HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_07-16-03_Meeting_MinutesMEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on July 16, 2003.
PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman /Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice
Chairman /Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Pat
Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; Richard C.Ours, Opequon District; William
C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Charles
E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Margaret Douglas, Board of Supervisors
Liaison; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director, Christopher M. Mohn, Deputy Planning Director;
Abbe S. Kennedy, Senior Planner: Jeremy F. Camp, Planner 11: and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
•
I
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEETING MINUTES - NNE 4, 2003
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the
minutes of June 4, 2003 were unanimously approved as presented.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of July 16, 2003 Page 1095
2-
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) - 06/26/03 Mtg.
r Commissioner Thomas reported that the DRRS discussed buffer zones for pig farms in the
Agricultural District. He said the DRRS is questioning why pig farms should be segregated from any other
farming activity in the rural area. Commissioner Thomas noted that the DRRS will continue their discussions
on this topic.
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) - 07/24/03 Mtg.
Commissioner Light reported that the CPPS discussed three agenda items: 1) a request to
amend the Northeast Land Use Plan to relocate a major collector road planned in the vicinity of the intersection
of Rt. 11 and Rest Church Road; 2) a request to expand the UDA to include six parcels along Merriman's
Lane, comprising approximately 320 acres; and 3) preliminary discussions on rural areas study.
Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) - No Meeting
Commissioner Gochenour stated that the HRAB did not meet during the month of July and
she repeated the HRAB's previously- stated concerns about why they wanted to meet on a regular monthly
basis. Commissioner Goc hen Our reported thatduringthe HRAB's June meeting it was announced that grant
application was made to the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation to be used to hire a consultant to
provide training to the HRAB. She said the grant has been approved and the staff would like to discuss
implementation of the grant at the August meeting.
Sanitation Authority (SA) - 07/15/03 Mtg.
Commissioner Fisher said the Engineer /Director ofthe SA, Mr. H. Wellington Jones, reported
that since July of 1998, our area has a 2.86 -inch surplus in rainfall. He said the SA is continuing with the
draw -down test on the South quarries. Commissioner Fisher reported that rainfall has actually hindered the
ability to gather data, therefore, they will continue with the draw -down test for an extended period of time.
11
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of July 16, 2003 Page 1096
Winchester Planning Commission - 07/15/03 Mtg.
Mr. Vincent Di Benedetto, Winchester Plan it ing Commissioner; reported a short meeting
with nothing significant to report.
PUBLIC HEARING
Proposed amendmentto the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, R4-
Planned Residential Community District, Section 165 -72.0, Other Regulations, to allow modifications
of ordinance requirements for greater design flexibility in the R4 District.
Action - Recommended Approval with Stipulations
Deputy Planning Director, Christopher M. Mohn, first explained the function and components
ofthe R4 District, aplanned community concept, which enables the mixing of housing types and choices and
the integration of land uses. Deputy Director Mohn acknowledged that additional flexibility may be needed
by some R4 District applicants to facilitate attainment of their unique vision for a planned community. He
noted, however, that under the existing ordinance, an exemption or waiver cannot be proposed or considered
fora planned residential coium Lill ity,except where expressly permitted by Article 7, which limits exemptions
to proposals for alternative dimensional requirements and alternative landscapingand buffering plans. Hesaid
that an alternative method is needed to provide an R4 applicant with additional flexibility4o pursue design
innovations not contemplated by the current ordinance.
Deputy Director Mohn continued, stating that staff has proposed an amendment to Article 7
which would allow an applicant for R4 Zoning to seek modi fications to any provision ofthe code impacted by
physical development. The applicantwould berequired to providejustification forthe requestand beexpected
to identify the need or role of the alternative standard in the overall design concept; he noted that a blanket
waiver or exemption would not be permitted. Deputy Director Mohn added that the modification process would
occur as a component ofan R4 rezoning application and following Planning Commission review, the Board
of Supervisors would consider and approve each modification request oil its merits pursuant tothe applicants
justification. He further added that if accepted, the alternative or modified standards would be included with
the proffer statement as conditions of rezoning approval.
Deputy Director Mohn noted that the pending Stephenson Village Rezoning Application
incorporates aseries of niodificationsasconceived by this proposed amendment. However, heencouraged the
Commission to consider the proposed amendment on its own merit as an independent measure intended to
improve the R4 Ord inance for future use. He commented that regardless ofthe applicability of this proposal
to tite Stephenson Village application, an enhanced modification process was appropriate in the limited context
of planned residential community projects.
Commissioner Rosenberry asked if this proposed amendment would not typically come out
of the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS). Deputy Director Mohn replied that staff
atvarious levels considered this and determined that bringingthis amendmenttoo well in advance ofa pending
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of July 16, 2003 1 Page 1097
4-
r project's public hearing may be perceived to be pre - ordaining an action on the request. He said that overall,
it was intended that by bringing the two together, they could be considered without separation and confusion
• as to their purpose.
Commissioner Rosenberry inquired ifthis type ofamendmentwould nottypically come tothe
Planning Commission initially as a discussion item, rather than a public hearing, especially because of the
sensitivity of the subject, and before the Commission makes a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
Deputy Director Mohn replied that the traditional process would beforthe amendmentto be initially discussed
by the DRRS, then discussed by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors before the public
hearing.
Commissioner Rosenberry asked if this proposed amendment was deliberately tied in with the
pendingrezoningapplication. Deputy Director Mohn replied thatthe proposed amendment was deliberately
scheduled as staff has scheduled it for this evening.
Commissioner Straub stated that, as a member ofthe DRRS, she was not in favor of deviating
from the usual process of discussion at the subcommittee level; she believed that deliberation of the subject
matter in an informal setting by the subcommittee was needed before consideration by the full Commission.
Commissioner Thomas slated that, as Chairman of the DRRS, the DRRS has been in favor
of giving developers more options to allow innovative development that will, in the end; be better for the
community. However, Commissioner Thomas said that lie would not want to see this done as a regular
practice and hopefully, this would only be a very limited exception to the traditional process.
Commissioner Gochenour preferred to have the proposed amendment discussed in a work
session where the subject matter could be openly discussed.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to
speak:
Ms. Diane McMillan believed that because the planned urban development of Stephenson
Village encompassed 2,800 housing units, it should be meticulously planned to ensure that costs equaled
reven Lies generated. Ms. McMillan pointed outseveral waivers associated with the Stephenson Village project
that she opposed, as follows: I ) she was opposed to the request to waive the 10 %commercial/ industrial land
use to 4 %commercial only; she believed it should be 10 %commercial only; 2) she was opposed to the waiver
to exclude certain streets in the active adu It conunun ity from being dedicated to V DOT and for them to be the
responsibil ity ofthe homeowners association; she was suspect that homeowners associations could perpetually
fulfill the obligation of road maintenance; 3) she was opposed to reducing the road efficiency buffers from 40'
to 25' and maintained by the homeowners association; she was suspect thatthe homeowners associations would
perpetually maintain the landscaping; 4) she was opposed to the request to waive the phasing of housing types
in lieu of allowing the market to dictate need; 5) she was opposed to the request to waive the master
developmentplan requirement in lieu ofone generalized developmentplan with numerous master development
plans; she preferred to see one master development plan at the onset which supplied figures on the costs, the
profits, the layout, etc.
Chairman DeHaven reminded all those present that the Commission was considering an
amendment to the zoning ordinance that would permit the various types of waivers requested by the Shockey
•
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of July 16, 2003 Page 1098
5-
proposal
is Commissioner Thomas added to Chairman DeHaven's point, noting that the amendment to
the ordinance being considered by the Commission this evening would allow applicants to request a waiver;
it would not automatically grant any waivers. He said that the Board of Supervisors would continue to make
the final decision, after the waiver is analyzed by the Planning Commission and public hearings are presented;
he said that no automatic waivers are granted.
Mr. David Herd, a resident of Stonewall District, believed the Planning Commission needed
to formulate and establish a process with standards and procedures through which a waiver request could be
considered and then subsequently approved or denied. Mr. Herd believed the process should be established well
in advance of considering the pending rezoning request.
Mr. Sam Lehman, a resident of Back Creek District, believed that waivers will determine a
large portion of the R4 Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Lehman foresaw a precedent - setting situation being created
by granting waivers for R4 District applicants.
Mr. Roger DeLaughter, a resident of Winchester, believed the Commission needed time to
discuss the code amendment with each other before voting.
There being no other citizen wishing to speak.. Chairman DeHaven closed the public comment
portion of the meeting.
Commissioner Rosenberry inquired how, procedurally, the Commission could vote on the
forthcoming rezoning application when the code amendment will not be finalized until after the Board of
Supervisors takes action. Deputy Director Mohn replied that the Commission can vote concurrently on both
items, although one will be influenced by the other. When the Commission's recommendation reaches the
Board, it would be the Board's ultimate prerogative to determine what the final action would be for the
amendment, and then, in turn, the rezoning application.
Commissioner Rosenberry inquired if the Commission could legally grmrt a waiver to one
application and then deny the same waiver to another application. Deputy Director Mohn replied that
modifications, or waivers, are intended to be unique to the concept of the project. He said this request would
not be the first situation where modification opportunities are available for planned development; he said that
most jurisdictions that employ some form of planned community zoning district have provisions for
modifications. In every case, the applicant would have to demonstrate and justify that each modification
requested meets the public purpose of the modified standard to an equivalent degree.
Commissioner Unger inquired iftheCommission basically did this sameexercise with the R4
District at Wheatlands; lie said the Comin ission considered setbacks, zero lot I ines, etc. Deputy Director Mohn
pointed out it was a different scenario because it was R5 Zoning, not R4, and it wasn't modifications, but it
was additional flexibility built into the regulations to allow the product type, which was active adult, and its
unique design requirements.
Chairman Dellaven said that Commissioner Unger's example and the R4 are two different
classifications, however, it was an excellent point because many of the same issues have been raised. He
believed the Commission's goal has always been to offer opportunities, with guidance, for flexibility within
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of July 16, 2003 Page 1099
-6-
the ordinances. He advised that if there is abetter way or if there are issues not addressed by the ordinance,
then the Commission will be in a position toconsiderthemonacase -by -case basis through the normal process.
Commissioner Straub again repeated her desire for this code amendment to go back to the
DRRS for deliberation and to be dealt with in the traditional fashion. Commissioner Straub next made a
motion that this code amendment be sent back to the DRRS for study and recommendation. This motion was
seconded by Commissioner Goehenour.
This motion failed due to the following vote:
YES (RETURN TO DRRS) Straub, Gochenour, Triplett, Rosenberry
NO: Watt, Unger, Light, DeHaven, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Fisher
(Please note: Commissioner Morris was absent from the meeting.)
Commissioner Thomas reminded the Commission thatrequests for waiver provisions exist for
the R5 District and there is no reason why those abilities should not exist in the R4 District; he believed there
should be consistency throughout the ordinance. Commissioner Thornas believed the proposed code
amendment presented by the staff contained provisions for requested waivers to be closely controlled and
reviewed.
Commissioner Thomas moved to recommend approval ofthe proposed code amendment. This
motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz.
Commissioner Straub proposed an amendment to Commissioner Thomas' motion.
Commissioner Straub requested that under Section 165 - 72.0(1), the last sentence be clarified to state that the
request would go through the Planning Commission and then to the Board of Supervisors to approve or
disapprove such request. Coin in i ss i on er Thom as amended li is in oti on to include the suggested amendment and
Commissioner Kriz concurred with his second.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of
the proposed amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, R4-
Planned Residential Community District, Section 165 -72.0, Other Regulations, to allow modifications of
ordinance requirements for greater design Flexibility in the R4 District with a revision to the last sentence of
Section 165 -72.0 (1). asfollows: The Board of Supervisors may approve or disapprove such request, in whole
or in part, upon recommendation from the Planning Commission.
YES (TO APPROVE) Watt, Unger, Light, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Fisher, Triplett, DeHaven
NO: Straub, Gochenour, Rosenberry
(Please note: Commissioner Morris was absent from the meeting.)
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of July 16. 2003 Page 1100
7-
Rezoning #06 -03 of Stephenson Village, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 821.7 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 I I North). The
properties included with this application are identified with Property Identification Numbers 44 -A -31
[portionj, 44- A -31A, 44 -A -292, and 44 -A -293 in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
Action - Tabled for 30 Days
Chairman Del-laven stated that he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this item,
due to a possible conflict of interest. Chairman Del-laven turned the conduction of the meeting over to Vice
Chairman Thomas.
Vice Chairman Thomas stated that before the staff presentation is heard, he wanted to give
Commissioner Fisher an opportunity to make a statement.
Speaking on behalf of Commissioner Ours and himself, Commissioner Fisher stated forthe
record that he sought a legal opinion from the County's Attorney, Lawrence R. Ambrogi, regarding whether
or not a conflict of interest could be raised regarding the applicant's proffered Item #5 which contained a
statement referring to Commissioner Ours' and Commissioner Fisher's employer, Shenandoah University.
Commissioner Fisher stated that Mr. Ambrogi determined that it was not a conflict of interest for
Commissioner Ours and Commissioner Fisherto be involved in the discussion and votingon the Stephenson
Village rezoning application. Commissioner Fisher asked for confirmation of that statement from the
Commission's legal counsel, Mr. Jay Cook. Mr. Cook replied that Mr. Fisher's statement was correct.
Commissioner Ours confirmed that Mr. Fisher had the right to speak for him in this matter.
Vice Chairman Thomas recognized and confirmed that the Commission had I l voting
members present.
Deputy Plann ing Director, Christopher M. Mohn, stated that the Stephenson Village rezoning
application is a request to rezone approximately 821 acres of RA -zoned property to the R4 District to faci I itate
development of a planned residential community consisting of 2,800 dwelling units and 250,000 square feet
of commercial uses with 44 acres dedicated for public uses. Deputy Director Mohn addressed the principal
elements ofthe applicant's proposal forthe Commission and its relationship to the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
He stated that the subject parcels are all located within the boundaries of the Northeast Land Use Plan
( NELUP) and are located wholly within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Mr. Mohn pointed out
that an extensive review ofthe NELUP was recently concluded and several alternatives were considered by the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, including a proposal to designate the subject parcels for
planned community development. This alternative was ultimately not adopted and the industrial land use
designation remained --e He stated that the planned residential common ity proposed by the applicant
is, therefore, inconsistent with the adopted land use policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Deputy Director Mohn next gave an overview ofthe proffered development program proposed
by the applicant, which designates development to occur within five distinct land bays including: Land Bay 1,
land dedication for an elementary school; Land Bay 2, land dedication for a public park; Land Bay 3, mixed
residential use consisting of single- family detached, townhouse, and multi - family units; Land Bay 4, a mix of
unit types for active adult; and Land Bay 5, a commercial center. He reviewed each ofthe land bays in detail
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of July 16, 2003 Page 1 101
8-
as proposed by the applicant and the acreage proposed for each. He next described the applicant's multi -modal
transportation system proposed to serve the property which will consist of a major collector road, as well as
bicycle and pedestrian facilities. He said the major collector road wil I extend from the project entrance on Old
Charlestown Road to its ultimate terminus at Martinsburg Pike, where it will be aligned with the entrance to
the Rutherford's Farm industrial park. He further noted that the applicant has proffered toconstructthemajor
collector road in phases triggered by actual traffic counts collected near the project entrance. Mr. Mohn also
described the applicant's otheroff-site improvenientsand monetary contributions for road improvements. He
concluded the transportation discussion by stating that V DOT has approved the transportation improvements
proffered by the applicant, accepting them as a reasonable accommodation of the project's impacts.
Deputy Director Mohn continued by reviewing the nine modification requests to the
requirements of the zoning and subdivision ordinances from the applicant. Generally, those modifications
included: 1) allowing a larger percentage of townhouse, multi - family, and active adult housing categories; 2)
allowing housing types not currently enabled and corresponding dimensional standards; 3) allowing the
limitation of commercial developmeutto 4% ofthe project's gross land area; 4) allowing use ofthe monetary
value of the tot lot facility as a means to quantify conformance with the recreational unit requirements; 5)
allowing the age- restricted areas to develop with a system of private streets and private access roads; 6)
exemption from the requirement ofa phasing plan specifying the concluding year of each phase ofdevelopment;
7) allowing reduction in the width ofthe road efficiency buffer adjacent to the planned major collector road;
8) allowing submission of a proffered Generalized Development Plan (GDP) in lieu of a full Master
Development Plan (MDP); and, 9) allowing provision of a series of MDPs to accommodate incremental
development over time. Deputy Director Mohn said the applicant is pursuingthese modifications to permit
enhanced regulatory flexibility to enable implementation ofthe proffered development program for Stephenson
Village. He noted that alteration or disapproval of a given modification would undoubtedly impact
corresponding sections of the proffer statement and the generalized development plan.
Deputy Director Mohn pointed out that Mr. Benjamin Lineberry, representing VDOT, was
available at this evening's meeting, if there were any questions concerning VDOT matters.
Commissioner Rosenber followed-Up on the staff's comment that the subjectparcel was not
located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and he read the following statement from the
Comprehensive Policy Plan: " ... new planned communities shall be established in the UDA .'� He also referred
to the R4 District section of the zoning ordinance and read, "...planned community developments shall only be
approved in conformance with the policy ofthe Comprehensive Plan." Commissioner Rosenberry said that
not only is the proposed rezoning riot with in the UDA as recommended by the Comprehensive Policy Plan, but
it is also not in conformance with the ordinance. Secondly, Commissioner Rosenberry pointed out that the
waiver requests included in the rezoning application are not in compliance with the adopted ordinance. Thirdly,
Commissioner Rosenberry commented that the Comprehensive Policy Plan recommends a balance of various
types of development within a planned community, such as a balance of residential, commercial, and industrial
uses in orderto lessen the overall impacts, particularly financial ones, of new communities on the County as
a whole. He suggested that reduction in the minimum required commercial and industrial portions, with an
increase in residential, may change the economics to the County's disadvantage. Commissioner Rosenberry
inquired of staff if adhering to the ordinance requirements by allowing the land use percentages to remain
unchanged. would not be more to the County's advantage because it would result in more commercial income
through taxes and create less infrastructure burden from residential development.
•
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of July 16, 2003 Page 1102
9-
Deputy Director Moll replied that when land uses are integrated and balanced, the benefits
obviously go beyond financial ones for the residents of thecommunity, such as being able to internally access
places ofemployment , places for shopping, schools, recreation, etc. to create a self - sustained community. He
added that the results of the economic analysis conducted with the processing- of the pending rezoning
application indicated a positiveeconomicimpactregardlessoftheinixproposed - , and,infact,themixproposed
bythe applicant seems to work economically. In regards to CommissionerRosenberry's inquiry about whether
it would be moreeconomically beneficial to the County ifthe land use percentages remained as required bythe
ordinance, Deputy Director Mohn replied that may be an accurate statement, as additional commercial and
industrial uses would be required.
Commissioner Light inquired of the staff if there was any indication of any possible action,
change, or direction on the Comprehensive Policy Plan from the Board of Supervisors. Deputy Director Mohn
was not aware of any future change or action.
Commissioner Gochenour said it was her understandingthatthe Board of Supervisors had just
approved a study to be done of the County's fiscal impact model. She believed the true cost of the proposed
development to the tax payer remained unknown.
Vice Chairman Thomas asked the Commissioners if there were any questions for VDOT
representatives. There being none, Vice Chairman Thomas called for the applicants to make their presentation.
Mr. J. Donald Shockey, Jr., of Stephenson Associates, L.C., came forward to introduce his
project team and to present It isteam' s vision forthe residential planned community of Stephenson Village. He
introduced the following project team members: Project Designer, James Baish, with the firm The Land
r� Planning &Design Group, Inc.; Greenway Engineering's President, Mark D. Smith, P.E., L.S. and proffer
architect, Evan A. Wyatt, AICP, also with Greenway Engineering; Legal Counsel, Thomas (Ty) Lawson, with
the firm Lawson& Silek, PLC; Transportation Engineer, John Callow, with tile firm of Patton, Harris, Rust
& Associates; and, Economist, Leonard Bogorad with the firm of Robert Charles Lesser & Co., LLC. Mr.
Shockey said that Robert Charles Lesser & Co., LLC was commissioned to conduct a conservative economic
study of the project's impact on County revenues and expenditures.
Mr. Shockey said that accord ingto Robert Charles Lesser& Co.'s study, Stephenson Village
would generate approximately $38,000,000.00 netpositive revenue for theCounty by thetinie of its build out;
after build -out, Stephenson Village should generate about $3.9 million every year in net positive revenue for
the County at today's tax rate. Mr. Shockey stated that in order to "check the checker,'" they asked the
County's Board of Supervisors to hire two independent Firms of their choosing at Stephenson Associates'
expense, to verify the results. The Board chose Robinson, Farmer, & Cox Associates of Richmond, Virginia,
the leading accounting firm for local governments in Virginia, and Springstead, Inc. of St. Paul, Minnesota,
one ofthe largest, independent financial advisory firms in the United States. He said that both ofthese firms
validated Robert Charles Lesser & Co.'s study.
Mr. Thomas (Ty) Lawson, attorney for the applicant, gave a brief history on this property,
from its initial industrial proposal to the current proposal of mixed use residential, with R4 District zoning.
Mr. Lawson said the Board of Supervisors recently voiced their preference for mixed use on this property and,
on May 2I, 2003, the Plaiming Commission recommended thatthe Comprehensive Policy Plan be revised for
this property to reflect its suitability for mixed use. He said that no vote has yet been taken by the Board of
•
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of July 16, 2003 Page 1103
to-
Surervisors to either acceptor reject the Plarin ing Comin ission's May 21 recommendation. He mentioned that
the Board of Supervisors and the public, as a whole, have already determined that industrial is not desirable;
he said the soils for this property are not suitable for agriculture. Mr. Lawson also briefly described the
proposed age - restricted housing types, the active adult and the affordable housing for the elderly, both ofwh ich
come with restrictive covenants that conform with state and federal regulations.
Mr. James Baish, PresidentofThe Land Planning and Design Group, Inc., identified himself
as the designer of Braemar, a project in Prince William County which is very similar to what is proposed for
Stephenson V i I lage. Mr. Baish stated that many ofthe design concepts proposed for Stephenson Village were
modeled after successful concepts used at Braemar. Mr. Baish showed a series of slides and he discussed in
detail the gu idel i nes they've estab I i shed far th e Stephenson Village community, as follows: 1) preserve the core
battlefield and open space corridors within the project; 2) provide a diverse mix of housing opportunities for
all ages and economic backgrounds; 3) provide a school and a park site; 4) provide a community recreation
center; 5) provide commercial office and daycare facilities; 6) integrate all elements into a "walkable"
community utilizing A path and sidewalk system; and, 7) establish a community theme with colors, signage,
lighting, and site furnishings. Mr. Baish also discussed the time table for build -out, the densityofdevelopment,
and design concepts. He remarked that the appeal of this community is that its residents could work, play,
shop, and attend school within walking distance of where they lived. Mr. Baish pointed out that two items
which generalivcause concern duringrezoningare the generation ofschool students and transportation impacts.
Mr. Baish assured the Commission, by way of their proffer statement, that if the maximum number of 60
students generated per year is exceeded, they will make an additional monetary contribution to Frederick
County Public Schools. In addition, he noted that trip counters to measure vehicle trips will be placed at key
locations within the community; improvements will be made when specific trip thresholds are reached, assuring
that transportation improvements are in place when they are needed.
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, AICP, with Greenway Engineering, came forward to review the
applicant's proffer statement for the Commission. Mr. Wyatt assured the Commission that the proposed
project will develop as described because ofthe comprehensive proffer statement provided. He explained that
the proffer statement appears in two sections: the first section outl ines 23 areas of the project addressing such
features as transportation improvements, water and sewer improvements, community center development,
recreational facilities, and it also identifies certain design standards which will help make the community
unique. He described the second section of the proffer statement as the community design modifications
document, which consists of the nine modifications mentioned earlier in the staff report. Helsaid that between
these two sections ofthe proffer, the applicant has demonstrated how Stephenson Villagelwill be designed,
developed, and phased.
Mr. Wyattcontinued, discussingthedelaiIs ofthe phasingpIan. Ofpartieularnote, lie spoke
oftheconceptof thee ight- percent cap on building perm its annually, resultin a 15 -25 year project time line.
He nextdiscussed the proffers for the transportation improvements; he explained thattraffic counters will be
placed at various locations and after a certain percentage of a pre - determined threshold is reached, the needed
road improvement will be implemented within a designated time frame. Mr. Wyatt described all of the
transportation improvements anticipated for the project. He stated that V DOT has reviewed the proposed
improvements and has provided a favorable comment; therefore, it was Mr. Wyatt's opinion that they had
mitigated the impacts of their proposal to the regional transportation system. Mr. Wyatt next discussed the
economic and development impacts ofthe proposal to Frederick County, specifically detailing the monetary
contributions for capital facilities impacts. The following items were of particular note: 1) the provision of
rent -free office space to the county for satellite office facilities within the commercial center; 2) the provision
r1
L-A
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of July 16, 2003 Page 1 104
is
of $75,000.00 contribution for heritage tourism; 3) the provision of a $200,000.00 contribution to Clearbrook
y� Volunteer Fire & Rescue; 4) a monetary contribution per each student over and above the designated cap for
school students generated; 5) the provision of a 50% increase on proffer contributions to fire and rescue for
every unit in the active adult comnumity and 100% increase for every unit in the affordable elderly housing
section; and 6) the monetary proffers will be adjusted over time to keep up with inflation. Lastly, Mr. Wyatt
spoke about the proffers associated with the environmental aspects ofthe site, noting the specific expertise they
had commissioned to help with this aspect of development. He talked about the site's two major drainage
areas, the establishment of resource protection areas, rehabilitation through reforestation; their use of best
management practices for the installation of utilities in the commercial areas; and the use of low- impact
development design to promote water quality from storm water run -off.
Mr. Wyatt concluded his presentation by noting the considerable amount of community
involvement that has taken place, the many trips to Braemar with staff, decision- makers, and interested citizens,
and civic and community organization presentations. He said the proposed project defines a center for
Stephenson, brings public sewer to the area, provides for public recreation, a public school, community
shopping, and is a smart - growth community that is both walkable and bikeable, and also addresses the
economic and development impacts to Frederick County.
Mr. J. Donald Shockey, Jr. returned to the podium to make some closing remarks.
Vice Chairman Thomas next called for commissioners' questions for the applicant
Commissioner Ours inquired if the amount of commercial developmentiproposed for the
Stephenson community would, in actuality, be able to provide employment for the numbers of people residing
in the community. Mr. Baish replied that it would not support the entire community, ibut will offer an
opportunity fora range of residents who would seek employment at a shopping center, a bank site, areal estate
office, or restaurants, as an example. He said the Village Office Concept would also provide locations for
residents interested in utilizing tile 500 square foot "borne office" that would beavailable. Mr. Baish said that
it won Id certainly notaddress everyone's needs, however, it addresses the issue in away most coin munities do
not.
Commissioner Ours also inquired about Modification #8 which requests the submission of
proffered Generalized Development Plan (GDP) and allows for adjustments in the development to be made
based on the market. In light of permitting adjustments due to market changes, Commissioner Ours was
concerned about guarantees that mixed use development would occur, as he believed it is what made this
proposal viable.
Mr. Wyatt stated that the GDP will commit to a certain minimum acreage for various uses to occur.
Commissioner Rosenberry expressed concern about deviating from the percentages established
in the R4 District ordinance for housing types, Modification Request# I, and forthe industrial and commercial
uses, Modification Request 93. He asked if the percentages in the R4 District were derived from other
jurisdictions' experience withpl ail ned Coin III Lill ities. He stated that when industrial use, for example, is taken
Out ofthe equation, the question then becomes one of how much commercial was needed to balance out the land
uses. He was also of the opinion that the heart of the ordinance intended to establish a core business area
surrounded by residential development. Conn n issioner Rosenberry remarked that he would view th is rezon ing
application differently, if the UDA was in place, which it is not.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of July 16, 2003 Page 1105
-12-
Mr. Wyatt stated that they were simply requesting more useable area within the residential
pods for duplexes, townhouses, and condominiums; they were not requesting to increase the number of
permitted units or additional density. He pointed out some existing constraints within the areas defined for the
residential land bays, such as the ravine channel and the Hiatt Run corridor, With regards to the industrial,
Mr. Wyatt stated that attempts to develop industrial in this area have failed miserably. He did not agree that
commercial within each phase was viable or good design practice; he didn't think there would be substantial
investment from entrepreneurs who would go it alone in a small, isolated portion ofa development. He believed
the "communitycenter" concept could be realistically sustained. He added thatneighborhoodcommercial such
as the daycare center, would be more practical and could occur throughout the development.
Commissioner Light inquired about Modification Request 98 and he asked the applicant to
consider a future scenario where different phases have been sold and any number of problems arise, for
example, flood in or sed i mentation. I f there was no MDP, he asked who would pay to fix problems that arise.
Mr. Wyatt replied that the purpose for requesting Modification #8 was to take the MDP requirement out of
the rezoning process altogether because it didn't belong there. Fie said that the proffer statement forthe design
regairementsis the guide that makes thingshappen. Fie said that every time a section of the GDP is realized,
albeit active adult, mixed residential, etc., an MDP, meeting all the requirements of the County's ordinance,
will come before the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors for approval.
Coin inissioner Straub commented that the path of the major collector road proposed for the
community traverses a port ion of the battlefield. She inquired if the road could be reworked so it won Idn't
go through the battlefield area; she believed it may compromise the historical integrity of the battlefield. Mr.
Wyatt pointed out thatthemaj orcoIlector road will connect to OId Charles Town Road, itwiII proceed through
the core battlefield area, providing public access onto that property, and then enter the project site. He added
that this road is depicted in the Comprehensive Policy Plan, requiring a connection between Old Charles Town
Road and Route 1 1 in this area. Mr. Wyatt stated that this major collector road will not only provide access
to the battlefield and the project site, but it will also be designed as a full boulevard entrance with landscaping;
it will not detract from the preserved area, which is the field leading up to the historic ridge line going west
towards the core area of the battlefield. Mr. Wyatt further added that the project team has been working
closely with the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation (SVBF) on this issue; he said the SVBF is aware
of the design proposal and they have not raised any concern.
Commissioner Gochenour expressed herconcern thatthe costs ofthe proposed development
to Frederick County were not being brought forward. She stated that the County hasj List rec entered into
a contract to create a Community-wide Impact Model, which will project operating andIcapital costs and
impacts on the Comity created by new development. Commissioner Gochenour inquired whether or not the
appi icant m ight be ai nenable to waiting forthe results of the model before proceed ing. Mr. Wyatt replied that
this information has already been made available with the economic study they had prepared, which is not a
requirement of the rezoning process. Mr. Wyatt stated that in order to make certain the report wasn't biased
by the group hired by Stephenson Associates to completethe study, the County Board of Supervisors had two
independent reviews ofthe results commissioned, all of which reached the same positive economic conclusions.
Mr. Wyatt added, regarding the impacts to schools and roads, etc., that assurances are within the proffer
statement, which address the results of the required impact analysis report; this impact analysis has been
provided to, and reviewed by, professional agencies. He said that all review agencies are comfortable with
what has been accomplished with the design and, more importantly, with the proffers, to mitigate the impacts.
•
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of July 16, 2003 1 Page 1 106
13-
Vice Chairman Thomas next opened the public comments portion ofthe meeting and invited
those individuals wishing to address this application to come forward to speak.
Ms. Kitty Hockman Nicholas, a resident of Back Creek District, spoke in favor of the
proposed project. Ms. Hockman Nicholas said that over the course of the previous 14 years, she has lived in
many states and she fondly remembered her best experiences living in a development similar to the proposed
Stephenson Village community located in Gilford, Connecticut, called, " Gilford Lakes." She said that Gilford
Lakes offered biking, hiking, boating, swimming, and tennis; the con inunity also offered a neighborhood store,
schools, community oganizations, tennis clubs, and many opportunities for friendships. Ms. Mcholas believed
the concept ofGi (ford Lakes was now here, in Frederick County, with the Stephenson Village proposal, which
offered a secure and recreational way of life. She believed it made good sense for Frederick County to move
with creativity and allow this proposal to proceed.
Mr. Chuck Raisen, a resident of Back Creek District and president of Raisen, Inc., an
environmental consulting company, spoke in support of Stephenson Village and other developments like it
because it promotes walkablecommunities, which by their very design will reducethe number of vehicle miles
'
traveled. Mr. Raisen said lie was in favorof communities that promote cleanermodes oftransportation, such
as walking, bicyc ling, and car pool ing. He stated that th is development proposal supports Frederick County' s
efforts, through the Air Quality Task Force, to attain cleaner air quality. Mr. Raiser reported various facts
and figures concerning the correlation between the number ofvehicle trips traveled and air pollution, wasted
fuel, and wasted time.
Ms. Rita Wilson, a residentof the Shawnee District and an area realtor, came forward to speak
in favor of Stephenson Village and asked that the Commission support the rezoning. Ms. Wilson stated that
Frederick County needed to plan for future growth, to design communities to curtail sprawl, to have sufficient
affordable housing, walkable communities, reduced traffic, and a variety of housing; she believed Stephenson
Village would bring these thingsto Frederick County. Ms. Wilson believed the mixed use development concept
was the wave ofthe future and ideal for the upcoming baby - boomers market; the large tract of land was in a
good location; the surrounding neighborhoods are in dire need of water and sewer lines; and, it will pay for
parks, schools, and other services.
Mr. David Hurd, a resident of Stonewall District, had several concerns with the proposal, as
follows: the project area is outside ofthe Urban Development Area (UDA); the Board of Supervisors has not
acted on the Planning Commission's recommendation for mu Iti -use in this area oftheNortheast Land Use Plan;
the rezoning should be postponed until after completion ofthe update ofthe County's Development Impact
Model; concern that a higher ratio of multi- family units was proposed as compared to single - family units;
concern for the lack of business\ industrial park -type uses other than just retail sales; concern for omitting the
MDP requirement from the rezoning process and replacing it with a Generalized Development Plan (GDP);
the need to require the developer to build all the roads to state standards so maintenance by VDOT will be
possible; concern for the outcome of the historic `Byers House;" and lastly, the desire to have the developer
run the entrance road alongthe property Iineto avoid mostofthe core battlefield and two artillery gun locations
at the peak of the ridge.
Mr. Jim Lawrence, a residentofthe City of Winchester, the presidentofOpequon Watershed.
Inc., and member ofthe Winchester Chapter of Trout Unlimited, spoke in favor ofthe rezoning proposal and
commended Mr. Shockey, Mr. Goode, and Greenway Engineering for their approach to protecting natural
•
Frederick Comity Planning Commission
Minutes of July 16, 2003 1 Page 1 107
14-
resources in the Stephenson Village proposal. Mr. Lawrence pointed out th at throughout this collaborative
process, all suggestions regarding protection and enhancement of natural resources were given favorable
consideration. He said thatthe concept of resource protection areas promotes the protection of intermittent and
perennial streams and wetlands and integrates these features into the design ofthe community while minimizing
the impacts to water quality and enhancing wildlife habitat. He noted that it supports safe, walkable
communities and resource protection areas; the storm water management facilities will minimize land
disturbance and ma be utilized for recreational purposes, retaining their aesthetic value. Mr. Lawrence added
that this project represents what he believed was a first attempt at community-based planning and watershed
management forthe area. Hehopedthe project would serve as a model to promote the concepts of low- impact
development and the protection of historic and natural resources.
I
Ms. Diane Collet, a residentof Stonewall District, spoke in opposition tothe rezoningofthis
property to anything other than RA (Rural Areas) District. Ms. Collet spoke about the quality of life issues
that drew her to this rural area and that site wished to preserve. She believed Mr. Shockey had been incredibly
fair and patient throughout this process and if the rezoning was approved, she suggested allowing 10% of the
land for commercial use; she pointed out that industry, such as technology and pharmaceutical, are low
pollutersand provide high tax revenue. Ms. Collet questioned the ability ofthe existingcommunity to integrate
with the new community of Stephenson Village. In addition, Ms. Collet spoke of the existing community's
desperate need for sewer and water facilities; she believed that if the existing residents had to put up with the
growth in the community, then the developer should be made to pay for the hook -ups through proffers.
I
Mr. Mack Rutherford, a preservationist, said he was not in favor of development, but he was
in favor of Stephenson Village, simply because Stephenson Associates, L.C. has agreed in writingto assist in
preserving the Stephenson Depot battle site with walking trails, markers, and artillery pieces. Mr. Rutherford
proceeded to give reasons why the Stephenson Depot battle site was so important to preserve. He said the
property contains both Revolutionary War sites, as well as French and Indian War sites. Mr. Rutherford
• believed Frederick County could become a model for the rest of the country by showing how a municipality,
preservationists, and developers could work together to preserve a vital part of the country's heritage. Lastly,
Mr. Rutherford referred to Mr. Hurd's comments and said that no artillery pieces were located in the path of
the proposed entrance road.
Mr. Bill Shepherd, aresidentofGainesboro District, wasconcerned that the for this
rezoning proposal was asking for unprecedented benefits not given to previous applicants. Mr. Shepherd
pointed Out the following inconsistencies of the rezoning proposal with adopted County policies: the property
is not located within the UDA; the NELUP calls for industrial land use in this area; Article 7 of the County
Code limits exemptions to proposals for alternative dimensional and landscaping/buffering plans; the
Comprehensive Policy Plan states that rnaintaining a Level ofService C or betteron roads is the responsibility
ofthe developer, the applicant has requested to waive the MDP requirement; the nine requested modifications
are essentially a relaxation of zoning rules and may cause a precedent for future applicants: and lastly, what
are the consequences if a homeowners association fails to do the required maintenance.
Mr. Howard Kittell, Executive Director ofthe Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation,
came forward to clarify a point regarding the proposed access road and the battlefield. Mr. Kittell stated that
in the Fall of last year, the Shockey Company approached the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation
(SV BF) with a proposal to donate a conservation easement on the core area, consisting of slightly greater than
108 acres it owns, of the Second and Third Winchester Battlefields. He stated that this easement was to
permanently preserve the land by removing the development rights and also, to provide public access to the
U
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of July 16, 2003 1 Page 1 108
15-
property for interpretation of the battlefield; included with the package was the stipulation that if the rezoning
was approved, an access road would be included. Mr. Kittell stated that the easement would be held by the
SVBF and the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, anagencyofthe Commonwealth ofVirginia. Mr. Kittell pointed
out that this easement donation wi I I constitute the single largest preservation donation made in the Shenandoah
Valley to date and itwiII also be one of the largest conservation donations made to date in the Commonwealth
of Virginia. He commented that it was a very substantial issue to have a landowner donate an easement of this
amount of property. Regarding the road, he explained that most National, State, and private battlefield
preservation involves some type of access road onto the battlefield itself, if the road is included, the SV BF and
the Virginia Outdoors Foundation have committed to assure it will have a minimum impact, physically,
historically, and visually on the battlefield and that appropriate archeological surveys are conducted as apart
of the project. On the basis of his 18 years of experience in the field of historic preservation, Mr. Kittell
advised that successful preservation projects have always included some level of compromise and almost every
preservation failure has lacked involvement in compromise.
Mr. Samuel Lehman, a resident of Back Creek District, came forward to oppose the rezoning
of Stephenson Village. Some ofthe reasons Mr. Lehman gave for his opposition included: he did not agree
with the argument that concentrating large numbers of homes was more efficient, or less expensive, or less
polluting than spreading them over the rural countryside; he insisted that concentration promoted beltways,
congestion, pollution, and high costs he referred to Stephenson Village as a large, unincorporated city and
argued that it would actually dispossess and impoverish a majority of the rural taxpayers; he believed that
many county citizens could probably not afford the "affordable" housing in Stephenson Village; he believed
the projected impact fees were inaccurate and the county's impact model was woefully inadequate; he
calculated a discrepancy in the dollar amount proffered by the applicant for each pupil in excess of the pre-
determined number of students generated and the cost the county had projected per student per year; and he
believed a high concentration of homes promoted higher crime rates.
Ms. Diane McMillan, a resident of Opequon District, came forward to speak in opposition to
the proposed rezoning. Ms. McMillan made the following comments: Stephenson Village is outside of the
UDA and does not conform with theNELUP; since 1990, Frederick County has received 1.2 million dollars
in proffers, while 11.7 million dollars in real estate taxes have been paid by Frederick County taxpayers during
the same time and she questioned the balance of these figures; she considered the proposed ;community to be
sprawl, which costs taxpayers; she questioned wherethe residents in the proposed common ity would work; she
questioned the impact on roads; she did not believe the proposed development would pay for itself.
Mr. Roger DeLaughter, a resident of the City of Winchester, said that he didn't want to see
what happened in Fairfax happen here in Frederick County; he said Fairfax doesn`thave a single working farm
any longer. Mr. DeLaughter warned that Fairfax -like growth was coining across the mountain; he raised
concern for increased taxes and increased traffic.
Mr. David Darsey, a resident of Stonewall District, spoke in opposition to the proposed
rezoning. Mr. Darsey disagreed with the statement made earlier that soils in this area were not suited for
agriculture; he mentioned a timberingoperation that was once conducted on the Shockey property. Mr. Darsey
also made the following comments: the proposed development was the beginning of the urbanization of
Frederick County; Frederick County decision- makers were turning the County over to developers; and the
proposed developmentwould expand the UDA by almost 1,000 acres. Mr. Darsey also expressed his concern
about the effects of increased growth on the transportation system, particularly Route 7. He said he has
traveled Route 7 for the last 25 years; he obtained figures from the State Police indicating a650% increase in
•
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of July 16, 2003 1 Page 1109
f
16-
vehicular traffic accidents on Route 7 over the last five years. Mr. Darsey belie% ed the proposed development
• would increase those figures. Mr. Darsey said he provided these statistics to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. John Goode, Jr., a resident of Stonewall District and Treasurer with the Shockey
Company, came forward to speak in favor of the proposed rezoning and the Stephenson Village community.
Mr. Goode gave reasons why he favored mixed -use development. He noted that over the last 50 years, the
philosophy behind land planning was to segregate uses which, he believed, has caused many of the traffic
problems referred to bythe previous speakers because it necessitates someone driving an automobileto reach
set;Iices. Mr. Goode believed the mixed use concept was the direction to go for the future and would help to
reduce stress levels. He said that noteveryone will find a project like Stephenson Village to their liking and
those who want to live in wide open spaces will continue to have that option available in Frederick County.
He noted that Stephenson Village will occupy just 3/10 of one percent of Frederick County's land area,
compared to the same number of homes at a five -acre density that could possibly use over 14,000 acres. Mr.
Goode believed that many of the reasons given by those in opposition to Stephenson Village for what they liked
about Frederick County can still be retained if people who are willing to live closer together, where services
can be concentrated and efficiently provided, are al lowed to do so. Mr. Goode was interested in the fact that
the subject of employment was raised by some of the speakers. Reflecting back three years ago when the
Shockey Company brought the Mid- Atlantic Industrial and Tech Center rezoning forward for consideration,
he remarked that the concept was not supported by area residents. He said that now, there are questions about
why the 10% requirement in the R4 ordinance can not be met. Mr. Goode replied that because the paradigm
of segregation of uses still exists, and with the County's ordinances still reflecting the segregation of uses, it
will take time to obtain the 10 %. lie predicted that the speed of development of Stephenso i n Village will be
slow and will cover the next 25 years. In conclusion, Mr. Goode stated that the economic analysis projected
that the area of commerc ial and office development in Stephenson Village would generate in excess of600j obs.
In addition, the residents of Stephenson Village will benefit from the adjoining employment centers of Fort
Collier and Stonewall Industrial Park.
Mr. John Chapman, ateacheratthe Civil WarCenterat Shepherd College in Berkeley County,
West Virginia, came forward to speak in opposition to growth. Mr. Chapman said he has given quite a few
battlefield tours in the Winchester area and many of the tourists do not want to return to this area where this
much growth has affected historicalresources. Mr. Chapman believed a precedent had already been set in this
area for development.
Mr. William Lowch, a resident of Stonewall District, stated that he attended the Stephenson
Village neighborhood meetings and some changes are now proposed thatwere not addressed atthe meetings.
Mr. Lowch believed that ifany of the roads are intended to be private, they still should be constructed to State
standards, especially in the elderly community. He was also concerned about the number ofschoolchildren
that would be generated and the possible need to construct an additional school.
Mr. Greg Aiken stated that he and his wife, Toni, were the owners of the historic 225 -acre
,Jordan Springs, which is within a Board- approved Historic Overlay Zone. Mr. Aiken said that 61 % of his
property directly adjoins Mr. Shockey s property and, therefore, he had a vested interest in what happens on
the Shockey property. Mr. Aiken said that he has a great team of people who love history and love being
involved in historic preservation; he expressed the need to maintain history and to maintain intelligent growth.
Mr. Aiken was of the opinion that everyone can win in this situation if everyone stays united. Hebelievedthe
Commission had areal istic poitit ofview in theirjudgementofthe Shockey Companies regarding the positive
impact they've had on the County over the previous 100 years; he believed that the quality of their past
•
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of July 16, 2003 Page 1110
17-
accomplishments was a good example ofthe quality of development that couId be expected on their property.
Mr. Glen Penton, a resident of Stonewall District, stated that if the Planning Commission finds
the Shockey proposal to be appropriate, then the 1,500 acres to the south and west, currently being processed
for this same type of use, would be even more appropriate because ofthe location, which is closer tothe City,
to road networks, and to schools, etc. On the other hand, Mr. Penton stated that based on polls taken,
approximately 80 % -90% ofthe Stonewall citizens do not want to change their rural way of life; they like the
farms, the agricultural area, and the five -acre lot sizes, they do not want high density residential development.
Mr. Penton raised the point that the NELUP has not been amended for residential use Iin this area and
residential development outside ofthe UDA is not in conformance with adopted policy and promotes sprawl.
He believed the proposal called for too many units and it would incur costs to the County. He urged the
Commissioners to consider these facts carefully.
Mr. Rutherford returned to the podium and suggested that perhaps the best way to stop urban
sprawl was to work with developers. Mr. Rutherford stated that developers have the means to buy the land
and the means to preserve portions of land. He said that if preservationists and developers work together,
perhaps more land can be preserved. Mr. Rutherford stated that Stephenson Depot is now preserved and the
National Park Service at Gettysburg declared Stephenson Depot the most pristine battle site in the Country.
He said the County should now promotetourism to create a beautiful Shenandoah Valley Civil War attraction.
Since everyone had an opportunity to speak, Vice Chairman Thomas closed the public
comments portion of the meeting.
Mr. Evan Wyatt returned to the podium to respond to some ofthe citizen comments as follows:
private roads within the active-adult commun ity will be constructed to state standards for VDOT maintenance
and for emergency services accessibility; the access road will meetthe geometric design requirements for state -
maintained roads and will be designed to be as unobtrusive as possible relative to the 108 -acre battlefield site;
their proffer guarantees a minimum of four percent commercial use; the Level of Service (LOS) D projected
for some intersections is created by background data alone, whether this project is constructed or not. Mr.
Wyatt added that VDOT believes the applicant has mitigated the impacts associated with the proposed
development and the applicant has contributed their fair share to the regional transportation system because
the improvements proffered do not degrade the system anv further than background data would alone.
•
Regarding the comments on the comparison of money received by the county from proffers
and money paid bytaxpayers, Mr. Wyatt stated that the County was not enabled to use conditional zoning until
1989, therefore, many ofthe homes being constructed in the UDA did not fall under the conditional zoning
provision. Furthermore, he said the County did not have a fiscal impact model until 1991, so many projects
were approved prior to that time. In addition, he said there was a significant amount of residential growth
occurring in the rural areas of the County and regardless of whether a current or new impact model is used,
those units will not pay proffers.
Mr. Wyatt continued, statingthatthe majority ofthe concerns raised bythe evening's speakers
centered on the fact that R4 development needs to be located within the UDA and that the Comprehensive
Policy Plan calls for this land to be industrial. Mr. Wyatt said that Mr. Shockey would like to address this
issue for the Commission.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of July 16, 2003 Page I I I I
F.9
Mr. J. Donald Shockey, Jr. returned to the podium to address the issue of his project's
conformancewith the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Shockey stated that, as everyone is aware, the land use
plan issue is still before the Board of Supervisors. In consideration ofthis matter, Mr. Shockey requested that
the Planning Commission table the rezoning for 30 days to allow the Board of Supervisors the opportunity to
act.
Vice Chairman Thomas announced that ifa recommendation to table is made in accordance
with the applicant's request, commissioners can have no additional discussion as a Planning Commission after
that motion. Vice Chairman Thomas pointed out that 15 minutes remained for discussion, before the bylaws
require adjournment, if the Commission desires discussion.
Commissioner Straub expressed the following concerns: she was not in favor egress /ingress
through the battlefield with a four -lane road: the project was not located in the UDA; the project does not
conform with the Comprehensive Policy Plan; the proposed community will not be economically viable and
residents of the community will be traveling outside Frederick County to work; the 23 to 26 acres proposed
for commercial development will not be sufficient to support the community; the proposed project will
negatively impact air quality, water, roads, schools, and it will increase taxes.
Commissioner Ours read the following prepared statement: "If nothing else, one valuable
lesson thatwe have learned from the laws that we make in this country, is that often times we don't like them,
but they're still the law. Case in point, 1 have always considered myself a first amendment, free- speech
advocate. But with that right, comes the heavy burden to allow all sides of a debate, even those who would
distort and pervert the original intentions of our founding fathers in granting this right.
It is in such a situation that I find myself tonight, perhaps the toughest I have faced in my tenure on the
Commission. On one side is a developer who has worked honestly and with integrity to bring about positive
development for Frederick County on this property, not once, but twice. The first time the developer brought
forth a proposal that was not only consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (i.e. industrial), but also one that,
in my opinion, would have brought fiscal benefits to Frederick County.
I
That plan was turned down after a special interest group whipped up a frenzy that brought about a lot of
passion on the issue, but little made little real sense. Again, the developer has brought a proposal that has the
potential to work for th is property and provide for the inevitable growth that we are experiencing in our county,
but doing it in a controlled way. Now, mind you, I'm not saying that this plan is perfect and doesn't need some
adjustment, which is one reason why I'm inclined to not hurry the process. I still believe that the first, best use
of this land would be for light industrial.
>-
So nowthe question becomes, what is tile right thing to do. But, perhaps the even bigger question is, what does
the Board of Supervisors intend for this area of the county to be. Is it industrial? Well, Mr. Shockey proposed
that, in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, and was turned down. Now he proposes Residential Mixed
Use, but despite an attempt after numerous hearings, public meetings, and discussion to adopt land use plan
to support this, the Board has not changed the land use designation and, in essence, has said, "leave it
industrial."
is
So, while I believe thatthe Shockey plan for this area is workable and could be acceptable, I have to recognize
that the Comprehensive Plan, our law, currently states that this is not the intended use for this area. In
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of July 16, 2003 Page 1 1 12
19-
deference to the many hours of hard work that has gone into this project, I would favor tabling this request unti I
such time as the Board addresses the land use plan and decides just what we do want in the northern end of the
county. The precedence this could set goes far beyond this one project."
Comin issioner Light praised the ShockeyCompany forthe excellent quality of their proposal
and their responses to all the concerns raised. Commissioner Light was concerned, however, thatthe rezoning
was being considered without the Comprehensive Plan question being answered. He remarked that every
y
potential inipactfiroin the proposed developinenthas been addressed bytheapplicant; however, hequestioned
whether it mitigated the impacts to the entire Stonewall District, or to Stephenson, or to,Clearbrook. He
comparedhis rationale to Flying J; he said that Flying J is a great entity, however, the residents in that area pay
a price. Commissioner Light stated that there is a price that can't be mitigated with the proposed intensity of
the development. Commissioner Light said there are currently 2,600 single fami ly homes in Stonewall District
and a development of 2,800 homes in 20 years far exceeds anyone's idea of what should go in the Stonewall
District. He remarked that the impact of that alone appears to be the problem that is causing the indecision
with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Light stated that this is the Shenandoah Valley; this is not
Northern Virginia, nor is it the Washington Metro area. He believed the Shockey proposal was allorthern
Virginia /Washington Metro- styleofdevelopment. He said the subject parcels backup to too many households
in a rural- character neighborhood. Commissioner Light advised that ifthe Board of Supervisors chooses to
changethe rural character of the Stephenson neighborhood, they should make the change from Route l l to the
Opequon.
Commissioner Light next moved to table Rezoning Application 906 -03 of Stephenson Village
for 30 days, per the applicant's request. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Ours.! The motion and
second were approved unanimously.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously agree to table
Rezoning Application 906 -03 of Stephenson Village, submitted by Greenway Engineering to rezone 821.7
acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Comnnmity) District for 30 days at the
applicant's request.
(Please note: Chairman DeHaven abstained from voting; Commissioner Morris was absentfrom the meeting.)
----- -- -- - ---
OTHER
V ice Chairman Thomas returned the chair back over to Chairman Dehlaven for the remainder
of the meeting. Chairman DeHaven declared there were no further items to discuss.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes ofJuly 16, 2003 Page I I13
-20-
ADJOURNMENT
unanimous vote.
No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. by a
submitted,
Eri R. Lawrence, Secretary
Charles S. Del - laven, Jr., Chairm n
11
F 1
LJ
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of July 16, 2003 Page 1 114