HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-25 PC Staff Report - December 2025 REZONING #07-25
Madison 277 (Madison II LLC)
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: November 25, 2025
Staff Contact: M. Tyler Klein, AICP, Senior Planner
Executive Summary:
Meeting Schedule
Planning Commission: November 5, 2025
Planning Commission: December 3, 2025
Action: Work Session
Action: Pending (Public Hearing)
Board of Supervisors: January 14, 2026 Action: Pending (Public Hearing)
Property Information
Property Identification Number (PIN) 87-A-15
Address 1702 Fairfax Pike, White Post
Magisterial District Opequon
Acreage +/- 149.02
Zoning & Present Land Use Zoning: RA (Rural Areas)
Land Use: Agricultural
Proposed Zoning R4 (Residential Planned Community District)
Adjoining Property Zoning & Present Land Use
North: RA (Rural Area) Land Use: Residential & Vacant
South: R5 (Residential Recreation
Community District)
Land Use: Residential (Lake Frederick)
East: R5 Land Use: Residential (Lake Frederick)
West: RA Land Use: Vacant
Proposed Use
This is a request to rezone one (1) parcel totaling approximately +/-149.02-acres from the RA
(Rural Areas) Zoning District to the R4 (Residential Planned Community) Zoning District with
proffers to enable the development of residential and commercial uses.
Positives
Concerns
The rezoning request proposes a zoning
district, R4, which may be associated with the
Plan identified land uses in the
Comprehensive Plan for “neighborhood
village” and enables uses that could be
associated “mixed use office/commercial
(MUOC).”
The proposed rezoning is not fully consistent
with the adopted Plan policy for the Lake
Frederick UDA regarding the mix of
commercial uses and residential units. The
proffer statement does not restrict the use of
commercial areas to “medical uses” as
envisioned in the Plan and could develop with
3
Page 2 of 10
The proposed design modifications offer
alternative standards to Zoning Ordinance
requirements that aid to achieve Plan policy
specific to the Lake Frederick UDA.
The proffer statement fully implements
Capital Impact Model (CapIM) monetary
contributions for residential housing types,
addressing capital impacts to county services
for schools, fire and rescue services, parks
and recreation.
The revised proffer statement fully commits
to implementation of improvements to the site
entrance and Route 277 as recommended by a
signal justification report (SJR; to-be-
completed).
The revised proffer statement includes
“quality of design” elements, speaking to Plan
policy, for high quality commercial building
materials.
B1 (Neighborhood Business), B2 (General
Business) or RP (Residential Performance)
uses with few exclusions.
The proffer statement allows for the
development of up to 830 residential units, up
to 375 of which may be constructed before
any commercial square footage is developed.
This conflicts with plan policy that envisions
residential uses as an accessory component of
a neighborhood village commercial center.
The “residential building materials” included
in the revised proffer statement do not fully
commit to high-quality building materials,
such as cast stone, stone, brick, architectural
block, glass, wood, dry vit, or stucco, which
were included for commercial structures. This
does not fully address the Plan envisioned
“quality of construction” to match the existing
Lake Frederick community.
Building height and overall development
density were raised as concerns during the
Planning Commission work session on
November 3rd, and these concerns remain
unaddressed.
Proffer G-6 specifies the owner agrees to pay
the amount of $2,000,000 for transportation
improvements to the off-site intersections in
the vicinity of the subject property. Physical
improvements are typically preferred to cash
contributions particularly due to the
likelihood that this amount would not cover
the improvements required under the TIA.
Further a justification was not provided for
the value included nor has it been made clear
by the applicant how that value reflects their
proportional share of the improvement.
4
Page 3 of 10
Review Agency Comments:
Review Agency
Comment
Date
Comment Summary Status
Virginia
Department of
Transportation
(VDOT)
09/16/2025 See comment letter. Partially addressed.
Off-site
improvements
valuation to cover
costs remain
unresolved.
Frederick Water 10/04/2025 See comment letter.
Frederick County
Public Works
09/25/2025 “We offer no comment at this time.”
Frederick County
Parks and
Recreation
09/30/2024 See comment letter.
Frederick County
Fire Marshal
11/01/2024
“Future development shall comply
with the Frederick County Fire
Prevention Code and other applicable
codes pertaining to life safety.”
Frederick County
Attorney
01/23/2025 Legal form. Addressed.
Frederick County
Public Schools
10/07/2024 See comment letter.
Planning & Zoning Staff Analysis:
Site History:
A Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment (CPPA*) #01-23 was approved by the Board of
Supervisors on January 10, 2024. The CPPA created a new non-contiguous Urban Development
Area (UDA) to encompass the subject property and Lake Frederick community and designated
the subject property with a “mixed-use industrial office (MUIO)” and “neighborhood village”
land use designation.
*The CPPA was requested by the same owner seeking a rezoning.
5
Page 4 of 10
Comprehensive Plan Conformance:
The Comprehensive Plan (adopted November 2021) and the Southern Frederick Area Plan
(SOFRED, amended 2024) provide guidance on the future development of the subject property.
The Plan identifies the subject properties with a land use mix of “mixed use commercial/office
(MUCO)” and “neighborhood village.” The subject property is within the limits of the Sewer and
Water Service Area (SWSA) and the Urban Development Area (UDA). Further, the SOFRED plan
identifies the subject properties within the “Lake Frederick Urban Development Area” sub
planning area. The plan states:
“Lake Frederick Urban Development Area serves as a focal point to the 277 Triangle;
Centers of Economy and as a gateway feature for the Shenandoah/Lake Frederick
community and on a broader scale, a gateway feature for Frederick County as citizens and
visitors approach the County from the east. This development area should promote a strong
positive community image. Residential land uses would be permitted only as an accessory
component of the neighborhood village commercial land uses. Previously, a small area of
neighborhood village commercial was identified on the south side of Route 277 in the
general vicinity of the future entrance of Shenandoah and the existing Sandy’s Mobile
Home Park. The 2014 update to the Plan provides for an overall greater area and greater
mix of uses in this area that is reflective of a stronger desire to create a more substantial
focal point for activity. This is primarily based on the growth and development of the Lake
Frederick Community and the involvement of new residents from this area. The existing
Lake Frederick community is included [to] serve as the core area of this new Urban
Development Area, and to demonstrate the quality of construction and type of land use
patterns desired in this area [of the County].”
The Plan further states: “in order to serve the needs of the growing residential community in and
around the Lake Frederick Urban Development Area, medical uses should be considered within
the core commercial areas around the Route 277 corridor.”
The proposed rezoning proposes a zoning district, R4 (Planned Residential Community District),
which is typically associated with the Plan identified land uses in the Comprehensive Plan for
“neighborhood village” and enables uses that could be associated “mixed use office/commercial
(MUOC).” However, the proffer statement allows for a maximum total of 830 residential units,
which would not appear to implement residential uses as greater than an accessory component of
a neighborhood village commercial center. The proffer statement enables the owner to construct
up to 375 residential units before a minimum of 20,000 square feet (SF) of commercial buildings
are constructed (Proffer D-2). This is approximately 45% of the total residential units proposed
and may not fully achieve the envisioned “mix” of uses.
The proffered “land use and land use matrix” (Proffer B-1) does not specify the uses allowed in
the proposed B1 (Neighborhood Business) and B2 (General Business) zoning districts or speak to
the Plan envisioned uses for this area of the County. The proffers do prohibit B3 (Industrial
Transition), TM (Technology-Manufacturing Park), and M1 (Light Industrial) zoning districts.
6
Page 5 of 10
Finally, the revised proffer statement (H) proposes building materials for commercial structures
and architectural examples* for multifamily and single-family attached residential units. Lake
Frederick UDA plan policy states: “The existing Lake Frederick community is included in order
to serve as the core area of this new Urban Development Area, and to demonstrate the quality of
construction and type of land use patterns desired in this area.” While the building materials
outlined in Proffer H-1 contain high-quality treatments, such as cast stone, stone, brick and
architectural block for commercial buildings, these treatments are missing from Proffer H-2 (and
Exhibit A) for residential building materials. The architectural examples contained in Exhibit A
lack the high-quality building materials proffered for proffered commercial building facades and
do not appear to harmonize with the building materials being used in the Lake Frederick
Community (and stated in Plan policy).
*Staff notes architectural examples provided with the revised proffer statement (11/12/2025)
reflects existing Madison Village II structures.
In this respect, the proposed rezoning is not fully consistent with the adopted Plan policy
regarding the mix of commercial uses and residential units and otherwise does not specially
address “medical uses,” or “quality of construction” for residential structures.
Transportation & Site Access:
Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) is identified in the Comprehensive Plan as an “improved minor arterial”
roadway. Further the Plan envisions a new “minor arterial” roadway across the subject property
(identified as future “South Frederick Parkway”). Access to the site, as shown on the proffered
generalized development plan (GDP, dated 12/06/2024) is proposed from Fairfax Pike (Route 277;
two (2) entrances) and from a future inter-parcel connection with the Lake Frederick community
to the east. The proffer statement (revised 11/12/25) commits to:
• Intersection improvements*, if warranted, to the proposed new site entrance and Route 277
(Proffer G-3).
• Construction of portions of the future four-lane roadway (South Frederick Parkway) and
dedication of 105-feet (FT) of right-of-way (ROW) for the future extension to the west by
others (Proffer G-4).
• Dedication of ROW along Route 277 frontage for future widening and construction of a 10
FT wide multiuse trail within the proposed ROW (Proffer G-5).
• Cash contributions for off-site improvements to Hudson Hollow Road/White Oak
Road/Route 277 intersection and improvements to the intersection of Route 522/Route
277/Route 340 intersection (Proffer G-6).
*A signal justification report (SJR) was not conducted during the preliminary comment phase of
the rezoning. The applicant has committed to completing an SJR, and implementing any
improvements, prior to development.
7
Page 6 of 10
Capital Impacts & Levels-of-Service (LOS):
When evaluating capital costs of new residential development, the County projects per unit costs
through the Capital Impact Model (CapIM). The model has been designed to project fiscal impacts
that may result from land use change decisions. The Board of Supervisors updated the County’s
adopted Capital Impact Model on October 9, 2024. Cash proffer categories (enabled by the Code
of Virginia) are limited to public safety facilities, school facilities, and parks and recreation
facilities. Below is the projected capital impact by unit type from the County’s adopted Capital
Impact Model (CapIM) for single-family detached, single-family attached units (townhomes) and
multifamily units and the proffered values.
Housing Type Capital Impact Model
(CapIM) Output
Proffer Statement
10/01/2025
Single-Family Detached $17,332 $17,332
Single-Family Attached
(Townhome) $15,596 $15,596
Multifamily $9,985 $9,985
Age-Restricted $1,387 $1,387
As proffered (revised 11/12/25), the rezoning fully implements CapIM monetary contributions for
proposed residential housing types.
Public Schools Level of Service (LOS)*
School Program
Capacity (2020)
Current
Enrollment
(2023)
% CapIM
% with
proposed
development
generated
students**
Armel ES 580 589 101.5% 117%
Aylor MS 914 806 88.3% 93.6
Sherando HS 1,323 1,634 123.3% 128%
*CapIM Output – October 2025
** Planning and Development staff generated
Note: The LOS analysis above reflects a point-in-time (2025). It does not include pipeline projects (unbuilt
residential units) generating new students in the vicinity of the above schools, future redistricting of school service
areas, or capital project planning, such as the 4th high school and expansions at the elementary level, that may
alleviate strain on school capacity.
The proposed 830-unit residential development is projected to generate up to 203 students (91
elementary school children, 50 middle school children, and 62 high schoolers). This student
generation projection assumes a minimum of 192 age-restricted units (revised proffer statement
8
Page 7 of 10
dated 11/12/2025), however, as proffered they could construct more age-restricted units, further
reducing the anticipated students generated.
Proffer Statement, Generalized Development Plan (GDP), & Impact Analysis:
Proffers
(Revision Date 11/12/2025)
Staff Comment
Proffer A – Generalized Development Plan No comment.
Proffer B – Design Modification Document
The Zoning Ordinance (§165-501.06(O))
permits modifications of other regulations as
part of an application for rezoning to the R4
District.
The proposed design modifications offer
alternative standards to ZO requirements that
aid to better achieve Plan policy specific to
the Lake Frederick UDA. The height
modification to allow for age-restricted
multifamily residential buildings up to 60-feet
aligns with the maximum height already
permitted for other (non-age restricted)
multifamily buildings.
Proffer C – Land Use and Land Use Matrix
Any uses allowed in the B1 (Neighborhood
Business), B2 (General Business) or RP
(Residential Performance) zoning districts
could be developed excluding
gas/convenience uses and storage facilities.
B3 (Industrial Transition), TM (Technology-
Manufacturing Park), and M1 (Light
Industrial) uses would also be prohibited. The
Plan envisions “medical uses” within the
Lake Frederick UDA as contemplated during
the CPPA process and the proffers are silent
on a commitment to these envisioned uses.
Proffer D – Land Use Phasing
Proffer D-2 limits the total residential units to
375 until a certificate of occupancy is
obtained for a minimum of 20,000 SF of
commercial buildings constructed in Land
Bay # 1. This does not appear to fully
implement Plan policy regarding the
envisioned mix of uses, specifically where the
9
Page 8 of 10
Plan notes residential land uses should be an
“accessory component” of the Lake Frederick
UDA.
Proffer E – Monetary Contributions
No comment. Proposed contributions align
with CapIM outputs (2025).
Proffer F – Recreation Facilities No comment.
Proffer G – Transportation
Proffer G-6 specifies the owner agrees to pay
the amount of $2,000,000 for off-site
transportation improvements to the
intersections of Hudson Hollow Road/White
Oak Road and Fairfax Pike and the
intersection of Route 522/Fairfax Pike and
Route 340. Physical improvements are
typically preferred to cash contributions
particularly due to the likelihood that this
amount would not cover the improvements
required under the TIA (as stated in VDOT
comment letter). Further a justification was
not provided for the value included nor has it
been made clear by the applicant how that
value reflects their proportional share of the
improvement.
Proffer H – Quality of Construction
This proffer was added to address stated
Planning Commission concerns regarding
quality building materials envisioned in Plan
policy. While Proffer H-1 identifies high
quality building materials like cast stone,
stone, brick and architectural block for
commercial buildings, these treatments are
missing from Proffer H-2 (and Exhibit A) for
residential building materials. The
architectural examples contained in Exhibit A
lack the high-quality building materials
proffered for proffered commercial building
facades and do not appear to harmonize with
the building materials being used in the Lake
Frederick Community (and stated in Plan
policy).
10
Page 9 of 10
Generalized Development Plan
The generalized development plan (GDP) revised December 6, 2024, is included below and
reflects proffered improvements, site access, circulation, open space, recreation amenities, and
residential land bays.
Planning Commission Summary from 11/5/2025 Work Session
The Planning Commission held a work session at 6 P.M. on November 5, 2025, to discuss the
proposed rezoning application with staff and the applicant representatives (Commissioner
Markert – absent; Gainesboro – vacant). Several issues were discussed among the
Commissioners for the applicant to address prior to the public hearing:
• Land use phasing including the total number of units and timing of commercial uses
square footage.
• Transportation improvements including fully implementing signal justification report
(SJR) intersection improvements, and justification for cash contributions for off-site
improvements.
• High quality design elements including building materials, design of multifamily
buildings, and further justification for the height modification design modification for
age-restricted multifamily structures.
11
Page 10 of 10
• Overall site density exceeding that is presently enabled in the ordinance (4 dwelling
units/acre) and greatly exceeding the existing/neighboring Lake Frederick community
(2.3 dwelling units/acre).
No action was taken by the Planning Commission at the work session.
Following a public hearing, staff is seeking a recommendation from the Planning
Commission to forward to the Board of Supervisors on this rezoning application.
12