HomeMy WebLinkAbout006-03 Stephenson Village - Stonewall - Duplicate File - BackfileCASH C. 0 10 7 9
Date A A
RECEIPT
Receiverpm I Lf I LL
Address
4-L) 't
For
0 C-J
ACCOUNT HOW PAID
AMT OF
cc Q. ACCOUNT CASH
AMTPAI-4. CHEC
B B
Al ANCE MONlY ORDIA 0 By
,,)I iF I CRED11 (WDEI A
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/ 665-6395
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Board of Supervisors
FROM: Christopher M. Mohn, AICP, Deputy Planning Directo
DATE: September 18, 2003
RE: Rezoning #06-03 of Stephenson Village
SUBJECT: Executive Summary of Staff Report
Attached with this memorandum is the staff report for Rezoning #06-03 of Stephenson Village,
which is scheduled for its requisite public hearing at the September 24, 2003 meeting of the Board
of Supervisors. The following summary is provided as a means of highlighting the proposed
development program for Stephenson Village as well as the critical role of ordinance modification
requests in the applicant's proposed proffer statement. The recommendations of the Planning
Commission are also summarized for your reference.
The attached staff report contains a complete analysis of the application and further includes cross-
references to the applicant's impact analysis statement, proffer statement, and Generalized
Development Plan to assist in navigating this extensive package of materials. The attached staff
report is organized as follows:
A. General Application and Parcel Information (p. 1 - 2)
B. Agency Review Evaluations (p. 2 - 3)
C. Comprehensive Policy Plan Conformance (p. 4 - 5)
D. Environmental Features Analysis (p. 5 - 6)
E. Potential Impacts of Proposed Rezoning (p. 6 - 10):
l . Transportation (p. 6 - 9)
2. Historic Resources (p. 9)
3. Sewer and Water Service (p. 10)
F. Proffer Statement Overview and Anal (p. 10 - 27)
1. General Overview of Proffer Statement (p. 10 - 11)
2. Ordinance Modification Analysis: Section 1 of Proffer Statement (p. 11 - 19)
3. Proffer Summary and Review: Sections 2 - 23 of Proffer Statement (p.19-27)
G. Summary and Action of Planning Commission - 07/16/03 Meeting (p. 27 - 28)
H. SummM and Action of Planning Commission - 08/20/03 Meeting (p. 28 - 29)
I. Staff Conclusion (p. 29)
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Rezoning Proposal - General Development Program
• Rezoning #06-03 of Stephenson Village is a request to rezone 794.6 acres from RA (Rural
Areas) to R4 (Planned Residential Community), to enable development of a residential
planned community comprised of mixed housing types totaling 2,465 dwelling units
(exclusive of proffered affordable elderly housing), with 250,000 square feet of commercial
uses (of which 60,000 square feet is guaranteed by proffer) and 44 acres dedicated for public
school and recreation uses.
• The proffer statement stipulates that the total number of dwelling units in Stephenson Village
will not exceed 2,465. This dwelling unit limitation results in a gross residential density of
3.10 units per acre. It is noted that this limitation does not include affordable housing for
the elderly, which, assuming that such housing does indeed develop, will result in a greater
final project density. The applicant has not specified the minimum or maximum number of
affordable elderly units that will be developed in Stephenson Village.
• Of the 2,465 dwelling units proffered by the applicant, a minimum of 30% will develop as
active adult/age-restricted units. The development of all non -age restricted units will be
phased at an annual rate of 8% per year. Active adult/age restricted and affordable elderly
units are not included in the phasing program.
• 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 major collector road will be developed
in phases triggered by actual traffic counts within the project.
Proffer Statement - Communily Design Modification Document
• Pursuant to the provisions of Section 165-72.0. of the Zoning Ordinance, the applicant has
submitted nine ordinance modification requests with the Proffer Statement. These
modifications are being sought by the applicant to enable enhanced regulatory flexibility that
they argue is necessary to achieve the design program proposed for Stephenson Village.
These requests and the applicant's justification for each are delineated through the
Community Design Modification Document, which is included as Exhibit F of the rezoning
application. Staff has provided a detailed analysis of each modification request for your
review, which can be found on pages 11 through 19 of the staff report.
• It is important to note that each of the nine modification requests is necessary to enable the
proffered development program for Stephenson Village. Indeed, approval of this application
in its current form is dependant upon the individual approval of all nine modification
requests. Should one or more modification requests be denied by the Board, the application
should either be denied outright or tabled to allow the applicant to respond with revisions to
the Proffer Statement.
Planning Commission Recommendations
• Of the nine modification requests, all received recommendations of approval from the
Planning Commission except for Modification #3, which is a request for reduction of the
minimum commercial and industrial area requirement of the R4 District. Specifically, the
•-0
applicant has requested the ability to reserve only 4% of the project for commercial and
industrial uses, rather than the 10% minimum land area required for such uses by the Zoning
Ordinance. The negative recommendation was based upon the contention that the minimum
ordinance requirement for commercial and industrial land areas was appropriate as a means
of ensuring a "balance" of land uses within aplanned community. This recommendation was
endorsed by the majority of Commissioners despite acknowledgment that the applicant had
proffered to exclude all industrial land uses from the proposed development.
By majority vote, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Rezoning #06-03 of
Stephenson Village, to include all ordinance modifications requested by the applicant with
the exception of Modification #3, which received a negative recommendation.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions regarding this memorandum or
the attached staff report.
CMMlbad
Attachment
U:\Chris\Common\Rezoning\Stephenson Village\Comments\BOS_StcphensonVillageGxecSum.wpd
0•
REZONING APPLICATION #06-03
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors Public Hearing
Prepared: September 18, 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.
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission: 07/16/03 - Public Hearing Tabled 30 Days per Applicant's
Request.
Planning Commission: 08/20/03 Recommended approval, to include all
modification requests except
Modification #3, which seeks a reduction
in the minimum amount of commercial
and industrial land area required in the R4
district.
Board of Supervisors: 09/24/03 Pending.
PROPOSAL: To rezone 794.6 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)
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: Agri cultural/Unimproved
Use: Agricultural/Residential/
Unimproved
Use: Agricultural/Residential/
Unimproved
Use: Agricultural/Residential/
Unimproved
Use: Agri cultural/Residential/
Unimproved
00 0.
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 2
September 18, 2003
INTENDED USE: Residential Planned Community comprised of mixed housing types totaling
2,465 dwelling units, exclusive of the affordable elderly housing, 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 maj or 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 3.10 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 02/21/03 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 0310312003 from Timothy L. Welsh, Assistant Fire
Marshal.
Clearbrook Fire & Rescue Co.: No comment offered. Please see the attached letter dated
0212612003 from MarkD. 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
05105103 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 see the attached memorandum dated 02/1212003 from
Jesse W. Moffett, Executive Director.
Sanitation Authority: Capacity in the existing sewer lines, especially the Frederick -Winchester
-00 *•
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 3
September 18, 2003
Service Authority Abrams 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 Church Road area. Please see the attached
comment sheet with attachment dated 02/12/2003 from John G. Whitacre, 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 f -om Rebecca Ragsdale,
Planner 1, dated O1127103.
Parks & Recreation: Please see attached letter dated 08/19/03 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 Orndof ff, Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent.
County Attorney: Proffers appear to be in proper form. Please see attached comment sheet dated
0910812003 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
fi°om 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
o *•
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 4
September 18, 2003
corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject properties
and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District.
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 794.6-acre site, all ofwhich 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 Urban Development Area (UDA). The NELUP envisions the area comprised
by the subject parcels as developing with planned unit development land use. (Comprehensive
Policy Plan, p. 6-36, p. 6-39)
The land use policies of the Comprehensive Plan governing planned communities stipulate that
such development is to occur within the Urban Development Area (UDA). Such policies
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. 6-36.1, 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 core area battlefield
land associated with Stephenson's Depot (Second Battle of Winchester) and the Third Battle
of Winchester (Opequon), and further includes the Byers House (#34-1124), all 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 of the 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)
Planning StaffComnzent
The applicable land use policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan promote the establishment
-00 0•
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 5
September 18, 2003
of planned unit development land use on the subj ect parcels. The proposed rezoning of the site
to accommodate a 2,465-unit planned residential community is, therefore, consistent with
adopted policy.
4) Site Suitability/Environmental Features
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. (See applicant's Impact Analysis Statement, p. 2, 3, 4)
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 September 3, 2003)
The environmental features present on the subj ect 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
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
-00 0•
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 6
September 18, 2003
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)]
D. 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.
5) Potential Impacts
A. Transportation
The traffic impact analysis (TIA) prepared for this application calculated transportation
impacts based upon the following development program:
• Residential: 2,800 dwelling units (mixed housing types)
• Retail: 190,000 square feet
-00 0•
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 7
September 18, 2003
• 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). (See applicant's Impact Analysis Statement, p. 4 - 5)
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 September 3, 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
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.
46 0•
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 8
September 18, 2003
• 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 - 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).
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 02121103 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
-00 0•
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 9
September 18, 2003
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
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 Village 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 core area associated with both the Second Battle of Winchester
(Stephenson's Depot) and Third Battle of Winchester (Opequon) battlefields on property
located immediately adjacent to the subject site. The property containing these
resources is not 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
applicant's Impact Analysis Statement, p. 8 - 9 and Generalized Development Plan,
dated September 3, 2003)
_00 00
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 10
September 18, 2003
C. Sewer and Water
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. (See applicant's Impact
Analysis Statement, p. S -6)
7) Proffer Statement (dated January 8 2003 revised through September 3, 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 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 a detailed discussion concerning each request.
Following the modification discussion, the remainder of the proffer statement is briefly
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 11
September 18, 2003
summarized by section.
A. Section 1: Community Design Modification Document (Proffer Statement, p. 2):
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 165-72.0., the applicant has submitted nine modification
requests with the Proffer Statement. These requests and the 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
II 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 the Planning Commission reviewed each modification request at its August 20,
2003 meeting and forwarded recommendations of approval for each request except Modification
#3.
Community Design Modification Document (Rezoning Exhibit F)
Modification #1 - � 165-71. Mixture of Housing Types Required
Planning Commission Action of 08/20/03: Recommend Approval of Modification #1
YES (TO APPROVE): Kriz, Light, Morris, Ours, Rosenberry, Thomas, Triplett, Unger, Watt
NO: Gochenour, Straub ABSTAIN: DeHaven ABSENT: Fisher
The R4 District requirements stipulate that no more than 40% of the residential land area 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 70% of the residential land area in Stephenson
Village.
The proposed "Mixed Residential Matrix" includes four categories of housing 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
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 12
September 18, 2003
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.
The "Mixed Residential Matrix" addresses the land area of the project planned for identified
housing types and complements the Land Bay Breakdown table included in Section 3 of the
Proffer Statement and on the Generalized Development Plan. The Land BE Breakdown table
addresses the actual composition of the housing program for Stephenson Village, as it specifies
the minimum and maximum ratio proposed for each category relative to the total number of
housing units proffered. (See Proffer Statement, p. 3 - 4, 23 - 24, and Generalized Development
Plan dated September 3, 2003)
If Modification #1 is approved, the proposed "Mixed Residential Matrix" will govern the
categorization of housing types and the unit mix comprising the residential land area in
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 land area 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 53% of the residential land area of
Stephenson Village.
It is noted that the applicant has committed to developing a minimum of 30% 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
Planning Commission Action of 08/20/03: Recommend Approval of Modification #2
YES (TO APPROVE): Kriz, Light, Morris, Ours, Rosenberry, Straub, Thomas, Triplett,
Unger, Watt
NO: Gochenour ABSTAIN: DeHaven ABSENT: Fisher
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
0- 0
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 13
September 18, 2003
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 lot and townhouse
housing types in lieu of the current RP District requirements. (See "Rezoning Exhibit F" for
applicant's justification)
Planning Staff Comment: The proposed new housing types represent a notable departure from
the typical suburban residential development experienced byFrederick Countyunder RP zoning.
Indeed, these housing types and the 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
Planning Commission Action of 08/20/03: Recommend Denial of Modification #3
YES (TO DENY): Gochenour, Light, Morris, Rosenberry, Straub, Watt
NO: Kriz, Ours, Thomas, Triplett, Unger ABSTAIN: DeHaven ABSENT: Fisher
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
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 14
September 18, 2003
possible business development comprising 250,000 square feet (190,000 square feet of retail;
60,000 square feet of office). (See Proffer Statement, p. 4, 5, 16, & 17 and Generalized
Development Plan, dated September 3, 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 3 3 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)
Plann in g Staff Comment: The non-residential component of a planned community development
is necessary to achieve a dynamic mixed use land use pattern that 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 - § 165-721. Recreational Facilities
Planning Commission Action of 08/20/03: Recommend Approval of Modification #4
YES (TO APPROVE): Kriz, Light, Morris, Ours, Rosenberry, Straub, Thomas, Triplett,
Unger, Watt
NO: Gochenour ABSTAIN: DeHaven ABSENT: Fisher
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.
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 15
September 18, 2003
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. The Department of Parks and
Recreation has indicated that the monetary value of a tot lot facility is acceptable as a means of
quantifying the recreational units represented by the applicant's proffered facilities.
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
Planning Commission Action of 08/20/03: Recommend Approval of Modification #5
YES (TO APPROVE):
NO: Gochenour
Kriz, Light, Morris, Ours, Rosenberry, Straub, Thomas, Triplett,
Unger, Watt
ABSTAIN: DeHaven ABSENT: Fisher
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 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). Pursuant to this request, the
applicant has proffered 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 #5 is approved, the active adult portion of Stephenson Village will be allowed
to develop with a complete system of private 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)
Planning Staff 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
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 16
September 18, 2003
"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
Planning Commission Action of 08/20/03: Recommend Approval of Modification #6
YES (TO APPROVE): Kriz, Light, Morris, Ours, Rosenberry, Thomas, Triplett, Unger, Watt
NO: Gochenour, Straub ABSTAIN: DeHaven ABSENT: Fisher
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 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)
• 0
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 17
September 18, 2003
• Modification #7 - 165-72.G.(1) Buffers and Screening
Planning Commission Action of 08/20/03: Recommend Approval of Modification #7
YES (TO APPROVE): Kriz, Light, Morris, Ours, Rosenberry, Thomas, Triplett, Unger, Watt
NO: Gochenour, Straub ABSTAIN: DeHaven ABSENT: Fisher
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 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 Coinment: The effective combination of distance and screening is critical to the
mitigation of traffic impacts on adjoining residential uses. As 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 approved, the applicant
will design and construct the road efficiency buffer pursuant to the illustrative cross-section of
the major collector road provided in the Proffer Statement. This modification would not impact
the active portion of the buffer, which the applicant will be required to provide as specified by
ordinance.
• Modification 48 - $ 165-68. Rezoning Procedure
Planning Commission Action of 08/20/03: Recommend Approval of Modification #8
YES (TO APPROVE): Kriz, Morris, Ours, Rosenberry, Thomas, Triplett, Unger, Watt
NO: Gochenour, Light, Straub ABSTAIN: DeHaven ABSENT: Fisher
.- 0
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 18
September 18, 2003
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
September 3, 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 Staff 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 - � 165-133.B. Master Development Plan, Contiguous Land
U65-141.A.(8) Master Development Plan, Contents
$165-141.B.(2),(4)•(8) Master Development Plan, R4 Contents
Planning Commission Action of 08/20/03: Recommend Approval of Modification #9
YES (TO APPROVE): Kriz, Light, Morris, Ours, Rosenberry, Straub, Thomas, Triplett,
Unger, Watt
NO: Gochenour ABSTAIN: DeHaven ABSENT: Fisher
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 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
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 19
September 18, 2003
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 "building block" toward completion of the
overall development 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 two years to reflect the Consumer Price
Index (CPI).
Limitation on Permits - The applicant has proffered that no more than 2,465
residential units will be developed within Stephenson Village, excluding affordable
elderly housing. It is noted that the applicant has not specified either a minimum or
maximum number of affordable elderly housing units, which, regardless of the
number, will be developed in addition to the 2,465 units delineated by proffer. The
proffered unit limitation results in a gross residential density of 3.10 units per acre.
Final project density may ultimately be greater assuming development of the
affordable elderly housing.
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)
0 Land Bay Breakdown Table - The applicant has proffered a Generalized
•- 0
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 20
September 18, 2003
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 II - 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 will comprise a minimum of 30% and as much
as 53% of the total housing units in Stephenson Village, which, if developed to the
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 2,465, excluding the affordable elderly
housing.
• 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. 5, 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 two (2) years to reflect the Consumer Price Index (CPI) - All Urban
Consumers (Current Series).
• Active Adult Contributions & Premium - Capital facilities that are not directly
0
REZ 906-03, Stephenson Village
Page 21
September 18, 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: Funds for Transportation Enhancements and/or Heritage Tourism
(Proffer Statement, p. 7)
MatchingFunds unds - The applicant has proffered to make a contribution to Frederick
County for transportation enhancements and/or the promotion of heritage tourism
in the amount of $75,000. This contribution will be made in the form of matching
funds.
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 - I1)
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 ultimatelybe 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 constructed
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
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
0 0
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 22
September 18, 2003
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
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
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 23
September 18, 2003
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 twenty -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 - 15)
• 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. The total number of affordable elderly housing units to be
developed in Stephenson Village is not specified by proffer. It is noted that
affordable elderly housing is distinct from active adult/age-restricted housing, and
is excluded from the overall density limitation proffered by the applicant.
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 24
September 18, 2003
L. Section 12: Preservation of Historical and Cultural Resources
(Proffer Statement, p. 16)
• 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 1,200"' 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 1,200' 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 - 19)
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 25
September 18, 2003
• 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
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 - 21)
• Buffer and Conservation Easements - The applicant has proffered a one -hundred
(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 Intermittent 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. However, the ten
(10) feet located adjacent to the platted lot may be disturbed. In the event such
disturbance occurs, the buffer area 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.
9
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 26
September 18, 2003
• 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
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.
0
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 27
September 18, 2003
U. Section 21: Proffered Housing Types
(Proffer Statement, p. 23 - 24)
• Unique Housing Types - The applicant has proffered the inclusion of several
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 SiQnage - 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 Signs - 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 07/16/03 MEETING:
The required public hearing was conducted following presentations by Planning Department staff and
the applicant. Numerous citizens addressed the Planning Commission, offering both support and
opposition concerning the proposed rezoning. The public hearing was formally concluded following
the Commission's receipt of citizen comments and the applicant was given an opportunity to respond.
At the request of the applicant, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to table further
consideration and final action regarding the proposed rezoning for thirty (30) days. The subject
application was therefore scheduled as a public meeting item on the agenda of the Planning
Commission's August 20, 2003 meeting.
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 28
September 18, 2003
It is noted that Planning Commission Chairman Charles DeHaven abstained from the Commission's
deliberations and action regarding this application. Also, Shawnee District Planning Commissioner
Robert Morris was absent from the meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 08/20/03 MEETING:
Consideration of the subject application resumed with review of the nine ordinance modification
requests submitted through the Community Design Modification Document (Exhibit "F") of the Proffer
Statement. The Planning Commission held discussion and offered a recommendation concerning each
request. Of the nine modification requests, all received recommendations of approval except for
Modification #3, which is a request for reduction of the minimum commercial and industrial area
requirement of the R4 District. Specifically, the applicant requested the ability to reserve only 4% of
the project for commercial and industrial uses, rather than the 10% minimum land are required for such
uses by the Zoning Ordinance. The recommendation to deny Modification #3 was decided by a vote
of 6 (in favor of denial) to 5 (opposed to denial), with one Commissioner abstaining and another absent.
Conunissioners who voiced opposition to Modification #3 cited concern that the requested reduction
would lessen the potential for employment opportunities within Stephenson Village and thereby
compromise attainment of the "balance" of land uses envisioned within planned communities by the
Comprehensive Plan. However, other Commissioners acknowledged that the applicant had proffered
to prohibit industrial land uses in the project in response to community objections to such uses, and
therefore questioned whether the 10% ordinance minimum was attainable if only commercial uses were
permitted.
Please note that an overview of the nine modification requests and the Commission's
recommendation for each may be found on pages 11 through 18 of this staff report.
At the conclusion of general discussion regarding the application, a motion was made and seconded to
recommend denial of the rezoning request. This motion failed by the following majority vote:
YES (TO DENY): Gochenour, Light, Straub, Rosenberry
NO: Kriz, Morris, Ours, Thomas, Triplett, Unger, Watt
ABSTAIN: DeHaven ABSENT: Fisher
Upon failure of the initial motion, a new motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the
application, to include a negative recommendation concerning Modification #3. The motion to
recommend approval of Rezoning Application #06-03 of Stephenson Village was passed by the
following majority vote:
YES (TO APPROVE): Kriz, Morris, Ours, Thomas, Triplett, Unger, Watt
NO: Gochenour, Light, Straub, Rosenberry
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 29
September 18, 2003
ABSTAIN: DeHaven ABSENT: Fisher
STAFF CONCLUSION FOR 09/24/03 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PUBLIC HEARING:
This application is a request to rezone 794.6 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to R4 (Planned Residential
Community) to permit development of a planned community consisting of 2,465 dwelling units
(exclusive of affordable elderly housing), a 26-acre commercial center, land dedications for public uses,
and a multi -modal transportation system. The gross residential density proposed for Stephenson
Village, not including affordable elderly housing, is 3.10 dwelling units per acre. The site is located
wholly within the Urban Development Area (UDA). The applicant's proposal is consistent with the
applicable land use policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, which envision planned unit
development (PUD) land use on the subject parcels.
The applicant has included a series of nine ordinance modification requests with the Proffer Statement,
each of which is necessary to enable the proffered development program for Stephenson Village.
Approval of this application in its current form is dependant upon the individual approval of each
modification request. Should one or more modification requests be denied by the Board, the application
must either be denied outright or tabled to allow the applicant to respond with revisions to the Proffer
Statement.
GREENWU ENGINEERING
y 151 Windy Hill Lane gay y r�
s f 4l
, Winchester, Virginia 22602
�j
Founded in 1971
August 20, 2003
Frederick County Planning Department
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Attn: Chris Mohn, Deputy Director
Dear Chris:
As you know, the Board of Supervisors approved the Alternative 4 Land Use Plan associated with
the Northeast Land Use Plan on August 13, 2003. The motion to adopt the Alternative 4 Land
Use Plan was conditioned upon the expansion of the Urban Development Area (UDA) into the
southeastern portion of the study area excluding the land area designated as core battlefield area
for the battles of Second Winchester and Third Winchester. Pursuant to this action, the
Stephenson Village project team reviewed the land areas on the Stephenson Village project that
were not incorporated into the UDA. The project team reviewed digital data provided by the
Frederick County GIS Department that was the base data for the core battlefield area designations
that is utilized by the National Park Service and the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation.
Based on this data, it was determined that an additional 27.1 acres of land was not incorporated
into the UDA; therefore, the project team has modified the information associated with the
Stephenson Village residential planned community rezoning application accordingly. Please find
attached the following information that has been modified to reflect the reduction in acreage:
• Rezoning Application with updated signatures
• Composite Plat with updated signature
• Impact Analysis Statement
• Proffer Statement with updated signature and notarization
• Community Design Modification Document
• Generalized Development Plan
Please advise me if you need any additional information and I will provide it to you immediately.
Once again, thank you for your continued assistance with the Stephenson Village project.
Sincerely,
Evan Wyatt, AICP
Greenway Engineering
Cc: Eric Lawrence, Planning Director
Project Team
Engineers Surveyors
File #2760C/EAW Telephone 540-662-4185 FAX 540-722-9528
wvryv. gre e nw aye n g. co m
REZONING APPLICATION FORM
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
To be completed by Planning Staff
Fee Amount Paid _
Zoning Amendment Number Date Receive
PC Hearing Date S-?-o3 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: 540-662-418 5
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 X
Plat X Fees X
Deed to Property X Impact Analysis Statement X
Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement 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. - J. Donald Shockey, Manager
6. A) Current Use of the Property
B) Proposed Use of the Property:
7. Adjoining Property:
RA - Agricultural
R4 — Residential Planned Comm
PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING
See attached list
8. 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 761) and south "of Jordan Springs Road
(Route 664) in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
4b 0
Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model _j
In order for the Planning 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 1 A, 44-((A))-292 44-((A))-293
Magisterial:
Fire Service:
Rescue Service:
10.
11.
Districts
Stonewall
Clearbrook Fire &
High School: James Wood HS
Middle School: James Wood Middle
Rescue Dept.
Clearbrook Fire & Elementary School
Rescue Dept.
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 Footave of Proposed Uses
Office: 60,000 sq.ft. max. Service Station:
Retail: 190,000 sq.ft.max Manufacturing:
Restaurant: Warehouse:
Other
06 0
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):Z?C� Q . U Date: ;3 '7 O 3
Owner (s):
0 -1-
•
STEPHENSON VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED COMMUNITY REZONING
Owner Properties
PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING
44-((A))-31
Agricultural RA District
44-((A))-31 A
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/EAW
0
Adjoining property owners
PARCEL ID NUMBERUSEZONING
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
2760ClEAW
Adjoining property owners
PARCEL ID NUMBERUSEZONING
44-((A))-23 3
44-((A))-234
44-((A))-23 5
44-((A))-236
44-((A))-237
44-((A))-23 8
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
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
2760C/EA W
REZONING APPLICATION FORM a' ; , (,F;
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA1.
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:
2.
91
Name: Greenway Engineering
Telephone: 540-662-418 5
Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester VA 22602
Property Owner (if different from above)
Name: Stephenson Associates L.C.
Address: PO Box 2530 Winchester, VA 22604
Contact person if other than above
Name: Evan Wyatt, AICP
Telephone: 540-667-7700
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
X
X
X
X
ti
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. - J. Donald Shockey, Manager
6. A) Current Use of the Property RA - Alzricultural
B) Proposed Use of the Property: R4 — Residential Planned Community
7. Adjoining Property:
PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING
See attached list
8. 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 761) and south of Jordan Springs Road
(Route 664) in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
4b
•
Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model
In order for the Planning 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 1 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: James Wood HS
Middle School: 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
794.6±
RA
R4
794.6±
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. Service Station:
Retail: 190,000 sq.ft. Manufacturing:
Restaurant: Warehouse:
Other
ti 4b
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): Lv", l�- Date: ZC) 3
Owner (s):
Date: ��
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
SUBJECT:
• OUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/ 665-6395
:h
:Sf
MEMORANDUM
Frederick County Planning Commission
Christopher M. Mohn, AICP, Deputy Planning Director
August 15, 2003
Rezoning # 06-03 of Stephenson Village
Actions of the Board of Supervisors on August 13, 2003
At its August 13, 2003 meeting, the Board of Supervisors took action on two items germane to the Planning
Commission's continued deliberations regarding the referenced rezoning application. These actions include
the following:
The Board adopted an amendment to the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP) consistent with the
Alternative 4 land use plan proposal that was endorsed by the Commission on May 21, 2003. As a
result of this amendment, the planned land use designation of the parcels subject to the rezoning
petition has been changed from industrial to planned unit development and the Urban Development
Area (UDA) has been expanded to include said parcels. A copy of the policy text adopted with this
amendment is attached for your reference.
2. The Board adopted the proposed amendment to Article V1I of the Zoning Ordinance that allows
applicants for R4 zoning to request ordinance modifications to achieve enhanced design flexibility.
The adopted amendment includes language clarifying the role ofthe Planning Commission in reviewing
modification requests prior to Board consideration. A copy of the adopted ordinance text is attached
for your reference.
It is noted that the agenda for the August 20, 2003 Planning Commission meeting was distributed prior to the
date of the aforementioned Board actions. These actions are therefore not reflected in either the Stephenson
Village staff report or the accompanying cover memorandum.
Please do not hesitate to contact me directly should you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter.
CMM/rsa
Attachments
107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
W
ADOPTED AUGUST 13, 2003_
Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan
The northeastern portion of Frederick County has been studied on three occasions to ascertain the
most appropriate land uses for its future. First in 1995, then in 1999. In 2002, the area was studied
once again in an effort to discern if this portion of the County contained an excess of industrial land
use designations. Through the adoption of the 2002 land use planning efforts, the amount of land
designated industrial was significantly reduce, and the planned unit development (PUD) land use
designation was introduced.
1995 Land Use Study
In 1995, the Board of Supervisors and the Economic Development Commission identified a shortage
of available industrial sites with rail access, a vital element in recruiting potential industries. As a
result, the County initiated a search for potential locations for such uses. Numerous areas were
identified within the northeastern portion of the County along the Route 11 North corridor that could
be attractive sites for industrial development with rail access. As a result, the Board of Supervisors
directed the County's Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) to develop a land
use plan for the Route 11 North corridor from Interstate 81 Exit 317 to Exit 321.
In 1996, a land use plan for the Route 11 North corridor from Interstate 81 Exit 317 to Exit 321 was
adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Approximately 3,200 acres of land was included within the
adopted study area boundary of the Route 11 North corridor which extended from Interstate 81 to
the west and the Hot Run, Hiatt Run, and Redbud Run drainage basins to the east. Portions of the
Stephenson Rural Community Center and the Clearbrook Rural Community Center were included
within the study area boundary. The Route 11 North Land Use Plan recommended industrial and
commercial development as the predominant land use within the study area boundary. New large-
scale residential development was not proposed as a component of the land use plan. Finally, a
Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) designation was established to preserve and protect
existing residential land uses, historic features, and significant open space areas. The DSA was
recommended along the Route 11 North corridor, the Milburn Road corridor, and along the western
segment of the Old Charles Town Road corridor.
1999 Land Use Study
Development activity and land use speculation has occurred along the Route 11 corridor between
Interstate 81, Exit 321 and Exit 323 since the adoption of the north of the Route 11 North Land Use
Plan. Concerns expressed by county officials and citizens regarding various land use activities and
excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; amended to reflect adopted Plan
• 0
ADOPTED AUGUST 13, 2003
plans in this area led the Board of Supervisors to direct the CPPS to revisit the previously adopted
land use plan. The Board of Supervisors directed the CPPS to develop a land use plan which
expanded upon the Route 11 North Plan to incorporate all land east of Interstate 81 between
Interstate 81 mile marker 316 and Interstate 81 Exit 323 to the Opequon Creek, as well as land on
the west side of Interstate 81 at Exit 321 and Exit 323.
Northeast Land Use Plan Objectives
Policies
► Develop policies which provide for a balance of growth and preservation.
► Develop policies which prohibit higher density growth within defined portions of the
study area.
► Ensure that public water and sewer service with adequate capacity accompanies
future development proposals.
► Ensure that adequate Levels of Service for all road systems are maintained or are
achieved as a result of future development proposals.
► Apply appropriate quality design standards for future development within the study
area.
Land Use
► Concentrate industrial uses near major road and railroad transportation systems.
► Encourage industrial uses to locate within master planned areas.
► Provide for interstate business development opportunities on the eastern and western
sides of Interstate 81 interchanges.
► Concentrate business uses at strategic locations along the Route 11 North corridor.
► Discourage random business and industrial land uses along Route 11 that are
incompatible with adjacent existing land uses.
excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; amended to reflect adopted Plan
0
0
ADOPTED AUGUST 13, 2003
Transportation
► Identify appropriate locations for signalized intersections to maintain or improve
Levels of Service.
► Encourage central access points to industrial areas, minimizing new driveways and
intersections with Route 11 North, Route 761, Route 664, Route 669, and Route 671.
► Encourage the expansion of Route 11 to a four -lane roadway.
► Determine appropriate locations for new connector roads within industrial and
commercial areas to minimize traffic impacts on Route 11 North and existing
secondary roads.
► Discourage new access points along the historic Milburn Road corridor (Route 662).
Infrastructure
► Identify appropriate locations within the study area for inclusion in the Sewer and
Water Service Area (SWSA).
► Determine impacts of proposed future land uses on the Opequon Waste Water
Treatment Plant.
► Determine appropriate types of water and sewer systems to serve existing and
proposed land uses.
Historical
► Ensure that recommendations of the Third Winchester Battlefield Preservation Plan
are implemented to the extent possible.
► Determine appropriate methods to protect significant historic areas and corridors that
are identified by the Battlefield Network Plan.
► Identify appropriate locations to implement Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA)
land use designations to protect potentially significant historic resources as identified
by the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey. Ensure that the Historic
Resources AdvisoryBoard (HRAB) reviews all development proposals which impact
identified DSA.
excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; amended to reflect adopted Plan
ADOPTED AUGUST 13, 2003
Environmental
Identify environmentally sensitive areas such as flood plains and steep slopes, to
ensure that future land use impacts to these areas are minimized or avoided.
Identify areas for agricultural and open space preservation.
Encourage land preservation programs such as conservation easements, agricultural
and forestal districts, and public purchase of permanent easements.
Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan
The 2002 Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan is intended to expand upon and supercede elements
of the 1995 and 1999 Land Use Plans which were adopted in 1996 and 2000, respectively.
The 2002 Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan has been designed to provide for a balance of land uses
which includes industrial and commercial growth along the major road and railroad corridors, the
introduction of a planned unit development (PUD) land use, and the preservation of rural areas and
significant historic features within the study area boundaries. Future land uses within the study area
boundary should be sensitive to existing and planned land uses. The land use plan has been designed
to provide the opportunity to develop industrial, business, and PUD uses in a well -planned,
coordinated manner.
Industrial, land uses are proposed adjacent to the railroads in the southern and northern portions of
the study area. Proposed industrial land uses should be developed within master planned areas
which discourage individual lot access on the Martinsburg Pike (Route 11 North) corridor. Industrial
land uses should be adequately screened from adjoining land uses to mitigate visual and noise
impacts. Furthermore, industrial land uses should be planned to provide greater setbacks and buffers
and screening along Martinsburg Pike to enhance the appearance of the corridor.
Business and commercial land uses are proposed along the Martinsburg Pike corridor, on the east
and west side of Interstate 81 Exits 317, 321, and 323 within the southeastern portion of the Sewer
and Water Service Area (SWSA). It is envisioned that commercial land uses which cater to the
interstate traveler will be developed along the three Interstate 81 interchange areas, while retail,
service, and office land uses will occur along the Martinsburg Pike corridor, and complement the
planned unit development (PUD) land use designation in the southeastern portion of the S WSA. The
development of business and commercial land uses is encouraged at designated signalized road
intersections. All business and commercial uses are encouraged to provide inter -parcel connectors
to enhance accessibility between uses and reduce disruptions to primary and secondary road systems.
exce7 pt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; amended to reflect adopted Plan
ADOPTED AUGUST 13, 2003
Additionally, business and commercial land uses which adjoin existing residential uses and
significant historic resources should be adequately screened to mitigate impacts.
The Planned Unit Development (PUD) land use is proposed in the southeastern portion of the study
area, immediately south of the Stephenson Rural Community Center. The PUD is envisioned to
include residential, commercial, and office components, of which a maximum of 50% of the land
area would be non-residential. The PUD is proposed as an alternative land use from the typical
suburban residential development patterns that have occurred in the past. The PUD concept is
intended to promote land use patterns that allow for internal service, employment, and intermodal
transportation opportunities with public open space linkages between various developments. Public
uses such as school, parks, and fire and rescue facilities should be provided for within the PUD. As
with all development, it is vital that the PUD be provided with adequate transportation improvements
that assure the transportation network serving the community function at a Level of Service (LOS)
Category C or better.
The planned unit development (PUD) land use concept would enable a large scale community. The
associated residential aspect of a PUD would necessitate its inclusion within the County's Urban
Development Area (UDA). Therefore, the UDA has been expanded to incorporate the land areas
designated for the PUD.
The preservation and protection of significant historic resources, environmentally -sensitive areas,
and open space areas is encouraged by this land use plan. The majority of the acreage within the
study area which comprises these features has been protected from industrial, commercial, and
residential development through its exclusion from the SWSA and UDA expansion. This acreage
includes the core area of the Opequon Battlefield (3rd Battle of Winchester); significant historic
properties including Sulphur Spring Spa (34-110), Cleridge (34-111), and Hackwood (34-134); the
majority of the steep slope and mature woodland areas; and all of the flood plain and wetland areas
associated with Opequon Creek.
Significant historic resources including the core area of Stephensons Depot (2"d Battle of
Winchester), Kenilworth (34-113), the Branson House (34-137), Milburn (34-729), the Byers House
(34-1124), and the Milburn Road corridor (Route 662), and minor areas of steep slope and mature
woodlands fall within the expanded SWSA and UDA boundaries. The land use plan incorporates
a Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) designation to ensure that these features, as well as
existing residential clusters and public land uses are protected from future development proposals.
The DSA is a community and historical preservation area; therefore, adjacent uses which may be
incompatible should provide adequate buffers and screening. The DSA is intended to discourage
any development along the Milburn Road corridor and to promote a higher standard of development
along the Martinsburg Pike corridor where residential clusters and public land uses dominate.
Development regulations should be reviewed to ensure that they protect and promote a cohesive
excerpt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; amended to reflect adopted Plan
ADOPTED AUGUST 13, 2003
Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan
The northeastern portion of Frederick County has been studied on three occasions to ascertain the
most appropriate land uses for its future. First in 1995, then in 1999. In 2002, the area was studied
once again in an effort to discern if thisportion of the County contained an excess of industrial land
use designations. Through the adoption of the 2002 land use planning efforts, the amount of land
designated industrial was significantly reduce, and the planned unit development (PUD) land use
designation was introduced.
1995 Land Use Study
In 1995, the Board of Supervisors and the Economic Development Commission identified a shortage
of available industrial sites with rail access, a vital element in recruiting potential industries. As a
result, the County initiated a search for potential locations for such uses. Numerous areas were
identified within the northeastern portion of the County along the Route 11 North corridor that could
be attractive sites for industrial development with rail access. As a result, the Board of Supervisors
directed the County's Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) to develop a land
use plan for the Route 11 North corridor from Interstate 81 Exit 317 to Exit 321.
In 1996, a land use plan for the Route 11 North corridor from Interstate 81 Exit 317 to Exit 321 was
adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Approximately 3,200 acres of land was included within the
adopted study area boundary of the Route 11 North corridor which extended from Interstate 81 to
the west and the Hot Run, Hiatt Run, and Redbud Run drainage basins to the east. Portions of the
Stephenson Rural Community Center and the Clearbrook Rural Community Center were included
within the study area boundary. The Route 11 North Land Use Plan recommended industrial and
commercial development as the predominant land use within the study area boundary. New large-
scale residential development was not proposed as a component of the land use plan. Finally, a
Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) designation was established to preserve and protect
existing residential land uses, historic features, and significant open space areas. The DSA was
recommended along the Route 11 North corridor, the Milburn Road corridor, and along the western
segment of the Old Charles Town Road corridor.
1999 Land Use Study
Development activity and land use speculation has occurred along the Route 11 corridor between
Interstate 81, Exit 321 and Exit 323 since the adoption of the north of the Route 11 North Land Use
Plan. Concerns expressed by county officials and citizens regarding various land use activities and
excer pt from the 2000 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; amended to reflect adopted Plan
KEY De'eted Text
New Text
ADOPTED AUGUST 13, 2003
Amendment to the Frederick County Code,
Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance,
Article VII, R4 - Planned Residential Community District;
Section 165-72.0., Other Regulations
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, following review by the Planning
Commission.
(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.
UAChris\Common\R4 Modification Amcndment.Adopted.wpd
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
r il L Ec-,, C)'r 01 F` U 'D
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
MEMORANDUM
Frederick County Planning Commission ��.
Christopher M. Mohn, AICP, Deputy Planning Director
August 1, 2003
Rezoning # 06-03 of Stephenson Village
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/ 665-6395
As you are aware, the public hearing for the subject rezoning application was held during the
Planning Commission's meeting on July 16, 2003. At that time, public input was received and the
applicant was provided an opportunity to respond to questions and concerns raised by various
speakers. The applicant subsequently requested that the Planning Commission delay further action
regarding the application for a period of thirty (30) days. The public hearing was formally concluded
and the Planning Commission voted to table the application as requested by the applicant.
Continuation of the Planning Commission's consideration of the subject rezoning application has
been scheduled as a public meeting item on the August 20, 2003 meeting agenda. As of the date of
this memorandum, the applicant has not offered any changes to the application and the policies of
the Comprehensive Policy Plan applicable to the site remain unmodified. With the exception of a
brief update regarding the action to table, the content of the staff report prepared for this application
is unchanged from that which was originally provided for the public hearing. A copy of the staff
report is attached for your reference.
It is reiterated that the public hearing for the subject application was fonnally closed on July 16,
2003. As such, members of the general public seeking to address the Planning Commission
regarding this application should be encouraged to speak during the time reserved for citizen
comments.
Please do not hesitate to contact me directly should you have any questions or concerns regarding
this matter.
CMM/bad
Attachment
0 \Agendas\COMMENTS\REZONING\Staff Report\2003\StephensonVillagePCCoverMemo.wpd
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
REZONING APPLICATION #06-03
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
Staff Report for the Planning Commission Public Meeting
Prepared: June 27, 2003
Updated: August 1, 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 oil 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 - Public Hearing Tabled
Planning Commission: 08/20/03 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 09/10/03 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: Agri cultural/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/Residential/
Unimproved
Use: Agri cultural/Residential/
Unimproved
Use: Agricultural/Residential/
Unimproved
Use: Agri cultural/Residential/
Unimproved
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 2
August 1, 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 02/21/03 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 0310312003 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.
CountyEngineer: 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
REZ 906-03, Stephenson Village
Page 3
August 1, 2003
Authority Abrams 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 Church Road area. Please see the attached
comment sheet with attachment dated 02112/2003 from John G. Whitacre, 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 ofthe 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, Planner I,
dated 01127103.
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
03/20103 ftom Al Orndo7ff, Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent.
County Attorney: Proffers appear to be in proper form. Please see attached comment sheet dated
0412812003 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:
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
REZ 406-03, Stephenson Village
Page 4
August 1, 2003
corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject properties
and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District.
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 of the 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
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 5
August 1, 2003
the County as a whole. (Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 6-60, 6-61)
Planning Staff Conzment
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 Analvsis 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
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 6
August 1, 2003
flood plain comprising the Hiatt Run Corridor. Moreover, the 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)]
D. 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
•
0
REZ 906-03, Stephenson Village
Page 7
August 1, 2003
forest management plan to guide conservation of woodland resources within the project.
5) Potential Impacts
A. Transportation
Impact Analysis Statement (p. 4 - S): The traffic impact analysis (TIA) 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 Try Generation Manual, 6"Edition, the
applicant projects traffic impacts for the development in terms of three phases that
correspond with years 2006, 2009, 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
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 8
August 1, 2003
and/or associated improvements. Moreover, the proffer indicates that construction of
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 II. 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
August 1, 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 02121103 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 ofthe 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 Village 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 906-03, Stephenson Village
Page 10
August 1, 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
Impact Analysis Statement (p. 5, 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 Januaty 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 requests
REZ 906-03, Stephenson Village
Page 11
August 1, 2003
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 ofModification Concept: The applicant initially included a series oftwenty-
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
August 1, 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
exempted by this article or modified by the Board of Supervisors 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
August 1, 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 II 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 of housing 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 906-03, Stephenson Village
Page 14
August 1, 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% 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 lot and townhouse housing types in lieu of the current RP District
requirements. (See "Rezoning Exhibit F" for applicant's justification)
Planning Staff 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 406-03, Stephenson Village
Page 15
August 1, 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 of retail; 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 "RezoningExhibit
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
facilitates efficiencies of form and function impossible through the one dimensional
0
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 16
August 1, 2003
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 94 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
a complete system of private streets within the active -adult portion of the community
REZ 906-03, Stephenson Village
Page 17
August 1, 2003
(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 #5 is approved, the active adult portion of Stephenson Village will
be allowed to develop with a complete system of private 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)
Planning Staff 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 46 - & 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 -aye 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
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
REZ 906-03, Stephenson Village
Page 18
August 1, 2003
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 (I) 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 approi,ed, 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 ExhibitF"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 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
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 19
August 1, 2003
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 Staff 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 - § 165 133 B Master Development Plan Contiguous Land
§ 165 141 A (8) Master Development Plan, Contents
&165 141 B(2)•(4)•(8)MasterDevelopmentPlan,R4Contents
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 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
REZ 906-03, Stephenson Village
Page 20
August 1, 2003
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 49 is approved, the applicant will be permitted to submit a series of
Master Development Plan (N4DP) 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 ExhibitF"
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 ofthe 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, 5)
a Generalized
Land Bay Breakdown Table - The applicant has des five distinct land bays. Thedland uses planned
Development Plan (GDP) that includes
•
REZ 906-03, Stephenson Village
Page 21
August 1, 2003
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
II - 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
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%
REZ 406-03, Stephenson Village
Page 22
August 1, 2003
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)
cate an go foot right -of -
Major Collector Road -The applicant
ector road from the project way and construct a major col entrance on Old Charles
Town Road through Stephenson Village, and across properties currently owned by
McCann and Omps to U.S. Route
(Martinsburg boulevard constructed pursuant toor road
VDOT
will ultimately be completed as a four la
standards. The applicant has proffered to include landscaped medians and bicycle
lanes with the major collector road.
-The major collector road will be contracted in
Major Collector Road Construction
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
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
REZ 906-03, Stephenson Village
Page 23
August 1, 2003
entrance. The applicant has proffered that design of improvements will occur when
90% 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.
• Improvements -The applicant has proffered to complete all
Old Charles Town Road
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.
• provement Contribution -The applicant has proffered
Interstate 81 Interchange Im
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
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
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 24
August 1, 2003
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 3,900 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 II: Affordable Housing for the Elderly
(Proffer Statement, p. IS)
• 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 IncomeHousing
Tax ch fundingprov
ent. The
e Program
aany units
l
applicant has proffered that should
planned for affordable elderly housing will be developed as active adult age -restricted
units.
Section 12: Preservation of Historical and Cultural Resources
(Proffer Statement, P. 16)
• Byers House - The applicant has proffered to preserve the potentially significant
Samuel Byers House. The applicant has reserved the right to adaptively reuse the
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 25
August 1, 2003
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 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 1,5001h 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 fixtures,
standardized fencing, and community color themes. Also, the applicant has proffered
to employ decorative treatments at all entrance monuments. No illustratives detailing
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 26
August 1, 2003
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 -hundred
(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 Intermittent 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
effective conservation.
REZ 406-03, Stephenson Village
Page 27
August 1, 2003
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.
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.
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.
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.
Section 21: Proffered Housing Types
(Proffer Statement, p. 23, 24)
Unique Housing Types -The applicant has proffered the inclusion of several 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,
REZ 406-03, Stephenson Village
Page 28
August 1, 2003
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 Signs - 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 07/16/03 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.
REZ 906-03, Stephenson Village
Page 29
August 1, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 07/16/03 MEETING:
The required public hearing was conducted following presentations by Planning Department staff and
the applicant. Numerous citizens addressed the Planning Commission, offering both support and
opposition concerning the proposed rezoning. The public hearing was formally concluded following the
Commission's receipt of citizen comments and the applicant was given an opportunity to respond.
At the request of the applicant, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to table further
consideration and final action regarding the proposed rezoning for thirty (30) days. The subject
application was therefore scheduled as a public meeting item on the agenda of the Planning
Commission's August 20, 2003 meeting.
It is noted that Planning Commission Chairman Charles DeHaven abstained from the Commission's
deliberations and action regarding this application. Also, Shawnee District Planning Commissioner
Robert Morris was absent from the meeting.
f
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX:540/665-6395
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Christopher M. Mohn, AICP, Deputy Planning Direct
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 irmovative
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 Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
• -0
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
0
•
Proposed Amendment to the Frederick County Code
Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance,
Article VII, R4 - Planned Residential Community District;
Section 165-72.0., Other Regulations
Section 165-72.0. - Current Text:
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.
Section 165-72.0. - Amended Text (replaces current text in its entiretX):
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
cormunity 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
Ll
0
§ 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
_• 0
§ 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
0 •
§ 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, B1, 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 waterfacilities. 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 walkways, shall 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
9-
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)
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: Agri cultural/Unimproved
Use: Agricultural/Residential/
Unimproved
Use: Agricultural/Residential/
Unimproved
Use: Agricultural/Residential/
Unimproved
Use: Agricultural/Residential/
Unimproved
0
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 02/21 /03 fi-om Ben
Lineberfy, 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 0310312003 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 fi-om 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 see the 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. Whitacre, 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,
Planner I, 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 Orndoiff, Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent.
County Attorney: Proffers appear to be in proper form. Please see attached comment sheet dated
0412812003 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
f •om Serena R. Manuel, Executive Director.
Planning & ZoninE:
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 Cow-ity'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
0- 0-
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)
0 W
REZ 906-03, Stephenson Village
Page 5
June 27, 2003
Planning Sta ff 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 plain -led
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 subj ect 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 #510063-0110-13, 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
0- 0-
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)]
D. 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.
•-
0-
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 7
June 27, 2003
5) Potential Impacts
A. Transportation
ImgactAnalysis Statement (p. 4 - 5): The traffic impact analysis (TIA) 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`h 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 #06-03, 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 II. 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).
.- 0-
REZ #06-03, 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 02121103 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 Village 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
0
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. 5, 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
•- 0-
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):
Backzround 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
exempted by this article or modified by the Board of Supervisors 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 11 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)
0
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 5 1 % 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 carnage 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 lot and townhouse housing types in lieu of the current RP
District requirements. (See "Rezoning Exhibit F" for applicant's justification)
Planning Staff' 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 #06-03, 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 plamied 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 of retail;
60,000 square feet of office). (See Proffer Statement, p. 4, 5, 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
.-- W
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 - & 165-721. 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
0- 0-
REZ #06-03, 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 #5 is approved, the active adult portion of Stephenson Village will
be allowed to develop with a complete system of private 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)
Planning Staff 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
• 0
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 maj or 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 Staff 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 proj ect 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.
• Moditcation #9 - M5-133.13. Master Development Plan, Contiguous Land
§ 165-141.A.(8) Master Development Plan, 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 #06-03, 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.
S. 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 II - 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 Industiy)
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. 5, 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 hidex (CPI) - All Urban
Consumers (Current Series).
• Active Adult Contributions & Premium - Capital facilities that are not directly
•
REZ 906-03, 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)
MatchingFunds unds - 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 ultimatelybe 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, 15)
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'h 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"' 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
0 .
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 -hundred
(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 Intermittent 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)
0 Unique Housing Types - The applicant has proffered the inclusion of several
0- W
REZ #06-03, Stephenson Village
Page 28
June 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)
• Maior 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 ngnage - 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 Signs - 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.
GREENWAY ENGINEERING
151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, Virginia 22602
t
Founded in 1971
June 12, 2003
Frederick County Planning Department
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Attn: Chris Mohn, Deputy Planning Director
Dear Mr. Mohn:
The purpose of this letter is to request continuation of the Stephenson Village rezoning
application that has been scheduled for the July 2, 2003 Planning Commission meeting.
Please reschedule this public hearing for consideration at the July 16, 2003 Planning
Commission meeting. Thank you for your assistance regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Evan Wyatt, AICP
F,
Greenway Engineering
Cc: Don Shockey
'UN 1 2 2J�3
Thomas Lawson
Engineers Surveyors
Telephone 540-662-4185 FAX 540-722-9528
www.greenwayeng.com
T
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
COUNT' of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
MEMORANDUM
<:a
John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator
Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director
Public Hearing Dates: NELUP and Stephenson Village Rezoning
April 29, 2003
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/ 665-6395
Based on discussions this morning, staff has drafted a tentative schedule for the public hearing dates
for the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP) and the Stephenson Village rezoning application. Please
let me know if additional information is necessary.
Northeast Land Use Plan public hearings:
May 21 ,2003 at the Planning Commission
June 11, 2003 at the Board of Supervisors
Stephenson Village rezoning application public hearing:
July 2, 2003 at the Planning Commission
August 13, 2003 at the Board of Supervisors
Staff would note that it would be our intent to provide the Planning Commission with their July 2,
2003 meeting agenda by Monday, June 16, 2003. Therefore, the applicant would be expected to
provide staff all revisions to the rezoning application package by June 6, 2003.
ERL/rsa
cc: Christopher M. Mohn, Deputy Planning Director
Renee' S. Arlotta, Administrative Assistant, Planning Dept.
Carol Bayliss, Executive Secretary, County Administration
FILE: U:\Eric\Conunon\2003\Rezoning\Stephenson Village\public hearing schedule.wpd
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
1P 49 1
AMENDMENT
is
Action:
PLANNING COMMISSION: August 20, 2003 - Recommended Approval
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: September 24, 2003 - ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
REZONING #06-03 FOR STEPHENSON VILLAGE
WHEREAS, Rezoning #06-03 of Stephenson Village, was submitted by Greenway Engineering, to
rezone 794.6 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District.
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-31A, 44-A-292, and 44-A-293 in the Stonewall
• Magisterial District.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning on August 20, 2003;
and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this rezoning on September 24,
2003;and
WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the approval of this rezoning, to
include nine ordinance modification requests, to be in the best interest of the public health, safety,
welfare, and in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that
Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, is amended to revise the Zoning District Map
to change 794.6 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District
with revised proffers, as described by the application and plat submitted, subject to the attached
isconditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the applicant and the property owner.
PDRes d 9-03
� 0
140
I•
This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption.
Passed this 24`h day of September 2003 by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Aye Sidney A. Reyes Nam_
Gina A. Forrester Nay Margaret B. Douglas Aye
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Absent Robert M. Sager Aye
Lynda J. Tyler Ave
A COPY ATTEST
John R. ' ey, Jr. /
Frederick County Administrator
PDRes. ill 9-03
0 \Rcsolutions\2003 Rezoning Resolutions\Stcphcnson Villagc.wpd
III � � � � 'P, IExecutive 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 135.6 acres in the core battlefield area
(which is not included in the rezoning request), 794.6±-acre parcel will have
approximately 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
salve 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.
September 3, 2003 1 Stephenson Associates 030703
The proffers establish an overall density cap of 2,465 units exclusive of the
affordable housing for the elderly, an average of 3.1 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 every two years
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, rums 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 turn lanes) the northern entrance, and signalizing (with turn lanes) of the
September 3, 2003 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 20-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 constrict 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 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
September 3, 2003 rrr 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 transportation enhancements and/or 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.
September 3, 2003 IV Stephenson Associates 030703
1 6 0
PROFFER STATEMENT
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED COMMUNITY
Rezoning # 06-03
Property Owner/Applicant: Stephenson Associates, L.C.
Property: 794.6± 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
Revised: August 18, 2003
Revised: September 3, 2003
September 3, 2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
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.
MATCHING FUNDS FOR TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENTS AND/OR
HERITAGE TOURISM
7
6.
MONETARY CONTRIBUTION TO CLEAR BROOK VOLUNTEER FIRE
AND RESCUE, INC.
7
7.
MULTI -MODAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
8
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
16
12.
PRESERVATION OF HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
16
13.
COMMERCIAL CENTER
16
14.
RENT FREE COUNTY OFFICE SPACE
18
15.
COMMUNITY DESIGN FOR A STRONG SENSE OF PLACE
18
16.
ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES AND HABITAT PRESERVATION
19
17.
COMMUNITY CURBSIDE TRASH COLLECTION
22
18.
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE STEPHENSON AREA
23
19.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONFORMITY
23
20.
CREATION OF HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION(S)
23
21.
PROFFERED HOUSING TYPES
24
22.
STREETSCAPE DESIGN AND LANDSCAPING
25
23.
COMMUNITY SIGNAGE PROGRAM
26
September 3, 2003
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 135.6 acres in the core battlefield area
(which is not included in the rezoning request), 794.6±-acre parcel will have
approximately 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.
September 3, 2003 1 Stephenson Associates 030703
The proffers establish an overall density cap of 2,465 units exclusive of the
affordable housing for the elderly, an average of 3.28 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 every two years
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 turn lanes) the northern entrance, and signalizing (with turn lanes) of the
September 3, 2003 11 Stephenson Associates 030703
0
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 20-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
September 3, 2003 iii 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 transportation enhancements and/or 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.
September 3, 2003 1V Stephenson Associates 030703
Page 1
PROFFER STATEMENT
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED COMMUNITY
Rezoning # 06-03
September 3, 2003
Property Owner/Applicant: Stephenson Associates, L.C.
Property: 794.6± 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
Revised: August 18, 2003
Revised: September 3, 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 September 3, 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 794.6±-acre site (Property).
Page 2 September 3, 2003
1. COMMUNITY DESIGN 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,
incorporate 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 11, 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.
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 11VIPACTS 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.
Page 3
September 3, 2003
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
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 two 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 2,465 units,
exclusive of the affordable housing for the elderly. 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 1,665. 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:
(2,465 — 800 to 1,300 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 §21of 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.
0
Page 4 September 3, 2003
(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:
LAND BAY BREAKDOWN
LAND
LAND USE
ACREAGE
% OF TOTAL
BAY
HOUSING UNIT
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 RESIDENTIAL
475 Ac.
CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL/DAYCARE
7 Ac.*
NA
NA
SFD
30
53
(Housing Unit Type 1,2,4,5, RP District SFD & Active
Adult)
TOWNHOUSE
10
30
(Housing Unit Type 6 & RP District Townhouse)
MULTIFAMILY
7
30
(Condominiums, Elderly Housing, Housing Unit Type
3 & RP District Duplex, Multiplex, Atrium & Active
Adult)
IV
ACTIVE ADULT
126 Ac.
30
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.
•
Page 5
September 3, 2003
Land BE Breakdown Notes
(1) The above table represents the ranges for the referenced housing types as
proposed. The final mix will not exceed the 2,465-unit cap, exclusive of the
affordable housing for the elderly (Section 11) 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 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 2,465, exclusive of the affordable
housing for the elderly (Section 11) 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 113.5 acres of required open space will
be provided within Land Bays I, H, 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 total unit cap of 2,465,
exclusive of the affordable housing for the elderly (Section 11).
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 2,465, exclusive of the affordable housing for the elderly
(Section 11) 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-1 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.
Page 6
September 3, 2003
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 impacts 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 two 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
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.
Page 7
September 3, 2003
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
2005 Index (two years) estimated 225.00
2005 Index
2003 Index X Proffer Amount = Revised Proffer Amount
225
183 X $5,327 = $6,550
5. MATCHING FUNDS FOR TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENTS AND/OR HERITAGE
TOURISM:
In consideration of the approval of rezoning application # 06-03 the Applicant shall contribute
$75,000 in matching funds to Frederick County to be utilized for transportation enhancements and/or
for the promotion of heritage tourism. The money will be made available to Frederick County within
30 days of receipt of a written request for said funds by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors or
their authorized agent.
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 500th 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,OOOth 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 1,500th building permit in
Stephenson Village but not later than December 31, 2018.
•
Page 8 September 3, 2003
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.
(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 and are
properly marked and signed.
(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.
•
•
Page 9
(2) Interparcel Connections
September 3, 2003
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.
(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.
0
Page 10
September 3, 2003
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
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
0
Page 11
September 3, 2003
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 11 as determined by VDOT. The
Applicant agrees to enter into a signalization agreement with VDOT at the U.S.
Route I l/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.
(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 party.
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
•
•
Page 12 September 3, 2003
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 H 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
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 its 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.
0
Page 13
September 3, 2003
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.
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 800`h 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 150ch
building permit and be completed prior to issuance of the 350`h building permit in the Active Adult
Community.
•
•
Page 14
C. Pedestrian Trail Sidewalk System
September 3, 2003
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 Applicant provided
they are not part of the sidewalk system within the public right-of-way.
D. Linear Park Trail
A twenty -foot (20') wide trail easement shall be dedicated to Frederick County Parks and Recreation.
The location is to be determined by the Applicant and a trail system plan shall be submitted by the
Applicant for evaluation 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 wide asphalt or concrete trail 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:
Page 15
September 3, 2003
(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:
(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.
Page 16 September 3, 2003
(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.
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
Page 17
September 3, 2003
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.
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 1,200`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.
Page 18
14. RENT FREE COUNTY OFFICE SPACE:
September 3, 2003
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
• 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).
Page 19 September 3, 2003
(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. HousingUnit 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. Lighting
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.
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
Page 20
September 3, 2003
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 floodplains, and unbuildable steep slopes
shall be designated and shall be subject to the following:
(a) Gradin : 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.
(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 may 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.
•
•
Page 21
B. Hiatt Run Corridor:
September 3, 2003
(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.
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 further 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.
Page 22
September 3, 2003
(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
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.
•
Page 23
September 3, 2003
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.
20. CREATION OF HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION(S):
A. Creation of Associati
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.
Page 24
B. Additional Responsibility
September 3, 2003
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
"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
•
•
Page 25
September 3, 2003
"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
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.
•
Page 26
September 3, 2003
(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 shall 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
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 100
feet apart.
Page 27
SIGNATURE PAGE
September 3, 2003
The conditions set forth herein are the proffers for Stephenson Village and supercede all
previous proffer statements submitted for this Development.
Respectfully submitted,
Stephenson Asso iat , L.C.
By:
ame: J. Donald Shockey, Jr.
Title: Manager
Subscribed and sworn before me this 8th day of _ Sept. , 2003.
Susan D. Stahl _
(Typed Name of Notary)
My Commission Expires: 4-30-2004 _
Notary Pub is
Page 28 September 3, 2003
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
Name:
Title:
Subscribed and sworn before me this day of , 2003.
Notary Public
(Typed Name of Notary)
My Commission Expires:
R� 1.ES T�wN
CH �
7.
x.MAJOR
COLLE
TpR
�'
92;1at �,CRr
SAMUE
LAND
34
�1c ANN
R TE
'
D .
838
3.5 +/- ACRES
AREA NOT TO
BE REZONED
OPEN SPACE
Af,. -2'!
00 '
` 0 �I
_ _ moo 00
O
GDP LEGEND
MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD
4 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.
%
rIATT RUN
III �
MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD
4l,
e c�
z
Q m
W 02 A
i W C',
rn Z 0 CV a]
t-
a0
W Ec A A,
a p
W ay
CM CM sic I✓I,
c v m
'D 0
� °
m
Ci
S
COMMUNITY o 0 M N ° ¢
RECREATION w N
CENTER
III c 3 Y 0
a
° w a � ow a
ILLN
0
Xi ` / z
J 5
�Gi LG/ %� I 7` i► z
Z
BYERS
ARK# I —///7,
124 / / O Z Z Z �
WETLANDS —0 OL z
INTERMEDIATE Q Z — z
RAVINE CHANNEL Z W g
Li <
��,b (5zg
HIATT RUN
CORRIDOR
ACTIVE ADULT—)
RECREATION
CENTER
IV
LINEAR PARK
TRAIL
C,
was9jo
LAND BAY BREAKDOWN
LAND
BAY
LAND USE
ACREAGE
% RANGE OF
HOUSING UNIT TYPES
MIN. MAX.
I
ELEM.SCHOOL
20 Ac. +/—
NA NA
11
COMMUNITY PARK
(6 baseball fields & 6 soccer fields)
24 Ac• +/—
NA NA
III
MIXED RESIDENTIAL:
4 5
/
ONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL/DAYCARE
7Ac.+/
NA NA
FD (Housing Unit Type 1,2,4,5, RP District SFD & Active Adult)
30 53
TOWNHOUSE (Housing Unit Type 6 & RP District Townhouses)
10 30
ULTIFAMILY:
Condominiums, Elderly Housing, Housing Unit Type
—Cottage House & RP District Duplex, Multiplex,
trium, Garden Apartment & Active Adult
7 30
IV
ACTIVE ADULT:
FD (Housing Unit Type 1,2, & 5)
Multifamily (Condominiums, Elderly Housing, Housing
Unit Type 3—Cottage House)
126 Ac.+/—
30 53
COMMERCIAL CENTER
(Retail, Offlce & Public Service Satellite Facility)
c. + —
NA NA
SEE NOTES ADDRESSING ABOVE CHART IN PROFFER 3. USES, DLNSI n & MIX OF HOUSING TYPES A. (2) (IA)
W
z
E
a
U
Fz
Co E5
WQ
►-�
a
O
d
d
WF
7
w
O
'-'
M
U) �
—U
CU
Q
�
�
Q
Zw�x
Q
W
z rx
DATE: SEPT 3, 2003
SCALE: 1"=1000'
DESIGNED BY:MDS/JNT
JOB NO. 2760C
SHEET 1 OF 1
•
E
EXHIBIT
HOUSING UNI'
0
u
•
HOUSING UNIT TYPE 1
CARRIAGE HOUSE
0 (3 sheets)
0
C�
HOUSING UNIT TYPE 2
NON -ALLEY 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.
•
0
0
S -T I-EE T
1
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
11
0
STPEET
NOTE: FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY
OPTIONAL FENCE SHOWN
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
• CARRIAGE HOUSE LANDSCAPE TYPICAL
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
•
• 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.
•
7
i
CJ
4 ifs.
ST9-EET
STANDARDS: Living Space (min.) Decks (min.)
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
•
u
c sTP E ET
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
0 (3 sheets)
0
• • •
•
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.
0
•
0
ST"'ZT
41 si K-
10' MIN. ror- CA? NEC
F71 I
I I I I
t
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.
AUX(
Decks (min.)
Side yard: 5'-0" interior unit
Side yard: 10'-0" end/corner 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
HW-
Front Facade
*porches, stoops,
and steps may
extend 6'-0" into
front yard setback
•
•
NOTE: FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
• COTTAGE HOUSE LANDSCAPE TYPICAL
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
•
•
•
•
HOUSING UNIT TYPE 4
COURTYARD CLUSTER
(3 sheets)
•
0 NOTE: FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
• COURTYARD CLUSTER ILLUSTRATIVE
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
0
•
• 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 R
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_
•
139'
10'
xcry Line
Lae
10,
• STEPHENSON VILLAGE
COURTYARD CLUSTER TYPICAL i
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
�`�►`iiiiii
fi
..
n
•u■rrn
irrrrrt
Irrrr■t
• IrrN■t
1■rrr■t
uurn
1■rrrrt
NO
1■r■■■t
Irrr
Irr■r■t
rrrrrrr■l+,
•rrrrrrrs
■■rr■■■rl
■rrrrrrrs
sumMemwi
Ass e
• vw�s .c av�'
41,
1
r
HIM
[-I
0
HOUSING UNIT TYPE 5
MODIFIED SINGLE-FAMILY SMALL LOT
0 (1 sheet)
0
•
•
• 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.
(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.
0
•
HOUSING UNIT TYPE 6
MODIFIED TOWNHOUSE
0 (1 sheet)
0
•
0
0 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 Parldng 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
is (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.
•
E
•
EXHIBIT D
TYPICAL MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD SECTION
(1 sheet)
0
•
uulcsc.�Per ARL L dun4we sTwr t.PN. -- L.-.40UA t ARP -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.
•
•
171
•
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
RIW OR PRIVATE
SETBACK
FROM
DWELLING UNITS
SIDE I 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,
5'110'/10'
NA120'
T110'
5'110'
15'/NA
6'
20'
35'
2
2
NON -ALLEY
47'
NA
4,700
1,400
15'
25'
NA
10,
5'115'110'
20'/NA
3710'
51/10,
3'13'
6'
20'
35'
2
CARRIAGE
3
COTTAGE
34'
NA
3,264
1,400
15'
20'
NA
10' ON NON
01/5,110,
NA/20'
07NA
5'110'
TINA
6'
NA
35'
2
ATTACHED SIDE
NA/NA
3'INA/NA (10' FROM
NA/NA
NAINA
(6' FROM
4
COURTYARD
NA
3,300
NA
2,000
10'
NA
3'
10'
DWELLING TO
(19' FROM
3'INA
(5' FROM INTERIOR
PERIMETER
6'
NA
35'
2
PERIMETER PROPERTY
COMMON
LOT LINE)
PROPERTY
LINE)
DRIVEWAY)
LINE
5'110'110'
5710- (0' FOR ZERO
5710' (0' FOR ZERO
5
MODIFIED
38'
NA
3,750
NA
20'
15'
NA
10' (0' FOR THE
(0' FOR ZERO LOTLINE
20715'
LOT LINE OR
LOT LINE OR
101/3,
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
16'
1,300
1,200
NA
GARAGE OR REAR
20'
NA
ATTACHED SIDE
WALL OF END UNIT
0110,110,
2075'
01/10,
01/'10'
575'
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
O'10'I10'
20'15'
01110,
01110,
S'15'
SETBACK, 5'
20' HT.
35'
2.25
TOWNHOUSE
LOADED GARAGE
TO ANY OTHER
FOR A 10'
UNITS)
SETBACK
HOME
20' (10' FOR NON
0' (25' FROM NON
12' FORA 20'
6
MODIFIED
20' OR>
1,700
1,600
NA
GARAGE OR REAR
20'
NA
ATTACHED SIDE
WALL OF END UNIT
O'/0'110'
20'/5'
O'110'
0'/10,
5'15'
SETBACK, 5'
20' HT.
35'
2.5
TOWNHOUSE
LOADED GARAGE
TO ANY OTHER
FOR A 10'
UNITS)
SETBACK
HOME
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
"EXHIBIT E"
MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS
Scale: NTS March 2003
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
•
1�1
.7
•
Z N
Q CO m
W02 �
•
Z °° ao a
�r-
RTE. 761
OLD CHARLES
T'0
'
a by p�
--
__.
�Vil/Lu
� e .0Olt
-�� .I
ACCESS ROAD
ACCESS ROAD
�
is s F w
PAVED PARKING TYPICAL
j JR. SOCCER FIELDS
/40
a W�
A
m
--
-- -
; S
t Wm
0 0 0
W F N
❑�{IF� °CC4
�• m'TISii11
�; fiiTTll�iR1 JR. BA L F ELDS SOCCER FIELDS / F/EGOS
U m m
O wFr u-
cn
w a
x
a
w
o
SCHOOL
'
g
Z
Z
a
----------- ��
do �+ ^PAVIL�L ON —�
OVERFLOW PARKING TYPICAL
'
`% `
Z Z
Q a-
W Z W �
�C) Uo
c U Z
c�
Z
5
3
•
SERVICEIEMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD
`�- `R COLLFCroR
—�� OAD
w W
E
x
H
F z
Aa
�0•90
U1 O
"Z
U
0 Z
x
0 w
a
H ►�i
w
A
w
H G4
DATE: MARCH 2O03
SCALE: 1"=126'
NOTE
THIS LAYOUT FOR THE SCHOOL/PARK SITE IS
CONCEPTUAL AND FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY.
THE FINAL LOCATION OR ORIENTATION OF THE
INDIVIDUAL LANDBAYS AND/Olt THEIR ASSOCIATED
DESIGNED BY: MPR
JOB NO. 2760C
COMPONENTS MAY BE SLIGHTLY ALTERED TO REFLECT
MORE ACCURATE ENGINEERING.
SHEET I OF 1
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED COMMUNITY
Community Design Modifications Document
Prepared By: Greenway Engineering & The Land Planning and Design Group, Inc.
April 2003
Revised August 18, 2003
Revised September 3, 2003
• (Exhibit F)
•
•
• MODIFICATION #1 § 165-71 Mixture of housing types required
•
0
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
53
(Hosing Unit Type 1,2,4,5, RP District SFD and Active
Adult)
Townhouse Dwellings
10
30
(Housing Unit Type 6 & RP District Townhouse)
Multifamily Dwellings
7
30
(Condominiums, Elderly Housing, Housing Unit Type 3
& RP District Duplex, Multiplex, Atrium, Garden
Apartments and Active Adult)
Active Adult Dwellings
30
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 594 acres to be utilized for
residential land use within Stephenson Village.
• The required calculation of 40% of the approximate 594-acre area of portions of the
planned community designated for residential use in this case amounts to approximately
237.6 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 356.4 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.
0
•
EXHIBIT B
HOUSING UNIT TYPES
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
CARRIAGE HOUSE ILLUSTRATIVE
• Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
E
97 � NiP1.
Z
iE
•
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: 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
*porclics. stoops,
and steps may
extend 6-0" into
front yard
setbacks
•
S -T F-EE TT
1
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: 1 5'-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
0
STpflfl T
4 sl�Ll�
to, MIN. toK CoeNE2 `�� NtrJ• S� Mlt4.
(,oTS
I I
Au tY
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.
• 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. fUdwelling unit
Minimum Setbacks:
To garage frum street or common driveway: 19 R
To dwelling from street: 18 ft.
Distance between units: 10 ft.
To dwelling from common driveway: 3 &
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.
aa' Minimum
' Minimum - 'Minimum
5' Mini mwn — 5' Minimum Minimum
5' Minimum 3' Minimum
IV Minimm
•
10,
LOT 2 I 1 I LOT 3
LOT 4
0' Minimum
5' Minimum
138' Minimum '
perimeter Property Lice
Typical
Interior Lot tine
Typical
Fence
Typical
Gate
Typical
Deck cr Patio
LOT 1
Itr Minimum LOT 5
0' Minimum
l 110,
0 MI
mum 10, Minimum 1
4' CONIC. SIDEWALK 4' MEWALK
Common Driveway Street
28' r 28'
• STEPHENSON VILLAGE
COURTYARD CLUSTER TYPICAL
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
• Modified single-family small lot. Single-family anall lot housing shall be a
single-family cbtached or attached residence on an individual lot. No more than two
units may be attached together.
(1) Dimensional requirements shall be as follows:
(a) Minimumlot 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 maybe used with this housing type.
If chosen, the minimum sde yard shall be 10 feet for that yard opposite
the zero lot line side. If not chosen, the minimum side yard shall be fire
feet on both sides.
(g) When the attached option for the single-family shall lot housing unit is
chosen, the minimum building spacing requirement shall be 10 feet.
(h) Supplementary setbacks:
[1] With the single-family anall lot housing type, decks may extend
five feet into rear yard setback areas.
[2] Where single family anall 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 buildingheights shall not exceed 35 feet in height.
(3) Detached accessory buildings maybe 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.
�i
• Modified townhouse. The "townhouse" is a single-family Atached dwelling
with one dwellirg 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) Minimumyards 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) Minimumon-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 hei ght shall be as follows:
(a) Principle building: 35 feet
(b) Accessory buildings: 20 feet
(5) Minimumyard setbacks for garages
(a) Side: 10 feet fi-om lot line (end unit) for detached garage option
(b) Side: 0 feet fi•om 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 Off -Street Parking Spaces
Efficiency 1.50
1 2.00
2 2.25
3 plus 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.
•
0
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 Desisin 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.
is
0
0
MINIMUM REQUIRED GROSS AREA OF
COMMERCIAL
& INDUSTRIAL USES WITHIN PLANNED
COMMUNITY
GROSS AREA
OF
COMMERCIAL
USES-
3%
•
*STEPHENSON VILLAGE
WAIVER #3a SUPPORT GRAPHIC
Scale: NTS April 2003
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
GROSS AREA
OF
INDUSTRIAL
USES
7%
•
•
Ll
PROPOSED GROSS AREA OF BUSINESS
USES WITHIN PLANNED COMMUNITY
__.., GROSS AREA
0
WTEPHENSON VILLAGE
WAIVER #3b SUPPORT GRAPHIC
Scale: NTS April 2003
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.
•
E
•
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 alist of
possible recreational facilitie4 which may be proposed at Stephenson Village and their
associated monetary value. The actual cost of the items listed below may indeed differ±
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)
0
•
0
L
0
• 0
• MODIFICATION #5 § 165-72I Road 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 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 I 21-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
40 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.
•
•
•
C]
f U L I [i `VTR-6ET
so ..
'1oTe441-L L, "ram SAVE
-- 4o' EAserI A-r ---
LILL I
SpD LOT
• OOOLLL � •
F"
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
WAIVER #5a SUPPORT GRAPHIC
Scale: April 2003
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
0
TYfle-AL sFD FL,% LoT
•
•
?LJHF{ AV --Tor{ ALTIVE AMIL-T C.ot-HdIAITY �-- f oIrIT 8
rP-I VATS STF+ET SYsTE N
VISTArII-E Ylzvri FoIdT A To P'oil T kS A5
f1EAS(JeE]7 AloH(q -rOL STMT cEHT-Etp- t-jE
f QLJALS 330a FEET.
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
• WAIVER #5b SUPPORT GRAPHIC
Scale: April 2003
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
•
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
WAIVER #5c SUPPORT GRAPHIC
Scale: April 2003
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
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.
r�
0 • •
GPtaoPY 1iA-
`L
�� ' }�' �11 ��-- E' ✓EF4ILF;Ffi 1Rf.L ,��` :F
I � Opr{�.t'1f.rifAL TF-Cf. z � •
LILT1rjATE STWT R.orl _ FPE AA?Fl�
VAelii Z5' 111 Xc VAR16S Z�' rlt #
P_oTerITtAL. I51 f116uc LITILATY fAS-etled-r PoTCr171A1, 15' LI`nLITY FiASErled-r
XH_e: T4E L,,Hp_APO Ap.FA WIL1-. AT- A tirrlrrlllrj iE 25' iN l.11Vrfi I rlr VIDE loo PLAr4 11t1�T5 PLp- Ic uAi p- Fur (Pf11. JoLIS PLA,11 riAltrIAI. I+o1 Tu EXctE.p SOY cF MA01 L1ti11S)
RMT MATEWAL Fog, LAHVStAPE AMA To bE DETEWitr16A AT FIHAL- Df-s14n-
FF--IPE A SIX f;mT 1jltbH"jl dFAGHT 51F"d LJTILI 14(, A,4Y CarlW411ori of el-MM A 94FUS fIEDG6, WCE, kIAL.L-, H-UtID oR- "-f-11.
-11415 CXIi161T 15 pr�MA foe- I14411.j9A1IVE YUV.PeSES ar{LY.
•
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
"EXHIBIT W
TYPICAL MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD SECTION
Scale: NTS March 2003
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
0 MODIFICATION #8 § 165-68 Rezoning procedure
Ordinance Requirement:
In order to have land rezoned to the R4 District, a master development plan meeting all
requirements of this chapter, shall be submitted with rezoning application.
Alternative Design Standard:
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 plan 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 794.6± 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.
0
,,ALY l
C�Y/ I
MAJOR
COLCE
TOR
IIISAMUE
LANE
34
MICA N
RTE. 838
COMMUNITY
RECREATION
CENTER
l/ ?'
r�r%' /
YERS .� �l/�j /!j �%lr1 /�.i.�.L1 /r� � /
,RK # 77��
24 %.�
WETLANDS
INTERMEDIATE
RAVINE CHANNEL
/OPEN SPACE
-71
HIATT RUN
HIATT RUN
III CORRIDOR
MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD
GDP LEGEND
MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD
4 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.
ACTIVE ADULT
RECREATION
CENTER
IV
ROB
III
LINEAR PARK
TRAIL
WATT RUN
Coos
O
LAND BAY BREAKDOWN
LAND
BAY
LAND USE
ACREAGE
% RANGE OF
HOUSING UNIT TYPES
MIN. MAX.
ELEM. SCHOOL
20 Ac. +/—
NA NA
II
COMMUNITY PARK
(6 baseball fields & 6 soccer fields)
24 Ac. +/—
NA NA
III
MIXED RESIDENTIAL:
475 Ac. +/—
ONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL/DAYCARE
7 Ac.+/—
NA NA
FD (Housing Unit Type 1,2,4,5, RP District SFD & Active Adult)
30 53
TOWNHOUSE (Housing Unit Type 6 & RP District Townhouses)
10 30
ULTIFAMILY:
V_oCnoltorniniums,Elderly Housing, Housing Unit Type
tage House & RP District Duplex, Multiplex.
rium, Garden Apartment & Active Adult
7 30
IV
ACTIVE ADULT:
FD (Housing Unit Type 1,2, & 5)
Multifamily (Condominiums, Elderly Housing, Housing
Unit Type 3—Cottage House)
126 Ac.+/—
30 53
COMMERCIAL CENTER
(Retail, Office & Public Service Satellite Facility)
26 Ac. + —
NA NA
SEE NOTES ADDRESSING ABOVE CI I ART IN PROFFER 3. USES, DEN SIT} & MIX OF HOUSING TYPES A. (2) (1-4)
m m N m
O O I(�Q lNQ
W D N IA IA
� o rn rn
w U M m
g w
W W
m o
N W
LL
QUZ
Z Z az��
W
WQO�U
T J
Pads(Dz
z
L)
a
Ix z
E-z
W
Qa
~
���
d 9
o
7
Co �Z)
�
O
Q
O
�
�U
Q
Nram-+
a
w
a
<�
z
a'
W
o 4�
C7
in
DATE: SEPT 3, 2003
SCALE: 1"=1000'
DESIGNED BY:MDS/JNT
JOB NO. 2780C
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 for 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 794.6± 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 and engineered continuously over the life of the development; therefore, the
ability to meet the design requirements for the "total development" as specified by the
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.
0
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))-24
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
Page
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 BROOK 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.
CREATION 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 "Down Road to three lanes between the entrance and Route 11,
signalizing (with turn lanes) the northern entrance, and signalizing (with turn lanes) of the
it 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
ill 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.
Iv Stephenson Associates 030703
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
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
1. 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,
incorporate 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 I1, 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 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.
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 UNIT
TYPES
MIN.
MAX.
I
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
20 Ac.
NA
NA
11
COMMUNITY PARK
24 Ac.
NA
NA
(6 baseball fields & 6 soccer fields)
III
MIXED RESIDENTIAL
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 Bav 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
•
0
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-1 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 impacts 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
2010Index
2010 Index A. Proffer Amount = Revised Proffer Amount
225
183 X $5,327 = $6,550
Stephenson Associates 030703
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
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
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`h building permit in
ison 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
ison Village but not later than December 31, 2018.
The following are improvements the Applicant will make to roads within the Property:
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 1 l (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.
(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
0 0
(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 1 1 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 1 1 as determined by VDOT. The
Applicant agrees to enter into a signalization agreement with VDOT at the tI.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
0
(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 party.
8. SCHOOL AND BALLFIELD SITES, COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND PUBLIC USE
ARFAS-
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 II 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"' non -age restricted building permit and be completed
prior to issuance of the 800`h 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 1501h
building permit and be completed prior to issuance of the 350`h 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 Applicant_provided
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
A FFOR T) A RT .F. HOT 1gTNG FOR THF. RLDERLY:
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.
Stephenson Associates 030703
0
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°i 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. Lighting
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 strictures, utilities, access and fire protection to maximize tree
save areas.
(3) Unbuildable wetlands, unbuildable floodplains, 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/F loodp lain: 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 further 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 I I 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 1Llodifications 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 100
feet apart.
26 Stephenson Associates 030703
CJ
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
i(MOLETEJ
Subscribed and sworn before me this A`? day of /��': / , 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
am
Name:
Title:
Subscribed and sworn before me this day of 12003.
Notary Public
(Typed Name of Notary)
My Commission Expires:
28 Stephenson Associates 030703
I
1•00I
GDP LEGEND
I_ MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD
4 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.
�J-
/ 161 �
I A+' 11
_qw
111,
MAJOR /
COLLECTOR
RpgD
F— —
COMMUNITY
RECREATION
CENTER
� III c
SAMUEL BYERS
LANDMARK#VIA
34-1124 L �.
WETLANDS
INTERMEDIATE
RAVINE CHANNEL 14Y
III
LINEAR PARK
OPEN SPACE
'.�►
HIATT RUN
HIATT RUN
CORRIDOR
MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD*00
00
y ACTIVE ADULT
RECREATION R
CENTER Coo
ss/n
9
IV
fUij
Z/c*
HIATT RUN
rM
LAND BAY BREAKDOWN
NO BAY
LAND USE
ACREAGE
% RANGE OF
HOUSING UNIT TYPE
MIN.
MAX.
ELEM. SCHOOL
20 Ac. +/—
NA
NA
11
COMMUNITY PARK
(6 baseball fields & 6 soccer fields)
24 Ac. +/—
NA
NA
III
MIXED RESIDENTIAL:
502 Ac. +/—
CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL/DAYCARE
7 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
53
V
COMMERCIAL CENTER
(Retail, Office & Public Service Satellite Facility)
c + —
NA
NA
SEE NOTES ADDRESSING ABOVE CHART IN PROFFER 3. USES, DENSITY A. MIX OF HOUSING TYPES A. (2) (I A)
cs
Z
N
0
W
W
N "r
Z
�m
�m N
m
C"
>�
N
N
O: q�
0
LAM
U
� xQ
CM
E W
n
5
N
v a
wm
m m N rn u
a o o p
lrQQ lQ
N h h F
m 4 4 F
N Y 0 0 L
3 U m m p
o w
m I] p
Ir Q
LL U
n U z
z Z aU`
zT)D
=QLLJ
prrU
F-11dSUz
w
E-
Ud
a
E-z
W
►�
Q a
d
O�j
d
W
-O
Q
N
Zw�x
w
�a
d
w
W Q
�
w
z54
DATE: MARCH 2O03
SCALE: 1 "=1000'
DESIGNED BY:MDS/JNT
JOB NO. 2760C
SHEET I OF 1
0
0
EXHIBIT B
HOUSING UNIT TYPES
•
0
HOUSING UNIT TYPE I
CARRIAGE HOUSE
(3 sheets)
• 0
NOTE: FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY
OPTIONAL PORCH SHOWN
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
CARRIAGE HOUSE ILLUSTRATIVE
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
S-TF-EET
z
Z3
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
0 •
ST r-E ET
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 UNIT TYPE 2
NON -ALLEY CARRIAGE HOUSE
(3 sheets)
It _-- -br ,-
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.
• 0
+---E!
Nits•
114.
STr-&ET
STANDARDS: Living Space (min.) Decks (min.)
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
I-Ar-]—PV' -rac.F.
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)
All
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.
•
STD -SET
.4sl k-
Iv` MIN. "or- COP NEC 9MIS rj� Mlnl.
"TS
1
� I
IT I
I I I I
1 1
I
I
Au.,LY
STANDARDS: Lot Width(min.) Living Space (min.) Decks (min.)
Front Facade
34'-0" 1400 square feet Side yard: T-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.
•
0
STREET
CR+ AHE44TAL— -t -a
ALLEY
NOTE: FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
COTTAGE HOUSE LANDSCAPE TYPICAL
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
HOUSING UNIT TYPE 4
COURTYARD CLUSTER
(3 sheets)
Courtyard Clusters Typical This housing type consists of single-family dwellings combined to forth a
multi-familN 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.
139'
144' Minimum
' Minimum
Minimum
5' Minimum 5Minimum Minimum
5' Mimmum—+ _ 3' Minimum
:E17
!0' immo
I LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4
IU' Minimum
10' Mmunwn
Minimum
ww■NNImmoso ■■M
Perimeter Property Line
1■■■■■■■■■■Typical
1■■■■■■■■■■
IM■■NM on■
I
Interior Lot Une
L no: I
i:::::::_::
:Typical
1■■arMl
IMMMMMMM■■■
■■■��■Fence
1■■■■EI
Iowa■■■■■:■
SEEM■:
Typical
low■a■/
IMM■aMwrMM:
a■www■
Gate
low ass
IMMMw ■■ ■
as
me
Typical
IwMM::I
IEMMM■1
IawM■wMME■■
IMMMEMMMMSM
wMMww■
UMEw■
Deck or Patio
10, minim.in
1
1
I::
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
COURTYARD CLUSTER TYPICAL
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
Common Driveway Street
1
a
�'
rYi • i�
. r
E
■arm/+
mamma,
o\email
■a/rn
rmtrr+
■ iii/rl
■araml
■ ■ ■r ■rl
■marl
■ /rrmml
■■marl
no
rr/a+
• a ■marl
rmoml
ii■r/al
-town,
ti/■a■RI
\/tl
•a■iRl
VOL
`rrml
� t/1
■r•
/m
`Vt
t J . 4:11
�rrul
°vW
0
0
HOUSING UNIT TYPE 5
MODIFIED SINGLE-FAMILY SMALL LOT
(1 sheet)
NOTE: FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
COURTYARD CLUSTER ILLUSTRATIVE
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
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.
(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.
HOUSING UNIT TYPE 6
MODIFIED TOWNHOUSE
(1 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.
r
cs
z
0 U)
co W CQ CD
W w d
('f y 4ti 2,12
.]
10
RTE. 761 OLD CHARLES
�Ow
a I""` ncQ
o
r
.0 p,
IM
-�� ACCESS ROAD
I
ACCESS ROAD
JR, SOCCER FIELDS
jL
/9O
q
PAVED PARKING TYPICAL
�O
/
wul
TIPnS1ST�
iHOW"
°cQ6
I
JR. BA L F ELDS SOCCER FIELDS R�/F<�S
'
' ��
¢ o o 0
W C,
F N E W W
u
WL
W Y O O
U m m
U
cr
I
f
SCHOOL
/)
Z
5
�
�
z
Z
N
40 dw Jam,
PAVILLION
`
`
Q z —
w Z W 0
Qp Uo
I-- 0- `b C3 z
Z
5
3
OVERFLOW PARKING TYPICAL
i
SERVICE/EMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD---------
MAJOR COI
F L�OR ROAD
�1
w W
U)
E-
d
`R °°�<
d
F
�
o Z�U)�
U)w
�
w
x
124
0
F-� �I
O
W
Q
Ql
� fat.
co
DATE: MARCH 2O03
SCALE: 1"=125'
NOTE
THIS LAYOUT FOR THE SCHOOL/PARK SITE IS
CONCEPTUAL AND FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY.
THE FINAL LOCATION OR ORIKNTATION OF THE
DESIGNED BY: MPR
LOB NO. 2780C
INDIVIDUAL LANDBAYS AND/OR THEIR ASSOCIATED
COMPONENTS MAY BE S11GHTLY ALTERED TO REFLECT
MORE ACCURATE ENGINEERING.
SHEET 1 OF 1
EXHIBIT D
TYPICAL MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD SECTION
(1 sheet)
Lu� Iyw rt✓ A"^ � dunri^Te sit s*w. _ l..+ivUA t AR4F-A
NOTE: For illustrative purposes only
•
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
"EXHIBIT W
TYPICAL MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD SECTION
Scale: NITS March 2003
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
0 0 0
0
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
RIW OR PRIVATE
SETBACK
FROM
DWELLING UNITS
SIDE I 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,
T/10710'
NA/20'
3710'
5'110'
15'/NA
6'
20'
35'
2
NON -ALLEY
2
CARRIAGE
47'
NA
4,700
1,400
15'
25'
NA
10,
TM5710'
20'/NA
3710'
5710'
TIT
6'
20'
35'
2
3
COTTAGE
34'
NA
3,264
1,400
15,
20'
NA
10' ON NON
NA/20'
07NA
51/10,
57NA
6'
NA
35'
2
ATTACHED SIDE
3'INA/NA (10' FROM
NA/NA
NA1NA
4
COURTYARD
NA
3,300
NA
2,000
10,
NA
3'
10,
DWELLING TO
(19' FROM
37NA
NA/NA
(5' FROM INTERIOR
(6' FROM
PERIMETER
6'
NA
35'
2
PERIMETER PROPERTY
LINE)
COMMON
DRIVEWAY)
LOT LINE)
PROPERTY
LINE
5'I10'/10'
MODIFIED
10- (0' FOR THE
(0' FOR ZERO LOTLINE
5-110' (0- FOR ZERO
5'110' (0' FOR ZERO
5
SINGLE FAMILY
38'
NA
3,750
NA
20'
15'
NA
ATTACHED OPTION)
SIDE WITH A COMBINED
y0'115'
LOT LINE OR
LOT LINE OR
10'13'
12'
20' HT.
35'
2
TOTAL OF 10')
ATTACHED SIDE)
ATTACHED SIDE)
20' (10' FOR NON
0' (25' FROM NON
12' FORA 20'
MODIFIED
GARAGE OR REAR
ATTACHED SIDE
SETBACK, 5'
6
TOWNHOUSE
16'
1,300
1,200
NA
LOADED GARAGE
20'
NA
WALL OF END UNIT
01/0'110'
20'/S'
01110'
01110'
S'/5'
FOR A 10'
20' HT.
35'
2
UNITS)
TO ANY OTHER
SETBACK
HOME)
20' (10' FOR NON
0' (25- FROM NON
12' FORA 20'
6
MODIFIED
18
1,500
1,400
NA
GARAGE OR REAR
20'
NA
ATTACHED SIDE
WALL OF END UNIT
0110,110,
20'l5'
01/10,
01/10,
TIT
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' FORA 20'
MODIFIED
GARAGE OR REAR
ATTACHED SIDE
SETBACK, 5'
6
TOWNHOUSE
20' OR >
1,700
1,600
NA
LOADED GARAGE
20'
NA
WALL OF END UNIT
01101110'
20'15'
O'110,
O'110,
575'
FOR A 10'
20' HT.
35'
2.5
UNITS)
TO ANY OTHER
SETBACK
HOME
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
"EXHIBIT E"
MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS
Scale: NTS March 2003
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
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
Stephenson Associates 030703
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
i
1.
WAIVERS TO ALLOW DESIGN FLEXIBILITY
2
2.
PHASING PLAN TO MINIMIZE SUDDEN IMPACTS ON
COUNTY SERVICES
5
3.
USES, DENSITY AND MIX OF HOUSING TYPES
6
4.
APPLICANT TO PAY 100% OF CAPITAL FACILITY IMPACTS
7
5.
MONETARY CONTRIBUTION TO DEVELOP HERITAGE TOURISM
8
6.
MONETARY CONTRIBUTION TO CLEAR BROOK VOLUNTEER FIRE
AND RESCUE, INC.
9
7.
MULTI -MODAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
9
8.
SCHOOL AND BALLFIELD SITES, COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND PUBLIC
USE AREAS
14
9.
RECREATIONAL AMENITIES AND LINEAR PARK
15
10.
ACTIVE ADULT AGE -RESTRICTED HOUSING
17
11.
l ORDABLE HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY
18
12.
PRESERVATION OF HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
18
13.
COMMERCIAL CENTER
18
14.
RENT FREE COUNTY OFFICE SPACE
19
15.
COMMUNITY DESIGN FOR A STRONG SENSE OF PLACE
20
16.
ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES AND HABITAT PRESERVATION
21
17.
COMMUNITY CURBSIDE TRASH COLLECTION
23
18.
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE STEPHENSON AREA
24
19.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONFORMITY
24
20.
CREATION OF HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION(S)
24
21.
PROFFERED HOUSING TYPES
25
22.
STREETSCAPE DESIGN AND LANDSCAPING
26
23.
COMMUNITY SIGNAGE PROGRAM
27
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 105 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, 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.
StLplienson 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 turn lanes) the northern entrance, and signalizing (with turn lanes) of the
11 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 abathhouse 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
nl Steplienson Associates 030703
0 0.
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.
iv Stephenson Associates 030703
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
The undersigned, Stephenson Associates, L.C., (hereinafter referred to as Applicant) 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 betaken as an interpretation of any provision ofthe 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 preparedby 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
WAIVERS TO ALLOW DESIGN FLEXIBILITY: )e j� �� �� J �i j
[1_���.
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,
incorporate and to develop new advanced housing types and configurations that maybe 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. The waivers allow the Planning Staff of Frederick County the
opportunity to participate in the creation of the development and always provide for the opportunity for
a hearing before the Board of Supervisors if Frederick County Planning Staff deems it necessary.
A. Pursuant to Article II, Amendments of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, the
approval of this Proffer statement constitutes an amendment to the rezoning ordinance which will
allow the expansion of the R4 District and the Urban Development Area.
B. Pursuant to Section 165-13 Conditional Rezoning, et als of the Frederick County
Zoning Ordinance, the approval of this Proffer statement amendment to rezoning will allow waivers of
the following performance standards:
(1) Waiver of the forty percent (40%) cap of the total units for duplexes,
multiplexes, atrium, townhouse or garden apartments to allow for the minimum
and maximum percentages of single family, townhouse and multifamily
identified in the matrix ui Section 3A (2) of this proffer statement and further
identified on the Generalized Development Plan (Exhibit A).
(2) Waiver of the requirement for Board of Supervisors approval of alternative
dimensional requirements to allow for administrative approval by the Frederick
County Planning Director or his/her designee.
(3) Waiver of the ten percent (10%) minimum requirement of the gross area to be
used for business to allow for the development of commercial centers that are in.
scale with the residential planned community. The minimum percentage of
commercial development shall be identified in the matrix Notes in Section 3A
(2) of this proffer statement and further identified on the Generalized
Development Plan (Exhibit A).
(4) Waiver of the strict interpretation of one recreational unit for each thirty (30)
dwellings to allow for larger community facilities to serve the recreational needs
of the community. The applicant will be given credit for the cost of the larger
community facilities as a reduction against the cost of the recreational units
required to serve the 2,800 units.
(5) Waiver of the requirements of 165-37C and 165-37D for internal buffers and
screening between mixed residential land uses and between commercial and
mixed residential land uses to allow for the implementation of compatible
Stephenson Associates 030703
0 •
construction standards and alternative landscape designs. This will allow for a
mix of housing types on the same street or across the street, and for residential
land uses that are not segregated from commercial land uses.
(6) Waiver of the requirement for Board of Supervisors approval of perimeter
boundary buffer and screening requirements to allow for alternative buffer and
screening plans to be approved on the Master Development Plan.
(7) Waiver of the requirement for a complete system ofpublic streets dedicated to
VDOT to allow for the use of private street systems, subject to the proffered
standards stated herein. This will allow the use of low impact development
design standards.
(8) Waiver of the requirement for Board of Supervisors approval for exceptions to
curb and gutter to allow for administrative approval following review and
approval by the County Engineer. This will allow the implementation of low
impact development storm water management plans..
(9) Waiver of the requirement to specify the calendar year in which each phase will
be completely developed, subject to the proffered standards stated herein.
(10) Waiver of the requirement to include non-residential land uses in all phases or
development to allow for the provision of smaller, manageable phases of
residential or mixed residential land use and to allow for the provision of
commercial centers to serve the residential planned community.
(11) Waiver of the requirement for residential lots to front on public streets and for
residential lots to be within a minimum distance ofpublic streets provided that
all streets conform to the cross sectional dimension ofpavement thickness and
compacted base thickness for VDOT public streets and that an acceptable
program for the perpetual maintenance of all streets is provided, subject to the
proffered standards stated herein.
(12) Waiver of the requirement for property owners of undeveloped property
located in a platted subdivision within 100 feet of any dwelling or building to
keep grass and weeds mowed to 18 inches or less, as long as plantings are
within bio-retention, storm water management, or wildlife management areas.
(13) Waiver of the average daily traffic count figures specified in sections 144-17K-1
through 144-17K-5 to determine street classifications.
(14) Waiver of the requirements of 144-17M to allow for the Director of Public
Works or his/her designee to use street signs other than those conforming to
typical VDOT standards.
Stephenson Associates 030703
0 0.
(15) Waiver of the requirements of 144-24B and 165-25A to allow for the
development of lots to conform with the size and dimensional standards
provided for in Section 20 Proffered Housing Types (Exhibit B).
(16) Waiver of the requirements of 144-24C to allow for single-family lots to abut
and have direct access to private streets.
(17) Waiver of the requirements of 144-24C (2b) to allow for lots within the Active
Adult Community to exceed the maximum distances from state maintained
roads.
(18) Waiver of the requirements of 165-27B to allow for flexibility in the design and
number of shared parking spaces between land uses to be approved on the
Master Development Plan.
(19) Waiver of the requirements of 165-27E-1 through 165-27E-4, and 165-27E-11,
to allow for overflow parking areas that do not require impervious surface,
space demarcation, curb and gutter, raised islands, and perimeter and interior
landscaping.
(20) Waiver of the requirements of 165-29A(14) to allow for alternative pavement
design standards other than those specified so that elements such as stamped
concrete can be utilized.
(21) Waiver of the requirements of 165-31(3) to allow for the disturbance of
wetlands for the purpose of implementing low impact design storm water
management techniques.
(22) Waiver of the requirements of 165-37E to allow for alternative road efficiency
buffer design to be approved on the Master Development Plan.
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 waivers for any matter which has been previously agreed to and therefore approvedby 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 waiver 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 waiver has been approved
administratively, the Applicant shall not be required to seek approval for any subsequent similar waiver.
Stephenson Associates 030703
•
2. PHASING PLAN TO MINIMIZE SUDDEN IMPACTS ON COUNTY SERVICES:
A. Additional Proffer Pgymeut
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 30 report data related to Stephenson Village.
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 of 2,125 units on a cumulative yearly basis beginning with the
date of approval of this rezoning. Any units not used in a given year shall be carried
forward.
(2) Monitoring
The applicant will provide at its cost a semi-annual report of the number of building
permits issued and will at no point throughout the completion of Stephenson Village
allow the total to exceed the cumulative allowance permitted by the phasing plan as
calculated above. The report will be presented to the Frederick County Planning
Department for their review semi-annually for permits obtained during the prior six
months or as soon as the information is available.
Stephenson Associates 030703
0
USES, DENSITY AND MIX OF HOUSING TYPES:
A. (1) The Applicant reserves the right to 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 this section and further described in Section 20 ofthis 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 as shown on Exhibit A (a graphic for
illustrative proposes only) sets forth the development parameters on the Property:
LAND BAY BREAKDOWN
LAND
% RANGE OF
BAY
LAND USE
ACREAGE
HOUSING UNIT TYPES
MIN.
MAX.
I
ELEM. SCHOOL
20+/- Ac.
NA
NA
II
COMMUNITY PARK
24+/- Ac.
NA
NA
6 baseball fields & 6 soccer fields
III
MIXED RESIDENTIAL:
502 Ac.
CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL/DAYCARE
7 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:
7
35
(Condominiums, Elderly Housing, Housing Unit Type 3-Cottage House &
RP District Duplex, Multiplex, Atrium & Garden Apartment)
N
ACTIVE ADULT:
126 Ac.+
19
53
SFD (Housing Unit Type 1,2, & 5)
Multifamily (Condominiums, Elderly Housing, Housing Unit Type 3-Cottage
House
V
COMMERCIAL CENTER
Retail, Office & Public Service Satellite Facility)—
26 Ac. +*
NA
NA
Land Bay Breakdown Notes
(1) The above table represents the potential 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 maximumpercentages established apply to the general
categories of single family, townhouses, multifamily and active adult 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
Stephenson Associates 030703
identified in the table and will not exceed 100% of the total unit cap based on
any combination.
*(2) The total commercial area will be a minimum of 4 % of the gross site area or
33+/- Acres.
(3) The open space, Hiatt Run corridor, and the wetlands intermittent ravine
channel are 125+/- Acres.
(4) The Applicant reserves the right to convert more or any portion of Land Bay III
to active adult, affordable housing for the elderly, or commercial.
B. For purposes of calculating density pursuant to the Frederick CountyZoning 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. The Applicant shall reserve space within Land Bay III (Exhibit A) to accommodate one
or more day care facilities.
E. In order to preclude unwanted industrial and heavy commercial uses, no land uses
within the B-3 District and the M-1 District shall be permitted except for retail office andpublic service
land uses that are also permitted in the RP, B-1 and B-2 districts. In no case shall truck stops be
allowed in 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. 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 impacts 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 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 impact fees for
various capital facilities, such as schools, that they do not impact.
7 Stephenson Associates 030703
0
0
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
225
183 X $5,327 = $6,550
5. MONETARY CONTRIBUTION TO DEVELOP HERITAGE TOURISM:
In consideration of the approval of rezoning application # the Applicant shall
contribute $75,000 in matching funds to Frederick County to promote heritage tourism. The money
willbe made available to the Board of Supervisors within 30 days of a written request for said funds by
the Board of Supervisors for their disbursement.
Stephenson Associates 030703
0 0
6. MONETARY CONTRIBUTION TO CLEAR BROOK VOLUNTEER FIRE AND
RESCUE, INC:
To further mitigate the impact on fire and rescue services, the Applicant wi7lpay 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 section 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"' 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 McCain and
Omps to U. S. Route 11 (Martinsburg Pike) in accordance with existing agreements executedbetween
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.
(b) The Applicant shall meet the requirements of Section 144-18A(2) or
construct an eight -foot (8') wide asphalt or concrete trail within the right-of-way along one side (to be
determined by the Applicant) of the Major Collector Road, or the Applicant shall construct a four -foot
(4') wide asphalt or concrete trail on one side and a four -foot (4') wide asphalt or concrete trail on the
other side, both within the right-of-way of the Major Collector Road.
(c) The Applicant shall provide landscaped areas along, within, and/or
adjacent to each side of the Major Collector Road in accordance with Section 21-A of this proffer.
(d) 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
Stephenson Associates 030703
0 •
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.
(e) 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.
(I) The Applicant shall prohibit individual residential and commercial
entrances fi•om 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.
(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:
10 Stephenson Associates 030703
• i.
(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.
(1h) 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 fromRoute 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 ofApplicant and Applicant shallbe 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 ofright-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
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.
11 Stephenson Associates 030703
F. The Applicant will design and construct a four -lane boulevard Major Collector Road
for the Stephenson Village Community. 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
Emits of the development as depicted on the approved Master Development Plan. This phase of the
Major Collector Road will be constructed andbonded 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 7F(2)-
7F(5) of this proffer statement will begin at 80% of the actual traffic count
volume with the completion of construction to occur within 18 months of the
80% actual traffic count volume.
(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 o f 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 11 as
determined by VDOT. The Applicant agrees to enter into a signalization
agreement with VDOT at the U. 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.
(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 willprovide $50,000 that shall be utilized as matching funds by VDOT
and/or the County of Frederick for fixture 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
12 Stephenson Associates 030703
F. The Applicant will design and construct a four -lane boulevard Major Collector Road
for the Stephenson Village Community. The Major Collector Road willbe construuctedin 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 Roadwiill
provide for the ultimate four -lane section with appropriate right and left tuna lanes based on the
following program:
(1) The design of the transportation improvements identified in Sections 7F(2)-
7F(5) of this proffer statement will begin at 80% of the actual traffic count
volume with the completion of construction to occur within 18 months of the
80% actual traffic count volume.
(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 ofthe 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, fi•om 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 willbond and commence construction ofatwo
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 11 as
determined by VDOT. The Applicant agrees to enter into a signalization
agreement with VDOT at the U. S. Route 1 I/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.
(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 Iimits 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
13 Stephenson Associates 030703
• 0
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 party.
SCHOOL AND BALLFIELD SITES, COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND PUBLIC USE
AREAS:
A. School Site:
The Applicant shall dedicate 20+/- acres of land to the School Board of Frederick
County, Virginia 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 at no cost, not later than at
such time when Frederick County appropriates funding for the construction of the school.
B. Soccer and Baseball Field Site:
(1) The Applicant shall dedicate 24 +/- acres ofland 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 II 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 apoi t 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 andbaseball field sites to a corporation, trust or other entity which incorporates
the direction ofboth the public andprivate 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 thirdparty, 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
14 Stephenson Associates 030703
0 •
by the provisions o f 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 ofpublic 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 ifthepublic 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 o f the conveyance fi-om the Applicant, said properties
shall automatically revert to the Applicant for whatever use which is consistent with this proffer
statement the Applicant deems appropriate. 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,
constriction, 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.
F. Parking
(1) Overflow parking areas shall be of pervious materials such as grass, gravel,
stone dust, and/or wood chips.
(2) The co -located school site and soccer and baseball field site will share
parking facilities.
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 2501' non -age restricted building permit andbe completed
prior to issuance of the 800"' building permit for the non -age restricted housing products.
15 Stephenson Associates 030703
0 •
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 1501h building permit and be completed prior to issuance of the 3501h 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 Applicant
provided 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 shallbe retained as
needed for the construction by the Applicant of the six-foot (6') wide asphalt or concrete trail
described herein. The asphalt or concrete trail at the discretion of the Frederick County Parks and
Recreation Department maybe 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 trailbeing
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.
16 Stephenson Associates 030703
E. Additional Recreational Facilities
Additional recreational facilities such as tot lots, multi -purpose courts, halfbasketball
courts, tennis courts, horseshoe pits, picnic areas, and/or volleyball courts will be provided as
required to meet any additional recreational facilities requirements of the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance (Section 165-64). These recreational facilities shall be provided on the master
development plan to ensure the adequacy of the facilities and the land area that the facilities will be
located on.
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 (8 0%) 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 Lander 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:
(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
17 Stephenson Associates 030703
0
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 ofresidents
be less than the ages set forth hereinabove.
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 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.
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 maybe 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:
18 Stephenson Associates 030703
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. The
Applicant will maintain control over the review and approval of all architectural elevations for the
commercial fagade treatment to assure a continuity of overall architectural appearances for all
buildings within the entire commercial development.
C. The Applicant will maintain control over the review and approval of all signs within
the commercial center through the use of recorded restrictive covenants to assure continuity with the
signage program developed for Stephenson Village.
D. 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.
E. 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.
F. The Applicant shall provide for a maximum of 190,000 square feet of commercial
retail land use and for a maximum of 60,000 square feet of office land use in Stephenson Village. The
majority o f the retail and office land use will be located within the commercial center identified on the
Generalized Development Plan. The development of smaller areas of commercial land use will be
allowed in other areas of Stephenson Village. These commercial land use areas willbe provided on
the detailed Master Development Plan associated with the development of Stephenson Village.
14. RENT FREE COUNTY OFFICE SPACE:
The Applicant shall provide up to 2500 square feet of shell space for a 10 year period rent free
exclusive of utility and 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.
19 Stephenson Associates 030703
0
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
• 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 hunber or
approved equal of a standardized color to be selectedby the Applicant. A
20 Stephenson Associates 030703
•
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. Lighting
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.
E. Architectural and Design Covenants
The Applicant shall develop architectural and design covenants for the overall
community and will maintain control over the review and approval of all architectural elevations
or exterior architectural features (fences, railings, walls, and decks) for all commercial buildings
(commercial center, office space and daycare), all residential buildings, all recreation facilities, 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 appearances, quality material
selection, and a cohesive color palate for all buildings within the entire development.
16. ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES AND HABITAT PRESERVATION•
A. Environmental Features and Easements:
(1) Significant wildlife habitats shall be identified and preserved. 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 maximizing tree save
areas.
(3) Unbuildable wetlands, unbuildable floodplains, and unbuildable steep slopes
shall be designated as primary conservation areas 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
21 Stephenson Associates 030703
0
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.
(h) 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).
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 ofthe Hiatt
Run Corridor.
(5) Wildlife orbirdhabitatswillbefurther enhancedbyproviding nativeplantings
selected to encourage feeding areas while reestablishing forest in and around
22 Stephenson Associates 030703
environmentally sensitive 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 The Opequon Watershed and Lord
Fairfax Soil and Water Conservation District.
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 further enhanced, by providing native plantings, to establish an upland butler. The planting plan
for this upland buffer will be created with technical assistance from The Opequon Watershed and the
Lord Fairfax Soil and Water Conservation District.
D. Forest Management Plan:
(1) The Forest Management Plan will be created with technical assistance from
the Department of Forestry. Native plants and cluster trees willbe preserved
and/or reforested ui 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 shallbe
allowed within the environmental features listed in sections 15A-15D 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
17. COMMUNITY CURBSIDE TRASH COLLECTION:
A. The Applicant shall see that the properties within Stephenson Village shallbe serviced
by a commercial trash pickup and waste removal service. Said service shall provide 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
23 Stephenson Associates 030703
• 0
be relieved of its obligations to see to the performance of this Proffer by assigning all ofits 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 of adequate size as reasonably
determined by FCSA and shall dedicate the pump station to 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 of adequate size as reasonably
determined by FCSA 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 Prosier Statement constitutes approval of the public uses and facilities and their
general locations and thereby excepts said uses and facilities from further Comprehensive Plan
conformity review.
20. CREATION OF HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONLS):
A. Creation of AssociationLs)
Ahomeowners association or more than one homeowners association ("HON) shall
be created and shall be made responsible for the review and approval of all construction within the
24 Stephenson Associates 030703
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 buuffer 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 maybe
altered at the time of final engineering and equivalent Housing Unit Types maybe 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 Exhibits) prepared by The Land Planning and Design Group, Inc. dated
December 2002, listedbelow and attached hereto as Exhibit B (graphic for i lustrativepuuposes 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
"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
25 Stephenson Associates 030703
•
L.]
"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
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) A twenty-five foot (25) wide minimum landscaped area shall be provided along
both sides of the roadway adjacent to the right-of-way within the area in
Stephenson Village.
(2) 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 shallbe defined as an area designated
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 ofno 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.
(3) 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
26 Stephenson Associates 030703
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"
miuumum height) = 2 plant units.
B. The Applicant shall provide landscaped areas on the south side of Old Charles Town
Road/Route 761 in accordance with the following:
(1) A twenty-five foot (25) wide landscaped area shall be provided along the
south side of the roadway adjacent to the right-of-way.
(2) The minimum planting standard for street landscaping shall be a mixture of
deciduous trees, ornamental trees, evergreen trees, and shrubbery. At the
Applicaut(s) 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 fiiontage. The plant unit credits are determined as follows:
Shade Trees (2" minimum caliper) = 10 plant units, Ornamental trees (1.5"
minimum caliper) = 5 plant units, Evergreen trees (6' min. height) = 5 plant
units, Shrubs (18" min. height) = 2 plant units.
C. 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.
D. Where conditions permit, vegetated open channels shallbe used in street right-of-ways
for storm water runoff, instead of curb and guttering.
E. 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 shall 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
the entrance. The sign panel area shall not exceed 40 square feet per sign, and shall be attached to a
27 Stephenson Associates 030703
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 100 feet
apart.
28 Stephenson Associates 030703
E
SIGNATURE PAGE
The conditions set forth herein are the proffers for Stephenson Village and supercede all
previous proffer statements submitted for this Development.
Respectfully submitted,
Subscribed and sworn before me this /9 '"day of c , 2003.
(Typed Name ofNotai
4— My Comnussion Expires: i �3 / 4
Public
SIGNATURE PAGE
ACCEPTED BY THE COUNTY OF
FREDERICK
h,
Name:
Title:
Subscribed and sworn before me this day of , 2003.
Notary Public
(Typed Name of Notary)
My Comm fission Expires:
REVIEWED AND ACCEPTED BY THE
FREDERICK COUNTY ATTORNEY
ME
Name:
Title:
Subscribed and sworn before me this day of , 2003.
Notary Public
(Typed Name of Notary)
My Commission Expires:
COUNTY of FREMERICK
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 o 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 Development - 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 minimum 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.
i
•
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 Flexibility (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 VII 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 of required 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
& 0
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.I. 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 such techniques. However, the applicant may propose modification of the procedural
requirements of § 165-72.I. 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 fiinctional 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.(12) (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 B. (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.B. 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. Asper § 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
0
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 Sudden Impacts on County Services (p. 5)
A. Additional Proffer Pa ent
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 of building 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 per year until build -out
(170 units/year) v. 8% of units remaining to build -out (8% of total less previously
built units =170 units/year #l, 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 proj ect 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) Monitoring
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)
Tcci,ac-
(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 Brook Volunteer Fire and Rescue, 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 proj ect'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 maj or 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 Ballfield 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 constricting 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.
F. 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
r
U
•
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)
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.
23. Community Signage Program (p. 27 - 28)
No comment.
April 15, 2003
U:\Chris\Common\Rezoning\Prelim Comments\Stephenson Village Proffers.wpd
Page 26 of 26
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
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.
2. 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).
4. 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 comments 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.
IN North lent Streit , y'Jinchester, Virginia 22601-50N
Page 2
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, AICP
Re: Preliminary Comments - Stephenson Village Rezoning Proposal
February 5, 2003
B. Impact Statement (dated January 8, 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.
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 Comprehensive 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 e,listing and future road networks
at a level of "C" or better. Furthermore, the TIA recognizes improvements to the transportation
systems, but does not credit 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 Conveyance and Treatment (p. 5): The submitted impact analysis indicates that the
proposed development would generate a projected sewage conveyance of 683,000 GPD. It
is staffs understanding that the FCSA only has approximately 250,000 GPD available for this
r �
J
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.
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 location 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 proffer statement makes reference to land bay boundaries and their potential changes during 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. The 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 infornation, 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 Nvithin 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.
Transportation - Intemarcel Connections (p. 3): Please identify the location 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.
"The 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.
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.
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 "will 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 connection 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, B 1, B2, B3, and
M 1 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 (i.e., 1,400
townhouses) and 65 percent multi -family units (i.e., 1,320 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.
11. 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 exterior 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 casements 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. Community 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 (swimming 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`h 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`j' 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 links 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, A1CP
Re: Preliminary Comments - Stephenson Village Rezoning Proposal
February 5, 2003
15. Streetscave[LandscapingBuffer/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
appropriate, as well as asphalt trails linking neighborhoods and community amenities.
16. Signase 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 use signs was not addressed.
17. 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, if the rezoning petition is approved by the County. Staff has concerns with this approach
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 anew minimum. Flat out removal ofthe 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
dedication 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 staff believes 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 in 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
r'�
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 Comprehensive 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.
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.
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 ontact me, should you have any questions or concerns regarding this correspondence.
Sincerely,
Eric ' Lawf nce, AICP
Planning Director
ERL/rsa/Attachment - Master Development Plan Expectations
cc: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator
Lawrence R. Ainbrogi, County Attorney
Ben Lineberry, Virginia Department of Transportation
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: GreenwaEngineering 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: 2 0 2 / 21 / 0 3
Transportation sistant Resident Engineer
Notice to VDOT — Please Return This Form to the Applicant
?fV s�lx��
i
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.
3
Ben H. Lineberry, Jr., P. `
Transportation Assistant Resident Engineer
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
•
•
COUNTY of FREDF RICK
Department of Public Works
540/665-s643
FAX: 540/ 678-0682
Mr. Evan Wyatt, AICP
Greenway Engineering
151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, Virginia 22602
May 5, 2003
RE: Stephenson Village Revised Proffer Statement
Frederick County, Virginia
Dear Evan:
Your letter dated April 14, 2003, has adequately addressed all of our previous review
comments except comment #4 related to community curbside trash collection. We are still
somewhat skeptical of this responsibility being assigned to a homeowners' organization unless it
includes an enforceable guarantee. This guarantee would need to occur without county
intervention.
If necessary, we are available to discuss this issue and possibly other alternative trash
disposal methods.
Sincerely,
� n
Harvey -E� Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E.
Director of Public Works
HES/rls
cc: Frederick County Planning and Development
�
file
AAA-evslep[lei sonviIIVoil .trpd
107 forth rent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
C--J
0
Mr. Evan Wyatt
Greenway Engineering
151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, Virginia 22602
RE: Stephenson Village Rezoning
Frederick County, Virginia
Dear Evan:
February 11, 2003
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Public Works
540/665-5643
FAX: 540/678-0682
N
m
w
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, Constriction 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
Februaiy 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
HESMs
cc: Frederick County Planning and Zoning
file
C:\Corer\wm•dPerfect \RhondaWephensoin, illcom.1rpd
Rezoning Comments 0
Frederick County Fire Marshal E ge,
Mail to: Hand deliver to:
Frederick County Fire Marshall Frederick County Fire & Rescue Dept.
Attn: County Planner Attn: Fire Marshal
107 North Kent Street County Administration Bldg., l't Floor
Winchester, Virginia, 22601 107 North Kent Street
(540) 665-6350 Winchester, Virginia
Applicant: Please fill but the,information as accurafely-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:
s ,
Fire Marshal's Signature & Date:
Notice to Fire Marshal — Please Return This Form to the Applicant
1r
----------------
Control number
RZ03-0001R
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
Frederick County Fire and Rescue
Department
®nice of the Fire Marshal
Man Review and Comments
Date received
3/7/2003
City
Winchester
Tax ID Number
44-A-31,31A,292
Date reviewed
3/13/2003
Applicant
Greenway Engineering
State Zip
VA 22602
Fire District
13
Recommendations
Automatic Fire Alarm System
Yes
Requirements
Hydrant Location
Adequate
Roadway/Aisleway Width
Adequate
Date Revised
3/5/2003
Applicant Phone
540-662-4185
Rescue District
13
Election District
Stonewall
Residential Sprinkler System
Yes
Fire Lane Required
Yes
Special Hazards
No
Emergency Vehicle Access Comments
Conditions relating to private alleys, cul-de-sacs, and common drives have been addressed to allow adequate fire protection
access. Curb cuts are to be located where alleys intersect with public or private streets.
Access Comments
Street widths are to be designed to accommadate parked vehicles and maintain emergency vehicle access even where on street
parking is prohibited. In areas where open shoulder or exceptions to curb and gutter are proposed, emergency vehicles are likely
to have more freedom of movement.
Additional Comments
Fire protection systems A growing number of communities promote home fire sprinklers and solve have
adopted residential sprinkler ordinances. These systems offer both safety and financial advantages to
home buyers, as well as reduce the risk of injury or life loss to the occupants and firefighters. This
proffer is the first of it's kind in Frederick County and demonstrates the Developer's focus on life safety,
for which he is cornmended.
Plan Approval Recommended Reviewed By Signaturec_�yy
Yes Timothy L. Welsh
Title �5:> �S G
is
GREENWAY EN
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
G
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/dls Telephone 540-662-41 S5 FAX 540-722-9528
xv," w.greenwayeng.coin
02/26/2003 16:24 54066216jiL PRICES OPE INC PAGE 01
FEO-28.09 1/:60 FROWGREERWA INEERING P.C. 640T229528 T-149 P•002/002 F-258
GRMWAY EMOMEERN O
WiA Wendy l litl Lune
1(00 nchatsr, tritQitliA 2aG02
t lPou4etd in Ign
Fcbru:uty 26, 2t)09
Frederick County
Department of Planulog and Development
107 North Kent Sheet
Wlnchestm, VA 2260).
Pvtw Chris Mato, Deputy Planning Director
Re: Stephenson Village Clcarbrook Fire Dgwrtment Comments
This letter is to document and confirm tbat the Fire Chief of the ClearbrookFire ?Jcpartment. Chisr Tommy
Price, has roogived the rezoning applicatioa and informtittion for Stepbcusnn Village and has acquiesced hu
written corn==ts to the Frcderiek County Rm Marshall's apses- Theraforc, Chief price will not bz
lxsoiug a written commeut to you es part of the formal application process,
By way of this letter and Cc: to Chier Price, let this letter serve as documentation orhis Concurrence.
Should you need Additional information, feel free to contact me at your earlicct convenience.
Sincerely,
Gr nay Euginc
Mark D. Sm.itb, P.E, L.S.
President
Cc, Chief Tommy Vila- Ocarbrook Fire Department
Evan Wyatt, 11ICP - Grennway Engineering
_...
i f'!
r.
2 7
FEE
�� i. FpM
M-33 35C
C
Enfinctfa Surveycrs
Ttlephoneszu-662-a105 Fnx540-722-9526
�Ue N7r�OGMi�sidla wwwsrelenwayenx.conl
0
January 27, 2003
Marl: Smith, P.E., L.S., President
Greenway Engineering
151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, Virginia 22602
RE: Stephenson Village Rezoning Proposal
Dear Mr. Smith:
rI
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
Cliap;:i rind C cir_eleI'y. and the Jordlan Springs J!oK;1 , hich Ore all identified 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,
a 4d,� ,
Rebecca A. Ragsdale
Planned
RAI�Jsce
( E0
D -
wcommi'rTCLS\HRAB\Conunents0003\StephensonVillage.Nepd J A N 2 9 '
�Freder#k County Public1chools
w) I,-) rc. c'ieI:^Ji, CIt.',',.. .ifi c:.I' eIk,nt c-CII,IC<1(:l:::"1
Administrative Assistant Al Orndorff
to the Superintendent orndorfa@frederick.k12.va.us
March 20, 2003
Evan Wyatt
Greenway Engineering
151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, VA 22602
RE: Stephenson Village Rezoning
Dear Mr. Wyatt:
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.k12.va.us 540-662-3889 ext. 112
P.O. Box 3508 540-545-2439
Winchester, Virginia 22604-2546 540-662-3890 fax
1 � •
�� y I ,I \Vindy I lilt Lanr
;9a \•Villdwstcr, Virginia 22602
Puiuided in 1971
April 24, 2003
Frederick County Public Schools
1415 Amherst Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Attn: Al Orndorff, Assistant to the Superintendent of Public Schools
Dear Mr. Orndorff:
The purpose of this letter is to request confinnation that the Frederick County Public
Schools is capable of, and willing to provide an annual report to Stephenson Associates
L.C., to identify the total number of school children that are generated from the
Stephenson Village development.
It is my understanding that Frederick County Public Schools will prepare an annual
report that will utilize data from the September 30 public school enrollment report and
will determine the number of school children based on the street address for all streets in
the Stephenson Village development. As you know, the proffer statement for Stephenson
Village commits to paying for all costs to Frederick County Public Schools for producing
this report. Fru-thermore, the Applicant for Stephenson Village will provide Frederick
County Public Schools with a letter in September of each year requesting the preparation
of this report.
Your signature indicates that you confirm the accuracy of the information in this letter.
Once again, thank you for your continued assistance with the Stephenson Village project.
Sincerely,
f[/f1
Evan Wyatt, AICP
I confirm that the
tuts letter is accurate.
Gngince+:s Surveyors
telephone 5,10-662- 1185 FAX 5,10-72 2-95 28
Pill k27hOGt:AW www.grccnwayeng.com
l
I
August 19, 2003
Mr. Evan Wyatt
Greenway Engineering
151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, Virginia 22602
Dear Evan:
COUNTY of FREDERIC.'
Parks and Recreation Departmer
James M. Doran, Directc
540-665-567
FAX: 540-665-968
www.co.frederick.va.0
e-mail: fcprd@co.frederick.va.0
Please find below our response to the comments provided in your letter of August 5, 2003,
regarding the Parks and Recreation Department's July 29, 2003 review of the April 24, 2003
Stephenson Village revised Proffer Statement:
Item 41 Land Dedication - Site Acreage to Accommodate Athletic Fields
It is the opinion of the Parks and Recreation Department that the 24-acre site proposed for
recreational use, be dedicated to Frederick County for the sole purpose of providing parks and
recreation services to the residents of northern Frederick County. Furthermore, the manner in
which this proffered property is developed should be determined by county residents through the
established process designed by the Board -of Supervisors. Although the County Comprehensive
Plan should be considered, it should not be the only determinate. In addition to the Capital
Improvement Plan, which is approved by the Board of Supervisors annually, community input,
staff recommendation, an analysis of existing use, national trends, local participation numbers,
and the county's ability to maintain the property should be considered.
With reference to your inference that it is important to put the community "on notice" that the
Board of Supervisors possesses the power to convey or lease interest in this property, I find it
interesting that the developer feels this is a necessary part of this document. As a matter of
information, the Board of Supervisors has supported the concept of public -private partnerships
and on July 9, 2003 `af the request of the Parks and Recreation Department, establisled the"
procedures for public -private partnerships. Putting the community "on notice" as to how the
Board of Supervisors can conduct business seems inappropriate as part of this agreement.
With reference to Exhibit C, staff was told that the developer was in the process of completing a
re -design of the 24-acre parcel; however, as of this date we have not received a copy of that
information.
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Mr. Evan Wyatt
Page 2
Item 92 - Recreational Facilities Credit
No comment
Item 93 - Linear Park Trails
Staff has based its recommendation on Federal Highway Administration and American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials guidelines which state that two
directional linear walking/bike trails should be a minimum of 10 feet in width. Furthermore, the
Parks and Recreation Department, in an effort to have conformity with trails connecting with
other developments, recommends that all approved linear trails include a 10-foot wide asphalt
surface as a minimum meeting the standard for trails constructed by this department.
Item 94 - Major Collector Road Bicycle Lanes
No comment
Item 95 - Land Donation Value
Staff agrees that the provision of public water and sewer service and appropriate grading to
ensure positive drainage for the 24-acre site will increase the value of the acreage dedicated for
public use. Staff recommends that all other rights requested to be retained by the developer for
the 24-acre proffered site, be approved by. the Board of Supervisors on..a case by case basis. .
Item #6 - Private Trail Systems
Staff has requested a trail system plan be submitted so that an evaluation of its appropriateness
can be completed. It is difficult to assess the merits of providing flexibility from established
standards without having the opportunity to evaluate the entire trail plan.
Item 97 - Linear Park Trail Construction
With reference to linear park trail construction, if is not clear to me whylimitatioris due to
County and State ordinances cannot be determined prior to execution of this agreement.
Item 48 - Grading of the 24-acre Park Site
The County appreciates any assistance the developer can commit to this effort.
•
•
Mr. Evan Wyatt
Page 3
Evan, I believe we are making excellent progress on this project, and I look forward to
continuing the process. After you have an opportunity to review our comments, please contact
me with any questions you may have.
0
James M. Doran, Director
Parks and Recreation Department
copy: Richard Shickle
Lynda Tyler
John R. Riley, Jr.
Chris Mohn
John Good
•
STEPHENSON ASSOCIATES,, L.C.
P.O. Boa ssso
td►cHESTEL YA E8604
September 8, 2003
Frederick County
Department of County Administration
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Attn: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator
Re: Stephenson Village Rezoning Application
Dear John:
On August 21, 2003, I requested a tabling of the Stephenson Village rezoning application
to allow our team to review the density and phasing program for this project. As you
know, the Planning Commission recommended approval of this rezoning application on
August 20, 2003. Our project team has developed a revised density program for
Stephenson Village, resulting in a phasing reduction. It is our desire to have this
rezoning* application scheduled for a public hearing on the September 24, 2003 Board of
Supervisors agenda. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding the information
in this letter.
Sincerely,
Stephe on Associates, L.C.
W
J. Donald Shockey, Jr.
Cc: Richard Shickle
Lynda Tyler
j�arry Ambrogi
''Eric Lawrence
Chris Mohn
Ty Lawson
File #2760C/JDS
Rezoning Comments
:i% i'l:/ is4::•ii!'fi?'!.•'liii,!•%/':'iiiii •ii%:i! %% ��i% nil i%l+i::,:/ /::....:% /'.'iiil:,%:i,%fi:! 1,/ »/ :n•.. �i� :lY%%�l:il.'.:: 'i..i%i'l.:il J+i%f :::%%ii.i.. /..,,f.,/ x.,i� :•i%l!/!/%!1%:� :%i,:%.%
Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation
Mail to:
Frederick County
Department of Parks & Recreation
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia, 22601
(540) 665-5678
Hand deliver to:
Frederick County
Department of Parks & Recreation
County Administration Bldg., 2°a 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 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
Department of Parks & Recreation Continents:
Please see attached.
Pks. & Rec. Signature & Date
Notice to Department of Parks
Recreation — Please Return This Form to the Applicant
0 0
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 saine 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 left 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.
0
0
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.
•
Memo
To: Evan A. Wyatt — Greenway Engineeri
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
0
Comments i
Frederick —Winchester Service Authority
Mail to:
Fred -Wine Service Authority
Attn: Jesse W. Moffett, Executive Director
P.O. Box 43
Winchester, Virginia 22604
(540) 722-3579
Hand deliver to:
Fred -Wine 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 -Wind eryice Authority's Comments:
Fred- Wine Service Authority's _.
Signature & Date: hi_s�. �f/1- ---\, 1111166
Notice to Fred -Wine Service Authority — Please Return This Form to the Applicant
R
E-0 ueE20
FEB 3 2003
Rezoning Comments - REVISED 2-12-03 Page 2 of 2
Sanitation Authority Comments:
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.
Rezoning Comments
iy,?�??!:i%f!%;�??!?4:i%/,.?!!?!�!r%isi?.�?r{'/-r..r::??�!?i.:!rU/x?.iii, r!r/lrrr,.:!!1/%%/.r??!!{i:!i:{y?�ry%J.rr::??.:.?�;!!!!?{??r.%!Y.?.Y.r?r!ri%:n•???r:?fir?.
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 Engineering
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
Road Route 664) in the Stonewall Magisterial District
Telephone: 540-662-4185
Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: R4 Acreage: 825± Acres
Sanitation Authority Comments:
Sanatation Authority Signature &
Notice to Sanitation Au
See Revised Statement February 12, 2003 (attached).
W. H.JoneS;-P.E. 2-12-43
0
0
E
r:
o WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT
SERVING 1}iE 491 AIRPORT ROAD
i0P OF VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602
q�HOR\\-4 (540) 662-2422
February 12, 2003
Evan Wyatt, Planner
Greenway Engineering
151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, Virginia 22602
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
LI
Rezoning Comments
fr .... .. F.... f.............::.� i:'!.•isi!?•:4::hi:'iiii:4i:+:i.1ii'!.!:{!{r,.;rr?r: i'•'J.?f•'Jr?:•i:4ihi:4}?�: rJrr..y'n.. ...I:: :: ^iiiiii:!%4;ni:; ::; :r' :;:, f:i%v�i''...:: .. r.. /. r. ?•:fir:.;?iii r.r r:.. : .. •, rr:.v: r..::: N:+J: J.:: •::: r:!y:r:........r..rrrrr:::::::::::::: ii:.ii:•/�.: i....
/,. :r:::4: v/..:. �::.. h::; . !::., /.%:i::ii::i+H+ iiiii'FYi:::?4i!iii;.i$ii:.iii':.iiX!.iy•riii::iiiiii:•i:•:::..::::::.::............ ..... ....:.............. rr.............. . ...................
./� �.+//i: r: J:::i+,.:::r..»/::..:.i:J:Yr�:+.�:iJ:+: •+'+:.::i i n.:/n;�!.� fr.:.�.i;u::i+f�r�,::n •r'•rJJn�.:.::�:i:�J.i /: ;::4i:iiri i:i%%:::::i":':,:•l.: iii:: r.5:i:;t::,':::�:::i:; v: ii:::i �`'+
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: 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
Winchester Regional Airport's Continents:
Winchester Regional Airport's
Signature & Date:
Notice to Winchester Regional Airport — Please Return This Form to the Applicant
Rezoning Comments
Frederick County Attorney
Mail to:
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,fxll aut the infonnatxon as accurately as possible 1n`orderrto assst,the County, ':
Attorney's;offlce with their review Attach a copy of your application form, locatton neap,
prEoffer statement; impact analy`sys,'and any other per.tmen�,informatlon
Applicant's Name: GreenwaEngineering 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: 794.6±
County Attorney's Comments: /9
Assistant County Attorney's
Signature & Date: _7
Notice to County Attorney — Please Return This Form to the Applicant
r •
Rezoning Comments
%vi% %,%/:i,rlliv.•,,,vx:/// vv.v.v/%,i/ F.Iflii vir.i%l ! % %,>%iiii„i •,l ,,,v/ »,,..../ v/l %>.i/i%v�l ii:%ii.%i •%r<%i,:'/.%v:•'v::%% fiii v/.viv:rii.%iii.i:ii'fii%l it .Jriv:i �:'is%l%%:sil.'l::%f fiiri
Frederick County Attorney
Mail to:
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
Fourth Floor
Winchester, Virginia
(540) 665-5651
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:
r d 77-erf
Assistant County Attorney's
Signature & Date:
be /h �r.�-�� �•-L.
Notice to County Attorney —Please Return This Form to the Applicant
FILE CUPW
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
794.6± Acres
January 8, 2003
Revised March 7, 2003
Revised August 18, 2003
Revised September 3, 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
Rp'.� R'1
/tbj
File #2760C EAW
Greenway Engineering January 8, 2003 Step h Village Residential
Revised March 7, 2003 Planned Community Rezoning
Revised August 18, 2003
Revised September 3, 2003
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 a 794.6±-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 Core Area
Boundary of Second and Third Winchester Battlefields 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 794.6 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 794.6 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 August 18, 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 residential planned community land use
and includes the entire acreage within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and the
majority of this acreage within the Urban Development Area (UDA).
Greenway Engineering • January 8, 2003 Steph Village Residential
Revised March 7, 2003 Planne �,ommunity Rezoning
Revised August 18, 2003
Revised September 3, 2003
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.
Flood Plains
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.
Wetlands
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.
2
Greenway Engineering • January 8, 2003 Stephe Village Residential
Revised March 7, 2003 Planne mmunity Rezoning
Revised August 18, 2003
Revised September 3, 2003
Mature Woodlands
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 B.
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 Step*n Village Residential
Revised March 7, 2003 Plannea Community Rezoning
Revised August 18, 2003
Revised September 3, 2003
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 794.6± 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
4
Greenway Engineering 0 January 8, 2003 Step On Village Residential
Revised March 7, 2003 Plannea Community Rezoning
Revised August 18, 2003
Revised September 3, 2003
3% annual traffic increase rate between 2010 and 2015 and the development of 1,400,000 sq. ft.
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 (TTE) Manual, 6`h 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 794.6± 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).
5
Greenway Engineering • January 8, 2003 Stephe Village Residential
Revised March 7, 2003 Plannea ommunity Rezoning
Revised August 18, 2003
Revised September 3, 2003
The figures below represent the impact that Stephenson Village would have to the sewage
conveyance system and water supply system at full build -out:
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
C�
Greenway Engineering • January 8, 2003 Steph Village Residential
Revised March 7, 2003 Plann Community Rezoning
Revised August 18, 2003
Revised September 3, 2003
throughout Stephenson Village and bring this infrastructure to the property lines for the public
uses.
DRAINAGE
Currently, storm water runoff from the 794.6±-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`h 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:
7
Greenway Engineering January 8, 2003
Revised March 7, 2003
Revised August 18, 2003
Revised September 3, 2003
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.
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
Step&n Village Residential
Planned Community Rezoning
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.
8
Greenway Engineering January 8, 2003 Steph Village Residential
Revised March 7, 2003 Planne ommunity Rezoning
Revised August 18, 2003
Revised September 3, 2003
HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES
The 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia
identifies core battlefield area of Second Winchester and Third Winchester of which a portion is
located on parcel 44-A-31. The Applicant has not requested a rezoning of this portion of parcel
44-A-31, which accounts for approximately 95.6± 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 (#34-950) 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.
G
Greenway Engineering 0 January 8, 2003 Steph& Village Residential
Revised March 7, 2003 Plann community Rezoning
Revised August 18, 2003
Revised September 3, 2003
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
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 to be utilized as
matching funds for transportation enhancements and/or 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
10
Greenway Engineering January 8, 2003 Step I Village Residential
Revised March 7, 2003 Planni Uommunity Rezoning
Revised August 18, 2003
Revised September 3, 2003
• 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
• Public trail systems
• Preserve open space and create open space corridor along Hiatt Run
• 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.
OUTPUT MODULE
APPLICANT: Stephenson Village Net Fiscal Impact
LAND USE TYPE planned residenti Costs of Impact Credit: Credits to be Taker
Total Potential
Adjustment For
REAL EST VAL $252,146,793 Required (entered in Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Future CIP/
Tax Credits
Revenue-
Net Capital Net Cost Per
FIRE & RESCUE: 1 Capital Faciltiies col sum only) Oper Cal) Equip Expend/Debt S. Taxes, Other
(Unadiusted)_
Cost Balance
Facilities Impact Dwelling Unit
Fire and Rescue Department $1,114,428
$0
$0
$1,114,428 5398
Elementary Schools $8,329,104
----
Middle Schools $4,691,301 $1,306,095 $6,340,279
$7,646,374
$7,646,374
$11,577,196 $4,135
High Schools $6,203,164
----
-
Parks and Recreation $3,215,147 $724,587
$724,587
$724,587
$2,490,560 $889
Public Library $558,949 $156,324
$156,324
$156,324
$402,625 $144
Sheriffs Offices $330,810 $373,481 $0 _ $67,565
$441,046
S441,046
$0 $0
Administration Building 5424,539 $0
$0
$0
$424,539 $152
Other Miscellaneous Facilities $541,618 $724,920 $800,357
$1,525,278
$1,525,278
$0 $0
SUBTOTAL $25,409,061 $2,404,496 $7,140,636 $948,477
$10,493,609
$10,493,609
$14,916,452 $5,327
LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT $0
SO
$0
0
NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT
4, 1 ,4 2
INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Included: 1.0
INDEX: "1.0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Co Avg: 0.0
Rev -Cost Bal =
0.878
PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES = 1.0 1.0
Ratio to Co 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.
NOTES: Model Run Date 01/09/03 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 square feet 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
0
0
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.
PHRn
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
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, pe (PHR+A) conducted manual traffic counts at
the following intersections: 1) Route 11 & SB I-81 on-ramp/off-ramp; 2) Route I & NB
I-81 off -ramp; 3) Route 11 & NB I-81 on-ramp/Redbud Road; and 4) Route 11 & Old
Charles Town Road. Figure I 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 PhasedTraffic impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
PR+A
February 7, 2003
HPage 1
No Scale
00or *00- 4i A9Al
Ien r-
l�rol`' w N o
0 00
JjL
W.
ONO
a
0
Figure 1
PHR+A
ti
%--2jC4�
Old 69(102)
Charles
TOlvn Road
i
viry o �
s�' r SITE P'
Rj-
'�'y � ,''♦♦-♦ gyp;
�O �ti�AAIAAyI \
.r� fi
vb [ rr
� N
�A6A�tiLlti00 66 /
Lila
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Existing Traffic Volumes
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
February 7, 2003
Page 2
•
No Scale
Signalized
Intersection
LOS = C(Q
f G�GI
cd
r
<c �rx
/ 1" v S�
Unsignalized
Intersection
-I-
Figure 2
* Unsignalized
Intersection
Q' !`
Rural Two -Lane
Roadway
LOS = C(Q
1 � - ' ��i'n Road ►
I �
`: Wit,, i
i
erporaSD � .� SITE jk`
q'
♦ G
4�:
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Denotes Free -Flow Movement
* Denotes Critical Unsignalized Movement
Existing Lane Geometry and Level of Service
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
R+A February 7, 2003
Pagee 3
PH
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
February 7, 2 Pagee 4
PH
4
No Scale
11
h
1
0� 4�
,%-- 26(S7)
pI 8q�I24
,1�A��3Al 11 r d Ch / has T )wn Road ,
r0:P b00* ~ o i coo
E e M 7ef fora >4'hi` i di
«a SITE
z
q^+ n ••,
0
OA 11
P]
00cli
0 i r
05000w
p o ss 1
A 11�1�1'1ltiL ss
I A AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
PT T��I-/
Figure 3 2006 Background Traffic Volumes
PHRn
February 7, 2003
Page 5
0 •
No Scale
Signalized
Intersection
LOS = C(C)
oc')
r
IG�G �x
oc')
i�
s
Signalized
Intersection
LOS = C(C)
-I-
Signalized
Intersection
LOS = C(C)
C(C)
Rural Two -Lane
Roadway
LOS = C(C)
Signalized
Intersection G
LOS = B(B)
,
SITE-
Q �
b °o. ` 0,
I'ahA ( Signalized
Intersection
a LOS = C(C)
�O 661
z lG�
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
-,Denotes Free -Flow Movement
* Denotes Critical Unsignalized Movement
Figure 4 .2006 Background Lane Geometry and Level of Service
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
PRAFebruary 7, 2003
H.
Page 6
Table 1
Phase 1 Stephenson Village
Trip Generation Summary
ANI
Peak
our
PM
Peakour
Percentage
Code
Land Use
Amount
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
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 AMIPM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations
within the study area. Figure 8 shows the respective 2006 Phase 1 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 "C" or better during 2006 Phase 1 build -out conditions.
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
R+A
February 7, 2 Pagee 7
PH
7
0 0
is
Figure 5
PH�
Phase 1 Trip Distribution Percentages
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
February 7, 2003
Page 8
0 9
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Figure 6 Phase 1 Development -Generated Trip Assignments
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
P"'A February 7, 2003
HPage 9
No Scale
11
1
a� Nth
0S(163)
�Id *_3 6(28q) 4.109(181)
o�l�A9� 11 les 7,0 Road r 19(68)
�9(163)79
1 R N, �ry�1
(497)136"1, �r o10
1 ` 010
^
�i%j� q`' r1�- n 4jQ a
w \0 liorasD nq ✓ �' �i
1561� w o N �6 4y�w �� `'o�✓
11 0 o N a SITE
Z 4�1 = ^ e
0
�I
0 �d�A 11
0] '
C,
� 50 3Al
W 03,tiA3A13�31 r�O ����61�g91
0
A1�
Ali ti 1.6p5~ ' O,jt'd 0 661
A 1�9�A�'1ltiL 66
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+ n February 7, 20031
H�[ 1 Page 0
0 0
No Scale
Signalized
Intersection
RuralTwoane
q, LOS = C(C)
LOS Roadway C(C)
Signalized
Intersection
efta C(C)
LOS = C(C) 11
rrCld Charles Totvn Road
A(A)*
f
Signalized
Intersection
I�
r co_1
1
LOS = B(B)
U���erfof�
Unsignalized
0,§
op.
�'X
Intersectionco
d �vell,
SITE
o
ay
a
0
k�(
Signalized
Intersection
LOS = C(C)
4-
Signalized
' Intersection
LOS = C(C)
z 6s1
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
F,-,Denotes Free -Flow Movement
K Denotes Critical Unsignalized Movement
Figure 8 2006 Phase I Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
R+A
February 7, 200 Page 1I
PH
0
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 AN"M 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 6"' 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
R+A
l2
February 7, 20
Page 12H2
0 0
No Scale
AL
h
b
ob
�hn
�N
� L28(63
pid 9203�
C�a�
S,6
des T)Wn Road
,
01,
u'erforas
S19ti6��
o
' C,
D°`ew10s)a,�
SITE
v
((1 23
i�J ��'
5
to .•-
y�
_ � b
s1O. w 11 wi
"• . �d o 661 61 �
't� ss
Ulm
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Figure 9 2008 Background Traffic Volumes
PHR1�
February 7, 2003
Page 13
No Scale
Signalized
Intersection
LOS = C(Q
G`Gl
t
IC�G �x J
w
W
En
6C)
4
IC�C r, �c
Signalized
Intersection
LOS = C(Q
Signalized
Intersection
G LOS = QQ
Rural Two -Lane
Roadway
LOS = C(Q
Signalized
1
Intersection GG
G� `
LOS = QQ47
1
4
�
°1`a
SITEa
�cDnt
�c1�
♦
yy
�4
^. I It
�Gl
v �O *e
�12. ( Signalized
n L, Intersection
t LOS = C(Q
z 6s1
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
[.-��Denotes Free -Flow Movement
* Denotes Critical Unsignalized Movement
Figure 10 2008 Background Lane Geometry and Level of Service
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
PH February 7, 2003
Page 14
0
Table 2
Phase 2 Stephenson Village
Trip Generation Summary
Code
Land Use
Amount
AM
In
Peakour
Out
Total
PNI
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 I 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 I 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 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 2008 Phase 2 build -out conditions.
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
R+A
1 ebruary 7, 2003
Page 15
PH
r.
Figure 11 Phase 2 Trip Distribution Percentages
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
R+A
February 7, 2003
Page 16
PH
•
L�
Lila
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Figure 12 Phase 2 Development -Generated Trip Assignments
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
RAFebruary 7, 2003
Page 17
PH
0 •
No Scale
r I L
s�
-1-
hh^ ti`bh
L302(247
�sp8(4IS)
O,d CharreS
4.121(200)
Town Road
'—34(106)
(180)87 �.►
(780)247
` t
N rytib
bh o�S hb wb
`
o i coo
l7i
(Ip Va SITE
` 116��6`1
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Figure 13 2008 Phase 2 Build -out Traffic Volumes
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
P R+A
February 7, 2003
HPage 18
0
No Scale
/ Signalized
Intersection
LOS = C(C)
G`Gl
r
W
00
Signalized
Intersection
LOS = C(C)
-I-
Rural Two -Lane
Roadway
LOS = C(C)
Signalized
Intersection Signalized
G LOS = C(C) Intersection
C(C) LOS = B(B)
�
rrCld Charles Town Road If —
Signalized
Signalized I� U"
Intersection GG (A)A c
R LOS = C(C)
rry
SITE �.
fly �C,
♦ �o
ki
Signalized
n Intersection
b LOS = C(C)
z 661 l /
ro GAG
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
r - Denotes Free -Flow Movement
x Denotes Critical Unsignalized Movement
Figure 14 2008 Phase 2 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
R+A
19
February 7, 20
Page 19H9
0 •
PHASE 3 (2015)
The purpose of this Phase 3 scenario is to maximize the. Stephenson Village
development while assuming 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 I-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 I-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 6"' 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 Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
R+A
February 7, Pagee 20
20H0
No Scale
11
0
ti
36(51)
Old
'h'
r es TO Yn Road
Cb
�
o;
Rot,, h"'�~ ��O a
ti
e�o, n�
;
S4)S6 I
SITE
�
.
7(.
(6p9)� 6)o36`4 c �Q (0) )
;n
��♦
CD �
� a
0. w
In
e0i1
O
_
Off-��
661
O
0
00 N
w
�
11�3 ^, s�0
z
t
Q
l
60o a
1�0.
A
o
z
^
PT TP +/
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Figure 15 2015 Bac cOroundTraffie—Volumes
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
u Page 21
0
No Scale
off-
'� k;0.*
Signalized
Intersection
LOS = D(D)
Signalized
Intersection
LOS = C(C)
G�
C(C)
Signalized
"Id
Intersection
LOS = D(D)
G
Ut�'ej�o q
��� �
s
oe�Oad
�
i,►
�
`fiy
tiro
4
"o )
o, G
�R Signalized �'a� f�
Intersection
o LOS = C(D)
2 a
11 JJ � a
Ibc ��' o
z
Rural Two -Lane
Roadway
LOS = QQ
x
i
SITE
-
L•
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
F�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
P R+_ n February 7,
e 22
H \1 l Page 22
Table 3
Phase 3 Stephenson Village
Trip Generation Summary
Am reaK tiour
FM Yeak Hour
Yereentage
Code
Land Use
Amount
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
ADT
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 1 100%
Total Internal 167 167 334 260 260 519 6,003 I 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 I 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 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 "D" or better during 2015 Phase 3 build -out conditions.
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
R+A
February 7, 3
Pagee 23
PH
0
.9
Figure 17 Phase 3 Trip Distribution Percentages
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
PR �_ n February 7, 24
H
�1 1 Pagee 24
C
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
-1-
Figure 18 Phase 3 Development -Generated Trip Assignments
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
R+A
February 7, Pagee 25
25H5
0 •
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
Figure 19 2015 Phase 3 Build -out Traffic Volumes
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
PR -A February 7, e 26H
Page 26
•
0
No Scale
off-
k8��c
Signalized
Intersection
LOS = D(D)
Rural Two -Lane
Roadway
Signalized
LOS = C(C)
Intersection
LOS = C(C)
G�
Signalized
Intersection Unsignalized
C(D)
LOS = B(B) Intersection
Signalized Old Char/e ~ C(C) �
Intersection s roWn Road dr r— A(A)*
LOS = D(D) , (B)B
-- 1 -- g- 1
e
Ruthe�fordsD����
o td
`e1�a
r SITE
T";
In
q
0.
0
w
7y
a
�a Signalized
,u Intersection
o LOS = C(D)
za
11 JJ C a
z
AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
(:,Denotes Free -Flow Movement
* Denotes Critical Unsignalized Movement
Figure 20 20t5 Phase 3 Build -out Lane Geometry and Level of Service
A Phased Traffic Impact Analysis of Stephenson Village
R+A
February 7, Pagee 27
27H7
0
•
Appendix
0 0
Table A: 2006 Background Development
ANI Peak our PINI 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
ANI Peak our PNI Peakour
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 PINI 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 1,018 1,288 9,744
Total 1,012 224 1,246 270 1,018 1,288 9,744
0
•
Table D: Phase 2 Internal/Pass-by Trip Interaction
Trips Going to/from educed Land Use
In
ANI Ileak
Out
our
Total
FNI
In
Peakour
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%
Total Percentages
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
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%
"%
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%
5%
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 Trips"
281
784
1,065
886
525
1,411
17,699
Total Percentages
89%
96%
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%
0
Table E: Phase 3 Intern al/PaSS-by Trip Interaction
AM
ea ou
Trips Going to/from educed Land Use
In
Out
Residential
Retail
33
21
Office
Retail
3
2
Total Percentages
25%
25%
Pass -by
Retail
21
14
Total Percentages
15%
15%
Residential
Office
II
1
Retail
Office
2
3
Total Percentages
12%
29%
Office/Retail/School
Residential
62
101
Total Percentages
26%
11%
Residential
Schools
56
39
Total Percentages
60%
60%
Total Retail Internal Trips
36
23
Total Retail Pass -by Trips
21
14
Total Retail "New" Trips
85
55
Total Office Internal Trips
13
4
Total Office "New" Trips
96
11
Total Residential Internal Trips
62
101
Total Residential "New" Trips
228
866
Total Schools Internal Trips
56
39
Total Schools "New" Trips
38
26
Total Internal
167
167
Total Percentages
26%
15%
Total Pass -by
21
14
Total Percentages
3%
1 %
Total "New Trips"
448
957
Total Percentages
70%
84%
Total Trips
636
1,138
Total Percentages
100116
100%
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 ± 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
Pile #2760C EAW
Greenway Engineering 0 January 8, 2003 StephensonOage 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
Revised March 7, 2003
Stephensontlage Residential
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.
Flood Plains
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.
Wetlnnck
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.
2
Greenway Engineering January 8, 2003 Stephenson Oagge Residential
Revised March 7, 2003 Planned Community Rezoning
Mature Woodlands
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 Loatns 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 IIiatt 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 Vlage 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 plarmed 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 #age 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, 6"' 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
Revised March 7, 2003
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
Stephenson Plage Residential
Planned Community Rezoning
* 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.
Greenway Engineering January 8, 2003 Stephenson Village Residential
Revised March 7, 2003 Planned Community Rezoning
DIZ A IN A GF
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. (Thus number can be found in the Civil Engineering Reference Manual, 41h 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 Nage 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 Pfilage 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:L 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 (#34-950) 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 �;[lage 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
mi
Greenway Engineering 46 January 8, 2003 Stephenson.0lage Residential
Revised March 7, 2003 Planned Community Rezoning
• Public trail systems
• Preserve open space and create open space corridor along Hiatt Run
• 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.
r
Cn ar
o
o
V)
�
D
ZONING BOUNDARY PLAT
o
GREENWAY ENGINEERING
m
Z
0
mo
m-1
IMPACT ANALYSIS — EXHIBIT A
Z D
J
n
c0
STEPHENSON VILLAGE REZONING
o o
Y a
r x
151 Windy Hill Lane
g
Founded In �e�i Winchester, Virginia 22602
00
0
ri
�
�'tC
Engineers Telephone 540-662-4185
surveyors FAX 540-722-9528
J
STONEWALL MAGESTERIAL DISTRICT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VA
.71
lll1/IINNAIV.--
Im
�M#
Omni=
RUN DATE: 3/19/2003
PAYMENTS BY MAP NUMBER
PAGE:
1
*: Denotes information
retrieved
from the Cleared file.
T R
A
N S A C T
I 0 N DRAWER
RUNNING
TAX PAYER
DEPT
TICKET # NUMB.
TYPE
DATE
AMOUNT
NO.
CHECK NUMBER
BALANCE
MAP NUMBER: 44 A 31
CRIDER & SHOCKEY, INC OF WV
RE2002
6661-0001 96032
PAY
2002/06/11
264.98CR
LBX
BB&T-FM 317201
264.98CR
CRIDER & SHOCKEY, INC OF WV
RE2002
6661-0002 5365
PAY
2002/12/06
264.98CR
AFW
FM 328689
529.96CR
RUN DATE: 3/19/2003
PAYMENTS BY MAP NUMBER
PAGE:
2
*: Denotes information
retrieved
from the Cleared file.
T R
A
N S A C T
I 0 N DRAWER
RUNNING
TAX PAYER
DEPT
TICKET # NUMB.
TYPE
DATE
AMOUNT
NO.
CHECK NUMBER
BALANCE
MAP NUMBER: 44 A 31A
SHOCKEY/DULLES, LC
RE2002
30006-0001 97062
PAY
2002/06/12
88.65CR
LBX
BB&T-FM 317202
618.61CR
SHOCKEY/DULLES, LC
RE2002
30006-0002 5366
PAY
2002/12/06
88.65CR
AFW
FM 328692
707.26CR
RUN DATE: 3/19/2003
PAYMENTS BY MAP NUMBER
PAGE:
3
*: Denotes information
retrieved
from the Cleared file.
T R
A
N S A C T
I O N DRAWER
RUNNING
TAX PAYER
DEPT
TICKET # NUMB.
TYPE
DATE
AMOUNT
NO.
CHECK NUMBER
BALANCE
MAP NUMBER: 44 A 292
CRIDER & SHOCKEY OF WVA
RE2002
6658-0001 96032
PAY
2002/06/11
581.56CR
LBX
BB&T-FM 317201
1,288.82CR
CRIDER & SHOCKEY OF WVA
RE
6658-0002 5365
PAY
2002/12/06
581.56CR
AFW
FM 328689
1,870.38:CIo
RUN DATE: 3/19/2003
PAYMENTS BY MAP NUMBER
PAGE: 4
*: Denotes information
retrieved
from the Cleared file.
T R
A N
S A C T
I O N DRAWER
RUNNING
TAX PAYER
DEPT
TICKET # NUMB.
TYPE
DATE
AMOUNT NO. CHECK NUMBER
BALANCE
MAP NUMBER: 44 A 293
CRIDER & SHOCKEY INC OF WVA
RE2002
6657-0001 96032
PAY
2002/06/11
115.43CR LBX BB&T-FM 317201
1,985.81CR
CRIDER & SHOCKEY INC OF WVA
RE2002
6657-0002 5365
PAY
2002/12/06
115.43CR AFW FM 328689
2,101.24CR
0
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:.�� ,3
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
�v
bonald Shockey, r.
Its: j% Manager
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA AT LARGE
COUNTY OF FREDERICK, to -wit:
The foregoing instrument was sworn to, signed and acknowledged before me this /3 i3
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.
i
My Commission expires: A % A c.,
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
otary Public
VIRGINIA: FREDERICK COUNTY, SCT.
This instrument of writing was producod to me on
and with ccrtificate of acknowledgement thereto annexed
was admitted to record. T imposed by Sec. 58.1-802 of
e M ' , zd 58.1-801 have been paid, if assessable
) " 44:?� Clerk
2
030005766
11
•
Exemption pursuant
to Virginia Code Section
THIS DEED, made and entered into on this the jd 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.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 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
property. (The original property was 310 Acres from which approximately 56 off
conveyances have been made.)
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 Ana B. McKee and recorded in the Circuit
Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book 866, at Page 1281.
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.
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
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.
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
O:;Loo I Ii3a,
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 Court 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
a West Virginia corporation
eits
odd Sly
resident
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA AT LARGE
COUNTY OF FREDERICK, TO -WIT:
0� CD
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this � day of March, 2003, by r13
J. Donald Shockey, Jr. who is the President of Crider & Shockey, Inc. of West Virginia, a West
Virginia corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
Nota Public
My commission expires: : /0 �'
PREPARED WITHOUT BENEFIT OF TITLE
EXAMINATION BY AND RETURN TO:
Thomas Moore Lawson
Attorney at Law
Lawson and Silek, P.L.C.
P. 0. Box 2740
Winchester, VA 22604
TAXPARCELS: ���-����)_oif�. �����-;. _X�Z-/,�-�i.
THIS IS A NO CONSIDERATION CONVEYANCE UNDER VA CODE SECTION
VIRGINIA: FREDERICK COUNTY, SC7%
This instrument
tt of writing was pmduaaed to ine on
,md with c-cniticate of acknowledWment thereto annexed
was adVitted to record. T imposed by Stc. 58.1-802 of
/�I.- , and 58.1-801 have been paid, if a9sessable,
4e�t 4ar-v , aerk
* 4� M FILE COPY
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/ 665-6395
September 29, 2003
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, AICP
Greenway Engineering
151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, VA 22602
RE: REZONING #06-03, Stephenson Village
Dear Evan:
This letter serves to confirm action taken by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their
meeting of September 24, 2003. The above -referenced application was approved to rezone 794.6
acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District. The
approved proffer statement, dated September 3, 2003, includes the ConiinunityDesign Modifications
Document (Exhibit F) that outlines nine ordinance modification requests. Each modification request
was approved by the Board of Supervisors as presented in the proffer statement. A copy of the
approved proffer statement is attached for your records.
The properties subj ect to this rezoning action are identified by Property Identification Numbers 44-A-
31 [portion], 44-A-31A, 44-A-292, and 44-A-293, and are located within the Stonewall Magisterial
District. The boundaries of the rezoning are delineated on the Composite Plat dated August 18, 2003,
prepared by Greenway Engineering, which is included in the application file maintained in the
Department of Planning and Development.
Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any questions regarding the approval of this
rezoning application.
Nerer M. Mohn, AICP
Deputy Planning Director
Attachments
CMMlbad
cc: ,J. Donald Shockey, Jr.
merry Copp, VDOT Resident Engineer
--J'o-hn Light, Stonewall District Planning Commissioner
mane Anderson, Real Estate
--Marcus Lemasters, GIS
em: Lynda J. Tyler, Stonewall District Board of Supervisors Member
/C.harles S. DeHaven, Jr., Planning Commission Chairman
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
comments "for the record" 0 46
Subject: comments "for the record"
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 07:22:51 -0400
From: "William & Peggy Rosenberry" <rosenbwc@adelphia.net>
To: "Arlotta, Rene FC Planning" <rarlotta@co.frederick.va.us>
William C Rosenberry comments "for the record" at the August 20, 2003 Planning Commission
Public Meeting on Rezoning #06-03 of Stephenson Village: <?xml:names 1)ace prefix = o ns =
" urn: schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Personally I find the Stephenson Village proposal attractive. But I find it to be bad for Frederick County.
Let me explain.
First, I note that those people who would live as neighbors object to this rezoning, by a large majority.
On the whole, my issue is not so much with the Shockey Stephenson Village project, specifically, as with
any project of large residential development.
Because there is so much land already eligible for "by right" residential development in the county,
rezoning additional large tracts raises a concern in me about the infrastructure required.
By infrastructure, I refer, for one example, to the availability of water. A study is undergoing in this area
and I think delay is appropriate pending its outcome. As it is, the county already has to buy a large
amount of water from Winchester. The same goes for an air pollution study.
Another example of infrastructure is my common sense concern about this additional development's
impact on traffic congestion, particularly in Northeast Frederick County.
Therefore, I must vote to deny this rezoning application.
pi!
1 of 1 9/4/2003 8:06 AM
'I
c] 7 13ta
On
y
Page —3-
(cont. transportation)
Absolutely no road improvement proffers to Rt. 11 except for the
interchange area with the Rutherford rezoning - The Rt. 11 corridor is
being loaded and not even V.D.O.T. has looked at the cumulative effect of
traffic impact.
Also the fact that the Woodsmill — MBlborne Road to Red Bud may become
a shortcut to avoid the traffic light has not even been identified.
It is hard to define the impact the traffic will have on this area#however it is
very clear these roads cannot handle this load and support these projects.
The County needs to clearly define how the impacts of this residential
development can become manageable for the Rt. 11 corridor.
Fire and Rescue
The impact of emergency services with this rezoning becomes a very
important issue. Fire and Rescue services are currently struggling as
evident with the reports in the papers recently. Inevitably a cash proffer to
Clearbrook Fire Department is today's way of doing business aeeeptable
e im acts the Co --Fire a -um
fiscal impact model f��$�-im�nts�b � '���'
C.-(x� �a � � �,.�. � �'�.��..� �i�. �• �. � �, ,,�. C ��L� iUj � °ram �� y ��� /
1CL-\
E'.l.4CI'_ LA-), �4N
Page —4-
(cont. fire & Rescue)
dr,have HOA's have a yearly payment to
Fire and Rescue Services.
In this ease-GiParbrook Fire and Reese is being impacted by 100%from
its current service a er a uteiy no answer from the County on how
to service the impact. I e are t mAl land use and rezone the
property, emer cy service question should be answered.
NM
With the R-4 designation Stephenson Village chooses to reflect 4% of the
project towards commercial business, while the ordnance reflects 1 Q-5b%.
In order for this to be a planned community, business is to take place inside
the entity so there are employment opportunities close to this residence
and limit the need for traffic impact outside the development. It is also
important to provide this mixed use for the project to help pay its way as a
tax base. j� cl-l\ 4 q, C C
111
Mr. Shockey has stated
MII-- I]
fiscal impact to
n in the County.
11 not cost tayers a dime.
ha ` it na},p a positive
ns ead of limiting it, t it pY for the
cv services and the real estate to offset the tax
Page —5-
(coat. R-4)
To limit the commercial business of this proposal, makes this project
nothing more than a glorified R-P rezoning offering more Varity of housing
with alleys and private streets. The bottom line is more residential homes
and very little business in R-P zoning any way you look at it.
There is nothing special about this development - houses -houses -houses.
To address this rezoning request for Stephenson Village we must also
address the land use Plan. As Planning Commissioners, you are in a
unique position to understand the importance of having a land use plan that
addresses all phases of the impact of development and must recognize the
responsibility to the public to address the issues that impact the quality of
life in their community.
To ignore this issue is to ignore the trust put in you by your community.
This land use plan is incomplete and does not address impact of this
development or any other development with R-P zoning.
Density
The density of this development creates the impacts that makep
undesirable. 1 000's of housing units are undesirable feature in an area of
rural character of the county. It is impossible to for see the tremendous
impact on the Stonewall District and the entire County.
11
MDP 1
1
No de lopment should
be allowed in RC. without the use of an overall
Master Ierr lopment Plan and the use of phasery. If the applicant has a
project hey can't master plan then rezone less acres so they can plan the
project' properly.
Every development has been required in current standards to have a MDP.
As each developed entity gets sold to other developers and years pass
there will be no one to acdept-fesponsibility for the problems associated
with this development.
With regard to the rezoning of Stephenson Village"�the ability to rezone*
property is a government given right and policed through the ordinance
written with the intention off providing safeguards top-s�ur� -tvdi
--r � «
community t ll�� .44helmpacts of the development- have been
avc t ,� gated andRo ensure the community that the governing body has acted
in the best management and planning practicea to insure the health -safety
and welfare of the community, as required by state law.
_0
Page —7-
It is my opinion that the RE. L.U.P. with it's R-4 designation and the
rezoning of Stephenson Village do not address the impacts of
development. The F.C.B.O.S's has failed to provide any acceptable
management practices to control the traffic impacts outside of this
development.
Also St $el�-Vbf:mFi re
and Rescue_00.. arAg- r efrey-seMces. -For these Lb r aso s�the health,
safety and welfare of the citizens of Stonewall Distr!, ave been
jeopardized.
For these reasons I have stated to make a motion to deny rezoning request
D- - of Stephenson Village.
•
--- 9
STEPHENSON ASSOCIATHS, L.C.
P.O. BOX 2530
WMCIHXTM YA 22604
August 21, 2003
Frederick County
Department of County Administration
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Attn: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator
Re: Stephenson Village Rezoning Application
Dear John:
During the August 13, 2003 Board of Supervisors meeting, I was asked to consider
reviewing the current density and phasing program for the Stephenson Village residential
planned community project. It is our desire to do so; thereforr,, 'we request that this
rezoning proposal not be included on the September 10, 2003 Board of Supervisors
agenda. I will contact you to determine when we can proceed with our rezoning
application at a subsequent Board of Supervisors meeting.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding the information
in this letter.
Sincerely,
Steph on Associates, L.
J. Donald Shockey, Jr.
Cc: Richard Shickl�
Lynda Tyler
Larry Ambrogi
ric Lawrence
Chris Mohn
Ty Lawson.
File #2760C/JDS
• 1833 ROSSER LAN—
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 2260
August 18, 2003
Mr. Eric Lawrence, Chairman
Planning Commission
Frederick County
107 N. Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Dear Mr. Lawrence:
I live in the City of Winchester and will be only marginally impacted
by Stephenson Village. However, I do live in the "active adult"
section of the Meadowbranch PUD, which I believe also originated with
Mr. Shockey.
It seems that the Board of Supervisors has now cleared the way for
your action on this project. However, based on the Meadowbranch
experience, I would suggest that you give any proposal the most
careful study. Be certain that every "ill
ni is dotted and every 'It" crossed. The final plans, especially where they concern drainage and
road construction, must be exacting. Chances are Mr. Shockey will
not be involved for any length of time after the project begins.
Parcels will be sold off to other developers (possibly from out of
state) for execution.
DO NOT under any circumstances agree to roads in any portion of the
project which do not conform to VDOT standards. "Active adults" are
very quick to object to maintaining private roads when they are
paying taxes to the County at the same rate as other residents and
obtaining fewer services.
Also, drainage issues MUST be thoroughly addressed. Open ditches and
retention ponds, which the residents ultimately must maintain,
present real health hazards.
The shopping area which was supposed to be established for the
convenience of Meadowbranch residents has not materialized. Two
years after we moved in, and several years after the start of the
development, only one building has been completed. It is partially
occupied by a real estate firm (not something you would use on a
regular basis). It is an eyesore of weeds, dirt piles, and
construction debris with no completion date in sight.
City officials have tried to address our concerns, but they are
hampered by development plans approved some twelve years ago. It
might be wise for you to consult with members of the Planning
Commission and the City Council for Winchester to learn of the
problems they are facing.
I don't know if this project will benefit the County or not, but if
it is going to receive approval, planning must be properly done.
Sincerely yours,
Ida urweger
cc: Winchester Star
Winchester Gun Club
Gun Club Road
Stephenson, Virginia
July 16, 2003
Mr. Richard C. Shickle
Chairman -At -Large
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
292 Green Spring Road
Winchester, VA 22603
Dear Sirs:
The Winchester Gun Club (WGC) owns ± 90 acres of property accessed from Gun Club
Road and Route 664. This Club is a recreational shooting facility for trapshooting and
shooter education. The Club has approximately 100 stockholders and 50 active members.
Further, the facility and grounds are used by the Virginia Trapshooting Association, The
Virginia Trapshooting Hall of Fame; as well as local league activities for residents in and
around the Winchester, Virginia area. These groups number in excess of one thousand
shooters a year.
We are proud of our facilities and have enjoyed an excellent working relationship with all
our neighbors over the years.
On behalf of the Winchester Gun Club, I urge you to support the rezoning of the Shockey
properties in the Stephenson area ("Stephenson Village").
Many residents in this area want residential development as proposed by Stephenson
Village and view the proposal as one that will bring parks, shopping and increased
property values. Mr. Shockey has made a generous offer to preserve the battlefield,
protect the environment, and cover the costs of schools as well as other improvements.
We are all aware of the need for sewer service in the area. The Shockey project will pay
for sewer lines that will be welcome news for old and new residents alike.
For the sake of the County's development and for the sake of Stephenson residents,
please support the rezoning of this parcel.
Sincerely,
Sonny Myers, President
Cc: Board of Supervisors JUL � 2 2003
Planning Commission
_•
Glenn Penton
221 Settlers Lane
Stephenson, VA 22656
Eric Lawrence, AICP
Director of Planning, Frederick County
107 N. Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
July 14, 2003
� M FILE copy
RE: SWSA and UDA Inclusion In The NELUP Process - Stonewall District
Dear Eric,
The landowners located between Redbud and Jordan Springs, Woods Mill Rd and Rt 1 I
are hereby requesting inclusion in the SWSA and UDA. We are reyuesting that this area
be included in SWSA and UDA during the current update of the NELUP.
Spot planning has created an incoherent plan. We believe that this area is beacr suited fur
SWSA and UDA inclusion due to proximity to Rte 7, Rte 11, the City of'Winchester, and
existing SWSA and UDA. Please include this area in the comprehensive planning process
at this time.
Windy Jones supports including this area in the SWSA because it will.allow a more
complete and contiguous network for servicing the stonewall community. The sewer
network will have a more direct connection to the Rte 7 Opeyuon Treaunent Facility that
is down hill from this proposed SWSA/ UDA area.
We respectfully request that this issue proceed through the appropriate committees and
proper channels as quickly as possible.
Sincerely,
Glenn P ton
F
Enclosure: Proposed SWSA sketch plan and SWSA/UDA plan
cc: Richard Shickle, Chairman Board of Supervisors
Chuck DeHaven, Chairman Planning Commission
John Riley, County Administrator
``/
PT"
F
0
\J
0
STEPHENSION ASSOCIATES,, L.C.
P.O. BOX 2530
W61 CHESTEL YA 22604
September 8, 2003
Frederick County
Department of County Administration
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Attn: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator
Re: Stephenson Village Rezoning Application
Dear John:
On August 21, 2003, I requested a tabling of the Stephenson Village rezoning application
to allow our team to review the density and phasing program for this project. As you
know, the Planning Commission recommended approval of this rezoning application on
August 20, 2003. Our project team has developed a revised density program for
Stephenson Village, resulting in a phasing reduction. It is our desire to have this
rezoning' application scheduled for a public hearing on the September 24, 2003 Board of
Supervisors agenda. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding the information
in this letter.
Sincerely,
Stephe on Associates, L.C.
J. Donald Shockey, Jr.
Cc: Richard Shickle
Lynda Tyler
Larry Ambrogi
ric Lawrence
Chris Mohn
Ty Lawson
File #2760C/JDS
PRESS RELEASE
Hold for publication until March 15
For more information contact:
Bill Hardigg (703) 609-3776 or (703) 426-4670
Economic Study on Stephenson Village Concludes Project
Will More than Pay for Itself
March 14, 2003
Stephenson, VA --The residential planned community proposed for Stephenson will
generate over $20 million in new revenues for Frederick County over the next 23 years,
according to an economic study conducted by Robert Charles Lesser & Company, LLC.
The $20 million is the net revenue after County operating expenditures for services are
subtracted from expected revenues from Stephenson Village.
"I promised the people of this County that I would move forward on this project only
when I am sure that it won't cost the County taxpayers a dime," said Don Shockey, CEO
of the Shockey Companies and the subsidiary, Stephenson Associates, created to plan the
project. "I am now satisfied that we will be a benefit to the County, and the economic
projections have a comfortable margin."
The study also included projections from a market study by Robert Charles Lesser &
Company. The market analysis projects that it will take 21 years to complete the
residential planned community in Stephenson. Base prices for homes will range from
$95,000 to $400,000. The market analysis also projects the final mixture of single-family
detached homes, town houses, condominiums, "active adult" and other age -restricted
housing, as well as a likely timetable for the supermarket, offices and local shops in the
town center.
"The results of the detailed fiscal impact model show that Stephenson Village will have a
highly positive fiscal impact on Frederick County," said Leonard Bogorad, the lead
economist for the study. "In other words, Stephenson Village will generate enough in
taxes and other revenues that it will pay its own way, including paying to educate the
children living there, and still help to pay for other County needs."
- MORE -
Page 2
Stephenson Village Press Release
March 14, 2003
Net fiscal impact on the County is expected to be positive in every year, growing to more
than $2 million annually by build -out in 2024, for a cumulative total of over $20 million
at current tax rates. If County taxes rise 15 cents per every $100 of valuation, the
cumulative benefit to County taxpayers would total over $40 million.
"It's important to realize that this $2 million revenue stream will be self-sustaining after
the community is built," said Bogorad "These are not proffer fees. These are property
taxes and other taxes paid by the residents."
"However, the analysis does not include capital costs for schools and infrastructure or
proffer payments to the County, which are governed by the Frederick County Rezoning
Impact Model," cautioned Bogorad "This was the approach preferred by the two
consultants selected by Frederick County to review our analysis, and is customary when
there is a capital impact model in place."
Shockey has proposed to cover 100% of the capital cost impacts through proffer fees,
with periodic adjustments using the Consumer Price Index. Shockey has also proposed
extra proffer fees if impacts on the County school population are higher than projected.
"This is the first time anyone in the County has proffered 100% of these impacts, and the
first time anyone has put an inflation adjustment on proffer fees," said Evan Wyatt of
Crreenway Engineering, land planner for the project. 'But this is the first residential
planned community in Frederick County. I expect a lot of firsts."
Shockey has announced two community meetings for the Stonewall District to answer
questions about the economic study and other aspects of the project on March 25 and
March 27, at 6:30 pm at Jordan Springs. "We said in our meetings before Christmas we'd
report back as soon as the economic study was complete, and now we're going to do
that," said Shockey.
The study was conducted by Leonard Bogorad, Managing Director and Marc McCauley,
Senior Consultant at Robert Charles Lesser & Company. The company's fiscal impact
analysis clients include Loudoun County and the City of Charlottesville.
### END ###
J. DONALD SHOCKEY, JR.
P.O. BOX 2530
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
22604
March 14, 2003
Mr. Eric R. Lawrence
Planning Conunission, Secretary
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Dear Eric:
I'm happy to report that our economic study of Stephenson Village is complete. Here is
the copy that has been submitted to the County's independent reviewers for their final review.
Our economist Leonard Bogorad feels comfortable that they will concur with its main finding:
Stephenson Village will more than pay for the cost of County services it uses.
With the County facing the prospect of a tax increase, I thought that you should know
that Stephenson Village, and projects like it, may ease the tax burden in future years. Revenue
flows to the County look positive in every year of the study, and they are projected to total over
$20 million net benefit to the County treasury at build -out, based on today's tax rates. With the
pending 15- to 18-cent tax increase, this net benefit increases to over $40 million.
Initially, our concept was that this study would include all costs to the County. However,
at the request of the County's independent reviewers, our economist has removed capital costs
for County facilities, because they are normally covered by proffers. We intend to cover 100% of
the capital costs in our proffers.
I promised not to move forward on this rezoning unless I was absolutely sure that it
wouldn't cost the County a dime. I am now satisfied. We are now finalizing the proffers and you
should see them soon.
We plan to hold two meetings in the Stonewall District the last week of March to go over
this report and the proffers with our neighbors, as described in the attached invitation. I hope you
can make it. In the meantime, if you have any questions about this report, please give me a call at
my office (540-665-3214) or my cell phone (540-323-3214). I look forward to hearing from you.
SinceLeiv,
Donald Shockey, J-1_ _•
R � AR 1 � 2003
Zr�G
•
•
J. DONALD SHOCKEY, JR.
P.O. BOX 2530
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
22604
March 14, 2002
[Firstname Lastname
Address 1
Address 2
City, State ZIP]
Dear Neighbor:
During our community meetings in December, I promised we'd report back to everyone
when the economic study of Stephenson Village was complete. It's taken a little longer than I
expected, but I am happy to report that our economic study and our package of proffers is now
ready to present.
I'd like to invite you to Jordan Springs again to discuss the economic report and the
proffers for Stephenson Village. Well hold two meetings in case people have schedule conflicts,
one on Tuesday evening, March 25, and one on Thursday evening, March 27. We will be serving
dessert and coffee, beginning at 6:30 p.m. The meeting will get underway about 7:00 p.m. with a
short presentation followed by a question and answer session. The address is 1160 Jordan
Springs Road. Hopefully there will be no snow this time.
I've said many times that I would move forward on this project only when I am
convinced that it won't cost the County taxpayers a dime. I am now satisfied that we can say
that, with a large margin of comfort.
We will have copies of our proffer package and economic report at the meeting. If you
want an advance copy, or you can't attend the meeting, please call us at (540) 323-3320 and well
make sure you get one. In the meantime, if you have any questions at all, please call us. I look
forward to seeing you at Jordan Springs.
Sincerely,
Don Shockey
06/26/2003 09:33 5406783457
0—
SBI DON SHOCKEY
0-
PAGE 01
S"I
49FIMN AESOCMTEA L.C.
PA BOX 2630
VMCMSTM ViRam# a$604
June 25, 2003
Mr. Eric Lawrence
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Dear Eric:
Matey of you have expressed a desire to learn more about planned
communities before a public hearing at the Planning Commission. I'd like to invite
you to a workshop advocate Thomas Hylton, author of Save Our Land, Save Our
Towns, at Jordan Springs this Wednesday evening.
I Want to make it clear that Mr. Hylton does not endorse specific projects,
Mr. Hylton is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and a three -time winner of the
American Planning Association's annual journalism award. He is an advocate for
planning communities to preserve farm land, open space and quality of life. My
colleague John Good attended one of Mr. Hylton's presentations recently and was
very impressed -
I am looking forward to meeting Mr. Hylton, and I hope you can be there to
participate. We will also have Jim Baish, designer of Breamar, at the workshop to
discuss the practical experience of creating a planned community in this region.
The workshop will be held at Jordan Springs on Wednesday, July 2nd, at
7:00 PM. We will serve light refreshments. Participants will receive a
complimentary copy of Mr. Hylton's book, Save Our Land, Save Our Towns. The
workshop will be open to the public. Members of the Planning Commission and
the Board of Supervisors have been invited, along with the press. I think this will
be an important evening and I hope you can be there.
Si ly,
Don Sh key
Cc: The Winchester Star, Northern Virginia Daily
Post -it® Fax Note
7671
Dat ,2&
pages
To
From
Co./Dept.
Co. ,
n
Phone N
Phone #
Fax H
Fax R 1
�7
STET HENSON ASSOCIATES, L.C.
P.O. BOX 2530
WJN(;ms11 L AltGRINIA 22604
June 25, 2003
Mr. Eric Lawrence
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Dear Eric:
Many of you have expressed a desire to learn more about planned
communities before a public hearing at the Planning Commission. I'd like to invite
you to a workshop advocate Thomas Hylton, author of Save Our Land, Save Our
Towns, at Jordan Springs this Wednesday evening.
I want to make it clear that Mr. Hylton does not endorse specific projects.
Mr. Hylton is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and a three -time winner of the
American Planning Association's annual journalism award. He is an advocate for
planning communities to preserve farm land, open space and quality of life. My
colleague John Good attended one of Mr. Hylton's presentations recently and was
very impressed.
I am looking forward to meeting Mr. Hylton, and I hope you can be there to
participate. We will also have Jim Baish, designer of Breamar, at the workshop to
discuss the practical experience of creating a planned community in this region.
The workshop will be held at Jordan Springs on Wednesday, July 2nd, at
7:00 PM'. We will serve light refreshments. Participants will receive a
complimentary copy of Mr. Hylton's book, Save Our Land, Save Our Towns. The
workshop will be open to the public. Members of the Planning Commission and
the Board of Supervisors have been invited, along with the press. I think this will
be an important evening and I hope you can be there.
Si rely,
Don Shockey
Cc: The Winchester Star, Northern Virginia Daily
TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT
TIME 06/26/2023 11:36
NAME FRED CO PLANNING DEP
FAX 5406656395
TEL 5406655651
SER.0 BROC2J178677
DATE,TIME
06/26 11:35
FAX NO./'NAME
97223295
DURATION
00:00:24
PAGE(S)
01
RESULT
MODE
OK
STANDARD
ECM
- --v -1. -- -�Ifvg 100401
SBI DON SHOCKEY
AMUJA"Pftr�„ L.C.
FA WX m o
VWCWXr". R* s
June 25, 2003
Mr, Erie lAwzence
107 Nonh Kept Street
Wfilchestcr, VA 22601
L3= Erie:
Many of you have expressed a desim to learn mere about plamgcrl
cornmun ties before a public hewing at the Planning +ConrMssion, I°d Oke to invito
YOU to a workshop advpcatc Tb()n= Hylton, author of Save OW L nd, Save our
Tamu, at Jordan SPlings this Wednesday evening,
I want to make it clm flW Mr..Hylton does 'not endorse specific prco ects.
Mr. HADA is R Pulitzer Pd= winning, journalist and a three 6me winner of the
Americo Planning Association's annul joumAistn award, He is an advocate fbr
pla'Ming cdmffnuo ties to preserve farm land, opon space and quaYity of life. My
wilea.gue John, Good attended one of M&, Hylton's presentations recently and was
v+try impressed-
1
am 10o dug forward to =eting Mr, Hylton, and I hope, you can be there to
pardcipata- We will also have Jim Baish, designer of13reww, at the wofthop to
discuss the practical experience of creating a planned mrm=ity in this regicm.
._E
The workshops will be held at Jordan Sptinp on Wednesday,
7:00 PM. We Nvill serer li,galt refthments. Participants will
csomplirnentary oom of Mr. 14vltt3n'c lv nt, ru— r --_ ., e,
July r4' at
receive a
0
PRESS RELEASE
Hold for publication until March 15
For more information contact:
Bill Hardigg (703) 609-3776 or (703) 426-4670
Economic Study on Stephenson Village Concludes Project
Will More than Pay for Itself
March 14, 2003
Stephenson, VA --The residential planned community proposed for Stephenson will
generate over $20 million in new revenues for Frederick County over the next 23 years,
according to an economic study conducted by Robert Charles Lesser & Company, LLC.
The $20 million is the net revenue after County operating expenditures for services are
subtracted from expected revenues from Stephenson Village.
"I promised the people of this County that I would move forward on this project only
when I am sure that it won't cost the County taxpayers a dime," said Don Shockey, CEO
of the Shockey Companies and the subsidiary, Stephenson Associates, created to plan the
project. "I am now satisfied that we will be a benefit to the County, and the economic
projections have a comfortable margin."
The study also included projections from a market study by Robert Charles Lesser &
Company. The market analysis projects that it will take 21 years to complete the
residential planned community in Stephenson. Base prices for homes will range from
$95,000 to $400,000. The market analysis also projects the final mixture of single-family
detached homes, town houses, condominiums, "active adult" and other age -restricted
housing, as well as a likely timetable for the supermarket, offices and local shops in the
town center.
"The results of the detailed fiscal impact model show that Stephenson Village will have a
highly positive fiscal impact on Frederick County," said Leonard Bogorad, the lead
economist for the study. "In other words, Stephenson Village will generate enough in
taxes and other revenues that it will pay its own way, including paying to educate the
children living there, and still help to pay for other County needs."
- MORE -
Page 2
Stephenson Village Press Release
March 14, 2003
Net fiscal impact on the County is expected to be positive in every year, growing to more
than $2 million annually by build -out in 2024, for a cumulative total of over $20 million
at current tax rates. If County taxes rise 15 cents per every $100 of valuation, the
cumulative benefit to County taxpayers would total over $40 million.
"It's important to realize that this $2 million revenue stream will be self-sustaining after
the community is built," said Bogorad "These are not proffer fees. These are property
taxes and other taxes paid by the residents."
"However, the analysis does not include capital costs for schools and infrastructure or
proffer payments to the County, which are governed by the Frederick County Rezoning
Impact Model," cautioned Bogorad "This was the approach preferred by the two
consultants selected by Frederick County to review our analysis, and is customary when
there is a capital impact model in place."
Shockey has proposed to cover 100% of the capital cost impacts through proffer fees,
with periodic adjustments using the Consumer Price Index. Shockey has also proposed
extra proffer fees if impacts on the County school population are higher than projected.
"This is the first time anyone in the County has proffered 100% of these impacts, and the
first time anyone has put an inflation adjustment on proffer fees," said Evan Wyatt of
Greenway Engineering, land planner for the project. 'But this is the first residential
planned community in Frederick County. I expect a lot of firsts."
Shockey has announced two community meetings for the Stonewall District to answer
questions about the economic study and other aspects of the project on March 25 and
March 27, at 6:30 pm at Jordan Springs. "We said in our meetings before Christmas we'd
report back as soon as the economic study was complete, and now we're going to do
that," said Shockey.
The study was conducted by Leonard Bogorad, Managing Director and Marc McCauley,
Senior Consultant at Robert Charles Lesser & Company. The company's fiscal impact
analysis clients include Loudoun County and the City of Charlottesville.
### END #1##
J. DONALD SHOCKEY, JR.
P.O. BOX 2530
WIN CHESTER, VIRGINIA
22604
March 14, 2003
Mr. Eric R. Lawrence
Planning Commission, Secretary
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Dear Eric:
I'm happy to report that our economic study of Stephenson Village is complete. Here is
the copy that has been submitted to the County's independent reviewers for their final review.
Our economist Leonard Bogorad feels comfortable that they will concur with its main finding:
Stephenson Village will more than pay for the cost of County services it uses.
With the County facing the prospect of a tax increase, I thought that you should know
that Stephenson Village, and projects like it, may ease the tax burden in future years. Revenue
flows to the County look positive in every year of the study, and they are projected to total over
$20 million net benefit to the County treasury at build -out, based on today's tax rates. With the
pending 15- to 18-cent tax increase, this net benefit increases to over $40 million.
Initially, our concept was that this study would include all costs to the County. However,
at the request of the County's independent reviewers, our economist has removed capital costs
for County facilities, because they are normally covered by proffers. We intend to cover 100% of
the capital costs in our proffers.
I promised not to move forward on this rezoning unless I was absolutely sure that it
wouldn't cost the County a dime. I am now satisfied. We are now finalizing the proffers and you
should see them soon.
We plan to hold two meetings in the Stonewall District the last week of March to go over
this report and the proffers with our neighbors, as described in the attached invitation. I hope you
can make it. In the meantime, if you have any questions about this report, please give me a call at
my office (540-665-3214) or my cell phone (540-323-3214). I look forward to hearing from you.
Sinc I
J. Donald Shockey, JL_. ••--a.
MAR �. 7 2003
•
•
March 14, 2002
[Firstname Lastname
Address 1
Address 2
City, State ZIP]
Dear Neighbor:
J. DONALD SHOCKEY, JR.
P.O. BOX 2530
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
22604
During our community meetings in December, I promised we'd report back to everyone
when the economic study of Stephenson Village was complete. It's taken a little longer than I
expected, but I am happy to report that our economic study and our package of proffers is now
ready to present..
I'd like to invite you to Jordan Springs again to discuss the economic report and the
proffers for Stephenson Village. We'll hold two meetings in case people have schedule conflicts,
one on Tuesday evening, March 25, and one on Thursday evening, March 27. We will be serving
dessert and coffee, beginning at 6:30 p.m. The meeting will get underway about 7:00 p.m. with a
short presentation followed by a question and answer session. The address is 1160 Jordan
Springs Road. Hopefully there will be no snow this time.
I've said many times that I would move forward on this project only when I am
convinced that it won't cost the County taxpayers a dime. I am now satisfied that we can say
that, with a large margin of comfort.
We will have copies of our proffer package and economic report at the meeting. If you
want an advance copy, or you can't attend the meeting, please call us at (540) 323-3320 and well
make sure you get one. In the meantime, if you have any questions at all, please call us. I look
forward to seeing you at Jordan Springs.
Sincerely,
Don Shockey
•
J. DONALD SHOCKEY, JR.
P.O. BOX 2530
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
22604
June 17, 2003
Mr. Eric Lawrence
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Dear Eric:
Over the past month we have been making a presentation on Stephenson Village to the
majority of the civic clubs in our area. We will be continuing to do more in the coming
weeks. These presentations have been received very well, as people are most interested
in learning about a new concept for our county, "A Planned Community".
I'm enclosing a videotape of one of our recent presentations. They each have the same
format of course, the questions vary at the end. The video is approximately 30 minutes
long. I hope you will take time to review it.
Thanks a lot.
Sinc y,
94�
Don Shockey
Enclosure
r\
to
l.J� 4ct6-L-e-
J. DONALD SHOCKEY, JR.
P.O. BOX 2530
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
22604
June 17, 2003
Mr. Rick Ours
461 Westmoreland Drive
Stephens City, VA 22655
Dear Rick:
Over the past month we have been making a presentation on Stephenson Village to the
majority of the civic clubs in our area We will be continuing to do more in the coming
weeks. These presentations have been received very well, as people are most interested
in learning about a new concept for our county, "A Planned Community".
I'm enclosing a videotape of one of our recent presentations. They each have the same
format of course, the questions vary at the end The video is approximately 30 minutes
long. I hope you will take time to review it.
Thanks a lot.
Sinc el
Don Shockey
Cc: Eric R. Lawrence
Enclosure
J. DONALD SHOCKEY, JR.
P.O. BOX 2530
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
22604
June 17, 2003
Mr. Charles Triplett
140 Lone Willow Lane
Gore VA 22637
Dear Charlie:
Over the past month we have been making a presentation on Stephenson Village to the
majority of the civic clubs in our area We will be continuing to do more in the coming
weeks. These presentations have been received very well, as people are most interested
in learning about a new concept for our county, "A Planned Community".
I'm enclosing a videotape of one of our recent presentations. They each have the same
format of course, the questions vary at the end The video is approximately 30 minutes
long. I hope you will take time to review it.
Thanks a lot.
Sint,
L)IA
Don Shockey
Cc: Eric R Lawrence
Enclosure
0
- to4j� 1-11
-1 " �' - 0 4122
s�%
J. DONALD SHOCKEY, JR.
P.O. BOX 2530
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
22604
June 17, 2003
Mr. George Kriz
547 Apple Pie Ridge Road
Winchester, VA 22603
Dear George:
Over the past month we have been making a presentation on Stephenson Village to the
majority of the civic clubs in our area. We will be continuing to do more in the coming
weeks. These presentations have been received very well, as people are most interested
in learning about a new concept for our county, "A Planned Community".
I'm enclosing a videotape of one of our recent presentations. They each have the same
format of course, the questions vary at the end. The video is approximately 30 minutes
long. I hope you will take time to review it.
Thanks a lot.
Since ,
Don hockey
Cc: Eric R. Lawrence
Enclosure
-- •
J. DONALD SHOCKEY, JR.
P.O. BOX 2530
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
22604
June 17, 2003
Mr. John Light
2973 Woodside Road
Clearbrook, VA 22624
Dear John:
Over the past month we have been making a presentation on Stephenson Village to the
majority of the civic clubs in our area. We will be continuing to do more in the coming
weeks. These presentations have been received very well, as people are most interested
in learning about a new concept for our county, "A Planned Community".
I'm enclosing a videotape of one of our recent presentations. They each have the same
format of course, the questions vary at the end. The video is approximately 30 minutes
long. I hope you will take time to review it.
Thanks a lot.
Enclosure
_•
J. DONALD SHOCKEY, JR.
P.O. BOX 2530
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
22604
June 17, 2003
Mr. Robert Morris
110 Mulberry Circle
Stephens City, VA 22655
Dear Bob:
Over the past month we have been making a presentation on Stephenson Village to the
majority of the civic clubs in our area. We will be continuing to do more in the coming
weeks. These presentations have been received very well, as people are most interested
in learning about a new concept for our county, "A Planned Community".
I'm enclosing a videotape of one of our recent presentations. They each have the same
format of course, the questions vary at the end The video is approximately 30 minutes
long. I hope you will take time to review it.
Thanks a lot.
Sinc ly,
Don Shockey
Cc: Eric R Lawrence
Enclosure
J. DONALD SHOCKEY, JR.
P.O. BOX 2530
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
22604
June 17, 2003
Mr. Gene Fisher
246 Bush Drive
Winchester, VA 22602
Dear Gene:
Over the past month we have been making a presentation on Stephenson Village to the
majority of the civic clubs in our area. We will be continuing to do more in the coming
weeks. These presentations have been received very well, as people are most interested
in learning about a new concept for our county, "A Planned Community".
I'm enclosing a videotape of one of our recent presentations. They each have the same
format of course, the questions vary at the end The video is approximately 30 minutes
long. I hope you will take time to review it.
Thanks a lot.
S' er ly,
D hockey
Cc: Eric R- Lawrence
Enclosure
•
•
J. DONALD SHOCKEY, JR.
P.O. BOX 2530
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
22604
June 17, 2003
Mr. Greg L. Unger
668 Germany Road
Stephens City, VA 22655
Dear Greg:
Over the past month we have been making a presentation on Stephenson Village to the
majority of the civic clubs in our area We will be continuing to do more in the coming
weeks. These presentations have been received very well, as people are most interested
in learning about a new concept for our county, "A Planned Community".
I'm enclosing a videotape of one of our recent presentations. They each have the same
format of course, the questions vary at the end The video is approximately 30 minutes
long. I hope you will take time to review it.
Thanks a lot.
Sinc ly,
D hockey
Cc: Eric R. Lawrence
Enclosure
•
•
J. DONALD SHOCKEY, JR.
P.O. BOX 2530
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
22604
June 17, 2003
Mr. Cordell Watt
310 Muse Road
Gore VA 22637
Dear Cordell:
Over the past month we have been making a presentation on Stephenson Village to the
majority of the civic clubs in our area. We will be continuing to do more in the coming
weeks. These presentations have been received very well, as people are most interested
in learning about anew concept for our county, "A Planned Community".
I'm enclosing a videotape of one of our recent presentations. They each have the same
format of course, the questions vary at the end The video is approximately 30 minutes
long. I hope you will take time to review it.
Thanks a lot.
Cc: Eric R Lawrence
Enclosure
• _ •
J. DONALD SHOCKEY, JR.
P.O. BOX 2530
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
22604
June 17, 2003
Mr. William C. Rosenberry
207 Crestwood Lane
Winchester, VA 22602
Dear Bill:
Over the past month we have been making a presentation on Stephenson Village to the
majority of the civic clubs in our area_ We will be continuing to do more in the coming
weeks. These presentations have been received very well, as people are most interested
in learning about a new concept for our county, "A Planned Community".
I'm enclosing a videotape of one of our recent presentations. They each have the same
format of course, the questions vary at the end The video is approximately 30 minutes
long. I hope you will take time to review it.
Thanks a lot.
Enclosure
J. DONALD SHOCKEY, JR.
P.O. BOX 2530
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
22604
June 17, 2003
Mr. Roger Thomas
127 Halifax Avenue
Stephens City, VA 22655
Dear Roger:
Over the past month we have been making a presentation on Stephenson Village to the
majority of the civic clubs in our area. We will be continuing to do more in the coming
weeks. These presentations have been received very well, as people are most interested
in learning about a new concept for our county, "A Planned Community".
I'm enclosing a videotape of one of our recent presentations. They each have the same
format of course, the questions vary at the end The video is approximately 30 minutes
long. I hope you will take time to review it.
Thanks a lot.
DS' ly,
hockey
Cc: Eric R Lawrence
Enclosure
r�
0
J. DONALD SHOCKEY, JR.
P.O. BOX 2530
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
22604
June 17, 2003
Mr. Charles DeHaven, Jr.
2075 Martinsburg Pike
Winchester, VA 22603
Dear Chuck:
Over the past month we have been making a presentation on Stephenson Village to the
majority of the civic clubs in our area We will be continuing to do more in the coming
weeks. These presentations have been received very well, as people are most interested
in learning about a new concept for our county, "A Planned Community".
I'm enclosing a videotape of one of our recent presentations. They each have the same
format of course, the questions vary at the end The video is approximately 30 minutes
long. I hope you will take time to review it.
Thanks a lot.
Peckey
Cc: Eric R. Lawrence
Enclosure
-0 -0
J. DONALD SHOCKEY, JR.
P.O. BOX 2530
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
22604
June 17, 2003
Mrs. Pat Gochenour
134 Country Club Circle
Winchester, Virginia 22602
Dear Mrs. Gochenour
Over the past month we have been making a presentation on Stephenson Village to the
majority of the civic clubs in our area. We will be continuing to do more in the coming
weeks. These presentations have been received very well, as people are most interested
in learning about a new concept for our county, "A Planned Community".
I'm enclosing a videotape of one of our recent presentations. They each have the same
format of course, the questions vary at the end. The video is approximately 30 minutes
long. I hope you will take time to review it.
Thanks a lot.
STIS(hoVekey
ly,
D
Cc: Eric R. Lawrence
Enclosure
J. DONALD SHOCKEY, JR.
P.O. BOX 2530
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
22604
June 17, 2003
Mrs. Marie F. Straub
133 Morning Glory Drive
Winchester, Virginia 22602
Dear Mrs. Straub:
Over the past month we have been making a presentation on Stephenson Village to the
majority of the civic clubs in our area. We will be continuing to do more in the coming
weeks. These presentations have been received very well, as people are most interested
in learning about anew concept for our county, "A Planned Community".
I'm enclosing a videotape of one of our recent presentations. They each have the same
format of course, the questions vary at the end The video is approximately 30 minutes
long. I hope you will take time to review it.
Thanks a lot.
S' erely,
vn4
Don Shockey
Cc: Eric R Lawrence
Enclosure
g � •
� RREENWAY ENGINEERING
151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, Virginia 22602
t
Founded in 1971
June 12, 2003
Frederick County Planning Department
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Attn: Chris Mohn, Deputy Planning Director
Dear Mr. Mohn:
The purpose of this letter is to request continuation of the Stephenson Village rezoning
application that has been scheduled for the July 2, 2003 Planning Commission meeting.
Please reschedule this public hearing for consideration at the July 16, 2003 Planning
Commission meeting. Thank you for your assistance regarding this matter.
Sincerely, n
(U01
.
Evan Wyatt, AICP F.
Greenway Engineering
Cc: Don Shockey �e 2003
Thomas Lawson
Engineers Surveyors
Telephone 540-662-4185 FAX 540-722-9528
www.greenwayeng.com
-0 —6 OJUL�a)
i
`•...:y
--' � I.',] Windy 1li!1 Lane
3 Winchester. Virginia 22602
Pounded in 1971
May 23, 2003
Frederick County Board of Supervisors
Frederick County Planning Commissioners
County Administration Building
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Re: Response to Stephenson Village Residential Planned Community Inquiries
Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission:
Please find attached information that has been prepared by the Stephenson Village project
team in response to several inquires made by Mr. Bill Rosenberry. Recently, Mr.
Rosenberry participated in a tour of the Braemar community to learn more about
residential planned community land use and design techniques. Following our tour, Mr.
Rosenberry provided Greenway Engineering with several questions pertaining to
planning and financial assumptions for the Stephenson Village project. Mr. Rosenberry
has asked many good questions, which the project team has provided responses for. The
project team felt that the questions and responses should be provided to all members of
the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission and staff for informational purposes.
Please review this information and do not hesitate to contact me or other members of the
Stephenson Village project team if you have any questions. Thank you for your
continued interest in the Stephenson Village residential planned community project.
Sincerely,
Evan A. Wvatt. AIC`P
Cc: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator
Larry Ambrogi, County Attorney
vfric Lawrence, Planning Director
Stephenson Village Project Team
Engineers Surveyors
Iclephonc 540-662-4185 PAX 540-722-9528
Project 112760C/EAW wvw.greenw,iyeng.com
0 •
Evan, here are the questions I thought were appropriate to have answered,
per our discussion. Thanks again for taking the time (you and Bill) to give
me a tour last Thursday. Please send your replies as soon as you can.
Thanks. s/Bill Rosenberry
PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS:
1) County Growth Rates
How marketable will the development be if the County growth rates
were reduced from 3 % per year to 1 % per year?
The answer to this question would depend on why the growth rate was reduced. If it were
reduced through some sort of legislative action (as in Loudoun County), then Stephenson
Village would be more marketable, because demand would outstrip supply. If the growth
rate fell due to slack demand, then Stephenson Village sales would probably slump as
well. However, these cycles are normal in the housing industry, and have been accounted
for in the marketing analysis. Stephenson Village offers a number of amenities that give
it a favorable position in the Frederick County market, particularly the age- "active adult"
(over 55) market.
2) Transportation Requirements
Is the marketability of the development dependent on Rt. 37 East
and enabling commuting to the East?
Our traffic study —which does not include Route 37—shows that there will be good
service levels on local roads throughout the construction of Stephenson Village. We can
handle the traffic from Stephenson Village very well without Route 37. VDOT approved
our study, finding that the improvements we are committed to make "adequately address
transportation concerns on Route 11 and Route 761, Old Charles Town Road." As
currently proposed, Route 37 would cut Stephenson Village in half, without reducing the
need for these road improvements.
3) KEY ISSUE - What is the build out rate of the development? How many
houses per what year?
The proffers place an 8% per year limit on building permits for non -age -restricted units.
(Age restricted units are so economically advantageous to the County that we do not want
to restrict the pace of their construction.) This limit, along with start-up and slow -down
years, means that Stephenson Village could not be completed in less than 15 years. We
use 8% rather than a fixed number of units because the amount of "active adult" housing
is expected to be significantly higher than the minimum proffered 675, which would
create a build -out rate faster than 15 years. We use units rather than building permits,
because condominiums require only a single permit for 24 units.
The economic study by Robert Charles Lesser & Company, LLC forecasts that build -out
will be complete by the year 2025.
File t/2760C/EAW
•
Publicly, we state that Stephenson Village will be completed in 15 to 25 years, an
average of 100 to 200 units a year. This range represents the 8% limit in the proffers, the
mid -range estimate in the economic study, and the slow case from the marketing study.
4) In what year does the supermarket and commercial properties become
active? You already answered this one - as soon as a supermarket chain
sees development as being commercially feasible.
The forecast for the 60,000 square foot grocery anchor is 2013. This forecast is based on
the statistical demand model used by supermarket chains, which uses the number of
households in the Stephenson area, the average annual expenditures on groceries, and the
percent capture based on distance to the nearest anchor grocery. (That being said,
supermarket chains do sometimes locate earlier to gain a positional advantage.)
At that time the grocery anchor will support about 30,000 square feet of additional retail
space. The forecast also projects that Stephenson Village can support about 50,000 square
feet of office space by that year. Due to growth in Stephenson Village and the
surrounding area, an additional 40,000 square feet of retail and 10,000 square feet of
office can be supported by 2019. For conservatism, the remaining 50,000 square feet of
retail space has been assumed at build -out in 2025.
5) Have we projected what will be required to attract supermarket and
other commerce? Will incentives be required? What's the track record?
No incentives will be required. Supermarket chains make their location decisions based
on an economic model, which the economic study used. The remainder of the
commercial space will be small retail (deli, day care center, etc.) and office (dentist,
insurance, realty, etc.) The proffer statement also provides the opportunity for 10 years
of rent-free shell space in the commercial center for County satellite office facilities that
are identified as a need in the adopted Frederick County Capital Improvements Plan.
6) SchoollSchool Age children Assumption
a) State Revenues in support of children: projected on a per unit
or per child basis?
State revenues were projected on a per child basis.
b) 2000 Census Data:
Households with children
School Age children demographics
Annual Changes in Age Demographics
Why were these not used?
These figures were used. In the study, student generation rates for Frederick County were
based on the actual number of students and the actual number of housing units in
Frederick County. As stated in the study, "The actual number of students was- allocated
File 112760C/EAW
0 •
among housing types by beginning with the rates for each housing type used by Loudoun
County and adjusting them to be consistent with 2000 Census data for Frederick County.
These calculations result in student generation rates of 0.5442 per single-family detached
unit, 0.2908 per townhome and 0.1564 per condominium unit. The active adult and
seniors apartment units will not generate any school children."
When these rates are multiplied by the number of occupied housing units in Frederick
County according to the 2000 Census, they predict a population of 11,043 public school
students, compared to the actual number of 10,676 students in September 2000. The
factors used by Frederick County predict a population of 13,531 public school students in
2000, 27% higher than the actual number.
The study also compared the two rates (the County rate and the rate derived from the
2000 Census) to actual Frederick County permits issued between 1996 to 2001.The
County rate predicted an increase of 2,291 students, compared to an actual increase of
only 1,048, or over two times what actually occurred. The rate derived from the 2000
Census predicted an increase of 1,930 students, or 84% higher than what actually
occurred. The two rates are in all likelihood conservative.
The rate derived from the 2000 Census was used in the economic study, which examines
operating costs versus revenues. The County's rate was used, as required, in the Frederick
County Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model, which examines capital costs. The
proffered monetary contribution for the residential land uses in Stephenson Village is
calculated from the Frederick County Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model.
7) Emergency Services requirements of age -restricted communities
Considered? What assumptions made?
To account for the additional expected demand from the "active adult" community, we
have proffered a 50% premium over 100% of the capital impacts predicted by the Capital
Facilities Fiscal Impact Model, or an additional $200 per unit. To account for the
additional expected demand from affordable housing for the elderly (senior apartments),
we have proffered a 100% premium, or an additional $400 per unit.
We had extensive meetings with the Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department to
review project design issues and to determine if land for a new fire station within
Stephenson Village would be advantageous. It was determined that monetary
contributions instead of land for a fire and rescue station were desirable.
In addition to proffer fees to the County, we have proffered $200,000 to Clear Brook
Volunteer Fire and Rescue, Inc.
File f2760C/EAW
0
•
8) Traffic Counts and effect on NoX gases in the county'.s air quality
Projected?
The Impact Analysis Statement for Stephenson Village projects traffic counts that are
consistent with the Institute of Traffic Engineers Manual, 61h Edition for the proposed
residential and commercial land uses in Stephenson Village. Projections for the effect of
NOX gases in the County's air quality is not part of the Impact Analysis Statement as the
County does not consider this in the development application approval process.
However, VDOT estimates on NOX emissions by vehicles in Frederick County could
project the following numbers: Trucks on I-81 contribute over 50% of the NOX
emissions in the County. (In terms of total emissions, a single tractor -trailer pollutes as
much as 150 cars,. according to the Clean Air Trust.) Taking simple measures such as
prohibiting trucks from idling for hours at truck stops would reduce total County NOX
emissions by 20%. Assuming these measures are taken, assuming truck traffic increases
projected by VDOT over the next 20 years, and using new diesel engine standards
required in 2004, it is reasonable to project that NOX emissions from Stephenson Village
at build -out to be about 1 % of total County NOX emissions. (conservative)
9) Water Consumption and the effects of quantity and quality on existing
and future supplies?
Projected?
Stephenson Village will use public water and sewer. The Northern Water Treatment Plant
has more than enough capacity to supply the 683,000 gallons per day projected for
Stephenson Village at build -out. This water supply comes from artesian springs at the
Global Chemstone quarry, which has been dumped at the rate of 2 million gallons per day
into the Opequon since the 1950s to keep the quarry dry; therefore, no impacts on
existing or future supplies are anticipated. (Capturing artesian spring water at the surface
cannot affect local wells or groundwater.) Furthermore, public water can be provided by
the City of Winchester to supplement FCSA supplies if necessary.
The proffers require us to dedicate land to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority,
build a pump station, and build a force main and associated infrastructure. None of the
utility infrastructure associated with the project will cost the County taxpayers money.
Easements will be provided for existing neighborhoods to connect to these facilities.
Since septic systems are marginal in the area due to low permeability soil, there should be
a positive effect on groundwater in those areas of Stephenson that connect to the sewer.
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.
Low impact development methods will be used as appropriate for stormwater
management. These will include measures to direct runoff from steep slopes and use
File #2760C/EAW
existing ponds where beneficial to the environment. Additional ponds, infiltration areas
and bio-retention facilities will be developed to limit runoff to Hiatt Run.
FINANCIAL ASSUMPTIONS:
1) KEY ISSUE - Expenditures
Why aren't they itemized in the report?
What are they?
All expenditures were derived from the categories in the County budget on a straight-line
basis. The report. estimates the portion of each type of non -educational operating
expenditures that is attributable to residential and non-residential uses, and calculates the
average per resident and per employee. Most expenditures were allocated on a per
resident and per employee basis, based upon the Frederick County distribution
(population 76.0% and employment 24.0%), with the exceptions of health and welfare
and parks and recreation, which were skewed towards residents. Community college was
allocated entirely to residential. The resulting non -educational operating cost is $329 per
employee and $465 per resident. Educational operating expenditures were derived from
the County budget.
2) Projections on school age children expenditures and revenues:
What are the annual projections?
Expenditures were estimated at $7,762 per student (with 3% inflation) by straight-line
method from the County budget. Average student population at build -out will be 805
students according to the 2000 Census model.
3) What references were used to project the revenues gained from
commerce sources?
The assessed values of the retail and office are consistent with the identified strength of
the market (they are 80% of the values per square foot approved by Loudoun County for
fiscal impact analyses, based on input from County assessors, which we judge to be a
reasonable differential for the locational difference).
Sales taxes will be generated by retail at Stephenson Village as well as by residents who
make purchases elsewhere in the county, with adjustment to avoid double counting (90%
of neighborhood center expenditures by Stephenson Village residents are assumed to be
made at the town center once the full center is open). Retail sales tax was calculated
based on estimated sales per square foot of $400 in 2002, based on sales typical of and
required by the types of retailers likely to locate in the town center. Sales tax per
household was based on household income brackets. Robert Charles Lesser & Company,
LLC used the taxable expenditures within each income bracket in the Bureau of Labor
File 82760C/EAW
• •
Statistics consumer expenditure survey high -income tables multiplied by the sales tax
rate to determine sales tax revenues generated by each household. These expenditure
figures were applied to household income for each property type to calculate sales tax
revenues generated by residents. Based upon the Bureau of Labor Statistics data, it was
estimated that 35% of retail spending by residents will be in neighborhood shopping
centers. It was estimated that 35% of retail expenditures by Stephenson Village residents
will be within the county, based upon the relative sales tax revenues in the county versus
the city of Winchester and the location of Stephenson Village.
The County receives 0.58% of business receipts from professional services; based upon
estimates used in nearby counties, 19% of gross receipts in the office space
(conservatively estimated to be $75,000 per employee) are estimated to be from
professional services. The County also receives 0.16% of business receipts of contractors.
The average construction cost per unit is 41 % of the improved value of the property
(excluding land). The County also receives 0.20% of revenues from retailer gross
receipts, with sales estimated as described above. Total BPOL revenues with the rezoning
are $2.6 million, for the period from 2003 through 2025.
4) Assumption was made that 25% of construction materials would be
bought in the county:
What is this assumption based on?
Materials delivered to a jobsite are taxable in the locality of the jobsite. The 25% is a
conservative assumption, based on experience in other counties.
5) Why is CPI and 3% used as the basis for projected inflation vs.
localized inflation rates?
There is no significant difference between the national inflation rate and the localized
inflation rate reflected in the cost of County services. County spending increases over the
past 10 years have been remarkably close to the inflation rate times the rate of increase in
population, indicating that use of a 3% consumer price increase in expenditures per
person and per student is eminently reasonable.
Why are adjustments for inflation taken in 7 year increments?
Proffer fees are paid each time a building permit is issued. However, the County will not
need to build facilities immediately, and it may not need to spend the money for many
years after the fees are collected. The monetary contributions received by the County are
placed in interest bearing escrow accounts until utilized for capital facilities projects. In
the meantime, the interest on the unspent fees will more than cover inflation. Seven years
was chosen for the adjustment because it strikes a fair balance.
Stephenson Village is the first development proposal in Frederick County to proffer
monetary contribution adjustments for inflation, which should be viewed as a very
positive step in ensuring that the project will pay its fair share of capital facilities costs.
File #2760C/FAW
W
0-
Memorandwn
To: John R. Riley, Jr.
County Administrator
From: Sid Reyes S
Supervisor
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Sidney A. Reyes
Supervisor - Gainesboro District
Subject: Stephenson Village Impact Analysis Reconciliation Me
April 25, 2003, Frederick County Conference Room
I P.M. to 5:30 P.M.
Date: April 29, 2003
Home 540/888-4619
Fax 540/888-4648
E-mail:
sreyesq nk.com
n l V -9 3C
p� `Irlminis,rr;�"'° �iltCE/
� "tit -- -•1'�
Please distribute to all board members and Mr. Patrick Barker copies of the
enclosed meeting agenda, list of attendees and action items subsequent to the
meeting.
Also enclosed is a copy of Mr. Len Bogorad's presentation display (Robert
Charles Lesser & Co.)
It was a very informative meeting. The input provided by all participants
may have a significant bearing on my decision when it comes before the
board.
Many thanks again for your assistance in setting up the meeting for me and
allowing staff to participate. Your continued cooperation is appreciate
O
should a follow up meeting is requested. ___. RMS..w.. SAR _. MBO ..—BAf
DATE: q �. Qq -��
ORIGIN . FILE..
Sv1 i Gr i1t'�
�.Y ic,
350 Redland Road • Cross Junction, Virginia 22625 '? AY ��►� ,cr,� I� r
(copy
Stephenson Village Impact Analysis
Reconciliation Meeting
4/25/03
Meeting Objectives
To identify, and develop responses to, the key questions and issues stemming from the economic analyses
done -to -date on the Stephenson Depot proposal.
To develop agreements on how the results of the meeting (conclusions and future actions) will be
communicated to the Board of Supervisors and the public in general.
Meeting Scope
1. Economic Analyses done on the Stephenson Depot Proposal as now defined. The versions of the
analyses include:
a. Cost and Capital analyses
b. The various BOS-chartered aWyses (i.e. RLC's, Springsted's, RFC's)
2 Components of Impact Analysis to be considered include:
a. Data references and assumptions
b. Methodology used (avg.cost approach vs. case-study/marginal approach)
c. Models used
d. Scope (what factors were included, what were not included)
e. Economic and Non -economic impacts efforts underway to upgrade Frederick County's
f. Relevance of these studies to the parallel
Impact Analysis capabilities (MPO, Air and Water Task Forces, Impact Modeling Task
Force)
Meeting Agenda & Questions
1. Introductions
2. Review and Agreement on Meeting Objectives and Scope
Study Scope questions/issues
a. Why were traffic, environmental, and social impacts considered in the planning of the
development but not monetized in the economic analysis?
b. Why aren't projected capital costs and debt service included in the capital modeling and
cost modeling respectively?
c. Why aren't operating costs attributable to SV for various entities (schools, libraries,
county staffs, etc.) included?
4. Study Methodology questions/issues
a. Why was an average cost approach used vs. a case study/marginal approach?
b. Why wasn't sensitivity analysis done on key model variables?
c. Why are the economic models themselves not being shared?
5. Study Data References and Assumptions questions/issues
a. Different school -age children projections have been used in cost and capital modeling as
well as proffer language. what is the data/assumption basis for these different
projections? What is their degree of accuracy? How sensitive is the results to these
differences?
b. Gov't. Expenditure Projections; why was a nationally -based 3% inflation rate used vs. a
localized rate?
c. How was it determined what the build -out rate should be?
d. How was it determined when the shopping center revenues would begin to impact the
financial outcomes? What is the accuracy and probability of that assumption based on?
e What is the certainty that no school age children will be present in the age -restricted
housing based on?
f. What is the ratio of newcomers to current FC residents assumed/calculated for the SV
buyer mix?
6. Study Communications
a. why aren't the year -over -year cash flows from the project being communicated?
b. Why aren't known sensitivities being communicated?
C. Why isn't the scope of the study, especially those variables that have been consciously
removed, being communicated?
7. Relevance of this Study to Other County modeling Upgrades
a. Overview of activity taking place in MPO, Air and Water Task Forces, Impact Modeling
Task Force
b. Discussion of the relationship and leveraging opportunities between the various
activities/studies
8. Meeting Actions
Action Items Resulting from the Meeting
Open issue
Action to Be TIWho
1. Questions Conemning the Capital Modeling Results from the County Staff' s Model:
"Costs of Required Capital Facilities' ; does this
County Staff to Sid/Gina to
answers thiollow up iNith
a. The subtotal from column
represent the projected capital costs to the County solely from the Stephenson
meeting's pa s(County Staff
s
Village proposal? (Y/N)
b. Tile subtotal from column "Total Potential Tax Credits": ghat is the source(s)
and references for this projection? What time period does it cover?
c. How is debt service accounted for in this model?
Shaclsey Company Shockey Co.
2. Sensitivity Analysis
a. The County decision -makers need to have an assessment of the potential
e
reps. Win
�s�a�nal� analysis p��P��
risks associated with the economic projections. These risks cannot be
"single number" answer (Le. avg. result) that has
and bring their position
quantified by using the
been provided by the current economic analyses.
back to the meeting's
Stan the tential
b. The proposal agreed to in the meeting to minimally quantify Po
participants
risk was:
i. Consider 3 risk -related elements: number of school children (max.
risk at 1200), commerce tax revenue potential, and age -restricted
units (could be increased)
ii Answer the question: would the projected economics go negative
when each of the elements is separately revised to the higher risk
projection?
Notes:
1. Shockev Co. participants expressed concern for creating greater confusion in the
general public by publicizing this next level of economic modeling
that a requirement for sensitivity analysis is included in the
?. Mike McMillan noted
scope of the new proposed Impact Model design now being developed by the
Countv.
W. Bogorad is Mr. Bogorad
3. Inflation Rates
a Mr. Bogorad used an nationally -based inflation rate of 3% as the inflation
this
and will
factor used in the current economic model
that the operating
bring his position back
b. Mr. Lehman and Mr. McMillan painted out
last 5 ear trend), 6% if
year
expenses are increasing at a 9% rate (minimum Y
to the meeting's
participants
adjusted for county growth.
was: shouldn't the economic model use this county
The hypothesis posed
operating expal;e inflation rate when projecting the future inflation of c. f
muntV services?
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
Exhibit 1
NET FISCAL BENEFIT
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
23 Years (2003 - 2025)
i
$38,131,240
New Tax Rate
$21,576,929
Old Tax Rate
$80,000,000
$40,000,000
$0
SOURCE: Robert Charles Lesser & Co., LLC
Frederick County VA Model -RR 12 cents increase .xls 0 92 9x0
Printed: 4/24/2003
Page 1 of 1
ROBERT CHARLES LESSER & CO., LLC
STEPHENSON'VILLAGE
Exhibit 2
SUMMARY OF FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
PROPOSEDREZONINGTAX RATE
PHENSON VILLAGE
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
23 Years (2003 - 2025)
23-YEAR TOTAL
CATEGORY
REVENUES Taxes
Real Property
Personal Property Taxes
Sales Taxes
BPOL Taxes
Miscellaneous Revenues
Educational Revenues
TOTAL
EXPENDITURES
TOTAL
NET FISCAL IMPACT
$100, 703,000
$48,193,000
$11,264,000
$2,608,000
$25,948,000
$ 64, 741,000
522 3-5 457 000000
$215,326,000
$38,131,000
40%
19%
4%
1%
10%
26%
100%
100 %
Frederick County VA Model RR 12 cents increase xfs-S 04 92 9x00
Printed: 4/24/2003
•
Page 1 of 1
ROBERT CHARLES LESSER & CO., LLC
VILLAGE
$45,000,000
$40,000,000
$35,000,000
$30,000,000
$25,000,OOC
$20,000,00(
$15,000,00,
$10,000,00
$5,000,OC
Exhibit 3
SUMMARY OF FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
PROPOSED REZONING WITH NEW TAX RATE
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
CUMULATIVE NET FISCAL BENEFIT
ro ro O O �N ON N N N N N
O N NC4 N N C4 N N
Mode! -RR 12 cents increase.xls-cumu graph -Ex 3
Frederick County VA
04-9269.00
Printed: 4/24/2003
•
Page 1 of 1
ROBERT CHARLES LESSER & CO., LLC
Crvv-pn N.g0N VILLAGE
Exhibit 4
SUMMARY OF FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
PROPOSED REZONING WITH NEW TAX RATE
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
ANNUAL NET FISCAL IMPACT
NET FISCAL
CUMULATIVE
FEAR
REVENUES
EXPENDITURES
IMPACT (NFI) NFl
�.se..�u1snr�5;sr. �niuo s ar
4 . A��
.. MrxbauseelunP^
arrua�vee
$178,611
$178,611
2003
$178,611
$0
$0
$194,130
$372,742
2004
$194,130
$534,792
$ 231,425
$604,167
2005
$780,873
$1,426,963
$ 326,313
$ 930,480
2006
$1,861,105
$2,426,963
$366,61
1176,551
$1,543,167
2007
$2,673,034
$3,464,654
$448,02
$1,991,194
2008
$3,831,270
$4,527,485
448,027
$629,938
$
2009
$4,975,512
$5,672,483
$969,581
$2,621,132
2010
$6,302,421
$6,980,470
$978,947
$3,590,713
2011
$7,950,051
$8,048,592
$
$4,569,660
2012
$9,027,539
$9,246,504
$1,962,248
$8,082,065
2013
$10,796,661
$10,324,698
$1,169,366
10,251,431
2014
$12,286,946
$11,482,337
$2,181,608
$
2015
$13,651,704
$12,420,531
$2,19 ,056
$14
2016
$14,602,140
$13,147,752
$2,224,983
$ 630,096
2017
$15,344,809
$13,767,932
$2,224,983
$16,855,079
2018
$15,992,915
$14,467,514
$2,568,350
$19,423,429
2019
$17,035,864
$15,009,178
$2,738,868
$2,2, 16297
2020
$17,748,046
$15,459,453
$2,790,415
$2712
2021
$18,249,B68
$15,923,237
$2,668,861
$27,821,574
2022
$18,792,098
$16,400,934
$3,5
076
$34,315,433
2023
$19,354,436
$20,521,239
$16,980,882
0,357
$3,815,8 7
$38,131,24
$38,13124a
2024
$21,306,115
$17,4901308
$3,815,807
?025
Frederick County VA Model -RR 12 cents increase.xls-Ann S 04- 69A0
Printed: 4/24/2003
•
Ll
Page 1 of 1
ROBERT CHARLES LESSER & CO., LLC
C•rwvuF.Ng0N VILLAGE
Exhibit 5
PUPIL GENERATION RATES BASED ON HOUSING TYPES AND ACTUAL ENROLLMENT
RCLCO RATES BASED ON U.S. CENSUS DATA
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
AREA
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Single -Family Detached
Single -Family Attached
Multifamily
Mobile Home
Predicted Pupils
Actual Pupils 3/
Predicted as % of Actual
112000 US Census
2/ Frederick County
3/ Frederick County Public Schools
FREDERICK CO. ESTIMATE
OCCUPIED
RCLCO ESTIMATE
PREDICTED
PUPILS PER
PREDICTED fi
UNITS
PUPILS PER
UNIT
PUPILS
UNIT 2/
h7hVAilp.AfNYGWt��NYM3fti Nd5
PUPIL S
'mhtlN9+MYF fYultil 6Wd4AK9B L G
200011
uus�.
verynnra�a'ilme ,�isriswe+nam�+
f°C4WaSM.S`v'I lIIDW71NF16Cb'7i 1i31k.7lFiP�N3fYG
avuumaes�,Kv�'
9,110
0.7000
11,719
16,741
0.5442
0.5400
1,011
1,872
0 290 8
544
0.2300
301
1,309
0.1564
205
0.2300
500
2,175
0.5442
1 ,184
13,531
11,043
10,676
10,676
127°/°
103%
SOURCE: US Census; Frederick County; Frederick County Public Schools; RCLCo
Pupil Generation Frederidc.xlslPupil Generation90
Printed:4124/2003
Page 1 of 1
ROBERT CHARLES LESSER & CO.
,gTFPHENSON VILLAGE
Exhibit 6
GENERATION EXHIBIT 5)
EVALUATION O
BASED ON FREDER CK COUNTY BUILDING RM PERMITS
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
FREDERICK CO. FACTORS
RCLCO FACTORS
PREDICTED
PUPILS PER
PREDICTED If
PERMITTED PUPILS
PER
PUPIL INCREASE
AREA
PUPIL
UNITS PER UNIT 2/ 1996-2002
1996-20011/ UNIT INCREASE
ry�pnll�YtlCdt ' �aaatk ttr�:'dttyuesv�tatirennvaVtrea�xxwt'm4�Nnu�ear �nwvr ±e
HOMETYPE
N,6� w °
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
1,399
0.7000
1,799
Single -Family Detached 3/
2,570 0.5442
0.5400
245
Single -Family Attached 3/
454 0.290E 132
0,2300
109
Multifamily
474 0.1564 74
325
0.2300
138
Mobile Home
598 0.5442
1,930
2,291
Predicted Pupil Increase
1,048
1,048
Actual Pupil Increase 2/
219%
184%
Predicted as % of Actual
1/ Frederick County •
2/ Frederick County Public Schools
3/ Assumes 85% of permitted single-family units are detached.
SOURCE: US Census; Frederick County; Frederick County Public Schools; RCLCo
Pupil Generation Frederick.xlslPupil Generation (92 o69.00
Printed:412412003
Page 1 of 1
ROBERT CHARLES LESSER & CO.
PY
0- C 10)
J. DONAL,D SHOCKEY, JR.
P.O. BOX 2530
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
22604
Aprfl 14, 2003
Mr. Sidney Reyes
Supervisor, Gainesboro District
County of Frederick
350 Redland Road
Cross Junction, Virginia 22625
Dear Sid,
Thank you for taking the time to meet with us this morning. I think this meeting
you suggested with Mr. Lehman and Mr. McMillan is a clear honest approach We're
ready. I think we may fmd more agreement than disagreement on main issue-- the County
needs development that pays its way.
I will be out-of-town until the 23a, but there's no need to wait for me. They need
to meet with Len Bogorad, the economist who authored the study, and someone from our
proffer team Just give Br71 Hardigg a call at 703-609-3776 and he'll set it up.
Sincer ,
J. Do Sffocey,Jr.
Lzv
Le cL%
Z, e, Qr7
7 LD
0 !-
J. DONALD SHOCKEY, JR.
P.O. sax 2530
April28, 200-1 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
22604
Mr. Sidney A. Reyes
Supeavisor, Gaintsboro District
County of Frederick
350 Redland Road
Cross Junction, Virginia 22625
Feat Sid,
Thank you for arranging the tneeting with 'Mr_ Lehman and Mr. McMillan. I think
it was a helpful exchange of views, and you are a very good moderator.
I have asked Leonard Bogorad to run his model again with tho worst rase
numbers for school children and commercial, to make sure that revenues to the County
are positive. He should have the numbers for you early this week I've also asked Evan
Wyatt to look at the County's capital impact model again. I'll let you know of the results
as soon as we have tbam.
If you need any thing, please call me at my office (540-665-3214) or my Cell
phone (540-323-3214)_ Thanks again for your consideration.
Sincerely,
J. Donald Shockey, Jr.
tid Wd2S:ZO E00Z GZ .jd8 'ON XHd 968b9b BBB XHd 3DN30ISMI S3A,M] : WONJ
.' •
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Sidney A. Reyes
Supervisor - Gainesboro District
Home 540/888-4619
McmOrarldwn Fax 540/888-4648
E-mail:
sreyes @ nk.com
John R. Riley, Jr. h-���11
County Administrator
N
From: Sid Reyes ��- S
1i
Supervisor `o `dmiis�;,��L Ia
n
Subject: Stephenson Village Impact Analysis Reconciliation Meetin �'91C
April 25, 2003, Frederick County Conference Room
1 P.M. to 5:30 P.M.
Date: April 29, 2003
Please distribute to all board members and Mr. Patrick Barker copies of the
enclosed meeting agenda, list of attendees and action items subsequent to the
meeting.
Also enclosed is a copy of Mr. Len Bogorad's presentation display (Robert
Charles Lesser & Co.)
It was a very informative meeting. The input provided by all participants
may have a significant bearing on my decision when it comes before the
board.
Many thanks again for your assistance in setting up the meeting for me and
allowing staff to participate. Your continued cooperation is appreciated
should a follow up meeting is requested. — RGS WHS-0
._. RMS _.... SAR MBO .,..@AF
DATE: ti II Qq,�(CL
ORIGINAL FILE-.-
1''r i __�' 1 'i
�_"r ic, �•t�luri�t�C'U
350 Redland Road 9 Cross Junction, Virginia 22625 ' j w,
r•
(C(0PVV
Stephenson Village Impact Analysis
Reconciliation Meeting
4/25/03
Meeting Objectives
To identify, and develop responses to, the key questions and issues stemming from the economic analyses
done -to --date on the Stephenson Depot proposal.
To develop agreements on how the results of the meeting (conclusions and future actions) will be
communicated to the Board of Supervisors and the public in general.
Meeting Scope
1. Economic Analyses done on the Stephenson Depot Proposal as now defined The versions of the
analyses include:
a. Cost and Capital analyses
b. The various BOS chartered anal-y�ses (i.e. RLC's, Springsted's, RFC's)
2 Components of Impact Analysis to be considered include:
a. Data references and assumptions
b. Methodology used (avg.cost approach vs. case-study/marginal approach)
c. Models used
d. Scope (what factors were included, what were not included)
e. Economic and Non -economic impacts Frederick County's
f. Relevance of these studies to the parallel efforts underway to upgrade
Impact Analysis capabilities (MPO, Air and Water Task Forces, Impact Modeling Task
Force)
Meeting Agenda & Questions
1. Introductions
2. Review and Agreement on Meeting Objectives and Scope
Study Scope questions sues
a. Why were traffic, environmental, and social impacts considered in the planning of the
development but not monetized in the economic analysis?
b. Why aren't projected capital costs and debt service included in the capital modeling and
cost modeling respectively?
c. Why aren't operating costs attributable to SV for various entities (schools, libraries,
county staffs, etc.) included?
4. Study Methodology questionslissues
a. Why was an average cost approach used vs. a case study/marginal approach?
b. Why wasn't sensitivity analysis done on key model variables?
C. Why are the economic models themselves not being shared?
Study Data References and Assumptions questionsfissues
a. Different school -age children projections have been used in cost and capital modeling as
well as proffer language. What is the data/assumption basis for these different
projections? What is their degree of accuracy? How sensitive is the results to these
differences?
b. Gov't. Expenditure Projections; why was a nationally -based 3% inflation rate used vs. a
locafted rate?
c. How was it determined what the build -out rate should be?
d. How was it determined when the shopping center revenues would begin to impact the
financial outcomes? What is the accuracy and probability of Oil assumption based on?
e. What is the certainty that no school age children will be present in the age -restricted
housing based on?
f. What is the ratio of newcomers to current FC residents assumed/calculated for the SV
buyer mix?
Study Communications
a. Why aren't the year -over -year cash flows from the project being communicated?
b. Why aren't known sensitivities being communicated?
C. Why isn't the scope of the study, especially those variables that have been consciously
removed, being communicated?
Relevance of this Study to Other County modeling Upgrades
a. Overview of activity taking place in MPO, Air and Water Task Forces, Impact Modeling
Task Force
b. Discussion of the relationship and leveraging opportunities between the various
activities/studies
8. Meeting Actions
0— C(OPT - 0
Action Items Resulting from the Meeting
Open issue
Action to Be Taken
Who
1. Questions Concerning the Capital Modeling Results from. the County Staff' s Model:
a. The subtotal from column "Costs of Required Capital Facilities"; does this
County Staff to provide Sid/Gina to
answers to this follow up v6th
represent the projected capital costs to the County solely from the Stephenson
meeting's participants County Staff
Village proposal? (Y/N)
b. The subtotal from column "Total Potential Tax Credits": What is the source(s)
and references for this projection? What time period does it Cover?
c. How is debt service accounted for in this model?
Shockey Company Shockey Co.
2. Sensitivity Analysis
The County decision -makers need to have an assessment of the potential
reps. Will consider meeting
a.
risks associated with the economic projections. These risks cannot be
running this analysis participants
quantified by using the "single number" answer (Le. avg. result) that has
and bring their position
back to the meeting's
been provided by the current economic analyses.
b. The proposal agreed to in the meeting to minimally quantify the potential
participants
risk was:
i. Consider 3 risk -related elements: number of school children (max.
risk at 1200), commerce tax revenue potential, and age -restricted
units (could be increased)
ii. Answer the question: would the projected economics go negative
when each of the elements is separately revised to the higher risk
projection?
Notes:
1. Shockey Co. participants expressed concern for creating greater confusion in the
general public by publicizing this next level of economic modeling
McMillan noted that a requirement for sensitivity analysis is included in the
2. Mike
scope of the new proposed Impact Model design now being developed by the
Coup
Mr. Bogorad is Mr. Bogorad
3. Inflation Rates
a. Mr. Bogorad used an nationally -based inflation rate of 3% as the inflation
this
hy�� esis and will
factor used in the current economic model
Lehman and Mr. McMillan pointed out that the county's operating
brig his position back
b. W.
expenses are increasing at a 9% rate (minimum last 5 year trend), b% if
to cis meeting's
adjusted for county growth.
the economic model use this counfy
c. The hypothesis posed was: shouldn't
inflation rate when projecting the future imfiation of
operating cqx=
county services?
c.,T,,u�,vcnN VILLAGE
---
Exhibit 1
NET FISCAL BENEFIT
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
23 Years (2003 - 2025)
New Tax Rate
Old Tax Rat(
)0,000
$0
SOURCE: Robert Charles Lesser & Co., LLC
Frederick County VA ModePRR 12 cents increase.xls-cr 9pZ Ex 1
9-00
Printed: 4/24/2003
0
11
Page 1 of 1
ROBERT CHARLES LESSER & CO., LLC
c+—rrTTrl.TQ"N VILLAGE
a 11',ilii:.ri." -- .
CATEGORY
REVENUES
Real Property Taxes
Personal Property Taxes
Sales Taxes
BPOL Taxes
Miscellaneous Revenues
Educational Revenues
TOTAL
EXPENDITURES
TOTAL
NET FISCAL IMPACT
Exhibit 2
SUMMARY OF FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
PROPOSED REZONING WITH NEW TAX RATE
TEPHENSON VILLAGE
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
23 Years (2003 - 2025)
$100, 703,000
$48,193,000
$11,264,000
$2,608,000
$25,948,000
$647--41 `0
_00
$25_3,457,000
$215,326,000
$38,131,000
23-YEAR TOTAL
40%
19%
1%
10%
26%
10001.
100%
Frederick County VA Model -RR 12 cents increase.xls-5u04 92 Ex 2
9-00
Printed: 4/24/2003
Page 1 of 1
ROBERT CHARLES LESSER & CO., LLC
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
$45,000,000
$40,000,000
$35,000,000
$30,000,000
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,OOC
$10,000,00(
$5,000,00(
$1
Exhibit 3
SUMMARY OF FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
PROPOSED REZONING WITH NEW TAX RATE
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
CUMULATIVE NET FISCAL BENEFIT
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O � N N N CV
Frederick County VA Model -RR 12 cents increase.xls-cumu graph -Ex 3
04-9269.00
Printed: 4/24/2003
•
9
Page 1 of 1
ROBERT CHARLES LESSER & CO., LLC
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
Exhibit 4
SUMMARY OF FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
PROPOSED REZONING WITH NEW TAX RATE
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
ANNUAL NET FISCAL IMPACT
NET FISCAL
CUMULATIVE j
YEAR
REVENUES �.
EXPENDITURES
a
IMPACT (NFI)
use �
NFI
$0
$178,611
$178,611
2003
$178,611
$0
$194,130
$372,742
2004
$194,130
$780,873
$549,448
$231,425
$604,167
2005
2006
$1,861,105
$1,534,792
$326,313
$930,480
$ 176,551
2007
$2,673,034
$2,426,963
$246,071
$366,616
$1,543,167
2006
$3,831,270
$3,464,654
$4,527,485
$448,027
$1,991,194
2009
$4,975,512
$6,302,421
$5,672,483
$969,581
$3,59 ,713
2010
2011
$7,950,051
$6,980,470
$978,94
$4,569,66
$6,119,817
2012
$9,027,539
$8,048,592
$978,947
$1,550,157
$6
2013
$10,796,661
$9,246,504
$10,324,698
$1,962,248
$ , 082,065
2014
$12,286,946
$13,651,704
$11,482,337
$2,169,366
$10,251,431
2015
2016
$14,602,140
$12,420,531
$2,181,608
$12,433,040
$14,630,096
2017
$15,344,809
$13,147,752
$2,197,056
$2,224,983
$19,423,429
2018
$15,992,915
$13,767,932
$14,467,514
$2,568,350
$22,162,297
2019
$17,035,864
$17,748,046
$15,009,178
$2,738,868
$,,
2020
2021
$18,249,868
$15,459,453
$2,790,415
12
$24,952,712
$27,821,574
2022
$18,792,098
$15,923,237
$2,868,861
$2,953,502
$30,775,076
2023
$19,354,436
$16,400,934
$16,980 862
$3,540,357
$34 315,433
2024
$20,521,239
115
$17,490 308
$3 815 607
$38,131 240
2025
$21,306
Frederick County VA Model -RR 12 cents increase.xls-Ann Su0m4-92 9x 4
.00
Printed: 4/24/2003
f�
9
Page 1 of 1
ROBERT CHARLES LESSER & CO., LLC
CmF.puF.NSON VILLAGE
Exhibit 5
PUPIL GENERATIONRCLCo RATESON HOUSING ACTUAL ENROLLMENT
BASED ONU.S. CENSUS DATA
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
AREA
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Single -Family Detached
Single -Family Attached
Multifamily
Mobile Home
Predicted Pupils
Actual Pupils 3/
Predicted as % of Actual
1 / 2000 US Census
2/ Frederick County
3/ Frederick County Public Schools
FREDERICK CO. ESTIMATE
OCCUPIED
RCLCO ESTIMATE
PREDICTED
PUPILS PER
PREDICTED
UNITS
PUPILS PER
PUPILS
UNIT 2/
PUPILS
�+
2000 1/
UNIT
gmar, wrasurm+".���
-pru+n�strtrr aa- �uznu,se�iv�sma�'��+
r�s .
Sle. Itp
0.5442
9,110
0.7000
11,719
16,741
544
0.5400
1,011
1,872
0.2908
0.2300
301
1,309
0.1564
205
0.2300
500
2,175
0.5442
1,184
3,531
1
11,043
0,676
1
10,676
127%
103 %
SOURCE: US Census; Frederick County; Frederick County Public Schools; RCLCo
Pupil Generation Frederick.xlsftilil Generation
04-9269.00
Printed:4/24/2003
L-1
Page 1 of 1
ROBERT CHARLES LESSER & CO.
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
Exhibit 6
EVALUATION OF RCLCo AND COUNTY PUPIL GENERATION RATES (FROM EXHIBIT 5)
BASED ON FREDERICK COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
RCLCO FACTORS
FREDERICK CO. FACTORS y
PERMITTED PUPILS PREDICTED
PUPILS PER
PREDICTED f
PUPIL INCREASE
AREA
UNITS PER PUPIL
1996-2001 1/ UNIT INCREASE
PER
UNIT 2/
n xao-nee
1,
1996-2002
HOME TYPE
M r✓uLWiIC1iGdYri1G!fb1L Y1d �rrmtsa ��
.
SR'L'Rlk'd@P&hYIIi%141C:LL1YH
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
1,399
0.7000
1,799
Single -Family Detached 3/
2,570 0.5442
0.5400
245
Single -Family Attached 3/
454 0.2908 132
0.2300
109
Multifamily
474 0.1564 74
0.2300
138
Mobile Home
598 0.5442 325
2,291
1,930
Predicted Pupil Increase
1,048
1,048
Actual Pupil Increase 2/
219%
184 %
Predicted as % of Actual
1/ Frederick County
2/ Frederick County Public Schools
3/ Assumes 85% of permitted single-family units are detached.
SOURCE: US Census; Frederick County; Frederick County Public Schools; RCLCo
Pupil Generation Frederick.xlslPupii Generation (Permid
04-9269.00
Printed:4/24/2003
ROBERT CHARLES LESSER & CO. Page 1 of 1
V
J. DONALD SHOCKEY, JR.
P.O. BOX 2530
WINCHESTER, VIRGIN IA
22604
April 14, 2003
Mr. Sidney Reyes
Supervisor, Gainesboro District
County of Frederick
350 Redland Road
Cross Junction, Virginia 22625
Dear Sid,
Thank you for taldng the time to meet with us this morning. I think this meeting
you suggested with Mr. Lehman and Mr. McMillan is a clear honest approach We're
ready. I think we may find more agreement than disagreement on main issue-- the County
needs development that pays its way.
I will be out-of-toaTn until the 23'', but there's no need to wait for me. They need
to meet with Len Bogorad, the economist who authored the study, and someone from our
proffer team. Just give Bill Hardigg a call at 703-609-3776 and he'll set it up.
Sincer ,
J. Do S oc ey, Jr.
SDg
_._...- 7f�-i- _ 5 d
13
. ..... fa
-- 0 •
J. DONALD SHOCKIEY, M
P.O. BOX 2530
April 28, 2003 WINCHESTEF VIRGINIA
22604
Mr_ Sidney A- Reyes
Supervisor, Gaintsboro District
County of Frederick
350 Redland Road
Cross Junction, Virginia 2262.5
Dear Sid,
Thank you for arranging the meeting with Mr. Lehman and Mr. McMillan. I think
it was ahelpfuk exchange of views, and you are a very good moderator.
I have as .ed Leonard Bogorad to run bis model again with the worst case
numbers for school children and commercial, to make sure that revenues to the County
are positive. He should have the numbers for you early this week. I've also asked Evan
Wyatt to look at the County's capital impact model again. I'll let you Imow of the results
as soon as we have thorn.
If you need any thing, please can me at my office (540-665-3214) or my cell
phone (540-323-3214)_ Thanks again for your consideration.
Sinccrely,
J. Donald Shoekey, Jr.
(--a 1 a>4 : LJnA A
F:1 L-7.;.
J. DONALD SHOCKEY, JR.
P.O. BOX 2530
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
22604
April 14, 2003
Mr. Eric R. Lawrence
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Dear Eric:
FYI, here is a mailing we have sent to about 300 nearby neighbors and property owners.
It brings together the questions and answers from five neighborhood meetings. The most
frequent question we hear is about sewer connections. We are also getting questions on the
project hotline and responding to them individually.
If you know of someone who wants a copy, just have them call our hotline (540-323-
3320) and leave their name and address.
I will be out of town until the 23rd, but one of our project team will be glad to track down
any information you might need Feel free to call Evan Wyatt (office: 540-662-4185; cell: 540-974-
2701), Mark Smith (office: 540-662-4185; cell: 540-974-0335), John Good (office: 540-665-3212;
cell: 540-533-8222), our lawyer Ty Lawson (office: 540-665-0050; cell: 540-247-2650), or our public
relations counsel Bill Hardigg (office: 703-426-4670; cell 703-609-3776) in the meantime. If they
don't know the answer, they'll put you in touch with someone who does.
Thanks again for your consideration.
Sincer ,
J. Donald Shockey, Jr.
003
FREQUENTLY
ASKED
UESTIONS
ABOUT STEPHENSON VILLAGE
lva��ic-Pa��
ax
JckwIs-Da�e
GJ��e cal 5 era e r -- p
l!%
• 9
April 2003
Dear Neighbor,
When we first introduced Stephenson Village to the community last fall, I
promised that we would move forward with the rezoning only when I was
satisfied that Stephenson Village would be good for the neighborhood and good
for the County.
We have received a lot of good comments in our neighborhood meetings, and
we have received a good economic report, which has been checked and double-
checked by outside experts. This is a long-term plan, which will take 15 to 25
years to build, and we want to be sure of our numbers.
This booklet should answer many of the frequently asked questions about
Stephenson Village. If your question isn't included here, or you'd like an answer in
person, you can always call our project hotline at 540-323-3320 and leave a name,
address and phone number where you can be reached.
Before we go on to the questions and answers, I want to answer the question we
have heard most frequently from our neighbors:
"Can I connect to the sewer lines in Stephenson Village?"
Yes. Stephenson Village will bring sewer infrastructure to the area, and we will
provide easements so that existing neighborhoods can connect to these lines.
I'd also like to answer another very important question:
"I like what I'm hearing, but how do I know it will come true?"
The answer is: We make our promises in legally enforceable documents, and we
back up our facts with expert sources. There is no hidden agenda here. We will be
glad to provide you with'any of the documents or information referred to in the
answers below, or answer any questions you have.
Sincerelv.
Questions about Traffic
Nobody likes to sit in rush-hour traffic. For the sake of our neighbors, and future
residents of Stephenson Village, we will keep service on local roadsgood.
Will Stephenson Village create a need for Route 37?
Absolutely not Our traffic study —which does not include Route
37—shows that there will be good service levels on local roads
throughout the construction of Stephenson Village. We can handle the
traffic from Stephenson Village very well without Route 37. Route 37
would cut our community in half. We can't keep the state from
condemning our land, but we hope the state can find a better way.
Will Stephenson Village have entrances on Jordan Springs Road?
Absolutely not The only entrances to Stephenson Village will be in
the west, where our major collector road feeds into Route 11 (via Old
Charles Town Road in the north and at the Rutherford Industrial Park
intersection in the south).
What about the entrance to the school?
This is an entrance to the school only. The driveway at the proposed
school on Old Charles Town Road will not connect through into
Stephenson Village.
Will traffic from Stephenson Village use Jordan Springs Road and
Woods Mill Road as a shortcut to Route 7?
Traffic is a problem all over the area. People take this particular
shortcut to avoid the intersection of Route 11 and I-81. A few of the
commuters from Stephenson Village will certainly also use it, but not
enough to interfere with the free flow of traffic on Old Charles Town
Road. Our traffic study indicates that Old Charles Town Road will
remain at its current Level of Service "C" throughout the building of
Stephenson Village. Why? Traffic usually takes the path of least
resistance. Our road improvements —turn lanes and lights —will make
it easier to take Route 11 instead of the shortcut. There will be only
one entrance on Old Charles Town Road and no entrances on Jordan
Springs Road. All construction traffic will be required to use Route 11
instead of Jordan Springs Road. We have supported, and will continue
to support, community efforts to solve the problems on Jordan Springs
and Woods Mill Road through sight line improvements, speed
reductions and limits on d- ru trucks. We will also contribute our fair
share to the upgrading of the Route 11/I-81 intersection.
2
•
What is Level of Service C?
Traffic flows freely during rush hour. On a Level of Service "C" road,
rush hour traffic moves at the speed limit. At traffic lights, cars use
only about a third of each green light cycle. At stop signs, cars wait
only about 30 seconds.
How can our roads possibly handle this much traffic?
Two reasons: First, we have planned this community to be walk -able
and bike -able, with convenient shopping in the center, so several
thousand trips will never leave Stephenson Village. Second, we will
make road improvements. VDOT confirmed that the improvements
we are committed to make "adequately address transportation concerns
on Route 11 and Route 761, Old Charles Town Road."
Traffic studies can be wrong ... how do we know this one is right?
Our road improvements will be triggered by actual traffic counts, not
estimates in the traffic study. We will have counters permanently
installed at the two entrances to Stephenson Village. This will allow us
to anticipate when traffic is getting heavier, so we can make
improvements before problems occur. Our proffers require us to begin
work on road improvements when actual counts reach 80% of the level
at which they are needed, and we are required to finish the
improvements in 18 months.
What are these road improvements?
As Stephenson Village is built, we will install traffic signals at the
intersection of Old Charles Town Road and Route 11 and the entrance
of Stephenson Village onto Old Charles Town Road. Old Charles
Town Road will be widened to three lanes between the entrance to
Stephenson Village and Route 11, and the Stephenson Village
connector road will extend all the way to Route 11 at the Rutherford
Farm intersection. We will be adding turn lanes at all these key
intersections. These improvements will be made in several phases,
which are described in the proffers and the traffic study.
What are you doing about the mess down at the I-81 and Route 11
interchange?
We will contribute our fair share of money toward the planned
improvements at this interchange, using a formula VDOT has given us.
It is in our interest, and the interest of everyone in the area, to see that
the problems at this interchange are fixed.
3
•
Effect on the County Budget
Unplanned growth has raised taxes in many Virginia counties by adding more school
children than their taxes will support Stephenson Village is a planned community
with a balance of housing t pes to appeal to d�erent age groups, in a large
number of age -restricted units that will add no children to the county schools.
Stephenson Village will pay its own way.
Will this development cost the taxpayers money?
Stephenson Village will not cost the County taxpayer a dime. Last
November, we hired the firm of Robert Charles Lesser & Company,
LLC to answer this question, and their economic study found that
Stephenson Village "will pay its own way, including paying to educate
the children living there, and still help to pay for other County needs."
How much net revenue could Stephenson Village bring to the County?
At the new tax rate of 73 cents per $100, Stephenson Village will
generate about $38 million net positive revenue for the County
between groundbreaking and build -out, which should take about 23
years, according to the economic study. After it is built, Stephenson
Village should generate about $3.9 million every year in net positive
revenue for the County.
How do I know the Stephenson Village economic study is reliable?
The Frederick County Board of Supervisors has hired two independent
firms to check the results of Robert Charles Lesser & Company, LLC,
and they confirm the net positive benefits to the County found by the
study. One of these independent firms is Robinson, Farmer, Cox
Associates of Richmond, Virginia, the leading accounting firm for local
governments in Virginia, and Frederick County's auditing firm. The
second independent firm is Springsted Incorporated of St. Paul,
Minnesota, one of the largest independent financial advisory firms in
the United States, which works only for public sector clients.
According to VISION, the Stephenson Village economic study is a
"best case" scenario ... is this true?
Not true. The economic study is conservative. It does not include
indirect benefits like higher property values in the surrounding areas,
the hundreds of construction jobs it will create, or retail sales tax from
spending by construction workers and contractors, or increases in
heritage tourism.
4
•
Isn't the money the project would generate just a "drop in the bucket"
compared to the County's budget?
Not true. Stephenson Village will generate one to four million dollars
net revenue a year for the County. That is the equivalent of over 5
cents on the County's real estate tax rate of 73 cents per $100.
Somebody said that the County's inflation rate is really 9%, not the 3%
that the study claims ... is this true?
Not true. The inflation rate in Frederick County is roughly the same as
the inflation rate elsewhere in the United States, which has averaged
about 3% over the past 20 years.
Somebody said that Loudoun County supervisors think planned
communities like Stephenson Village are "the No.1 reason their growth
spiraled out of control" ... is this true?
Not true. In December, the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors
approved Moorefield Station, a planned community very similar to
Stephenson Village, by a vote of seven supervisors to two. Supervisor
Jim Burton, a strong critic of unplanned growth, was quoted in the
local newspaper saying, "We have structured something here that
works from a fiscal standpoint." (Moorefield Station is a community of
2,500 homes on about 600 acres, to be built over a 20-year period.)
What are proffer fees?
Proffer fees are money paid by a developer to offset the cost of
building new schools and other facilities (parks, fire stations, etc.) for a
new community. Stephenson Village will pay proffer fees to cover
100% of the County's facilities impacts, using the County's model. In
addition, Stephenson Village will adjust these fees by the Consumer
Price Index every seven years, and pay additional proffer fees if there
are more schoolchildren than expected from Stephenson Village. No
other rezoning in Frederick County history has ever paid 100% proffer
fees, an inflation adjustment, or extra fees if there are more
schoolchildren than expected.
Why are your proffer fees only adjusted for inflation every seven years?
Proffer fees are paid each time a building permit is issued. However,
the County will not need to build facilities immediately, and it may not
need to spend the money for many years after the fees are collected. In
the meantime, the interest on the unspent fees will more than cover
inflation. Seven years was chosen because it strikes a fair balance.
6
Questions about Schools
Unlike "by -right" development, Stephenson Village will pay the entire cost of building
schools to educate the children who live there.
How many students will Stephenson Village add to the County's public
schools?
Stephenson Village will add between 40 to 60 students a year to the
County schools from groundbreaking to build -out. If students are
added at a faster rate, additional proffer payments will be made to the
County. Over the 15 to 25 years it will take to build Stephenson
Village, this will total between 800 and 1,200 students. The economic
study by Robert Charles Lesser & Company, LLC estimates 805
students based on the U.S. Census and current trends. The County's
model estimates 1,155 students. Proffer fees to cover school
construction are based on the County's estimate of 1,155.
Why does the project only have one school site?
Stephenson Village is a logical location for an elementary school site,
because it is within walking distance of enough students to fill the
school (between 450 and 650 elementary students when Stephenson
Village is complete). There will not be enough students to fill a middle
school or a high school. However, the proffer fees to cover school
construction costs include money to pay the community's fair share of
a new middle or high school, wherever the County decides to build
them.
Will we need a new middle school and a new high school too?
Stephenson Village will not generate enough students to require a new
middle school or a new high school. When it is completely built,
Stephenson Village will generate between 150 to 250 middle school
students, and between 150 to 300 high school students. The County
may decide to build these schools at some time in the future, or it may
decide to add to existing schools, or student populations may decline
and no new schools may be needed. Stephenson Village will pay
proffer fees to cover its fair share of these school construction costs.
Was the cost of the debt to build new schools included in the
Stephenson Village economic forecasts?
Proffer fees are cash payments to cover school construction costs.
There is no "cost of debt" associated with cash payments.
6
Someone has claimed that the "age -restricted" housing will generate up
to 60 school -age children ... is this true?
Not true. Age -restricted housing will generate no school -age children.
Children under the age of 18 will be allowed to stay in these homes
only as guests, no more than 60 days in any one year.
Someone said you couldn't keep children out of a "seniors only"
community ... is this true?
Not true. The Virginia courts have upheld these restrictions in other
"active adult" and senior communities.
Questions about Planned Communities
Stephenson Village will be a planned community with a school, public bal�fields,
parks, 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.
Why do we need a planned community?
Stephenson Village fills four key needs: It will define an 822-acre tract
in the center of Stephenson in a way that increases the value of
surrounding neighborhoods and brings sewer infrastructure,
convenient shopping and recreation. It will give older adults housing
choices that don't exist elsewhere in the County, in a community
setting where they can be near friends and family. Stephenson Village
also brings the County significant new revenues for schools and other
services. For the region, Stephenson Village will soak up some of the
suburban sprawl and serve as a model for responsible development in
the northern Shenandoah.
Can I afford to live in Stephenson Village?
Stephenson Village is a planned community where several generations
can live together —young people just starting out in life, parents with
children, "empty nesters" and senior citizens. There will be
condominiums starting at $95,000 for first-time buyers, townhouses
starting at $145,000, and a variety of other home styles from $170,000
to $400,000. There will an "active adult" (over 55) community with
homes ranging from $170,000 to $250,000, as well as affordable
housing for the elderly.
N
Someone said that the planned community of Reston, Virginia has a
high crime rate ... is this true?
Not true. According to the Fairfax County Police, Reston has a lower
than average crime rate compared to Fairfax County as a whole, and
Fairfax County has one of the lowest crime rates in the state.
What is Smart Growth?
Smart Growth is a set of principles of sustainable community planning
developed and endorsed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and dozens of organizations, including national environmental groups,
community groups, local and state governments that make up the
Smart Growth Network. Stephenson Village meets all ten principles of
Smart Growth planning.
How fast is the County really growing?
According to the U.S. Census, the County's population has been
growing about 3% per year for the past decade. The school population
grew more slowly, about 2.3% per year. Over the past six years,
Frederick County has issued an average of 685 building permits a year.
How fast will Stephenson Village grow?
Stephenson Village will be completed in 15 to 25 years, an average of
100 to 200 units a year. These numbers come from the proffers and
the economic study. The proffers place an 8% per year limit on
building permits for Stephenson Village. This limit (along with start-up
and slow -down years) means that Stephenson Village could not be
completed in less than 15 years. The economic study by Robert Charles
Lesser & Company, LLC forecasts that "build -out" will be complete by
the year 2024.
How many people will live in Stephenson Village?
The economic study projects about 6,000 residents at build -out.
Can I use the parks in Stephenson Village?
Yes. There will be public ball fields, a public school, a linear park along
Hiatt Run, and public walking trails and bike trails throughout the
community.
How do we know the recreation center will be built?
The recreation center must be bonded before any building permits for
homes are issued. The proffers require that design and construction
begin when the 250th building permit is issued and completed before
the 800th building permit is issued.
Someone said incentives from the County will be necessary to get a
grocery store to locate in Stephenson Village ... is this true?
Not true. Grocery chains use an economic formula to decide when to
build a new supermarket. This formula is based on the number of
households in the area and the distance to the nearest competing
supermarket. Using this formula, the economic study forecasts a
grocery store will locate in Stephenson Village within ten years.
Questions about Environmental Protection
lle are working with the Center for Watershed Protection, the Potomac Conservancy,
the Potomac Watershed Partnership, the Virginia Department of Conservation
WlaterQuality Division, the Virginia Department of Forestry and others to enhance
Hiatt Run and make Stephenson Village a model for environmental controls.
How can you say 2,800 homes will control sprawl?
Clustering preserves open space. The 2,800 homes in Stephenson
Village will be built on about 825 acres of land, which includes 200 to
250 acres of open space. The same number of homes on 5-acre lots,
which can be built by right in Frederick County, would occupy 14,000
acres of rural land.
Do we have enough water to support this many homes?
Yes. Stephenson Village will use County water and sewer, not well and
septic. The Northern Water Treatment plant has more than enough
capacity to supply the 683,000 gallons per day needed by Stephenson
Village at build -out.
Will people outside Stephenson Village be able to connect to the sewer
lines?
Yes. The proffers require Stephenson Associates to dedicate land to
the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, build a pump station, and
build a force main and associated infrastructure. Easements will be
provided for existing neighborhoods to connect to these facilities.
9
• 0
None of the utility infrastructure associated with the project will cost
the County taxpayers money.
Won't the cars in Stephenson Village add tremendously to our air
pollution problems?
Cars are a minor source of pollution compared to the truck traffic on I-
81, which causes over two-thirds of the air pollution in Frederick
County. Unlike cars, trucks are not required to have pollution controls
on their exhaust. The Clean Air Trust estimates that a single tractor -
trailer pollutes as much as 150 cars. (Federal standards, beginning in
2004, will require engines on new trucks to be 50% cleaner.)
Questions about Historical Preservation
Will you rezone the battlefield?
Defrnrtelynot. None of the land identified by the National Park
Service as core battlefield is included in the rezoning request.
What will happen to the Byers House?
The Byers house will be preserved.
Are there Indian mounds on the property?
There are no known Indian mounds on the property. However, if any
are found, they will be treated as cemeteries and preserved in
accordance with County and State regulations.
Will you widen Milburn Road?
With the exception of a road crossing at the southern end of the
property, Milburn Road will remain exactly as it looks today.
Where can I get more information?
If you would like a copy of the economic study, the traffic study, or the proffers for
Stephenson Village ... or maybe just an answer to a question, please call 540-323-3320. We
`vill be glad to provide copies to everyone who is interested.
STEPHENSON ASSOCIATES
Box 2530
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604
a
0
��Uj d-nuc,
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS A PROFESSIONAL L7MI7ED LIABILITY COMPANY
M E M O
To: Mr. John R. Riley, Jr.
County Administrator
County of Frederick, Virginia
R A N D U M
From: Steven J. Jacobs, Director
Graham F. Payne, Senior Consultant
Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates
Date: April 3, 2003
Re: Evaluation of Fiscal Impact Analysis for Stephenson Village in Frederick County,
Virginia
Robinson Farmer Cox Associates (RFC) has completed its evaluation of Robert Charles
Lesser & Co's (RCLCo) "Fiscal Impact and Market Analysis for Stephenson Village" dated
March 11, 2003. The evaluation relied on preparing our own Fiscal Impact Study and
comparing the results to those detailed in the RCLCo Report.
The forecasts contained in this document are for planning purposes only and are not to be
regarded as accountants' opinions of the present or future financial position of the County
of Frederick. The forecasts are based upon past trends and expectations for near and mid
term operations and their validity depends upon the outcome of future events. Additionally,
modification of these estimates will become necessary as County growth and development
progresses, or in the event of material changes in market, project specific, or other eco-
nomic conditions. Periodic review and revision is recommended. The financial forecasts
in this report are intended for the purpose of providing some insights into the potential
intermediate term effects of proposed development in the County of Frederick, and should
not be used for any other purpose. This forecasted cash flow, as are all efforts to extrapo-
late, is clearly subject to change and modification. The variability or error in the forecast
should also be expected to increase with "distance" from the present time. There will
usually be differences between the forecasted and actual results because events and
circumstances frequently do not occur as expected and these differences may be material.
RICHMOND OFFICE SIEVEN J. JACOBS MANAGING DIRECTOR
401 SOUTf-ff_AKE BOULEVARD TELEPHONE.• (8041378-4200
SUITE C-1 FAX. 004) 378-5168
RICHMOPM VIRGINIA 23236
E-MAIL: jakeWcaxotn
INTMATT.• www.rfca.com
�ti
•
0
Memorandum to John Riley
Evaluation of Pascal Impact Analysis for Stephenson Village
Pap, e 2
The forecasts do not have to be formally adopted by the Board of Supervisors, but are
intended to assist the Board in its deliberations.
Our analysis (summary of the analysis is presented on attached Tables 1 through 3)
addressed all expected revenues, expenses, and capital costs associated with the devel-
opment of Stephenson Village. We relied on the RCLCo Report for certain base informa-
tion on the proposed market support for the planned development and the likely home/unit
prices. The base information included:
• 531 active adult homes (may only be occupied by households with one member age
55 and over, and no children would be allowed to reside in these units), 354 single-
family detached and 177 attached;
• 1,001 single family detached homes of various sizes and types;
• 638 townhomes;
• 479 condominium homes;
• 144 senior apartment units; and
• A town center with 190,000 square feet of retail (including a supermarket) and
60,000 square feet of office space.
Additional assumptions used in our analysis were based on:
• The RCLCo Report, "Fiscal Impact and market analysis for Stephenson Village"
dated March 11, 2003
• Frederick County Annual Budget 2002-2003;
• Frederick County Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports from Fiscal Year's 1998
to 2001. Fiscal Year 2002 data was collected from the draft copy of the Frederick
County Audit for 2002;
• 2000 Census Data for Frederick County; and
• Frederick County Development Review Fee Schedule and Frederick County Depart-
ment of Public Works and Inspections Fee Schedule (effective January 1, 2003)
RICHMOND OFFICE S7EVEN J. JACOBS MANAGING DIRECTOR
401 S0U7FIZ4KE BOULEVARD TELEPHONE.• (804) 378-4200
SUHF C-1 FAX (804) 378-5168
RICFIMOND, V RGINIA 23236
E-AL4ff_-jake@rfc,a.com 1W
EVMRIVET www. rfca. co in
• 0
Memorandum to John Riley
Evaluation of Fiscal Impact Analysis for Stephenson Village
Page 3
The results of our analysis indicate that the proposed development will generate revenues
of approximately $176.8 million and associated expenditures of approximately $156.4
million yielding a positive net fiscal impact of approximately $20.4 million for Frederick
County over the 23 year time period.
Assumptions and Methodology
In the interest of brevity, the following assumptions were adopted from the RCLCo report:
Build Out of Stephenson Village
• Types of residential homes and commercial businesses to be built
• Total number of residential units and commercial square footage;
• Values of the Residential and Commercial units to be built;
• Population per Household, by unit type;
• Students per Household , by unit type;
• Average size, in square feet, of each type of residential unit;
• Square Feet of Commercial space per employee; and
• County employment
Several different assumptions were used by RFC for:
• Pace of buildout;
• Frederick County Population was based on 2000 Census Data, adjusted for 2003;
• Student population, as measured by Average Daily Membership from the Frederick
County School Board;
• Number of Households, from 2000 Census data for Frederick County;
• Average Household size was an RFC computation. (population divided by the
households);
• Rate of annual growth of Real Estate Assessed Valuation; and
• Rate of annual growth in sales price of residential units
While most of the assumptions and base data were similar between the RCLCo report and
the RFC report, the methodology was fundamentally different in two distinct areas:
RFC looked at revenue and expense items at the local level. RFC addressed locally
generated revenue items that could be directly associated with the proposed devel-
opment. Expenditures were treated in the same fashion, RFC only considered
operating expenditures that were funded by locally sourced revenues, electing to
RICHMOND OFFICE STEVENJ. JACOBS, MA NA GING DMECTOR
401 SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARD TELEPHONE.• (804) 378-4200
SUPFE C-1 FAY- (804) 378-5168
RICLWOND, VIRGINIA 23236
E-MAIL• jake@rfca.com
INTERNKF.• www.rfcaxom
►l
•
Memorandum to John Riley
Evaluation of Fiscal Impact Analysis for Stephenson Village
Page 4
net out all State and Federal revenue from expenditures. RCLCo elected to include
Federal and State Educational revenue and expenditures.
RFC relied on the previous five years audits to develop trends for local revenues
and expenses. All relevant revenue and expenditure items from FY 1998 to 2002
were linearly regressed to provide an expected annual increase (decrease) for each
year from 2004 to 2025 with the FY 2003 Frederick County budget serving as "base
data". RCLCo elected to grow all revenues and expenditures at 3% annually for the
time period from 2004 through 2025. Like RFC, RCLCo used FY 2003 budget data
as their base data in determining the County's future revenues and expenditures.
Both analyses then adjusted all relevant expense and revenue items to a per capita/per
student/per household figure and then multiplied by the proposed development outputs to
achieve development specific revenues and expenditures. The following revenues were
project specific and required independent calculation:
• Real Property Taxes;
• Sales Taxes;
• BPOL taxes;
• Permits and Other fees; and
• Recovered Costs (Proffers were subtracted out)
The following revenue items were excluded from the analysis:
• Mobile Home Taxes;
• Real and Personal Public Service Corporation Taxes;
• Machinery and Tools Taxes;
• Auto Rental Tax; and
• Street Light Assessments
The following expenditure items were excluded from the analysis:
Debt Service in the General Fund and the School Debt Service Fund, these would
not be effected by the development; and
Capital expenditures necessitated by the development, the corresponding portion
of which should be offset by proffer revenue and thus neither were included in the
analysis.
RICHMOND OFFICE
401 SOUTLUAKE BOULEVARD
SUITE C-1
RICHMOND, VLRGINIA 23236
TELEPHONE (804) 378-4200
FAX (804) 378-5168
E—MAIL.• joke@rfca.com
INTERNET.• www. rfca. coin
STEVENJ. JACOBS MANAGINGDIRECTOR
9 i
Memorandum to John Riley
Evaluation of Fiscal Impact Analysis for Stephenson Village
Page 5
Findings
Revenues
RFC arrived at a Real Property Tax value of $76 million, over the 23 year period which
included the assessed value of land and residential and commercial units taxed at $0.61
per $100 of assessed value. RCLCo arrived at a slightly larger value of $84 million using
the same method outlined above, using a 3% growth rate for the assessed value of
property versus the 1 % used by RFC.
RFC computed Personal Property Tax revenue of on a per capita basis totaling approxi-
mately $64 million, over the 23 year period. RCLCo's Personal Property Tax revenue
estimate of $48 million was computed using factors such as household income.
RFC arrived at Sales Tax revenue of $12.5 million, over the 23 year period, which is
$900,000 greater than RCLCo's $11.3 million. The. difference in these values is the
approach taken. RFC projected out. the likely mix of retail establishments, including the
60,000 sq. ft. grocery store, and their corresponding sales per square feet using 2002 data
gathered from the Newspaper Association of America's, "Sales Per Square Foot of Stores
in U.S. Shopping Centers." Additionally RFC assumed all residents of the development
use the shopping center. RCLCo opted for a different approach that incorporated house-
hold income brackets, expected sales per household and sales per square feet. RCLCo
assumed 90% of residents used the shopping center.
RFC arrived at its Business Professional and Occupational License Tax Revenues of $2.4
million, over the 23 year period, $200,000 less than RCLCo's $2.6 million. While similar
methodologies were used in both analysis, the greater RCLCo value is generally attribut-
able to the use of a sales per square foot figure of $400, for retail establishments. The
RFC figure for sales per square foot varies within a range from $310 to $110.
RFC arrived at its Miscellaneous Revenue of $21 million by regressing each remaining
revenue line item, with the exceptions of those noted above, and summing the total. It
should be noted that when RFC regressed the Recovered Costs revenue proffers were not
included. RCLCo appears to have arrived at their Miscellaneous Revenue item in a similar
fashion.
RICHMOND OFFICE STEVEN J. JACOBS, MANAGING DIRECTOR
401 SOUTMAKE BOULEVARD TELEPHONE 004) 378-4200
SU= C 1 FAX. (804) 378-5168
RMITUOND, VIRGINIA 23236
E-MAIL: jake@rfca.com 1W
INTERATT.• www.rfca.coin
0 •
Memorandum to John Riley
Evaluation of Fiscal Impact Analysis for Stephenson Village
Poe 6
Expenditures
The single largest expenditure item in both analyses was Education. The largest driver of
difference between the two analyses is the growth of Education expenditures. Within the
RFC model education expenditures, without debt service, grow at approximately 5% per
annum (8% in the early years declining to 3% in the out years). The RCLCo report fore-
casts education expenditures with a growth rate of 3% per annum for the entire period.
RFC did not include any Capital Costs or proffers in this analysis. The proffer revenue is
designed to compensate for any additional required capital costs. Therefore excluding
both of these items yields no impact on the analysis.
Net Fiscal Impact
RFC arrived at a Net Fiscal Impact over the 23 year period of approximately $20.4 million
with a positive net fiscal impact each year. RCLCo arrived at a Net Fiscal Impact over the
23 year period of approximately $21.6 million with the largest gains occurring in years 2015
through 2025.
The two largest revenue items, Real Property Tax and Personal Property Tax, constitute
79% of the development's revenue item according to the RFC analysis. These revenue
items are very sensitive to the annual growth rates applied to them. Additionally the pace
of build out has a large effect on the revenues generated from the project. (Tables 1-3
attached) Simply put, the faster the buildout is completed the greater the revenues. We
have assumed that the pace of buildout used in the RCLCo report is the high end of the
buildout pace and represents a "Pace of Buildout" equal to 100%. The following table
illustrates the affect a slower pace of buildout has on the proposed development:
Pace of
Buildout
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Fiscal
Impact
Present
o
Value @ 5 /o
100%
$178,123,000
$156,436,000
$21,687,000
$11,411,000
80%
$165,768,000
$145,463,000
$20,305,000
t
$10,431,000
60%
$144,486,000
$128,365,000
$16,121,000
$7,521,000
RICHMOND OFFICE STEVEN J. JACOBS MANAGING D=C'rOR
401 SOUTIILAKEBOULEVARD TELEPHONE.- (804) 378-4200
SUITE C 1 TAX (804) 378-5168
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23236
E--MAIL-jake@rfca.com
INTERNEE• www.rfca.com iw
0. •
Memorandum to John Riley
Evaluation of Fiscal Impact Analysis for Stephenson Village
Page 7
RFC considers 5% to be a reasonable rate at which to discount future cash flows and as
such has used this in determining a Present Value of the Net Fiscal Impact. It is evident
that the pace of buildout not only influences the total cash flow over the 23 year period (Net
Fiscal Impact) but also affects the timing of the cash flows, by moving them later in the
forecast, thus reducing the Present Value of the proposed development.
It is clear, although somewhat counterintuitive, that this predominantly residential develop-
ment is expected to have a positive fiscal impact on the County, regardless of the pace of
development. However, we note that the composition of the development is a critical and
sensitive factor. Elimination of the 675 age restricted units, which contain no children, from
the development yields a negative fiscal impact: over the 23 year period the cost of
services is forecast to exceed revenues generated by $2.6 million. Additionally, if the
retail/commercial component was also eliminated, the negative impact is estimated to
exceed $8 million. It is recommended that the County carefully consider any proposed
alteration to the residential use mix of the development.
RICHNfOND OFFICE
401 SOUTIELAKE BOULEVARD TELEPHONE.• (804) 378-4200
S TUT C-1 FAX- (804) 378-5168
RICIRvIOAD VIRGINIA 23236
E—MAM jakeWca.com
INTF.RNET. urm.rfca.corn
STEVEN J. JACOBS MANAGING DIRECTOR
TABLE 1
Frederick County, Virginia
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Stephenson Village
Comparison RCLCo and RFC
RCLCo
Category
23 year total
$
%
Revenues
Real Property Taxes
$
84,149,000
35.5%
Personal Property Taxes
$
48,193,000
20.3%
Sales Taxes
$
11,264,000
4.8%
BPOL Taxes
$
2,608,000
1.1 %
Miscellaneous Revenues
$
25,948,000
11.0%
Educational Revenues
$
64,741,000
27.3%
$
236,903,000
100.0%
TOTAL
Expenditures
Operating Costs
$
215,326,000
100.0%
$
215,326,000
100.0%
TOTAL
Net Fiscal Impact
$
21,577,000
Pace Of Development At 100% Of Developer Estimates
RFC
Category
23 Vear total
$
%
Revenues
Real Property Taxes
$
76,077,000
43.0%
Personal Property Taxes
$
64,234,000
36.3%
Sales Taxes
$
12,527,000
7.1 %
BPOL Taxes
$
2,401,000
1.4%
Miscellaneous Revenues
$
21,578,000
12.2%
Educational Revenues
$
176,817,000
100.0%
TOTAL
Expenditures
Operating Costs
$
156,436,000
100.0%
$
156,436,000
100.0%
TOTAL
Net Fiscal Impact
$
20,381,000
Discounted Present Value At
5.00% $
10,572,000
•
9
TABLE 2
Frederick County, Virginia
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Stephenson Village
Comparison RCLCo and RFC
RCLCo
Category
23 year total
$
%
Revenues
Real Property Taxes
$
84,149,000
35.5%
Personal Property Taxes
$
48,193,000
20.3%
Sales Taxes
$
11,264,000
4.8%
BPOL Taxes
$
2,608,000
1.1 %
Miscellaneous Revenues
$
25,948,000
11.0%
Educational Revenues
$
64,741,000
27.3%
$
236,903,000
100.0%
TOTAL
Expenditures
Operating Costs
$
215,326,000
100.0%
$
215,326,000
100.0%
TOTAL
Net Fiscal Impact
$
21,577 000
Pace Of Development At 80% Of Developer Estimates
RFC
Category
23 year total
$
%
Revenues
Real Property Taxes
$ 71,301,000
43.4%
Personal Property Taxes
$ 59,314,000
36.1 %
Sales Taxes
$ 11,525,000
7.0%
BPOL Taxes
$ 2,331,000
1.4%
Miscellaneous Revenues
$ 19,948,000
12.1 %
Educational Revenues
TOTAL
$ 164,419,000
100.0%
Expenditures
Operating Costs
$ 145 463,000
100.0%
$ 145,463,000
100.0%
TOTAL
Net Fiscal Impact
$ 18,956,000
Discounted Present Value At
5.00% $
9,612,000
i
TABLE 3
Frederick County, Virginia
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Stephenson Village
Comparison RCLCo and RFC
RCLCo
Category
23 year total
$
%
Revenues
Real Property Taxes
Personal Property Taxes
Sales Taxes
$
$
$
84,149,000
48,193,000
11,264,000
35.5%
20.3%
4.8%
BPOL Taxes
$
2,608,000
1.1 %
Miscellaneous Revenues
$
25,948,000
11.0%
Educational Revenues
$
64,741,000
27.3%
TOTAL
$
236,903,000
100.0%
Expenditures
Operating Costs
$
215,326,000
100.0%
TOTAL
$
215,326,000
100.0%
Net Fiscal Impact
$
21,577,000
Pace Of Development At 60% Of Developer Estimates
RFC
Category
23 year total
$
Revenues
Real Property Taxes
Personal Property Taxes
$ 62,612,000
$ 51,200,000
43.7%
35.8%
Sales Taxes
$ 9,886,000
6.9%
BPOL Taxes
$ 2,228,000
1.6%
Miscellaneous Revenues
Educational Revenues
$ 17,251,000
12.0%
TOTAL
$ 143,177 000
100.0%
Expenditures
Operating Costs
$ 128,365,000
100.0%
TOTAL
$ 128,365,000
100.0%
Net Fiscal Impact
$ 14,812,000
Discounted Present Value At
5.00% $
7,521,000
•
0 •
STEPHENSON ASSOCIATES, L.C.
P. O. Boot 2530
Winchester, Virginia ZZ604
March 21, 2003
Frederick County Planning Department
Attn: Eric Lawrence, Planning Director
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
RE: Stephenson Village Rezoning Application
DearMr.j.aw
nce: g ri C�
Our team has finalized the information necessary for filing of the rezoning application for
Stephenson Village. It is my understanding that filing this information today would
allow for the Stephenson Village rezoning to be considered during the April 16th
Planning Commission meeting. Please know that we want you and your staff to have
adequate time to conduct the Northeast Land Use Plan public meetings on April 1" and
April 7t', as well as have more than the normal time to review and process our rezoning.
Therefore, I am requesting that you accept this rezoning application today for the purpose
of presentation to the Planning Commission on May 7th, 2003. This additional time will
assist your staff and allow for meetings between your department and our team if desired.
Sincerely
J. Donald Shockey, Jr.
Cc: Board of Supervisors
Planning Commission
John Riley, Jr.
Larry Ambrogi, Esq.
Kris Tierney
Jay Cook
MAR 2 1 2003
1'!7
r-r-;E DE; uc�<co1_<
I
•
March 21, 2003
J. DONALD SHOCKEY, JR.
P.O. BOX 2530
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
22604
Mr. Eric R. Lawrence
Planning Commission, Secretary
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Dear Eric:
Here is the Proffer Statement and Impact Analysis Statement from our rezoning
application package for Stephenson Village, as submitted to the Planning Department. We are
providing this to you for reference and information at this point. We have asked the staff not to
schedule any hearings until after the April meetings with the Stonewall District on the Northeast
Land Use Plan. This rezoning will define the future of the Stephenson area. Many of our
neighbors have given input to these proffers and expressed the need to define this large tract of
land. We think it is important for this package to be available to the public before those
meetings in Stonewall.
Stephenson Village is a rezoning with several goals, which are outlined in the executive
summary. We think this project will be positive for Frederick County and the Stephenson area in
many ways. It will help to control sprawl, bring new revenues to the County, support heritage
tourism, bring sewer and water to the Stephenson area, provide ball fields and recreation for our
young people, and provide housing that appeals to different age groups, including active adult
and low-income housing for the elderly.
In view of the concern about the impact of development on the County budgets, we have
taken special care in designing a formula for proffer fees to cover capital facilities impacts. We
intend to cover 100 percent of these impacts, with periodic adjustments for inflation and extra
proffer fees if Stephenson Village adds more school children to the County system than
anticipated These fees, plus the. revenue predictions of the economic study, give us confidence
that this project will more than pay its way.
I am always available to discuss this privately or answer any questions you have. Feel
free to give me a call any time (office: 540-665-3214 or 540-323-3214). Thanks.
Sincer ,
J. Donald Shockey, Jr.
J�' w
a
C. V11 Al
MAR 2 1 2003
{sq_ kY:!MtiC;DU'r .V
q 6-
GREENWAY ENGINEERING
—0—
151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, Virginia 22602
Founded in I971
TR
AN
SM
IT
T A
project Name: Stephenson Village Rezoning
File No.: 2760C
Date: March 21, 2003
To: FC Planning
Attn: Eric Lawrence
Copied:
Remarks: r Urgent f ; For Your Review
From: Evan Wyatt/dls
GREENWAY ENGINEERING
Phone: 540-662-4185
Fax: 540-722-9528
's M'AYou Requested < Please Comment
Message: Eric, rezoning:
Attached are the followinfor the above'
b
-Cover letters from Don Shockey
-Application Fee Check
-Rezoning Application (original signature)
j ty Owners
-Ad acent Proper
-Deeds
ti
-Taxes Paid '
-Impact Analysis Statement w/Exhibits j
MAR 2 1 Z003
-Traffic Impact Analysis
-IFREDE1� ur, .5
-Output Module
-Proffer Statement (original signature
-Agencies Comment Sheets
-1 copy of the composite plat
ded lset is the Master copy and 1 set is the sample
-A sample packet w/order of all attachments included in all attached boxes
NOTE: 67 copies of attachments are included)
as always, for your assistance with this project. Please call with any concerns.
Thank you ,
Engineers Surveyors
Telephone 540-662-4185 FAX 540-722-9528
greenway@visuallink. com
+V
4V
• 10
M.
rnGERTIFIED
r'-
Domestic Mail Only
r�
r—I Certified Mall Fee
.A $
Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee ea appropriate)
a ❑ Retum Receipt (herdcopy) $
)3 ❑RetumReceipt (electronic) $ Postmark
O ❑ Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ Here
fC3 []Adult Signature Required S
❑ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $
a- Postage
rq
C3 Tota' Postagr Brookfield Stephenson Village, LLC
Sent To 8500 Executive Park, Ave. Ste. 300
rq
o sr ei idap Fairfax, VA 22031
i
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/ 665-5651
Fax: 540/ 665-6395
CERTIFIED MAIL
January 14, 2019
Brookfield Stephenson Village, LLC
8500 Executive Park, Ave. Ste. 300
Fairfax, VA 22031
RE: Stephenson Village Rezoning #06-03
Proffered Monetary Contribution to Clear Brook Volunteer Fire and Rescue,
Inc.
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is in reference to the Proffers assigned of Stephenson Village Rezoning #06-
03, approved by Frederick County on September 24, 2003. Specifically, in reference to
Proffer # 6 Monetary Contribution to Clear Brook Volunteer Fire and Rescue, Inc. I have
enclosed a highlighted copy of Proffer# 6. Frederick County is requesting that the Proffer
be executed within 90 days of receipt of this letter.
If you have any questions, please call me at (540) 665-5651.
Sincerely,
Mark R. Cheran
Zoning Administrator
MRC/kgs
Enclosure
em: Judy McCann -Slaughter (islaughter@fcva.us)
Gary R. Oates (Greywolfeinc@aol.corn)
William H. Cline (weline.fredcogovpc@icloud.com)
107 North Kent Sheet, Suite 202 ® Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000