Trips"
155
513
667
564
302
866
10,570
100%
TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT
The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the road network
surrounding the proposed site. Figure 5 represents the 2006 trip distribution percentages
into and out of the Stephenson Village development. Figure 6 shows the respective Phase
1 development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments along the study
area roadway network.
2006 PHASE 1 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS
The Stephenson Village assigned trips (Figure 6) were added to the 2006
background traffic (Figure 3) to obtain 2006 Phase 1 build -out conditions. Figure 7 shows
2006 Phase 1 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations
within the study area. Figure 8 shows the respective 2006 Phase 1 build -out lane
geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 level of service
worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report.
CONCLUSION
The traffic impacts associated with the Stephenson Village development are
acceptable and manageable. All study area intersections will maintain acceptable levels of
service "C" or better during 2006 Phase 1 build -out conditions.
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
RAP February 7, 2003
H Page 7
Figure 5 Phase 1 Trip Distribution Percentages
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
P
R+A
February 7, 2003
H Page 8
Lila
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Figure 6 Phase 1 Development -Generated Trip Assignments
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
P
R+A
February 7, 2003H
Page 9
No Scale
11
�q hh
tiN
^ �S5063)
3
�Id Ch 3 6(2g4) 4.109(181)
9o9hA91 11 les Town Road 4--19(68)
(163)79 a►
(497)136`-% oig
ot- �el f p
^ A,knOrQrS ^fit ✓;
CC'I in
SITE
z 8�� �• d
— 0
O d�A 11
W
0000 ca
n
li p2 �ap5 O� Pa�A 661111AA1139'1q�00 J ✓
z lq��`l� �titi 66
�T TR+/ \ AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Figure 7 2006 Phase 1 Build -out Traffic Volumes
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
P
R+A
February 7, 2003
HPage 10
No Scale
a
w
C
M
Ln
; o -C,
Signalized
Intersection
LOS = C(C)
U.
a.
ro
w
0
m
z
G�GI
o� f
o `I'a �< Signalized
`z �O Intersection
LOS = C(C)
ss, obc
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Denotes Free -Flow Movement
* Denotes Critical Unsignalized Movement
Figure 8 2006 Phase 1 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
PPAFebruary 7, 2003
HPage 11
Signalized
Intersection
Rural Two -Lane
LOS = C(C)
Roadway
Signalized
,`
LOS = C(C)
Intersection
,� C(C)
LOS = C(C)
nod Charles
4—Town
�Gl 11
Road rr
A(A)*
oe G
Signalized
Intersection
I�
I� LOS= B(B)
�'theifoIntersection
GGo
Unsignalized
%�r� iJ
rdsD�` A�
I d�
GlG
o
ewa'!,(
SITE'
Y
q•.
4
a
w
C
M
Ln
; o -C,
Signalized
Intersection
LOS = C(C)
U.
a.
ro
w
0
m
z
G�GI
o� f
o `I'a �< Signalized
`z �O Intersection
LOS = C(C)
ss, obc
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Denotes Free -Flow Movement
* Denotes Critical Unsignalized Movement
Figure 8 2006 Phase 1 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
PPAFebruary 7, 2003
HPage 11
PHASE 2 (2008)
The purpose of this Phase 2 scenario is to maximize the Stephenson Village
development while assuming the following roadway conditions (in addition to those
described under Phase 1):
1) The Old Charles Town Road site -driveway described under Phase 1 is to be
signalized.
2) Old Charles Town Road will be a three -lane road with a continuous left -turn
center lane east of Route 11.
3) The intersections of Route 11 with I-81 will have additional geometric changes.
2008 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
The existing traffic volumes were increased using an historic growth rate of 5% per
year. Additionally, PHR+A estimated trip generation for the Year 2008 Rutherford's Farm
Industrial Park (580,000 square feet) development. These trips were then assigned
throughout the study area based upon methodology assumed in the Rutherford's Farm
Industrial Park traffic study. Figure 9 shows the 2008 background ADT and AM/PM peak
hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area. Figure 10 shows the
respective 2008 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All
HCS -2000 level of service worksheets and 2008 Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park trip
generation are included in the Appendix section of this report.
TRIP GENERATION
The number of trips produced by and attracted to this site were established using
the 61h Edition of ITE's Trip Generation Report. The total trip generation was then reduced
to account for internal trip interaction and retail pass -by trips. Table 2 summarizes the
Stephenson Village Phase 2 trip generation results as well as the internal and pass -by trip
reductions. A detailed description of internal/pass-by trip interaction is provided in the
Appendix section of this report.
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
PHR February 7, 2003
1 Page 12
TN
No Scale
11
h
b
b
N
zg(63)
92(13
lag�l 11 Old ec 'P-- Road_
�-03
�1 h� r4?
1,0551 O o ° (lpDn`ewa=;
f SITE -`:d w•
c0 � (3l S�z3 �-�
ro \" no-
0
O dA 11
M'
6
M
v A6�1`5 Aglal$t�l
x �dp���lti
o
a�0 CIS
tj
1,>>5l age O� 'Oj
.
661 �g61 65p �'► °�
•' A z 11��6`gltiA 66
�T YR+/ \ AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Figure 9 2008 Background Traffic Volumes
PH R+A
February 7, 2003
Page 13
No Scale
60
J� t
�Gl c-�; sic
Signalized
Intersection
LOS = C(C)
Signalized
Intersection
LOS = C(C)
Cl)
t
to
IM
0
z
Signalized
Intersection
G� LOS = C(C)
Rural Two -Lane
Roadway
LOS = C(C)
—= CGI
f0
t Signalized
° Intersection
1 n LOS = C(C)
ECIC
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
;Denotes Free -Flow Movement
* Denotes Critical Unsignalized Movement
Fig`ur`e 10 2008 Background Lane Geometry and Level of Service
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
PI -PA February 7, 2003
Page 14
�Okn Road
Signalized
Intersection G�
LOS = C(C) G�
SITE
—= CGI
f0
t Signalized
° Intersection
1 n LOS = C(C)
ECIC
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
;Denotes Free -Flow Movement
* Denotes Critical Unsignalized Movement
Fig`ur`e 10 2008 Background Lane Geometry and Level of Service
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
PI -PA February 7, 2003
Page 14
Table 2
Phase 2 Stephenson Village
Trip Generation Summary
Code
Land Use
Amount
AM
In
Peak
Out
our
Total
PIVI
In
Peakour
Out
Total
ADT
Percentage
of Total
210
Single -Family Detached
858 units
153
458
610
477
268
745
8,580
220
Apartment
240 units
20
103
123
100
49
149
1,573
230
Townhouse/Condo
390 units
26
125
150
127
62
189
3,393
251
Elderly Housing - Detach
531 units
49
86
135
112
63
175
2,124
253
Elderly Housing - Attach
144 units
6
4
10
8
6
14
501
820
Retail
50,000 SF
64
41
106
191
207
397
4,365
Total Trips
317
816
1,133
1,014
655
1,669
20,536
100%
Total Internal
26
26
53
99
99
199
2,183
9%
Total Pass -by
10
6
16
29
31
60
655
3%
Total "New
Trips"
281
784
1,065
886
525
1,411
17,699
88%
TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT
The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the road network
surrounding the proposed site. Figure 11 represents the 2008 trip distribution percentages
into and out of the Stephenson Village development. Figure 12 shows the respective
Phase 2 development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments along the
study area roadway network.
2008 PHASE 2 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS
The Stephenson Village assigned trips (Figure 12) were added to the 2008
background traffic (Figure 9) to obtain 2008 Phase 2 build -out conditions. Figure 13
shows 2008 Phase 2 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key
locations within the study area. Figure 14 shows the respective 2008 Phase 2 build -out
lane geometry and AN"M peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 level of service
worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report.
CONCLUSION
The traffic impacts associated with the Stephenson Village development are
acceptable and manageable. All study area intersections will maintain acceptable levels of
service "C" or better during 2008 Phase 2 build -out conditions.
P A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
_ L February 7, 2003
Page 15
Figure 11 Phase 2 Trip Distribution Percentages
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
PR+A
February 7, 2003
H Page 16
"I
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Figure 12 Phase 2 Development -Generated Trip Assignments
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
P R+A
February 7, 2003
H Page 17
No Scale
000
..
e
AL
1,3�$61aa� I�
1112
0
Figure 13
S�
Old Chad 8(415) 4.121(200)
s To,,,_ „__, d'34(106)
(180)87�:AMA
Con;;
(780)247=►
o►
Fortl "� X00 h hob
SITE
(3II��63��� ♦♦
d
G
o-
O�
(180)87�:AMA
Con;;
(780)247=►
o►
a
SITE
d
G
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
2008 Phase 2 Build -out Traffic Volumes
PH
R+A A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
February 7, 2003
Page 18
No Scale
Signalized
Intersection
LOS = C(C)
G_GI
r
ICBG �x
010
1 s
lC �c
Signalized
Intersection
LOS = C(C)
Figure 14
Signalized
Intersection
LOS = C(C) G�
Dn`ewa
Rural Two -Lane
Roadway
LOS= C(C)
Signalized
Intersection
Signalized
G LOS = C(C)
Intersection
!/
LOS = B(B)
3 � C(C)
Old Charles
_
C(C)
Town Road
(A)A
o'
�d d�
SITE
fcjc �
q•.
J
G0
Signalized
a o ° Intersection
1 � Los = c(c}
1
z661
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
_-,Denotes Free -Flow Movement
* Denotes Critical Unsignalized Movement
2008 Phase 2 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service
R+A
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
PH February 7, 2003
Page 19
PHASE 3 (2015)
The purpose of this Phase 3 scenario is to maximize the. Stephenson Village
development while asswr ing the following roadway conditions (in addition to those
described under Phases 1 and 2):
1) All elementary school traffic will enter and exit the property via a single
unsignalized site -driveway located along Old Charles Town Road to the east of
the signalized site -driveway described under Phase 2.
2) Residential and retail land uses will enter and exit the property via an additional
signalized site -driveway (Spine Road) located along Route 11, opposite
Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park.
3) Route 11 will be a four -lane divided facility from the northbound ramps at 1-81
through the intersection at Spine Road.
4) Route 11 will be a three -lane roadway with a continuous left -turn center lane
through the intersection at Old Charles Town Road.
5) The intersections of Route 11 with 1-81 will have geometric improvements.
2015 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
The existing traffic volumes were increased using an historic growth rate of 5% per
year through Year 2010 and 3% per year through Year 2015. Additionally, the trips
relating to the entire Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park (1,400,000 square feet)
development were assigned throughout the study area. Figure 15 shows the 2015
background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study
area. Figure 16 shows the respective 2015 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak
hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 level of service worksheets and 2015 Rutherford's
Farm Industrial Park trip generation are included in the Appendix section of this report.
TRIP GENERATION
The number of trips produced by and attracted to this site were established using
the 6th Edition of ITE's Trip Generation Report. The total trip generation was then reduced
to account for internal trip interaction and retail pass -by trips. Table 3 summarizes the
Stephenson Village Phase 3 trip generation results as well as the internal and pass -by trip
reductions. A detailed description of internal/pass-by trip interaction is provided in the
Appendix section of this report.
A A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
H1 { + / \ February 7; 2003
H t 111 Page 20
No Scale
off -
AL
y ani s�
�1;A391,1'�A~
0
b�
N
36(81)
old
118(17S)
Charles To )
,111 w
CO b
4
`wa
41�IO1l
9�1ti9
�I _,O'Pi
11
1 �
OFA Q N
SITE
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Figure 15 7015 Background Traffic Volume�
T1 T1 A A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
Page 21
No Scale
off -
9�p1
d t
d
l9w � sic
Signalized
Intersection
LOS = D(D)
-I-
Signalized
Intersection
LOS = C(C)
G
C(C)
Signalized
0�d
Intersection
LOS = D(D)
Rothe 4
r
fora,
G
SITE
Dom)
(d� N.4
S'
OR
0a
fi�
4
X00.
Signalized
Intersection °
LOS = C(D)
c d
ICAC �� o
z _
Rural Two -Lane
Roadway
LOS = QQ
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
I-
` -,Denotes Free -Flow Movement
* Denotes Critical Unsignalized Movement
Figure 16 2015 Background Lane Geometry and Level of Service
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
PHRA February 7, e 03
22 Page 22
SITE
G♦
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
I-
` -,Denotes Free -Flow Movement
* Denotes Critical Unsignalized Movement
Figure 16 2015 Background Lane Geometry and Level of Service
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
PHRA February 7, e 03
22 Page 22
Table 3
Phase 3 Stephenson Village
Trip Generation Summary
Code
Land Use
Amount
AM
In
Peak
Out
Hour
Total
,',
In
Peak
Out
Hour
Total
ADT
ercentageI
of Total
210
Single -Family Detached
858 units
153
458
610
477
268
745
8,580
220
Apartment
480 units
39
203
242
187
92
278
3,011
230
Townhouse/Condo
780 units
44
215
260
225
111
336
6,786
251
Elderly Housing - Detach
531 units
49
86
135
112
63
175
2,124
253
Elderly Housing - Attach
144 units
6
4
10
8
6
14
501
520
Elementary School
550 students
94
65
160
2
4
6
527
710
Office
60,000 SF
109
15
124
25
122
147
896
820
Retail
190,000 SF
143
91
234
460
499
959
10,299
Total Trips
636
1,138
1,774
1,495
1,164
2,659
32,726
100%
Total Internal
167
167
334
260
260
519
6,003
20%
Total Pass -by
21
14
35
69
75
144
1,545
4%
Total "New
Trips"
448
957
1,405
1,167
829
1,996
25,178
76%
TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT
The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the road network
surrounding the proposed site. Figure 17 represents the 2015 trip distribution percentages
into and out of the Stephenson Village development. Figure 18 shows the respective
Phase 3 development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments along the
study area roadway network.
2015 PHASE 3 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS
The Stephenson Village assigned trips (Figure 18) were added to the 2015
background traffic (Figure 15) to obtain 2015 Phase 3 build -out conditions. Figure 19
shows 2015 Phase 3 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key
locations within the study area. Figure 20 shows the respective 2015 Phase 3 build -out
lane geometry and AMIPM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 level of service
worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report.
CONCLUSION
The traffic impacts associated with the Stephenson Village development are
acceptable and manageable. All study area intersections will maintain acceptable levels of
service "D" or better during 2015 Phase 3 build -out conditions.
R+A
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
PFebruary 7, 2003
H Page 23
Figure 17 Phase 3 Trip Distribution Percentages
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
R+A
February 7, 2003
HPage 24
Figure 18
PHRn
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Phase 3 Development -Generated Trip Assignments
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
February 7, 2003
Page 25
No Scale
ll a39111�� 00-0,
Figure 19
HP Rn
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
2015 Phase 3 Build -out Traffic Volumes
A Phased "Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
February 7, 2003
Page 26
No Scale
0
Signalized
Intersection
LOS = D(D)
Figure 20
off -
Signalized
Intersection
LOS = C(C) 01
G
C(l)
Signalized Old Char/es
Intersection
LOS = D(D) G
oldsd r��� r`t
rr`ewa
` rs
!�► ��� 3�I oeRoa�
0
f v�°
91 Signalized �`0
Intersection
o LOS = C(D)
m
a
z
Rural Two -Lane I
Roadway
L,oS = C(C)
Signalized
Town
Intersection
Unsignalized
LOS = B(B)
Intersection
Road If—C(C) A(A)*
(B)B
1
o�
d�
SITE
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
--,Denotes Free -Flow Movement
* Denotes Critical Unsignalized Movement
2015 Phase 3 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service
PR+A A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
HFebruary7, 2003
Page 27
Appendix
Table A: 2006 Background Development
AM Peak our tM Peakour
Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT
Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park
130 Industrial Park 350,000 SF 255 56 312 68 254 322 2,436
Total 255 56 312 68 254 322 2,436
Table B: 2008 Background Development
AM Peak our I'M Peak Hour
Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT
Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park
130 Industrial Park 580,000 SF 423 93 516 112 422 534 4,037
Total 423 93 516 112 422 534 4,037
Table C: 2015 Background Development
AM Peak our FM Peakour
Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT
Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park
130 Industrial Park 1,400,000 SF 1,022 224 1,246 270 I,018 1,288 9,744
Total 1,022 224 1,246 270 1,018 1,288 9,744
Table D: Phase 2 Internal/Pass-by Trip Interaction
ANI Peak
our
FfV1 Feak
our
Trips Going to/from educed Land Use
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
Percentage
Residential
Retail
16
10
26
48
52
99
1,091
25%
Office
Retail
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
T'otalPercentages
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
2;
Pass -by
Retail
10
6
16
29
31
60
655
15%
Total Percentages
15%
15%
15%
15%
15%
15%
15%
15%
Retail
Residential
10
16
26
52
48
99
1,091
Reciprocal
Total Percentages
5%
2%
3%
'O%
13%
9%
8%
"%
Total Retail Internal Trips
16
10
26
48
52
99
1,091
25%
Total Retail Pass -by Trips
10
6
16
29
31
60
655
15%
Total Retail "New" Trips
39
25
63
114
124
238
2,619
60%
Total Residential Internal Trips
10
16
26
52
48
99
1,091
7%
Total Residential "New" Trips
242
759
1,001
772
401
1,172
15,079
93%
Total Internal
26
26
53
99
99
199
2,183
Total Percentages
8%
3%
S%
10%
15%
12%
11%
9%
Total Pass -by
10
6
16
29
31
60
655
Total Percentages
3%
1%
I%
3%
5%
4%
3%
3%
Total "New "Crips"
281
784
1,065
886
525
1,411
17,699
Total Percentages
89%
9611
94%
87%
80%
85%
86%
88%
Total Trips
317
816
1,133
1,014
655
1,669
20,536
Total Percentages
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Table E: Phase 3 Internal/Pass-by Trip Interaction
Trips Going to/from educed Land Use
In
AM Feak
Out
Hour
Total
In
FM Feakour
Out
Total
,DT
Percentage
Residential
Retail
33
21
54
107
116
223
2,389
23%
Office
Retail
3
2
5
9
10
19
206
2%
Total Percentages
25%
25%
25%
25%
2j%
25%
25%
25%
Pass -by
Retail
21
14
35
69
75
144
1,545
15%
Total Percentages
15%
15%
15%
15%
15%
15%
15%
15%
Residential
Office
11
1
12
2
12
15
90
10%
Retail
Office
2
3
5
10
9
19
206
Reciprocal
Total Percentages
12%
29%
1.1%
30%
18%
23%
33%
25%
Office/Retail/School Residential
62
101
162
130
110
240
2,796
Reciprocal
Total Percentages
26%
11%
lj%
Ij%
23%
18%
15%
18%
Residential
Schools
56
39
96
1
2
3
316
60%
Total Percentages
60%
60%
60%
60%
60%
60%
60%
601%
Total Retail Internal Trips
36
23
59
116
126
242
2,595
25%
Total Retail Pass -by Trips
21
14
35
69
75
144
1,545
15%
Total Retail 'New' Trips
85
55
140
275
298
574
6,159
60%
Total Office Internal Trips
13
4
17
12
21
34
296
25%
Total Office "New" Trips
96
11
107
12
100
113
6D1
75%
Total Residential Internal Trips
62
101
162
130
110
240
2,796
18%
Total Residential 'New" Trips
228
866
1,094
878
429
1,307
18,207
82%
Total Schools Intemal Trips
56
39
96
1
2
3
316
60%
Total Schools "New" Trips
38
26
64
1
2
2
211
40%
Total Internal
167
167
334
260
260
519
6,003
Total Percentages
26%
15%
19%
17%
12%
20%
18%
20%
Total Pass -by
21
14
35
69
75
144
1,545
Total Percentages
3%
1 %
2%
5%
6%
5%
5%
4%
Total "New Trips"
448
957
1,405
1,167
829
1,996
25,178
Total Percentages
70%
84%
79%
78%
71%
75%
77%
76%
Total Trips
636
1,138
1,774
1,495
1,164
2,659
32,726
Total Percentages
106%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
REZONING APPLICATION FORM
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
To be completed by Planning Staff.•
Fee Amount Paid
Zoning Amendment Number Date Receive
PC Hearing Date BOS Hearing Date
The following information shall be provided by the applicant:
All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the
Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent
Street, Winchester.
1. Applicant:
Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540-662-4185
Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane, Winchester, VA 22602
2. Property Owner (if different from above)
Name: Stephenson Associates L.C. Telephone: 540-667-7700
Address: PO Box 2530, Winchester, VA 22604
3. Contact person if other than above
Name: Evan Wyatt, AICP Telephone: 540-662-4185
4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this
application.
Location map X Agency Comments
Plat X Fees
Deed to Property X Impact Analysis Statement
Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement
M
X
5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in
relation to rezoning applications.
Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned:
Stephenson Associates, L.C. - I Donald Shockey, Manager
6. A) Current Use of the Property RA - Agricultural
B) Proposed Use of the Property: R4 — Residential Planned Commun
7. Adjoining Property:
PARCEL ID NUMBER
See attached list
S. Location: The property is located at (give exact located based on nearest road
and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route number):
The subject property is located 2,000 feet east of Martinsburg Pike (US Route 11 North)
and south of Old Charles Town Road (Route 76 1) and south of Jordan Springs Road
(Route 664) in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model
In order for the Plaruning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for
the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use.
Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario
for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package.
9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number
44-((A))-31 (portion) 44-((A))-3 I A 44-((A))-292 44-((A))-293
Magisterial:
Fire Service
Rescue Service
10.
11.
Districts
Stonewall
Clearbrook Fire &
Rescue Dept.
Clearbrook Fire &
Rescue Dept.
High School:
Middle School
James Wood HS
James Wood Middle
Elementary School: Stonewall
Elementary
Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category
being requested.
Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested
821.7± RA R4
821.7-+ Total Acreage to be rezoned
The following information should be provided according to the type of
rezoning proposed:
Number of Units Proposed
Single Family homes: Townhome: Multi -Family
Non -Residential Lots: Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms:
Note: 2,800 maximum residential units to conform with Housing Unit Type %
Range specified in Article 3A(2) Exhibit A of the Proffer Statement.
Square Footage of Proposed Uses
Office: 60,000 sq.ft. max. Service Station:
Retail: 190,000 sq -ft -max Manufacturing:
Restaurant: Warehouse:
Other
12. Signature:
I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the
Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change
the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County
officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes.
I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be
placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission
public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to
be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing.
I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and
accurate to the bet of my (our) knowledge.
Applicant(s): t)Q-m Date:
Owner (s):
Date:3 7/�3
STEPHENSON VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED COMMUNITY REZONING
Owner Properties
PARCEL ID NUMBER
USE
ZONING
44-((A))-26
Agricultural
RA District
44-((A))-31
Agricultural
RA District
44 -((A)) -31A
Agricultural
RA District
44-((A))-292
Agricultural
RA District
44-((A))-293
Agricultural
RA District
Adjoining property owners
PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING
44-((A))-25
Agricultural
RA District
44-((A))-26
Agricultural
RA District
44 -((A)) -28B
Agricultural
RA District
44-((A))-29
Agricultural
RA District
44-((A))-32
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-33
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-34
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-35
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-36
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-37
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-38
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-39
Residential
RA District
44 -((A)) -40A
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-131
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-132
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-133
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-134
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-135
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-136
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-137
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-138
Residential
RA District
44 -((A)) -138A
Residential
RA District
44 -((A)) -138B
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-139
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-140
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-141
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-142
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-143
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-144
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-145
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-146
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-147
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-148
Residential
RA District
2760C/FAW
-2 -
Adjoining property owners
PARCEL ID NUMBERi SEZO IN
44-((A))-149
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-150
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-151
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-153
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-154
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-155
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-156
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-157
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-158
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-161
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-162
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-163
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-164
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-165
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-166
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-167
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-168
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-169
Residential
RA District
44 -((A)) -170C
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-202
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-205
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-206
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-207
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-208
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-209
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-210
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-211
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-212
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-218
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-219
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-220
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-221
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-222
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-223
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-224
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-225
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-226
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-228
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-229
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-230
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-231
Residential
RA District
44 -((A)) -231A
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-231 B
Residential
RA District
44-((A))-232
Residential
RA District
2760C/EA W
Adjoining property owners
PARCEL ID NUMBERUSEZONING
44-((A))-233
44-((A))-234
44-((A))-235
44-((A))-236
44-((A))-237
44-((A))-238
44-((A))-283
44-((A))-284
44-((A))-285
44-((A))-286
44-((A))-287
44-((A))-288
44-((A))-289
44-((A))-291
44-((A))-294
44C -((1))-A
44C-((1))-13
44C-((1))-14
44C-((1))-15
44C-((1))-16
44C-((1))-17
44C-((1))-18
44C-((1))-19
44C-((1))-20
44C-((1))-21
44C-((1))-22
44C -((2))-A
44C -((2))-B
44C -((2))-D
45-((A))-25
45-((9))-3-1
45-((9))-3-2
55-((A))-6
55-((A))-7
55 -((A)) -7A
55-((A))-8
55-((A))-9
55-((A))-10
55-((7))-12
55-((7))-13
55-((7))-14
55-((7))-15
2760C/EA W
-3 -
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Office/Agricultural
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Agricultural
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
B2 District/RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
RA District
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX. 540/665-6395
April 16, 2003
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, AICP
Greenway Engineering
151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, VA 22602
RE: Stephenson Village Rezoning Application
SUBJECT: Analysis of Proffer Statement
Dear Evan:
Attached with this letter is a proffer analysis report concerning the proposed proffer statement for the
Stephenson Village rezoning application, dated January 8, 2003, and revised through March 7, 2003.
This report is in follow-up to preliminary comments issued by staff on February 5, 2003, and several
meetings held between staff and the applicant in recent months during which proffer content and
structure were discussed. The goal of this analysis is to facilitate the proactive resolution of proffer -
related issues in advance of the requisite public hearing process.
The attached report focuses first on issues involving the proposed waiver requests and follows with
general analysis of the remainder of the proffer statement. As per a discussion between
representatives of Stephenson Associates, L.C. and staff on April 8, 2003, resolution of the waiver
issues is proposed through an amendment to Article VII of the Zoning Ordinance to allow enhanced
opportunities for ordinance modifications with R-4 zoning petitions. In the absence of this
amendment, staff contends that the Zoning Ordinance would not enable the majority of the
exemptions sought through the application. The proposed language for this amendment and the
envisioned modification process are explained in the report.
It is noted that staff analysis of the waiver requests merely identifies scenarios that would require
modification approval and does not offer comment on either the impacts or appropriateness of these
requests. Indeed, identification of modification opportunities by staff should not be interpreted as
an endorsement of either the intent or content of the proposed waivers. Complete .analysis of all
modification proposals will occur subsequent to submission of the requisite justification and
supplemental review materials.
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Page 2
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, AICP
Re: Stephenson Village Rezoning Application - Proffer Analysis
April 16, 2003
The general analysis section of the report is the result of a systematic review of the proposed proffer
statement by staff. All issues identified in the report are considered relevant to the ultimate viability
of the proffer statement as a means to achieving the articulated vision for the Stephenson Village
planned community. Staff looks forward to meeting with representatives of Stephenson Associates,
L.C. on Wednesday, April 23, 2003, to discuss these issues and develop a mutually acceptable
strategy for their resolution.
Through the general analysis section, staff provides comment on a range of issues from language
ambiguity to the actual content and intent of certain proffered conditions. Although all issues
included in the report are important, certain concerns involve fundamental components of the
development and therefore merit specific reference in this letter. These primary issues may be
summarized as follows:
• Major Collector Road - Completion of this critical transportation improvement relies upon
right-of-way across land owned by others who are not party to this application. The proffer
statement provides for development to proceed unabated should off-site rights-of-way
required for transportation improvements prove unattainable. This provision would therefore
enable the pace and quantity of development to continue without consequence should off-site
improvements essential to maintaining acceptable level of service conditions on area roads
remain incomplete. The proffer statement should address this contingency and its likely
impacts should it be concluded that off-site rights-of-way will remain unsecured at the time
of this application's public hearing.
Commercial Develo meat - This application proposes the inclusion of commercial areas
comprising 4% of the project's gross area, which, if enabled by a requested exemption, would
be less than the minimum commercial allotment of 10% required by ordinance. Moreover,
the development of commercial uses is not phased with the residential component of the
project, thereby enabling full residential build -out prior to the commencement of any
commercial activity within Stephenson Village. However, although 4% of the project's land
area will be reserved for commercial use, the applicant has not guaranteed that this land will
actually develop as no mininnim amount of commercial development has been specified by
proffer, only a maximum. The lack of any assurances regarding the timing and quantity of
commercial development poses the risk that commercial uses may either trail residential
development indefinitely or fail to materialize all together. The timely development of
sufficient quantities of commercial development is essential to realization of the advantages
of mixed-use development.
Page 3
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, AICP
Re: Stephenson Village Rezoning Application - Proffer Analysis
April 16, 2003
School and Public Park Land Dedications - The proffer statement provides for the reversion
of land dedicated to the County for school and public park uses to the applicant's ownership
should such uses not be established within 10 years of conveyance. It is noted that this
provision fails to acknowledge that the value of the dedicated land has been credited toward
the per unit monetary proffer included with this application. Moreover, the evolving fiscal
and programmatic realities that govern completion of capital improvement projects are not
effectively accommodated by this proffer.
It is important to reiterate that the analysis included in the attached report is limited to the proffer
statement only. The issue of this proposal's inconsistency with the existing land use policies of the
Comprehensive Policy Plan is not discussed. Moreover, analysis of the impact statement for this
project is not included in the report.
Please note that this application will not be scheduled for the requisite Planning Commission public
hearing until all issues of significance concerning the proffer statement are resolved.
As always, please feel free to contact me should you have any questions or concerns regarding this
correspondence.
Sincerely,
Christopher M. Mohn, AICP
Deputy Planning Director
CMM/rsa
Attachments
cc: J. Donald Shockey, Jr., Stephenson Associates, L.C.
John Goode, Stephenson Associates, L.C.
Thomas Moore Lawson, Esquire, Lawson and Silek, P.L.C.
John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator
Kris C. Tierney, Assistant County Administrator
Lawrence R. Ambrogi, County Attorney
Jay Cook, Assistant County Attorney
Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director
Stephenson Village Rezoning Application
Proffer Analysis
April 15, 2003
Proffer Statement for Stephenson Village Residential Planned Community
Dated January 8, 2003, Revised Through March 7, 2003
Submitted by Stephenson Associates, L.C.
I. Waivers
1. Proposed Waivers to Enable Design Flexibiiity (p. 2 - 4)
A. Overview - Ordinance Limitations and Recommended Resolution
The proffer statement includes twenty-two requests for waivers from certain requirements of the
Frederick County Code ("the Code") applicable to planned community development. These waivers
primarily involve provisions of Chapter 165 ("Zoning Ordinance") and Chapter 144 ("Subdivision
Ordinance"). The requested waivers are proposed as a means of facilitating the design plan for
Stephenson Village and constitute the foundation for subsequent sections of the proffer statement.
Exemptions and/or waivers to the requirements of the Code applicable to planned community
developments are enabled pursuant to §165-72.0. of the Zoning Ordinance, which states:
Other regulations. The planned community development shall conform with all
regulations of this chapter and the Frederick County Code unless specifically
exempted by this article.
This provision plainly articulates that an exemption or waiver cannot be legally proposed or
considered for a planned community development except where said exemption is expressly
permitted pursuant to Article VII of Chapter 165 of the Code. It is noted that this provision is
exclusive in nature and is not amendable through approval of proffered conditions allowed with
conditional rezoning approval. Indeed, by expressly defining the scope of allowable exemptions,
§165-72.0. establishes the preeminence of the Code vis-a-vis rezoning petitions for planned
community development, effectively limiting the degree of flexibility attainable through proffered
conditions.
Accordingly, the majority of the waiver requests included with the proffer statement are not
permitted due to the absence of language in Article VII specifically enabling the desired exemptions.
Therefore, an alternative method is required to achieve the regulatory flexibility necessary to
facilitate implementation of the Stephenson Village design concept.
Staff has proposed an amendment to Article VII intended to expand opportunities for modifications
to ordinance provisions applicable to planned community development. It is noted that staff
perceives the existing provisions of Article VII to be generally appropriate as the County's
Page 1 of 26
regulatory template for mixed-use communities. Therefore, the scope of the proposed amendment
is limited to § 165-72.0., which would be enhanced to provide individual applicants for R-4 zoning
with broad latitude to pursue modifications to any provision of the Code impacting physical
development, assuming modifications are not otherwise enabled by ordinance through established
processes (i.e. Master Development Plan, Subdivision).
In seeking modification approval, an applicant would be expected to address the following:
1) Specify the alternative design or development standard proposed in lieu of
the relevant ordinance requirement;
2) Provide elevation and/or cross-section plans or drawings demonstrating the
implementation and effect of the modified standard;
3) Identify the need or role for the alternative standard in the overall design plan
for the community; and
4) Articulate how the proposed standard will meet the public purpose(s) of the
relevant ordinance provision to an equivalent degree.
It is envisioned that the Board of Supervisors would consider and approve each modification request
on its merits pursuant to the applicant's justification. Moreover, modifications would be considered
concurrent with the rezoning application and, if approved, the alternative standards and
accompanying cross-section and elevation plans would be included as conditions of the rezoning
approval. In essence, this amendment approach would codify a rational method enabling
consideration and adoption of alternative standards to enable design flexibility with planned
community development. Staff contends that Board approved modifications are the most effective
means of accommodating the unique vision expected with any planned community development
while simultaneously assuring the relevance of both the public process and the Code.
Staff proposes replacement of the current language of § 165-72.0. with the following:
§ 165-72.0. Modifications; applicability of other regulations.
(1) An applicant may request as part of an application for rezoning to the R-4
District that a modification to specific requirements of the subdivision
ordinance, this chapter or other requirements of the Frederick County Code
applicable to physical development be granted. The applicant shall
demonstrate that the requested modification is necessary or justified in the
particular case by a demonstration that the public purpose of these
ordinances, as applied to the particular case, would be met to at least an
equivalent degree by such modification. The Board of Supervisors may
approve or disapprove such request, in whole or in part.
(2) The applicant shall provide sufficient information to enable evaluation of the
request by the Board of Supervisors. Materials submitted should include or
be supplemented by: (a) specification of the code section(s) to be modified
Page 2 of 26
and the proposed alternative standard; (b) exhibits demonstrating application
of the modified standard such as a detailed plan and/or elevation drawing;
and, (c) identification of the relationship of the modification to the overall
community concept.
(3) The planned community development shall conform with all regulations of
this chapter and the Frederick County Code unless specifically exempted by
this article or modified by the Board of Supervisors through the rezoning
process.
B. Analysis of Waivers to Enable Design Flexibility
Staff has prepared a cursory analysis of each waiver request pursuant to the limitations of § 165-72.0.
In accordance with this provision, many of the waivers are not enabled by Article VIZ and therefore
cannot be approved as requested through this application. As noted above, staff has proposed an
amendment to Article VII to allow applicants requesting R-4 zoning to seek modifications of the
Code for the purposes of facilitating regulatory flexibility and innovative community design. This
analysis identifies those waiver requests that would be appropriate as modification proposals under
the amended ordinance. Moreover, staff identifies those requests that are already enabled by
ordinance and the appropriate means of seeking permitted waivers is enumerated.
In the context of an amended § 165-72.0., all of the proposed waivers could conceivably be pursued
as modifications, assuming submission of adequate justification and sufficient supporting materials.
Therefore, the successful amendment of Article VII is a prerequisite of approval of the design
concept currently proposed through the Stephenson Village application.
Waiver B.(1) (p. 2)
Issue: The proposed waiver seeks exemption from the housing type mix required via § 165-71. of
Article VII, Mixture of Housing Types Required. This provision does not allow alternative housing
unit mixtures or general exemptions from the mix required by ordinance. Pursuant to § 165-72.0.,
the requirements of § 165-71. cannot be modified or waived as such exemptions are not specifically
allowed by ordinance.
Recommended Resolution: A modification of the requirements of § 165-71 may be sought pending
amendment of § 165-72.0. To facilitate the modification, the applicant is encouraged to provide an
alternative housing mix for Stephenson Village as well as justification regarding the necessity of the
modification to include demonstration that the proposed mix will meet the public purpose of the
existing standards to an equivalent degree.
Waiver B.(2) (p. 2)
Issue: Pursuant to §165-72.B.(2) of Article VII, Dimensional Requirements, an alternative
dimensional plan may be submitted with a planned community development proposal. However,
Page 3 of 26
the ordinance stipulates that the alternative plan be approved by the Planning Commission and Board
of Supervisors with no provision for administrative approval_ Pursuant to §165-72.0., the
requirement that an alternative dimensional plan receive Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors approval cannot be modified or waived as such exemptions are not specifically allowed
by ordinance.
Recommended Resolution: The applicant has included alternative dimensional plans with the
proffer statement for several proposed housing types that will be unique to Stephenson Village. The
inclusion of additional alternative plans for future housing types not envisioned either by ordinance
or this application would require approval by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
In general, staff perceives the current process for such approval to be reasonable. However, the
applicant may pursue a procedural modification that would allow subsequent alternative plans to be
reviewed and approved administratively pending amendment of § 165-72.0. The applicant would
be required to demonstrate that administrative approval of changes to the dimensional plan would
meet the public purpose of a public review process to an equivalent degree.
Waiver B.(3) (p. 2)
Issue: Pursuant to §165-72.D. of Article VII, Commercial and Industrial Areas, a minimum of 10%
of the gross area of the project shall be used for business and industrial uses. This requirement
further limits the maximum amount of commercial and industrial development to no more than 50%
of the planned community's gross area. The ordinance does not provide for the modifications to
either the minimum or maximum limitations applicable to commercial and industrial development
in the planned community. Pursuant to §165-72.0., the requirement that business land uses
comprise a minimum of 10% of the project's gross area cannot be modified or waived as such
exemptions are not specifically allowed by ordinance.
Recommended Resolution: A modification of the requirements of §165-72.D. may be sought
pending amendment of §165-72.0. To facilitate the modification, the applicant is encouraged to
provide alternative land use ratios for Stephenson Village as well as justification regarding the
necessity of the modification to include demonstration that the proposed ratios will meet the public
purpose of the existing standards to an equivalent degree.
Waiver B.(4) (p. 2)
Issue: Pursuant to §165-72.F. of Article VII, Recreational facilities, the equivalent of one
recreational unit shall be provided per thirty dwellings. This provision provides for flexibility in the
design and configuration of these facilities pursuant to Planning Commission and Parks and
Recreation Department approval. For instance, this provision allows for the combination or
fragmentation ofrequired facilities to meet the unique demands of the planned community, provided
the total required units are ultimately developed. However, an outright exemption from the standard
is not enabled by ordinance. Therefore, pursuant to §165-72.0., the requirement that a planned
community shall include the equivalent of one recreational unit per thirty dwellings cannot be
Page 4 of 26
modified or waived as such exemptions are not allowed by ordinance_
Recommended Resolution: As noted in the preceding paragraph, the current language of § 165-72.F.
provides flexibility in the design and configuration of recreational facilities. If flexibility in the
delivery of required recreational units is of principal interest to the applicant, then no further
modification would arguably be necessary and issues concerning the method(s) employed to satisfy
recreational unit requirement can be resolved through subsequent development applications.
However, a modification of the requirements of § 165-72.F. may be sought pending amendment of
§ 165-72.0. should the applicant desire an alternative recreational unit standard in lieu of that which
is required by ordinance. The applicant should clarify the purpose of the requested waiver so that
the appropriate course of action can be determined.
Waiver B.(5) (p. 2)
Issue: Pursuant to §165-72.G.(2) of Article VII, Buffers and screening, an alternative plan for
buffers and screening and the separation of uses within the planned community may be proposed
with the required Master Development Plan. Approval of the alternative plan is granted by the
Board of Supervisors following the evaluation and recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Given the availability of this option for internal buffers and screening, the requested waiver may not
be necessary. Indeed, as per the referenced ordinance section, an alternative plan must be developed
and submitted for approval with the Master Development Plan if buffering and screening is planned
within the community that differs from standard ordinance requirements. Thus, although flexibility
is provided through this provision of Article VII, an outright waiver of applicable buffering and
screening requirements is not permitted as the applicant must submit an alternative program as a
means to the desired exemption.
Recommended Resolution: The applicant should prepare and submit an alternative buffer and
screening plan for inclusion with the proffer statement. No modification is necessary to facilitate
this course of action.
Waiver B.(6) (p. 3)
Issue: Pursuant to § 165-72.G.(1) and (2) of Article VII, Buffering and screening, perimeter buffers
and screens shall be provided in accordance with applicable ordinance requirements and said buffers
and screens shall not be included in an alternative buffering and screening plan. Asper §165-72.0.,
the proposed modification or waiver of the perimeter buffer requirement is not permitted as the
provisions of Article VII do not enable such exemptions. Indeed, the provisions of § 165-72.G.(2)
do not provide for the inclusion of perimeter buffers in alternative buffering and screening plans.
Recommended Resolution: A modification of the requirements of §165-72.G.(1) and (2) may be
sought pending amendment of § 165-72.0. The purpose of these modifications is twofold; first, to
enable perimeter buffers that differ from those required by § 165-37 of the Zoning Ordinance and
second, to allow the inclusion of an alternative perimeter buffer(s) with the alternative buffer and
Page 5 of 26
screening plan enabled by §165-72.G.(2). The alternative perimeter buffer(s) envisioned by the
applicant should be delineated in the alternative buffer and screening plan for Stephenson Village.
Waiver B.(7) (p. 3)
Issue: Pursuant to § 165-72.I. of Article VII, Road access, a planned community shall be provided
with a complete system of public streets dedicated to the Virginia Department of Transportation.
This provision does not enable any modification or waiver of this standard under any circumstance.
Thus, as per §165-72.0., the proposed waiver of the public road requirement for a planned
community development is not permitted as the provisions of Article VII do not enable such
exemptions. It is noted, however, that §144-24.C.(2) of Article V, Chapter 144, Subdivision of
Land, of the Frederick County Code permits access to multi -family and single family small lot
housing via private roads. Such standards would be applicable in areas of the proposed development
involving the specified housing types thereby allowing the use of private roads in limited
circumstances. However, no provision exists enabling waiver of the public road requirement
applicable to other housing types within a planned community.
Recommended Resolution: A modification of § 165-72.I. would be required to allow private road
access should the applicant intend to serve housing types other than multi -family and single-family
small lot with such access. Moreover, the applicant would need to modify the public street frontage
requirements of § 144-24.C. to broaden the use of private streets in Stephenson Village. As noted
in the preceding paragraph, at present only multi -family units and single-family small lot housing
are allowed frontage on private streets. The applicant should include and commit to a set of
minimum specifications for private roads as a means of demonstrating that the expanded use of
private streets would meet the public purpose of the public street access requirement to an equivalent
degree. The current proffer statement does not include any such specifications.
Waiver B.(8) (p. 3)
Issue: Pursuant to §165-72.I. of Article VII, Road access, exemptions may be granted to the
requirement that all roads shall be provided with curb and gutter. Specifically, such exemptions are
permitted to allow for alternative storm water management techniques, such as those associated with
low impact development. However, the ordinance specifies that such exemptions are to be granted
by the Board of Supervisors following review by the Planning Commission. Administrative
approval of curb and gutter exemptions by the Director of Public Works is not enabled by the
referenced code provision. Thus, per §165-72.0., the proposed waiver of the requirement that the
Board of Supervisors approve curb and gutter exemptions is not permitted as an exemption to this
approval process is not permitted by ordinance.
Recommended Resolution: The requested waiver is arguably not necessary to facilitate exemption
from the curb and gutter requirements of §165-72.1. The opportunity for such exemptions would
exist at the Master Development Plan stage of development review, which necessarily involves
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approval. At that time, the Commission and Board
Page 6 of 26
can evaluate the appropriateness of such exemptions pursuant to the applicant's presentation of
specific proposals for low impact development and identification of those areas to be developed
Using sllrh te_chIique_,s. However, the applica_n_t may propose modification of the procedural
requirements of §165-72.1. pending amendment of §165-72.0.
Waiver B.(9) (p. 3)
Issue: Pursuant to § 165-72.M. of Article VII, Phasing, a schedule of phases shall be submitted with
each planned community proposal to include specification of the calendar year during which each
phase will be completed. The modification or waiver of this requirement is not enabled by this
provision. Thus, per §165-72.0., the proposed waiver of the phasing schedule requirement is not
permitted as such an exemption is not specifically allowed by ordinance.
Recommended Resolution: A modification of the phasing requirements of § 165-72.M, may be
sought pending amendment of § 165-72.0.
Waiver B.(10) (p. 3)
Issue: Pursuant to § 165-72.M.(3) of Article VII, Phasing, the phasing plan for a planned community
shall include a reasonable portion of planned non-residential uses in all phases of development. This
provision is intended to achieve a balance between residential and non-residential land uses
throughout project development. The modification or waiver of this requirement is not enabled by
this provision. Thus, per §165-72.0., the proposed waiver of the requirement to include non-
residential land uses with each phase of development is not allowed as such an exemption is not
specifically permitted by ordinance.
Recommended Resolution: The phased introduction of non-residential land uses with residential
development is consistent with accepted planning practice involving mixed-use communities. Such
phasing is not purely an economic concern, but rather an integral method for ensuring that the
efficiencies possible with mixed-use development evolve from its earliest stages. This approach
ensures that commercial and employment uses develop in an integrated manner with residential uses,
not merely as a functional and aesthetic post -script to years of residential development.
However, should the applicant deem such phasing to be unacceptable in the context of Stephenson
Village, a modification of this standard may be sought pending amendment of §165-72.0. To
demonstrate satisfaction of the public purpose of §165-72.M.(3), the applicant should provide an
alternative phasing program for non-residential land uses.
Waiver B.(11) (p. 3)
Issue: Pursuant to § 165-72.I. of Article VII, Road access, a planned community shall be provided
with a complete system of public streets dedicated to the Virginia Department of Transportation.
This provision does not enable any modification or waiver of this standard under any circumstance.
Page 7 of 26
By extension, no provision is made for modification of the associated requirement that all lots abut
and have access to a public road, which is specified in §144-24.C. of Article V, Chapter 144,
Subdivision of Land, of the Frederick County Code. Thus, as per § 165-72.0., the proposed waiver
of the public road requirement for a planned community development is not allowed as the
provisions of Article VII do not enable such exemptions.
It is noted, however, that § 144-24.C.(2) of Chapter 144 permits access and therefore frontage for
multi -family and single family small lot housing via private roads. Such standards would be
applicable in areas of the proposed development involving the specified housing types thereby
allowing the use of private roads in limited circumstances. However, no provision exists enabling
waiver of the public road frontage requirement applicable to other housing types within a planned
community.
Recommended Resolution: Pursuant to amendment of §165-72.0., a modification to the public
street frontage requirements of §144-24.C. may be sought to broaden the use of private streets in
Stephenson Village. At present only multi -family units and single-family small lot housing are
allowed frontage on private streets. The applicant should include and commit to a set of minimum
specifications for private roads as a means of demonstrating that the expanded use of private streets
would meet the public purpose of the public street access requirement to an equivalent degree. The
current proffer statement does not include any such specifications. (See discussion of Waiver B. (7)
above)
Waiver B.(I2) (p. 3)
Issue: Pursuant to § 122-5 of Chapter 122, Nuisances, of the Frederick County Code, a property
owner shall not allow grass, weeds, or foreign growth to exceed 18 inches in height within 100 feet
of any dwelling or building. Article VII does not provide for a waiver of this code requirement.
Thus, as per §165-72.0., the proposed waiver of this nuisance standard is not valid as such an
exemption is not specifically enabled by the provisions of Article VII.
Recommended Resolution: As proposed, the amendment of § 165-72.0. would enable modification
of any section of the Code involving physical development. Thus, the applicant could pursue a
modification to this requirement pending adoption of the amendment. Staff is uncertain of the
applicant's intent concerning this waiver request. The homeowner's association required for the
development would ultimately bear responsibility for maintaining undeveloped common or grassy
areas that are not controlled by a private property owner, to include those located within the rights-
of-way of private roads and adjacent to storm water management facilities. Individual property
owners would also be exempted from this code section through the proposed modification thereby
precluding County response to future complaints concerning undeveloped properties that are
overgrown and/or unkept within the community. The applicant should therefore clarify the
purpose(s) of this exemption and further specify the maintenance methods proposed as well as the
enforcement provisions of said methods.
Page 8 of 26
Waiver B.(13) (p_ 3)
Issue: Street classifications and associated design and construction standards are defined using daily
traffic count figures specified via §144-17 of Article V, Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, of the
Frederick County Code. Neither Article VII of Chapter 165 nor Article V of Chapter 144 provide
for the waiver or modification of the road classification criteria. This, as per § 165-72.0., the
proposed waiver of the average daily trip count figures used to determine street classifications is not
permitted as such an exemption is not specifically enabled by the provisions of Article VII.
Recommended Resolution: Pending amendment of §165-72.0., the applicant may pursue
modification of the standards and classifications specified under § 144-17. An alternative method
for defining street classifications should be included with the proposal.
Waiver B.(14) (p. 3)
Issue: Pursuant to §144-17.(M) of Article V, Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, of the Frederick
County Code, street signs using alternative designs may be permitted with Planning Commission
approval. However, no provision is included for the administrative approval of such designs, as
requested by the applicant. Moreover, the waiver of this approval process is not permitted by
ordinance. The proposed waiver to allow the Director of Public Works to approve alternative street
sign designs in lieu of Planning Commission approval is not valid as such exemptions are not
permitted by ordinance. The applicant may achieve the desired flexibility in street sign design by
requesting Planning Commission approval during the subdivision review process.
Recommended Resolution: Pending approval of the amendment to §165-72.0., the applicant may
pursue a modification of the procedural requirements of § 144-17.(M) concerning alternative street
sign designs. The applicant should provide a set of design guidelines for approval by the
Commission and Board, which would guide any subsequent administrative approval process. As
with all modification proposals, the applicant must demonstrate that the alternative approval process
would satisfy the public purpose of Commission review and approval to an equivalent degree.
Waiver B.(15) (p. 4)
Issue: Pursuant to §165-72.B.(2) of Article VII, Dimensional requirements, an alternative
dimensional requirement plan is allowed for a planned community with Board of Supervisors
approval. The applicant has submitted a series of alternative dimensional plans for many of the
housing types envisioned for Stephenson Village; in other cases, a housing type allowed by the RP
Zoning District would be regulated pursuant to existing ordinance standards. Thus, the requested
waiver is not necessary as Article VII provides for a defined program enabling flexibility and
innovation with dimensional requirements. As previously noted, the applicant has proposed such
alternative plans with the proffers proposed with the Stephenson Village application.
Recommended Resolution: Neither a waiver nor modification is required for the County to accept
Page 9 of 26
the alternative dimensional requirement plans proffered by the applicant. As noted in the preceding
paragraph, such alternative plans are specifically allowed via §165-72.B.(2). Alternative
dimensional requirements may be accepted for housing types permitted by ordinance assuming the
Commission and Board deem such requirements to be consistent with the policies of the
Comprehensive Policy Plan and sound planning practice.
Waiver B.(16) (p. 4)
Issue: Pursuant to § 165-72.I. of Article VII, Road access, a planned community shall be provided
with a complete system of public streets dedicated to the Virginia Department of Transportation.
This provision does not enable any modification or waiver of this standard under any circumstance.
By extension, no provision is made for modification of the associated requirement that all lots abut
and have access to a public road, which is specified in §144-24.C. of Article V, Chapter 144,
Subdivision of Land, of the Frederick County Code. Thus, as per §165-72.0., the proposed waiver
of the public road requirement for a planned community development is not allowed as the
provisions of Article VII do not enable such exemptions.
It is noted, however, that §144-24.C.(2) of Chapter 144 permits access and therefore frontage for
multi -family and single family small lot housing via private roads. Such standards would be
applicable in areas of the proposed development involving the specified housing types thereby
allowing the use of private roads in limited circumstances. However, no provision exists enabling
waiver of the public road frontage requirement applicable to other housing types within a planned
community.
Recommended Resolution: A modification of §165-72.I. would be required to allow private road
access should the applicant intend to serve housing types other than multi -family and single-family
small lot with such access. Moreover, the applicant would need to modify the public street frontage
requirements of § 144-24.C. to broaden the use of private streets in Stephenson Village. As noted
in the preceding paragraph, at present only multi -family units and single-family small lot housing
are allowed frontage on private streets. The applicant should include and commit to a set of
minimum specifications for private roads as a means of demonstrating that the expanded use of
private streets would meet the public purpose of the public street access requirement to an equivalent
degree. The current proffer statement does not include any such specifications. (See discussion of
Waiver A (7) above)
Waiver B.(17) (p. 4)
Issue: Pursuant to § 144-24.C.(2)(b) of Article V, Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, of the Frederick
County Code, single family small lot and multi -family housing that abuts a private road shall not be
more than 500 feet from a state -maintained road. This provision allows the Planning Commission
to waive this requirement to enable lots containing such housing to be as much as 800 feet from a
public road. However, this provision is explicit in the maximum distance ultimately allowable for
specified housing types from a state road and in the role of the Planning Commission in granting an
Page 10 of 26
exemption to achieve said distance. No provision for the modification or waiver of this standard is
provided via either Chapter 165 or Chapter 144. Thus, per § 165-72.0., the proposed waiver is not
valid as it is not specifically enabled by the provisions of Article VII.
Recommended Resolution: Pending approval of the amendment to § 165-72.0., the applicant may
pursue a modification of the requirements of § 144-24.C.(2)(b) concerning the maximum distance
permitted for single-family small lot and multi -family housing from a state -maintained road. This
modification proposal should specify the maximum distance from a state road proposed for lots
comprising "active adult" components of the community and establish that the alternative standard
meets the public purpose of the existing requirement(s) to an equivalent degree.
Waiver B.(18) (p. 4)
Issue: Pursuant to § 165-27.13. of Article IV, Supplementary Regulations - Off-street Parking, uses
may engage in shared parking agreements to enable flexibility in meeting parking requirements. No
provisions are provided for waivers of the requirements governing shared parking or the design of
parking lots and spaces. Thus, per §165-72.0., the proposed waiver is not valid as it is not
specifically enabled by the provisions of Article VII.
Recommended Resolution: Pending approval of the amendment to §165-72.0., the applicant may
pursue a modification of the requirements of § 165-27.13. concerning shared parking arrangements.
The applicant should clarify the purpose of the requested modification as staff is unclear as to the
intended role of shared parking in the development. Moreover, should the design of shared parking
areas be an issue of concern for the applicant, modifications to other provision of § 165-27 may be
necessary, such as §165-27.C. and §165-27.E., which govern parking space size and parking lot
design, respectively.
Waiver B.(19) (p. 4)
Issue: All parking areas are subject to the design requirements of §165-27.B. In many cases, the
Zoning Administrator is permitted to allow modifications or alternatives to specified design criteria
under certain circumstances. Thus, a means of achieving administrative approval for parking lot
design is provided by ordinance. Article VII does not provide for the outright waiver of parking
requirements, to include design standards, which therefore precludes the proposed waiver(s) pursuant
to §165-72.0.
Recommended Resolution: As per the preceding paragraph, the Zoning Administrator is provided
some administrative discretion concerning implementation of parking lot design standards.
However, as noted in the discussion of Waiver B.(18) above, if unique design standards are sought
that differ from those required by ordinance, the applicant may pursue modifications of § 165-27.E.,
which governs parking lot design. Such modifications may be sought pursuant to the criteria of
§165-72.0., pending its amendment as previously discussed.
Page 11 of 26
Waiver B.(20) (p. 4)
Issue: Pursuant to § 165-29.A.(14), private roads must be paved with a 165 No. psy asphalt concrete,
Type SM -2A surface treatment. No provision for the waiver or modification of this surfacing
standard is allowed by ordinance. However, the requirements of the ordinance do not preclude the
stamping of requisite asphalt surfaces for decorative purposes. Nevertheless, as per § 165-72.0., the
proposed waiver of the surface treatment requirements for private roads is not permitted as the
provisions of Article VII do not specifically allow for such exemptions.
Recommended Resolution: Pending amendment of §165-72.0., the applicant may pursue
modification of the surface requirements for private roads as required by §165-29.A.(14). The
applicant should provide alternative treatment standards as a means of demonstrating that the
proposed modification will meet the public purpose of the ordinance standard to an equivalent
degree. As noted in the preceding paragraph, nothing in the ordinance precludes the stamping and/or
painting of asphalt surfaces for decorative purposes.
Waiver B.(21) (p. 4)
Issue: Pursuant to § 165-31.B.(5), wetlands are not permitted to be disturbed for the purpose of
forming natural storm water retention areas. No provision for the waiver or modification of this
limitation is enabled by ordinance. As per § 165-72.0., the proposed waiver to enable disturbance
of wetland areas for storm water management purposes is not permitted as the provisions of Article
VII do not specifically allow for such exemptions.
Recommended Resolution: Pending amendment of §165-72.0., the applicant may pursue
modification of the disturbance limitations of § 165-31.B.(5). The applicant should provide details
concerning the role of wetlands in the storm water management system and the extent to which such
features would require disturbance. Specific low impact development techniques involving wetland
areas should also be provided. The applicant must demonstrate that the goals and public purpose
of the wetlands provisions of the Code are equally satisfied by the modified disturbance standard.
Waiver B.(22) (p. 4)
Issue: Pursuant to §165-72.G.(2) of Article VII, Buffers and screening, an alternative plan for
buffers and screening and the separation of uses within the planned community may be proposed
with the required Master Development Plan. Approval of the alternative plan is granted by the
Board of Supervisors following the evaluation and recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Given the availability of this option for internal buffers and screening, to include road efficiency
buffers adjacent to internal roads, the requested waiver is neither necessary nor appropriate. Indeed,
as per the referenced ordinance section, an alternative plan must be developed and submitted for
approval with the Master Development Plan if buffering and screening is planned within the
community that differs from standard ordinance requirements. Thus, although flexibility is provided
through this provision of Article VII, an outright waiver of the road efficiency buffer requirements
Page 12 of 26
is not permitted as the applicant must submit an alternative program as a means to the desired
exemption.
Recommended Resolution: The applicant must include the proposed alternative road efficiency
buffer applicable within Stephenson Village with the alternative buffer and screening plan permitted
by §165-72.G.(2). At present, an alternative buffer and screening plan is not included with the
proffer statement. (See discussion of Waivers B.(5) and B_(6) above)
II. General Proffer Analysis
2. Phasing Plan to Minimize Sinden Impacts on County Services (p. 5)
A. Additional Proffer Payment
Issues: Staff recognizes the value of the additional proffer to offset impacts to schools and
respects the effort and generosity of the applicant. However, the structure of the
proffer is confusing and its ultimate implementation may be problematic.
a) The "applicant" should be better defined in the context of project development.
Without specification, it is uncertain whether Stephenson Associates, L.C. retains
this obligation or if it is passed along to the individual builder who would pay the
additional proffer at the time ofbuilding permit issuance. Also, if individual builders
are responsible, it is necessary to ensure that those applying for permits in August or
September do not bear the burden of the additional proffer in cases where the
additional students were, in reality, generated by development that occurred earlier
in the cycle via other builder(s). In essence, the proposed language should be
clarified to ensure that responsibility for the additional proffer is equitable and not
debatable.
b) Per the proposed proffer, the report regarding pupil generation in Stephenson Village
will be prepared by the Public Schools at the applicant's expense. The proposed
language does not provide an estimate of this cost nor does it include a mechanism
to enforce reimbursement of this cost to the Public Schools. Again, as the project
proceeds through build -out, it is unclear who bears this responsibility, especially if
sections of the project are sold to individual builders thereby relieving Stephenson
Associates, L.C. of direct control and accountability. Moreover, acknowledgment
should be provided by the Public Schools that the reporting structure included in the
proffer is appropriate and manageable.
C) The assumed route for proffer payment is the building permit process. If the
applicant envisions an alternative method of payment, the approach should be
specified in the proposed language. Indeed, staff concerns about implementation of
Page 13 of 26
the additional monetary contribution for public schools reflect uncertainty as to how
the applicant intends for this contribution to be paid - by whom and at what point in
the process. Clarification in the proposed language will likely resolve these issues.
B. Limitation on Permits
(1) Calculation
Issues: The proposed language establishing the phasing program for residential development
is difficult to interpret. In particular, the actual number of units per year intended by
this proffer appears reasonably debatable - i.e. 8% of the total peryear until build -out
(170 units/year) v. 8% of units remaining to build -out (8% of total less previously
built units =170 units/year #1,156 units/year #2, and so on to build -out). To ensure
clarity in evaluation and implementation, it is recommended that the phasing plan be
further defined through a table delineating the number of building permits to be
issued each year through project built -out. The table would effectively articulate the
proffered development rate of 8% in terms of units per year and therefore diminish
the potential for future confusion or disagreement. It is noted that a development rate
of 170 units per year through project build -out could yield completion of the
residential portion of Stephenson Village in 12.5 years.
It is noted that the planned commercial component of the development is not
included in the phasing program. As proposed, there is no link established between
commercial development and residential growth thereby allowing the possibility that
residential build -out will occur prior to the availability of any commercial uses
within the community. Staff is concerned that the minimal amount of commercial
development proposed for Stephenson Village will be slow to materialize without a
phasing commitment. In the absence of commercial uses, the benefits of a mixed-use
community will be sharply minimized for both future residents and the County as a
whole.
(2) Monitorin
Issues: The proposed semi-annual report is welcomed as an additional tool to assist in permit
tracking. However, Frederick County will ultimately bear full responsibility for
permit monitoring and retain authority for enforcing conformance with the proffered
phasing plan.
3. Uses, Density and Mix of Housing Types (p. 6 - 7)
A. (Housing Unit Types with Land Bay Breakdown, p. 6)
Issues: Paragraph (1), the language concerning the proffered mix of housing types should be
Page 14 of 26
more affirmatively phrased as "the Applicant shall" rather than "the Applicant
reserves the right." Indeed, if the applicant is proffering to develop a mixed -housing
type residential community, this commitment should be clearly stated in the proposed
language. It appears that the applicant is attempting to state that all housing types
allowed for the development will be referred to as "mixed residential," to include
those allowed by ordinance and those proffered in the alternative dimensional
requirements plan. Unfortunately, the language used to convey this categorization
is unclear. Moreover, the final sentence in Paragraph (1) requires additional clarity.
This sentence seems to suggest that housing may be developed pursuant either to the
proffered alternative dimensional plan or to the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. If this is the intent of the applicant, staff encourages revision of the
paragraph to more directly state these objectives.
Paragraph (2), the opening sentence refers to Exhibit A as "a graphic for illustrative
purposes only." However, Exhibit A is the proffered Generalized Development Plan
(GDP) that will be used to control the general layout of land uses in Stephenson
Village. Staff suggests that this statement should be corrected to eliminate the
reference to the GDP as a mere illustrative document.
Staff is pleased that the applicant has employed the table of land bays to identify land
use development within the project. However, the Land Bay Breakdown requires
additional clarification to ensure ease of evaluation and implementation. The acreage
of each land bay should be more definite, as opposed to stating an acreage and
following with a plus or minus sign (+/-). While staff does not expect the applicant
to precisely identify the sizes of land bays, it would be more effective to state the size
in terms of an acreage range - such as, Elementary School: 20-25 acres, Convenience
Commercial: 7-10 acres, etc.
The title of the column for the percent range of housing types allowable within
Stephenson Village should be clarified. Specifically, a title such as "% of Total
Housing Units" would more clearly articulate the meaning of the minimum and
maximum percentages that follow. Staff is concerned that future interpretation of
this information would be problematic as it is currently presented. It is noted that the
proposed percent ranges appropriately combine so that all housing type minimums
will be achieved should a given type develop to the maximum percentage allowed
by proffer.
Land Bay Breakdown Notes (p. 6 - 7)
Issues:
(1) First sentence, staff recommends replacing the term "potential" with "allowable."
The conclusion of the final sentence should be clarified to state "...and the total
Page 15 of 26
number of units for the project shall not exceed 2800, regardless of the combination
or mix of housing types."
(2) Staff suggests that this note be clarified to explain that this 33 acres is divided
between Land Bays III and V for neighborhood commercial and commercial center
uses, respectively.
(3) Staff recommends including the open space acreage in the Land Bay Breakdown
table so that the total project size can be derived from its contents. Moreover, the
applicant should state the quantity of open space as a percentage of the total project
acreage. Staff notes that the Executive Summary submitted with the proffer
statement indicates open space comprising "200-250" acres, whereas this note
indicates a total of 125 acres of open space for the project, inclusive of the Hiatt Run
Corridor and the wetlands intermittent ravine channel. The open space requirement
for the R-4 Zoning District is 30% of the gross project acreage. The open space
specified in this note accounts for merely 15% of the gross project area. Unless
modified through the Board of Supervisors, this application would not meet the
minimum open space requirement. The applicant should clarify the total open space
to be provided as well as its components and resolve any inconsistencies between the
summary and the proffer statement.
(4) This note allows for an unspecified increase in the total amount of Land Bay III
(Mixed Residential) that can be developed as active adult, affordable housing for the
elderly, or commercial. While all of these uses may be considered low -impact from
a fiscal perspective, each involves other impacts that would require consideration
through the associated impact analysis statement. In particular, traffic generation
may be substantially different if a larger percentage of the site develops
commercially. If not accommodated by the Traffic Impact Analysis, it is likely that
increased amounts of commercial traffic may be difficult or impossible to absorb by
the proffered transportation system, thereby resulting in the degradation of level of
service conditions to unacceptable levels. The applicant should specify the
maximum percentages possible for these land uses and model accordingly. It is
noted, however, that staff supports the inclusion of commercial development that
satisfies at least the minimum quantity called for by ordinance, or 10% of the gross
project area.
Moreover, if the percentage of either affordable housing for the elderly (multi-
family) or active adult units increases above that specified as its maximum in the
breakdown table, minimum amounts of other housing types specified by proffer
would be unattainable. Such deviation from the minimum provisions of the proffered
housing mix would compromise realization of a community within Frederick
County providing diverse housing opportunities.
Page 16 of 26
D. Staff recommends deleting this statement as acreage for neighborhood commercial uses is
already provided in the Land Bay Breakdown table, to include day care use(s).
E. Staff recommends clarifying the language of this statement to simply exclude all B3 and M 1
land uses from the development, unless otherwise permitted in the RP, B-1, or B-2 Zoning
Districts. This provision is confusing as it is currently worded and may result in future
implementation challenges.
4. Applicant to Pay 100% of Capital Facility Impacts (p. 7 - 8)
Issues: Second paragraph, conclude first sentence by specifying that monetary contributions
and land donations are made "to Frederick County, unless otherwise specified by
proffer." It is unclear who comprised the "parties" who determined the value of
donated land, which is proposed to be $30,000. Staff would encourage the applicant
to clarify who established this value and on what basis.
Staff welcomes the proposed adjustment of monetary contributions pursuant to the
Consumer Price Index (CPI). However, staff would note that communities with
comparable planned developments generally have agreed to CPI adjustments at
intervals of every 18 to 24 months, as opposed to every seven years as proposed by
this proffer. Clarification concerning the basis for the proposed adjustment interval
would be beneficial.
The paragraph concerning the escalation of proffer contributions for fire and rescue
services at a set premium when elderly and active adult housing is developed may
pose future confusion at the implementation stage. In particular, a process for
specifying the housing types being developed must be provided in the proffer so that
the premium is appropriately paid at building permit issuance. Moreover, it may be
beneficial to identify the base amount of these premiums in dollar terms within the
proffer. It is noted that the term "impact fees" is not appropriate in the proffer as
such monetary requirements are not permitted by State Code.
Clarification is required concerning the credits cited for land donation in the various
proffer scenarios for each housing type. It is noted that this is a fixed amount,
although the acreage figures referenced elsewhere in the proffer statement are
approximations. Staff is therefore interested in the assumptions used to arrive at
these figures and their relationship to other proffered development conditions.
5. Monetary Contributions to Develop Heritage Tourism (p. 8)
Issues: Frederick County cannot accept monetary contributions for items other than those
included in the adopted Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). Therefore, the County is
not able to accept the proposed funding to promote heritage tourism. It is
Page 17 of 26
recommended that the proffer specify an agency, organization, or foundation engaged
in such activities as the recipient of the monetary contribution. It is noted, however,
that Frederick County will not be able to enforce conformity with this proffer.
6. Monetary Contribution to Clear gook Volunteer Fire and Fescue, Inc. (p. 9)
Issues: It is noted that this is not a proffer to Frederick County and therefore is unnecessary
in this proffer statement. However, if the applicant chooses to include this proffer,
Frederick County will not be able to enforce conformity with the identified triggers
and corresponding monetary amounts.
7. Multi -Modal Transportation Improvements (p. 9 - 14)
A. (1) Major Collector Road (p. 9 - 10)
Issues: (a) The applicant proposes to dedicate right-of-way for the proposed major
collector road from Old Charles Town Road through the development and
across the adjoining Omps and McCann properties to Route 11. According
to the applicant, the extension of the road across the Omps and McCann
properties will occur "in accordance with existing agreements executed
between all parties." It is noted that these agreements have yet to be
presented for County review and it is unclear whether the applicant will
secure the necessary right-of-way across these parcels should this rezoning
receive approval. Indeed, the ultimate connection of the major collector road
with Route 11 is critical to achieving and maintaining acceptable level of
service conditions for Stephenson Village and, by extension, the entire
Stephenson Community. The applicant should demonstrate that agreements
for the dedication of off-site right-of-way are currently in place and execute
said agreements to secure such right -of --way prior to rezoning approval.
(b) Unless a modification is obtained through the Board of Supervisors, the
applicant will be required to meet the sidewalk standards of §144-18A(2).
Pursuant to a modification proposal, the applicant may propose an alternative
system of trails and/or sidewalks within the right-of-way comprised of a
surface treatment and width that meet the public purpose of the current
standard to an equivalent degree. Staff would encourage the applicant to
separate the trails from the actual vehicular travel way, so as not to be a part
of the major collector road itself.
(c) The reference to the proffer section detailing the alternative landscaping plan
for the major collector road should be changed from 21-A to 22-A.
(d) The composition of the proposed median landscaping should be specified.
Page 18 of 26
Moreover, the commitment to median landscaping should be made with
dimensions and features that will satisfy VDOT requirements. If VDOT
approval of such landscaping is not possible, it should not be proffered.
(e) The surface treatment of the planned bicycle lanes should be specified in the
proffer statement. It is noted that no commitment is offered for bicycle lanes
extending the length of the major collector road to Route 11. To facilitate
true multi -modal transportation in the Stephenson area, complete bicycle
facilities along the major collector road would be beneficial. Additionally,
clarification regarding maintenance of the bicycle lanes should be provided.
(2) Inter -parcel Connections (p. 10)
Issues: The use of the phrase "to the extent reasonably possible" at the conclusion of this
proffer effectively diminishes its value as a development commitment.
(3) Private Streets, Alleys and Common Drives (p. 10)
Issues: (a) The applicant should clarify whether private streets are planned with housing
types other than the active adult/single-family small lot type. As noted
previously, private streets are permitted by ordinance for multi -family and
single-family small lot housing. All other housing types must be served by
public streets unless a modification is approved by the Board of Supervisors
for an alternative street system.
(c) Again, it is unclear whether the applicant intends to use private streets with
alleys for housing types other than multi -family and single-family small lot
housing.
B. (easement and right-of-way acquisition, p. 11)
Issues: As noted in the discussion of the proffered major collector road, the applicant should
demonstrate that all necessary off-site rights-of-way and easements have been
secured to facilitate those improvements included in the TIA. The proffer states that
the County will be expected to facilitate right-of-way acquisition in the event the
applicant is unable to secure easements deemed necessary, and if the County is
unsuccessful in securing the right-of-way, then the applicant would be permitted to
continue the development without the associated road improvements. Staff has
concerns with this language, specifically based on the fact that a significant section
of the proposed major collector road actually crosses land owned by others.
Continuation of the major collector road across the McCann and Omps property
plays a significant role in the TIA, and the maintenance of an appropriate LOS for
the development. Failure to implement and complete the connection of Route 11 and
Page 19 of 26
the proposed major collector road will significantly impact Old Charles Town Road
and the broader transportation network of the Stephenson Community. If
transportation improvements necessary for acceptable LOS conditions fail to
materialize, the unabated continuance ofproject development would severely impact
both internal and external roads serving Stephenson Village. The applicant is
encouraged to consider this contingency and establish alternative measures for
modifying the proffered transportation plan and/or altering the overall development
program should it occur.
E. (signalization at intersection of Old Charles Town Road and major collector, p. 11)
Issues: The proffer stipulates that a signalization agreement will be executed with VDOT for
the intersection of Old Charles Town Road and the proffered major collector, which
will serve as the project's main entrance. The timing of this improvement is not
specified by the applicant.
F. (phased construction of major collector road, p. 12)
Issues: First paragraph, it would be beneficial for the applicant to clarify that the major
collector road will be constructed from Old Charles Town Road to Route 11 pursuant
to the proffered Generalized Development Plan. As written, the GDP is not
referenced as a general guide to the implementation of this proffered improvement.
Staff recognizes construction of the major collector road pursuant to real-time traffic
counts as a sound approach to the phasing of such a substantial transportation
improvement.
(1) The applicant should clarify that the 80% benchmark for design and completion of
identified improvements applies to the "actual traffic count volume" specified in
subsequent paragraphs 7F(2) - 7F(5). Staff has noted some confusion in the
interpretation of this provision.
8. School and Balllield Sites, Community Facilities and Public Use Areas (p. 14 - 15)
A. School Site (p. 14)
Issues: Conveyance of the school site should occur at such time the Frederick County School
Board requests the land, as opposed to when funding is allocated for construction.
B. Soccer and Baseball Field Site (p. 14)
Issues: (1) The applicant identifies the intended use of this dedicated acreage but does
not specify whether they will construct or contribute to the construction of
the facilities on the site. The entity responsible for constructing the facilities
Page 20 of 26
should be identified to prevent confusion.
(8) The purpose of this provision is unclear. If the applicant is not responsible
for constructing facilities on the site, it is understood that the County could
pursue whatever means available to provide recreation opportunities, to
include public - private partnerships. This proffer may be unnecessary.
D. (use of school and recreation sites, commencement of uses by County, p. 15)
Issues: Staff is concerned with the language stipulating that ownership of the proffered
school and public recreation sites would revert back to the applicant should the
intended public uses not be "constructed or installed, completed and in use" within
ten years of the date of conveyance to the County. In essence, this provision suggests
that the County must "use it or lose it" with regard to proffered public lands. This
caveat is arguably inappropriate in the context of a proffered land dedication and
clearly does not serve the best interest of the County. Indeed, land that is donated for
public use should not be accompanied by timetables imposed by the proffering party
that dictate certain actions as precedent to the community's continued possession of
said land. If given in good faith, the proffered land should remain available for
public use to be developed by the County as fiscal realities and program priorities
dictate, regardless of the passage of time.
9. Recreational Amenities and Linear Park (p. 15 - 17)
C. Pedestrian Trail Sidewalk System (p. 16)
Issues: Staff encourages the use of asphalt as the principal surface treatment for all trail
systems. Such treatments are better suited to the myriad uses of trail systems and are
less likely to degrade or become fragmented by use, which results in the enhanced
safety and enjoyment of trail users. The identification of primary trail segments
should be included on the GDP.
E. Additional Recreational Facilities (p. 17)
Issues: The applicant references the applicability of the recreational unit requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance in the proffer statement. Such a statement is unnecessary and is
not appropriate as a proffered condition.
10. Active Adult Age -Restricted Housing (p. 17 - 18)
Issues: The applicant proffers to include a set of restrictions with the deeds for all lots
subdivided for active adult age -restricted housing. The County will not be able to
enforce the content of these restrictions as such enforcement would be a civil matter
Page 21 of 26
between property owners and/or their representative interests.
11. Affordable Housing for the Elderly (p. 18)
Issues: The development of affordable apartment units for the elderly is not proffered to
occur until 50% of the retail component of the project has developed. As noted
previously in this report, the timing of commercial development is uncertain as it has
not been included in the proffered phasing plan. Moreover, the applicant has not
specified a minimum amount of affordable housing for the elderly in the Land Bay
Breakdown; it is included as one of several sub -types of multi -family housing
possible within either Land Bay III or IV. Therefore, staff is uncertain as to the
timing of construction and ultimate availability of the proffered elderly housing.
This uncertainty is magnified by the fact that development of these units is
contingent upon the applicant receiving approval from federal and state housing
agencies and qualifying for the Multi -Family Loan Program and the Low Income
Housing Tax Credit Program. In essence, this proffered condition stipulates that
affordable housing for the elderly will not be provided without secured government
financing.
The applicant appears to be proffering their intent to develop affordable housing for
the elderly, but is seemingly unable to guarantee when, if, or how much of such
housing will be developed. Staff encourages the applicant to provide more specific
assurances regarding the affordable housing for the elderly component of Stephenson
Village.
12. Preservation of Historical and Cultural Resources (p. 18)
No comment.
13. Commercial Center (p. 18 - 19)
Issues: As has been noted previously, the commercial center is not included in the phasing
plan for the development and may therefore develop after residential build -out. As
proposed, there is no link established between commercial development and
residential growth thereby allowing the possibility that residential build -out will
occur prior to the availability of any commercial uses within the community. Staff
is concerned that the minimal amount of commercial development proposed for
Stephenson Village will be slow to materialize without a phasing commitment.
B./C. (architectural and design standards)
Issues: The applicant is encouraged to include the architectural and design standards
Page 22 of 26
applicable to the commercial center as an attachment to the proffer statement.
Although the County would not enforce such treatments, it would be valuable as an
assurance of the high-quality design pledged through the proffer statement. Also, the
applicant indicates that they will have the ultimate authority concerning the design
of individual commercial uses on the site. It may be beneficial to establish
Stephenson Associates, L.C. as the perpetual head of an architectural review board
(ARB) responsible for review and approval of building and site designs throughout
the development - to include signage.
F. (maximum square footage for commercial development, p. 19)
Issues: The applicant does not proffer a minimum floor area amount for commercial and
office uses, merely a maximum. Although the applicant has proffered to set aside 4%
of the project's land area for commercial activities, no assurance has been provided
that any commercial development will occur on that land. Of course, it is unlikely
that this acreage would remain vacant, however, it is possible - if not probable - that
the actual commercial development within Stephenson Village will fall well below
the established maximum. The applicant should consider establishing a minimum
amount of commercial floor area through the proffer to complement the maximum
allowable floor area. Much like the percent ranges applicable to the various housing
types, providing a floor area range for commercial uses will ensure that the
development evolves into a legitimate mixed use community.
14. Rent Free County Office Space (p. 19)
No comment.
15. Community Design for a Strong Sense of Place (p. 20 - 21)
A. Design (p. 20)
Issues: As noted previously, the applicant should consider establishing an ARB that they
will perpetually control by proffer. The applicant would therefore be able to effect
the influence over design themes and features suggested by the proffered design
language. Of course, the County will be unable to enforce the architectural standards
included in the proffer statement.
E. Architectural and Design Covenants (p. 21)
Issues: Consistent with previous statements, staff supports the applicant's proposed control
over design review and approval throughout the development. Again, it would be
beneficial for a copy of the proposed architectural restrictions and covenants to be
attached to the proffer statement by reference. The inclusion of these standards
Page 23 of 26
would qualify and reiterate the applicant's personal commitment to high quality
design in Stephenson Village regardless of changes in ownership and time.
8. Environmental Features and Habitat Preservation (p. 21 - 23)
A. Environmental Features and Easements (p. 21 - 22)
Issues: (1) It is unclear who will bear the responsibility for surveying the site and
identifying "significant" wildlife habits. The applicant should specify such
responsibility and identify any natural resource professionals or organizations
who will be utilized to conduct such studies. The process of habitat
identification should be completed prior to the commencement of
development activities.
(2) The applicant does not identify the methods to be employed to minimize
clearing and grading on each building lot. This provision is arguably
unenforceable without clear performance standards governing land
disturbance and utility installation.
(3) It is noted that all wetland areas are considered unbuildable pursuant to the
environmental standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
B. Hiatt Run Corridor (p. 22 - 23)
Issues: (5) The applicant should define the meaning - and/or composition of
"environmentally sensitive areas" and how such areas differ from "primary
conservation areas." Assuming a distinction exists, both of these features
should be clearly identified on the GDP or a companion resource inventory
map.
C. Wetlands Intermittent Ravine Channel (p. 23)
Issues: This environmental feature is identified as a "resource protection area," as opposed
to a "primary conservation area" or "environmentally sensitive area." As noted
above, the applicant should define these terms and clarify their distinctions.
Moreover, all such areas should be clearly identified on the GDP or a companion
resource inventory map. The proffer indicates that native plantings will be provided
within the channel to establish an upland buffer. Identification of the native
plantings to be used and responsibility for ensuring their installation should be
specified in the proffer.
Page 24 of 26
17. Community Curbside Trash Collection (p. 23 - 24)
A. Issues: This proffer stipulates that waste and trash removal services shall not dispose of
waste collected in Stephenson Village at any citizen convenience center. It is
assumed that such services would dump collected refuse at the landfill and be
precluded from unloading at convenience sites by Public Works personnel.
Clarification of the intent of this stipulation would be beneficial.
18. Water and Sewer Improvements in the Stephenson Area (p. 24)
B./C. Issues: The meaning of the phrase "reasonably determined" is unclear in the context of this
proffer. It would seem that the applicant would construct those facilities deemed
necessary by FCSA to facilitate required sewer and water service delivery to
Stephenson Village. The applicant should clarify what constitutes a reasonable
determination by FCSA.
19. Comprehensive Plan Conformity (p. 24)
No comment.
20. Creation of Homeowners Association(s) (p. 24 - 25)
No comment.
21. Proffered Housing Types (p. 25 - 26)
Issues: The proposed housing types with attached dimensional standards and illustrative
drawings comprise the alternative dimensional requirements plan allowed by Article
VII of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors must approve all such plans,
and, by interpretation, any changes to such plans following rezoning approval.
Therefore, as noted previously, a modification of this procedural standard would be
necessary to enable the administrative approval of additional or replacement housing
types as proposed by this proffer.
22. Streetscape Design and Landscaping (p. 26 - 27)
A. Issues: A road efficiency buffer is required by ordinance adjacent to major collector roads.
The applicant has proffered an alternative buffer comprised of a twenty-five foot
landscaped area on either side of the roadway. The predominant portion of this
buffer area is proposed to include a woodland conservation area, which the applicant
is utilizing in lieu of the standard distance and landscaping requirements of the
ordinance. Greater detail is necessary for the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors to determine whether this alternative approach forms an adequate buffer
Page 25 of 26
along the major collector road. The applicant should be prepared to provide
additional justification for this alternative.
2.3. Community Signage Programa (p. 27 - 28)
No comment.
April 15, 2003
U:\Chris\Common\Rezoning\Prelim Comments\Stephenson Village Proffers.wpd
Page 26 of 26
COUNTY Df FREDERICK
Department aI' f lannh-ab and Deve3opment
540/ 663-3651
FAX: 540/665-6395
February 5, 2003
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, AICP
Greenway Engineering
151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, VA 22602
RE: Preliminary Comments - Stephenson Village Rezoning Proposal
Dear Evan:
This correspondence is in follow-up to the preliminary rezoning information received in this office January 15,
2003, and our meeting on January 24, 2003, concerning the Stephenson Village rezoning proposal. The
following issues were identified for your consideration as the application is finalized for submission:
A. Application Form and Relevant Review Agencies
Please ensure that a certified plat is provided that identifies the boundary coordinates of each tract
subject to the proposed rezoning, as well as the coordinates delineating the limits of the requested R4
Zoning District. Moreover, a copy of the deed for each property and verification of tax payment must
be submitted.
Please ensure that the application and proposed proffer statement are signed by all ownership interests
party to the rezoning request.
Please provide a master development plan (Conceptual Development Plan) that contains the
information identified in a letter from me to you, dated January 22, 2003 (attached).
The fee for this application will be calculated pursuant to the revised fee schedule adopted by the
Board of Supervisors on December 12, 2002. The revised application fee for a rezoning petition
consists of abase fee of $1,000.00 plus $50.00 per acre, resulting in a total fee of $42,250.00 for this
application. Moreover, a refundable deposit of $50.00 must be submitted for the public hearing sign
required to be posted on site.
Please submit review continents from the following departments and agencies with this application:
Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County Public Schools, Winchester Regional
Airport, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, Winchester - Frederick Service Authority, Department
of Public Works, Frederick County Building Official, Fire and Rescue Services, First Responder -
Clearbrook, Parks and Recreation Department, County Attorney, and the Historic Resources Advisory
Board.
lt); North Kent Sirel,,?` • Winchester, 'Virginia 22601-501)0
Page 2
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, AICP
Re: Preliminary Comments - Stephenson Village Rezoning Proposal
February 5, 2003
B. Impact Statement (dated January S, 2003)
Comprehensive Policy Plan (p. 1): The Comprehensive Policy Plan designates the subject site for
planned industrial land use. Staff is concerned with the applicant's assumption that proceeding with
a proffer to modify the Comprehensive Policy Plan's Urban Development Area (UDA) resolves the
Comprehensive Policy Plan's policy statement. Such a proffered condition does not necessarily bring
the rezoning application into conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan's industrial land use
designation. Furthermore, staff would question the appropriateness of proffering modifications to a
County policy document such as the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
2. Site Suitability (p. 2): The provisions of an internal system of streets, bicycle trails and pedestrian
walkways, and trail system should be illustrated on the Master Development Plan, as submitted with
this application.
3. Traffic Impact (p. 4): In reviewing the traffic impact analysis (TIA) submitted with this rezoning
petition, it is noted that on Page 27 of the TiA, a number of intersections achieve a Level of Service
(LOS) of a " D_ " As you are aware, a Level of Service "C" is expected to be maintained on roads
adjacent to and within new development in Frederick County (2000 Coinprehensive Policy Plan for
Frederick County, Virginia, p. 7-5). Staff suggests that you explain what measures would be
necessary to achieve a LOS of "C" or better. The TIA should also indicate what improvements are
necessary, and are being implemented by the proffer, to maintain the existing and future road networks
at a level of "C" or better. Furthermore, the TIA recognizes improvements to the transportation
systems, but does not _ -edit the source of improvements which are identified. Page 5 of the rezoning
application package indicates that the traffic impact analysis (TIA) should provide the "resulting road
improvement cost that would be the result of the rezoning;" such an improvement cost has not been
included in the analysis.
The analysis states that the developer has entered into an agreement with adjoining property owners
to facilitate the construction of the planned major collector road over property owned by others. It
might be appropriate to make this agreement part of this rezoning application as it would significantly
impact the County, if the road segments, as proposed, were not constructed across property owned by
others. Staff would also seek clarification as to when the entire proposed major collector road would
be established. As presented, it appears that Phase III would trigger a four -lane section through to
Route 11, but the information provided does not address when the two-lane section would be
constructed.
4. Sewage Convevance and Treatment (p. 5): The submitted impact analysis indicates that the
proposed development would generate a projected sewage conveyance of 653,000 GPD. It
is staffs understanding that the FCSA only has approximately 250,000 GPD available for this
Page 3
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, AICP
Re: Preliminary Comments - Stephenson Village Rezoning Proposal
February 5, 2003
portion of the County. Additionally, the recently approved rezoning for Rutherford Farm
Industrial Park projected their demand for discharge at 77,200 GPD. Therefore, it would
appear that the estimated available sewage capacity would be less then 175,000 GPD, Please
provide details regarding how this proposed development would handle its necessary sewage
conveyance, and who would burden the costs associated.
Historic Sites_ and Structures (p. 8): The analysis states that, "monumental entrances may
include fence styles and stacked stone walls that were from the Civil War Era." If it is the
developer's intent to construct such entrance features, it would be appropriate to clarify the
feature's location and architectural details.
6. Community Facilities (p. 9): The location of provisions for lands to accommodate a future school and
park site are addressed in the proffer statement, but the Iocation of a proposed fire and rescue station
is unclear. Please clarify such location.
C. Proposed. Proffer Statement (dated January 8, 2003)
Introduction (p. 1): The proffer statement makes reference to the "Generalized Development Plan, as
required by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance." The document you are referencing in the
Zoning Ordinance is actually the Master Development Plan requirement.
The pruiY�r statement makes reference to land bay boundaries and their potential changes c u. -.ng site
plan submission. Note that, most often, site plans would not be required for single family dwellings.
Therefore, this statement appears to be inaccurate.
2. Proffered Housing Types (p. 2): In this section of the proffer statement, the applicant has proposed
a number of additional housing unit types for inclusion in the proposed development. 'Be proffer
states that, "future housing unit types may be approved at the discretion of the Director of Planning."
Staff does not support this approach, as it removes the decision to allow alternative housing types from
the more appropriate authority, being the Board of Supervisors. Additionally, staff suggests that
greater dimensional details should be provided for each of the proposed Housing Unit Types. Such
information should address: minimal lot sizes, road frontage, and structural setbacks. Staff also notes
that, based on some of the proposed lots sizes, as provided, the potential house footprint is minimized
significantly. It is appropriate to indicate the size of home that you intend to place within the footprint
of the proposed lots. Without this essential dimensional information, it is difficult to determine if such
housing unit types would be appropriate within the County.
Page 4
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, AICP
Re: Preliminary Comments - Stephenson Village Rezoning Proposal
February 5, 2003
Based on rough calculations, it appears the Modified Townhouse unit type being proposed would only
be able to accommodate a townhouse with a footprint of approximately 560 square feet, significantly
smaller than current zoning ordinance_ requirements that would provide for a minimal townhouse
footprint of approximately 720 square feet. It would be appropriate to address whether the deck on
these housing units would be accommodated within the revised lot dimensions or if decks would
protrude into the setback areas, further minimizing lot areas, and, therefore, placing the rear of homes
closer to one another.
Transportation- Major Collector Road (p. 3): In this section of the proffer statement, it is stated that
the applicant will construct the major collector road. Please clarify the right-of-way width, lane
configuration, and median width proposed. Additionally, the proffer states that the applicant will
construct the road across land owned by others, but there is no agreement provided between the
applicant and others.
The proffer statement indicates the intent of constructing sidewalks and/or trails within the major
collector road right-of-way. Staff would encourage that the sidewalks/trail be separated from the
actual vehicular travel way, so as to not be a part of the road itself There would be a significant
safety concern if children on bicycles had to share the same asphalt as vehicular traffic.
The proffer states that, "any proposed irrigation within the right-of-way..." Staff would look for
clarification regarding this statement. If it is the applicant's intent to provide irrigation, then it should
be so stated.
4. Transportation - Interparcel Connections (p. 3): Please identify the locatio;, of the proposed inter
parcel connections on the Generalized Development Plan.
Transportation - Private Streets and Alleys (p. 4): The applicant proffers that, "The applicant reserves
the right to provide private streets with a gated community entrance for the active adult portion of the
overall community." It is unclear if a gated community will be provided. Please clarify. Additionally,
please clarify if the private street would only be utilized within the adult communities, or if it is
envisioned that the entire Stephenson Village development would be built on private streets. Without
clarification, staff is unable to analyze the impacts such a proffer might place on the County.
'Ile Applicant has the right to provide one-way alleys with a sixteen -foot (16') wide easement having
twelve feet (12) of pavement." This does not appear adequate to accommodate fire and rescue
equipment. Please clarify-
6- Transportation - Right -of -Way Acquisition (p. 4): The proffer states that the County will be expected
to facilitate right-of-way acquisition in the event the applicant is unable to secure easements deemed
Page 5
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, AICP
Re: Preliminary Comments - Stephenson Village Rezoning Proposal
February 5, 2003
necessary, and if the County is unsuccessful in securing the right-of-way, then the applicant would be
permitted to continue the development without the associated road improvements. Staff has concerns
with this language, specifically based on the fact that a significant section of the proposed major
collector road actually crosses land owned by others. Continuation of the major collector road across
the McCann and Omps property plays a significant role in the TIA, and the maintenance of an
appropriate LOS for the development_ Failure to implement and complete the connection of Route 11
and the proposed major collector road will significantly impact Old Charles Town Road.
7_ Transportation - Old Charles Town Road and Route 11 (p. 4): The proffer states that the applicant
will install turn lanes and a traffic signal at the intersection. The improvements would be installed
"when the signal is installed." Please clarify why the turn lane improvements should not be installed
prior to a warranted traffic signal.
8. Transportation - Traffic Counters (p. 4): The applicant proffers to construct the proposed major
collector road in two phases based on real-time vehicle counts. The first phase being a two-lane half
section; the second phase being the completion of the road to a four -lane section. The proffer states
that when the traffic count reaches 17,699 trips per day, the applicant "w -ill bond and commence
construction" of the four -lane major collector road_ Staff is concerned as there is no completion
requirement, only a commencement trigger. Please clarify.
Staff seeks clarification if the entire length of the proposed road, from Old Charles Town Road to
Route 11, in a two-lane half section, would be available immediately to accommodate the
development's generated traffic. Staff questions the use of the vehicle counters proposed for use at
the southwestern entrance to Stephenson Village, without the cor: A :..*ion to Route 11, there would be
no traffic at the southwestern entrance to the development.
9. Uses and Density (p. 5): Per our previous discussions, it is expected that additional details be provided
regarding the various land bay acreage and densities. Furthermore, it would be appropriate to more
clearly identify locations for non-residential uses (commercial and fire station) within a particular land
bay.
Staff would note that the R4 Zoning District allows those uses permitted in the RP, B1, B2, B3, and
M1 Districts. Accordingly, there are numerous uses within these four districts which may not be
appropriate within this planned community. Additionally, it may be appropriate to establish minimum
and maximum acreage that could accommodate the numerous non-residential land uses.
The proffer provides for ultimate build -out percentages for each category. Attention is drawn to the
proffer which enables as much as 50 percent of the total dwelling units to be townhouses (Le., 1,400
townhouses) and 65 percent multi -family units (Le., 1,820 multi -family). As written, the proffer could
enable the entire development to be townhouses and multi -family dwelling units. The Zoning
Page 6
Mr_ Evan A. Wyatt, AICP
Re: Preliminary Comments - Stephenson Village Rezoning Proposal
February 5, 2003
Ordinance establishes a mixture of housing types and requires that no more than 40% of the
development consists of townhouses and multi -family units. As proposed by proffer, the
townhouses and multi -family dwelling units could account for 100% of the residential dwellings
in the 2.,800 residential unit project—which violates the zoning ordinance. This far exceeds the
mixtures common to other planned residential developments, and does not create an appropriate
balance between single-family and multi -family dwellings.
10. Affordable Housing For The Elderly (p. 7): The applicant proffers to provide affordable housing
provided, "the project qualifies for the Multi -Family Loan Program and the Low Income Housing Tax
Credit Program." This proffered condition indicates that the affordable housing would not be provided
without secured government financing. Please clarify what results if the appropriate loans are not
available-
IL
vailable_
IL Community Design (p. 8): The applicant proffers various community appearance features. As
presented, the proffer language provides no tangible features that could be enforced, thereby allowing
the applicant to implement all or no community design features, as the applicant so chooses. Please
illustrate and detail the various design and architectural standards eluded to by the proffer, thereby
providing assurances that such features will become reality, if that is the intent of the proffer. Staff
would note that the applicant, during various community presentations, stated an intent to provide such
design standards and consistency throughout the development.
The applicant proffers to utilize sprinkler systems in the Courtyard and Cottage houses in order to
promote fire protection. Staff concurs with this safety provision to protect the interior of the dwelling
units. Has any thought been given to protecting the: t emor of similar units with an exterior sprinkler
system, considering the close priority this housing type is to one another?
12. Environmental - Identification of Open Space Areas and View Lots (p. 9): The applicant proffers to
identify all open space areas and "maximize the number of view lots." Staff is unclear how the open
space has been identified within this rezoning petition package. Furthermore, please clarify the intent
of "maximize the number view lots."
Please clarify what is meant by "useable open space" as well as provide clarification as to what type
of distance is intended "within walking distance of home sites."
Overall, staff is concerned that the environmental section of the proffer provides for features that are
not quantifyable_ Clarification and additional details regarding the intent of the various provisions
within the Environmental Section may be appropriate.
The provisions for establishing a buffer and conservation easements adjacent to any stream outside
of any.platted lots is acknowledged, but it might also be appropriate to clarify if platted lots are to be
Page 7
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, AICP
Re: Preliminary Comments - Stephenson Village Rezoning Proposal
February 5, 2003
void of such conservation areas. For example, could platted lots be located within 100 feet of any
stream? Based on a review of the Conservation Easements/Floodplain Subsection(p. 9), it appears
that platted lots could be located within the previously established 100 -foot conservation easement and,
in such case, only a 20 -foot buffer area would exist. Please clarify. Furthermore, these provisions
apply to "streams," not necessarily Hiatt Run. It may be appropriate to apply the same standards to
all natural water features, whether it be a stream or Hiatt Run. Why the difference?
13. Communitv Facilities/Public Use Areas (p. 11): The applicant proffers to establish school, park, and
fire and rescue sites. The school site would be conveyed to the county within six months of its request,
and would provide access to water and sewer at the time the adjacent land bays are developed. Staff
would note that in the event the school site is programmed to go on-line prior development occurring
on the adjacent land, water and sewer may not be available.
While the proffer clearly states that 2.5 acres would be provided to the County for use as a fire and
rescue site or other public use, it is not clear where within the 825 -acre development the site would be
located.
14. Recreational Amenities (p. 12): The applicant proffers to provide a recreation center (sv�irnming pool
and bath house) within the development; location not identified. This location should be clarified as
well as when the facility would be available to the residents of the development. Currently, the proffer
states that such facility would be constructed or bonded prior to the issuance of the 500'' building
permit. It may be more appropriate to have such a tacility operational prior to the issuance of the
500' building permit.
The applicant also proffers that it, "may construct" a recreation center for use solely by the Active
Adult Community; to be "constructed or fully bonded" prior to the issuance of the 250`s building
permit for the active adult community. Again, it would be more appropriate to provide clarification
that such a facility would be constructed, not merely bonded, at a pre -determined time. Additionally,
staff notes that the language of the proffer does not provide assurance that such a facility would be
provided, as the language states that the applicant "may" construct a recreation center.
The applicant proffers to provide a pedestrian trail system, constructed of stone, dust, or wood chips.
Most often the trail systems provided within planned communities are utilized by children on bicycles.
Therefore, it would be more appropriate to construct an asphalt trail system that Iinks the various
neighborhoods and public facilities. Such a trail network could be depicted on the Generalized
Development Plan.
Ownership and maintenance of the recreation center is unclear.
Page 8
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, AICP
Re: Preliminary Comments - Stephenson Village Rezoning Proposal
February 5, 2003
15. Streetscave/Landscapin_gBuffer/Environmental (p. 14): The applicant proffers to provide a 25 -foot -
wide landscaped area along the length of the major collector road. Staff notes that this 25 -foot
landscaped area is significantly less than currently required by the road efficiency buffers section of
the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The road efficiency buffers establish buffer areas from 80
to 100 feet, based on the landscaping and screening provided. The Zoning Ordinance requires the
implementation of the road efficiency buffer along the planned major collector road. Additionally,
staff notes that a landscape area has been proffered along Old Charles Town Road, but not along
Jordan Springs Road.
The applicant proffers to utilize stone fines or wood chip trails rather than asphalt trails. This
concerns staff based on a previous statement about children enjoying riding their bicycles on the trails.
Additionally, as the current zoning ordinance requires concrete sidewalks on both sides of the
community's neighborhood streets, it may not be necessary to proffer to provide wood chip trails along
the same streets. Staff would support efforts to utilize wood chip surfaces in natural areas, but staff
believes the zoning ordinance requirements for concrete sidewalks within right-of-ways are
ils linking neighborhoods and community amenities.
appropriate, as well as asphalt tra
16. Signage Program (p. 15): The applicant proffers the establishment of two freestanding signs for the
commercial land use. Each sign would be "no more than 20 feet in height" and have "a maximum of
two hundred (200) square feet of face area." Staff is concerned that such signs are significantly larger
than current zoning ordinance standards. Additionally, the proposed sign structures are not consistent
in size to those proffered for the development's main entrances [8 -foot high, 65 -square -feet face area]
and neighborhood [7 -feet high, 40 -square -feet face area] signage. Staff also notes that a limit on the
number of commercial us : ;gns was not addressed.
IT Historical and Cultural Resources (p. 16): The applicant proffers that the Byers House will be
preserved "to be used as deemed appropriate by the Applicant." Staff is unclear of the intent of such
a proffer, as well as how the historic structure would be preserved.
18. Commercial Development (p. 17): The applicant proffers to reserve a site for possible commercial
development. The location of such a commercial site should be more clearly identified on the
Generalized Development Plan. Additionally, it may be appropriate to address the design standards
applicable to the commercial area.
19_ Monetary Contributions (p. 17) : The applicant proffers a monetary contribution to offset the
additional costs to Frederick County for capital facilities. Staff would note that the monetary
contributions are based on projected impact on the County based on the 2003 dollar value. As the
project -has proffered a phased development schedule, it is implied that the development would be built-
Page 9
Mr. Evan A_ Wyatt, AICP
Re: Preliminary Comments - Stephenson Village Rezoning Proposal
February 5, 2003
out over an estimated 20+ year period. Accordingly, the monetary contribution established in 2003
dollars, without the benefits of an escalator, may not adequately address the impacts placed on the
County in the future years, when the dwelling unit actually comes on-line. Additionally, the monetary
contribution is projected under the assumption that a commercial center will be contributing to the
community's positive tax base; yet there are no assurances that the commercial center will actually be
constructed, nor when.
20. Monetary Contribution to Economic Development (p. 18): It appears this section of the proffer
statement is incomplete as there is no narrative.
21. Phasing Plan (p. 18): The applicant proffers to implement a phasing schedule to limit the number of
dwelling units constructed each year to a maximum of 8%. It is also important to note that as
proposed, the 675 adult dwellings (Active Adult and Affordable Adult housing) are not included in the
phasing schedule. This phasing plan would be monitored based on the issuance of building permits.
This phasing plan is difficult to interpret; Please clarify intent. It may be more appropriate to
establish a table depicting the number of building permits that would be issued for each year until
built -out is achieved_ Staff also suggests that if it is the applicant's intent to manage the phasing plan,
a more appropriate management method may be through the accounting of residential lot creation,
rather than building permits. Failure of providing a fixed/hard number within a phasing plan may lead
to future disagreements over the intent of the phasing proposal.
22. Waivers (p. 19): The applicant proffers that a number of waivers from County policy and code would
be granted, ii tiie rezoning petition is approved by the County. Staff has concerns with this apptolatih
as it exempts the development from a significant number of County regulations that have been adopted
and implemented by the County in an effort to manage and promote high-quality development within
the County.
The applicant proffers that acceptance of the proffer statement will constitute an amendment to the
County's Comprehensive Policy Plan to expand the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the planned
land use designation. Staff believes this approach, aside from the legal aspects, is inappropriate as it
circumvents the public participation and hearing process associated with land use planning and the
County's Comprehensive Policy Plan.
The applicant proffers that acceptance of the proffer statement would waive the 40% cap of multi-
family and town homes allowed within a planned residential development. Staff addressed this cap
previously under Item 10, above. The foundation for the R4 Zoning District was to enable a well-
planned residential development with a variety of housing choice. This 40% requirement provides
assurance that an appropriate mix of housing would be provided. Elimination of such a requirement
would impact the County significantly as it could indirectly eliminate the various detached single-
family housing options from the mixed-use community.
Page 10
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, AICP
Re_ Preliminary Comments - Stephenson Village Rezoning Proposal
February 5, 2003
The applicant proffers to exclude the Board of Supervisors from future participation and their
decision-making authority in reference to alternative dimensional requirements that the applicant may
wish to implement in the future. Staff is concerned that this waiver would jeopardize the actual
rezoning petition that the Board of Supervisors would ultimately consider. If revisions to the
dimensional requirements is sought, as proposed, staff would be placed in a position to usurp the
Board of Supervisors' decision on the various housing types included in the proffer statement. This
appears to be inappropriate.
The applicant proffers to waive the ordinance requirement that at least 10 percent of the community
be for the development of business and industrial uses. This 10 percent provision was placed in the
zoning ordinance to assure that the planned residential community development had commercial uses
to meet the needs of the community. As staff noted previously, the proffers are unclear as to when the
commercial element of the development would come on-line. With the elimination of the minimal 10
percent requirement, any assurances that commercial use will be included in the development are
minimized. Under the current zoning ordinance requirement, there would be a requirement for at least
82 acres of commercial use_ This non-residential use could be utilized for services for the community,
which could include retail and office uses. Staff encourages the applicant to consider other concepts
that would provide assurances that a commercial element would be assured within the development.
Additionally, if the applicant feels that a 10% commercial element is too much, it would be appropriate
to justify a reduction and provide for a new minimum. Flat out removal of the commercial percentage
is inappropriate.
The applicant proffers a waiver of the requirement for a minimum of 30 percent common open space
within the development. The zoning ordinance currently would enable open space to be utilized for
d,dication to the County. Therefore, staff is unclear as to why the waiver is being sought. The
applicant should clarify intent.
The applicant proffers a waiver from the recreational amenities requirements of the zoning ordinance_
The ordinance enables the recreational units to be "broken into smaller units or added together" to meet
the needs of the planned community. Staff believes the ordinance would enable neighborhood parks,
as well as, a larger, centrally -located community facility, such as a recreation center. The basis for
waiver of this requirement is unclear. Please provide clarification and intent.
The applicant proffers a waiver of the internal buffer and screening requirements. Staff believes such
requirements are designed to protect the various uses within the community, as well as enable
flexibility, as various buffer and screening alternatives are already permitted by ordinance. Staff
would strongly discourage a reduction in the Road Efficiency Buffer requirements that would be
applicable to the planned major collector road, as noted in Item 16, above. Please provide clarification
as to why the waiver is essential to the development.
The applicant proffers a waiver to the County's public street requirements for a complete public street
system- Please clarify the intention of waiving the public street requirements. Currently, the ordinance
would enable the use of private streets within small lot subdivisions. Similarly, if it is the applicant's
Page 11
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, AICP
Re: Preliminary Comments - Stephenson Village Rezoning Proposal
February 5, 2003
intention to utilize the private streets within the active adult community, through the implementation
of an alley system, it could be so stated in the proffer. However, staff does not believe adequate
justification has been made to waive the requirements of public streets throughout the entire project.
The applicant proffers a waiver of the Board of Supervisors' review and approval for exceptions to
the curb and gutter requirements. Staff believes that a provision should be considered that enables staff
to take such requests to the Board in situations where staffbelieves additional guidance from the Board
may be appropriate.
The applicant proffers a waiver of the requirement to include a non-residential land use in all phases
of development. Staff believes that maintaining this requirement is essential to creating a well-
balanced community. The non-residential land uses might include not only traditional non-residential
uses, but also common open space that should be provided for higher density neighborhoods, such as
multi -family developments.
The applicant proffers a waiver to the requirements that residential lots front on public streets. As
noted above, there are certainly housing types that necessitate exception to the public street
requirements, but staff does not believe a waiver of all such public streets and road frontage
requirements is appropriate without justification.
Please provide additional justification as to why these waivers are necessary and appropriate for the
development proposal to be implemented. Understanding that the development is merely in the initial
planning stages, the applicant may be hard pressed to raise specific examples of how the waivers
would be applied. Conversely, it will be difficult to waive existing county requirements that have been
implemented throughout the County, and have been credited for the improvements m function and
appearance of our County's more recent development. The applicant has failed to provide justification
as to why existing Comprehensive Policy Plan and Zoning Ordinance requirements are inappropriate.
Finally, the applicant proffers that future revisions to the development, and any of its associated land use
planning documents, would be excepted from addtional review and approval by the Board of Supervisors and,
therefore, would be processed administratively. Staff believes, aside from the legal aspects, that it would be
inappropriate to remove such broad-based authority from the Board of Supervisors. Such a request would also
remove public participation from the development and planning process for a significant portion of the
County's future residents and land owners. Staff also has concern with the assertion that once a waiver is
administratively granted, then any similar waiver requests would not be necessary.
D. Additional Concerns
Comprehensive Policy Plan: The Frederick County 2000 Comprehensive Policy Plan designates the
subject properties for future industrial land use_ Additionally, the properties are located outside of the
Page 12
Mr_ Evan A. Wyatt, AICP
Re: Preliminary Comments - Stephenson Village Rezoning Proposal
February 5, 2003
Urban Development Area (UDA). While this County document contains many issues and guidelines
for planning for the County's future, the two most commonly discussed policies are the land use plan
and the UDA management tool. The rezoning petition that is being circulated for preliminary review
does not comply with either of these policies_ The initial stage in reviewing a development proposal
is to determine if the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The subject proposal
does not conform to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Staff encourages the applicant to seek
conformance to the Compreihcnsive Policy Plan prior to seeking the approval of a rezoning petition.
2. The proffers submitted with this preliminary petition address a wide range of development standards,
but do not provide much in the arena of detailed community design features and architectural
standards. At various public presentations and meetings attended by staff, the applicant stated the
intent to provide consistent signage, light standards, and extensive landscaping throughout the planned
community. Staff notes that such features are not provided for in an enforceable manner within the
proffer statement. Therefore, there are limited assurances and guarantees that the community will
contain such characteristics.
3. The output from the County's Capital Facility Fiscal Impact Model is based on the applicant's
proposal to include approximately 250,000 square feet of retail and office uses. Provision of such
non-residential uses certainly provides additional benefits to the County, and assists to offset the
impacts the proposed residence would place on the County. Yet, there are no assurances that such
non-residential land uses would be constructed.
4. The proposal does not clearly provide for assurances that if the development were subdivided by land
bays and sold to others, that the various land dedications for public uses and community amenities
would be realized. Furthermore, provisions for establishing monetary guarantees as assurances that
the major collector road, recreation center, and various community -wide trail systems have not been
addressed.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide comment on the preliminary rezoning petition. As always, please feel
free to contact me, should you have any questions or concerns regarding this correspondence_
Sincel ely,
f ��,�,
CEMC 'Lawrence, AICP
Planning Director
ERL/rsa/Attacliment - Master Development Plan Expectations
cc: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator
Lawrence R_ Ambrogi, County Attorney
Ben Lineberry, Virginia Department of Transportation
Rezoning Comment
Frederick County Attorney
Mail tn-
Frederick County Attorney
Co. Administration Bldg., Suite 202
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia, 22601
(540)665-6383
Hand deliver to:
Frederick County Attorney
Co. Administration Bldg., Suite 202
107 North Kent Street
Second Floor
Winchester, Virginia
(540) 665-6383
Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the County
Attorney's office with their review. Attach a copy of your applicationform, location map,
proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information.
Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540-662-4185
Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, VA 22602
Location of property: The subject property is located 2,000 feet east of Martinsburg Pike (US
Route 11 North) and south of Old Charles Town Road (Route 761) and south of Jordan Springs
Road (Route 664) in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: R4 Acreage: 821.7±
County Attorney's Comments:
'.1.�+,fj��
v�
Assistant. County Attorney's
Signature & Date:
Notice to County Attorney —AI/ease
Return This Form to the Applicant
Rezoning Comments
:::.>'!;.i:w:::::::.::.; i:...................fr: r•ii: %:•: r n.: •:: i::. �: v::::. �::.::.:... /fin::::::::. � :.:. :. �:?nr:{:�.::::1.•:./:.:..::.; 1:.::::•::•:: -:::::....:.....:.. /f.:....................... ?.?
?: v::::. /•::. �: v:,f.:.� vv:,/,.:r:.:.:.:....:..•rr :r •f.:f:..; ?.: %.... .:/.....
Frederick County Attorney
Mail to:
Frederick County Attorney
Co. Administration Bidg., Suite 202
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia, 22601
(540) 665-6383
Hand deliver to:
Frederick County Attorney
Co. Administration Bldg.; Suite 202
107 North Kent Street
Fourth Floor
Winchester, Virginia
(540) 665-5651
Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540-662-4185
Mailing Address: 151 Windv Hill Lane
Winchester, VA 22602
Location of property: The subject ro ert is located 2,000 feet east of MartinsburgPike US
Route 11 North and south of Old Charles Town Road Route 761 and south of Jordan Spring
s
Road Route 664 in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
Current zoning: RA
Zoning requested: R4 Acreage: 821.7±
rAssistant
torney's Comments: / % ,
rd .��' rGr "]`� fit M
ounty Attorney's
Signature & Date:
Notice to County Attorney — Please Return This Form to the Applicant
Rezoning Comments
Virginia Department of Transportation
Mail to:
Virginia Department of Transportation
Attn: Resident Engineer
14031 Old Valley Pike
Edinburg, Virginia 22824
(540) 984-5600
Hand deliver to:
Virginia Department of Transportation
Attn: Resident Engineer
1550 Commerce Street
Winchester, Virginia
Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Virginia
Department of Transportation with their review. Attach 3 copies of your application form,
location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information.
Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540-662-4185
Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, VA 22602
Location of property: The subject property is located 2,000 feet east of Martinsburg Pike S
Route 11 North, and south of Old Charles Town Road(Route 761. and south of Jordan Springs
Road Route 664 in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: R4 Acreage: 825+ Acres
Virginia Department of Transportation Comments:
See attached VDOT comments dated February 21, 2003,
VDOT Signature & Date: 0 2121 / 0 3
Transportation�istE�antt- Resident Engineer
Notice to VDOT -- Please Return This Form to the Applicant
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
EDINBURG RESIDENCY
Philip A. Shucet 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE
COMMISSIONER EDINBURG, VA 22824
February 21, 2003
VDOT Comments to
Stephenson Village Rezoning Proposal
Applicant: Greenway Engineering
JERRYA. COPP
RESIDENT ENGINEER
TEL(540)984-5600
FAX(540)984-5607
The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a
significant measurable impact on Route 11, Martinsburg Pike; Route 761, Old Charles
Town Road; and Route 664, Jordan Springs Road. Routes are the VDOT roadways
which have been considered as the access to the property referenced.
The proposed proffers dated January 8, 2003, revised February 14, 2003, and as
proposed in phone conversations and email dated February 20, 2003 adequately
address transportation concerns on Route 11 and Route 761, Old Charles Town Road.
In addition, Milburn Road should be reviewed to confirm the current configuration
should remain the same or be cut off to prevent cut through traffic. The revised
proffer does not fully address this issue. This issue can be addressed at site plan
review.
Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans
detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip
Generation Manual, Sixth 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. Any work performed on the State's right-of-
way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and
requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage.
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment.
OF?
F i c
Ben H. Lineberry, Jr., P.#00" -'—
Transportation
. Transportation Assistant Resident Engineer
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Rezoning Comments
.. ro::::::.::::: :v::::::w:::.::tri: ; ............. •rr:.::•ry:F;.!•i?:•:i?:!!Si:!h: f!N.l::::.y.;�x:..::::.: {!:::: r:::: :..:::: :•::: ::::: ::: xr.
"' ri�i•!tgh:: •.: �;:::::.. �:::::::::.:.............r::::::::::'.�:�� is i:•:•'fh%!•� ii'!!i-::.... r... ..:..................... F.: n..rr .... /... %�f. F.: •.
Winchester Regional Airport
Mail to:
Winchester Regional Airport
Attn: Executive Director
491 Airport Road
Winchester, Virginia 22602
(540) 662-2422
Hand deliver to:
Winchester Regional Airport
Attn: Executive Director
491 Airport Road
(Rt. 645, off of Rt. 522 South)
Winchester, Virginia
Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540-662-4185
Mailing Address: 1.51 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, VA 22602
Location of property: The subject property is located 2,000 feet east of Martinsburg Pike (US
Route 11 North) and south of Old Charles Town Road (Route 761) and south of Jordan Springs
Road (Route 664) in the Stonewall Magisterial District
Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: R4 Acreage: 825± Acres
Winchester Regional Airport's Comments:
szse 49 �-&CI kf C _�
Winchester Regional Airport's
Signature & Date:
-�2-I1D-
Notice to Winchester Regional Airport — Please Return This Form to the Applicant
FEB 14 10. o
L
WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT
SERVING THE
TOP OF VIRGINIA
gU1'HOR�y
February 12, 2003
Evan Wyatt, Planner
Greenway Engineering
151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, Virginia 22602
491 AIRPORT ROAD
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602
(540) 662-2422
Re: Rezoning Comments
Stephenson Village Rezoning
Stonewall Magisterial District
Dear Mr. Wyatt:
The above referenced proposal has been reviewed and it appears that the
proposed site plan will not have an impact on operations at the Winchester
Regional Airport as the proposed development lies within the airport's airspace it
does fall outside of the airport's Part 77 surface.
The Airport does request the opportunity to comment on future construction of
commercial buildings or communication towers to ensure compatibility with
Airport surfaces/operations.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration in the continuing safe
operations of the Winchester Regional Airport.
Sincerely,
Serena R. Manuel
Executive Director
Rezoning Comments
Frederick County Sanitation Authority
Mail to:
Frederick County Sanitation Authority
Attn: Engineer
P.O. Box 1877
Winchester, Virginia, 22601
(540) 665-1061
Applicant's Name: Greenway Enaineerin�
Mailing Address:
Location of property:
151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, VA 22602
Hand deliver to:
Frederick County Sanitation Authority
Attn: Engineer
315 Tasker Road
Stephens City, Virginia
Koute 11 worth) and south of Uld Charles Town Road
Road (Route 664) in the Stonewall Magisterial District
Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: R4
ISanitation Authority Continents:
Sanatation Authority Signature &
Notice to Sanitation Au
Telephone: 540-662-4185
Uju
1) and south of J
Acreage: 825± Acres
m
0
See Revised Statement February 12, 2003 (attacbed).
W. H.Jones,-P.E. 2-12-03
Rezoning Comments - REVISED 2-12-03
Sanitation Authority Comments:
Page 2 of 2
Capacity in the existing sewer lines; especially the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority Abram Creek
Trunk Main, is limited. While the majority of the flow generated by the project may be within the
capacity of the existing lines, it is prudent to have a pump station built sometime during this development
to transmit sewage directly to the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility. Gravity lines will need to be
sized to convey sewage from areas in the watershed outside the development and from the SWSA in the
Clearbrook/Rest area.
Comments
Frederick —Winchester Service Authority
Mail to:
Fred-Winc Service Authority
Attn: Jesse W. Moffett, Executive Director
P.O. Box 43
Winchester, Virginia 22604
(540) 722-3579
Hand deliver to:
Fred-Winc Service Authority
Attn: Jesse W. Moffett
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia
Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540-662-4185
Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, VA 22602
Location of property: The subject property is located 2,000 feet east of Martinsburg Pike (US
Route 11 North) and south of Old Charles Town Road (Route 761) and south of Jordan Springs
Road Route 664) in the Stonewall Magisterial District
Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: R4 Acreage: 825± Acres
Fred -Wine 5ervice Authority's Comments:
lot Mesta W. w.
Fred- Winc Service Authority's s
Signature & Date:
-Al- � JIAIX
r
Notice to Fred -Wine Service Authority - Please Return This Form to the Applicant
qD LF.�
n fE8 1 32003
Memo
To: Evan A. Wyatt — Greenway Engineer,
From: Jesse W. Moffett — Executive Director
Date: February 12, 2003
Re: Stephenson Village Rezoning Request
Please accept the following comments regarding the rezoning application made for the Stephenson
Village Planned Community.
Based on the number of residential units and planned commercial development adequate
capacity is available at the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility to accommodate the
projected flows of this development.
Conceptual plans diverting flows from this development and other developments noted
below are being evaluated. Under those conceptual plans the proposed pumping station and
main collector lines within the Stephenson Village could be ultimately utilized to collect and
convey wastewater flows from Stephenson Village, Northeast Corridor and other
development to the Opequon facility. This would contribute to eliminating capacity concerns
foreseen in the Abrams Creek Interceptor.
I would recommend that the applicant be asked to provide an adequately sized pumping
station site as agreed with the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, that would
accommodate expansion of the station to serve ultimately as a regional pumping facility. I
would project that this facility would be in the capacity range of 3 MGD. In addition, I would
request of the applicant a commitment to construct the main on-site collector of the collection
system of adequate size and appropriate routing to allow future extension of the collection
system to off-site development.
0 Page 1
February 11, 2003
Mr. Evan Wyatt
Greenway Engineering
151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, Virginia 22602
RE: Stephenson Village Rezoning
Frederick County, Virginia
Dear Evan:
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Public Works
540/665-5643
FAX: 540/678-0682
We have completed our review of the proposed rezoning application for the Stephenson
Village Residential Planned Community. Documents furnished for our review included an impact
analysis and proffer statement prepared by Greenway Engineering and a phased traffic impact
analysis prepared by Patton Harris Rust and Associates. All of our comments and concerns
related to transportation issues have been coordinated with the planning department for their
incorporation in their review to avoid duplications and/or contradictions.
The following comments reflect our concerns related to the proposed rezoning as
portrayed in the documents prepared by Greenway Engineering:
1) Refer to Site Suitability, Construction Concerns. The phrase "depth of shale"
should be corrected to read "depth to shale." The residual soils overlying the
weathered shale bedrock typically average 30 inches in thickness.
2) Refer to Drainage. We applaud the applicant's willingness to implement best
management practices (B.M.P.) throughout the site. In conjunction with the
implementation of these facilities, the analysis needs to address who will be
responsible for maintaining these facilities. B.M.P. facilities normally require
periodic maintenance to insure their continual performance.
3) Refer to Solid Waste Disposal. The analysis of the solid waste generation for the
project build -out has projected a rate of 16, 270 cubic yards per year. This number
cannot be compared to our current or projected total capacity. Instead, this rate
should be compared to our current annual disposal volume of 275,000 cubic yards
recorded in 2002. Using this approach would indicate that the project would yield
approximately six (6) percent of the waste stream as measured by volume.
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Stephenson Village Rezoning Comments
Page 2
February 11, 2003
4) Refer to Solid. Waste Disposal. We applaud the applicant's commitment to
utilizing curbside trash collection for residential and commercial development.
This approach will certainly minimize the impact on our current trash collection
methods. However, we are somewhat skeptical of assigning the responsibility of
curbside trash collection to a homeowners association or multiple associations as
referenced in the proffer statement under trash collection. The applicant needs to
explain how this requirement can be legally and successfully assigned to the
homeowners associations without county intervention.
5) Under the Creation of Homeowners Associations within the Proffer Statement, the
additional responsibilities should be expanded to include curbside trash collection
and the maintenance of stormwater facilities (i.e., B.M.P., storm drains, etc.)
Our final approval will be contingent upon our receipt and review of the revised
documents.
Sincerely,
Harvey . Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E.
Director of Public Works
HCS/rls
cc: Frederick County Planning and Zoning
file
C:AC0rel\NNI0rd1'ertect\IZ}hondaAstephensom'illcom.ii.pd
Rezoning Comments
Frederick County Fire Marshal
Mail to:
Frederick County Fire Marshall
Attn: County Planner
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia, 22601
(540) 665-6350
Hand deliver to:
Frederick County Fire & Rescue Dept.
Attn: Fire Marshal
County Administration Bldg., 0 Floor
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia
Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the
Frederick County Fire Marshall with their review. Attach a copy of your application form,
location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information.
Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540-662-4185
Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, VA 22602
Location of property: The subject property is located 2,000 feet east of Martinsburg Pike (US
Route 11 North) and south of Old Charles Town Road (Route 761) and south of Jordan Springs
Road (Route 664) in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: R4 Acreage: 821.7 +/- Acres
Fire Marshal's Comments:
Fire Marshal's Signature & Daten_
Notice to Fire Marshal
C
— Please Return This Form to the Applicant
4 CG(
MAR 2003
Control number Date received
RZ03-0001 R 3/7/2003
Project Name
Stephenson Village
Address
151 Windy Hill Lane
Type Application
Rezoning
Current Zoning
RA
Automatic Sprinkler System
Yes
Other recommendation
Emergency Vehicle Access
Adequate
Siamese Location
Not Identified
Emergency Vehicle Access Comments
Access Comments
Additional Comments
C'ounly Firs and Rescue
rl.e
,,. partntent
OVNce of 0 -re Pre Marshal
Pi:,.n Rev-evv and Comm--nj,-,
Date reviewed Date Revised
3/1312003 3/5/2003
Applicant
Greenway Engineering
City State Zip
Winchester VA 22602
Tax ID Number Fire District
44 -A -31,31A,292 13
Recommendations
Automatic Fire Alarm System
Yes
Hydrant Location
Adequate
Roadway/Aisfeway Width
Adequate
Applicant Phone
540-662A185
Rescue District
13
Election District
Stonewall
Residential Sprinkler System
Yes
Fire Lane Required
Yes
Special Hazards
No
Plan Approval Recommended
Reviewed By
Signature
- \
Yes
Timothy L. Welsh
-
Title
GREENWAY ENGINEERING
151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, Virginia 22602
Founded in 1971
February 26, 2003
Frederick County
Department of Planning and Development
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Attn: Chris Mohn, Deputy Planning Director
Re: Stephenson Village - Clearbrook Fire Department Comments
This letter is to document and confirm that the Fire Chief of the Clearbrook Fire Department, Chief Tommy
Price, has received the rezoning application and information for Stephenson Village and has acquiesced his
written comments to the Frederick County Fire Marshall's office. Therefore, Chief Price will not be
issuing a written comment to you as part of the formal application process.
By way of this letter and Cc: to Chief Price, let this letter serve as documentation of his concurrence.
Should you need additional information, feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Green ay Engine ' g
Mark D. Smith, P.E., L.S.
President
Cc. Chief Tommy Price — Clearbrook Fire Department
Evan Wyatt, AICP - Greenway Engineering
Engineers Surveyors
File #2760C/MDS/d1s Telephone 540-662-4185 FAX 540-722-9525
www-greenwayeng.com
ski
02/26/2003 16:24 5406621660 PRICES OPE INC PAGE 01
FES -26-09 14:60 FROM-GREENWAY M INEERING P.C. 6407229628 r-149 P-002/002 F-269
I GRMWAY FAGN RR 11
-C�o7
131 Windy ! illi :tne
Wtneliatr� tiegu�in 22602
t
Foamed fn 19n j
Fctwuary 26, 2003
Frederick County
Departracni or Plaaaing and Development
107 North Kent Sircet
Winchester, VA 22607.
Atttts Chris Malin, Dcputy Planning Director
Re; Stephenson Village - Clearbrook Fire Department Comments
This letter i9 to document and confirm that the lire Chief of the Clearbrook Fire 7Jcparltoent. Chia Tommy
Price, ha.s mccived the rczonink application and information for Stephcason Village and b" acquiesced his
written cote zts to the Frederick County tyre Marshall's office- Theraforc, Chief Price twill not bit
!sluing a written comment to you es part of the formal application process.
BY way of this Iettcr and Cc. to Cbicf Prieo, let this letter serve as doeumectatfon of his c:oncurrettce.
Should you need additional information, feel tree to contact me at your earliest conveulance.
Slacerely,
Cir a ey Engine
Mark D. Smitb., P.E., I...S.
President
s� ��,
Cc. Chief Tommy !"rice - Clearbrook Fire Department
Evan Wyatt, AICP - Greenway Englnecrio$
Entinmro 5vrvc)rrs
Ttkphene 540-662.4105 FAX 540-722-9528
FUe N37�OC/MUSldh www.greenwiycnr.corq
Rezoning Comments
....i::::::: ::: :.::::..:::.:v:::. i::..�::..;::::.w:::.:::::::::::::n �:iiii:.ii:-i:•:%f :v: i:::::::.'I.r.%:: n:x �::::::::::::::: :v::::.v,.r:.:� ::::•.::� •::•: v::: ::: --... ....... .. ...... .... . ........
:.:':. �::.�:::::.: �::::::::::::::::: ..:: -:. �...:::::: .... ;/ .::::::::::. �: r:::: •ii}iii::: rl..is3:•:...../.-ih'-i:•:::::v...:.:... ...........................:.......:....
:... .:........:n, n.........:.+.:. J... r... r../.::::i::n.. n..n.....:.. n..:......... +:......:r.+.:I.. n:......:. /l.iif:•i:.::.. rv.
Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation
Mail to:
Frederick County
Department of Parks & Recreation
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia, 22601
(540) 6655678
Hand deliver to:
Frederick County
Department of Parks & Recreation
County Administration Bldg., 2nd Floor
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia
Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering, Telephone: 540-662-4185
Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, VA 22602
Location of property: The sub'ect property is located 2,000 feet east of MartinsburgPike US
Route 11 North) and south of Old Charles Town Road (Route 761) and south of Jordan Springs
Road (Route 664) in the Stonewall Magisterial District
Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: R4 Acreage: 825± Acres
Department of Parks & Recreation Comments:
Please see attached.
Pks. & Rec. Signature &Date: !
Notice to Department of Park s& Recreation — Please Return This Form to the Applicant
STEPHENSON VILLAGE COMMENTS
• The recreational facilities within the restricted active adult housing area are not accessible
to the general population and, therefore, have not been recognized as recreational units.
• The completion of the six lane 25 -meter pool/aquatic center, the hard surface trail system
throughout the development, and the assortment of smaller recreational units included in
the proffer statement, would appear to meet the monetary requirements for recreational
units. However, because the Clearbrook Park pool has the capacity to accommodate the
additional load that would be created by this development, other amenities may be
considered in lieu of the 25 -meter pool.
• The land occupied by these recreational units, along with the 17.5 acres offered for the
development of athletic fields, would appear to be approximately the same acreage
required to install recreational units traditionally approved by the county. Therefore, the
recreational areas provided are not necessarily greater than would be expected by current
ordinances.
• The Parks and Recreation Department is recommending that all linear trails be asphalt or
concrete, be a minimum of eight feet in width and meet the specifications used by this
department for the construction of trails throughout the county. An exception to this
standard would be when a four -foot trail on each side of the road is provided within the
right-of-way of a roadway. Also, the development of linear trails is referred to throughout
the proffer statement; however, there does not appear to be a commitment to the number
of linear feet to be included in the trail system. Staff recommends that a trail system plan
be required as part of the proffer statement so that an evaluation of its appropriateness can
be completed.
• The department is asking that there be a clarification of the developers intent regarding
the storing and stockpiling on, or borrowing of soil from the 17.5 acre park site. The
county would not want to be le -ft with undesirable material on the site to be removed or
have desirable material taken from the site and be left with less desirable material.
• Because the Clearbrook Park pool currently operates below capacity, the inclusion of the
25 -meter pool in the Stephenson Village development will result in a negative impact on
our pool operation. An outdoor pool does not appear in our capital improvement plan
because, at the present time, the need does not exist. As a result of these 2,800 housing
units having access to their own aquatic facility, we will not realize an increase in
revenue for swim lessons, admissions, pool rentals, concessions, or swim team
participants. Because outdoor pools are not identified as a recreational need, this facility
development will not reduce the impact Stephenson Village will have on the capital needs
of the Parks and Recreation Department.
• The Parks and Recreation Department does not believe the 17.5 acre park land to be
adequate to comfortably accommodate the twelve athletic fields and support facilities
needed to serve the end users.
• In addition to what has been proposed in the proffer statement, and taking into account
the comments that have been provided by the Parks and Recreation Department, staff
would recommend that consideration be given to having the developer complete the
construction of the athletic fields and support facilities planned for the 17.5 acre park land
site. Staff notes that the monetary contributions offered do not adequately address the
projections identified by the capital facilities fiscal impact model. Staff recognizes the
amenities proffered, but, as noted above, feels that the offerings addressed in the proffer
statement related to county ordinance requirements.
January 27, 2003
Mark Smith, P.E., L.S., President
Greenway Engineering
151 Windy Hill Lane
'W'incliesier, Virginia 2260
RE: Stephenson Village Rezoning Proposal
Dear Mr. Smith:
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the referenced
proposal during their meeting of January 21, 2003. The HRAB reviewed information associated with
the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley, the Frederick
County -Winchester Battlefield Network Plan, Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey Report,
and information provided by the applicant.
Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) Comment
The 825 acres proposed for rezoning from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the R4 (Residential
Planned Community) District is included within the battlefield study area as identified in the Study
of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley. Located adjacent to the subject property is core
battlefield land of the Battle of Stephenson Depot. Located on the property to be rezoned is the
Samuel Byers House that is listed as potentially significant in the Rural Landmarks Survey Report.
Located adjacent to the property proposed for rezoning are the Helm McCann House, Milburn
i ilap; l �;nu �ctt_eiery .
and ilio .i orlon Springy li'o"tni vi nick are ate i'dentihed as potentially significant
in the Rural Landmarks Survey Report.
There were no adverse comments by the HRAB regarding this rezoning application. The HRAB
suggests consideration of the following with this application:
Locate the proposed major collector road on the northeastern portion of the preservation
tract so that the parcel remains intact. The HRAB is concerned that the proposed road could
bisect the property in a manner that is detrimental to preservation and interpretation of the
property.
Provide minimum authentic landscaping along the proposed major collector road without
elements that may give a false sense of history.
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Page 2
Mark Smith, P.E., L.S., President, Greenway Engineering
Re: Stephenson Village Rezoning Proposal
January 27, 2003
• The HRAB has concerns regarding how the preserved parcel will be interpreted; it was
suggested that an interpretative plan is appropriate.
• Consider conducting archeology studies on the property and implement measures to ensure
that any artifacts found are properly inventoried and preserved.
• Consideration should be given to preserving the Sam Byers house on a large parcel of land.
Please contact me if you have questions regarding this comment from the HRAB.
Sincerely,
at�c' 4rja,&
Rebecca A. Ragsdale
Planner I
RARIsce
Et
U:\COMMITTEES\HRAB\Commentsc2003\StephensonVillage.a-pd 'INN JAN 2 9
Frederick
Administrative Assistant
to the Superintendent
County Public Schools
March 20, 2003
Evan Wyatt
Greenway Engineering
151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, VA 22602
RE.- Stephenson Village Rezoning
Dear Mr. Wyatt:
Al Orndorff
omdorfa@frederick.k12.va.us
This letter is in response to your request for comments concerning the rezoning
application for the proposed Stephenson Village project. Based on the information provided,
and using Frederick County's Fiscal Impact Model, it is anticipated that the proposed 1001
single family homes, 638 townhouses, and 479 condominium homes will yield 260 high school
students, 236 middle school students, and 660 elementary school students for a total of 1,156
new students upon build -out -
Based on the Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model, the land and cash proffers meet the
recommended levels. It is also noted that, in addition to the land and cash proffers, financial
adjustments will be made, based on the consumer price index and additional proffer payments,
if the project exceeds the proffered limit of sixty students annually.
Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this
area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding their practical capacity. 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 school
facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments.
The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered
during the approval process.
Respectfully Yours,
Al Orndorff
Administrative sistant to the Superintendent
Copy: William C. Dean Ph. D., Superintendent of Schools
Robert W. Cleaver, Assistant Superintendent for Administration
1415 Amherst Street www.frederick.02-va.us 540-662-3889 ext. 112
P.O. Box 3508 540-545-2439
Winchester, Virginia 22604-2546 540-662-3890 fax
RUN DATE: 3/19/2003
PAYMENTS BY MAP NUMBER
PAGE: 2
*: Denotes
information
retrieved
from the Cleared file.
PAGE: 1
TAX PAYER
T R
TICKET # NUMB.
DEPT
T R
TICKET # NUMB.
A
TYPE
N S A C T
DATE
I 0 N DRAWER
AMOUNT
RUNNING
BALANCE
MAP NUMBER: 44 A 293
SHOCKEY/DULLES, LC
SHOCKEY/DULLES, LC
RE2002
NO. CHECK NUMBER
MAP NUMBER: 44
A 31
88.65CR LBX BB&T-FM 317202
6657-0001 96032
RE2002
30006-0002 5366
PAY
CRIDER & SHOCKEY,
CRIDER & SHOCKEY,
INC OF WV
INC OF WV
RE2002
RE2002
6661-0001 96032
6661-0002
PAY
2002/06/11
264.98CR LBX BB&T-FM 317201
2,101.24CR
5365
PAY
2002/12/06
264.98CR AFW FM 328689
RUN DATE: 3/19/2003
*:
PAYMENTS BY MAP NUMBER
PAGE: 2
Denotes information
retrieved
from the Cleared file.
from the Cleared file.
TAX PAYER
DEPT
T R
TICKET # NUMB.
A N
TYPE
S A C T
DATE
I 0 N DRAWER
AMOUNT NO. CHECK NUMBER
MAP NUMBER: 44 A 31A
I 0 N DRAWER
AMOUNT NO. CHECK NUMBER
RUNNING
BALANCE
MAP NUMBER: 44 A 293
SHOCKEY/DULLES, LC
SHOCKEY/DULLES, LC
RE2002
30006-0001 97062
PAY
2002/06/12
88.65CR LBX BB&T-FM 317202
6657-0001 96032
RE2002
30006-0002 5366
PAY
2002/12/06
88.65CR AFW FM 328692
RUN DATE: 3/19/2003
*:
PAYMENTS BY MAP NUMBER
PAGE: 3
Denotes information
retrieved
from the Cleared file.
from the Cleared file.
TAX PAYER
DEPT
T R
TICKET # NUMB.
A
TYPE
N S A C T
DATE
I 0 N DRAWER
AMOUNT NO. CHECK NUMBER
MAP NUMBER: 44 A 292
I 0 N DRAWER
AMOUNT NO. CHECK NUMBER
RUNNING
BALANCE
MAP NUMBER: 44 A 293
CRIDER & SHOCKEY OF WVA
CRIDER & SHOCKEY OF WVA
RE2002
RE2002
6658-0001 96032
6658-0002
PAY
2002/06/11
581.56CR LBX BB&T-FM 317201
6657-0001 96032
PAY
5365
PAY
2002/12/06
581.56CR AFW FM 328689
RUNNING
BALANCE
264.98CR
529.96CR
RUNNING
BALANCE
618.61CR
707.26CR
RUNNING
BALANCE
1,288.82CR
1,870.38CR
RUN DATE: 3/19/2003
PAYMENTS BY MAP NUMBER
PAGE: 4
*: Denotes information
retrieved
from the Cleared file.
TAX PAYER
DEPT
T R
TICKET # NUMB.
A
TYPE
N S A C T
DATE
I 0 N DRAWER
AMOUNT NO. CHECK NUMBER
RUNNING
BALANCE
MAP NUMBER: 44 A 293
CRIDER & SHOCKEY INC OF WVA
CRIDER & SHOCKEY INC OF WVA
RE2002
6657-0001 96032
PAY
2002/06/11
115.43CR LBX BB&T-FM 317201
1,985.81CR
RE2002
6657-0002 5365
PAY
2002/12/06
115.43CR AFW FM 328689
2,101.24CR
030005765
Exemption pursuant \
to Virginia Code Section
THIS DEED, made and entered into on this the+� day of March , 2003, by and
between SHOCKEY/DULLES, L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, party of the first part,
GRANTOR, and STEPHENSON ASSOCIATES L.C., a Virginia limited liability company,
P.O. Box 2530, Winchester, Virginia 22604, party of the second part, GRANTEE;
WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00), cash
in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, the party of the first part does hereby grant and convey, with covenants of
General Warranty of Title, unto the party of the second part, all of that certain lot or parcel of
land more particularly described as follows:
All that certain tract or parcel of land, together with all the rights, rights of way,
privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging, containing 184.2477 acres, more
or less, fronting on the East side of Route 661 just Northwest of Winchester in
Stonewall Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia, and being more
particularly described by plat prepared by P. Duane Brown, C.L.S., dated October
20, 1987, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County,
Virginia, in Deed Book 663 at Page 676; and being the same property conveyed to
Shockey /Dulles, L.C., a Virginia limited liability company as assignee of John P.
Good, Jr., by deed dated executed December 20, 1995, by John Driggs, Managing
General Partner and Joint Venturer of JJJA Associates, a Virginia general
partnership/joint venture, said deed being of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office
in Deed Book 851 at Page 848.
This conveyance is subject to restrictive covenants, easements, conditions, restrictions,
and rights-of-way of record affecting the aforesaid realty.
This document prepared by: Tax Parcel Numbers:'
LAWSON AND SILEK, P.L.C.
160 Exeter Drive, Suite 103
Winchester, VA 22603
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
SHOCKEY/DULLES, L.C., a Virginia limited 'liability
company
i
By: o
L
onald Shockey, fr.
Its: Manager
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA AT LARGE
COUNTY OF FREDERICK, to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was sworn to, signed and acknowledged before me this /9 0 -
day of March, 2003, by J. Donald Shockey, Jr. the Manager of SHOCKEY/DULLES, L.C., a
Virginia limited liability company, on behalf of the limited liability company.
My Commission expires: �� i -'16,
PREPARED WITHOUT BENEFIT OF TITLE
EXAMINATION BY AND RETURN TO:
Thomas Moore Lawson
Attorney at Law
Lawson and Silek, P.L.C.
P. O. Box 2740
Winchester, VA 22604
/Notary Public
VIRGINIA: FREDERICK COUNTY, sCT.
This instruFnent of writng wns produced to me on
and with certificate of acknowledgement thereto annzxed
was admitted to record. T imposed by Sec. 58.1-802 of
�4'42 ' , toaad 58.1-801 have been paid, if assessable
2
030005,166
Exemption pursuant
to Virginia Code Section
THIS DEED, made and entered into on this the AP` day of March, 2003, by and
between CRIDER & SHOCKEY INC. of WEST VIRGINIA, a West Virginia corporation, party
of the first part, GRANTOR, and STEPHENSON ASSOCIATES, L.0 , a Virginia limited
liability company, P.O. Box 2530, Winchester, Virginia 22604, party of the second part,
GRANTEE;
WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00), cash
in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, the party of the first part does hereby grant and convey, with covenants of Special
Warranty of Title, unto the party of the second part, all of that certain lot or parcel of land more
particularly described as follows:
A. MCKEE TRACTS
TRACT ONE- All of that certain tract of land, containing 200 Acres, more or
less, lying South of and adjacent to TRACT TWO hereinbelow described, and just
South of Highways 761 and 664 in Stonewall Magisterial District of Frederick
County, Virginia, and being the same property conveyed to Mae V. Bailey and
O.R. Bailey, her husband, as joint tenants with the right to survivorship, by
Herbert S. Larrick, Special Commissioner, by Deed dated June 24, 1947, and
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia,
in Deed Book 200, at Page 581; and also by Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure dated
October 21, 1994, from JJJA Associates, A Virginia General Partnership, of
record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 829, at Page 456. Upon the
death of O.R. Bailey in 1962, Mae V. Bailey, as the surviving tenant, became the
sole owner of the property.
TRACT TWO- All of that certain tract of land, containing 259 acres, more or
less, fronting on the South side of Highways 761 and 664; LESS AND EXCEPT
that certain .918 Acre parcel and a non-exclusive easement of right of way across
the adjacent existing land to the Old Charlestown Road (Virginia Route 761)
This document prepared by:
LAWSON AND SILEK, P.L.C.
160 Exeter Drive, Suite 103
Winchester, VA 22603
reserved by the Grantors herein, as shown more particularly described in the
attached Boundary Line Adjustment of the land of Anna B. McKee, dated
September 11, 1996, by Mark D. Smith, Land Surveyor, and being all of the
remaining property conveyed to Mae V. Bailey and Ora R. Bailey, her husband,
as joint tenants with the right of survivorship, by Deed dated November 6, 1947
and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County,
Virginia, in Deed Book 203, at Page 32. Upon the death of Ora R. Bailey in
1962, Mae V. Bailey, as the surviving tenant, became the sole owner of said C
property. (The original property was 310 Acres from which approximately 56 off
conveyances have been made.) N
Mae V. Bailey died testate of March 20, 1996, and by her Will, of record in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County in Will Book 108 at Page
968, she devised these two parcels to her daughter, Anna B. McKee. Anna B.
McKee was duly qualified as the Executrix of the Estate of Mae V. Bailey by
Order entered March 28, 1996, of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Will
Book 108, at Page 969.
It being the same property conveyed to Crider & Shockey, Inc. of West Virginia
by deed dated September 27, 1996 from Anna B. McKee, Executor under the Will
of Mae V. Bailey, Deceased, and Anna B. McKee and recorded in the Circuit
Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book 866, at Page 1281.
B. McCANN (.7315 acres)
All that certain lot of land, containing .7315 Acres, lying in Stonewall Magisterial
District of Frederick County, Virginia, on South side of Old Charles Town Road
(Virginia Route 761) and on West side of Milburn Road, on East side of C.S.X.
Railroad property and on North side by property owned by McCann Land Trust,
shown as Parcel B on sketch dated September 21, 2000 attached to Instrument No.
000010521, in Deed Book 977 at Page 1330 as Exhibit A and more particularly
described by a plat prepared by Mark D. Smith, Land Surveyor, dated October 2,
2000, attached to and by this reference made a part hereof, and being the same
property conveyed to Harry L. McCann by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of
the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book 91, at Page 173.
It being the same property conveyed to Crider & Shockey, Inc. of West
Virginia by deed dated September 29, 2000 from N. K. Benham, III, Trustee of
the McCann Land Trust and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Frederick County on October 4, 2000, as Instrument No. 000010521 in Deed
Book 977 at page 1330.
2
C. McCANN TRACTS
PARCEL ONE- All of that certain tract of land, containing 273.2421 Acres,
more or less, lying in Stonewall Magisterial District of Frederick. County,
Virginia, more particularly described on the attached plat prepared by Mark D.
Smith, L.S., dated September 22, 2000, lying East of Milburn Road or the
centerline of same, as the case may be, South of Rote 761, West of property
owned by the Grantee and North of property owned by Shockey/Dulles, L.C.; and
being a portion of "Tract Two" and all of "Tract Three" conveyed to the Grantor c
herein by deed dated July 10, 1988 and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the
Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book 67, at Page 137. C J
PARCEL TWO- All of that certain tract of land, containing 40.1062 Acres,
more or less, lying in Stonewall Magisterial District of Frederick County,
Virginia, more particularly described on the Final Plat for Major Rural
Subdivision of the land of Crider & Shockey, Inc. of West Virginia prepared by
Mark D. Smith, L.S., dated May 10, 2002 and recorded in the Clerk's Office of
the Circuit Court of Frederick County on July 17, 2002 as instrument number
OZoa 11,23.z,
It being the same property conveyed to Crider & Shockey, Inc. of West Virginia
by deed dated October 2, 2000, from H.K. Benham, III, Trustee of the McCann
Land Trust and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Couri of Frederick
County on October 4, 2000 as Instrument No. 000010522 in Deed Book 977 at
Page 1335.
This conveyance is subject to restrictive covenants, easements, conditions, restrictions,
and rights-of-way of record affecting the aforesaid realty.
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
CRIDER & SHOCKEY, INC. of WES VIRGINIA,
a West Virginia corporation
(SEAL)
J�orfald Shockey, Jr.
tI s President
3
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA AT LARGE
COUNTY OF FREDERICK, TO -WIT:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thisCo
_ day of March, 2003, by r`J
J. Donald Shockey, Jr. who is the President of Crider & Shockey, Inc. of West Virginia, a West '''3
Virginia corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
_.7 .,
Not ublic
My commission expires: w
PREPARED WITHOUT BENEFIT OF TITLE
EXAMINATION BY AND RETURN TO:
Thomas Moore Lawson
Attorney at Law
Lawson and Silek, P.L.C.
P. O. Box 2740
Winchester, VA 22604
TAX PARCELS:
THIS IS A NO CONSIDERATION CONVEYANCE UNDER VA CODE SECTION
VIRGINIA: FREDERICK COUNTY, SCT.
This instrument of writaag wn pvDhnoed tome on
at
a;zd witii ccniticate of acknowledgrment thereto annexed
was adlyitted to record. T imposed by Sec. 54.1-802 of
and 58.1-801 have been paid, if assessable
�� ,Clerk
V