HomeMy WebLinkAbout006-03 Stephenson Village - Stonewall - Backfile (2)14. Further Actions. The County Administrator, the Chainnan of the Board, and such other
officers, employees and agents of the County as either of them may designate are hereby authorized
to take such action as the County Administrator or the Chairman of the Board may consider
necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and any such action
previously taken is hereby ratified and confirmed.
15. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia,
hereby certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct extract from the minutes of a meeting
of the Board of Supervisors held on September 24, 2003, and of the whole thereof so far as
applicable to the matters referred to in such extract. I hereby further certify that such meeting was
a regularly scheduled meeting and that, during the consideration of the foregoing resolution, a
quorum was present. The front page of this Resolution accurately records (i) the members of the
Board of Supervisors present at the meeting, (ii) the members who were absent from the meeting,
and (iii) the vote of each member, including any abstentions.
WITNESS MY HAND and the seal of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick,
Virginia, this 24th day of September, 2003.
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
of the County of Frederick, Virginia
PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING #06-03 OF STEPHENSON VILLAGE,
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
NORTID. TIIE PROPERTIES INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION ARE
IDENTIFIED WITH PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS 44-A-31
WORTIONI 44-A-31A, 44-A-292, AND 44-A-293 IN THE STONEWALL
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - APPROVED
Chairman Shickle advised the next public hearing is the Rezoning 06-03 of Stephenson
Village. For the benefit of the people in the audience, we will have a presentation by staff and the
applicant of the ten modification waivers and the rezoning. We will then have a public hearing at
which time we will allow those who have signed up to speak. Following that we will take each of
the ten modifications separately and vote and finally the rezoning vote. We will be attempting to
follow the same process used by the Planning Commission for those of you who were there. Proceed
Assistant Mohn.
Assistant Molm appeared before the Board at this time. He advised this application is a
request by Greenway Engineering on behalf of Stephenson Associates, L.C. to rezone three parcels
and a portion of a fourth comprising 794.6 acres from RA, rural area, to R4, planned residential
Minute nook Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
community. This rezoning would enable development of 2,465 dwelling units comprised of a mix
of housing types and the dedication of approximately 44 acres for public school and recreational
usage.
He further advised the subject properties are located east of Milburn Road, south of Old
Charles Town Road and southwest of Jordan Springs Road approximately 2,000 feet cast of
Martinsburg Pike in the Stonewall Magisterial District. If you'll refer to the map on the screen to
your left you will get an opportunity to kind of orient yourself Here's the property of course in
question. It is surrounded by the highlighted red line. Martinsburg Pike, Route 11 here, Old
Charles Town Road, Jordan Springs Road and Milburn Road here, as well. The land uses abutting
the sites are predominately residential and agricultural and the subject site is largely unimproved
with portions used intermittently for agricultural purposes. The parcels included with this rezoning
application are all located within the boundaries of the Northeast Land Use Plan and are located only
within the urban development area. The Northeast Land Use Plan designates the subject site for
planned unit development land use. The planned residential community proposed by the application
is therefore consistent with the adopted land use policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant
has proffered development to occur within five distinct land bays which are identified to develop
with an elementary school, public park, mixed residential, active adult residential and commercial
center uses respectively. In total, 44 acres will be dedicated for public uses within the project.
Specifically, the applicant will dedicate 20 acres to the Frederick County School Board for use as
a public school site and 24 acres to be dedicated to Frederick County for public recreation uses. The
applicant has proffered to develop a maximum of 2,465 residential units comprised of a mixture of
housing types of which a minimum percentage will be age restricted dwellings. The applicant has
proffered to phase construction of the non- age restricted residential units at a rate not to, to exceed
8 percent per year.
As proffered, a maximum of 1,665 non- age restricted units may be developed within
Stephenson Village which would result in an annualized rate of construction of approximately 133
dwellings per year. It is noted that age restricted housing and affordable housing for the elderly
would not be subject to the phase -in program. The overall unit cap proffered by the applicant will
result in a maximum gross residential density of 3.1 units per acre. The commercial center land bay
consists of 26 acres and is intended to accommodate 250,000 square feet of commercial land uses
Minute Book Nmuber 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
113
of which the applicant has guaranteed construction of 60,000 square feet no later than issuance of
the 1,200th non -age restricted building permit. Small nodes of neighborhood scale commercial and
service uses may also develop within the mixed residential land bay, but are not planned to comprise
more than seven acres. Thus, the minimum land area dedicated for commercial land uses within
Stephenson Village will be 33 acres which is roughly 4 percent of the total project area. If you use
the board behind Mr. Sager I can give you a little bit of a, an orientation. The yellow area is the
mixed residential land bay. That would be a, a mixture of the non -age restricted housing types and
potentially some age restricted or active adult units. This blue area here is the school site and the
green is the public recreation site or public park site and this red area is the planned commercial node
with the orange being the area designated at this point for active adult, age restricted uses. The
applicant has proposed to serve the project with a multi -modal transportation system that includes
a major collector road as well as bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The major collector road will
extend from the project entrance on Old Charles Town Road to its ultimate terminus at Martinsburg
Pike where it will be aligned with the entrance to the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park. Construction
of transportation improvements will occur pursuant to actual traffic generation bench marks
established by proffer. The transportation improvements proffered by the applicant will result in???
service Category C conditions on both internal and external roads serving the site throughout the
majority of the development process. However, at project build -out several intersections proximate
to the site are projected to function at level of service Category D during peak traffic conditions,
most notably those intersections located at or near the Interstate 81 interchange. It is noted that
VDOT has accepted the transportation improvement program proffered by the applicant as sufficient
to mitigate the impacts attributable to the proposed development. The applicant is requesting
approval of nine modifications to requirements of the zoning and subdivision ordinances. The
applicant is pursuing these modifications to permit enhanced regulatory flexibility to enable
implementation of the proffered development program for Stephenson Village. It is noted that these
modifications have been proposed by the applicant as proffered conditions and are necessary for
acceptance of the proffered statement as currently written. Moreover, the ability to seek
modifications is enabled by Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant's justification for each
request is included with Exhibit F of the proffered statement which may be found in your agenda
packet. If necessary, any questions concerning the meaning or justification for a given modification
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
request relative to the Stephenson Village project should be directed to the applicant. Due to the
critical role played by each modification request of the proffered development program, it is
recommended that the Board take action on each modification request prior to its final action on the
application as a whole. It is noted that during its meeting on August 20th, 2003 the Planning
Commission recommended approval of each of the nine modification requests except for
Modification Number 3. I will now provide you with a brief summary of each modification request.
Of course, as Chairman Shickle noted, I will be providing an overview again to assist in your
deliberations and decisions on -- of the nine modification requests following the public hearing.
Through Modification Number I the applicant is seeking approval to allow a larger percentage of
the land area planned for housing in Stephenson Village to consist of townhouses, multifamily and
multiplex -type units. The R4 district stipulates that no more than 40 percent of the land area
designated for residential land use in a planned community can consist of such unit types effectively
requiring that the majority of the housing be comprised of single family detached units. The
applicant proposes that the ordinance be modified to allow a maximum of 60 percent of the total
residential land area to consist of housing types included under these townhouse, multifamily and
active adult categories. Through Modification Number 2 the applicant is seeking approval to allow
housing types not currently enabled by the zoning ordinance. Moreover, this modification proposes
the dimensional standards for the new unit types and further includes alternative dimensional
standards for single family, small lot and townhouse units which are housing types pennitted in the
zoning ordinance. Approval of this modification would be necessary to accept the new housing
types and associated dimensional standards proffered by the applicant. Through Modification
Number 3 the applicant is seeking approval to limit commercial development within Stephenson
Village to 4 percent of the project's gross land area and to focus such development predominately
within a single commercial node. The R4 district requires that a minimum of 10 percent of the
planned community's gross land area be dedicated for commercial land uses and that nonresidential
uses be integrated with each phase of development. In part, this requirement is to intended is
intended to facilitate a walkable community where neighbor --neighborhood level commercial uses
are easily accessible to residents throughout the development cycle of a planned community. With
this modification the commercial uses planned for Stephenson Village will be enabled to locate
predominately within a centralized commercial node. As noted previously, the Planning
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
115
Commission recommended by majority vote that the Board deny this modification request and
thereby require the applicant to meet both the minimum commercial and industrial requirement of
the R4 district and the requirement for dispersal of such uses in each phase of development. Through
Modification Number 4 the applicant is socking approval to utilize the monetary value of a tot lot
facility as a means o f quantifying conformance with the recreational unit requirements of the zoning
ordinance. A tot lot is identified by the zoning ordinance as a single recreational unit, but it is
currently di fficult to assess the value of alternative facilities such as swimming pools and clubhouses
against the standard. This modification would provide the clarification necessary to effectively
administer the recreational unit requirements for Stephenson Village. Through Modification
Number 5 the applicant is seeking approval to allow the age restricted component of Stephenson
Village to develop with a system of private streets. Additionally, this request seeks to allow housing
within the mixed residential land bay to be served by private access roads in limited circumstances.
This modification would be necessary to develop the age restricted portion of the community
exclusively with private roads so that it may be gated as, as envisioned by the applicant. Through
Modification Number 6 the applicant is seeking to be exempted from the R4 district standard
requiring the provision of a phasing plan specifying the concluding year of each phase of
development. In lieu of an annualized phasing schedule the applicant has proffered to phase
development through two alternative measures. Specifically, development of non -age restricted
dwellings will be phased at the rate of 8 percent per year and transportation improvements will occur
in phases triggered by actual traffic counts within the community. Through Modification Number
7 the applicant is seeking approval to reduce the width o f the road efficiency buffer required adjacent
to the planned major collector road. Specifically, the applicant is proposing to reduce the inactive
portion of the buffer from 40 feet to 25 feet in certain places. In lieu of the distance required by
ordinance the applicanthas indicated that increased landscaping would be installed within the buffer
area. Through Modification Number 8 the applicant is seeking approval to provide a proffered
generalized development plan with the rezoning application in lieu of a full master development
plan. The zoning ordinance requires that a full master development plan be submitted with, as to
opposed to after a petition for R4 zoning. With approval of this modification the master plan would
follow the rezoning action in the traditional sequence of application review. Through Modification
Number 9 the applicant is seeking approval to provide a series of master development plans to
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
116
accommodate the incremental development of Stephenson Village over time. The zoning ordinance
requires that the scope of a master plan and its contents address the --address a proposed
development in its entirety as a comprehensive outline for a given project. This modification would
allow multiple master plans to guide the implementation of the proffered development program
through a more gradual process than is customary with the preparation of a single master plan, the
design of which is intended to ensure that the various components of a given project develop in a
unified, coordinated and coherent manner. It is noted, however, that approval of this modification
request will not preclude the requirement that master plans be shared with the Board and public prior
to administrative approval thereby ensuring public awareness of the design and status of the project
throughout the development cycle. Again, the applicant has offered justification for each
modification request through the community design modification document that's included with the
proffer statement which i believe they will address there -- address there in their presentation this
evening. Furthermore, it is important to reiterate that each modification request is essential to the
overall development program proffered by the applicant. A recommendation concerning each
modification would be appropriate with your final action concerning this application. In conclusion,
this application is a request to rezone 794.6 acres from RA to R4 to facilitate development of a 2,465
unit planned residential community. The proffered development program includes mixed housing
types, land dedicated for public uses, recreational amenities, environmental protection areas and a
multi -modal transportation system organized on a planned major collector road. This application
also includes nine requests for modifications to applicable ordinance requirements to enable
enhanced design flexibility. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the adopted land use policies
of the Comprehensive Policy Plan which envisioned development of planned unit development land
use on the subject parcels. At its meeting on August 20th, 2003 the Planning Commission
recommended approval of this rezoning application by a majority vote to include a recommendation
for denial of Modification Number 3. Should the Board decide to accept this recommendation, the
proffer statement submitted by applicant to include the generalized development plan would require
amendment to reflect denial of the referenced modification. I would be glad to answer any questions
that you have concerning this application and the staff report that was prepared for this meeting. I'd
also note that Ben Lineberry and Jerry Copp are both in attendance from VDOT to answer any
questions concerning transportation impacts and, of course, Mr. Don Shockey and others associate(
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
117
with Stephenson Village.
Chairman Shickle, any questions of Staff at this time?
Supervisor Forrester, Mr. Chair? Did you want to...
Chairman Shickle, Supervisor Forrester.
Supervisor Forrester, did you want to have questions after the presentations and then the
public hearing?
Chairman Shickle, I think that would be best, but.
Supervisor Forrester, okay, that...
Chairman Shickle it's your pleasure.
Supervisor Forrester, no, I'll hold mine if that's...
Chairman Shickle, okay.
Supervisor Forrester ...what we're going to do.
Chairman Shickle, the applicant does have a presentation.
Mr. Shockey, Board members, good evening. I'm Don Shockey of Stephenson Associates,
the group responsible for proposing the Stephenson Village residential planned community. I'm
very pleased and excited to propose the first residential planned community in Frederick County.
My family has operated a business in this community for over 100 years. I'm committed to this
community and I'm further committed to making our residential planned community vision a reality
for current and future generations. The vision for Stephenson Village is based on Braemar, a
residential planned community located in western Prince William County. When I saw Bracnnar I
was very impressed, I wanted to know the team that made Braemar a reality. We are very fortunate
to have two key individuals from the Braemar project on our team. One is Jim Baish, an award
winning land planner responsible for the designs of Braemar. Jim is the lead land planter for
Stephenson Village. Another is Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering, the lead engineer or our
team. Mark worked on the engineering design of Bracmar before coming to this community to
run Greenway Engineering. Another member of our team who is well known in the county is Evan
Wyatt, the lead architect of the pro -- of tine proffered package for Stephenson Village which
provides the guarantees we have promised. Evan has been involved in community planning for 15
years. Ty Lawson is the attorney representing Stephenson Associates. Ty has been involved in the
development of the proffer package, as well. His involvement was to ensure that promises are kept
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
1181
M
and all appropriate matters have been included in the official record during this process. Bill Hardig
is our public relations counsel. He has been the lead in providing inforniation and answers to the
community regarding Stephenson Village. John Callow of Patton, Han -is, Rust & Associates has
been the lead for the transportation related matters associated with the proposal. John has conducted
many transportation studies in our community including the Winchester Medical Center expansion
and the McTiernan project, and Rutherford Farms Industrial Park. Len Bogorad of Charles Lesser
& Company is the lead economist for Stephenson Village. Len and his company have extensive
experience in conducting economic analysis for the public and private sector. Len's positive
economic analysis of Stephenson Village was further substantiated by two national economic firms
that you, as a Board, approved. Last but not least, John Good, and I think he's also known around
Frederick County. John is the Treasurer for Shockey Companies. He's been instrumental in all the
facets of this project including the coordination of our community outreach efforts. They include
the project hot line, the guided tours of Braemar, over a dozen presentations to civic chubs and
organizations and the many community meetings at the historic Jordan Springs Hotel. The process
to present Stephenson -- the Stephenson Village community to you this evening has taken almost
a year. I wanted this project to involve the county, the professional staff and the decision makers
and the community and, in particular, out neighbors in Stephenson. This involvement has made
Stephenson Village a better proposal. Together we have learned a lot about smart growth and
conmiunity design. Our proj cet team has listened to the many suggestions over the course of the past
year and we've built many of these ideas into the program. Most recently we listened to conmients
made by Board -- by the Board regarding density and phasing and have modified the Stephenson
Village program accordingly. These modifications have resulted in a density reduction to 3.1 units
per acre and more than a 20 percent reduction in potential school age households and an increase in
age restricted households which now represents one-third of the total housing units in Stephenson
Village. Over the past year each Board member has been invited to attend our tours of Braemar, to
attend our many community meetings and to meet with the mem -- members of our project team and
I would like to thank the Board members for their participation. At this time I will turn the
presentation over to Jim, Evan and John. Following their presentation all members of our team stand
ready to answer any questions you might have.
Mr. Baish, good evening, Mr. Chairman and Board members. My name is Jim Baish and I'm
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
119
with Land Planning & Design Group. Over the last year I have been presenting our vision of
Stephenson Village to a lot of citizens at work sessions that we've had in the evenings, trips to
Braemar, we've met with citizens groups. Staff has participated in this, the Planning Board and
many of you have gone along. You've probably seen the presentation more than once. We've made
improvements along the way based on input that we've received from everyone, addressed their
comments and the one thing that's been consistent throughout is our vision for Stephenson Village
hasn't changed. We've been consistent and stayed the course. Our concepts have, have been
thorough and consistent throughout the entire process. Tonight, rather than review the same
presentation that you've probably seen before we've condensed it into seven slides and I believe that
they clearly represent our vision for Stephenson Village. Stephenson Village under the R4 zoning
designation is a residential planned community. But what is a residential planned community?
That's a question that's come up throughout this entire process regularly by citizens as we've gone
through it. We've taken them to Braemar to show them the type of community and design concept
that we have in mind, but one question is, you know, is this a standard subdivision? They keep
coming back to that and we keep telling them, no, this is far from the standard subdivision, this is
unlike anything that you've seen before. It offers a tremendous amount of value to the people that
live here as well as the people who live outside of Stephenson Village. First of all, what makes a
residential planned community is, is a mix of housing types. Now, certainly a lot of these housing
types -- well, excuse me, not a lot -- three of the housing types that are illustrated here are housing
types that you've all seen before. They're not unique. This represents the condominium home that
will be our starter, our entry level home. We'll have town homes of varying footprint sizes, square
footage and widths
that offer a wide range of opportunity to people who are moving up from a condominium and then
the type of home that you're more used to seeing, the conventional single family detached home,
front loaded garage. And that offers the three that you're used to seeing. Now, that's where
Stephenson Village takes a step away from the conventional. We offer -- or have introduced a
neo-traditional element to balance out the housing in the rest of Stephenson Village. Thehouse styles
here in the right corner is a neo-traditional single family detached home. As you can see, it sits
rather close to the street with front -- full front porch and in the rear is where the alley would serve
the garage. So, you have a very clean street scape. You're not cluttering that street scape with
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
w 120'
automobiles. This is another neo-traditional style home with, again, the porch being repeated. It
doesn't have the opportunity for an alley so the garage is set deep to the rear and you access it from
the front, but when coupled with these, this other single family house along the street scape, and I
know a lot of you were on the bus trip we took to Braemar, you cannot see the garages, you cannot
see the cars that -- it's a very clean street scape that offers tremendous opportunity for landscaping.
It's, it's very visually pleasing. The neo-traditional style home here is a single family detached
cluster of five homes. We call this the courtyard cluster. They're detached, they all face with their
doors and garages onto one common court. So, as you travel up and down the main street, again,
you don't see garage doors, you don't see the front doors of a lot of these homes. They're privately
located into this courtyard cluster area. And here's a product that, when I say the words you're going
to say, oh, I know what that is, but look at this picture. You've never seen a duplex that looks
anything like this. This is a very unique housing style. It's a duplex home. What makes it a duplex
is the fact that the garage is attached to the rear of the house. Again, neo-traditional style with a rear
loaded automobile access being to the, the back of the home off of an alley. The fronts are very
clean. We're repeating that porch theme throughout and it is a duplex, as I said, only because the
garage is attached. We've taken the party wall which would normally be in this location and we've
separated the house providing an air space with lots of window visibility and light penetration. So,
that also offers us the opportunity to, to provide architectural fenestration that differs the houses as
you go up the street so that they don't look like duplexes at all. The, the introduction of this
neo-traditional style home into our program offers the opportunity for us to have a small town
feeling, the type of town that we grew up in where we have front porches where we can sit on them
in the evening and talk to our neighbors as we, they go by. The porches are closely located -- closely
related to the sidewalks. We have a wide range of income opportunities here for housing and we've
covered a wide range of age groups. Now, the one thing that's been left out so far here is the
attention to age groups being the elderly or active adults, but that's where we've taken the extra step.
We've done something here that's very often forgotten and left out of a conventional residential
planned community. We've introduced that element. We have affordable elderly housing and active
adult. The affordable elderly housing is shown right here. This is going to be 144 homes or
residences for the elderly. It offers an opportunity for those that may not have the financial means
nor the desire to maintain a conventional home. Mr. Shockey has built this successfully in
Minute Book Number 29
Board of supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
121
Warrenton. He's very familiar with this type of, of home style. We're also including the active adult
segment in our conununity. As, as was mentioned earlier we will have 800 active adult homes all
in one development envelope and they will have their own recreation facilities. You'll see this is the
clubhouse, they'll have other site amenities and recreation facilities all included in that residential
land bay exclusive to that active adult segment of the housing. This is an age restri — age restricted
housing area. This is a streetscape that you've probably seen in Braemar. it's a combination of
attached and detached homes of varying footprint sizes, again, neo- traditional. We're repeating that
theme here. The alleys are in the back serving the automobile use and the front street scape, as you
can see, it's very clean and heavily landscaped providing opportunities for guest parking, but other
than that you don't drive down the street and see a lot of garage doors. By introducing and paying
attention to the active adult needs we have created a community that is a multi -generational
community. It's the -- it's a type of community where I grew up. It's where three generations, I can
live there, my children can live there and the grandparents can live there. All in the same
community, all within easy walking distance of each other. I remember where I grew up in
Pennsylvania the town was very much like this. My grandmother lived two blocks away from me
and she could pick me up at school at the end of the day and take me home on the days my mom
worked and it was quality time that, you know, those are memories that I'll never forget, the
opportunity to spend that time with her and my grandfather, that you don't get today. In a standard
community you don't have that opportunity, but here we're mixing the housing types to create that
type of conununity that we've gotten away from. It's a thing that we've lost. If you visited Braemar
and you've been there in the afternoon you've seen this very thing happen. The mothers are over at
the elementary school picking up the kids. They're not driving, they're walking, but more
importantly you'll see grandmothers, grandfathers over there walking them home on a nice day or
taking them over to their house to stay and play for a while before they go home. Now, another
element that we need in a residential planned community is community shopping, office and day
care. That's exactly what we're proposing for Stephenson Village. We're not only providing a mix
of housing, but we're going to be providing a mix of employment, employment opportunities. We're
going to have a day care center that's conveniently located, centrally located in our community, we're
going to have commercial shopping that not only serves the community of Stephenson Village, but
because of its location on our central spine road will be easily accessible to those who live outside
Minute Rook Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
122
of Stephenson Village. And then, located adjacent to this is our commercial -- or excuse me -- our
office segment. In our office area we provide opportunities for businesses with full time career
employment needs. There'll be doctors, lawyers, dentists, realtor offices there. We also will have
the opportunity for grocery clerks and bank tellers. So, as you can see, we'll have a wide range of
opportunities for professionals as well as the stay at home mom that may not have the opportunity
or ability to work a frill time job. She'll be able to have a part-time job and work here, too, This is
something that I like to throw in and talk about because it's something that's often forgotten.
Communities rush through the process and nobody stops to pay attention to the details, the details
that set a community apart to make it unique. If you went to Braemar you see these types of details.
They were thought out well in advance and they were incorporated into the design program from the
beginning. We have an entrance monument that sets the tone for the type of materials that are being
used. In this case it was stone with precast, with a letter style and, and the paint that occurs in there
is a, is a theme color. We've used that same theme color in stone and materials in the smaller
community neighborhood signs throughout Braemar and the same thing is going to happen in
Stephenson Village. We're going to use the same theme. We have a theme color that we selected
for the community which is used on our custom street signs and stop signs as well as the ironwork
on our benches. That'll be the same community theme color. The ironwork on the light fixtures, and
these will be custom light fixtures used throughout the community, that ironwork will be painted the
same theme color from the neighborhood. The landscape used at the entrances and throughout at
key locations of the community are going to be selected carefully to repeat themes and colors. The
fall color of the trees, the spring color of the trees, It's all going to be well thought out and, and it's
going to create a sense of place so that no matter where you're at in Stephenson Village at any time,
you could be in the townhouses, the commercial area, the single family detached, wherever you're
at you're going to feel like you're home, you're going to feel like you belong to Stephenson Village.
This will create that sense of place so that you feel like you have arrived at Stephenson Village long
before you ever stick you key in your front door and go home. You'll drive up and you'll see that
main entrance and you'll know you've arrived. Stephenson Village is a planned residential
community. We've talked about a lot of elements that make a planned residential community. Here
we have our generalized development plan located in the center. Surrounding that are some images
that I'll discuss in a moment. But the first point I want to make and stress is this gray area. It's hard
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
123
to see that it's gray, I'm outlining it here or highlighting it. That represents the core battlefield. That's
35.6 acres of core battlefield that has been recognized, identified by the National Park Service. It's
accounted for and it has been removed from the zoning application. It will be preserved. We have
road frontage on Old Charles Town Road which is our spine road which loops through the
community and then returns out to Route 11. The yellow portion, as was indicated earlier, represents
that mix of housing that I talked about and the active adult portion is down at the bottom of the site.
That's the 800 homes that have their own recreation facilities all included. We have our commercial
site located in a central location off the main spine road and, as I indicated, people who live outside
of Stephenson Village will easily be able to come down here and shop. And within that commercial
area we're offering a, a satellite office for the county where you'll be able to, as a resident of this area
of Stephenson Village or outside, be able to come here and pick up your dog tags or your auto decal
or pay your taxes. So, it will be convenient for everyone. We have a school site, 20 acres, and a 24
acre park site which has our six ball fields and six soccer fields. And if you note the co -location it's
an economic benefit to both of them to co -locate because they'll share facilities, they'll share parking
during the, the overflow time when they have activities going on, where they have excessive parking
they'll share back and forth. So, it's a good thing to have the co -location, And if you look at the
location we have frontage on, on Jordan Springs Road and Old Charles Town Road wluch means
that the access to these will be available to the outside without having to come into Stephenson
Village. Anybody that lives outside of Stephenson Village will be able to participate in and use
these activities directly, they'll have their own outside access. Stephenson Village, of course, will
have its own pedestrian links and access from inside, but we will not provide a cross link. This is
not a cut -through situation that we're providing here. Our only source of entry will be along our
main spine road for all of our trips. The day care facility which is illustrated here is located in a
central location. It'll be easily accessible, walkable to everybody in the community, it'll be walkable
to the school site. So, they'll have after school day care here. And closely located to that we have
our rce center, clubhouse, meeting room, swimming pool, tot lots, all right here closely located to
the day care. The day care can come over in the summertime and utilize the pool and take full
advantage of that. Again, centrally located, easily walkable to everybody in the community. We've
got our 250 acres of, of open space preservation which we've surrounded Hyatt Run with and another
environmental sensitive area we've preserved, all make up that 250 acres of open space. And along
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
12
Hyatt Run we have a pedestrian trail system. And from that trail system we link up into our
residential land base so that this community will be walkable. It'll be very pedestrian friendly, As
you can see, we've more than covered the elements that make a planned residential community, but
this will not be an exclusive community. And by that I mean we're going to be offering a housing
mix here that appeals to a wide range of buyer. We've going to be offering housing that appeals to
a wide age -- wide age group of buyer. We're also going to be providing facilities here that benefit
the community at large, not just Stephenson Village. They'll be able to shop here, take advantage
of the park, ball fields and school without even coming into Stephenson Village for the park and ball
field. So, what have we created? We have a true community. We have a community like the
community that I grew up in as a child where you can live, work, play, shop, attend school all within
easy walking distance of where you're, where you're living. If you've visited Braemar you've seen
this very thing occur, you've seen the success of it. I know it works, I've done it before and you
know it works if you were there and you saw it happen. This is a good thing, it's a great type of
community to have in your county. That concludes our vision of Stephenson Village. I'd like to
thank you
for your time and I'll turn the presentation over to Evan Wyatt.
Mr. Wyatt, Thank you, Jim.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, for the record I'm Evan Wyatt with Greenway
Engineering. What I wanted to speak on this evening as part of the presentation are the things that
make the vision that Mr. Baish described the reality which is the proffer package, the guides, the,
the legal requirements that make what we're saying that will occur. And what I wanted to do in my,
in my presentation, I wanted to talk about two things. I wanted to talk about the proffer statement
in general, the community design modification document that Mr. Mohn referred to in his
presentation and then finally a brief overview of the revisions of the program from the time this went
to the Planning Conunission. Starting back with the proffer statement, once again as Mr. Baish said,
there is a need to provide for a variety of housing types if we're going to create a community. And
one of the questions is, well, how do you guarantee that? And, of course, the proffer is, is your way
of doing that. The proffer statement for Stephenson Village has been provided. You may recall
seeing a table that is a matrix of housing unit types, It establishes a minimum percentage and a
maximum percentage and those run the gamut from single family detached, to townhouses,
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
125
duplexes, active adult, et cetera. That is a guarantee that you're not going to land one housing type
that's going to dominate the community. Along with that, as we mentioned, one housing type that
we think is very important for this project is affordable housing for the elderly and there's a proffer
that allows us to provide for that housing type. Once, again, as was stated earlier within the matrix
there's a minimum percentage for housing types. One-third of the housing types within Stephenson
Village are proffered that they will be age restricted units. And the other thing that's pall of the
proffer, once again, is a phasing proffer. And what this applies to is the building permits that are for
the non -age restricted households and that is limited to 8 percent or a maximum of 133 permits
annually. Another section of the proffer statement that I want to speak to is the transportation
section. As was stated, a traffic impact analysis was prepared by John Callow and this was done as
a result of several meetings with VDOT where we, where we did scoping meetings and determined
what would be appropriate to provide in this traffic impact analysis. And the on -site improvements,
the off -site improvements and the regional improvements were determined based on this traffic
impact analysis, as well as working with VDOT. The improvements will occur, and they're based
on thresholds, will be achieved throughout the life of this project. And these thresholds, and I think
it's important to note -- and this is one of the proffered conditions -- are determined by actual traffic
counts. Not projections, but actual traffic counts. They're, they're consistent with what the traffic
impact analysis recommends and what VDOT agrees with. And what we're doing to do this as part
of the proffer, in our entrances at the northern and southern ends of the project there will traffic
counters installed. And those traffic counters are to do, once again, get actual counts so we know
what the counts are and where we are as far as the improvements we need to install. Now, the
proffer is also further modified to say that when we achieve 80 percent of that threshold that sets it
in motion. What that requires us to do is begin design of the required improvement and to install
the improvement and that's required to be completed within 18 months of when we reach that 80
percent number. And I think that's very significant because what that means is we are planning and
constructing the improvements before the traffic impact analysis say they're warranted. With the 18
month window for construction we're going to have the improvements in place either at the same
time or before the actual impact is realized by the community. And this is something that is
unprecedented for, for proffers in Frederick County. Once again, what I would like to do briefly is
defer to the display behind Mrs. Douglas and once again this shows the, the project area that we've
Minute nook Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
126
described and what we're talking about is a series of improvements. You have on -site
improvements, you have off -site improvements, you have traffic signalization. All these will be
provided by the proffer and once again thresholds are established, how far you build a road
internally, when it's time to take it to Route 11, when it's time to improve Old Charles Road, when
it's time to improve turn lanes on Route 11, when it's time to put in traffic signalization. All that is
guided by the proffer statement and it's been done in an attempt to meet the requirements of the
traffic impact analysis. Another part of the proffer that I think's important to talk about is water and
sewer. Once again, as was stated earlier, Frederick County approved the Sanitation Authority's plan
to provide water and sewer service to the northeast area of our community and as a part of that, of
course, this property falls within those boundaries. The Sanitation Authority has recognized that
there needs to be a regional pump station within this portion of the community and our proffer
provides for that regional pump station. Furthermore, our proffer provides for water and sewer lines
that are installed at the cost of the developer that are sized to not only take care of Stephenson
Village, but also to provide for the outlying community. And, once again, the infrastructure cost is
borne by the developer. However, the Sanitation Authority will realize revenues from this because
of sewer and water tap fees. And with those, which are currently at $5,500 for both, in today's
dollars you're talking about revenues generated of about $13.7 million based on the program we
have. As we've said before, Stephenson Village will be the catalyst of providing sewer service for
the Stephenson community and it certainly seems like there will be revenues available maybe to
utilize to help improvements in those areas. Mr. Baish spoke to the commercial center. I want to
also mention that as part of the proffer statement. What we've done is we've provided a commercial
center. We've done that central to the project so it can be easily accessible by both means of our
community through walking, it's also available for the outlying community and along the major
spine road. The economic analysis that was prepared for this identifies that there is a potential of
250,000 square feet of commercial land use. The applicant, Mr. Shockey, has guaranteed within
Stephenson Village as part of this proffer that one- quarter of that or 60,000 square feet will be
provided. So, it's not just a blank promise that there will be commercial, there is guaranteed
commercial which, once again, is unprecedented as far as proffers. As Mr. Baish also mentioned,
the county will receive a 2,500 square foot shell space in the commercial center for satellite facilities.
It's rent free for 10 years and, once again, that has excellent customer service potential. One element
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
127
that I don't think has been talked about to any great degree, and I do want to talk about it now, is the
environmental enhancements that are part of our proffer statement. One thing that Mr. Mohn noted
in your staff report is that there are two significant drainage channels on this property. Number one
is the Hyatt Run corridor which is a perennial stream in the central part of the project and then there
is an intermittent ravine channel in the northeastern portion of the project. Both of those drain to the
Opequon. So, once again, the concern there is with water quality. And what we've done with the
proffer statement is we have attempted to create issues where we're using low impact development
techniques and treatments to protect and promote water quality in this development. We've
established resource protection areas for the Hyatt Run and the intermittent ravine channel corridors.
We've established resource management areas that are established to protect these features. With
that we've also proffered the creation of buffer areas. And what that means is those are areas that
are currently void of vegetation, we will come in there, we will plant them and that will allow us to,
through that reforestation process, mitigate natural erosion occurrences which, which happen today.
Also within the development we're, we're looking at doing bio retention areas to promote water
infiltration. We're using natural drainage channels and we're using best management practices for
large parking lots, commercial areas to get first blush runoff. With that as part of the proffer I do
believe that there is credit that needs to be given. We certainly were interested in doing this, but the
technical expertise came from Jim Lawrence locally and some of the technical assistants from people
that lie brought to the table. I know Mr. Lawrence provided you with a letter, I have a copy of it, and
I want to touch on a couple things in this letter because I believe that they solidify what I've just said
about our proffer statement. His letter, and I'm not going to read the whole thing, just a portion of
it. It says, I would like to commend Mr. Shockey, Mr. Good and Greenway Engineering for their
approach to protect the natural resources in the Stephenson Village proposal. About a year ago I was
contacted by Mr. Wyatt to help provide technical resources to assist in the design of the project that
would ensure minimal impact on water quality. Various state and federal agencies and nonprofit
organizations were consulted including the Center for Watershed Protection, the Virginia
Department of Forestry and the Department of Conservation and Recreation. Throughout this
collaborative process all suggestions regarding protection and enhancement ofnatural resources were
given favorable consideration. This project represents what I believe is the first attempt at
community based planning and watershed management of our area. Another section of the proffer
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
. 128
I want to touch on briefly is the master development plan because there I, I think there's been some
confusion in that regard. What we've proffered to do for the rezoning portion of this is a generalized
development plan which Mr. Baish described earlier. The generalized development plan is being
utilized for the rezoning process. However, it does not become the only plan that we use for the
development of this project. If the rezoning is approved the general development plan becomes a
guideline for a series of master plans to follow. Those master plans will meet all design
requirements of the zoning ordinance and all procedural and policy requirements and that they will
all be submitted, reviewed by your staff, brought before the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors for review and approval. And these master plans will provide aggregate data as the
project evolves to ensure that the building blocks we talk about, identified in our proffers are
achieved as the project develops. Once again, the proffer guarantees that that will occur. The master
development plans that will come before the Board in the future for this project, once again, require
your all's approval, Therefore, there is no loss of control through the process as there is for any other
development project. The final portion of the proffer statement I want to talk about is the monetary
contribution section. You may recall that at the onset of this project when we were talking about
2,800 units the staff ran your capital facilities fiscal impact model for this proposal and what we have
done since then, of course, is we've reduced the program. We are now 2,465 units. However, even
though we've reduced the program we have maintained the cash contributions that were utilized
assuming 2,800 units. The cap, capital facility impacts have been exceeded now by the cash
contributions alone independent of the land donations for the public park and the public school site.
The monetary contributions for this project, they place premiums for fire and rescue impacts for both
the active adult housing and for the affordable elderly housing which increases the payments to fire
and rescue by 50 percent and 100 percent respectively. And these additional cash contributions,
once again, are for the active adult and, and elderly apartments. What that means is there's more than
one and a quarter million dollars through the cash proffers that are being provided to the fire and
rescue for capital costs which, once again, can be used for building construction, land acquisition
or equipment purchase. However, in addition to that one and a quarter million dollars that fire and
rescue is receiving through capital impacts, there is also an additional $200,000 that is directed to
Clearbrook Voluntary Rescue Company. And that $200,000 is a direct contribution to them and may
be used as they deem appropriate because they're the first responder unit to this project. Now, the
Minute nook Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
129
cash contributions in our proffer statement for parks and recreation will receive $1.5 million. Once
again, this is above and beyond the donated public park land and it's also above and beyond the
recreational amenities that will be within Stephenson Village that Mr. Baish described including the
recreational facilities, the clubhouses, the swimming pools, the public walking trails, et cetera. The
cash proffers for the public schools, once again not counting the 20 acre donated site, exceeds $6.5
million in cash. And in addition to that there is also a, a portion of our proffer statement which
guarantees an additional cash payment of 3925 per student annually if the student enrollment
exceeds 60 students per year from our project. So, once again, should there be a sudden impact to
schools we, we've attempted to cover that through additional cash payments. Finally, with our
proffers and monetary proffers all the capital costs that I've mentioned in our proffer statement will
be adjusted for inflation every two years using the Consumer Price Index. Once again, this is
another thing that's unprecedented in Frederick County as far as monetary proffers. So, that is a
broad brush of our proffer statements. As you know, the proffer statement has 23 sections. There's
also several exhibits including the community design modification document. A lot of the proffers
that we did not discuss go into ensuring some of the visions that Mr. Baish presented, to ensure
community design, continuity, et cetera. All that's part of the design package and the proffer
statement. What I'd like to do at this time now, Mr. Chairman, is talk about the community design
modification document. And as you know, Mr. Molnn presented nine items that fall within that. Of
course, the county's zoning ordinance does allow for R4 conuuunities to come forward with
modifications to R4 proposals. The process is, as we've demonstrated, what the existing ordinance
requirement is, what we believe an appropriate alternative standard should be and a justi fication why
we think it should be appropriate. And, once again, the first one Mr. Mohn mentioned was that the
way the ordinance is written right now only 40 percent of the land area within a residential planned
community can be used for housing types other than standalone single family detached. And
because, once again, we're doing a complete mix of housing types in here, active adults, cottage
houses, et cetera, there's going to be a great number of houses that the county ordinance terms to be
multifamily. And because of that we believe that there is a, a need to have additional land area to
develop these products. And we're not asking for an increase in the number of units, we're not
asking for any difference in density or any of that. The only thing we're asking for is more land area
to allocate those units to. The second modification that was mentioned by Mr. Mohn is the permitted
Minute Book Number 29
Board of supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
. 130
use section. And once again that talks about the housing that is allowed and it references the housing
types in our RP zoning district. Several of the housing types that Mr. Baish showed you are not in
the zoning ordinance. Therefore, in order for them to become part of Stephenson Village we need
approval of the modification to do that. The justification for that is to provide dimensional
requirements and to demonstrate that what we're providing is -- represents good planning practice,
good building design and does not have a problem from a public safety issue. And we've done that.
A lot of these issues have been looked at not only by your planning staff and VDOT, but also by the
fire marshal's office and everybody is comfortable with what we're doing there. The third
modification that was brought up regards, once again, the idea that the ordinance currently states that
10 percent of the area within a residential planned community, and the ordinance is clear, it says
shall be used for commercial and industrial land use. Now, we recognized when we began this
process that industrial land use was not something that on this specific property in the southeastern
portion of the Northeast Land Use Plan it was acceptable to the community. As a result of that we
proffered out land uses that would include heavy commercial and light industrial land uses. That's
in our proffer statement. Now, because of that and because of our market analysis demonstrating
that we have the potential of doing about a quarter million square feet, we looked at what would be
a reasonable land use area for that. And what we've determined is that we have 4 percent of the land
area that could accommodate that type of land use. Once again, that 4 percent is factored on using
a Florida area ratio assumption of .2 which is standard and somewhat conservative and it allows for
us to allocate what we think is reasonable. The 33 acres that we talked about, to put it in perspective,
is equivalent to, if you look at the Creekside Village Center over in Kemstown and if you couple that
with the Martins Plaza on South Pleasant Valley Road, those areas combined are about what you
would see on a 30 acre site. Also, the, the way the modification is written is it allows us to have a
centralized commercial center with some neighborhood commercial whereas the ordinance currently
says every phase should have commercial in it. I think I need to mention that with commercial
development, although it's not an option to do either/or, if, if we were required to do 10 percent
commercial alone, that would exceed the land area that the Apple Blossom Mall sits on.
Modification Number 4 once again is fairly simplistic. The Parks & Recreation Department has
always used the value of a tot lot to determine the equivalent value for other recreational facilities.
However, that's not a written policy, it's a good, common sense approach that they've used for a long
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
131
time. However, we want to make sure that that, that common sense approach stays. So -- so,
Modification Number 4 assigns the value of one tot lot and then what the equivalent value of other
recreational units are accordingly. Modification Number 5 once again is a road access issue. The
RF ordinance currently states that all roads within a planted unit development or a residential
planned community must be state maintained streets. Of course, this flies in the face of doing a
gated community for the active adult and so what we've attempted to do is we've proved infonnation
to the Department of Transportation and the office of the fire marshal to review for our street
systems within the active adult community. They're offered to be designed to meet or exceed
sectional base and pavement standards for VDOT requirements for our private streets and they've
also been reviewed from the office of the fire marshal for the potential of accessability and
connectivity and, once again, the, the agency comments for those are positive. Modification Number
6 is a phasing requirement. The ordinance currently states that you have to specify the specific
calendar year in which a phase will be approved. The market's going to dictate that. We're not
going to be able to predict that and I'm not really sure where that is a beneficial requirement. So,
we've requested a modification for that. However, what we have done in our justification and in our
alternative design standard is we've provided this, that larger phases are developed in, in, in phase,
in smaller phases that are acceptable to you through your master plan review process and this is done
to make sure that there are reasonable connectivities and continuations of road systems, recreational
open space, et cetera. And, of course, all of those will be required to be bonded by the county so you
have the ability to ensure that all development phases are, are moving along as you, as you thought
they would through this modification. Modification Number 7 is a buffer and stream requirement.
Once again, the, the requirement is to meet the road efficiency buffer standards in the zoning
ordinance. We think that there can be some flexibility that can result in some good design. This
modification reflects the reduction in the inactive portion to a minimum of 25 feet and it provides
for a cross sectional look at the landscaping elements and the opaque elements that could be done
to put in there, So, that gives us some design flexibility in making sure that the road efficiency
buffers are adequate Modification Number 8 requires a complete master plan submitted with the
rezoning application. Once again, we see this as being very problematic. With a project like this,
to do a complete design master plan at this stage we would be guessing on what future years would
hold and as a result of that we will be wrong. And because we will be wrong and because that is a
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
proffered document, in order to fix that document it would require that us and the county to go
through a rezoning public hearing process every time we wanted to modify the master plan. That's
not how it's done in other zoning districts. It doesn't make sense in this zoning district, either. The
generalized development plan provides for a reasonable guide for master plans to follow and that's
what this modification's all about. And then finally, the last modification represents, once again, on
the master plan in process. Instead of trying to attempt to demonstrate a complete master plan that's
going to be wrong it allows for us to provide you a series of master development plans that would
require review and approval over time and to make sure that the aggregate totals that are in our
proffer statement and the consistency with our generalized development plan are realized. That,
once again Mr. Chairman, is the modifications that are being requested and our justification for why
we believe they're appropriate. Finally, what I would like to conclude my presentation with is a, is
a brief summary of the revisions to the proffer statement and to Stephenson Village before you
tonight. As you know, the Planning Commission on August the 20th recommended approval of the
program that we have which was 2,800 units. Very simply, we reviewed our program accordingly.
Our density has been reduced from 3.5 units per acre to 3.1. Our unit cap has been reduced from
2,800 units to 2,465 units. We've reduced our potential school age households, it was 2,125, down
to 1,665 which is a reduction of over 460 units. We've reduced the potential school age household
permits from 170 maximum to 133. We've increased the age restricted, active adult from a minimum
of 19 percent to a minimum of 30 percent and we've increased the inflation adjustment from once
every seven years to once every two years. So, once again, the majority of the proffer is how it has
We're still utilizing the more
conservative projections based on the 2,800 program and we're comfortable doing that because we
know we can mitigate those impacts. We have not asked for a reduction in our cash contributions
for the county even though we've reduced our units and that has gone down, also. So, once again,
all you need to remember, the only difference tonight is less density, less units, less potential school
age households, less building permits, more active adits, more updates to the inflation factor. Mr.
Chairman, that concludes my portion of the presentation. Mr. Good would like to speak briefly on
the economic analysis and then I'll return to the podium.
Mr, Good, Chairman Shickle, members of the Board, let's talk economics. The good news
is you get the product that Jim and Evan have described for you this evening and a bonus of a surplus
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting or 09/24/03
133
to the county treasury. The village is projected to generate excess revenues of over $54 million over
the 23 year build -out period and to generate $5.5 million a year of net positive revenue to the county
each year thereafter at today's tax rates. Experienced, well qualified, nationally known professional
firnis determined this. The Robert Charles Lesser Company's work was double and triple checked
by Robinson, Farmer, Cox & Associates and Springstead, companies hired by the county and
beholding to the county with the cost paid for by Shockey. Theirs was not a perfunctory check. They
did models of their own. One model generated numbers very close to the, the model that Len
Bogorad of Robert Charles Lesser developed and the other firm actually came up with numbers
substantially more positive. The county 's firms were given the proprietary model data that Mr.
Bogorad used so that it could be verified. Nothing was withheld. All costs were accounted for. For
example, if we added an additional student we put in the cost of educating that student in addition
to a 3 percent annual price inflation factor. Unqualified critics of this work should leave serious
economic analysis to professionals who do it for a living. Furthermore, for those who just cannot
get enough studies and feel this decision needs to be delayed pending some new proffer model, let's
be straightforward. Three very positive professional studies are more than enough. Most projects
in Frederick County, indeed anywhere, do not even have one. I'm now going to give Mr. Riley a
copy of these studies. In fact, two of the studies originated with you since the county contracted for
them. Let's talk about jobs. I'm not looking for a job tonight, but if you don't vote for Stephenson
Village I may be looking for one tomorrow. That's the begging part of my presentation. Stephenson
Village is projected to create approximately 700 jobs within the village itself excluding jobs related
to construction activity. The village office development should attract professional firms that would
be interested in its high speed Internet, broadband service at affordable prices made possible because
of the amount of development in one spot. And this can be the latest fiberoptic lines along with an
attractive residential area with lots of amenities for corporate executive families as well as others.
Many folks may even work from home under these conditions. The village is located within a short
distance of three major employment centers, the Fort Collier, Stonewall and Rutherford Farm
Industrial Parks that do not have a residential component. Finally, with a very significant component
of the village being dedicated to the active adult project -- product, many of our residents will be
retired or near retirement. Therefore, we believe, Stephenson Village as presented provides a great
live, work and play balance within the community. Chairman Shickle, that concludes my
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
13411
presentation. However, we would like to ask for the opportunity to speak at the conclusion of the
citizen comments.
Chairman Shickle, Mr. Wyatt, did you say you were coming back up?
Mr. Wyatt, Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, that concludes our presentation for you this evening. We,
as Mr. Shockey said, stand ready to answer any questions if this is the appropriate time. If you want
to defer until after public hearing then I'll certainly.
Chairman Shickle, We may have some questions now. Supervisor Forrester did you some
now?
Supervisor Forrester, I'm going to wait for the public hearing.
Chairman Shickle, Any questions from staff or the applicant prior to the public hearing?
Chairman Shickle, Mr. Sager?
Supervisor Sager, I, I realize we have a lot of speakers, but could we take just five minutes
or would that be, if you don't mind, this, I...
Chairman Shickle, That's a reasonable request, Mr. Sager. I think we will recess for five
minutes.
RECESS
Chairman Shickle, First name, please.
Administrator Riley, Yes, sir. I will tell the Board we have 43 individuals registered to
speak. I'm assuming it's the Board's pleasure that I will call the name and if they are not here move
on to the next speaker. All right, sir...
Chairman Shickle, Please, please limit your comments to three minutes.
Administrator Riley The first speaker is David Hepler, Stonewall District.
David Hepler, I'm the President of Hepler Construction, I'm the President Elect of the Top
of Virginia Builders Association. I stand before you tonight not as a representative of either of those
two entities, but as a lifelong resident of Frederick County. Like most everyone here I, too, am
concerned about growth issues in the county. In my eyes Frederick County is a model community,
good people, friendly neighbors, great schools, farmland, orchards, parks, battlefields, mountain
views, the Shenandoah River and all wrapped around the City of Winchester with all of its history,
its shopping, its great restaurants and other amenities. With our close proximity to the nation's
capital it's no wonder people want to live here. My concern is that as people move here and as our
Minute nook Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
1135
children buy their first homes and as other lifelong residents move up to new homes and as our
active adults decide to move, they'll be forced to purchase lots of five acres or more and take away
from our natural resources. I believe it's naive to think we can stop growth and it's going to be
important to manage it. Through proffers Stephenson Associates has addressed schools,
transportation, the preservation of the battlefield, water and any cost to Frederick County for
services. If we do not accept this plan as proposed, the same 2,400 residents and their families over
the next 24 -- over the next 23 years will simply move to more than 12,000 across our landscape.
Pervert -- preserve our resources and vote yes to Stephenson Village.
Phil Lemieux, Red Bud District, the residents of Frederick County have been demanding that
the development bar be raised in our area. This was accomplished with Sovereign Village
several years ago and now has been set t even greater heights again with Stephenson Village.
Stephenson Village is a, is smart, is smart growth as defined by virtually every and any agency that
will define the term. Many people are stating that they do not want this development in their back
yard. I don't, either, but that doesn't mean that this is a bad plan. This is a fantastic plan designed
by some of the best people available. Some people are saying that the fiscal, the fiscal numbers
proposed within this development are flawed. Yet I have yet to see the names of the professional
agency saying so made public. Many vocal groups are stating that the Supervisors should say no
to this development because the people don't want this. My firm belief is that the Supervisors were
elected to office to prepare Frederick County for the future while reflecting on the past decisions.
You were not elected to be persuaded by the vocal minority. In closing, this development is good
for Frederick County and to many aspects and I urge you to support this rezoning.
Rob Wilson, I've lived in Stephenson for 20 years. I'm sure by now all of you are filled to
capacity with facts and knowledge about this project so I'm not here to present new facts, old facts
or new twists on old facts, I'm here to tell you how I feel about a few things. For myself and the
people of Stephenson I say thank you to our Supervisor, Linda Tyler, thank you to Don Shockey.
This is so much better than industrial development. Actually given all the different interest groups
from those strongly bent on turning this land into an industrial Mecca, to the environmentalists, the
historians, the taxpayers, the people who just live next door, this is probably the best solution when
you consider everyone. Stephenson will not become an industrial sinkhole. Instead we are going
to become Frederick County's first model of a profitable and enviromnentally and historically
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
136
sensitive community. In the future neighboring government planners will be visiting our community
to see firsthand how a planned community can benefit their community. A project of this scope can
only be considered by a developer if the developer gives all the interests of the community due
consideration. Mr. Shockey has done this with those concerned with battlefields, the environment,
the roads, schools, economics, density, phasing, the list is long, but it is complete and commendable.
Not everyone is getting everything they want, but everything is getting --everyone is getting
something. For the people of Stephenson our property values won't be falling through the floor.
Instead, the closer we move to this project, the greater our properties will increase in value. This is
cost free, apportioned compensation for the property owners most directly impacted. My greatest
concern remains to be the roads. The county must be diligent to keep pressure on the developer and
the state to be pro -active in implementing transportation solutions. This is planned and scheduled
growth and road improvements must be planned and scheduled, as well. Slow growth is a very
subjective term, but I think there's no disputing that this is controlled growth. This is smart. I am
for this one hundred percent.
Mac Rutherford, Stephenson, I'm here as a preservationist in support of Stephenson Village
and I want to ask the Board of Supervisors to become a model for the entire nation and vote yes for
this village to show the nation how a municipality, preservationists and developers can work together
for smart growth, controlled growth and preserve an important historic site. Just briefly, historic site
is important, yes. Do you know what happened there in the pre -morning -- predawn morning hours
of May -- June 15, 1863? Gettysburg was fought there literally. It opened the way to Gettysburg,
the defining moment of our nation. If it hadn't have happened, if things had happened differently
there would be no Gettysburg as we know it, our history would be altered and those immortal words
that are carried on the wind of time, four score and seven years ago would never have been spoken.
Now, if Mr. Shockey is willing to preserve this, let's give him the opportunity. He has repeatedly
stated he will preserve the core battle site with walking trails, artillery pieces east of Milburn Road
and historic markers and will work with the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation to acquire
the land west of the railroad. Now this is, to me, vital because without this, without preserving our
heritage we have nothing for the future. So, therefore, gentlemen and ladies or ladies and gentlemen,
let's do the right thing and approve Stephenson Village for our future. I mean, I'm not too concerned
about Mr. Shockey's houses, but I am concerned about what he wants to do with the battlefield and
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
37
that is my whole concern. Now, if it's not Mr. Shockcy, a very civic minded individual, then it will
be another developer with lawyers high up enough to win this case and then what happens to the
battle site? It's under thousands of houses and we have lost hallowed ground. Now, Mr. Shockey,
I want to thank you for your offer to preserve this battle site and, once again, thank you very much
and I hope these ladies and gentlemen see the right way to go.
Nancy Sinbeck, Top of Virginia Building Association, I'm here representing the Top of
Virginia Building Association. The Top of Virginia has voted at the board level to support Mr.
Shockey in his request for rezoning for his Stephenson Village project. The Top of Virginia
Building Association has six established tenants of smart growth that we, as the local association,
support. They are anticipating and planning for economic development and growth in a timely,
orderly and predictable manner, the establishment of a long teen comprehensive plan in each local
jurisdiction that makes available an ample supply of land for residential, commercial, recreation and
industrial uses, as well as land set aside for meaningfitl open spaces and to protect environmentally
sensitive areas, to remove barriers that allow for innovative land use planning, techniques to be used
in building higher density and mixed use developments as well as infield developments in suburban
and inner city neighborhoods, planting and constructing new infrastructure in a timely manner to
keep pace with the current and future demands for housing and find a fair and broad based way to
underwrite the cost of the infrastructure investment, achieving a reasonable balance in the land use
planning process by using innovative planning concepts to protect the environment and preserve
meaningful open space, improve traffic flow, relieve overcrowded schools and enhance the quality
of life and, finally, ensuring that the process for reviewing site specific land development
applications is reasonable, predictable and fair. We believe this project meets every smart growth
tenant we support and is in keeping with the direction we believe the county should be going. We
hope the Board recognizes that this project is exactly what this community needs if it intends to
protect the rural nature of our county. At this time we strongly urge you all to support the rezoning
brought before you tonight by Mr. Shockey.
Vaughn Foura, I actually live in the Red Bud District. I'm here tonight to speak in favor of
the Stephenson project. I'm a long time citizen of Frederick County and I believe we need this
project for two reasons. Asa community we need projects that promote cluster development. Cluster
development such as the Stephenson project concentrate building and services in a specific area
Minute Book Number 29
Board of supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
13
leaving the majority of the countryside rural in nature. I hunt, fish and enjoy the rural landscape and
do not want to see the county carved up for big, expensive houses on 5, 10 and 20 acre lots. I would
rather see 2,400 homes on 800 acres than 2400 homes on 12,000 acres. To me this is an easy choice.
I want to see the rural character of our county maintained and I believe this project supports this
view. This project supports also the affordable housing concept. Building homes on large lots in
our rural areas prices most homeowners out of the market. We, as a community, have an obligation
to provide housing for all income levels, not just for the wealthy, and this project provides housing
to a broader base of people who dream of owning their own home. Please vote in favor of the
Stephenson project rezoning so we can promote our world heritage and provide housing for a larger
group of home buyers.
Les Johns, Stephenson, I want to, I want to thank every one of you for all of your hard work
and your dedication as none of you make enough money for what you have to go through. I
especially want to thank Linda Tyler, my Supervisor, for her moderation and her compromise on
many issues and I hope tonight she votes yes for this along with the rest of you, but if Linda votes
no, then I have full faith in her that she has made this decision based on all the facts that she's been
given. 15 years ago my wife and I moved into the county. We have four kids. We planted some
trees in front of our home. Some of those trees did not grow and I do not call those no growth or
slow growth trees, I call those dead trees. They're dead, and I think we've created in this area over
the last 15 years, our Board of Supervisors, an area that is dead. My wife said, let's go out and look
and see if you can find one subdivision in that area -- and I'm not talking about a 2,000 lot, 1,000 lot,
500 lot, 100 lot, one 50 lot subdivision that has been approved other than the McTiernan and
Shockey tracts in the last 15 years. Now, I know there is the Regency Lakes, a gentleman mentioned
that he lives in Regency Lakes, but as I've covered this part of the county I can find very little
approved subdivisions that have been done here. I think it's about time for this subdivision to be
approved. I also feel that, I read in the newspaper an article, an editorial that talked about, well, just
because Mr. Shockey didn't get the industrial approval that doesn't mean we have to change this to
residential. We can leave it how it is forever. Wow. I was astounded. My teeth, I almost had
cardiac arrest that somebody in our county can actually think that we can just leave things like they
are forever. I call this the Peter Pan theory. We don't want to, we do not want to grow up. It is
going to happen. Someone, and I think Mr. Shockey -- the reason to have Mr. Shockey do this, I
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
139
don't know him, I never met him until tonight, I wouldn't know him from Adam. I wasn't for the
industrial. I am for this residential and I believe that -- I've been in the real estate industry for 26
years. I've seen developers who, who bulldoze tactics. I've seen developers who don't care about
your battlefield at all. They don't care. And Mrs. Whitesell and Mr. Shockey need to be
congratulated for coming together and comprising to dedicate some of this for a battlefield. A lot
of people won't --wouldn't do this and don't care. I think Mr. Shockey is not entirely about money.
I believe Mr. Shockey is doing it partly because he wants to put state of the art, for lack of a better
word, he wants to put a beautiful thing in this community. He's not going to be alive unfortunately
or, you know, 20 or 30 years from now Mr. Shockey's probably not going to be here. This
community is. Well, guy, I'm sorry, but lacy, I might not be, but let me just say -- I'm sorry, but you
know, and I think this is important to him that this is done right. He lives locally here. If something
goes wrong he's here to talk to about it.
Chairman Shickle, You need to conclude, sir.
Chairman Shickle, Please, the Board does not want citizen reaction to a speaker either for
or against. Please don't put me in a position where I have to begin to do something about that. We
have a long night and we want to hear what somebody has to say. We don't care whether you
express an opinion in favor of it or against it. So, please keep your, your noise quiet.
Nicki Suma, I just recently, about a year and a half ago, moved to Frederick County and we
proud of being Frederick County residents. I've been in civil engineering for almost 20 years and
I've been working on several successful residential planned communities and one of them is
Braemar. I'm, I was proud being apart of the team with Jim Baish working Braemar and that is very
successful one. Stephenson Village, residents of that community will be the first in this county and
with the time span, many hours, days, weeks, months and years molding and massaging it's
everything, but what it takes to make it right and with public involvement I assure you this one will
be a successful one, too. I did talk to some of my college friends that is moving to residential
planned community. I just tried to get an input. Some of the answer I would like to share with you
and it's mainly positive thing they are telling me about it and I make a comment. A few of them
actually, this is almost like confirming what Mr. Jim Baish had to say about residential planned
community, some of what they say about it I must share it with you. They feel like they have more
sense of community in their subdivision and they congregate more within the community. And what
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
- 1401
they realize also, cultural diversity what exists there from the present ... is, is there, they could see
that. And they also have come to realize that they become more actively involved in the community
functions and while I'm not saying that they share their life, they enjoy, they enjoy the pool side,
recreational amenities. So, finally, I would like to say and to hope that Chairman and Board
members will approve Stephenson Village residential planned community because I know this is
where we're raising the bar of the subdivision standards in our county here and it is the right thing
to do.
Bernie Schwartzman, I am a 30 year resident of Stonewall District. I live on Red Bud Road
and I adjoin the applicant's property. I believe in planned growth. When I first moved to this area
there was a very lengthy article in both the Washington Post and I also believe the Winchester Star
concerning the megalopolis that would exist in a few short years, and this was 30 years ago, from
Boston to Virginia Beach. It has come to pass. I'm not against growth, I'm for planned growth. In
all my years in Frederick County the Board has consistently sided with planned growth and
expanding the conuuunity in a reasonable manner. I have to fault the Board in recent years because
you have not planned for a road structure to handle growth as it is occurring now. The applicant's
project will greatly increase traffic on the roads that already exist. His meager exit onto Route I 1 for
traffic for people who will most likely live to the east of this community or work to the east of this
community, have to go through six traffic lights from Stephenson to the Millwood School. Six
traffic lights in basically five miles. If you went further from Greenwood intersection on Route 7
there would be but two traffic lights to the Kennedy Center. Traffic, the traffic study in the
applicant's proposal I believe is flawed because people coming from the north, from West Virginia,
from Stephenson, from the northern part of the county will not tolerate six traffic lights to get past
Millwood School. They already come down Red Bud Road. We call it the Red Bud Raceway. If
you plug up Red Bud Road they're going to go down Jordan Springs Road to the other two roads to
cross 7 and that is a bad intersection at both Morgan's Mill and Woods Mill because it's an elevated,
divided highway. It's not good. I think earlier comments this evening stated that there was probably
a water problem and to handle 2,600 additional homes would be not good. In the applicant's
proposal T don't believe any mention was made of sidewalks. There were pictures with sidewalks,
but I don't believe anything was written into the proposal for sidewalks. How do pedestrians get
from one part of this development to another? Nine -- I think that's enough. There will be other
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
141
comments.
David Burgess, Shawnee District, I don't have a big speech or anything, I've just got some
questions i hope Mr. Good would write them down and maybe you can answer them later. First of
all, what -- I'm a little upset about the rules. You know, the plan came forth and it went to the
Phmning Commission and changes were made and we're stepping out of the, out of the box and
going away from what we're supposed to be doing by going back to the Planning Commission which
was suggested by Mr. Reyes. The first question I have is the children. I heard something about there
was adjustments.
Chairman Shickle, Burgess, please address the Board.
Mr. Burgess, I'm sorry. Chairman Shickle ...and Mr. Good can...
Chairman Shickle, Mr. Burgess.
Mr. Burgess, okay, I heard that there was going to be possible adjustments to the children.
From what I understand there's zero children as planned in the restricted area or the age restricted
area and I want to ask if children do -- are there going to be guards at the gate to keep children out?
What happens if older folks in there, God forbid, if their children die and they have to take on their
grandchildren, are they going to be forced to sell their houses and move out? I want to make sure
there's plenty, that there's allowances for that in there before this goes forward. The second thing
is, you're talking about jobs. We've got the home builders up here supporting this thing. I want to
know how many of our local home builders will actually get work in here, you know, how many of
them will be allowed in or are all these parcels going to be divvied up to the big builders like Tolls
and the other bigger national companies? Let's see. Another thing is the number crunclmers. They're
talking about these professionals exposing the numbers. Others have questioned these numbers.
They're mocked and ridiculed, like Dr. Shepherd and Sam Lehman, who probably has more
credentials than, you know, you can list on the length of your arm, I don't know why they have to
be mocked. Why can't we sit them down and, and find out precisely what their differences are and
answer the questions? I think that's about it on my notes.
Pam Kennedy, Gainesboro District, money lost, nothing lost; courage lost, everything lost.
It isn't often that we can be present at an historic moment, but tonight we are. You, the Supervisors,
will with your vote detennine the course that this county will take for decades to come. You
literally hold the county and its residents in your hands. It's an important decision. Are you truly
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
14
aware of this? If you approve the Stephenson Village proposal with it's 2,500 or so homes, this is
what we all will see. Roadways jammed with commuter cars, an increase in police involvement
because of accidents, domestic disputes and crime, a dramatic increase in the need for fire and rescue
services. Older people need help, houses catch on fire, soccer and ball fields that need to be built
at a cost of many thousands. At least one new school that the taxpayers must build and pay to staff.
Many, many new residents who will daily travel in and out of the county who will have little time
for positive community involvement. Another Northern Virginia commuter suburb. A demand for
water. There will be ftiture droughts. Who will deal with this? Who will pay for these very costly
services? The residents of the county. All the residents, not just the new residents. How much?
Well, we know that each new school results in taxes jumping several percentage points. Couple that
with the need for more professionally trained police, fire and rescue personnel and the needed
increase in tax dollars is enonnous. Because the village plans now reflect a decrease in its
commercial aspect, few people will work there and few tax dollars can be collected from nonexistent
of downgraded businesses. And what is the end result? Well, that is the problem. There will be no
end result because there is no end. The need for tax dollars will be forever. One thing is certain, this
need will increase with each step in the village's build -out. So, the key question is, why such a rush
to approve? You are funding or assisting with various tools that can help you in responsible decision
making, air quality studies, the MPO, the economic impact study, water availability study. Why not
wait for the completion of these to help you? To decide now, tonight, without the tools soon to be
at your disposal can only be viewed as careless. You are toying with the citizens' money and you
are jeopardizing their trust. Stop and really think about the legacy you are about to create. Stand
with Teddy Roosevelt. We are face to face with our destiny and we must meet it with high and
resolute courage.
Marie Straub, Red Bud District, when this plan came before the Planning Commission I
argued that this plan had not come from the Comprehensive Plan and Program Subcommittee. That
subcommittee was expanded in membership by citizens of the Stonewall District according to a
request made by Supervisor Tyler, came up with three plans none of which is the plan they presented
tonight. The plan was not discussed by that subcommittee. Maps were displayed which were flawed
in that they did not correctly show the current urban development area boundaries or
developmentally sensitive areas. However, we were told that's okay. Now, correct me if I'm wrong,
Minute Book Number 29
Board of supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
143
but typically future land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan are shown as future industrial,
future residential, future business, not M1, M2, not B1, B2 and certainly not R4. Subsequently
planned for was the R4 designationpassed through the Planning Commission and so it's here tonight.
Other than the above this plan has other serious flaws and loopholes. There's no master development
plan. This I believe is a huge mistake and will set a precedent for other large developments one of
which is being planned for the southeast area of the UDA. The plan is to have only one school
which is woefully inadequate. Stephenson Village will generate approximately 1,300 students. It
needs at least two schools within the village, but.not at the artificially inflated price of three --
$30,000 per acre, a 1,000 percent increase of the original first -- You're looking at least 4,000 cars
coming out of the village. And the access road into the village goes right through the battlefield.
when Mr. Shockey originally processed -- proposed this plan he said the residents of the village
would live, play and work inside the village and would hardly ever have to leave. With a proffer of
only 4 percent of the land for commercial I cannot see the residents of the village doing anything
other than going elsewhere to get jobs that will pay them enough to be able to afford the homes in
the village. There was a presentation by Mr. Thomas Hilton sponsored by Stephenson Associates
who said a development of this type belongs in urban areas. Stonewall District is a rural area and
many I have talked to do not want this huge development put in Stephenson. Mr. Smith, during the
Supervisor hearing of 2002, said from this day forward it's going to be tough for me to approve any
more RA's or RP's. Unfortunately, Mr. Smith is not here tonight. This development is huge and it
will cost every taxpayer in the county. We'll have to pay for the building of schools, parks, ball
Fields and pay for supplying emergency services. We've been told that the information you -- the
projected profit for Stephenson Village is proprietary information. Until our Frederick County
impact model is completed this project should be tabled until we have all the pieces of this enormous
puzzle.
Jim Vickers, Back Creek District, I've lived here about 30 years. I'm here in favor of the
Stephenson Village project. Looking at the amenity package of this project it's just enormous. The
positive impact it will have on the future residents of Stephenson Village, it's going to be a positive
project for them. Looking at the proffer statements that were made has definitely raised the bar for
all future development. I have been building in this community for the past 30 years and it's, it's just
amazing for me to see this level of commitment from the Shockey organization in bringing this forth
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
- 141
with the high level of, of work and effort put in it to make sure all the details are totally worked out
and that it will have a positive impact not only on Stephenson Village, but the entire Frederick
County. Looking at another element of the proffer statement is the amount of units that will be built
per year. I think this is an excellent way to really monitor and control the amount of homes built in
a given time frame in a given area. The projected time frame is between 15 to 25 years. This is not
going to be built next year. This is going to be built over a long period of time. I want to mention
about the Shockey organization and the Shockey family. They have been dedicated to Frederick
County. They have actually helped build Frederick County over the past 100 years. They have built
many of our schools. They have built this building. They have been involved in projects throughout
the county in every area you can imagine. They arc committed to nonprofit organizations. They
have -- currently they are building a project on Cameron Street for -- to house a number of nonprofit
organizations through the Our Help project. They're doing this at cost. These are the types of people
that are bringing this project to you tonight. They're committed to the area and have been committed
to the area for many years. I urge you tonight to vote yes.
Glen Penton, Stonewall District, Board members, we meet again. This has been a long
battle. It's gone through an industrial process, it's gone through a housing process which seems
tremendously excessive. The numbers for this residential use, in Don Shockey's words, are
shocking. The need for residential use in this area is way out of scale. History should teach us a
lesson. Throughout history housing has done nothing but cost the county money. More houses,
more taxes, more citizens in the county that have been here for a number of years will have to pay
more taxes for more houses to be built. The traffic will increase. It's without question. Presently
you cannot get through the intersection at 11, 30, 7 and 81 as it is and we're going to increase that
demand to how the traffic will be impacted. And to, and to go back to the schools, which we started
with earlier with the School Board's comments. The over- crowdedness, 23 trailers, our kids are
going to school and they wait in shifts and lines to eat their lunch and we're going to build more
houses, more kids, more schools, more, more, more. Don't we need to slow down and give our kids
a break? Don't we need to staff our schools properly? Don't we need to support our schools? Do
we need more houses or better schools? Frederick County does not want to become Loudoun
County. We've got to slow down. We can't build on every piece of land that's available. For the
R4 use, land use, it's supposed to be a mixture, a balance. There's no balance here, it's all houses.
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
145
It's a mixture of houses. There's no balance in community at all. No one will work here. No
commercial development would be here. It's too far off of the beaten track of 11 and 81 and 37. The
Stephenson citizens do not want 2,400 houses in their backyard. It will ruin their way of life. We
must slow down. The county is going too fast. This is too big, it's in the wrong place and the
citizens don't want it.
Kevin Kennedy, Gainesboro District, on the national level we have seen examples of
assertions strongly made which cannot be disproven except through doing the action in question.
These are assertions made because of the opinions of so-called experts. These are assertions which
have had powerful, long range effects for the people and for the economy. And so, we have been
given such things as a war to find weapons of mass destruction which couldn't be found, massive
tax cuts to stimulate an economy which remains moribund. Locally we have the largest residential
development ever proposed in the county and we are all told that it will pay for itself and the only
way we can find out if it will or if it won't is to try it. Is that the chance you want to take with the
county's financial future? Trust us. Well, we already know that one of the figures used is wrong,
using the 3 percent per year rate of increase for the cost of county services when the actual figure
is more like 10 percent. I would ask that each of you make a statement as to why you vote the way
you do on this when the night is through. Your vote is that important. The citizens deserve that
information. Now, remember, this is no longer live, work and play in the same, same community.
The bait and switch has already occurred. The commercial part has been essentially withdrawn.
What you're voting on is basically a giant commuter village. Any of you who vote for this need to
say what your vision of the transportation in the Stephenson area is once this development is
underway. Where are all the construction vehicles going to travel? Why, on Routes 11 and 7, of
course. The 37, 11 and 81 area is already Grade D at times according to VDOT, is it not? At the
end of build -out this development would contain 5,000 or more resident vehicles. Since residents
can't work there and only those with soccer or baseball playing children can play there, all of these
cars will be leaving there, getting on the already crowded Routes 11 and 7. Those who have read
about a grocery store in the development need to know that it would be 10 years, if then, before one
would be built. So, more traffic out on Route 11 and 7 for all shopping. I hope no one is under the
illusion that Shockeyville will be filled with elderly people who just won't leave the development.
'there will only be a limited number of slots for docents to give guides of the battlefield to tourists.
Minute Book number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
- 1461
The rest will have to leave the property by way of Routes I I and 7, of course. Those who would
vote for this need to explain to the citizens how this traffic is to be managed. 5,000 or more cars will
mean an estimated over 50,000 vehicle trips per day. Those of you who are up for reelection need
to explain the transportation solution to the voters. And please don't start talking about 37 East as
a solution. It's clear from the state that this wouldn't even be started for at least 10 years even if it
was approved right now.
Doug Cochran, Stonewall District, I have several issues, but I'm going to try and limit my
conversations to the school system. Several weeks ago I tried to contact Stephenson Associates to
get, to gain some information and wasn't had a call returned. Today I finally managed to contact Bill
Hardig. He was very helpful. He stated that lie would have liked to have had more time to renm the
school economic numbers since the number of houses changed. He was very unsure of the current
numbers pertaining to the dollars to be contributed per student. He thought it was in the
neighborhood of $7,000 to S7,500 per student. Later I contacted the Planned Development
Committee and I talked to Chris Mohn who was also very helpful. In some discussions with him
he was unable to find the $7,000 figure. According to some percentage breakouts he thought it was
more in the neighborhood of$5,000. But let's assume for a minute that the $7,000 number is correct.
County data which I have just passed out, and you'll see that -- by the fact sheet that that came from
the School Board -- indicates that the current cost per student is $7,592. Nothing that could be found
in the proffers adjusts this figure for inflation. The only thing that's adjusted for inflation is the 3925
figure that's for students over the 60 cumulative, but that is tied to the CPI, Consumer Price Index,
which is averaging about 2 percent increase. If you look at the data that's from the Frederick County
school system, the cost per child increased 5 percent from the'0243 actual to the'03-'04 projected.
Mr. Wyatt stated that Stephenson Associates would contribute $6.5 million for new students that the
project brings on. Let's assume that's correct. We just heard tonight representatives from the
Frederick County Public Schools request $6 million to begin the construction of a 20 plus million
dollar school. I'm just not sure how this is all going to pan out. Some other things that I have issue
with that I'll use my last 40 seconds on is setting aside land for historic preservation, yet we're going
to put an 80 foot wide four -lane road right through the comer of it. Guaranteed 60,000 square feet
of commercial usage is an utilieard of proffer. Well, if you look at the R4 requirements, it requires
10 percent which is 250,000 square feet. Donating land for schools and recreational fields, yet
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
147
receiving tax credits on those. And as one speaker said, it's not tens of thousands of dollars to build
those ball fields, according to information on the Internet it's tens of millions to build a three ball
field, three soccer field complex. So, I'm not sure where that money is coming from. Thank you for
your time.
Mike Weber, Stonewall District, I'm a lifelong resident of Frederick County, right in the
area where this development would be built. I'm sure Mr. Shockey would do in ideal job building
this. I've heard many comments about how much he's done for Frederick County and this is true,
but Frederick County has also done a lot for the Shockey Company. We are looking, if this
development is built, at a lot of new schools. Most of the schools in this county have been built by
Shockey Company. The last, Sherando High School, we aren't talking $20 million cash, let's talk
$50 million which is actual. This development now says that they will cut 335 houses. To quote
in the editorial of the Winchester Star today says that Shockey says this will cut 398 to 557 pupils.
Well, I took this ratio and multiplied it out on the 2,465 which is 1.2 to 1.6 students per household
and came up with this project will produce 2,933 to 4,092 students, not the 1,000 or 1,300 we've
heard. The age restricted community with this reduction which should be allowed to increase which
we heard tonight will go to 800 units plus 144 units attached in one section. We were told that there
would be 700 jobs in this community. Well, let's take just the 2,465, we're coming to about 2,500
and there's at least two working people in each household, that's 5,000 jobs needed. We are told
they're going to go to Stonewall Industrial Park and Stein's Industrial Park which are basically full.
Where are they going to work in this community? Now, they want to reduce from 10 percent to 4
percent the commercial and industrial saying we're going to proffer out industrial because people
don't want it. People didn't want heavy industry. There's nothing wrong with technical jobs,
computer industry and things like this that could be added on this site. The Star said today in their
editorial, it'll change the face of Frederick County. It won't change the face, it will change the
complexion. It will change Frederick County. You will double, over double Stonewall District and
you will set a precedent for more of these which another one has already been introduced at the other
end of the county. Fire and rescue will need a new building, probably, notjust a donation. It's going
to have to be built and the traffic will be immense. You're talking 3,300 units here. Everybody says
2,465, there's 944 aged units. Even if those people don't travel, people are going to visit them.
These people are going to work. Where are they going to go? The roads at all these intersections
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
- 148
where it's going to come out, Woods Mill, Red Bud, 7 and I 1 are highly congested now. You're just
going to add to it.
Jeff Rezin, Back Creek District, and I'd like to provide a health perspective on community
design. Stephenson Village is the opportunity for Frederick County to establish a new paradigm for
creating an active community. The Center for Disease Control estimates that a difference of 100
calories of exercise per day, the equivalent of 20 minutes of walking, could eliminate the obesity
epidemic that we are now experiencing. Walking communities promote health by changing the way
people can live their lives. Who would ever have thought that people in sprawling communities like
Gonco County, Ohio and Walton County, Georgia would weigh more and have higher blood
pressure than people living in New York City? Nowadays the majority of children are driven to
school rather than walk or ride a bike. Adults must drive cars to work and even on short errands
drive their cars rather than walk. The engineering innovations that created labor saving devices like
garage door openers may also be affecting our health. Interestingly enough, a number of new studies
have now linked community sprawl to obesity and hypertension. Sprawl's effect on health is
discussed in two August journals, The American Journal of Public Health and The American
Journal of Health Promotion. Both publications describe a significant link between sprawl and
obesity and between sprawl and hypertension. Additionally, they call upon urban planners and
zoning commissioners to consider public health in designing neighborhoods. How you build things
influences health in a much more pervasive way than I think most health professionals realize said
Dr. Richard Jackson for the Center for Disease Control and Prevention who also helped edit both
journals. Almost half of all premature deaths in the United States and other developed countries are
caused by lifestyle related problems says Dr. Michael P. O'Donnell, founder of The American
Journal of Health Promotion. We have been hearing that the vast majority of the American public
is sedentary, that despite two decades of programs encouraging us to exercise and eat properly and
now we learn that some of that baggage is due not only to how we live, but also where we live. It
is not so much geographically or regionally attributable as it is to the type of community that we live
in that provides better health benefits. The emerging field of health promoting community design
and active living by design is a strategy of designing work places and whole communities to
engineer activity back into people's lives. So, what exactly are they suggesting? By building
communities to promote health say, for instance, like Stephenson Village. City planners need to
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
149
consider the health impact of communities they build. Our opportunity to make a lifestyle change
that promotes health is at hand. We must seize the opportunity to approve Stephenson Village
project for the health of our community and its citizens. The Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality and the Environmental Protection Agency have both said that walking communities are
directionally correct to promote improving regional air quality. And now the health perspective also
promotes walking communities as affecting people's health in a positive manner. All that is left for
our community is to start building Stephenson Village.
Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District, God's earth will survive. These were wonderful words to
hear after having spent the past two years as Chair of Environmental Justice and Survival on the
Board of Church and Society for the Virginia Conference of the United Methodist Church. These
reassuring words came through loud and clear and brought great joy and comfort to me. I was
attending an ecumenical conference in Denver, Colorado of church leaders across the nation who
were trying to find solutions to the mounting environmental issues not only facing our country, but
around the world. However, the words which he spoke after the initial statement are still echoing
in my ears. God's earth will survive, it is mankind who will, will become extinct and the sad part
about tlus is that these two -legged creatures will take many four -legged and winged creatures with
him into extinction. This conference was held 10 years ago and still the political powers in our
nation and local communities, as well, are not acting in a responsible way to address these crucial
issues of land use, air pollution and the quality and quantity of our water supply. Through the years
my committee have - - and I have tried to educate not only members of our church, but the public
as well as being involved with Earth Day and other conservation movements based on our first social
principle and I quote, all creation is the Lord's and we are responsible for the way in which we use
it and abuse it. Water, air, soil, minerals, energy sources, plants, animal life and space are to be
valued and conserved because they are God's creation and not solely because they are useful to
human beings. God has granted us stewardship of creation. We should meet these stewardship
duties through acts of love, loving care and respect, unquote. Frederick County does not have
available, sustainable water source and we are also dealing with not being in compliance with air
quality. Therefore, I ask each member of this Board not to rezone any more rural land until all the
stakeholders in Frederick County and the residents, the landowners, the developers, real estate
agents, business and industry, schools and churches can come to the table to design a game plan for
Minute Book Number 29
Board of supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
- 1 501
Frederick County's glorious future. Everyone should know their water source and how are they
going to protect it?
Mark Smith, Shawnee District, also with Greenway Engineering. I'm in support of the
project. I'd like to make two short comments in lieu of the time tonight. A project like Stephenson
Village is made by commitment and commitment with a design team that you've got before you this
evening. Someone like Jim Baish that has his heart and soul in a project, and I think you saw that
as you went to Braemar, and down to the point of when Mark, as an engineer, when you design a
dry pond let's go study the bottom and decide we're going to keep the trees that are water tolerant.
You've also got Evan Wyatt which, as many of you know him, he leaves no stone unturned. The
facts are correct. He's asked this design team very pointed questions and they've been answered and
they are here before you and they are correct. Then you've got a commitment of an owner that is
willing to spend the time, the effort and the monetary dollars to get you to a package, a rezoning
package that is very comprehensive and is correct and I urge you to support it. Right before a
gentleman this evening was leaving, he had came to support the project and he left early, he handed
me a note and says, Mark, I have a son who lives in Braemar. What I've heard here tonight is
absolutely true. We marvel every time we go there, The design and landscape are beautiful.
Steve Slaughter, I actually reside in the City of Winchester. I do own a business in the
Stonewall District of Frederick County. I have been a lifelong resident of this community. I would
like to thank the Board of Supervisors for this opportunity for myself and everybody, really, to voice
our opinions on this project. I have been a business associate and a business neighbor of Don
Shockey and his companies for over 30 years. I know Don to be a good corporate citizen. He
continues to carry on a manner of business that has been the mantra of the Shockey companies for
over 100 years. Don and his companies have been a positive influence in our community and its
development for a very long time. I cannot fathom how many jobs, tax revenues and charitable gifts
have been created or given to the benefit of this community by Don and his companies. I would like
to pose this question to you. How have Don and his companies reached this level of success?
Simply put the answer is the Shockey Company slogan, partner of choice. People choose to do
business with them because of an extremely long history of honestly, integrity, commitment and
quality. I have no doubt this project will be something the entire community can be and will be
proud of. Don Shockey has given his word on this and Don Shockey is a man of his word. I ask this
Minute Book Number 29
Board or Supervisors Regular Meeting or 09/24/03
151
- - the Board to vote yes to the Stephenson Village project.
Donald W. Luttrell, Opequon District, and I also have some property in the Gainesboro
District. Now, I can't see one thing that this project will bring to Frederick County that we don't
already have except more pollution, more crime, more taxes, things of that nature. We do not have
any unemployment in Frederick County and, therefore, we do not need to provide a bunch of jobs.
What this will do is it will bring people in to live in these 2,400 units and it's a Catch 22 and that's
going to bring the taxes higher and higher and higher and higher. Now, the school, people from the
School Board who were in a while ago, they gave you a little breakdown of wherever we are now
insofar as the school needs. We just saw a 20 cent tax increase to pay for the school needs, the
school that just opened. So, you can, you can just figure it out what's coming. Now, it's been said
that this project is going to bring so many million dollars into the county, but how about the new
school that they're going to, that they're going to cost us? That's any 25 to 40 million dollars and
that's just for the land and the building and then it's going to go every year, just what it takes to run
it. Now, when Shockey & Associates bought this land it was zoned RA agriculture and they knew
that and it should be left RA agriculture. You people should not secondguess the people that came
before you and rezoned it RA agriculture to protect the citizens and the future of Frederick County.
So, unless you think you are smarter than them or whatever your reason may be, it's beyond me.
Now, I'm going to, I'd like to break this down a little bit. Margaret, what will this property, how will
it benefit the people of Back, Back Creek District? It won't. Sidney, will it benefit the people of
Gainesboro? Bob, will it, will it benefit the people of the Opequon District? Mr. Shickle, you
represent all the districts, how will it benefit those people? Miss Tyler, you were elected primarily
because the people of the Stonewall District looked to you to protect the RA zoning of the Stonewall
District. Now, each one of you, Margaret, you have spent all your adult life working with young
people, asking them to Just Say No. That's what I'm asking you to do tonight, Just Say No to this
project which will destroy, it will greatly enhance the destruction of the way of life. 1 am fifth
generation of Frederick County. So, let me assure you, I know for what I speak.
Lynda Hyre, Stonewall District, due to the lateness of the hour I'm going to shorten my
prepared remarks. It's the dawn of a new era in Frederick County as well as many other communities
around the country. We are not unique. The difference between those that move forward and
prosper and those that stagnate and fail will be the strength and intelligence of our elected leaders.
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
15
I'm a realist. The future, just like a growing populace will come. So, instead of living in a fantasy
world of stopping growth I ask you to prepare for it. The voters elected you as our leaders.
Leadership is more than it's either my way or no way. It's about compromise, foresight and the
ability to see the big picture over little egos. Where would America be today if our Founding
Fathers had been afraid to look to the future and take bold, new steps for the benefit of their fellow
man? I ask you to vote in favor of Stephenson Village. Vote for it on its merits, merits based on
fact. Yes, Stephenson Village is a brand new concept for Frederick County. Yes, it's an innovative
approach to acknowledging that growth will happen and we can prepare for it. Yes, it's a village
which will stop sprawl from gobbling up 12,000 acres ofrural land in the next 20 years. It represents
three -tenths of l percent of the land in Frederick County. Yes, it's a development designed to foster
the traditional values upon which the true quality of life depends. Yes, it's not the typical
subdivision you're used to voting on. It's a planned community based on the concepts of protecting
our historic, environmental and natural resources as proffered to have a positive impact on Frederick
County. And, yes, it will take men and women with courage, wisdom and foresight to approve this
project, but I believe that most of you sitting there are smart enough and care enough about Frederick
County and, yes, and I think history will report you as true leaders with the strength and character
and intelligence to plan for the future of Frederick County by raising the bar and approving this bold,
new model for development in our community.
Ron Bowers, I reside in the Town of Stephens City and I've lived in this area for 66 years.
I have had some experience in dealing with the zoning, planning and development. I would like to
make some comments relating the ones that Don had made earlier. I had the privilege of working
for the Shockey, excuse me, companies for 23 years as their Corporate Safety and Security Director.
In doing my time there Don had certain policies that, that he had set forth to deal with customers.
One f those was be honest, be fair, ensure quality and with safety in mind. And I think that Don has
implemented all four of these in the development of Stephenson Village. I will make it short.
Growth is inevitable. However, planned growth is essential and I think he has met this criteria.
Stephanie Seay, I'm a resident of nearby Harpers Ferry, West Virginia and I am also the Field
Coordinator for the Civil War Preservation Trust, landowners in this county, and tonight I ask you
to reject Sliockcy's zoning request. What you plan to do here is spreading like a cancer all over the
region and, frankly, we're sick of it. The historic integrity in this county is fading fast. Recent
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
153
statements made in the press seem to indicate that a deal has been struck to save Stephenson's Depot
battlefields, but this isn't the case. There's no preservation guarantee. There's nothing that
guarantees the battlefield will be saved. Even so, the visual and noise pollution would make it a
miserable place to interpret or visit. Stephenson's Village proposal will transform a historic and rural
community and turn it into a 2,500 house artificial city that will overrun the local transportation
network. And further, the Shockey plan will serve as a magnet for additional sprawl in the county,
sprawl that will destroy more battlefield land and require millions of taxpayer dollars for new roads,
new schools and police and fire protection. Stephenson's Depot is located within Frederick County's
Milburn Rural Historic District which has been eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
since 1997. The Milburn Rural Historic District is rich with Native American, Revolutionary and,
of course, Civil War history, but regardless of this the county has still not taken the necessary steps
to recognize its National Register eligibility, leaving the land wide open to threat. The recently
approved Northeast Land Use Plan conveniently neglected to mention its existence. The developers
plan ignores it, as well, as if it might as well not even exist. So, on behalf of the Civil War
Preservation Trust 1 urge the County Board of Supervisors to reject rezoning request for
Stephenson's Village. Otherwise a unique and irreplaceable part of Frederick County's heritage will
be lost forever. And, moreover, the citizens of Frederick County and most importantly those in the
Stonewall District have urged you time and again to reject this rezoning request. Please do so.
David Darsie, Stonewall District, and Pin asking you tonight, tonight to vote no. What is
wrong with this? My thoughts are very simple, it's very, very simple. It's the scale of the
development is all wrong. This project and its residences are all -- is bigger than the existing
Stonewall District today. Somewhere between 500 acres of M2 industrial, 185 five acre homes or
2,500 UDA homes there is a reasonable compromise out there somewhere. We are not unreasonable
people in the Stonewall District. We're bright, we're intelligent, we know this community's going
to grow, but what do we have to accept? We don't have to accept that living in Stephenson means
that you are the redheaded stepchild of Frederick County. M2 industrial, 2,500 UDA homes, come
on, there's something in the middle. How much money do we have to be paid off with? it's not a
choice for me. My other thoughts are, one of the most interesting people that Mr. Shockey brought
to his meeting was Mr. Hilton. He really, really hit what I consider to be common sense in what
really is lacking in common sense on our Board of Supervisors and the, and the people in our
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting or 09/24/03
1541
development community and it had to do with the UDA, He was very, very distinct in how he
described what smart growth is. When he talked about smart growth he was talking about something
akin to our UDA. Set the line and stand by it until you fill it. Just last year, now we're looking at
1,000 acres of UDA up in Stephenson now. Isn't it great? No, it's not great. We set aside in the
Comprehensive Plan a designated area and what are we doing? We're always changing the line,
changing the line, changing the line and you look inside that UDA and you still see huge blocks of
open land. I wish 1 had a better choice, I, I appreciate Mr. Shockey and his meetings he had. It's
a beautiful thing, it's wrong. I showed you the numbers on Route 7, the 250 percent increase in
traffic, the injuries out there. It's real, it's happening. The water, I told you earlier tonight, 25
percent increase over a year. When do we, when do say no? This is a pretty way of doing the same
old thing.
Tim LaPorte, Opequon District, I'm here tonight to talk about the taxpayers and what I've
seen as a very good marketing program. The Powerpoint presentation has been excellent, a lot of
good information and they have raised the bar and as a taxpayer I do appreciate that. But what I'm
really here to, to share with you is have they raised the bar enough and the only way to understand
that is, and to really understand around the impact on the community and the taxpayers is to wait for
the economic impact model that's going to be developed and implemented within the next six
months. If that is in place we can make our judgments from data. And so, tonight I'm asking you
to reject that, the proposal and wait for that economic impact model to be in place.
Jim Giraytys, Back Creek District. I've been sitting, like you have, for a long time trying to
sort through facts and statements. The presentation is very difficult in 43, or whatever they are, three
minute sound bytes to try and present a very coherent picture of what people might or might not
think. So, I've been trying to weigh in my own mind, what have we really got here and what are we
trying to, to analyze? Eisenhower said, plans are worthless, planning is everything. The reason for
that is that once you have approved a particular plan it never goes the way that you want it to go. It
will always go in some other direction. Now, we heard tonight that there are modifications to
various plans that have been made in the past to make this particular plan go forward and that these
are absolutely essential. There will be modifications to this plan in the future, there's no question
in my mind. You look at that time line behind you that stretches out to 2027, that's a very long
period. It cannot be planned over that period of time. There is no question about that. So, what do
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
155
we have? We have a wonderful vision. We have a vision of grandmothers holding little children's
hands, but the affordable elderly won't be built until 2020, 2022, someplace in there. As someone
said before, Mr. Shockey and probably myself won't be here to see those particular things happen.
What you're doing tonight is making a vote, you're giving a vote to Mr. Shockey one way or another
you're saying to him with a yes vote, go ahead and do this, but we know frill well that the vision you
have given us will not, in fact, be achieved. Something else will be achieved. You have to make
your own judgment whether that will be something you wish to buy into or not. What does a no vote
do? A no vote buys another year. You've heard all kinds of arguments from several different
people, not just one or two, that say there are a number of unanswered questions that still need to be
answered before we can have even some clue as to whether this is going to be an effective program
or not. I can urge you very strongly to vote no. Give yourself that time to answer questions which
are still out there whether they're water, air quality, traffic, whether schools, whatever they are, they
need to be answered.
Hal Duff, Shawnee District, my comments will be brief given the hour. 1 come not as a
representative or a resident in the district that is being affected nor do I come as a representative of
anyone that would benefit directly from that. I'm a taxpayer of Frederick County and a business
person. From what I have seen and from what I have read and what I have heard and mostly what
I believe, if the county is going to grow, and I do believe that it is, this is the right way to go. I'm
in favor of the development. I ask that you vote yes tonight for the rezoning.
Darryl Sebastian, Back Creek District, for the last five years I've worked in the community
of Braemar. It's everything that, that Mr. Baish and Mr. Shockey have said it is. You guys have
seen it. Won't go into the details of that, but what I would like to cover with you is the fact of how
many jobs that community creates. There are at least 500 to 1,000 individuals on that site every day,
many of which come from Frederick County, surrounding counties and beyond to get that work. In
addition, these national builders that we've heard of tonight employ very few people directly. These
are subcontractors and they are one hundred percent local subcontractors. These jobs extend to
companies like Trex, American Woodmark, smaller companies as such D&M Mechanical and others
that I've employed directly as a national builder. The majority of the folks do work directly there
and I, 1 think it would be good for Frederick County and, and me as a resident of Frederick County,
to have these opportunities closer to my home. I currently drive a minimum of 70 miles and
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
- 1561
sometimes as much as 120 to get to my workplace every day and I go down with a multitude of
construction workers that have to travel that far. And it's truly a hardship to have to go that far every
day to find consistent work. We can get lucky and find some jobs here every once in a while, but
they're, they're certainly not long term and 1 would appreciate it if you would consider that in your
thoughts tonight as far as this project goes.
Rita Wilson, Shawnee District, I am a, at least a 30 year resident of Frederick County. I'm
here tonight to ask - - urge you to vote in favor of the Stephenson Village. I've lived in Frederick
County, I love Frederick County. This village will give people a home choice, not your regular
subdivision. It gives generations the choice to live together. A planned smart growth community
is another word for a town with all attributes of a town, shops, recreation, walking trails, schools are
all within that town. I urge you to support Shockey. He is my choice.
Conroy Wilson, Shawnee District, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, I urge you, I urge
you to vote yes tonight on Stephenson Village. We read a lot about the needs of developers to cover
the services developments require. There is no question after three economic studies that Stephenson
Village will return more than its fair share to the county coffers. We read a lot about the need to
slow growth. Mr. Shockey has placed limits on the pace of development that stretch this project out
over a minimum of 15 years. We read a lot about the need to preserve historic resources. Mr.
Shockey has made a very large donation to preserve the battlefield land. We read a lot about the
need to preserve farmland. If the homes built on one square mile, one square mile of Stephenson
Village were spread around the county on five acre lots, which can be done by rights, we would use
20, that's 20 square miles of rural land. I say let's stop talking, stop the talking and do something.
Approve this wonderful concept of Stephenson Village.
Dave Madason, Back Creek District, I'm here in favor of the plan. I believe it's a strong
asset to this community not only today, but in the future. As we go forward planned growth is what
we should have.
Robert Lee Hodge, you might wonder why I'm from Fairfax County here tonight. Took me
about two hours to get here through traffic and that's why I'm here. I come here to spend money at
the Apple Blossom Festival, I come to the North- South Skirmish Association shoots, I spend my
money and I leave and the sprawl that I see in eastern Loudoun and the sprawl -- well, there's no, you
know, Fairfax is totally built out, I guess that's why it's overspilling in this direction. I came to
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
157
Virginia the first time in 1977, originally I was from Ohio, and there was two things about Virginia
I fell in love with, the beauty of the Shenandoah Valley and the Blue Ridge and the history. And
Virginia, for me, is the most important state in America. It's so historic and so beautiful. And when
I live in -- when I moved to Fairfax in 1991 my, my idea of Virginia was totally changed and when
1 started going to the battlefields I saw just fragments protected. And you see the development and
you see the sprawl in Stafford and in Spotsylvania and Prince William and Loudoun and so forth.
And so, it's disturbing to me to see the density that would be built here and that's why I'm here. And
there's a lot of glossy pictures, there's a lot of nice semantics and so forth and I've heard it from other
developers, Dogwood Development in Spotsylvania and so forth and you never know what it really
looks like till it's, till it's built. And my biggest concern's about the traffic, the density and, you
know, the people that will live there, where, where will they work? And my guess is, is that the vast
majority will live in the -- or work in the Washington, D.C. area. Another thing I want to mention
is that the 150th Anniversary of the Civil War will be coming up in a few short years and is
Winchester, is Frederick County prepared for the possible heritage tourism revenue that could be
generated if they would promote and protect their sites better? Gettysburg generates $116 million
a year, I'm often concerned about the motives of people speaking, that are for this project. A lot of
them are in the building industry and they have a right to speak in favor of it. They have mouths to
feed and they have money to make and I understand that. I'm not here for any financial motive
except for the financial motive of this county, heritage tourism. And I wonder what this county will
look like in 20 years or 50 years. Will it look like Fairfax? It's a big precedent that could be set
here. What will the, our children's children see in the future? I just want to encourage you not to
Fairfax Frederick County.
Dianne McMillan, Opequon District, to set the record straight, Clarke County has a .8
percent growth rate, growth can be slowed. I believe Don Shockey lives there. Don Shockey says
he's not in a hurry, he wants to do Stephenson Village right. That's what should happen tonight.
Table this monster until the Frederick County fiscal impact model is finished some time first quarter
next year. What's six months? We'll know if it truly will or will not cost the Frederick County
taxpayers, using the taxpayers model not three secretive models paid by Shockey. Have you ever
heard the old adage garbage in, garbage out? Why wouldn't the economists share this with the
Supervisors in two different meetings if not the public? Frederick County is also in the midst of a
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
1581
water study, an air quality study and creating an MPO for their roads. All of these studies should
be in place before 2,500 houses are added to the mix. In response to John Good's letter to the editor
in today's Star, if Don Shockey doesn't table this project until the Frederick County impact model
is complete, the only person masquerading for Halloween is Don Shockey as the partner of choice.
Katherine Whitesell, Stonewall District, French and Indian War sites, George Washington's
Headquarters, the largest and bloodiest battle of the Civil War in the Shenandoah Valley. These are
just a few of the historic treasures that the Winchester/Frederick County area can boast of. The area
is surrounded by beautiful landscapes dotted with apple orchards and working farms. So, why are
our historic sites threatened? In Frederick County alone the historic value of battlefields has been
questioned by elected officials for years. Individual citizen's groups have formed to protect the
Kemstown battlefield as well as historic For( Collier, the site of the culmination of the Third Battle
of Winchester. Other landowners have pledged that their other parcels will be preserved and are
working toward placing easements on those parcels. However, the current administration of this
county in the past until just recently has seemed to overlook the value of our battlefield sites, in fact,
made a quote to my sister, you tell your sister I'll be glad when here are no more battlefields, ha, ha.
The citizens have fought long and hard to preserve the Stephenson's Depot Battlefield. People like
Adrian O'Connor were the first people that came out and said that they wanted to save this battlefield
and we certainly do. A lawsuit that went all the way to the Supreme Court of Virginia challenged
the proposed Mi Iburn Historic District encompassing Stephenson's Depot as eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places. The litigation failed, we're still fighting for this treasure. Citizens have
said that Shockey has a buyer for this land and I hope that that's not true, but I'd like this Board to
understand that the battlefield preservation is paramount to the citizens of this county and should
come before the rezoning is approved. Again, the Conservation Fund, whom I asked Supervisor
Tyler to get an opinion about this project from which we have not yet seen, says that it is this type
of growth that is incompatible with preserved sites. So, what are we doing? Also says that, it cites
Kemstown Battlefield as an example of poor planning. We're nationally known because of what
we've done at Kemstown with a high density development. I ask you, don't let this proposal come
first over the preservation. If we're going to do it regardless, why not let's just do it? Let's work
together to try to find something that we're all happy with so we don't have to take sides out here.
There is one thing that I want to say, I have 10 seconds. We want to save this battlefield. I think
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
159
that's a consensus. Think about it. It could begone if something happens.
Howard Kittell, Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Association, I just want to clarify a point
about the, the preservation of the Stephenson's Depot Battlefield area or second and third
Winchester. The Shenandoah Battlefield Foundation has a letter of commitment from the Shockey
companies, from Stephenson Associates, to preserve the core area battlefield that is under their
ownership. So, in terms of, obviously there's other battlefields under other ownership that's in debate
and discussion right now, but in terms of the land that the Stephenson Associates own they have
made a commitment to the preservation of that land and we're working along with the Virginia
Outdoors Foundation to complete that preservation effort.
Chairman Shickle, we are about two minutes from 11:00 and according to the Board's new
bylaws I am going to poll the Board on their desire to go past this time. I think the Board has several
options available to it one of which might be an attempt to finish tonight, attempt to finish the public
hearing tonight are probably the two that I can think of.
Supervisor Sager, I think we're too far into the process to close it out tonight. I think we
need to bring this to fruition. I think we need to go ahead and proceed with this. How many more
people are on the list for the public?
Chairman Shickle, We either have two or four.
Supervisor Tyler, I'm comfortable to continue. We've been here much longer than this.
Supervisor Reyes, Continue.
Supervisor Douglas, Continue.
Supervisor Forrester? I think we're set to go.
Supervisor Sager, do you need that break now?
Supervisor Sager, No sir, but I might later.
Chairman Shickle, Let's try to get past our three or four citizens.
Sam Lehman, Back Creek District, John said I was masquerading as an economist. So that
he not be wrong, I will put on the mask of someone who is recognized as an economist, Alan
Greenspan, Chairman of the Fed. I do have some knowledge in, in that field, however. I built two
businesses each of which employed 200 people and for 13 years we served big business and big
government doing engineering and financial analysis. In 1964 the Urban Coalition hired me to
criticize the federal budget with a view toward reordering priorities from overseas to domestic. I did
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
16
that, Congress bought it and in 1965 the Office of Management and Budget paid me to plan the
federal budget and Congress enacted that, it was a great society. That was vastly more complicated
than this project, but I can tell you that this project is not going to make Lis $54 million or. one dollar.
In my opinion it will lose us several times that. One reason I say that -- and when I say us I don't
mean the county government, I mean the taxpayers of Frederick County. What you haven't heard
here when you hear about Braemar is that in that county the taxes are 2 point -- taxes and fees for
such a development are 2.6 times the taxes and fees in Frederick County. They have several PUDs.
There's one called Piedmont. Their real estate tax -- well the county- wide real estate tax there is half
again as mach as ours. They have a special fire and rescue tax for these PUDs that is just about
equal to our whole tax rate. It's .726 instead of 73. Now, in addition they have solid waste fees,
storm water fees and property owner association fees and if you live in a town, a town tax, but in
general it adds up to 2.6 times Frederick County's taxes. That's Braemar and Piedmont and those
other PUDs. They have a lot of these PUDs. I think the people masquerading as economists are the
developers who pay financial consultants and I've got several reasons for saying that. One reason
that's obvious is that we have a parade of commuters coming here to live who can't afford to live in
the counties where they work. These are the counties that one of those financial consultants bragged
he had a good reputation in. A good reputation with who? The developers, that's who, the people
we hear here. I have a lot more, but let me give you one more thought. GC Metro...
Chairman Shickle, You need to stop...
Sam Lehman area just had a study where they found that only one- fourth of the commuter
mileage.
Chairman Shickle, You need..
Sam Lehman, was to work.
Chairman Shickle, you need to stop.
Todd Bunn, Red Bud District, I'm a new area resident and I'm happy to be a resident
of the county. I think that this project is a unique project and it has something for everybody. It can
be beneficial for everybody. The people who want to stop sprawl can have something in this project.
When you look at the buy right use in this project, what you see in this project is the ability to
preserve open space by planning and clustering the housing. That preservation of the open space
gives the people that want to stop the sprawl what they want. It also gives the residents that want
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
161
to live and work in their same cormntmity that opportunity to live and work in their community and
I would urge you to vote yes for the Stephenson Village project.
Kay Muterspaugh, City of Winchester, I do not live in the county, I live in the City of
Winchester. And the reason that I am here is because of a concern that I have, and I'm sure this is
not going to be popular with everyone in this room, but I am a realtor and I have been a realtor for
23 years and I'm very, very concerned about the fact that real estate prices have escalated so quickly
in this area in the past few years at a rate that is not parallel with increases in salary. I am concerned
that if we do not okay this project or you do not okay this project that present real estate will become
even more expensive because of the supply and demand issue. We have people, yes, that are coming
into this area, but the truth of the matter is that if we consider the industry that we now have and do
not take into consideration industry that is coming in, that what we presently have is a situation of
one out of four new residents are coming in because of new industry. So, what I am saying to you
is, the people that are coming in, three out of four to this area, are going to still come into this area
because of the growth of the present industry, for family reasons or whatever. Now, we already have
a situation where young people cannot afford, a lot of them, to buy homes. This project has been
planned out well so that we have a price range starting, as I understand it, somewhere in the range
of $90,000 going up to $500,000 or so, and it covers a variety of age groups and it also affords
family living. In other words, we have generations that can live in the community. Also, the person
who's starting out at a starter range can move up within that community and, likewise, one that has
moved up to the top of the scale perhaps. And I'm finished.
Dr. Bob Tucker was signed up to speak, but was not present when his name was called.
Assistant Director Mohn, would you come back up, sir? Now, are there questions from staff
or from ordinary people to staff or the applicant before we ask the applicant to come back up? Well,
let me, let me reverse that, perhaps let the applicant go first, here. Do you have a statement you'd
like to make following the public hearing? We have closed the public hearing.
Attorney Ty Lawson, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, my name's Ty Lawson and we
do have just a, a brief matter to get into the record and then we'll turn it over very quickly. I know
you all would have some questions. I, I think it's important and one thing that hasn't been addressed
is, how did we get here, what, what's the history of this project and, and I feel cornpellcd for the
purposes of the record to remind everybody that, of course, this was the property that was the subject
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
- 162
of a previous rezoning request to allow or requesting to allow for the construction of an industrial
park. At the time that that rezoning was filed the property was designated as industrial in Frederick
County's Comprehensive Plan. As you'll recall that rezoning request, despite repeated efforts by the
owner to modify the rezoning request to satisfy opposition failed. Again, you have that, that history
in your record. Subsequent to that failed rezoning effort this property has been tinder a land use
microscope with this Board and its various committees studying the property and its various
attributes in order to determine the best use for the property. After numerous committee meetings
and public hearings it was detennined that the property was suitable for a mixed use development.
Along the way various uses were considered for the property, but they were rejected and those were
pretty much everything else that's left, industrial, residential, agricultural and commercial. What you
have before you now is a rezoning that has developed over a year, has been greatly influenced by
numerous public meetings, county committee meetings, Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors hearings. It is a development that is guaranteed through an extensive proffer package
the likes of which Frederick County has never seen or experienced before.
As I said, this is a rezoning that is the result of significant public input that has gone on for well over
a year and if you include the, the history, well beyond that. It has earned your approval and we ask
you on behalf of Stephenson Associates for your vote approving the rezoning and the modifications.
And we are pleased to respond to any questions that you all may have.
Chairman Shickle, okay. Do we have questions of staff or the applicant or Mr. Wyatt, did
you want to make some remarks first'?
Evan Wyatt, No sir, we're here to answer any questions.
Chairman Shickle, you're just prepared.
Supervisor Tyler, I have some questions.
Chairman Shickle, I think Supervisor Forrester had some earlier.
Supervisor Forrester, I'll wait for Supervisor Tyler.
Supervisor Tyler, thank you. I'm not sure, I guess who's going to, you tag team and tell me
who the appropriate person is to ask. The age restriction, I have an understanding that an age
restriction is an age restriction and, yes, people if they want to have children come into this
community they will not be allowed to live past X amount of time. That is fact or is it not a fact?
Who's able -- you probably can both answer this question.
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
163
Evan Wyatt, you're, you're correct. The age restricted portion of our proffer is consistent
with the Fair Housing Law standards in the State of Virginia Code and it says that you have to have
a resident in the house age 55 years or older. Our specific proffer does not allow anybody under the
age of 19 to reside there.
Chairman Shickle, is that the end of your questions?
Supervisor Tyler, why -- no, I've got a few, but I don't want to take up all the time.
Chairman Shickle, well, let's, let's, let's go one at a time, then. Supervisor Forrester, you still
want to defer?
Supervisor Forrester, you're not through, arc you?
Chairman Shickle, well, I think we need to do one of the questions and go around and come
back to Supervisor Tyler if she has multiple questions.
Supervisor Forrester, oh, okay, then I'll, yes, I'll ask a question. My question may actually
be for VDOT if they're still hanging around than -- thank you. I'm confused in here when it
references that the traffic impact analysis concluded that some of the improvements would still land
our roads with the level of service of D during peak traffic conditions and I'm confused as to why,
then, that VDOT did sign off on that?
Ben Lineberry, primarily because of the, because the background traffic already shows that
it would be, regardless of the development it will make it a, that area will become a level service D
anyway.
hours.
Supervisor Forrester, what's the level of service at present during peak time?
Ben Lineberry, at present?
Supervisor Forrester, during peak hours?
Ben Lineberry, do you have a particular area?
Supervisor Forrester, the ones that would become a failing level of service of D during peak
Ben Lineberry, okay, as failing meaning D, is that what you're talking about?
Supervisor Forrester, D and below.
Ben Lineberry, D or below? Currently, let me just go through some of the various
intersections. Starting in the south at the southbound off ramp of Route 11 we have both showing
an F and E. That's an unsignalized intersection. Southbound on that inter -- at that intersection in
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
- 1641
the morning you have a level of service B and in the p.m. peak hour you have D. Moving further
north at 661 you have coming out of 661 a D and an F. Going northbound on Route 1 I you have
both a.m. and p.m. peaks of B's and southbound you have A's. Moving on up to Charles Town you
have southbound level of service A's -- and, and this is existing -- level of service A southbound and
B and C coming out of Old Charles Town.
Supervisor Forrester, and those would all go to D?
Ben Lineberry, existing.
Supervisor Forrester, and then they will drop to D?
Ben Lineberry yes.
Supervisor Forrester, so, they're...
Ben Lineberry, in...
Supervisor Forrester, a now?
Ben Lineberry, in a couple different scenarios. Are you talking about build -out 2015?
Supervisor Forrester, yes.
Ben Lineberry, Okay. yes, ma'am.
Supervisor Forrester, okay, thank you.
Supervisor Sager, Ijust wanted to clarify, I'm not trying to do Mr. Wyatt's or staffs work.
I believe that an age restricted community, the federal law allows you to have in your home your
grandchildren or your children for 45 days within the 365 day period.
Evan Wyatt, it's 60.
Supervisor Sager, 60 days, thank you. So, it, it's not that you can't have your children or
grandchildren come visit you if there's a -- you know, I just wanted to clarify that point.
Chairman Shickle, Supervisor Douglas, or Supervisor Reyes, before we go back to
Supervisor Tyler?
Supervisor Reyes, 1 have a question for staff.
Supervisor Reyes, and if this is not appropriate for you I'd go to the applicant. I was told by
county staff that the success of Stephenson Village depends largely, largely on the commercial
aspect. At what point in time do you envision the commercial aspect of this to take place or to come
to fruition?
Assistant Director Mohn, that's difficult for staff to answer. I would defer to the applicant
Minute Book Number 29
Board of supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
165
to provide that based on their economic analysis to indicate where on their time line they envision
that coming to fruition.
Supervisor Reyes, okay, applicant?
Leonard. Bogorad, for the record, I'm Leonard Bogorad. I conducted the market analysis and
fiscal impact analysis for the project. We, we (lid a market analysis to determine when we thought
it would be feasible and when we determined it would be feasible to have the commercial
development occur and we, we, we always are conservative. And so, I,1 think actually Mr. Shockey
expects to build this sooner, but our analysis assumed that the retail would begin with 90,000 square
feet in 2013 and 50,000 square feet of office in 2013 and several other phases beyond that. Again,
we wanted to be conservative because we were using this for the purpose of the fiscal impact
analysis. I think it is important to note that this is, although Mr. Shockey has proffered the
commercial, that the project would still be positive even if you did not have the commercial
development basically because of all the active adult units which are so phenomenally positive.
Chairman Shickle, Assistant Molnn or somebody should at least address, that was the, the we
expect, but there is a requirement within the proffer, also?
Assistant Mohn, certainly, and I, was going to offer that. From a staff perspective the only
guarantee we can provide you is what's included in our proffer statement which the applicant has
made that commitment to the 60,000 square feet of commercial space that would come on line with
the 1,200th building permit for the non -age restricted units. So, from a proffer perspective we look
at it in terms of that's when we can expect that as a guarantee. However, of course, the market may
dictate that that comes on line much earlier.
Supervisor Reyes, well, how does 60,000 square feet in -- of revenue?
Assistant Molun that's not a question that I can answer. When we put this in, information into
the impact model the analysis shows us what the impact is for the per unit impact for the
development which that model included the 60,000 square feet, but actually a total of 250,000 square
feet assumed at build -out. Again, what I would refer to is the fact that three economic, three sets
of economic analysis indicated that this was a positive outcome with those numbers and with the unit
mix that they provide. 1 can't tell you with certainty, not being a, an economist, when that revenue
is such that, that it becomes a, a boon to the economy necessarily.
Supervisor Reyes, perhaps the applicant can answer that. I'm looking at 60,000 square feet
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
that is proffered and I don't see any revenue coming from just space.
Assistant Mohn, well... Supervisor Reyes, Your comments.
Assistant Mohn, yeah, two, two issues. I, we, we conduct, we do market analyses for
developers and for retailers all the time. That's really the core of our business and we help them
figure out when things are going to be profitable. And so, we're very comfortable with our
conclusion that you could have 90,000 square feet in 2013 and more beyond that as well as 50,000
square feet of office in 2013. We have assumed that in our, in our base, basic marketing and basic
fiscal analysis and that is part of the input into our results, but as I said, we did test out what would
happen if there was only 60,000 square feet in the whole project as was proffered and it would
definitely be positive even with that and, in fact, it would be positive without any commercial
development at all. Again, it's important to recognize this is not a normal kind of residential
development and you can, depending on the prices that might or might not be positive, it might very
well be negative, but what we have here is a very high percentage of age restricted units that will not
have any school costs at all associated with them and that -- a lot of states and counties have found
that's the best economic development they can get and actually those are the best fiscal kind of
results they can get because it has no significant cost to the county and it's very significant revenue.
So, there you have a lot of revenue sources here whatever happens with the commercial. That's,
that's really the key, key point, but you don't need that commercial to have a positive development.
Obviously, we think it's going to be there, we think there's definitely a market for it and that you'll
have even more positive results.
Chairman Shickle, Supervisor Douglas, any questions?
Supervisor Douglas, No.
Chairman Shickle, Supervisor Tyler, back to you.
Supervisor Tyler, I just had some questions and perhaps the person who did the traffic
analysis or VDOT, either one.
Chairman Shickle, you can have them both.
Supervisor Tyler, okay. Well, I keep hearing about the flawed traffic report, the flawed
traffic report, the flawed traffic report. Will you, I'm not an expert, I'm not going to pretend to be
an expert. I do know that those particular roads are challenged. I'll give you that and I drive my son
to middle school every day. We do the band thing, I pick him up in the afternoon and I go through
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
167
that intersection numerous times a day. We have all the background issues...
John Callow, what, what intersection?
Supervisor Tyler, oh, excuse lne, Route 11, 37, 81, that, that challenged corner. However,
that occurs a couple times a day at peak times. We have a lot of background issues that are going
on, but we also have some improvements that are forecasted, hopefully, and I think signalization is
one of them that's going to certainly improve some of that area. Who knows what the widening of
I-81 is going to bring. When are we ever going to get Route 11 to be four lanes, I don't know, that
sort of thing, but do you feel comfortable in defending your traffic analysis?
John Callow for the record, I haven't said who I am. I'm John Callow, I'm Vice President of
Patton, Harris, Rust. This is my 40th year as a transportation planning consultant and I'm also very
comfortable in working with the, the Edinburg residency of VDOT. We've been doing a lot of
projects. I guess I'm now at every interchange on 81 in Frederick County. The study itself points
out improvement. Right now there's a single signalized intersection, the northbound off ramp.
There's a proffered signal by Rutherford on the southbound off ramp. The major problem at the
interchange in a short term kind of basis is that Red Bud Road comes in there and you end up with
several little intersections in, all mixed up in there. What we have suggested and we've offered to
help resolve this once the spine road is completed within Stephenson Village, that Red Bud Road
goes up and ties in with that instead of coming out at 11 right in the middle of die interchange.
Where Red Bud Road is now, shift the northbound off ramp over and match up with the northbound
on ramp, one signalized intersection. That will buy quite a bit of time and improve the level of
service there quite a bit. The two signals then can be coordinated with, as you move down 11 to the
east of this. We all agreed that we were going to stop at the interchange, but we've been talking
about further down the road. A coordinated signal system means that once you get off, the trucks
particularly coming up from 81 from the south turning left and then they can just keep the signals
green while they clear it, That's, that's what can really resolve all this and this development is
offering money to, to VDOT, to you, however you want to spend it there. So, we have made
suggestions. The other comfort level is that we ------ are, Rutherford, which I did earlier, that was
a three-way intersection. We're making it a four-way intersection obviously to tie our spine road in
with it, but we're also adding a lot more turn lanes as well as carrying the four -lane divided up
through the intersection. Right now it stops below that.
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
Ben Lineberry, Rutherford's intersection.
John Callow, Rutherford's intersection. And then up at Old Charles Town Road, at Charles
Town Road at points during the -- which is characterized up there, we will widen the road from the
two lanes to the three lanes, still being able to live within the military bridge there, signalize the
intersection of 11 and Old Charles Town Road and add turn lanes, et cetera up there. That buys a
lot of time. And the answer to the, your question about the, I'll, I'll try one more time. The
background traffic, when, when you assume build -out in the year 2015, we're not there. Everybody
else is there. Everything that we've all agreed to is -- would be there. Rutherford's built out, this,
the background traffic's been growing at a constant rate of 5 percent per year which is what the, what
goes on out here. That's when we see, only at the Rutherford and a couple places in the interchange
do we see the D's. When we add our development, a, a pure measure on top of that and we add our
improvements that we're putting in there, we don't really change any of the levels of service. And,
in fact, I supplied staff and VDOT the other day with, just picking up some statistics in the back of
the report, 1 didn't do anything new, the effect of putting Stephenson Village on top of the
background will give you at Old Charles Town Road and Route 11 an additional 1.7 seconds of
delay as you travel through, 1.7. The -- actually the Rutherford interchange, intersection, it's just sort
of a wash. It's about the same. Down at the ramps, themselves, at the northbound ramp it will add
in the morning 4 seconds of delay and 1 second of delay in the evening and at the southbound ramp,
which is the worst, it will add 10 seconds of delay. These numbers are created from a federal
highway sponsored program that's been going on for decades with lots of data on how to calculate
capacity. All of us in the industry use this procedure. It's been scrutinized by the Staunton District
Office several times and that's why the answer to your immediate question, that's why I'm
comfortable with the study.
Supervisor Tyler, thank you.
Chairman Shickle, before you leave, sir, not meant to offend, who pays you?
John Callow, doctor -- doctor, Don Shockey.
Chairman Shickle, VDOT, do you agree with everything he just said?
Ben Lineberry, yes. Chairman Shickle, we, we've gone through this analysis and reviewed
it many times. We've had many meetings to go over, make sure that the things do make sense, that
the proffers that, that have been laid out do take care of the concerns that we have in, in this area.
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
169
Basically.
Chairman Shickle, well, basically, it boils down to, as he. said, this project's not there, there's
a level of service deterioration.
Ben Lineberry, correct.
Chairman Shickle, if the project is there the level of service deterioration is no worse and
because of the proffered improvements and you agree with that?
Ben Lineberry, correct. There, there are a few areas that do show going from a, it -- what the
background show in the afternoon a level of service C and with his development shows a level of
service D. And I can specifically cull those out, if you wish.
Chairman Shickle, no, that's not, unless somebody else -- I just wanted to make sure you all
were in agreement
Ben Lineberry, very much so.
Supervisor Sager, Mr. Chairman. Well, that's the end of that question?
Supervisor Tyler, he can go, yes, that's fine.
Chairman Shickle, Supervisor Forester's actually next unless it's the same topic. Is it the
same topic, Supervisor Sager?
Supervisor Sager, no, different topic.
Chairman Shickle, well, let's let Supervisor Forrester, if she has one.
Supervisor Forrester, okay, I do have a question. My question, I'm not sure who to direct
this to, probably the applicant.
Supervisor Forrester, somebody from-- I have a question about the preservation of the core
battlefield areas. I'm reading the note here that says that on the proffered generalized development
plan that the major collector road planned for this project will traverse a portion of core battlefield
land. Moreover, the generalized development plan depicts the development of the next residential
land use that's adjacent to the core battlefield area. And I was wondering how that goes together
with what you were saying about preserving the core battlefield when this says it's dependent upon
the collector road going through that core battlefield?
Evan Wyatt, the county's Comprehensive Plan has shown a major collector road through that
specific area since it was originally drafted in '96. We, we have the road in the location that
complies with the plan. It does, of course, traverse an area that's designated as core within the 135
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
1701
acres. That's not part of the rezoning, that's part of the commitment John Callow talked about, but
John Callow, in, in his previous presentations has advised that with, with the road going through
there that it is appropriate to do that.
Supervisor Forrester, but your plan is contingent upon this collector road? In order for all
the traffic improvements and everything to work we need this, this major collector road through the
core battlefield?
Evan Waytt, when, when the county planned this land for future land use they, they
determined a collector road was needed and that was the point that it went through.
Supervisor Forrester, more directly, your application is dependent upon this major collector
road? In, in other words, the traffic flow that we're hoping for...
Evan Wyatt, yes, on our...
Supervisor Forrester, will not work without this?
Evan Wyatt, a major collector road will be required to move the traffic efficiently.
Supervisor Forrester, through the core battlefield.
Chairman Shickle, Supervisor Sager,
Supervisor Sager, probably Evan Wyatt, or someone from, from the staffcould answer it. I've
become excited about affordable homes and, as you know, we haven't built affordable homes in
Frederick County since the mid'80s and $90,000 is well within the HUD standard for 60 percent of
the average family income which meets the criteria. And families today cannot afford to go into any
of the 1,200 empty homes that are in Winchester/Frederick County. But my question, I guess, is
going to be related to the build -out for these affordable homes. What happens during the build -out
when a home is $90,000 to start in, in the first part of the build -out and reassessments occur and then
that house goes up in value. How do you protect the affordability of these homes so they still meet
the 60 percent HUD statement? If that's a difficult question, I'm sorry, but I, I just want to make sure
that we always have affordable housing designated and being built in that. Do you, did I confuse
you?
Evan Wyatt, no, the affordable housing for the elderly, of course, is, is a different housing
product where the, where the housing, the rent if you will, is based on what the, the person has, the
elderly person. The starter homes in the community that you're referring to, they will fluctuate and
go up as, with the market as will all starter homes in the community. There is no, there is nothing
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
171
in our proffer that guarantees they'll stay the-- they'll stay at a set rate, say at $90,000.
Supervisor Sager, so, if the HUD standard doesn't increase with the real estate market, then,
and reassessments, then the affordability of the homes will be, won't be there?
Evan Wyatt, it'll be just like the affordability of, of starter homes throughout Frederick
County.
Supervisor Sager, okay.
Chairman Shickle, Supervisor Douglas, Reyes, and Tyler.
Supervisor Tyler, I have a, a question I guess concerning the schools needs. We, we keep
hearing that we need two school sites or three school sites or whatever it is. You met with, I guess
the school system's not here any more. I was hoping that Mr. Orndorff might still be here, but
anyway, can you explain to me how they determined, you determined whatever it might be?
Evan Wyatt, we met with the public school administration early on in the process and the
question became for them, as far as a need, what, what type of school would you need if this
community developed and at that time, of course, we were talking 2,800 homes with a different
percentage mix. And based on what Mr. Orndorff used to determine that, which was the county's
fiscal impact model which represents .7 children per single family, .54 for townhouses and so on,
they came up with a number and then they determined that an elementary school would be the site
they would need. With that said, what, what the School Board tries to do with elementary schools,
is they need 15 acres to do it, then if they get 20 acres they can also provide public use facilities on
them, recreational use. So, we provided the, the 20 acre type site so they could have the school and
the Parks and Recreation could have some benefit there. But, once again, the, the determination of
the 20 acre school site was done through discussions with that group.
Mr. Bogorad, Evan, just a, a little more commentary in response to your question and some
of the other comments that were made because I think there was a lot of confusion about the school
numbers that I've heard around certainly tonight. First of all, the, the actual number of students with
the reduced number of, of non-agc restricted units, based on census data in terms of what really
happens in this county, it would be 604 students. There have been other numbers thrown around.
There was one, one comment in the audience that there were be thousands of school, school kids that
was, I think, a miscalculation because there was nothing and kind of the fact that the mix of units
was changing significantly with the change that was proposed recently. "There will be a lot fewer
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
172
non -age restricted units. So, that's not all fair. It's not just us saying it, it's your own consultants.
Springstead looked at this issue in, in some depth in their report, I think you all have copies of that,
and they looked at the census data and they confirmed that the rates that we were using were in fact
the correct ones. The numbers, even the 7 numbers and so on are really taken from another county
and are not based on, on the facts here. So, I think it's, and one other issue was on the cost. We, we
have assumed in our, in our models with the other consultants that the, the full cost of operating the
school per child was currently, I think it's $7,995, was included in our analysis and despite that there
was this huge benefit to the county way over and above that to pay for anything else that the county
wanted to use the funds for.
Chairman Shickle, sir, before you leave, now you have me confused. Six, 1,665, that's close,
sir, right?
Mr. Bogorad, I'm sorry?
Chairman Shickle, 1,665 child, child possible units, that's the right number or, or
approximately?
Mr. Bogorad, that's correct.
Chairman Shickle, okay, times .7?
Mr. Bogorad, no, it's no point, those, that's what I'm saying, those numbers are...
Chairman Shickle, that's what I thought I heard you say and it's a bigger number than 600.
So, straighten me out.
Mr. Bogorad, yeah. The, the correct numbers, and again we've, they're numbers that we've
derived from the census, from the actual data, Springstead looked at the same thing and came up
with the same results. The, the correct numbers, which you can find in our, our report here, are
.5442 per single family detached, which is generally the same kind of number that the School Board
has used, but single family attached, which you haven't had that many of in the county so far, but
every, every expert around the country would, would acknowledge and would know that those are
considerably -- are going to generate a lot fewer school children per unit. Those are .2908 per unit
.and multifamily units would be .1564 students per unit. You just have a fewer...
Chairman Shickle, so, you.
Mr. Bogorad, school children in those. We applied each of those times the number of units
in, that are proposed for the development, obviously not including the active adult units because
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
173
those will not have any school children, and that acids up to the 604.
Chairman Shickle, so, you used various student per unit multipliers?
Mr. Bogorad, exactly, and that's, that's what the county model does, as well. They just
happen to not be based on the fact...
Chairman Shickle, so, you didn't use the .7 for anything?
Mr. Bogorad, that's correct.
Chairman Shickle, okay. I thought I heard you say something else.
Mr. Bogorad, no. 1 was saying that that was not a -- we did not find that to be a correct
number when we actually looked at the facts and neither did Springstead who is working for the
county.
Chairman Shickle, okay.
Evan Wyatt, Chairman Shickle, the one thing we did use the higher school numbers for was
to determine the capital facilities impact costs. Our capital facilities impact costs, in other words,
the cash proffers for the schools are based on the higher numbers.
Chairman Shickle, on the .7?
Evan Wyatt, Yes, sir.
Chairman Shickle, okay.
Mr. Bogorad, yeah, I mean, I must say Mr. Shockey didn't ask me. I've been involved in, in
hundreds of proposed developments and I've, I've never seen such generous proffers, to be honest
with you. This is, a lot of things that were offered that I would not have necessarily recommended
that lie do and certainly that's one, one case where I think the, they are overpaying for the school,
quite honestly, because that's more school children than you're really going to get.
Chairman Shickle, that was Supervisor Tyler's question?
Supervisor Tyler, right.
Chairman Shickle, Supervisor Forrester, do you have any others?
Supervisor Forrester, Mm-hmm. (Indicating affirmatively.)
Chairman Shickle, okay, go ahead. Who for?
Supervisor Forrester, applicant. It wasn't clear to me what the minimum and maximum
ranges were for the affordable elderly. Can you go into that?
Evan Wyatt, the affordable elderly housing we've been stating was going to be 144 units
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
174
minimum. We did not factor them into the overall unit mix of 2,465, they being above and beyond
that. The feeling is, and this is as far as the density issue, they are not going to impact the services
and, and it's actually a community service to provide this type ofhousing. So, we based our impacts
on the, on the active adult, the single family, the townhouse and the multifamily, but not the
affordable housing for the elderly.
Supervisor Forrester, do you have a maximum for that range?
Evan Wyatt, no, we do not.
Supervisor Forrester, I notice with the other, with all the other ratios you gave us kind of the
bottom and the top.
Evan Wyatt, right, but the affordable housing for the elderly, once again, our, our program
has been based on the assumption of 144. If we're able to land more then that's only a better thing
for the community.
Supervisor Forrester, okay, thank you.
Chairman Shickle, Supervisor Sager ?
Supervisor Sager, Evan Wyatt, is the 144 units for the elderly that you designate as
affordable, will there be affordable housing for young families just starting out?
Evan Wyatt, once again, that's the whole concept of the mixed unit development, of having
a variety of housing types, for starter homes transitioning into other homes, single family homes for
families and retirement homes. The, the whole concept is, is you're not locked into a, a 12,000
square foot lot with a quarter million plus dollar house.
Supervisor Sager, that's what I thought I had understood in there. Then, that's why my
question concerning how do we protect the availability of affordable homes in the build -out. If
you're going to build it in 15, 20, 25 years, at what point in time does reassessment eliminate the
affordability of these homes? Is there some way, and I'm asking this out of ignorance because I'm
not smart enough to determine how to do it other than, you know, maybe HUD release or something
as people, you know, become interested in these units. It certainly doesn't taint my, my, the way I,
I plan on voting. However, it is a concern in the future that we would eliminate affordability if,
indeed, that is going to be a mixed community.
Chairman Shickle, Supervisor Reyes?
Supervisor Reyes, Evan Wyatt, the Stephenson Village proposal has been promoted as a
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
175
place to live, work and play, and as I hear the, the commercial aspect being reduced or trying to be
reduced from 10 to 4 percent and that the success of this doesn't depend on the commercial aspect
of the Stephenson Village proposal, you correct me if I'm wrong, I envision this, then, as a place to
live and play. It won't be a place to work until that comes to fruition in 2015.
Evan Wyatt there's a couple things. First of all, what Mr. Bogorad was advising you of was
the economic analysis and how it works and how it's positive with or without it. That's not to say
that it's not going to have it. We've always planned for commercial. I do believe it's erroneous to
say 10 percent commercial because what the ordinance requires is 10 percent of commercial and
industrial. And, once again, when you look at a quarter million square feet, which is what we think
based on market analysis that this could sustain and when you look at the land area on how to place
it, it becomes clear that 80 acres is too much which is what 4 percent means. Now, one thing I do
want to further clarify is that the way the proffer is written is that the commercial component is a 4
percent minimum. And, once again, it's based on what we believe we can truly sustain and what we
can get there. However, if we're wrong and we're able to get more, the proffer is written where we
can have more. But the 4 percent represents the relationship of the 10 percent which would be
conuncreial and industrial. After we took out the industrial 4 percent is a reasonable assumption for
the commercial.
Chairman Shickle, Evan Wyatt, is it not also true if the percentage of commercial goes up,
the proffer goes down into the model?
Evan Wyatt, that is true.
Supervisor Forrester, Chairman Shickle, would you repeat that, please?
Chairman Shickle, if the percentage of commercial went up and it was flowed back into the
model, the proffer calculation would come down, the 3965.
Supervisor Tyler, is that, for today's discussion you're saying?
Chairman Shickle, Huh?
Supervisor Tyler, for today's discussion, yeah.
Chairman Shickle, yeah, I guess.
Supervisor Tyler, okay.
Chairman Shickle, Supervisor Tyler, you have another question?
Supervisor Tyler, not particularly. No, not right this moment.
Minute Book Number 29
Board of supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
1761
Chairman Shickle, Supervisor Forrester?
Supervisor Forrester, I have a statement to make, I'm not sure whether it's appropriate to
make it tonight.
Chairman Shickle, can't help you with that, you'll have to decide that. Do you want to wait
and see if there's any other questions and then...
Supervisor Forrester, Mm-hmm. (Indicating affirmatively.)
Chairman Shickle, Supervisor Sager, you got another question?
Supervisor Sager well, your last comment concerning the proffers down and is this because
the revenue base of industry, the industry...
Chairman Shickle, correct, given.
Supervisor Sager, I just want to, I want the public to know that the money's the same, it's just
an adjustment in the, in the computation, is that correct?
Chairman Shickle, yes. well...
Supervisor Sager, it's close.
Chairman Shickle, ...does the staff want to comment on it? 1,1 opened the door, do you want
to straighten everybody out or -- if, if there was a 10 percent requirement instead of a 4 percent
requirement, I have no idea whether the applicant would volunteer or staff would make them rerun
the proffer model, but if it was, then the proffer would go down.
Assistant Mohn actually, the, the residential proffer would stay the same as proffered through
this application.
Chairman Shickle, I'm, I'm sorry, the impact model would kick out a different number. T
used the wrong word.
Assistant Mohn, if we were to...
Chairman Shickle, 3965 would go down.
Assistant Mohn, if we were to run different numbers it, it could result in a, in a lessee impact.
Chairman Shickle, okay. Is it clear or not?
Supervisor Sager, It's clear. And the only other question I have is, is if we're developing the
availability of light industry in this area, whether it be 4 percent or 10 percent, what part does the
county play in the review process of what comes in and el cetera?
Assistant Mohn, well, as with any commercial or -- commercial enterprise we would
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
177
certainly apply the site plan requirement. They would ask for the site to have approval and there
would be...
Supervisor Sager, the process wouldn't change?
Assistant Mohn, no, sir.
Supervisor Sager, thank you.
Chairman Shickle, okay. If there are no other questions -- there is a question.
Supervisor Tyler, Ijust have a question and, and actually 1 don't know who it's going to be
and it might be John Callow, or it might be the lady from the Civil War Preservation Trust, either
one. I want to know about the Outdoors Foundation and building of roads on a piece of property. Is
John Callow still here?
Chairman Shickle, yes. John Callow, would you mind coming up to the podium?
Supervisor Tyler, is it -- it's not inappropriate to have him come up here for that I wouldn't
think. I have a question for you. The Outdoors Foundation...
John Callow, Mm-hnrm, (Indicating affirmatively.)
Supervisor Tyler, ...and road access, would you talk about that, core battlefield having roads
on them and were you involved with Bristo Station that, 1 know the Civil War Preservation Trust
came out and it highly endorsed, but they're building on a core battlefield. So, I'm a little confused
here about what we're talking about. So, I don't know if you were involved with Bristo.
John Callow, no, we were not. We, we looked at it as this project was developing. And the
proposal for the preservation of the battlefields, we looked at what, for other models, if you will.
And with Bristo Station there was a, a compromise struck wherein the developer was going to
preserve a portion of the core battlefield, but then was allowed to develop part of the core battlefield,
as well, for housing. In this case, as we met with the Stephenson Associates and then with the
Virginia Outdoors Foundation, we discussed the road and its appropriateness in the easement, but
because the road is already shown in the county's planning the Outdoors Foundation said that they
would accept an easement with a road in it.
Supervisor Tyler, okay, now, I have another question too, though, concerning the
management plan. And I sit on the cluster group and I'm quite aware of what goes on with that.
John Callow, Min-lmuri. (Indicating affnmatively.)
Supervisor Tyler, to have the experience you have to have access, correct?
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
1
John Callow, Correct.
Supervisor Tyler, okay, thank you. That'll do.
Chairman Shickle, if there are no other questions I think Supervisor Forrester wants to make
a statement.
Supervisor Forrester, well, I do have a question.
Chairman Shickle, okay, a question.
Supervisor Forrester, this is a big, a big application. I have a question and 1 don't know if
he's here tonight, but there was a comment by the county engineer talking about the, the curbside
trash pickup and its enforceability and I didn't' see whether that had been resolved. I might have
missed that paper in here, but is there something?
Evan Wyatt, the, the curbside pickup is being proffered as a program within Stephenson
Village. It accomplishes a few things. It provides convenience to the people and it also takes trips
off of people going up to Clearbrook Park to dump their trash. What Public Works Director
Strawsnyder, I think was trying to point out was as far as a proffer the county is not going to be
involved in that particular issue. They're not going to monitor it, they're not going to police it. The
residents that live within the community are going to pay for the service and in all likelihood are
going to use it, but you can't say with certainty that there's not going to be a time when somebody
misses a day and, and goes to Clcarbrook or has to go to the regional landfill for a reason. But I
think Mr. Strawsnyder was trying to point out the fact that that's not something that's enforceable
by the county. I would, though, remind you, I think it was August of this year that the five year
window for the study of the county potentially having community pickup within the urban
development area can be effective. So, in my mind and in, in short term this will take care of it. In
the long term it will be something that the county will be bidding anyway.
Supervisor Forrester, staff, maybe you can address this. The engineer slated in here that the
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. Do we have that?
Assistant Mohn, well, again, I think that's going to be something through the HOA. If that's
going to be something enforced at all it'll be through a private mechanism such as that,
Supervisor Forrester, okay. So, there's no assurances that this isn't going to require county
Minute nook Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
179
intervention?
Assistant County Administrator Tierney, well, I think with, with any proffer there's always
a challenge as to, with the wording to make sure that in some way, shape or form the county's going
to be able to intervene in some way.
Supervisor Forrester, okay.
Assistant Tierney, in this case we've got the applicant saying that they will provide curbside
pickup. They will at some point in time have to provide us with deed covenants and so forth.
Supervisor Forrester, okay.
Assistant Tierney, so one, one provision is that we could ensure that when we get those deed
covenants that they have, in fact, provided for curbside pickup. I think part of what Director
Strawsnyder, was pointing out is that the, they will be county residents and if one of them chooses
to take his pickup truckload of debris to...
Supervisor Forrester, right.
Assistant Tierney ...the landfill, we can't deny them access. So, you have an assurance that
curbside pickup will be provided as part of the homeowner's association. Could we enforce that?
Ultimately I think the only enforcement we have, as with any deed covenant, is to ensure that there
is a covenant that says it will be provided. If that helps.
Supervisor Forrester, have we reviewed the homeowners association charter to see what all's
been laid out? There's a lot of responsibility that arc referenced in here that would be turned over
to the homeowners association. Have we reviewed those to see if they are, in fact, enforceable to
keep us out of that type of thing?
Assistant Mohn, that's not something that has been prepared to date and/or something that
staff has been involved with. That would come at the subdivision stage of the development review
process.
Assistant Tierney, what, what the staff will have to do with marry of these proffers, is at the
time they become relevant they'll have to do what they canto ensure that they're in place. And that's,
that's true of any proffer. In other words, when we get a deed covenant with any portion of the
subdivision we'll have to ensure, reviewing the proffers, that all the components of the proffers are
addressed. So, when we get these covenants we'll have to ensure that that's...
Supervisor Forrester, that's done. So, there will be a --
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
i
Assistant Tierney, Yeah.
Supervisor Forrester, thank you.
Chairman Shickle, you are still up, Supervisor Forrester.
Supervisor Forrester, No.
Chairman Shickle, your statement? I don't think there was anything down here.
Supervisor Forrester, well, the last one was Miss Tyler. It's been a long night, it's been a long
year. I think, though, that, that tonight what I've heard about is, to me what keeps resonating is that
there's a difference between planning for growth and encouraging growth and I think this plan will
just encourage Frederick County down a path that a lot of us don't want to see happen. It's always
said that just because something is designated in the Comprehensive Policy Plan for residential uses,
that it doesn't guarantee an automatic rezoning. That's up to this Board to determine if the timing
of the request and the provisions of the application are right for the community and I don't think
either are right at this time for a multitude of reasons. Because of the rapid rate of our growth over
the last decade Frederick County is already fiscally struggling to meet the needs of our growing
community. The county's debt burden is growing as well as our tax rate. Frederick County
taxpayers have just been struck with a 20 percent tax increase and are having their properties
reassessed at this time for more taxation. This is because past proffers have not even come close
to meeting the real cost to the taxpayers of our growth, The Shockey proposed a status that their
project will mitigate the fiscal impact to the community, but they know and this Board knows that
they are basing these figures on a model which is a decade old. That model's in the process of being
updated now to use today's figures to find out what the real costs are to our conmiunity. This Board
shouldn't make decisions using decade old data. It would be like taking the money out of taxpayers
pockets and putting it directly into the developers. This Board, with the exception of Supervisor
Shickle, has voted to have the capital facilities impact model updated to more accurately predict the
real cost to Frederick County when considering all rezoning requests. The update of this tool is just
a few months from completion. For a project with an estimated build -out of over 20 years we should
minimally wait these few months for this tool. We need to know as close as we can the real cost of
this project to Frederick County taxpayers before we make our decision. Additionally, we must
consider the overall context in which this application has come forward. My opponents who
consistently label me as no growth instead for slowing growth are asking this Board to ignore the
Minute nook Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
181
current state of Frederick County and consider this project in a vacuum, but we must consider that
at our current rate of growth we already have 10 years of approved growth coming through the
pipeline now. This growth is coming and it's demanding new facilities and services from the county.
This translates into more tax increases. Our school system is experiencing growing pains. The
School Board made the decision this year to cut a middle school planning period in order to keep
the Gainesboro Elementary School open during the last budget cycle. What instructional needs will
they cut next year? The Superintendent of Schools has already identified a need for another
elementary school inside an area of the county without the addition of Stephenson Village. We are
in the process now of construction and soon will be staffing a new middle school. The elementary
school that would need to be built to accommodate Stephenson Village will be on top of these needs.
Again, more tax increases. We must meet the existing needs in our school system before we create
new needs. How about the condition of fire and rescue? Through our county's rapid growth our fire
and rescue director and volunteers are presently asking for help in the form of paid personnel and
restructuring of their departments. Bottom line, fire and rescue asked, but did not receive the
funding for what they have identified as their needs during this last budget cycle and for that matter,
for the past two years I've been on the Board, The combination of new industry and population
growth has put a strain on the backs of our volunteer system. This Board needs to consider this
when weighing this application. We have to consider that just two months into the current budget
cycle our fire and rescue department is back at our door with a legitimate request for supplement
appropriation of $800,000. This, this equates to another three to four cents on our real estate taxes
and this would be reoccurring cost. Public safety needs cannot be put off. Age restricted housing
may have less impact on our school system, but what will it do to our fire and rescue department.
Age restricted developments have three times the call volume due to medical emergencies than
non -age restricted development. We must include our knowledge of the present condition of our
volunteer system that may have to become more and more reliant upon paid personnel to meet the
demands of a growing community when weighing this application. We carmot put the public safety
of our constituents at risk. When our volunteers who give of themselves so tirelessly are asking for
this Board's help you know Frederick County has a problem This project at this time on top of what
is already approved and in the pipeline would just add to their problem. Our job is to determine if
this project stands on its own merits and in the context of existing conditions in Frederick County.
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
1 821
I say it does neither. Mr. Shockey has done nothing wrong in packaging this application in the most
favorable light, but it is this Board's job to probe beyond this packaging and see if this plan puts our
citizens first. We do not owe Mr. Shockey anything other than a fair review of his application. We
do not owe him a yes to rezone his land if his project does not mitigate the impacts to our
community and the timing is wrong. What we do owe is a responsibility to our citizens who elected
us to make a thorough review of this application. Whatever time it takes to get this right, we should
take that time. We owe this minimally to our citizens, our families, our friends and our neighbors.
As a small example of what could happen if we don't, I have had a situation arise over the last two
weeks in my district which will negatively impact the residents of Bedford Village, Apple Ridge and
Scnseny Glen. The Channing Drive project, a development one-third the size of Stephenson Village
has a legal loophole which resurfaced almost four years after this Board's approval of the rezoning
request. With no disrespect intended, the Commonwealth Attorney has a full time job and with
growth already in the pipeline, its time for this county to have its own land use attorney reviewing
our rezoning applications and changes to the Comprehensive Policy Plan. This project which we
are considering tonight is more complex, easily three times the size and only includes a generalized
development plan. Loopholes could well surface to the detriment of the county and our present and
future citizens if we move forward on this application without at least the proper review of an
independent, experienced land use attorney. We owe this to our present and future taxpayers, bill
because we arc here tonight I'd like to make a motion to deny this application.
Chairman Shickle, we haven't had a presentation of it. My instructions at the beginning was
we'd go through the articles of modification and the rezoning would come last. If you could hold
the motion on the rezoning until then...
Supervisor Forrester, until what...
Chairman Shickle,.Td appreciate it. In fact, if I had known the nature of your statement we
probably should have had a motion on the floor before we had such a lengthy statement.
Supervisor Forrester, that's why I was...
Chairman Shickle, but I think your instructions to the Board and cautions take -- it would be
wise to the information more appropriate and so I think it balances out there, but...
Supervisor Forrester, thank you.
Chairman Shickle, ...we'll move on if you don't mind. The Board concurs with the
Minute Rook Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
183
modifications. If you, if you would probably shorten it up a little bit unless the Board has questions
we'll probably get to the heart of each one and we'll try to take a vote and we will not, we will not,
however, shorten the questions on behalf of the Board.
Assistant Mohn, certainly. Let's start...
Supervisor Sager, excuse me. We're going to vote on each modification?
Chairman Shickle, yes.
Supervisor Sager, And then we'll vote on the...
Chairman Shickle, The rezoning, yes.
Supervisor Sager, ...on the rezoning.
Assistant Mohn, Modification Number 1. The applicant is seeking approval to allow a larger
percentage of the land area planned for housing in Stephenson Village to consist of the townhouse,
multifamily and multiplex -type units. The applicant therefore proposes that the ordinance be
modified to allow a maximum of 60 percent of the total residential land area to consist of these unit
types. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Chairman Shickle, does the Board have any questions?
Supervisor Sager, how do you want the motion?
Chairman Shickle, we're going to, probably going to look to Supervisor Forrester since it's
her district to be and then we'll go from there. If she has a motion that prevails...
Supervisor Tyler,
Chairman Sliicklc,...and if not, then somebody else can make a motion.
Supervisor Forrester, I'm song, Chairman Shickle, I'm having trouble hearing you.
Chairman Shickle, I'm sorry.
Supervisor Forrester, I know it's late.
Chairman Shickle, I've got whatever everybody else has. What I'd like to do is look to
Supervisor Tyler for the lead motion since it's her district. If her motion fails then we'll look
elsewhere. So, Supervisor Tyler, what would be your motion?
Modification Number I - Section 165-71 Mixture of housing Types Required.
Supervisor Tyler, I move for approval of Modification Number 1.
Supervisor Sager, seconded the motion..
Chairman Shickle, all right, we have a motion and a second. Discussion? Hearing none, the
Minute Book Number 29
Board of supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
1841
above motion was approved by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
Robert M. Sager - Aye
Sidney A. Reyes - Aye
Gina A. Forrester - Aye
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Absent
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Lynda J. Tyler - Aye
Modification Number 2 the Applicant is Seeking Approval to Allow Housing Types not
Currently Enabled by the Zoning Ordinance.
Approval of this modification is necessary to accept new housing types and associated
dimensional standards that have been proffered by the application.
Chairman Shickle, any questions of staff? Supervisor Tyler?
Supervisor Tyler, I'd move for approval of Modification Number 2.
Supervisor Sager, second.
Any discussion? Supervisor Tyler, how do you vote?
The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
Robert M. Sager - Aye
Sidney A. Reyes - Aye
Gina A. Forrester - Aye
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Absent
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Lynda J. Tyler - Aye
Assistant Mohn, Through Modification Number 3 the applicant is seeking approval to
limit commercial development within Stephen -- Stephenson Village to 4 percent of the
project's gross land area and to focus such development predominantly within a single
commercial node.
Chairman Shickle, all right, questions of staff? Supervisor Tyler?
Supervisor Tyler, move for approval of Modification Number 3.
Supervisor Sager, second.
Chairman Shickle, any discussion?
Supervisor Tyler, yes, Chairman Shickle, I would just like to appeal to the Board to give this
some consideration for approval. I know that this is a, an area of concern. However, this is a
minimum and I think the applicant, if were to be trying to put in 10 percent commercial, I don't think
the residents of Stephenson want to have an Apple Blossom Mall or anything with those traffic
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
185
impacts.
Chairman Shickle, other discussion? Hearing none.
The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
Robert M. Sager - Aye
Sidney A. Reyes - Nay
Gina A. Forrester - Nay
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Absent
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Lynda J. Tyler - Aye
Assistant Mohn, Through Modification Number 4 the applicant is seeking approval to
utilize the monetary value of a tot lot facility as a means of quantifying conformance with the
recreational unit requirements of the zoning ordinance.
Chairman Shickle, any questions of staff or the applicant? Hearing none, Supervisor Tyler.
Supervisor Tyler, I move for approval of Modification Number 4.
Supervisor Sager, second.
The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
Robert M. Sager - Aye
Sidney A. Reyes - Aye
Gina A. Forrester - Aye
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Absent
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Lynda J. Tyler - Aye
Assistant Mohn, Through Modification Number 5 the applicant is seeking approval to
allow the age restricted component of Stephenson Village to develop with a system of private
streets. Additionally this request seeks to allow housing within the mixed residential land bay
to be served by private access roads in limited circumstances.
Chainnan Shickle, any questions of staff or the applicant? Supervisor Tyler, a motion?
Supervisor Tyler, I move for approval of Modification Number 5.
Supervisor Sager, second the motion.
The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
Robert M. Sagcr - Nay
Sidney A. Reyes - Aye
Gina A. Forrester - Nay
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Absent
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Lynda I Tyler - Aye
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
ffl
Assistant Molm, Through Modification Number 6 the applicant is seeking to be
exempted from the R4 district standard requiring the provision of a phasing plan that specifies
the concluding year of each phase of development. In lieu of an annualized phasing schedule
the applicant would be enabled to phase development through alternative measures.
Chainnan Shickle, any questions of staff or the applicant?
Supervisor Tyler, and his alternative means?
Assistant Mohn,: the two alternative measures would be, number one, the 8 percent phasing
rate on the non -age restricted units and the other phasing mechanism would be the phasing of the
transportation improvement by actual traffic counts.
Supervisor Tyler, I move for approval of Modification Number 6.
Supervisor Sager, seconded the motion.
The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote:
Assistant Mohn, Through Modification Number 7 the applicant is seeking approval to
reduce the width of the road efficiency buffer required for the planned major collector road.
Chairman Shickle, any questions of staff or the applicant?
Supervisor Tyler, yes, I have a question. I understand that they are trying to do this and
enhancing the screening measures and that is proffered in there, correct?
Assistant Mohn, they've included an illustrative that specifies the, some enhanced
landscaping in that area.
Supervisor Tyler, Min-hmm. (Indicating affinnatively.)
Assistant Mohn, and that's what we would follow during implementation.
Supervisor Tyler, okay, thank you.
Supervisor Tyler moved for approval of Modification Number 7.
Supervisor Sager seconded the motion.
The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
Robert M. Sager - Aye
Sidney A. Reyes - Aye
Gina A. Forrester - Nay
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Absent
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Lynda J. Tyler - Aye
Assistant Mohn, Through Modification Number 8 the applicant is seeking approval to
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
187
provide a proffer generalized development plan with the rezoning application in lieu of a full
master development plan. With approval of this modification the master plan would follow
the rezoning action in the traditional sequence of application review.
Chairman Shickle, any questions of staff or...
Supervisor Tyler, I have a question just for clarification for just the public's awareness. I'm
not going to ask you the question, Mr. Mohn, to say that we've lost control, but I want you to
basically tell us how this doesn't let us lose control?
Assistant Mohn, well, effectively through the proffer statement, through the proffer
generalized development plan the template for the development will be in place and, of course, as
proffers, if they're adopted and accepted by the county they would be enforceable as an ordinance
for this project, for this particular R4 zoning. And furthermore, they would still have to go through
master plan, the master plan process subsequent to rezoning just like any other project would
although the sequencing or the, the scope of those master plans maybe different depending upon the,
the outcome of another modification.
Supervisor Tyler, but when they come back to us it's an administrative procedure at the point
with the master development plan?
Assistant Mohn, correct.
Supervisor Tyler, and what is going to trigger that master development plan is the proffers
and side documents, is that correct?
Assistant Mohn, the master development plan is going to be the means through which we
implement the proffer statement.
Supervisor Tyler, okay, thank you.
Chairman Shickle, Assistant Mohn, I guess the really hard question that was buried in there
somewhere is more control or less control or the same control?
Assistant Mohn, I think you may lose a level of specificity at this stage of the development
review process, but I don't believe you sacrifice any control.
Chairman Shickle, okay.
Supervisor Tyler, moved to approved Modification Number 8.
Supervisor Sager, seconded the motion,
The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote:
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
Robert M. Sager - Aye
Sidney A. Reyes - Nay
Gina A. Forrester - Nay
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Absent
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Lynda J. Tyler - Aye
Assistant Mohn, Through Modification Number 9 the applicant is seeking approval to
provide a series of master development plans to accommodate the incremental development
of Stephenson Village over time. The zoning ordinance currently requires that the scope of
a master plan and its contents address a proposed development in its entirely as a
comprehensive outline for a given project. This would enable this incremental approach
through a series of multiple master development plans that would be submitted, reviewed and
approved over the course of the development cycle.
Chairman Shickle, questions of applicant or staff? Hearing none. Supervisor Tyler
Supervisor Tyler, moved for the approval of Modification Number 9.
Supervisor Sager seconded the motion.
The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
Robert M. Sager - Aye
Sidney A. Reyes -Nay
Gina A. Forrester - Aye
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Absent
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Lynda J. Tyler - Aye
Chairman Shickle,..t do want to give, please give us some introduction and I'll give the
applicant another opportunity to make any statement and then the Board will take over.
Assistant Mohn, certainly. Just in summary, this application is a request to rezone the 794.6
acres from RA to R4 to facilitate development of a 2,465 unit planned residential community. A
proffer development program which has been outlined by the applicant this evening includes mixed
housing types, land dedicated for public uses, recreational amenities, environmental protection areas
and a multi modal transportation system organized on a planned major collector road. Moreover,
as you have just approved all nine modifications to the zoning ordinance that were requested by the
applicant there is no need for the applicant to make any adjustments to the proffer statement as it is
currently written and so your action...
Chairman Shickle, repeat again the number of acres you just said?
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
Assistant Mohn, 794.6.
Chairman Shickle, okay. I thought I heard a different number. Does the applicant wish to
make any statement?
Evan Wyatt, Mr. Chairman, with the modifications document approved we feel the proffer
statement as presented adequately mitigates the impacts. Your professional review comments are
all positive and we would request approval of this rezoning application.
Chairman Shickle, are there any questions of staff or the applicant that remain before we can
discuss her motion, are there any questions? All right, Supervisor Tyler, what is your motion?
Supervisor Tyler, well, yes, I'd like to move for approval of Rezoning Number 06-03 of
Stephenson Village.
Chairman Shickle, all right, we have a motion to approve, is there a second?
Supervisor Sager, seconded the motion.
Chairman Shickle, discussion?
Supervisor Tyler, It's been requested that we, before we vote, we state how we're going to
vote. So, I'm going to go ahead and take an opportunity to do that. I have no prepared comment.
I would like to say, however, that 1 think anybody who's been following politics here in Frederick
County for a very long time, at least since 1996 knows that this plan has been a source of contention
in this county and division. It looks as if it's appearing to be the same way except the volumes of
numbers of people turning out is extremely different. I do live in that community and I live at
Ground Zero, if you want to call it. I believe that any project that's brought that has half the traffic
impacts using twice the amount of land and the water resources and such is somewhat of a
compromise. The battlefield was a cry to be faced. I remember the September 1 Ith anniversary, the
first year anniversary, I got frantic calls from citizens in Stephenson, stop him, whatever you have
to do, stop him from destroying the battlefield, buy right five acre development would destroy the
battlefield. I thought that was important, but obviously I was mistaken in this matter. However, it
is very critical and important to me. Density's another one. I'm not a no growther, I'm not a slow
growther and density is not a bad word. Density is a way for us to be able to provide services. If
you think that by not approving any residential performance district anywhere in this county that you
are going to somehow slow growth, you are not. You are going to push that growth further out into
the county and we cannot provide the services for it. I did not run on a platform of no growth or
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
J 19011
slow growth. Iran on the platform of smart growth and if anybody thought I was any different than
that they were sorely mistaken. In fact, I remember calling numbers of people and Katherine trying
to put my name in ads and bumper stickers and such with no growth and I did not appreciate it, did
not like it, but we need to plan for it and we need to manage it. If you approve residential
performance you're not encouraging it to come, you're managing it. What is happening is that we
are gobbling up acres and acres and we cannot provide any services. We have no tax support to help
build those schools. I want to mention to everyone, too. So, back to the question is, why am I
supporting this? Because I do think that this is a compromise of sorts. It is not a vile, disgusting
project. You don't have great volumes of citizens here sitting here saying please don't, wearing those
stickers, holding signs. Yes, they'd rather have nothing happen. Something is going to happen on
that property. If we decide not to move now, we have no idea what that might be and actually I
believe there's some recourse for the, for the applicant as well. And I'm not afraid to say that I
support this project.
Chairman Shickle, any other discussion?
Supervisor Reyes, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Shickle, Supervisor Reyes,
Supervisor Reyes, would you entertain another motion?
Chairman Shickle, only an amendment, but if you try to tell me what you're trying to do I
might try to...
Supervisor Reyes, I would like to...
Chairman Shickle,A11 surely try to help.
Supervisor Reyes, amend this motion to table this until the fiscal impact model is completed.
Chairman Shickle, I believe we've already voted on that when you asked whether it would
be on the agenda or not. I don't think that the outcome would be any different. That was the subject
of that request, correct?
Supervisor Reyes, well, that was before it was entertained as an agenda item. So, now it is
an item, I'd like to make that motion.
Administrator Riley, I believe it' out of order, Chairman Shickle, at this point.
Chairman Shickle, I believe so, too.
Supervisor Forrester, Chairman Shickle, can...
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
191
Chairman Shickle, no, Administrator Riley, I believe that may not be right. Arc you looking
at the same charter I am?
Administrator Riley, I'm sorry, I, I made a...
Chairman Shickle, so, let's take Supervisor Reyes motion...
Administrator Riley all right.
Chairman Shickle, but could you, well, you did. The little chart said to a specific time and
you're saying that specific time is when the...
Supervisor Reyes, the fiscal impact model...
Chairman Shickle,, fiscal impact model is...
Supervisor Reyes, completed.
Chairman Shickle, completed?
Supervisor Reyes, right.
Chairman Shickle, so, we have a -- does everybody understand, a motion to postpone vote
until the fiscal impact model is complete?
Speaker ? Without a date?
Chairman Shickle ,there is no date.
Speaker ? that's what I said, without a date.
Chairman Shickle, yes, sir, yes. We have a motion, is there a second to that motion?
Supervisor Forrester seconded the motion.
Chairman Shickle, seconded by Supervisor Forrester. Any discussion? It is a --
on her motion and the main motion.
Supervisor Forrester, I'd like just a moment of discussion first.
Chairman Shickle, oh, well, go ahead.
Supervisor Forrester, okay. I think it's really important that, that we know what the, the real
numbers are. I mean, the Board voted to update that capital facilities impact model because we
know we're using figures that are a decade old. So, whenever we're talking about what the true
impact is to the taxpayer we really don't have anything to evaluate and the three independent studies
all used that old model as the basis of theirs. So, I would really hope that we would be looking out
for the taxpayers tonight and say we can wait another three or four months until we have that
information. And that should be in there. We've been asking for this fiscal impact model update for
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
1921
almost a year now. So, I would assume we should see something real soon.
Chairman Shickle, any other discussion?
Supervisor Tyler, sure, Chairman Shickle,
Chairman Shickle, Supervisor Tyler, I sit on the Development Impact Model Group. We're
talking two different things. There's a development impact model which is what we are currently
underway of bringing forward. It is not a capital facilities impact model. They're two distinct
animals. It's not the end all, be all. I think the beautiful thing about our development impact model
is that we are going to be able to play what if scenarios, we'd going to do build -out analysis, we're
going to be able to do a great number of things with this, but to say that this model is going be the
end all, be all, I think it's going to be interesting to run anything and the capital facilities model that
we use is not -- yes, it's decades old, but the inputs and the percentages and the numbers and the
multipliers are current day information. So, that's all I wanted to say about that. I sit on that, that,
that conunittee, it is not the end all, be all and Assistant Tierney or Administrator Riley, I don't know
who, or Director Lawrence, you sit on that committee. I think that there's this misunderstanding of
what this model is going to be capable of doing. Anybody care to elaborate or no?
Administrator Riley, I'd rather pass at this point.
Supervisor Tyler, okay, that's fine.
Chairman Shickle, any other discussion?
Supervisor Douglas, well, we vote, now we're voting on the amendment?
Chairman Shickle, no, we're voting, we're voting on a motion to postpone the vote. It's not
an amendment to the previous motion. It's a, it's a motion to postpone. Everybody clear? So, yes
means it is postponed and no means we, we go forward here tonight.
The above motion was denied by the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shickle - Nay
Robert M. Sager - Nay
Sidney A. Reyes - Aye
Gina A. Forrester - Aye
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Absent
Margaret B. Douglas - Nay
Lynda J. Tyler - Nay
Chairman Shickle the motion was defeated, so now we are back to Supervisor Tyler's motion
for approval which has a second and discussion of that if any additional discussion.
Supervisor Sager, I, I have a comment. I was kind of hoping.... until after the vote, sir, but
Minute Book Number 29
Board or Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
v
193
I think it needs to be said. Over the past several months I have received 280 c-mails which j ust about
locked up my computer. They were form letters which were sent to me concerning this, I received
35 other letters. In the c-mails, when I tried to answer these e-mails to the people that according to
the addresses that were on them, I could not correspond with them. Even if I was interested in
talking to them I couldn't reach them because I found out through a company that people just sent
their names into, I guess some kind of register, and a form letter was developed and sent e-mail to
me. I sort of resent that because i f you want me to deal with someone one on one and talk to people,
you have to give me the resource to answer and, and develop that communication which they didn't.
I did receive 35 other letters that were mailed to me and since they were form letters I didn't answer
these letters. 1 felt if someone was really interested in talking to me about preservation, about
development, what have you, the least they could have done is written an original letter. So, I, I
don't think this is the way that I, you know, would see doing business when people have a difference
or want to indicate their, their, their interest is preser — preservation of historic areas or what have
you, I just wanted to say that and I just resent the fact that they came in that way and I couldn't
communicate with them.
Chairman Shickle, other discussion?
Supervisor Douglas, I would like to comment.
Chairman Shickle, Supervisor Douglas, I think this has been talked about and discussed and
I think everybody in the county has had plenty of time to make your comments known and your
questions answered and I think it's a good plan and if it keeps these farms from being cut up into five
acre lots, I'm all for it. I think it's a wonderful plan.
Chairman Shickle, other discussion? I probably will have a lot to say about this, this vote
and this project at a later date, but tonight I would like to say one thing, and that's that what I thought
should have happened to the property, there were hundreds of people who came out to numerous
locations and told me I was wrong, that that's not what they wanted. This Board in its infinite
wisdom decided not to do those things which is industrial development. I have had less than 20
people talk to me, correspond with me or voice opposition to this project and most of them are here
tonight. That's a pretty loud message to send to an elected official about what the sentiments of the
community are. I just want to share that. Are we ready to vote? Supervisor Tyler?
The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote:
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
11 19 411
Richard C. Shickle - Aye
Robert M. Sager - Aye
Sidney A. Reyes - Nay
Gina A. Forrester - Nay
W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Absent
Margaret B. Douglas - Aye
Lynda J. Tyler - Aye
Is there, are there any other Supervisor continents?
Supervisor Tyler, I have one.
Supervisor Tyler, I'm going to make this very, very quick. This is just for your information.
I'm certain that this Board is aware that there is a very important meeting tomorrow at the Virginia
Inland Port at 6:00 o'clock dealing with your expansion of 1-81 with the Florence Carr proposal and
I will be there to plan with him. Is that...
Chairman Shickle, the meeting, that's tomorrow?
Supervisor Tyler, yes.
Chairman Shickle, do you know that any -- well, there are a couple of folks here that have
got to be elsewhere, but...
Supervisor Tyler, yes, I will be there.
Chairman Shickle, any other...
Supervisor Forrester, do we need to make a motion to adjourn?
Chairman Shickle, yes, ma'am.
Supervisor Forrester, I so move.
Chainnan Shickle, is there a second?
Supervisor Reyes, second.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD,
THIS MEETING IS HEREBY ADJOURNED. (TIME: 12:30 A.M.)
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
195
Richard C. Shickle Jo, . Riley, Jr.
Chairman, Board of Supervisors Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Minutes Prepared By:
Carol T. Bayliss
Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors
and
County Court Reporters
Minute Book Number 29
Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 09/24/03
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 Community Design 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.
N
er M. Mohn, AICP
Deputy Planning Director
Attachments
CMM/bad
cc: -J. Donald Shockey, Jr.
,Jerry Copp, VDOT Resident Engineer
_,-John Light, Stonewall District Planning Commissioner
_—Jane Anderson, Real Estate
--Marcus Lemasters, GIS
em: ,-Lynda J. Tyler, Stonewall District Board of Supervisors Member
,,--Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Planning Commission Chairman
107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
AMENDMENT
Action:
PLANNING COMMISSION: August 20, 2003 - Recommended Approval
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: September 24, 2003 - 0 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
conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the applicant and the property owner.
PDRes #19-03
0
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
Gina A. Forrester
W. Harrington Smith, Jr.
Lynda J. Tyler
Ave Sidney A. Reyes Nay
Nay Margaret B. Douglas Aye
Absent Robert M. Sager Aye
Ave
A COPY ATTEST
John R. Vey, Jr.
Frederick County Administrator
PDRes. #19-03
0 \Resolutions\2003 Rezoning Resolutions\Stephenson Village.wpd
Page 1 September 3, 2003
• 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
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).
9
•
Page 2
September 3, 2003
•
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 II, Amendments of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, the
approval of this Proffer statement constitutes an amendment to the zoning ordinance, which will
allow the expansion of the R4 District.
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.
n
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.
9 •
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
lI
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.
0
Page 5 September 3, 2003
0 Land Bay Breakdown Notes
(1) The above table represents the ranges for the referenced housing types as
proposed. The final mix will not exceed the 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, It, 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.
•
The following is an example of how the adjustment for inflation will be made.
Consumer Price Index — all Urban Consumers (Current Series)
2003 Index (upon approval) estimated
2005 Index (two years) estimated
2005 Index
2003 Index X Proffer Amount = Revised Proffer Amount
X $5,327 = $6,550
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.
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
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`h building permit in
zson Village but not later than December 31, 2013.
$50,000.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the 1,5001h building permit in
nson 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.
is
(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.
is
L�
•
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.
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 !
� 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 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 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
ARF.A.4-
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
• 0
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.
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 2501h non -age restricted building permit and be completed
prior to issuance of the 8001h building permit for the non -age restricted housing products.
B. Active Adult Recreational Center
The Applicant shall construct one (1) recreation center within one of the Land Bays identified as
shown on the Generalized Development Plan, for the private use of the residents of the Active Adult
Community. This facility will be fully bonded prior to the issuance of the first building permit in the
Active Adult Community. Work on this facility shall commence prior to the issuance of the 150`h
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:
•
•
•
� 0
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 1,2001h 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
September 3, 2003
•
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
• 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). 0
•
� 0
is
Page 19
W�
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. Housing Unit Type 3 (Cottage House) and Unit Type 4 (Courtyard Cluster)
(1) Decks and Patios
All deck planks shall be Class I (A) fire rated composite lumber or
approved equal of a standardized color to be selected by the Applicant. A
maximum of two styles of deck railing shall be used on all decks and shall
be made of the same composite lumber and the same matching color
selection.
(2) Fire Protection System
Courtyard Cluster and Cottage houses will have a 13-D sprinkler system in
the home and the garages.
D. Li htin
Any exterior lighting of individual homes or common use recreation areas shall be
directed downward and inward on the site to reduce glare on adjacent properties, the
public and/or private right-of-way, and upward stray illumination.
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.
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 (VDG]F). 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) 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.
(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. •
•
u
Page 21
0
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
isand 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 VDG1F 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.
L
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.
0
•
U]
•
•
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 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.
Page 24
September 3, 2003
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
"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
E
•
•
•
Page 25
� 0
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
0 Other housingtypes shall be added if approved, b Frederick County.
YP � PP � Y Y
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.
•
0
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. 0
•
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,
Stephens4-J
Mat , L.C.
By:
onald Shockey, Jr.
Title: Manager
Subscribed and sworn before me this Ath day of Sept. , 2003.
Notary Pub is
Susan D. Stahl
(Typed Name of Notary)
My Commission Expires: 4-30- 2004__
•
•
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.
(Typed Name of Notary)
My Commission Expires:
Notary Public
r�
•
0 �
•
EXHIBIT B
HOUSING UNIT TYPES
0
•
HOUSING UNIT TYPE I
CARRIAGE HOUSE
0 (3 sheets)
0
•
• NOTE: FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY
OPTIONAL PORCH SHOWN
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
isCARRIAGE HOUSE ILLUSTRATIVE
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
•
S-rF-EET"
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
0
E
NOTE: FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY
OPTIONAL FENCE SHOWN
sT�EET
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)
•
0
•
• 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.
•
•
47 � Nlt�•
STREET
STANDARDS: Living Space (min.) Decks (min.)
Q ItJ
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.
11
Front Facade
*porches, stoops,
and steps may
extend 6'-0" into
front yard
setbacks
•
•
A.-l.,v✓ -rizc.v
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.
i •
•
HOUSING UNIT TYPE 3
COTTAGE HOUSE
� (3 sheets)
• • •
•
NOTE: FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY
OPTIONAL PORCH SHOWN
OPTIONAL FENCE SHOWN
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
COTTAGE HOUSE ILLUSTRATIVE
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
•
0
•
ST�f,E T
4 st iL
to, MIN. rcf- aeNEE- �� p{�� 5' MIN.
LOTS
I I
C
AuX(
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/corner unit
and steps may
Rear yard: 5'4'
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
is STEPHENSON VILLAGE
COTTAGE HOUSE. TYPICAL
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
•
S T-r-EET
•
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
0 •
U
NOTE: FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY
•
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
• COURTYARD CLUSTER ILLUSTRATIVE
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
• •
• Courtyard Clusters Typical This housing type consists of single-family dwellings combined to form a
multi -family cluster of units. The cluster creates a private parking court, therefore removing garages from the main travel ways. No
fewer than two and no more than seven units shall be combined in any courtyard cluster. Each unit has direct access to a private yard.
A fence or fence and wall combination shall be located between units to enclose the courtyard. Each unit shall have at least one 3'
gate providing access to the rear yard from the courtyard. The following table specifies the minimum standards for this Courtyard
Cluster house type.
Minimum Area Per Unit: 2,000 sq. ftJdwelling unit
Minimum Setbacks:
To garage from street or common driveway: 19 ft.
To dwelling from street: 18 ft.
Distance between units: 10 ft.
To dwelling from common driveway: 3 ft.
To dwelling from interior lot line: 3 ft.
To dwelling from perimeter property line: 10 fL
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,
3erty Line
ine
19
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
is COURTYARD CLUSTER TYPICAL
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
e::.:e: =:WV
..
aS/S■ddl
■■rt
lrnrdn■
laarrr�
lSrrar�
P
;;;
roa iii,,
iiiiSusan/_
Susan■ i/news
nrss
■SSurr irursr
SudanSudan■ gars■
:::No land■
■urrrr 1b ii
+ RM
b
r
r
0pem.. ,.
•
•
•
HOUSING UNIT TYPE 5
MODIFIED SINGLE-FAMILY SMALL LOT
0 (1 sheet)
C
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 lute 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
� (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 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
(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: SO'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.
cs
cc O
W cmv
W 02 w
Z ° m n
RTE. 761 OLD CHARLES
W � A ,0
P.
ACCESS ROAD ACCESS ROAD
I { JR. SOCCER FIELDS /4
W
H
" 0
PAVED PARKING TYPICAL
wm
SOC,
�i �NTTT?i11 C
JR. BA L F ELDS SOCCER FIELDS
E 19 =
W
CL
a o
5
SCHOOL
z
•
PAVILLION �r `
OVERFLOW PARKING TYPICAL
J Z co g
LLj Q W O a
p U o
I- IL C� (3 z 5
SERVICEIEMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD- //
MAJOR COLLECTOR R u
-�� OAD
w W
F H
U
�� �
�� ��
Mq✓oR
a � Q
CT
090
U r
a w H
� Qwzo
x
0 Z U
o w a
w w
E-- x
o
U)
C/1
DATE: MARCH 2O03
NOTE
SCALE: 1 "=125'
THIS LAYOUT FOR THE SCHOOL/PARK SITE 129
CONCEPTUAL AND FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY.
DESIGNED BY: MPR
THE FINAL LOCATION OR ORIENTATION OF THE
INDIVIDUAL LANDBAYS AND/OR THEIR ASSOCIATED
COMPONENTS MAY
JOB N0. 2780C
BE SLIGHTLY ALTERED TO REFLECT
MORE ACCURATE ENGINEERING.
SHEET 1 OF 1
0
E
•
EXHIBIT D
TYPICAL MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD SECTION
(1 sheet)
•
•
•
0
ILAHPsc.,M A"^ L tJtTir1,-.re 4T"zr iswl. — 7 t tAAmcA AFCA L
NOTE: For illustrative purposes only
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
"EXHIBIT W
TYPICAL MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD SECTION
Scale: NTS March 2003
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
f�
•
LJ
u
U
0
Pi
HOUSING
HOUSING NAME
MINIMUM
AVERAGE
MIN. LOT
MIN.
MIN. FRONT YARD
MIN. REAR
MIN. SETBACK
MIN. SETBACK
MIN. SIDE YARD SETBACK
MIN.
MIN. SETBACK FROM
DECK MIN. SETBACK
DECK MIN.
FRONT
DETACHED
MAXIMUM
OFF
UNIT TYPE
LOT WIDTH
LOT AREA
AREA
SQUARE
SETBACK FROM
YARD
TO DWELLING
DISTANCE BETWEEN
ON INTERIOR LOT LINE
SETBACK TO
GARAGE TO INTERIOR
INTERIOR LOT LINE
SETBACK
PORCHES,
ACCESSORY
BUILDING
STREET
SQUARE
SQUARE
FOOTAGE
R/W OR PRIVATE
SETBACK
FROM
DWELLING UNITS
SIDE 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,
511101/10,
NA/20'
3'110'
S'/10'
157NA
6'
20'
35'
2
NON -ALLEY
2
CARRIAGE
47'
NA
4,700
1,400
15'
25'
NA
'10'
5'115'110'
207NA
3'/10'
5'110'
373'
6'
20'
35'
2
3
COTTAGE
34'
NA
3,264
1,400
15,
20'
NA
10' ON NON
01I51/10'
NA/20'
O'INA
5'/10'
5'INA
6'
NA
35'
2
ATTACHED SIDE
37NA/NA (10' FROM
NA/NA
NA/NA
DWELLING TO
(19' FROM
NA/NA
(6' FROM
4
COURTYARD
NA
3,300
NA
2,000
10'
NA
3'
10'
3'INA
(5' FROM INTERIOR
PERIMETER
6'
NA
35'
2
PERIMETER PROPERTY
LINE)
COMMON
DRIVEWAY)
LOT LINE)
PROPERTY
LINE
MODIFIED
10- (0' FOR THE
(0' FOR ZERO LOTLINE
5'110' (0' FOR ZERO
5710- (0' FOR ZERO
5
SINGLE FAMILY
38'
NA
3,750
NA
20'
15'
NA
ATTACHED OPTION)
SIDE WITH A COMBINED
y0'/15'
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
SETBACK5'
6
TOWNHOUSE
16'
1,300
1,200
NA
LOADED GARAGE
20'
NA
WALL OF END UNIT
01101/10,
20'/5'
01/10,
01/10,
S'/5'
,
FOR A
20. HT.
35'
2
UNITS)
TO ANY OTHER
SETBACK
HOME
20' (10' FOR NON
0' (25' FROM NON
12' FOR A 20'
MODIFIED
GARAGE OR REAR
ATTACHED SIDE
SETBACK, 5'
6
TOWNHOUSE
18,
1,500
1,400
NA
LOADED GARAGE
20'
NA
WALL OF END UNIT
0701110'
2075'
01/10,
01/10,
5115'
FOR A
20' HT.
35'
2.25
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
01/01/10,
20'/5'
01110,
01/10,
575'
FORA 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.
•
0
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)
L_J
•
•
0 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 Tye 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
0 § 165-72B(2) Alternative dimensional requirement plan
0
0
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.
•
E
E
EXHIBIT B
HOUSING UNIT TYPES
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
CARRIAGE HOUSE ILLUSTRATIVE
• Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
•
-17 Nib.
iE
•
STr-EET
STANDARDS: Living Space (min.) Decks (min.)
114.
z
r
N
1400 square feet Side yard setback: 5'-0" interior lot lines
Side yard setback: 10'-0" corner lot perimeter lot line
Rear yard setback: T-0"
*decks must be located in rear yards and shall not be
erected fonyard of the rear plane of a chi elling unit
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
isScale:
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
•
•
•
E
0
S-TR-EET
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 vard 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
• SST
•
I 1 -41 s l k-
101 M I N. Fcf- cop, NEF-
- ,k- LICTS
MN.
F71 I
! I I I
I I
t
i
ALUM
STANDARDS: Lot Width(min.) Living Space (min.) Decks (min.) Front Facade
34'-0" 1400 square feet Side yard: 5'-0" interior unit *porclies, 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 fonvard of
the rear plane of a dwelling unit
• STEPHENSON VILLAGE
COTTAGE HOUSE TYPICAL
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. ft./dwelling 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 fl.
'lo dwelling from interior lot line: 3 ft.
To dwelling from perimeter property line: 10 2
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.
�' Minimum 34' Minimum
Mint mum
�
5' Minimum — 5' Mmimum 'Minimum
5' !\luumum 3' Minimum
_ 10' Miuimimi
• I LOT 2
1(P Minimum-1
3`
5' Minimum
136' hLnvnum
ZINC-!
�M
ZINC- a
1\Np�
10' Mir
r
LOT 3
• STEPHENSON VILLAGE
COURTYARD CLUSTER TYPICAL
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
LOT 4
Minimum
Perimeter Property line
Topical
Interior Lot line
Typical
Fence
Typical
Gale
I Typical
Deck or Patio
LOT 5
0' Nlnlmum
10,
Common Driveway Street
2t' or 21.
E
• Modified single-family small lot Single family shall lothousing 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) 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 ade 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 mall lot housing unit is
chosen, the minimum building spacing requirement shall be 10 feet.
(h) Supplementary setbacks:
[1] With the single-family snall 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 buildngs 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.
P�
• 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
dwelling; 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) 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) Maximumbuildingheight shall be as follows:
(a) Principle building: 35 feet
(b) Accessory buildings: 20 feet
(5) Minimumyard setbacks for garages
(a) Side: 10 feet from lot line (end unit) for detached garage option
(b) Side: 0 feet from interior lot line for detached garage option
(c) Rear: 5 feet from lot line for detached garage option
(6) Supplementary setbacks:
(a) With the modified townhouse housing type, decks may extend 15 feet into
rear yard setback areas.
(b) Where modified townhouse abuts open space, decks may extend up to 15
feet into rear yard setback areas.
(c) Front porches, stoops and steps may extend 6 feet into a 10 foot front yard
• setback and 12 feet into a 20 foot front yard setback.
• Elderly housing. Elderly housing are multifamily buildings where individual dwelling
units share a common outside access. They also share a common yard area, which is the
sum of the required lot areas of all dwelling units within the building. Elderly housing
shall contain six or more dwellings in a single structure. Required open space shall not
be included as minimum lot area.
•
0
(3)
(4)
(5)
Maximum gross density shall be 45 units per acre.
Development requirements shall be as follows:
Number of Bedrooms
Efficiency
2
3 plus
Off -Street Parking SUaces
1.50
2.00
2.25
2.50
Maximum site impervious surface ratio (on lot) shall be sixty -hundredths
(0.60).
Minimum lot size shall be one (1) acre.
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
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 Design Standard:
Elimination of the requirement for both business and industrial land uses in Stephenson
Village; establish a minimum of 4% of the gross area of the project to be used for
commercial land use; allow for the majority of the commercial land uses to be located in
a defined commercial center instead of all phases of Stephenson Village.
Justification for Modification:
40 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.
U
0 •
MINIMUM REQUIRED GROSS AREA OF
COMMERCIAL
& INDUSTRIAL USES WITHIN PLANNED
COMMUNITY
GROSS AREA
OF
COMMERCIAL
USES,
3%
OTEPHENSON VILLAGE
WAIVER #3a SUPPORT GRAPHIC
Scale: NTS April 2003
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
GROSS AREA
OF
INDUSTRIAL
USES
7%
•
PROPOSED GROSS AREA OF BUSINESS
USES WITHIN PLANNED COMMUNITY
GROSS AREA
OF BUSINESS
*STEPHENSON VILLAGE
WAIVER #3b SUPPORT GRAPHIC
Scale: NTS April 2003
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
•
n
U
0 MODIFICATION #4
•
•
Ordinance Requirement:
§ 165-72F Recreational facilities
A recreational unit is designed to meet the recreational needs of 30 dwelling units. The
units may be broken into smaller units or added together to meet the needs of the planned
community.
Alternative Design Standard:
A recreational unit is designed to meet the recreational needs of 30 dwelling units. The
units may be broken into smaller units or added together to meet the needs of the planned
community. The value of one recreational unit shall be equivalent to the value of one
recreational tot lot unit described in § 165-64B(1) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Justification for Modification:
Stephenson Village will provide the equivalent of one recreational unit for every 30
dwelling units developed in the entire community. The recreational facilities will include
two recreational centers, a competition swimming pool, a linear park trail and pedestrian
trail systems. The Applicant should be given credit for the value of these planned
recreational facilities based on a formula that is the value of one recreational tot lot x the
number of required recreational units to serve the entire community. The planned
recreational facilities for the overall community and for the active adult community
provides for year-round recreational opportunities for the Stephenson Village community
that traditional outdoor recreational units do not. Therefore, it is reasonable to utilize the
recreational unit value formula to meet the recreational needs of this community.
•
•
RECREATION VALUE EQUIVALANCY COMPARISON
A single recreational unit is designed to meet the recreational needs of 30 dwelling units,
which has a monetary value of approximately 17,000 dollars which may by adjusted to
reflect the current value of a tot lot. The items listed below illustrate a methodology used
to achieve the required overall recreational needs by assigning recreational units to the
actual costs of the recreational facilities provided. The units maybe broken into smaller
units or added together to meet the needs of the total development. Following is alist of
possible recreational facilities, which may be proposed at Stephenson Village and their
associated monetary value. The actual cost of the items listed below may indeed differ±
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 94 SUPPORT GRAPHIC
Scale: NTS April 2003
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
= ± $ 17,000 (1 Rec. Unit)
= ± $ 42,000 (2.45 Rec. Units)
= ± $ 266,300 (15.66 Rec. Units)
= ± $ 375,000 (22.06 Rec. Units)
= ± $ 19,500 (1.15 Rec. Units)
= ± $ 21,750 (1.28 Rec. Units)
• MODIFICATION #5 § 165-72I Road access
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
design, it will be necessary to utilize private access drives to serve small numbers of
0
• 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.
•
•
CJ
C�
0
f U L I L STP-CET
.• 10Ob
FvTu4 AL Tra, CAV6
4o' i 4R Ess�/E (� jLESS PASeA-H r `
Ii
--Fr) LoT
F-
• STEPHENSON VILLAGE
WAIVER #5a SUPPORT GRAPHIC
Scale: April 2003
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
TYM -AL sFP FL.% t�-r
•
•
0
0
?IJHF-AV-Tolj ACTIVE AMIL-T Cor{H6t4ITy
rPI VATS STR-EeT SYsTE ri
VISTAHC-E FIZ- d T-oiHT A To f011}T A5
L-ILASIaeED ALorI(q -ME STET c.E1-{-LTEp-"Ht
f QUADS 3500 FEET.
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
WAIVER #5b SUPPORT GRAPHIC
Scale: April 2003
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
0
f'oi dT A
volt -IT 5
•
•
:7
L�
•
� tLco�T I �� sri,r�l PAD
I Got-1��E'fE �
N
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
WAIVER #5c SUPPORT GRAPHIC
Scale: April 2003
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
sTr-mT
0 •
• 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.
LJ
•
0
• 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.
z
•
LArIDSCAPE AFfi� I.ILTI r'I�TE S7P�1 R.ol.l _ 17ScA� Ag'F♦`
VAp16S ZS' �I .lfc
VAPIES Z5'r )4
PerErITJAI, ISM rUe-uf- LITILATY EAtPtiE -r PoTtr171AL Iz' gdjN I& &ww EA&LHer4T
•
*H.-re. THE l:,rlp-^p6 Aer-A 01LU AT A r11 1rl1lrl Fe zs' iH LIIDiry, rwevim I— rLAHT 0,11TS PLIz IDOL44w-FmT (Df.--IVdoL15 PIAt4T r{4TEGIAI. tiol Tv FXeMl> 501 cf rLAI41 OHIIS)
PLAHT MATEWAL FoE LAHVSCAPE APEA To 6E DET6QNIr4EA AT RHAL DEsI(aA
FV--IPE A SIX f6T 111141H"11 4101 5-F-"d UTluvrI61 My Ccrie)i4A-vtml of EITAev- A StIFU6 HEN-6, WcE, ►.TALL-HOLIHD olr- F-if-Ti•
-r4IS tXdl61T is. pr—MU roe- ILWSrii.ATIvf fIUWPSES GHLY.
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
"EXHIBIT W
TYPICAL MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD SECTION
Scale: NTS March 2003
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
n
U
•
• 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
Is 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.
is
00
no 1/
00 '
7 / HIATT RUN
III �
MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD
GDP LEGEND C v
MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD
INTER PARCEL CONNECTIONS
NOTE: THIS GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL L ,¢ argu s ourt
AND FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. THE FINAL LOCATION
OR ORIENTATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL LANDBAYS AND/OR THEIR �U/7
ASSOCIATED COMPONENTS MAY BE SLIGHTLY ALTERED TO O \
REFLECT MORE ACCURATE ENGINEERING. ��Ck
*4
COMMUNITY �l)
RECREATION
CENTER
V�/
YERS / // /�'/`! / ' � � / ' " /7/ / /
1RK 4
�/ � WETLANDS
INTERMEDIATE
RAVINE CHANNEL
+ III afthk LINEAR PARK
OPEN SPACE
HIATT RUN
CORRIDOR
ACTIVE ADULT
RECREATION
CENTER
IV
R01'
C�
� oss�n
HIATT RUN
O
LAND BAY BREAKDOWN
LAND
BAY
LAND USE
ACREAGE
% RANGE OF
HOUSING UNIT TYPES
MIN. MAX.
1
ELEM. SCHOOL
20 Ac. +/—
NA NA
11
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:
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)
ultifamily (Condominiums, Elderly Housing, Housing
nit Type 3—Cottage House)
126 Ac.+/—
30 53
COMMERCIAL CENTER
(Retail, Office & Public Service Satellite Facility)
26 Ac. t —
NA NA
SEE NOTES ADDRESSING ABOVE CHART IN PROFFER 3. USES, DENSITY & MIX OF HOUSING TYPES A. (2) (IA)
cs
� o
W N m
W w d
m
a)
Y � 0a)
b ao
WLAM
a
HC'
� m w
F, 5 q) 0 �,
on
W Ul
w
L)
u
U
u
Q
w
a
a
U)
0
z
z
z
z
5
w
0)
c�
z
z
z
5
0
z
5
L
z
�
a
hz
W
Q�
�-,
o
�¢a
7
w
0
C/] �D
—0
Q
X
�U
N
w
Q
Qr'
w
^
h-�
O fs.
E-
1
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.
•
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED COMMUNITY
Community Design Modifications Document
Prepared By: Greenway Engineering & The Land Planning and Design Group, Inc.
April 2003
(kezoning Exhibit F)
•
•
•
MODIFICATION #1 § 165-71 Mixture of housing types required
Ordinance Requirement:
No more than 40% of the area of portions of the planned community designated for
residential uses shall be used for any of the following housing types: duplexes,
multiplexes, atrium houses, weak -link townhouses, townhouses or garden apartments or
any combination of those housing types.
Alternative Design Standard:
No more than 60% of the area of portions of the planned community for residential uses
shall be used for the housing types identified in the townhouse, multifamily and active
adult
MIXED RESIDENTIAL MATRIX
Housing Unit Type
Minimum %
Maximum %
Single Family Dwellings
30
64
(Hosing Unit Type 1,2,4,5 & RP District SFD)
Townhouse Dwellings
10
30
(Housing Unit Type 6 & RP District Townhouse)
Multifamily Dwellings
7
35
(Condominiums, Elderly Housing, Housing Unit Type 3
& RP District Duplex, Multiplex, Atritim and Garden Apt.
Active Adult Dwellings
19
53
Single Family Dwelling (Housing Unit Type 1,2 & 5)
Multifamily (Condominiums, Elderly Housing, Housing
Unit Type 3)
Justification for Modification:
The proffered Generalized Development Plan identifies that residential land uses will be
located within Land Bays III and IV. The Generalized Development Plan does not
account for the approximate 125 acres within the Hiatt Run Corridor and the Wetlands
Intermediate Ravine Channel that is contiguous to Land Bays III and IV. Therefore, the
Generalized Development Plan accounts for approximately 621 acres to be utilized for
residential land use within Stephenson Village.
• The required calculation of 40% of the approximate 621-acre area of portions of the
planned community designated for residential use in this case amounts to approximately
248.5 acres that can be utilized for duplexes, multiplexes, atrium houses, weak -link
townhouses, townhouses or garden apartments.
The residential program that has been developed for Stephenson Village is designed to
provide for housing opportunities for all age groups in the community. Stephenson
Village will also provide for an active adult community that may develop beyond the
designated 126-acre land bay identified on the Generalized Development Plan. The
success of the active adult community and housing for young professionals may expand
beyond the program limits identified in the program; therefore, a modification of the 40%
of residential land area is appropriate. Stephenson Village requests a modification to
allow a maximum of 60%, or approximately 372.5 acres of the residential land area to
provide for the development of housing types identified in the mixed residential matrix
table. Stephenson Village further commits to the provision of a mixture of housing types
by establishing minimum and maximum percentages for the variety of housing types
identified in the mixed residential matrix table. This commitment exceeds the current
ordinance requirement by ensuring that a residential mix will be provided in lieu of one
housing type (i.e. garden apartments) occupying 40% of the residential land area.
0
. MODIFICATION #2 § 165-69 Permitted uses
§ 165-72B(2) Alternative dimensional requirement plan
:7
9
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.
r�
EXHIBIT B
HOUSING UNIT TYPES
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
WAIVER #2 SUPPORT GRAPHIC
Scale: NTS April 2003
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
•
•
7
t
_M
114.
STr_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.
iE
la
Front Facade
*porches, stoops,
and steps may
extend 6-0" into
front yard
setbacks
•
0
S -T F-EE -F
I
STANDARDS: Living Space (min.) Decks (min.)
1400 square feet Side yard setback: 5'-0" interior lot line
Side yard setback: 10'-0" corner lot perimeter lot line
Rear yard setback: 15'-0"
*decks must be located in rear yards and shall not be
erected forward of the rear plane of a dwelling unit
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
CARRIAGE HOUSE TYPICAL
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
Front Facade
*porches, stoops,
and steps may
extend 6'-0" into
front yard
setback
E
•
STD-f.ET
to' MIN. #or- CoeNE2 4' rlt�1. 5' Mw
LOTS
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. ftJdwelling unit
Minimum Setbacks:
To garage from street or common driveway: 19 ft.
To dwelling from street: 18 fL
Distance between units: 10 ft.
To dwelling from common driveway: 3 ft.
To dwelling from interior lot line: 3 ft-
To 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.
144' Mimmum
' Minlmwn
Minimum
5' Mimmum— — 5' Minimum ' Minimum
5' Minimum 3' Minimum
_--- 10' Minimum
I LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4
• I0' Minimum
10' Minimum
3' �3
138,
Minimum
...
�1100is....m�Ev..... Perimeter Property Une
•
111111m:1��■ �
1:00000
08"mI memo 0 Interior Lot Line
�■
loomenum a
NEWS Ioohomm•m� ������Typical
it
Knew ismann\weem �.����
1Momma toot�Mmmo\o O0�.��
1unman � 1mm::Mummmmmomoom ON11�9
1\mmom1 1oso�����\� �0
Fence
loness1 in�1:11111■ 0 a�
a Typical
1 ��
1���\���Gate
01 1oommomme on\innown inommoung I ONE Typical
�\�
a Smoot
1Nwl 'Momm:���� o��MeM
I�0 0 Immuss���H n��\a� 1
amo_g
• ock or Patio
M • r�
n' Minimum
I��'ll- 1 1 -I'�I■am!
Common Driveway Street
• STEPHENSON VILLAGE
COURTYARD CLUSTER TYPICAL
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
:7
Modified sinjIle-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
• 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
issetback 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
sure 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:
EA
•
Number of Bedrooms
Efficiency
2
3 plus
Off -Street Parking Spaces
1.50
2.00
2.25
2.50
(3) Maximum site impervious surface ratio (on lot) shall be sixty -hundredths
(0.60).
(4) Minimum lot size shall be one (1) acre.
(5) Minimum yards shall be as follows:
a. Front setback:
i. Twenty-five (25) feet from road right-of-way.
ii. Ten (10) feet from parking area or driveway.
b. Side setback:
i. Twenty-five (25) feet from perimeter boundary.
c. Rear setback:
i. Fifty (50) feet from perimeter boundary.
(6) Minimum on -site building spacing shall be twenty five (25) feet.
(7) Maximum number of dwellings units per building shall be (125)
(8) Maximum building height shall be as follows:
a. Principal building height: -forty five (45) feet.
b. Accessory buildings: twenty (20) feet.
•
•
NOTE: FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
ELDERLY HOUSING ILLUSTRATIVE
• Scale: NTS April 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
•
MODIFICATION 93 § 165-72D Commercial and industrial areas
§ 165-72M(3) Nonresidential land use phasing
Ordinance Requirement:
A minimum of 10% of the gross area of the project shall be used for business and
industrial uses. The phasing plan for the development shall include a reasonable portion
of the nonresidential uses in all phases of the development.
Alternative Design Standard:
Elimination of the requirement for both business and industrial land uses in Stephenson
Village; establish a minimum of 4% of the gross area of the project to be used for
com inercial 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.
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%
0
PROPOSED GROSS AREA OF BUSINESS
USES WITHIN PLANNED COMMUNITY
GROSS AREA
•
0'.
TEPHENSON VILLAGE
WAIVER #3b SUPPORT GRAPHIC
Scale: NTS April 2003
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
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.
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.
0
is
RECREATION VALUE EQUIVALANCY COMPARISON
A single recreational unit is designed to meet the recreational needs of 30 dwelling units,
which has a monetary value of approximately 17,000 dollars which may by adjusted to
reflect the current value of a tot lot. The items listed below illustrate a methodology used
to achieve the required overall recreational needs by assigning recreational units to the
actual costs of the recreational facilities provided. The units may be broken into smaller
units or added together to meet the needs of the total development. Following is a list of
possible recreational facilities, which may be proposed at Stephenson Village and their
associated monetary value. The actual cost of the items listed below may indeed differ
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.
= f $ 17,000 (1 Rec. Unit)
= f $ 42,000 (2.45 Rec. Units)
= ± $ 266,300 (15.66 Rec. Units)
= ± $ 375,000 (22.06 Rec. Units)
= ± $ 19,500 (1.15 Rec. Units)
= ± $ 21,750 (1.28 Rec. Units)
• MODIFICATION #5 § 165-72I Road access
§ 165-29A(14) Motor vehicle access
§ 144-24C; C2(a); C2(b) Lot access
Ordinance Requirement:
The plaruied community development shall be provided with a complete system of public
streets dedicated to the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Alternative Design Standard:
The planned community development shall be provided with a complete system of public
streets dedicated to the Virginia Department of Transportation, excluding the street
system serving the active adult community and/or private access drives serving no more
than five single family dwelling units or ten single family dwelling units if the private
access drive connects to two public streets. The minimum distance from a public street
shall not apply in the active adult community provided that the lots are served by a road
system that provides for multiple street intersections to enhance looping and provide for
safe and efficient emergency access. The cross sectional base and pavement standard for
private streets shall meet or exceed VDOT requirements, with the allowance of using a
• decorative cap on the private street to promote enhanced design. The cross sectional
standard for private access drives serving limited single family dwellings shall include an
8" aggregate type 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.
0
Instances will occur in the design of Stephenson Village where it is desirable to preserve
stands of trees or other environmental features, maintain open views at the end of cul-de-
sacs, and front houses towards main road systems. To accomplish these goals during
design, it will be necessary to utilize private access drives to serve small numbers of
single family dwellings. Current ordinance requirements do not provide for this design
flexibility; therefore, residential lots are designed to maximize public street frontage due
to construction costs and density yields. Stephenson Village will be planned to account
for the measures described in this paragraph, which will be beneficial in achieving these
design goals and will serve as a model for other developments to follow. The cross
sectional base and surface standards are consistent with VDOT standards for a
subdivision street serving 450 vehicle trips per day.
•
•
•
ewe ••
wo
PU r l I G STp�eEI"
j'oieATIAL TPt SAV6
4o, FAsE l k- I T `
•
P
SFD L-OT
•
0 STEPHENSON VILLAGE
WAIVER #5a SUPPORT GRAPHIC
Scale: April 2003
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
TYYIcAu SFD FL-% LOT
•
•
C
?IJHE�AKt rol ACTIVE AbLiL-T
rv-I vATE STET ,YsTE H
Cor{HdHITr
VISTAHC-L 1`12-orl F-IdT A To �oIHT �, A5
MtASd V-F-p ALoH(q -TdE STET C EHTti1Z-L-IrIE
E QUAL S '5300 FEET.
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
• WAIVER #5b SUPPORT GRAPHIC
Scale: April 2003
THE LAND PLANNING 8c DESIGN GROUP, INC.
f-It-IT .6
•
-Y �I
I d.
Goti�}zE'TE N
•
sTg-mT
0 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.
0
• MODIFICATION 97 § 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.
0
• • •
Lj nri,-,TE =Tm-r C-.A L/tiyVW=
LA'iDScAPE AREA -- V^plc6-
VARIES Z5' MI Xc
PeTEI'ITIAL IS fl16UG UTILITY FAsEY1EdT Porcrl'fIAL Is i'1l bl.le- LMUTY Fi>sErIE T
i t{aTE' i�iE l,�.riaw.pE. A�ff+ 411 LL. Ar A f1�eJili�H EE 2S' IN I�IVrd ptovjM Io p�T LIMITS PEP- 100 UriE^F- F2GT PLAIiT 1'kTEG NI_ I'}ol To Etc ��E,p 50'/. OF p45F�T 1��i115/
PLMT MATEWAI, FoC LAHDS[APE AW To bE DEMP11O&V AT F04AL- DESIeA.
fg-.-IM A SIX fioT > ItraIFIIJt1 40GOT 6 f d AJTIUsiej(� A+IV COHN kTjorl of EITaer A 94FLIK HEDGE, Frticb, DIAL HOLi�ID el[ ?if H.
-MIS C>(OWT IS- Pf.AD a FoE ILW5-TQ.ATIVE FUW—Sr5 -dLi.
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
"EXHIBIT W
TYPICAL MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD SECTION
Scale: NTS March 2003
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
• MODIFICATION #8 § 165-68 Rezoning procedure
Ordinance Requirement:
In order to have land rezoned to the R4 District, a master development plan, meeting all
requirements of Article XVII of this chapter, shall be submitted with the rezoning
application.
Alternative Design Standard:
The provision of a proffered Generalized Development Plan for Stephenson Village to
identify the concept of the overall acreage and its relationship to adjoining properties and
adjoining roadways. The Generalized Development Plan for Stephenson Village will
provide Land Bays to demonstrate the proposed general land use layout for the entire
acreage. The Generalized Development Plan for Stephenson Village will also provide a
matrix identifying the residential and non-residential land uses within each Land Bay, the
projected acreage of each Land Bay and the percentage of housing unit types that are
proposed to ensure that a mixture of housing types is provided.
Justification for Modification:
A residential planned community on 500+ 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 infoim 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
I
��j
11111111 MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD
INTER PARCEL CONNECTIONS
NOTE: THIS GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL
AND FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. THE FINAL LOCATION
OR ORIENTATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL LANDBAYS AND/OR THEIR
ASSOCIATED COMPONENTS MAY BE SLIGHTLY ALTERED TO
REFLECT MORE ACCURATE ENGINEERING.
RT 16TOwN
I .4 4, 11
MAJOR /
COLLECTOR
�
lot
F- -
COMMUNITY -7 Oil
RECREATION T
CENTER
000, /'� / Ih► ` V i
SAMUEL BYERS
LANDMARK #
34-1124 �.
WETLANDS
INTERMEDIATE
RAVINE CHANNEL
t
OPEN SPACE
1�
HIATT RUN
HIATT RUN
CORRIDOR
MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD
y ACTIVE ADULT
RECREATION
CENTER
f417
L1c.F
IV
III
LINEAR PARK
TRAIL —
MATT RUN
I
11
1
LAND BAY BREAKDOWN
ND BAY
LAND USE
ACREAGE
% RANGE OF
HOUSING UNIT TYPE
MIN.
MAX.
1
ELEM. SCHOOL
20 Ac. +/—
NA
NA
11
COMMUNITY PARK
(6 baseball fields & 6 soccer fields)
24 Ac. +/—
NA
NA
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)
Ac. t —
NA
NA
z N
Q O
Co
W N m
N
z 0 m N
mm
O)
Lam
ZIP- 7 N
N
V •� 0.1
W .0kO
Ill a aX
'31 F k.
n
m w m
t. 0
q CD
q
61
w�
61
m m N O
w
cr
N
U
N E
H
w U m M
3
U
K
x
O w Q
M w
m
LO
w
w
LL
V)
z
z
z
z
5
a
7
w
7 z
Z
�
wz 00
5
QWp Uo
Pa-zC�z
5
W
z
E-
a
L)
Fz
ra a
�z
W
W
�:)
—O
W
Z
W
U
Q
W
h-�
Z �
z
W
E- C=.
7)
DATE:
MARCH 2O03
SCALE:
1"=1000'
DESIGNED BY:MDS/JNTI
JOB NO. 2760C
SEE NO ITS ADDRESSING ABOVE CHART IN PROFFER 3. USES, DENSI I & MIX OF HOUSING TYPES A. (2) (14)
SHEET 1 OF 1
McCq�rN
RTE. gag �
3.5 +/- ACRES
AREA NOT TO
BE REZONED
.100
,
00
onNo00
GDP LEGEND
MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD
INTER PARCEL CONNECTIONS
NOTE: THIS GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL
AND FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. THE. FINAL LOCATION
OR ORIENTATION OF FHE INDIVIDUAL LANDBAYS AND/OR THEIR
ASSOCIATED COMPONENTS MAY BE SLIGHTLY ALTERED TO
REFLECT MORE ACCURATE ENGINEERING.
Oo=
/ COMMUNITY
RECREATION
FOR CENTER
SAMUEL BYERS / I / � � � .' / / /74
/71 % r
LANDMARK #
'*A*l 34- 1124 WETLANDS
INTERMEDIATE
RAVINE CHANNEL
III
HIATT RUN
o 111 �
MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD
fu17
Lic4P
LINEAR PARK Vit nov........ TRAILS ("/
i
/j
,11 �
ACTIVE ADULT -
RECREATION
CENTER
IV
HIATT RUN
cL f /.
O
I ON
LAND BAY BREAKDOWN
USE
ACREAGE
% RANGE OF
OUSING UNIT TYPES
MIN. MAX.
FNDBAYLAND
ELEM.SCHOOL
20 Ac. +/-
NA NA
COMMUNITY PARK
(6 baseball fields & 6 soccer fields)
24 Ac. +/-
NA NA
III
MIXED RESIDENTIAL:
475 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)
NA NA
SEE NOTES ADDRESSING ABOVE CHART IN PROFFER 3. USES, DENSITY S MIX OF HOUSING TYPES A. (2) (]A)
cs
f N
O
LU toCV
m
LU N d
m q � Nm
i' fix' W
N
N
d N g3
0
W It A p N
LAW
U
IM �� F
5 11) 0,
q
Wcf)
n 0 cv rn
p O O II-Q lNQ
W F N Ih 1()
p rn rn
W Y O O
3 U Cl) M
g w
W IL
m p
N IL
Ir
LL
C) z
zzt�
a_
¢zcoD
w<C)o
= J �
I— a_ Cb 0
U
U
U
a
w
a
LO
U
0
z
z
z
z
g
In
z
z
z
5
z
5
w
z
L)
a
E-z
co
0
E-
W
O
W
Cn
�U
U
N
a
w
a
W
F�
W
W
f=.
F.F.
DATE:
AUGUST 18 2003
SCALE:
1 "=1000'
DESIGNED BY:MDS/JNT
JOB NO. 2760C
SHEET 1 OF 1
CH DES Tom
�I 1
O
AIcCANIV
RTE
D.
838
3.5 +/- ACRES
AREA NOT TO
BE REZONED
00 '
/I
GDPLEGEND
sea wo
MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD
4 INTER PARCEL CONNECTIONS
NOTE. llHIS GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL
AND FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. THE FINAL LOCATION
OR ORIEN I A"rION OF THE INDIVIDUAL LANDBAYS AND/OR THEIR
ASSOCIATED COMPONENTS MAY BE SLIGHTLY ALTERED TO
REFLECT MORE ACCURATE ENGINEERING.
T
MAJOR COLLE TOR
HIATT RUN
III +
MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD
4l,
n
COMMUNITY
RECREATION
CENTER
R°qo � III c
SAMUEL BYERS
LANDMARK #
34-1124
S/ WETLANDS
INTERMEDIATE
RAVINE CHANNEL
OPEN SPACE
HIATT RUN
CORRIDOR
ACTIVE ADULT
RECREATION
CENTER
IV
R�r
LINEAR PARK
TRAIL
C,.
� os9jO
HIATT RUN
O
LAND BAY BREAKDOWN
LAND
BAY
LAND USE
ACREAGE
% RANGE OF
HOUSING UNIT TYPES
MIN. MAX.
1
ELEM. SCHOOL
20 Ac. +/-
NA NA
II
COMMUNITY PARK
(6 baseball fields & 6 soccer fields)
24 Ac. t/-
NA NA
111
MIXED RESIDENTIAL:
475 Ac. t/-
ONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL/DAYCARE
7 Ac.+/-
NA NA
FD (Housing Unit Type 1,2,4,5, RP District SFD k Active Adult)
30 53
TOWNHOUSE (Housing Unit Type 6 & RP District Townhouses)
10 30
UL11FAMILY:
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)
ultifamily (Condominiums, Elderly Housing, Housing
nit Type 3-Cottage House)
126 Ac.+/-
30 53
y
COMMERCIAL CENTER
I (Retail, Office & Public Service Satellite Facility)
C. t -
NA NA
SEE NOTES ADDRESSING ABOVE CHARTIN PROFFER 3. USES, DENSITY & MIX 01: HOUSING TYPES A. (2) (1-4)
m m N 0
� O O r- N
w j o m
�NfW�4
w U M M
g w
w w
m o
� w
C)UZ
ZZ
Q LD
Z U) D
Ld <
=-i
� a Cb z—
Z
U
�..J
p"
E-F Z
W
Q�
,
Oa
d
WF
9
W
O
—
CA
V)' D
r)C)
Q
k
QU
Q
Zw
x
Q
W
a
OX
DATE: SEPT 3, 2003
SCALE: 1 "=1000'
DESIGNED BY:MDS/JNT
JOB NO. 2760C
SHEET 1 OF 1
Z
o ,n
W QD 0 Co
W l\
OOk Nfll one Z y m m
m
m
a o W '� o a'
> L-
qti
ZW w a 0.
�
I~ w
aq)i D,
r4 a
��• ( - m m N 01 W
o
I� N
_ � U
Q ` COMMUNITY
It Ilk
w E
MAJOR RECREATION w r o o
COLLE TOR CENTER o U m
w w
Ewa
;r LL N
z
T;rl,T
V SAMUEL BYERS m
�' 34-1124 / WETLANDS�� O Q z z
z
INTERMEDIATE J (f) D Z
M�CANN RAVINE CHANNEL W Q L.LJ 0 0
838 III z
R 1 T �. 3.5 +/- ACRES i— � 0.S C� g
AREA NOT TO /l ♦ \
BE REZONED / - LINEAR PARK
.� OPEN SPACE TRAIL—
.,:
/ HIATT RUN
HIATT RUNw ..r /
CORRIDOR:".: / I
�• III ♦ j/i�/ � �P/ i/�
MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD
100
ACTIVE ADULT
RECREATION R
o CENTER
tea°°/n
aft an _ _ wo IV
GDP LEGEND
BONN B MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD
— 4 INTER PARCEL CONNECTIONS
NO"IE: 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.
f4�7
Z/ck
J
R�r
HIAT fRUN
LAND BAY BREAKDOWN
ND BAY
LAND USE
ACREAGE
% RANGE OF
HOUSING UNIT TYPES
MIN. MAX.
I
ELEM. SCHOOL
20 Ac. +/—
NA NA
II
COMMUNITY PARK
(6 baseball fields & 6 soccer fields)
24 Ac. +/—
NA NA
III
MIXED RESIDENTIAL:
475 Ac. t/—
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, Multiples,
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
y
COMMERCIAL CENTER
I (Retail, Office & Public Service Satellite Facility)
26 Ac. + —
NA NA
SEE NOTES ADDRESSING ABOVE CHARC IN PROFFER 3. USES, DENSITY & MIX UI IIOUSING TYPES A. (2) (1-4)
z
L)
a
Hz
U)0
Q a4
d'
Ada
0
w
~
UJ�:)
—O
U
N
d
x
dw
W Q
W
Wr
T 1
EE--. Lt.
C7
UJ
DATE:
AUGUST 18 2003
SCALE:
1"=1000'
DESIGNED BY:MDS/JNT
JOB NO. 2760C
SHEET 1 OF 1
• MODIFICATION 99 § 165-133B Master development plan, contiguous land
§ 165-141A(8) Master development plan, contents
§ 165-141B(2);(4);(8) Master develop. plan, R4 contents
Ordinance Requirement:
The Master Development Plan shall include all contiguous land under single or common
ownership in the R4 District. The Master Development Plan shall provide for a schedule
of phases, with the appropriate location of phase boundaries and the order in which the
phases are to be developed. The Master Development Plan shall provide for the acreage
of common open space, each use, each housing type and streets for the total development;
the number of dwelling units of each type in each phase for the total development, and
the approximate boundaries and location of common open space of the total acreage of
the site.
Alternative Design Standard:
The provision of a detailed Master Development Plan for Stephenson Village that is
designed to reflect the acreage within the community that is planned for development by
specific phase and provides an aggregate tabulation of all required development
• percentages to ensure that the requirements of the R4 District and the proffered
Generalized Development Plan are met throughout the development of the Stephenson
Village community.
Justification for Modification:
A residential planned community on 800+ acres of land cannot be completely master
planned at the onset due to the complexities associated with planning and design of the
community and the uncertainties of what land uses will ultimately be developed in later
years of the community's development. Each developed phase of a residential planned
community is a "building block process" that will have an impact on the type and rate of
development in ensuing phases of the community. Stephenson Village will be planned,
designed an engineered continuously over the life of its development; therefore, the
ability to meet the design requirements for the "total development" as specified by
County Code cannot be accomplished. A series of Master Development Plans will be
prepared for Stephenson Village over the years that will provide aggregates to account
for the community's growth and to ensure that all totals are either met or not exceeded.
All required information, reviews and processes will be achieved for each Master
Development Plan submitted for Stephenson Village; however, information for the total
community will not be available until the project is much further along. The proffered
Generalized Development Plan will serve as a guide to ensure consistency in the land
planning process, as well as that the desired housing unit mixes and percentages are
achieved for this community.
•
PROFFER STATEMENT
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED COMMUNITY
Rezoning #
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
4va('q,
August 18, 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.
MONETARY CONTRIBUTION TO DEVELOP 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
20
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
August 18, 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), the 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.
August 18, 2003
0
The proffers establish an overall density cap of 2,800 units, an average of 3.5
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 August 18, 2003
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 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
iii August 18, 2003
Hiatt Run. When conditions permit, vegetated open channels will be used along streets
for storm water runoff.
Utility Improvements
Stephenson Village will use public water and sewer, and bring the opportunity for
sewer connections to surrounding neighborhoods with access to gravity mains. Currently,
the Northern Water Treatment plant provides 1.5 million gallons per day from the Global
Chemstone Quarry, which is more than adequate to supply the 683,000 gallons per day
demand of the completed community. None of the utility infrastructure associated with
the project will cost the County taxpayers money. The Applicant will dedicate land to the
Frederick County Sanitation Authority, build a pump station, and build a force main and
associated infrastructure. Low impact construction methods will be used where force
mains and buried utility lines cross sensitive areas.
Electric, broadband and telephone utilities will be buried throughout the project.
Public lighting, as well as the exterior lighting of homes, will use fixtures that direct light
down and minimize stray illumination. Trash collection will be provided by a commercial
service and will not use Frederick County Citizen Convenience Centers.
In lieu of land for a fire/rescue site, the Applicant has increased the cash proffers.
The Applicant has proffered to contribute $200,000 to Clear Brook Volunteer Fire
and Rescue Inc. This contribution is not counted as part of the proffer fees to the County.
Preservation of Historic and Cultural Resources
The Byers House will be preserved and used as deemed appropriate by the
Applicant. Significant archeological areas and cemeteries (if any) will be preserved.
The Applicant is proffering $75,000 in matching funds to help the County
develop heritage tourism.
Smart Growth
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency encourages smart growth communities
like the proposed Stephenson Village. Cluster development controls sprawl and its
associated environmental and fiscal impacts by making development more predictable
and cost effective, and by directing resources toward existing communities. Stephenson
Associates L.C. is committed to making Stephenson Village --the first smart growth
community in Frederick County --a success and a model for development in the region.
1V August 18, 2003
•
Page 1
PROFFER STATEMENT
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED COMMUNITY
Rezoning #
August 18, 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
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 August 18, 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).
•
0
Page 2 August 18, 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 II, Amendments of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, the
approval of this Proffer statement constitutes an amendment to the zoning ordinance, which will
allow the expansion of the R4 District.
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.
•
Page 3
August 18, 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 seven years by the Consumer Price Index.
B. Limitation on Permits
(1) Calculation
The active adult housing units and the affordable housing for the elderly have been
removed from the restrictions imposed by the phasing plan and are not part of the
following phasing plan formula nor will they be included in the yearly building permit
tracking system. The overall density cap for Stephenson Village is 2,800 units. Once
the planned number of active adult housing units and the affordable housing for the
elderly have been removed, the adjusted total number of units subject to phasing
restriction is 2,125. The phasing allowed quantities shall be limited to 8% per year on
a cumulative yearly basis beginning with the date of approval of this rezoning based on
the following formula:
(2,800 — 675 to 1,475 range of age restricted units) x 8% + unused permits from
prior year(s) = maximum non -age restricted permits for current year
Any units not used in a given year shall be carried forward.
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.
Page 4 August 18, 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
64
(Housing Unit Type 1,2,4,5, RP District SFD & Active
Adult)
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 & Active
Adult)
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.
Page 5
August 18, 2003
Land Bay Breakdown Notes
(1) The above table represents the ranges for the referenced housing types as
proposed. The final mix will not exceed the 2800 unit 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
2,800 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
Page 6
August 18, 2003
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
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.
:7
Page 7
August 18, 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
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 Shenandoah University Historical and Tourism Center to
promote heritage tourism. The money will be made available to the Shenandoah University Historical
and Tourism Center within 30 days of a written request for said funds by the Shenandoah University
Historical and Tourism Center for their disbursement.
6. MONETARY CONTRIBUTION TO CLEAR BROOK VOLUNTEER FIRE AND
RESCUE, INC:
To further mitigate the impact on fire and rescue services, the Applicant will pay to Clear
Brook Volunteer Fire and Rescue Inc. the sum of $200,000.00 for its general fund. This is over and
above the monetary contributions to Frederick County Fire and Rescue identified in §4 of this proffer
statement. This amount will be payable as follows:
$50,000.00 to be paid not later than nine months after zoning approval.
$50,000.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the 500"' building permit in
Stephenson Village but not later than December 31, 2008.
$50,000.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the 1,000`" building permit in
Stephenson Village but not later than December 31, 2013.
$50,000.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the 1,500`" building permit in
Stephenson Village but not later than December 31, 2018.
0
Page 8 August 18, 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.
E
Page 9
(2) Interparcel Connections
August 18, 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.
Page 10
August 18, 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 frill 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
•
Page 11
August 18, 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 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 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 August 18, 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
August 18, 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 2501h non -age restricted building permit and be completed
prior to issuance of the 8001h building permit for the non -age restricted housing products.
B. Active Adult Recreational Center
The Applicant shall construct one (1) recreation center- within one of the Land Bays identified as
shown on the Generalized Development Plan, for the private use of the residents of the Active Adult
Community. This facility will be fully bonded prior to the issuance of the first building permit in the
Active Adult Community. Work on this facility shall commence prior to the issuance of the 150`h
building permit and be completed prior to issuance of the 350`h building permit in the Active Adult
Community.
0
10
Page 14
C. Pedestrian Trail Sidewalk S
August 18, 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 constriction 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:
0
Page 15
August 18, 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 August 18, 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
August 18, 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 1,500`h non -age restricted residential building permit with completion of this
commercial space within 18 months. The Applicant will be allowed to extend the
commencement of commercial construction for an additional two year period if any
one of the following circumstances has occurred: An elementary school has not been
constructed on the Property; or a building permit is obtained for the development of a
new grocery store within a three mile radius of commercial center within Stephenson
Village.
•
Page 18 August 18, 2003
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
• 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
•
L_�
Page 19
Small Lot, and 6 (Modified Townhouse).
August 18, 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 nit 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.
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.
Page 20 August 18, 2003
16. ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES AND HABITAT PRESERVATION:
A. Environmental Features and Easements:
(1) Significant wildlife habitats shall be identified and preserved by the
Applicant with technical assistance from the Virginia Department of Game
and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). Wildlife or bird habitats shall be further
enhanced by providing native plantings selected to encourage feeding areas
while reestablishing forest in and around environmentally sensitive areas.
(2) The Applicant shall limit the clearing and grading on each lot to the area
needed for structures, utilities, access and fire protection to maximize tree
save areas.
(3) Unbuildable wetlands, unbuildable 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.
(ii) Conservation Easements/Floodplain: A twenty -foot (20)
wide buffer shall be provided outside of any platted lot immediately adjacent to the 100-year
floodplain. The ten feet (10) adjacent to the floodplain shall be undisturbed. The ten feet (10�
adjacent to the lots shall be disturbed and, if disturbed, shall be re -vegetated by planting trees equal
to the number of trees in excess of six inches (6") caliper removed by the disturbance, OR at the rate
of 50 (2" caliper) trees per acre of disturbance, at the option of the Applicant.
(iii) The above disturbed and undisturbed buffers as well as
conservation easements not located within a platted lot and/or parcel shall be part of the common
areas owned by the Homeowners Association(s). Covenants to be created as part of the
Homeowners Association(s) documents shall provide for maintenance of said areas by the
Homeowners Association(s).
•
•
Page 21
August 18, 2003
(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.
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.
0
C'
Page 22
D. Forest Management Plan:
August 18, 2003
(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
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.
•
r�
Page 23
August 18, 2003
B. Notwithstanding the above, Applicant shall locate dumpster sites as unobtrusively as
possible. The area immediately surrounding each dumpster site shall be planted with vegetation
similar to or identical to that planted in the median open vegetated areas, including, but not limited
to, deciduous trees and evergreen shrubbery in addition to the required fence and gate enclosure.
18. WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE STEPHENSON AREA:
A. The Applicant shall dedicate land to be utilized for the location of a regional pump
station as determined by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) in an area that is
mutually agreed upon by both parties.
B. The Applicant shall construct a pump station in conformance with the Frederick
County Sanitation Authority Route 11 North Sewer and Water Service Area Plan as required to serve
the Property and shall dedicate the pump station to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority
(FCSA) for operation and maintenance. The pump station shall be constructed and operational prior
to the first occupancy permit in Stephenson Village.
C. The Applicant shall construct water and sewer lines in conformance with the
Frederick County Sanitation Authority Route 11 North Sewer and Water Service Area Plan as
required to serve all private land uses within Stephenson Village and shall dedicate the applicable
water and sewer lines to FCSA for operation and maintenance. Furthermore, the applicant shall
provide water and sewer lines of adequate size to the property line for all publicly dedicated
properties.
19. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONFORMITY:
By accepting and approving this rezoning application, the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors authorizes the location and provision of those public uses and facilities specifically
referenced on the Generalized Development Plan, in this Proffer Statement, and the extension and
construction of water and sewer lines and facilities and roads necessary to serve this Property
pursuant to the Virginia Code Section 15.2-2232 and the Frederick County Code. The general area of
location for these uses and facilities are as shown on the Generalized Development Plan with the
exact locations to be determined based on final engineering and as approved by Frederick County.
Acceptance of this Proffer Statement constitutes approval of the public uses and facilities and their
general locations and thereby accepts said uses and facilities from further Comprehensive Plan
conformity review.
20. CREATION OF HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION(S):
A. Creation of Association(s)
A homeowners association or more than one homeowners association ("HOA") shall
Page 24
August 18, 2003
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
"Housing Unit Type 2" (Non -Alley Carriage House):
Non -Alley Carriage House Illustrative
Non -Alley Carriage House Typical
Page 25
August 18, 2003
Non -Alley Carriage House Landscape Typical
"Housing Unit Type 3" (Cottage House):
Cottage House Illustrative
Cottage House Typical
Cottage House Landscape Typical
"Housing Unit Type 4" (Courtyard Cluster):
Courtyard Cluster Illustrative
Courtyard Cluster Typical
Courtyard Cluster Landscape Typical
"Housing Unit Type 5" (Modified Single Family Detached Lot):
Modified Single Family Detached Lot Typical
"Housing Unit Type 6" (Modified "Townhouse" Attached Dwelling):
Modified "Townhouse" Attached Dwelling Typical
"Housing Unit Type 7" (Elderly Housing Dwelling):
Elderly Housing Dwelling Specifications
Elderly Housing Dwelling Illustrative
Elderly Housing Dwelling Specifications and Illustrative Design provided in
Community Design Modifications Document
Other housing types shall be added, if approved, by Frederick County.
22. STREETSCAPE DESIGN AND LANDSCAPING:
A. The Applicant shall provide landscaped areas on both sides of the Major Collector
Road as illustrated on the attached Exhibit D (Typical Major Collector Road Section) dated March
2003 and in accordance with the following:
(1) The landscaped area described above is designed to be a scenic urban linear
park, which shall contain woodland conservation areas. (For purposes of this
Proffer, a woodland conservation area shall be defined as an area designated
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
Page 26
August 18, 2003
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 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
Page 27
August 18, 2003
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 28
SIGNATURE PAGE
August 18, 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 Associ es, L.C.
By:
at e. J. Donald Sho e , Jr.
Title: Manager
Subscribed and sworn before me this day of /�` _, 2003.
Susan D. Stahl
(Typed Name of Notary)
de�ZIJ ko'�'My Commission Expires:
Notary Public --7- — . /
•
Page 29
SIGNATURE PAGE
August 18, 2003
ACCEPTED BY THE COUNTY OF
FREDERICK
LM
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:
McCANN D ..`.:.:�
R TE. 838
3.5 +/- ACRES
AREA NOT TO
BE REZONED
i00
,
0
no 100
GDP LEGEND
MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD
INTER PARCEL CONNECTIONS
NOTE: THIS GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL
AND FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. THE FINAL LOCATION
OR ORIENTATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL LANDBAYS AND/OR THEIR
ASSOCIATED COMPONENTS MAY BE SLIGHTLY ALTERED TO
REFLECT MORE ACCURATE ENGINEERING.
RT � 6 TOWN
ax LES
/ COMMUNITY —
RECREATION
IITOR CENTER /\
M
WETLANDS r
INTERMEDIATE
RAVINE CHANNEL
i► + Ill
LINEAR PARK /
OPEN SPACE
HIATT RUN1
III
MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD
f-17
Licp
HIATT RUN
CORRIDOR
ACTIVE ADULT
RECREATION
CENTER
IV
-1
ROr
I I IA TT R UN
LAND BAY BREAKDOWN
NO SAY
LAND USE
ACREAGE
% RANGE OF
HOUSING UNIT TYPES
MIN. MAX.
1
ELEM. SCHOOL
20 Ac. t/-
NA NA
11
COMMUNITY PARK
(6 baseball fields & 6 soccer fields)
24 Ac. +/-
NA NA
111
MIXED RESIDENTIAL:
4 5
/
CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL/DAYCARE
7Ac.+/
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
y
COMMERCIAL CENTER
I (Retail, Office & Public Service Satellite Facility)
26 Ac. + —
NA NA
SEE NOTES ADDRESSING ABOVE CHAR"r IN PROFFER 3. USES, DENSI"IY & MIX OF HOUSING TYPES A. (2) (14)
z
rw►-�
E-
a
T.)
xZ
E-z
w
d'
o
>
aE
Q
O
~
U:�D
30
a
d
�
Q W
W Q
�
W
W
DATE:
AUGUST 18 2003
SCALE: 1 "=1000'
DESIGNED BY:MDS/JNT
JOB NO. 2760C
SHEET 1 OF 1
0 0 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))-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
i
APR 9, 9 2003
Stephenson Associates 030703
0 0
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.
u 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 snake 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
ii Stephenson Associates 030703
0 � 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 frilly 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
iii Stephenson Associates 030703
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.
1V Stephenson Associates 030703
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))-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. COMMUNITYDESIGNMODIFICATIONDOCUMENT:
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 II, Amendments of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, the
approval of this Proffer statement constitutes an amendment to the zoning ordinance, which will
allow the expansion of the R4 District and the Urban Development Area.
B. The Applicant has proffered a Community Design Modification Document that is
attached and incorporated by reference herein as Exhibit F, and which is accepted by Frederick
County.
In addition to the above, by approving this Proffer Statement, the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors agrees without need of any further Board of Supervisors or Planning Department approval
to any modifications for any matter which has been previously agreed to and therefore approved by
Frederick County. Further still, any submitted revisions to the approved Generalized Development
Plan, the approved Master Development Plan and/or any of its requirements for any development
zoned R-4 which affect the perimeter of the development or which would increase the overall density
of the development shall require the Board of Supervisors' approval. If, in the reasonable discretion of
the Frederick County Planning Department, the Planning Department decides any requested
modification should be reviewed by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, it may secure said
approval by placing this matter before the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at its next regularly
scheduled meeting. However, and not withstanding what is stated above, once a modification has
been approved administratively, the Applicant shall not be required to seek approval for any
subsequent similar modification.
2. PHASING PLAN TO MINIMIZE SUDDEN IMPACTS ON COUNTY SERVICES:
A. Additional Proffer Payment
To minimize sudden increases in the Frederick County Public School population and sudden impacts
on other county services, the Applicant shall implement the following phasing plan on all residential
housing that is not age -restricted.
To ensure that unanticipated increases in Frederick County Public School population do not burden
the county with extra costs, Frederick County may assess the Applicant to effectively double school -
related proffers for each student that exceeds a cumulative yearly total increase of 60 students per year.
The total number of new Frederick County Public School students generated by Stephenson Village
will be determined from the September 30 report produced by Frederick County Public Schools. The
Applicant proffers to reimburse Frederick County Public Schools for its cost of creating the September
2 Stephenson Associates 030703
30 report data related to Stephenson Village. This additional proffer payment will be provided to
Frederick County by the Applicant within 30 days of receipt of the September 30 report produced by
Frederick County Public Schools.
If the reported number of Frederick County Public School students generated by Stephenson Village
exceeds the cumulative total of 60 students per year (9/30/03=60, 9/30/04=120, etc.), the Applicant
shall pay an additional proffer payment of $3,925 as assessed by Frederick County for each Frederick
County Public School child that exceeds the cumulative total. The additional proffer payment will be
adjusted every seven years by the Consumer Price Index.
B. Limitation on Permits
(1) Calculation
The active adult housing units and the affordable housing for the elderly have been
removed from the restrictions imposed by the phasing plan and are not part of the
following phasing plan formula nor will they be included in the yearly building permit
tracking system. The overall density cap for Stephenson Village is 2,800 units. Once
the planned number of active adult housing units and the affordable housing for the
elderly have been removed, the adjusted total number of units subject to phasing
restriction is 2,125. The phasing allowed quantities shall be limited to 8% per year on a
cumulative yearly basis beginning with the date of approval of this rezoning based on
the following formula:
(2,800 — 675 to 1,475 range of age restricted units) x 8% + unused permits from
prior year(s) = maximum non -age restricted permits for current year
Any units not used in a given year shall be carried forward.
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
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
30
64
(Housing Unit Type 1,2,4,5 & RP District SFD)
TOWNHOUSE
10
30
(Housing Unit Type 6 & RP District Townhouse)
MULTIFAMILY
7
35
(Condominiums, Elderly Housing, Housing Unit Type
3 & RP District Duplex, Multiplex & Atrium)
IV
ACTIVE ADULT
126 Ac.
19
53
SFD (Housing Unit Type 1,2 &5)
Multifamily (Condominiums, Elderly Housing,
Housing Unit Type 3)
V
COMMERCIAL CENTER
26 Ac.*
NA
NA
(Commercial Retail, Office & Public Service Satellite
Facility)
The actual acreage identified for each Land Bay is based on the bubble diagram calculated on the
proffered Generalized Development Plan and may fluctuate within 5% of the total acreage based on
final survey work.
Land Bay Breakdown Notes
(1) The above table represents the ranges for the referenced housing types as
proposed. The final mix will not exceed the 2800 unit cap and will be
comprised of house type combinations representing a mixture identified in the
table. The minimum and maximum percentages established apply to the
general categories of single family, townhouses, multifamily and active adult
4 Stephenson Associates 030703
units and are not intended to pertain to any one housing type in those
categories. The housing unit type maximum percentage for the general
categories of single family, townhouse, multifamily and active adult will not
exceed the percentages identified in the table and will not exceed the total unit
cap of 2,800 based on any combination.
*(2) The total commercial area will be a minimum of 4 % of the gross site area or
33 acres and will be located within Land Bays III and V.
(3) The Hiatt Run Corridor and the Wetlands Intermittent Ravine Channel are
approximately 125 acres. The remaining 121.5 acres of required open space will
be provided within Land Bays I, II, III and IV.
(4) The Applicant reserves the right to convert more of Land Bay III to active adult or
affordable housing for the elderly. In no case shall the percentage of active adult
or affordable housing for the elderly exceed 53% of the 2,800 total housing units.
B. For purposes of calculating density pursuant to the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance, all dedications and conveyances of land for public use and/or for the use of the
development or any Homeowners Association shall be credited in said calculations.
C. There shall be a unit cap of 2,800 dwelling units on the subject property.
D. In order to preclude unwanted industrial and heavy commercial uses, all land uses
within the B-3 District and the M-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
2010 Index
2003 Index X Proffer Amount = Revised Proffer Amount
225
183 X $5,327 = $6,550
Stephenson Associates 030703
•
•
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 Shenandoah University Historical and Tourism Center to
promote heritage tourism. The money will be made available to the Shenandoah University Historical
and Tourism Center within 30 days of a written request for said funds by the Shenandoah University
Historical and Tourism Center for their disbursement.
6. MONETARY CONTRIBUTION TO CLEAR BROOK VOLUNTEER FIRE AND
RESCUE, INC:
To further mitigate the impact on fire and rescue services, the Applicant will pay to Clear
Brook Volunteer Fire and Rescue Inc. the sum of $200,000.00 for its general fiend. This is over and
above the monetary contributions to Frederick County Fire and Rescue identified in §4 of this proffer
statement. This amount will be payable as follows:
$50,000.00 to be paid not later than nine months after zoning approval.
$50,000.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the 500"' building permit in
Stephenson Village but not later than December 31, 2008.
$50,000.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the 1,000"' building permit in
Stephenson Village but not later than December 31, 2013.
$50,000.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the 1,500" building perinit in
Stephenson Village but not later than December 31, 2018.
7. MULTI -MODAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS:
A. The following are improvements the Applicant will make to roads within the Property:
(1) Major Collector Road
(a) Pursuant to Section 7F (2), 7F (4) and 7F(5) of this proffer statement,
the Applicant shall dedicate an 80 foot right of way and construct the Major Collector Road from Old
Charles Town Road through Stephenson Village, and the properties currently owned by McCann and
Omps to U.S. Route 11 (Martinsburg Pike) in accordance with existing agreements executed between
all parties to insure conformance with the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. The width and
configuration of all travel lanes, medians and other elements of the major collector road shall be
provided by the Applicant as determined by VDOT.
Stephenson Associates 030703
(b) The Applicant shall provide landscaped areas along, within, and/or adjacent to
each side of the Major Collector Road in accordance with § 22-A of this
proffer.
(c) When the Major Collector Road is finally completed as a four lane divided
boulevard, the median will be naturally vegetated with a combination of both
woodland conservation areas and grassed areas supplemented with landscape
plantings. If approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT),
all plantings, other than those in woodland conservation areas, will be installed
by the Applicant and will have a maintenance agreement between VDOT and
the Applicant which will transfer to the Homeowners Association of
Stephenson Village (HOA) to cover all mowing, weeding, pruning, plant
replacements, and irrigation maintenance responsibilities. Irrigation systems
within the right-of-way will be designed as a separate system to allow the
portion of the irrigation system falling within the right-of-way to be terminated
if necessary without affecting the overall system.
(d) The Applicant shall provide bicycle lanes within the Major Collector Road
right of way over the property to be rezoned that are four feet in width and are
contiguous with the outside travel lanes of the Major Collector Road.
(e) The Applicant shall prohibit individual residential and commercial entrances
from intersecting Milburn Road (Route 662) and finther proffers that the Major
Collector Road will be the only road crossing of Milburn Road.
(2) Interparcel Connections
The Applicant agrees to provide inteiparcel 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.
Stephenson Associates 030703
(c) Where private alleys are utilized to serve housing types that front on
private streets the Applicant shall provide for a minimum travel aisle width of 24 feet for the private
street. The 24 foot travel aisle shall be in addition to on street parking designed for the private street.
(d) When Housing Unit Type 4 (courtyard cluster) is developed, the
common drive shall meet the following standards:
(i) A minimum width of 20 feet
(ii) A minimum depth of pavement section shall be a four inch
compacted stone base and six inches of concrete or equivalent
material.
(iii) A "No Parking" sign shall be posted at the entrance to the
courtyard.
(iv) A fire hydrant shall be provided at the entrance to each corner
drive to the courtyard clusters. When common drives are
adjacent to or across the street from other courtyard cluster
common drives, only one hydrant shall be required.
(v) Visitor parking areas will be provided outside of the courtyard
cluster common drive area.
B. The applicant has acquired easements and/or rights of way over the properties
currently owned by McCann and Omps for the purpose of dedicating and constructing the Major
Collector Road and for improvements along the south side of Old Charles Town Road from Route
11 north to the CSX railroad. The Applicant will acquire any additional rights -of -way and/or
easements for all off -site transportation improvements proffered hereinafter. In the event the
Applicant is not able to acquire any of the said rights -of -way and/or easements, Frederick County
agrees to attempt to acquire such rights -of -way and/or easements by appropriate eminent domain
proceedings at the request of Applicant and Applicant shall be responsible for all payments made
to property owners for rights -of -way and/or easements so acquired. In the event that neither the
Applicant nor Frederick County successfully obtains the required rights -of -way or easements for
the offsite transportation improvements as required by the traffic study, the Applicant shall be
permitted to continue with the development as proposed without any further requirement of right-
of-way or easement acquisition or improvement.
C. The Applicant will install full size entrance improvements with right and left turn
lanes, in accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation design guidelines, at the
intersection of Old Charles Town Road and the Major Collector Road serving as the entrance to the
Stephenson Village Community during the first phase of development.
D. The Applicant will execute a signalization agreement with the Virginia Department of
Transportation for the intersection of U.S. Route 11 and Old Charles Town Road. Additionally, the
Stephenson Associates 030703
9
Applicant will construct full size entrance improvements with both a right turn lane and left turn lane
on Old Charles Town Road, and a right turn lane on U.S. Route 11 at said intersection. These
improvements will be installed in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation design
guidelines when warranted by VDOT.
E. The Applicant will execute a signalization agreement with the Virginia Department of
Transportation for the intersection of Old Charles Town Road and the Major Collector Road serving
as the entrance to the Stephenson Village Community. The Applicant will provide for the
signalization at the intersection of Old Charles Town Road and the Major Collector Road based on
the terms of this agreement when warranted by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
F. The Applicant will design and construct a four -lane boulevard Major Collector Road
for the Stephenson Village Community in substantial conformance with the proffered Generalized
Development Plan. The Major Collector Road will be constructed in two phases. The first phase
will be a two-lane half section that is constructed from Old Charles Town Road to the limits of the
development as depicted on the approved Master Development Plan. This phase of the Major
Collector Road will be constructed and bonded in segments in accordance with the approved
Subdivision Design Plan for Stephenson Village. The second phase of the Major Collector Road
will provide for the ultimate four -lane section with appropriate right and left turn lanes based on the
following program:
(1) The design of the transportation improvements identified in Sections 7(F)2-
7(F)5 of this proffer statement will begin when 80% of the actual traffic count volume is
realized as identified in each Section. The completion of the improvements specified in each
Section will occur within 18 months of initial design.
(2) Once actual traffic counts of 7,996 vehicle trips per day have been
documented on the Major Collector Road, the Applicant will bond and
commence construction of the additional lanes to the existing Major
Collector Road to its ultimate four -lane section from Old Charles Town Road
to the limits of the Major Collector Road within the development.
(3) Once the actual traffic count reaches 10,570 vehicle trips per day on the
Major Collector Road, the Applicant will bond and commence construction
of a three -lane section of Old Charles Town Road, from the Entrance to
Stephenson Village to U.S. Route 11 using the existing bridge.
(4) Once the actual traffic count reaches 17,699 vehicle trips per day on the Major
Collector Road, the Applicant will bond and commence construction of a two lane
half section of the Major Collector Road from the limits of the four -lane section to
U.S. Route 11 at the Rutherford Farm Industrial Park intersection to include right and
left turn lanes on the east side of U.S. Route 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.
10 Stephenson Associates 030703
(5) Once the actual traffic count at the southwestern entrance to Stephenson
Village near the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park intersection reaches 7,996 vehicle
trips per day on the Major Collector Road, the Applicant will bond and commence
construction of the remaining additional lanes to the existing Major Collector Road
from the limits of the four -lane section to provide for the ultimate four -lane section
ending at the east side of U.S. Route 11.
G. The Applicant will provide $50,000 that shall be utilized as matching funds by
VDOT and/or the County of Frederick for future improvements to the Interstate 81/U.S. Route 11
interchange at Exit 317. This dollar amount is intended to assist VDOT and the County of
Frederick with this regional improvement. The $50,000 will be made available to VDOT or to
the County of Frederick, within 30 days of written request for said funds by the appropriate 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
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 fiom 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"' 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 150"'
building permit and be completed prior to issuance of the 35Ot" building permit in the Active Adult
Community.
C. Pedestrian Trail Sidewalk Svstem
The Applicant shall construct a pedestrian trail or sidewalk system, which connects each recreation
area to the surrounding neighborhood. The final location and the granting of any such easements
and/or trails shall be at the subdivision design plan stage. Such trails or sidewalk system shall be
constructed of stone dust or wood chips or such other materials selected by the Applicantprovided
they are not part of the sidewalk system within the public right of way.
D. Linear Park Trail
A fifteen -foot wide trail easement shall be dedicated to Frederick County Parks and Recreation. The
location is to be determined by the Applicant and approved by the Frederick County Parks and
Recreation Department. The trail shall be provided within the Hiatt Run Corridor and run the length
of said corridor on the subject property for 3,800 +/- linear feet as shown on the proffered General
Development Plan (Exhibit A). The Applicant shall convey said easement after development of
adjoining parcels, or reasonable access is provided, and not later than six months after it is requested
by Frederick County Parks and Recreation in writing at no cost to Frederick County or Frederick
County Parks and Recreation. Any area so dedicated shall be included in the calculation of required
open space, and shall entitle the Applicant to recreational credit units for the value of the
construction of the trail and dedicated land. The Applicant reserves the right to retain temporary and
permanent grading, utility, sewer force main, slope, storm water management, construction and
drainage easements within said dedicated area, although only temporary easements shall be retained
as needed for the construction by the Applicant of the six-foot (6') wide asphalt or concrete trail
13 Stephenson Associates 030703
described herein. The asphalt or concrete trail at the discretion of the Frederick County Parks and
Recreation Department may be changed to other surface materials in an effort to promote low impact
development techniques.
Construction of said trail by the Applicant is contingent upon the proposed trail being allowed by all
applicable County and State ordinances, and limitations due to terrain and constructability
considerations. In the event that the public linear park trail is unable to be constructed due to County
or State ordinances, the Applicant shall develop the linear park trail as a private trail system for the
use of the residents of Stephenson Village. This private linear park trail shall count towards the open
space and recreational amenities requirements for Stephenson Village and will be constructed of
similar materials and standards identified in section 9C of this proffer statement.
10. ACTIVE ADULT AGE -RESTRICTED HOUSING
A. Applicant agrees that the following language shall be included in the deeds conveying
real property designated as age -restricted housing on that portion of the property.
At least eighty percent (80%) of the occupied residential units shall be occupied by at least
one person fifty-five (55) years of age or older and within such units the following conditions
shall apply:
(1) All other residents must reside with a person who is fifty-five (55) years of
age or older, and be a spouse, a cohabitant, an occupant's child eighteen (18)
years of age or older, or provide primary physical or economic support to the
person who is fifty-five (55) years of age or older. Notwithstanding this
limitation, a person hired to provide live-in, long term or terminal health care
of a person who is fifty-five (55) years of age or older for compensation shall
also occupy a dwelling during any time such person is actually providing
such care.
(2) Guests under the age of fifty-five (55) are permitted for periods of time not to
exceed sixty (60) days total for each such guest in any calendar year.
(3) If title to any lot or unit shall become vested in any person under the age of
fifty-five (55) by reason of descent, distribution, foreclosure or operation of
law, the age restriction covenants shall not work a forfeiture or reversion of
title, but rather, such person thus taking title shall not be permitted to reside
in such lot or unit until he/she shall have attained the age of fifty-five (55) or
otherwise satisfies the requirements as set forth herein. Notwithstanding, a
surviving spouse shall be allowed to continue to occupy a dwelling unit
without regard to age.
B. A maximum of twenty percent (20%) of the occupied age -restricted residential units
shall be allowed to be occupied by at least one person fifty (50) years of age or older and within such
units the following conditions shall apply:
14 Stephenson Associates 030703
(1) All other residents must reside with a person who is fifty (50) years of age or
older, be a spouse, a cohabitant, an occupant's child eighteen (18) years of
age or older, or provide primary physical or economic support to the person
who is fifty (50) years of age or older. Notwithstanding this limitation, a
person hired to provide live-in, long term or terminal health care to a person
who is fifty (50) years of age or older for compensation shall also occupy a
dwelling during any time such person is actually providing such care.
(2) Guests under the age of fifty (50) are permitted for periods of time not to
exceed sixty (60) days total for each such guest in any calendar year.
(3) If title to any lot or unit shall become vested in any person under the age of
fifty (50) by reason of descent, distribution, foreclosure or operation of law,
the age restriction covenant shall not work a forfeiture or reversion of title,
but rather, such person thus taking title shall not be permitted to reside in
such lot or unit until he/she shall have attained the age of fifty (50) or
otherwise satisfied the requirements as set forth herein. Notwithstanding, a
surviving spouse shall be allowed to continue to occupy a dwelling unit
without regard to age.
(4) The above -described use restrictions shall be amended from time to time in
accordance with applicable local and state regulations governing age
restricted housing and the Federal Fair Housing Act so long as the
substantive intent as set forth herein is maintained. In no event shall the
minimum age of residents be less than the ages set forth hereinabove.
C. Applicant agrees that the language in this Section or such other language as may be necessary
to comply with the requirements to qualify as Housing for Older Persons under the Federal Fair
Housing Act and the Fair Housing Act of Virginia shall be included in the deeds conveying real
property designated as age -restricted on that portion of the property.
11. AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY:
Subject to the provisions of this proffer statement, the Applicant will develop and build
apartment units to provide much needed affordable housing for the elderly. The Applicant will
comply with the necessary requirements to qualify these apartment units for the "Housing for
Older Persons" exception to familial status discrimination as allowed under the Federal Fair
Housing Act and the Fair Housing Act of Virginia. The construction of these apartment units will
begin after at least 50 percent of the retail space has been developed, provided that the approval of
appropriate federal and state housing authorities is obtained, and the project qualifies for the
Multi -Family Loan Program and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program or equivalent. In
the event that funding for the affordable housing for the elderly is not obtained, the Applicant
proffers to reapportion those units to the active adult community housing units.
15 Stephenson Associates 030703
12. PRESERVATION OF HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES:
A. Byers house: The Byers house will be preserved as deemed appropriate by
the Applicant.
B. Cemeteries: Prior to commencement of any earth disturbing activity in any
section of the Property, the applicant shall mark and identify any cemeteries which may be located
there. In the event any onsite cemeteries are found, the applicant shall preserve those cemeteries
in accordance with all County and State regulations.
13. COMMERCIAL CENTER:
The Applicant has identified an area as shown on the Generalized Development Plan (Exhibit
A) for a commercial center that will be developed at a time to be determined by Applicant. Within
the commercial center development, the following shall be provided:
A. The Applicant shall provide for all turn lanes and traffic signalization on the Major
Collector Road serving the commercial center as warranted by VDOT. The
Applicant shall conduct traffic impact analysis studies for each commercial site plan
submitted to Frederick County that will be reviewed and approved by VDOT to
determine when these improvements are warranted. A traffic signalization agreement
will be executed with VDOT by the Applicant to ensure that commercial uses
developed prior to the warrants for traffic signalization contribute their pro-rata share
for this improvement.
B. The Applicant shall record architectural and design restrictive covenants for the
commercial center and shall submit a copy to the Frederick County Planning Director
and the Frederick County Building Official with the first site plan within the
commercial center. Said covenants shall provide for the establishment of an
architectural review board for the purpose of review and approval of all architectural
elevations and signage for all commercial uses to assure a continuity of overall
architectural appearances within the entire commercial development.
C. The Applicant shall ensure that all commercial site plans submitted to Frederick
County for the commercial center are designed to implement best management
practices (BMP) to promote storm water quality measures. A statement will be
provided on each commercial site plan identifying the party or parties responsible for
maintaining these BMP facilities as a condition of site plan approval.
D. The areas within the commercial center that are not required to be graded or
cleared for the implementation of all approved site plans will remain undisturbed.
One-way travel aisles will be utilized where practical to reduce the impervious
areas of parking lots within the commercial center.
16 Stephenson Associates 030703
E. The Applicant shall provide for a maximum of 250,000 square feet of commercial
land use in Stephenson Village. The majority of the commercial land use will be
located within the commercial center identified on the Generalized Development
Plan (Exhibit). The development of smaller areas of commercial land use will be
allowed in other areas of Stephenson Village. These commercial land use areas will
be provided on the detailed Master Development Plan associated with the
development of Stephenson Village.
F. The Applicant has identified an area as shown on the Generalized Development Plan
(Exhibit A) for a commercial center. The development of 60,000 square feet of
commercial space will begin within the commercial center no later than the issuance
of the 1,500°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 circtunstances 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.
is Stephenson Associates 030703
E. Architectural and Design Covenants
Stephenson Associates, L.C. shall develop architectural and design covenants for the
overall community. Said covenants will establish an architectural review board for
the purpose of review and approval of all architectural elevations, exterior
architectural features (fences, railings, walls and decks) for all uses within
Stephenson Village, as well as any publicly provided structures located on sites
dedicated for public use. These covenants are intended to assure a continuity of
overall architectural appearance, quality material selection, and a cohesive color
palate for all structures within the entire development.
16. ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES AND HABITAT PRESERVATION:
A. Environmental Features and Easements:
(1) Significant wildlife habitats shall be identified and preserved by the
Applicant with technical assistance from the Virginia Department of Game
and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). Wildlife or bird habitats shall be further
enhanced by providing native plantings selected to encourage feeding areas
while reestablishing forest in and around environmentally sensitive areas.
(2) The Applicant shall limit the clearing and grading on each lot to the area
needed for structures, utilities, access and fire protection to maximize tree
save areas.
(3) Unbuildable wetlands, unbuildable 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) F000dplain 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
0 40
(ii) Conservation Easements/Floodplain: A twenty -foot (20')
wide buffer shall be provided outside of any platted lot immediately adjacent to the 100-year
floodplain. The ten feet (10') adjacent to the floodplain shall be undisturbed. The ten feet (10')
adjacent to the lots shall be disturbed and, if disturbed, shall be re -vegetated by planting trees equal
to the number of trees in excess of six inches (6") caliper removed by the disturbance, OR at the rate
of 50 (2" caliper) trees per acre of disturbance, at the option of the Applicant.
(iii) The above disturbed and undisturbed buffers as well as
conservation easements not located within a platted lot and/or parcel shall be part of the common
areas owned by the Homeowners Association(s). Covenants to be created as part of the
Homeowners Association(s) documents shall provide for maintenance of said areas by the
Homeowners Association(s).
(4) Resource protection areas are identified for the Hiatt Rum Corridor and the
Wetlands Intermittent Ravine Channel that are fiirther 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 adj acent 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 11 North Sewer and Water Service Area Plan as
required to serve all private land uses within Stephenson Village and shall dedicate the applicable
water and sewer lines to FCSA for operation and maintenance. Furthermore, the applicant shall
provide water and sewer lines of adequate size to the property line for all publicly dedicated
properties.
19. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONFORMITY:
By accepting and approving this rezoning application, the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors authorizes the location and provision of those public uses and facilities specifically
referenced on the Generalized Development Plan, in this Proffer Statement, and the extension and
construction of water and sewer lines and facilities and roads necessary to serve this Property
pursuant to the Virginia Code Section 15.2-2232 and the Frederick County Code. The general area of
location for these uses and facilities are as shown on the Generalized Development Plan with the
exact locations to be determined based on final engineering and as approved by Frederick County.
Acceptance of this Proffer Statement constitutes approval of the public uses and facilities and their
general locations and thereby accepts said 'uses and facilities from further Comprehensive Plan
conformity review.
22 Stephenson Associates 030703
20. CREATION OF HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
A. Creation of Association(s)
A homeowners association or more than one homeowners association ("HOA") shall
be created and shall be made responsible for the review and approval of all construction within the
development to insure that all design standards for the Stephenson Village Development are satisfied
and for the maintenance and repair of all common areas, together with such other responsibilities,
duties and powers as are customary for such associations or as may shall be required for such HOA
herein.
B. Additional Responsibility
In addition to such other responsibilities and duties as shall be assigned; the HOA
shall have title to and/or responsibility for:
(1) All common open space including storm water facilities areas not
otherwise dedicated to public use or maintained by commercial entities.
(2) Common buffer areas located outside of residential lots.
(3) Residential curbside trash collection.
21. PROFFERED HOUSING TYPES:
The following plan(s), exhibit(s) and Housing Unit Types are proffered herein. Each may be
altered at the time of final engineering and equivalent Housing Unit Types may be substituted with
the approval of the Director of Planning or his/her designee. Any existing or future Housing Unit
Type, which is permitted under the R4 Residential Plarmed Community District, may also be
utilized.
Housing Unit Types Exhibit(s) prepared by The Land Planning and Design Group, Inc. dated
December 2002, listed below and attached hereto as Exhibit B (graphic for illustrative purposes
only).
The minimum design standards for the following housing types are summarized and listed on
the attached chart prepared by Land Planning and Design Group, Inc., dated March 2003 and
referred to as Exhibit E — Minimum Design Standards.
"Housing Unit Type 1" (Carriage House):
Carriage House Illustrative
Carriage House Typical
Carriage House Landscape Typical
23 Stephenson Associates 030703
"Housing Unit Type 2" (Non -Alley Carriage House):
Non -Alley Carriage House Illustrative
Non -Alley Carriage House Typical
Non -Alley Carriage House Landscape Typical
"Housing Unit Type 3" (Cottage House):
Cottage House Illustrative
Cottage House Typical
Cottage House Landscape Typical
"Housing Unit Type 4" (Courtyard Cluster):
Courtyard Cluster Illustrative
Courtyard Cluster Typical
Courtyard Cluster Landscape Typical
"Housing Unit Type 5" (Modified Single Family Detached Lot):
Modified Single Family Detached Lot Typical
"Housing Unit Type 6" (Modified "Townhouse" Attached Dwelling):
Modified "Townhouse" Attached Dwelling Typical
"Housing Unit Type 7" (Elderly Housing Dwelling):
Elderly Housing Dwelling Specifications
Elderly Housing Dwelling Illustrative
Elderly Housing Dwelling Specifications and Illustrative Design provided in
Community Design Modifications Document
Other housing types shall be added, if approved, by Frederick County.
22. STREETSCAPE DESIGN AND LANDSCAPING:
A. The Applicant shall provide landscaped areas on both sides of the Major Collector
Road as illustrated on the attached Exhibit D (Typical Major Collector Road Section) dated March
2003 and in accordance with the following:
(1) The landscaped area described above is designed to be a scenic urban linear
park, which shall contain woodland conservation areas. (For purposes of this
Proffer, a woodland conservation area shall be defined as an area designated
24 Stephenson Associates 030703
for the purpose of retaining land areas predominantly in their natural, scenic,
open or wooded condition.)The woodland conservation area shall have a
varying width of no less than fifteen feet. Woodland conservation areas shall
be provided where feasible based upon final engineering and design of the
development. The Applicant shall provide, within the landscaped area, a
mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees, to include native types of trees
originally found in this area and replacing any trees removed during
development. Such trees shall be planted at the minimum rate of one tree
every 40 linear feet along the roadway frontage and shall be planted in
clusters rather than a linear pattern.
(2) The minimum planting standard for street landscaping or landscaped
areas/woodland conservation areas shall be a mixture of deciduous trees,
ornamental trees, evergreen trees, and shrubbery. At the Applicants option,
trees and shrubs shall be planted in clusters and shall be planted at an
equivalent rate of ten plant units per 40 linear feet of collector street roadway
frontage. The plant unit credits are determined as follows: Shade Trees (2"
min. caliper) = 10 plant units, Ornamental trees (1.5" minimum caliper) = 5
plant units, Evergreen trees (6' min. height) = 5 plant units, Shrubs (18"
minimum height) = 2 plant units.
B. The Applicant shall have the option of utilizing landscaped central islands within cul-
de-sacs. When landscaped islands are utilized a twenty-eight foot (28') foot paved area shall be
provided to accommodate on -street parking and travel aisles.
C. Where conditions permit, vegetated open channels shall be used in street right-of-
ways for storm water rrmoff, 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
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
•
LJ
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,
Stephenson Associates, L.PC.
By:
e: J. Donald Shockey, Jr.
Title: Manager
Subscribed and sworn before me this /L day of /�� / , 2003.
Susan D. Stahl
(Typed Name of Notary)
JIOA',711VI�)�\JPVIMy Commission Expires:
Notary Public
Stephenson Associates 030703
27
•
•
SIGNATURE PAGE
ACCEPTED BY THE COUNTY OF
FREDERICK
IC
Name:
Title:
Subscribed and sworn before me this day of 52003.
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.
(Typed Name of Notary)
My Commission Expires:
APR 2 9 200:3 k Notary Public
28 Stephenson Associates 030703
1
GDPLEGEND
IIIIIIIII 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.
CKLES
�r
MAJOR /
COwwiLLECTORS R
I&
4.- -
COMMUNITY
RECREATION /
CENTER
ISO
� III c
SAMUEL BYERS .� �. � �/ / // %,L// � /
/ /�.L//L.( Pew?
//
LANDMARK # 7� �+
34-1124 r
WETLANDS
INTERMEDIATE
RAVINE CHANNEL
Al OPEN SPACE
HIATT RUN
HIATT RUN
CORRIDOR
MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD00 too
y ACTIVE ADULT -
RECREATION
CENTER
_Q""
Lick
IV
III
LINEAR PARK
TRAIL ------7
C�
l�ss��9
HIATT RUN
I
LAND BAY BREAKDOWN
ND BAY
LAND USE
ACREAGE
% RANGE OF
HOUSING UNIT TYPE
MIN.
MAX.
I
ELEM. SCHOOL
20 Ac. t/—
NA
NA
11
COMMUNITY PARK
(6 baseball fields & 6 soccer fields)
24 Ac. t/—
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 Typ
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, Housirg
Unit Type 3—Cottage House)
126 Ac.+/—
19
53
V
COMMERCIAL CENTER
(Retail, Office & Public Service Satellite Facility)
26 Ac. + —
NA
NA
SEE NOTES ADDRESSING ABOVE CHART IN PROFFER 3. USES, DENSITY & MIX OF HOUSING TYPES A.(2)(14)
Z
Z _
CL
aZcoI
LLJ < U
IJ
Pd-dS0z
`J
F-F
a
U
E-z
o
d
a
7
~
UJ `D
O
W
Q
W
ra
O Gz,
DATE: MARCH 2O03
SCALE: 1 "=1000'
DESIGNED BY:MDS/JNT
JOB NO. 2760C
SHEET 1 OF 1
EXHIBIT B
HOUSING UNIT TYPES
HOUSING UNIT TYPE 1
CARRIAGE HOUSE
(3 sheets)
NOTE: FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY
OPTIONAL PORCH SHOWN
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
CARRIAGE HOUSE ILLUSTRATIVE
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
• •
S -T R-EE TT
I
STANDARDS: Living Space (min.) Decks (min.)
zz
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
STr-EET
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)
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.
+--f! N lnj.
114
z
i
T
STr_EET
7
r
STANDARDS: Living Space (min.) Decks (min.)
Front Facade
1400 square feet Side yard setback: 5'-0" interior lot lines
*porches, stoops,
Side yard setback: 10'-0" corner lot perimeter lot line
and steps may
Rear yard setback: 3'-0"
extend 6'-0" into
*decks must be located in rear yards and shall not be
front yard
erected forward of the rear plane of a dwelling unit
setbacks
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
NON —ALLEY CARRIAGE HOUSE TYPICAL
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
r---- GAr-IoPY T�-eE
�,.,J,dr-sJrdI TbGF
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.
0 •
HOUSING UNIT TYPE 3
COTTAGE HOUSE
(3 sheets)
•
NOTE: FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY
OPTIONAL PORCH SHOWN
OPTIONAL FENCE SHOWN
E
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
COTTAGE HOUSE ILLUSTRATIVE
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
•
•
STD-f�T
Io' MIN. for- CopNE2
LOTS
1
I
Au,EY
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.
srr-EET
AUE Y
NOTE: FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
COTTAGE HOUSE LANDSCAPE TYPICAL
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
0
•
HOUSING UNIT TYPE 4
COURTYARD CLUSTER
(3 sheets)
•
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 R
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 R
144' Minimmn
Minimum
-- I Minimum — 5' Minimum
5' Minimum 3' Minimum
LOT 2
lop
Minimum
139' Minm
uiou
uuo�
go Lon
tnou
-- e
10 NLnmuun-
10, MuTii
LOT 3
LOT 4
LOT 5
� 10' Mipunrrm
4' NC. SID"ALK
Common Driveway
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
COURTYARD CLUSTER TYPICAL
Scale: NTS December 2002
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
Minimum
Minimum
to,
= lo' Minimum
I
I
Perimeter Property Line
Typical
Interior Lot We
Typical
Fence
Typical
Gate
Typical
Deck or Patio
0' Mlnirnum
_t Street
26' or 28'
J'
d#�! IirrrrfrUrrl
� •rrrrwrrrrrrt
Irrrr■
■rrwrrrr,
■rrrrrrr:
■rrrrrrri
■rwrrrrri�
r����wrri
. .
..........
IrriMrwii' "��
Irrrrrrrr `.�
�rrrrr■
■ruin: -'�
■NRON=
Irr�
Irrrrr
urrr•
Irrrrrirrrrr
urrr■
urrrr
urrr■
urrr■
urrr•
urrr■
:r200.m.d.
ar
I�
•
•
HOUSING UNIT TYPE 5
MODIFIED SINGLE-FAMILY SMALL LOT
(1 sheet)
•
Modified single-family small lot. Single-family small lot housing shall be a
single-family detached or attached residence on an individual lot. No more than two
units may be attached together.
(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.
RTE. 761
� ' ACCESS ROAD
PAVED PARKING TYPICAL —�
I�
PONi!+14i�i1
�r
r,
,r
SCHOOL
i
` ---- -------
OVERFLOW PARKING TYPICAL
SERVICEIEMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD
��• MAJOR�COLOR ROAD
r�
NOTE
THIS LAYOUT FOR THE SCHOOL/PARK SITE 19
CONCEPTUAL AND FOR IILUSTRATME 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.
OLD
j JR. SOCCER FIELDS
JR. BA L F ELDS
CHARLES
ACCESS ROAD
PAVILLION
SOCCER FIELDS
A \
cm
z
O
W Q m
W c\2 w
z C m
c3 .q'o CQ
m'o
cb
otcli
Lu
o p
c E-
5
b.
W Ul
ti
0 0 0
I� cNp
W P ON A
�N�ww
N
3 u o" xox
0 0: Q
0 W LL
M o
N w
w
�'
rw�
`J
E-
U
x
d�
F
W
x
30
04
Z
wx
w
w
dp4
w
E -
Q
0
04
w
0
DATE: MARCH 2O03
SCALE: 1 "=125'
DESIGNED BY: MPR
JOB NO. 2760C
SHEET 1 OF 1
•
0
EXHIBIT D
TYPICAL MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD SECTION
(1 sheet)
u�rlcsc..re. A"^ dvn4ore sTw-r tawl. _ L,^#4 csc.m ARf—A
NOTE: For illustrative purposes only
•
STEPHENSON VILLAGE
"EXHIBIT W
TYPICAL MAJOR COLLECTOR ROAD SECTION
Scale: NTS March 2003
THE LAND PLANNING & DESIGN GROUP, INC.
HOUSING
HOUSING NAME
MINIMUM
AVERAGE
MIN. LOT
MIN.
MIN. FRONT YARD
MIN. REAR
MIN. SETBACK
MIN. SETBACK
MIN. SIDE YARD SETBACK
MIN.
MIN. SETBACK FROM
DECK MIN. SETBACK
DECK MIN.
FRONT
DETACHED
MAXIMUM
OFF
UNIT TYPE
LOT WIDTH
LOT AREA
AREA
SQUARE
SETBACK FROM
YARD
TO DWELLING
DISTANCE BETWEEN
ON INTERIOR LOT LINE
SETBACK TO
GARAGE TO INTERIOR
INTERIOR LOT LINE
SETBACK
PORCHES,
ACCESSORY
BUILDING
STREET
SQUARE
SQUARE
FOOTAGE
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'
NA/20'
3710'
5'110'
157NA
6'
20'
35'
2
NON -ALLEY
2
CARRIAGE
47'
NA
4,700
1,400
15,
25'
NA
10,
5715710'
207NA
3'/10'
5710'
373'
6'
20'
35'
2
3
COTTAGE
34'
NA
3,264
1,400
15,
20'
NA
10' ON NON
0'/5'110'
NA120'
07NA
5710'
5'/NA
6'
NA
35'
2
ATTACHED SIDE
37NAINA (10' FROM
NAINA
NAINA
DWELLING TO
(19' FROM
NAINA
(6' FROM
4
COURTYARD
NA
3,300
NA
2,000
10'
NA
3'
10'
TINA
(5' FROM INTERIOR
PERIMETER
6'
NA
35'
2
PERIMETER PROPERTY
LINE)
COMMON
DRIVEWAY)
LOT LINE)
PROPERTY
LINE
511101/10,
MODIFIED
10' (0' FOR THE
(0' FOR ZERO LOTLINE
5710' (0' FOR ZERO
5710' (0' FOR ZERO
5
SINGLE FAMILY
38'
NA
3,750
NA
20'
15'
NA
ATTACHED OPTION)
SIDE WITH A COMBINED
20'115'
LOT LINE OR
LOT LINE OR
10'/3'
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
O'10'/10'
20'15'
0'/70'
O'/1O'
S'IS'
FORA 10'
20' HT.
35'
2
UNITS)
TO ANY OTHER
SETBACK
HOME)
20' (10' FOR NON
0' (25' FROM NON
12' FORA 20'
MODIFIED
GARAGE OR REAR
ATTACHED SIDE
SETBACK5'
6
TOWNHOUSE
18'
1,500
1,400
NA
LOADED GARAGE
20'
NA
WALL OF END UNIT
01101/10,
20'/5'
01/10,
01/10,
TIT
,
FORA
20' HT.
35'
2.25
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
0110'/70'
20'/5'
01/10'
01/10'
S'IS'
FOR 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.
a
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))-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 Assoeintes 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 J
5
4a j
J
3.
USES, DENSITY AND MIX OF HOUSING TYPES' q�l,' �jc'��
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
S.
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.
AFFORDABLE 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.
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 �:�h_:,:_�'
�i
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
begun 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
n 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 filly 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 fi•om 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
in Stephenson Associates 030703
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 mauls. 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 fines 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 fiends 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
0 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))-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 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 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:
V
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 hue 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 I1, 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 ofthis 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 in 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%) minimiun 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
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 of
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 fi-ont 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
(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 requestedwaiver should
be reviewedby 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
0
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 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
•
3. 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 oftlnis 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 purposes only) sets forth the development parameters on the Property:
LAND BAY BREAKDOWN
% RANGE OF
LAND
BAY
LAND USE
ACREAGE
HOUSING UNIT TYPES
MIN.
MAX.
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)
IV
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
26 Ac. +*
NA
NA
Retail, Office & Public Service Satellite Facility)—
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.
a�;F C?j::z_
*(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 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. 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 shallbe 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.
Stephenson Associates 030703
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
2010 Index X Proffer Amount = Revised Proffer Amount
225
183 X $5,327 = $6,550
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
u
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 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`h 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`l' building permit in
Stephenson Village but not later than December 31, 2013.
$50,000.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the 1,500`h building permit in
Stephenson Village but not later than December 31, 2018.
7. MULTI -MODAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS:
A. The following are improvements the Applicant will make to roads within the Property:
(1) Major Collector Road
(a) Pursuant to Section 7F (2), 7F (4) and 7F(5) of this proffer statement,
the Applicant shall dedicate an 80 foot right of way and construct the Major Collector Road from Old
Charles Town Road through Stephenson Village, and the properties currently ownedby 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 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 mainntenance 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.
(0 The Applicant shall prohibit individual residential and commercial
entrances Gom 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 fi•ont 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
0 •
(i) A minimum width of 20 feet
(ii) A minimum depth of pavement section shall be a four inch
compacted stone base and six niches 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 ofright-o f-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
0
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 fist 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 secondphase of the Major Collector Roadwill
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 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, 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 ofa 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 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
12 Stephenson Associates 030703
0 •
F. The Applicant will design and construct a four -lane boulevard Major Collector Road
for the Stephenson Village Community. The Major Collector Road willbe 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 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 willbond and commence construction of
a three -lane section of Old Charles Town Road, fiom 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 o f 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 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 9
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 fiends 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 o f 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 fiom
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 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 ofboth 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
14 Stephenson Associates 030703
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 Comity 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 Comity 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 ifthepublicpurposes
are not constructed or installed, completed and in use on the parcels which are identified in
subparagraphs A and B above within ten years ofthe conveyance from the Applicant, saidproperties
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,
construction, 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 untended 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 hilly bonded prior to the issuance of the first building permit. Work on this facility
shall commence prior to the issuance of the 250th non -age restricted building permit andbe completed
prior to issuance of the 800t" building permit for the non -age restricted housing products.
15 Stephenson Associates 030703
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 150"' building permit and be completed prior to issuance of the 350"' building
permit in the Active Adult Community.
C. Pedestrian Trail Sidewalk System
The Applicant shall construct a pedestrian trail or sidewalk system, which connects
each recreation area to the surrounding neighborhood. The foal 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 ofthe 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 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.
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 (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:
(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 fitly (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 fi•om 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 oftlnese
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 facade 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 of the retail and office land use willbe 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 will be 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 yearperiodrent 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
15. COMMUNITY DESIGN FOR A STRONG SENSE OF PLACE:
A. Desii
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. HousingUnit nit 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 limber or
approved equal of a standardized color to be selected by 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
1I
E
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 shallbe 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
fi•om 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 or bird habitats will be further enhanced by providing native plantings
selected to encourage feeding areas while reestablishing forest in and around
22 Stephenson Associates 030703
0 0
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 buffer. 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 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 shallbe
allowed within the environmental features listed in sections 15A-15D of this prof -er 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 slnallbe 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
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 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 Proffer 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 ASSOCIATION(S):
A. Creation of Associations)
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
24 Stephenson Associates 030703
0
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 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 Exhibit(s) prepared by The Land Planning and Design Group, Inc. dated
December 2002, listedbelow 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 preparedby Land Planning and Design Group, Inc., datedMarch 2003 andreferred
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
•
0
"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 shallbeprovided 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 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 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 kontage and shallbe 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"
minimum 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
Applicant(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 fi•ontage. 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 shall be 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 roadprovided 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
shallbe no more than 20' in height measured fromthe base and shall be spaced a minimum of 100 feet
apart.
28 Stephenson Associates 030703
10
SIGNATURE PAGE ''" `< u c Q 'wU
The conditions set forth herein are the proffers for Stephenson Village and supercede all
previous proffer statements submitted for this Development.
Respectfully submitted,
Stephenson C.
By:
e: J. Donald Sh c
Title: Manager
Subscribed and sworn before me this /9'day of h+c A , 2003.
(Typed Name of Notapfi
0
My Commission Expires: i /3 /
tary Public
0- 0
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 12003.
Notary Public
(Typed Name of Notary)
My Commission Expires:
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
(Rezoning Exhibit F)
MODIFICATION #1 § 165-71 Mixture of housing types required
Ordinance Requirement:
No more than 40% of the area of portions of the planned community designated for
residential uses shall be used for any of the following housing types: duplexes,
multiplexes, atrium houses, weak -link townhouses, townhouses or garden apartments or
any combination of those housing types.
Alternative Design Standard:
No more than 60% of the area of portions of the planned community for residential uses
shall be used for the housing types identified in the townhouse, multifamily and active
adult.
MIXED RESIDENTIAL MATRIX
Housing Unit Type
Minimum %
Maximum %
Single Family Dwellings
30
64
(Hosing Unit Tye 1,2,4,5 & RP District SFD)
Townhouse Dwellings
10
30
(Housing Unit Type 6 & RP District Townhouse)
Multifamily Dwellings
7
35
(Condominiums, Elderly Housing, Housing Unit Type 3
& RP District Duplex, Multiplex, Atrium and Garden Apt.
Active Adult Dwellings
19
53
Single Family Dwelling (Housing Unit Type 1,2 & 5)
Multifamily (Condominiums, Elderly Housing, Housing
Unit Type 3)
Justification for Modification:
The proffered Generalized Development Plan identifies that residential land uses will be
located within Land Bays III and IV. The Generalized Development Plan does not
account for the approximate 125 acres within the Hiatt Run Corridor and the Wetlands
Intermediate Ravine Channel that is contiguous to Land Bays III and IV. Therefore, the
Generalized Development Plan accounts for approximately 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 allows 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.
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 Desicn 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.
MODIFICATION #4 § 165-72F Recreational facilities
Ordinance Reauirement:
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.
ustification 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.
MODIFICATION #5 § 165-72I Road access
§ 165-29A(14) Motor vehicle access
§ 144-24C; C2(a); C2(b) Lot access
Ordinance Requirement:
The planned community development shall be provided with a complete system of public
streets dedicated to the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Alternative Design Standard:
The planned community development shall be provided with a complete system of public
streets dedicated to the Virginia Department of Transportation, excluding the street
system serving the active adult community and/or private access drives serving no more
than five single family dwelling units or ten single family dwelling units if the private
access drive connects to two public streets. The minimum distance from a public street
shall not apply in the active adult community provided that the lots are served by a road
system that provides for multiple street intersections to enhance looping and provide for
safe and efficient emergency access. The cross sectional base and pavement standard for
private streets shall meet or exceed VDOT requirements, with the allowance of using a
decorative cap on the private street to promote enhanced design. The cross sectional
standard for private access drives serving limited single family dwellings shall include an
8" aggregate type 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
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.
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 Reauirement:
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.
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.