PC 12-04-13 Meeting Agenda AGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
December 4, 2013
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) Adoption of Agenda: Pursuant to established procedures, the Planning Commission
should adopt the Agenda for the meeting ................................................................ (no tab)
2) October 16, 2013 and November 6, 2013 Minutes.......................................................... (A)
3) Committee Reports .................................................................................................. (no tab)
4) Citizen Comments ................................................................................................... (no tab)
PUBLIC HEARING
5) Height Waiver Request for Carmeuse Lime & Stone, Inc. – Request from Lawson and
Silek, P.L.C. on behalf of Carmeuse Lime & Stone, Inc. to allow the construction of a
200 foot tall kiln at the existing Clearbrook quarry located off of Quarry Lane in the
Stonewall Magisterial District. The property is identified by Property Identification
Number 33-A-144.
Mrs. Perkins .................................................................................................................... (B)
PUBLIC MEETING
6) Rezoning #06-13 Silver Lake, LLC Proffer Amendment, submitted by Greenway
Engineering, to request a minor revision to the proffer statement associated with rezoning
RZ#01-09, Silver Lake. This revision relates to the relocation of the site provided for the
development of a new fire and rescue facility and support facilities. The properties are
located on the north side of Northwestern Pike (Route 50West), west of Retail Boulevard,
and east of Poor House Road (Route 654). Primary access is provided via the newly
developed National Lutheran Boulevard. The properties are identified with Property
Identification Numbers 52-A-C, 52-A-50A, 52-A-52, and 52-A-63 in the Gainesboro
Magisterial District.
Mr. Ruddy ......................................................................................................................... (C)
-2-
INFORMATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS
7) Revised Master Development Plan #03-13 for The Townes at Tasker, submitted by
Pennoni Associates Inc., to develop a 80 unit townhouse development. The subject
property is located on the east side of Route 642, (Tasker Road) and north of Route 846,
(Rutherford Lane), approximately 0.7 miles south of the I81 Interchange 310 and is
identified with Property Identification Number 75-A-86 in the Shawnee Magisterial
District. Please note that this item is presented for informational purposes only.
Mrs. Perkins ...................................................................................................................... (D)
8) Annual Review of the Planning Commission Bylaws and Rules and Regulations.
Mr. Lawrence ................................................................................................................... (E)
9) Other
Adjourn
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3018
Minutes of October 16, 2013
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on October 16, 2013.
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/
Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; J. Stanley Crockett, Stonewall District; Lawrence R.
Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District;
Kevin Kenney, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; J. Rhodes Marston, Back Creek
District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Charles F. Dunlap, Red Bud District; Roderick B.
Williams, County Attorney; Robert Hess, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Kevin McKannan,
Winchester Planning Commission Liaison.
ABSENT: Brian Madagan, Opequon District
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director-
Transportation; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Candice E. Perkins, Senior
Planner; and Renee S. Arlotta, Clerk.
-----------
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Wilmot called the October 16, 2013 meeting of the Frederick County Planning
Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Wilmot commenced the meeting by inviting everyone to
join in a moment of silence.
-------------
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the
Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening’s meeting.
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3019
Minutes of October 16, 2013
MINUTES
Upon a motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Thomas,
the minutes of the August 21, 2013 meeting and the September 18, 2013 meeting were unanimously
approved as presented.
-------------
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Development Review & Regulations Committee (DRRC) – 9/26/13 Mtg.
Commissioner Unger reported the DRRC discussed height requirements in the EM, M1,
and M2 Zoning Districts. He said the discussion of this topic took place a month prior and was taken to
the Board of Supervisors; however, the Board wanted the DRRC to revisit some of the items. After
further discussion at their September 26 meeting, Commissioner Unger said the DRRC decided that the
Board of Supervisors should approve any height extensions above the required heights currently in place.
Commissioner Unger said the DRRC also discussed landscaping requirements. He said discussions were
going well; however, the DRRC will revisit this topic again as well.
-------------
Sanitation Authority (FCSA) – 10/15/13 Mtg.
Commissioner Unger gave the following report from the FCSA: Frederick County’s
Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, attended the Sanitation Authority’s meeting to talk about
the NELUP (Northeast Land Use Plan). He said Mr. Ruddy spoke about a water line going up Route 11
and the possibility of taking that line in a circle to pick up a new land use; the FCSA was in favor of the
idea. Commissioner Unger reported the total customer base is now 13,980, an increase of about 25-27.
Other topics reported were: current rainfall for last month was just under one inch; the previous month
was 2.66 inches; the Diehl Plant used 2.5mgd; the Anderson Plant used 2.3mgd; and about .81mgd was
purchased from the City of Winchester. Daily average was about 5.68mgd with the previous month at
5.45mgd. The increase in use was contributed to additional hookups, mainly in the Stephenson area. A
13% leakage within the water lines was reported and the FCSA is working to correct the situation. An
auditor’s review of the Sanitation Authority’s books was positive and reported the Sanitation Authority
was doing a very good job with the bookkeeping. Lastly, the Sanitation Department approved the permit
for H.P. Hood and will allow them to hook up their new facility.
-------------
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC) – 10/14/13 Mtg.
Commissioner Mohn reported the CPPC discussed public facilities in the 2030
Comprehensive Plan, the addition of some draft language, and the Southern Frederick Area Plan and
efforts to assemble working groups pursuant to the public input meeting held on September 25, 2013.
Commissioner Mohn believed there would be progress over the next five-to-six weeks.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3020
Minutes of October 16, 2013
-------------
Winchester Planning Commission – 10/15/13 Mtg.
Winchester Planning Commission Liaison, Mr. Kevin McKannan, reported the
Winchester Planning Commission had three public hearings this month. The first item was a conditional
use permit for the conversion of ground-floor, non-residential use to residential use along 118-124 Cork
Street for a series of seven to eight apartments; this was forwarded to the City Council. The second item
was an ordinance to conditionally rezone 7.7 acres of land at 940 Cedar Creek Grade from Residential
Office (R1) with corridor enhancement to B2 with a PUD Overlay for a substantial development along the
border of Winchester City and Frederick County. The final item was a simple text amendment.
-------------
Citizen Comments
Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any subject not currently on the
Planning Commission’s agenda and the following person came forward to speak:
Ms. Becky Morrison from the Gainesboro District wanted to point out that the County’s
advertisement last week for the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) stated, “Public Hearing” and
yesterday’s advertisement stated, “Public Meeting.” Ms. Morrison commented that since these two
advertisements are totally different, she asked the Planning Commission to postpone the TDR item on the
agenda until it could be properly advertised.
Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, stated the legal advertisement requirements were
met by the publication of the advertisement indicating a “Public Hearing” and appearing twice within the
local newspaper for two consecutive weeks prior to the Planning Commission’s meeting. Mr. Lawrence
said the advertisement indicating a “Public Meeting” was merely a display advertisement that appeared in
yesterday’s paper. It was suggested that the Commission hold its public hearing as scheduled this
evening, but table action until November 6 to enable the re-advertisement of the TDR as a public hearing.
-------------
PUBLIC HEARING
An ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code to update the Transfer of Development Rights
(TDR) Density Table to include a provision for contiguous lots and an addition of a TDR density
conversion rate for receiving properties.
Action – Tabled to November 6, 2013
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3021
Minutes of October 16, 2013
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported this ordinance amendment contains three
separate items, with the first being the Density Table revisions, the second is the Contiguous Sending
Properties Provision, and the third is the Density Right Conversion Rate. Ms. Perkins proceeded to
review each of the three items separately with the Commission.
Ms. Perkins said the Density Table revisions will bring the TDR (Transfer of
Development Rights) Density maximums into conformance with the adopted RP (Residential
Performance) maximums (based on housing types and acreage) adopted by the Board of Supervisors in
January of 2013. Secondly, the TDR table has been revised to increase the RP allowable densities when
using TDR’s for development. The third revision within the Density Table is to increase the RA (Rural
Areas) maximum permitted density using TDR’s to be consistent with the maximum RP (Residential
Performance) density using TDR’s. Ms. Perkins said these revisions simply make the RP and the RA
comparable when developing with TDRs.
Ms. Perkins proceeded to the second revision, Contiguous Sending Properties, and she
explained this revision is to allow the use of contiguous parcels for TDR transfers, which means one
parcel may have State Road frontage, it may meet all the subdivision requirements, but another adjoining
contiguous property under the same ownership would not. She said this revision would allow such
parcels, typically a farm, in its entirety to be included within the TDR Program.
Ms. Perkins next discussed the Density Rights Conversion Table. She said this revision
would introduce a conversion that would apply to density rights being applied to receiving properties.
The conversion would be placed on the type of housing unit being developed on the receiving property,
which would be either single-family detached, single-family attached, or multifamily. Ms. Perkins
referred the Commission to Table 3 in the agenda package and explained the conversion rates for each of
the three housing types. She said this is based on the figures in the Development Impact Model, which is
the proffer model that determines how much each type of dwelling unit is expected to contribute to off-set
impacts. She noted this conversion factor will make TDRs a viable option no matter what type of
development type is desired.
Ms. Perkins provided a history of the discussions that have taken place on this
amendment by the DRRC, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors. She said this
evening, the staff is seeking a recommendation from the Planning Commission to send to the Board of
Supervisors.
Commissioner Thomas inquired if the staff had received many requests for TDR
transfers. Ms. Perkins said the County is currently working on one TDR transfer for a receiving property
and a number of inquiries have been received for severing rights from rural land.
Chairman Wilmot commented that when all this came to fruition through the Rural Areas
Committee, one of the important connections was the use of TDRs within the Urban Centers and she
wanted everyone to keep this in mind.
Chairman Wilmot next opened the public hearing to citizen comments and called for
anyone who wished to speak.
Mr. Paul Anderson, President of the Frederick County Farm Bureau and a landowner and
farmer, said that he and his wife farm together. Mr. Anderson said the Farm Bureau has worked very
closely with the Planning Department on the TDR Program and he believed it was a great program with
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3022
Minutes of October 16, 2013
good potential. He said he is the one landowner signed up for TDR so far and is working with the
Planning Department to get things moving. Mr. Anderson said the Farm Bureau has no objections to the
proposed amendments. Mr. Anderson recognized the County is moving diligently to make this happen
and he would like to see these amendments move forward.
No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the citizen comment portion of
the public hearing.
Recognizing the comments previously made by Ms. Becky Morrison under the Citizen
Comments portion of the agenda, Commissioner Thomas said that procedurally, this item should be
tabled until the Planning Commission’s next meeting. Commissioner Thomas believed this was a good
start for the TDR Program and he commented the staff has done a great job researching this and getting
all of the information.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Triplett,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously vote to
table action until November 6, 2013 on the ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code to update the
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Density Table and to include a provision for contiguous lots and
an addition of a TDR density conversion rate for receiving properties.
(Note: Commissioner Madagan was absent from the meeting.)
-------------
ACTION ITEM
Rezoning #05-13 of Governors Hill, submitted by Pennoni Associates, Inc., to request a minor
proffer revision associated with Rezoning #10-08. This revision relates to the “Transportation
Enhancements” and “Environmental” sections of the proffers. The property is located
approximately one mile east of Interstate 81 on the south side of Millwood Pike (Rt. 50 East), across
from Sulphur Springs Road (Rt. 655) and The Ravens subdivision. The property is further
identified by Property Identification Numbers 64-A-82, 64-A-83, 64-A-83A, 64-A-86, 64-A-87, and
64-A-87A in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
Action – Recommended Approval
Deputy Director–Transportation, John A. Bishop, noted the staff provided the
Commission with an updated staff report containing some minor revisions to correct a section which was
inaccurately identified and removed a reference to the Route 50 Corridor Plan. Mr. Bishop said the
Governors Hill property was originally rezoned in 2008 to R4, including commercial and residential. He
recalled at that time, there was a significant road connection to the intersection of Route 50 and Sulphur
Springs Road. In 2009, the property was re-rezoned, and the most significant of the transportation
changes was the severing of a planned connection to Route 50 at the location of Sulphur Springs Road
and the focusing of traffic flow to Route 50 at Inverlee Drive.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3023
Minutes of October 16, 2013
Mr. Bishop proceeded to review the specific proffer revisions with the proposal presented
this evening. He stated the timeline for the Coverstone Drive improvements changed from November 1,
2015 to November 1, 2025; the construction of a median break and eastbound left turn lane at Route 50
and Inverlee Drive remains unchanged and due to be constructed by November 1, 2015; and the language
in Section 14 regarding recordation of an avigation easement has been removed due to the fact that it has
been recorded.
Mr. Bishop referred to the phasing in Section 15 and noted the four key phases for
construction of Coverstone Drive, which all related to development by square foot. He said the applicant
may develop up to 200,000 square feet of office space without any Coverstone Drive extension.
Anything above that will begin to trigger the phases of Coverstone Drive development as laid out in the
proffers. Mr. Bishop stated these development triggers for road improvements remain in place. The
reason for pointing this out is even though the “drop-dead” date is pushed out to 2025, if economic
conditions improve and the development moves forward more quickly, the square-footage proffers remain
in place unchanged and the road improvements would also move forward. He said this revision is
specifically a pushing out of the “drop-dead” date for all road improvements.
Commissioner Thomas noted the only thing that really changes is the “end date” and all
of the triggers that were in place before, as far as density and number of units, those triggers remain in
place, unchanged. Additionally, if the economy improves and building increases, the construction of
Coverstone must take place.
Mr. Ronald Mislowsky with Pennoni Associates, Inc. and Mr. John Conrad with Miller
and Smith were available for questions.
Commissioner Thomas believed this was a positive approach for this development
proposal. Commissioner Thomas made a motion to recommend approval of Rezoning #05-13 of
Governors Hill with the revised proffers. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Manual and was
unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of Rezoning #05-13 of Governors Hill, submitted by Pennoni Associates, Inc., to
request a minor proffer revision associated with Rezoning #10-08. This revision relates to the
“Transportation Enhancements” and “Environmental” sections of the proffers.
(Note: Commissioner Madagan was absent from the meeting.)
-------------
INFORMATION/ DISCUSSION ITEMS
Discussion of a Revision to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to Increase the Maximum
Heights in the EM (Extractive Manufacturing), the M1 (Industrial Limited), and the M2 (Industrial
General) Zoning Districts.
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, recalled at the Planning Commission’s August 21,
2013 meeting, a request to increase the height allowance in the EM, M1, and M2 Zoning Districts with a
conditional use permit (CUP). This was also discussed by the Board of Supervisors at their September 9,
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3024
Minutes of October 16, 2013
2013 meeting. Ms. Perkins said a concern was expressed by both the Commission and the Board over
associating such permanent structures with a CUP and the amendment was sent back to the DRRC
(Development Review & Regulations Committee) for further review. She said since the Board of
Supervisors’ discussion, the Planning Staff has prepared a revised amendment which removes the CUP
requirement and replaces it with a Board of Supervisors’ waiver. The waiver would still allow the Board
of Supervisors to determine the appropriateness of the proposed height increase in a requested location
while providing the applicant with an irrevocable approval.
Ms. Perkins said currently within these districts, the maximum height in the EM is 45
feet, in the M1 and M2 Districts it is 60 feet; this waiver would allow the Board to waive the height in the
EM District up to 200 feet and the M1 and M2 Districts up to 150 feet. She said these are the same
heights that were discussed previously by both the Commission and the Board. She added that
Supplementary Use Regulations were also drafted that would need to be addressed when an applicant
applies for the waiver. The supplementary use regulations address architectural renderings, the ability for
the Board to require additional screening and distance, as well as other conditions as necessary. In
addition, a revision to the supplementary use regulations for height exemptions has also been added to
expand the automated facility 100-foot allowance to also include automated manufacturing facilities.
Ms. Perkins reported the DRRC discussed this item at their meeting on September 26,
2013. The DRRC was supportive of the waiver option, as well as the supplementary use regulations. She
said this item was also discussed by the Board at their October 9, 2013 meeting and the Board sent it
forward to public hearing. Ms. Perkins said this is to update the Planning Commission on what was
discussed and it will come before the Planning Commission on November 6, 2013 as a public hearing.
Commissioner Thomas commented he believed the building height should be increased
by right, not necessarily by a waiver. However, he did concur with the amendment proposed. Other
Planning Commission members agreed.
-------------
PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS AND THE ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES
Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, stated the Planning Commission’s Bylaws dictate
that the Commission review the Bylaws and Roles and Responsibilities every October and if any changes
are needed, there is available time to make revisions and then have the Bylaws ready for adoption at the
first of the year. Mr. Lawrence said the Bylaws and the Roles and Responsibilities have been
downloaded to the Planning Commission’s self-serve device and he requested the Commissioners review
those documents over the next couple weeks.
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3025
Minutes of October 16, 2013
SOUTHERN FREDERICK AREA PLAN
Chairman Wilmot announced the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC)
is now recruiting for persons to help with the development of Southern Frederick Area Plan. Chairman
Wilmot said this is only a short-term commitment and the committee itself directs its own schedule. She
said if anyone has interest in the specific areas of study: urban areas and residential development;
business development; transportation; natural resources; historic resources; and/or public facilities, please
contact the Planning Staff at 540-665-5651.
-------------
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and a motion was made by Commissioner
Thomas to adjourn the meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Dunlap and unanimously
passed to adjourn the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
June Wilmot, Chairman
____________________________
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3026
Minutes of November 6, 2013
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on November 6, 2013.
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/
Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; J. Stanley Crockett, Stonewall District; Lawrence R.
Ambrogi, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District;
J. Rhodes Marston, Back Creek District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Roderick B. Williams,
County Attorney; Robert Hess, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Jennifer Beatley, Winchester Planning
Commission Liaison.
ABSENT: H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Kevin Kenney, Gainesboro District; and
Charles F. Dunlap, Red Bud District.
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Director; Mark
R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director-Transportation;
Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; and Renee S. Arlotta, Clerk.
-----------
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Wilmot called the November 6, 2013 meeting of the Frederick County
Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Wilmot commenced the meeting by inviting
everyone to join in a moment of silence.
-------------
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Crockett, the
Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening’s meeting.
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3027
Minutes of November 6, 2013
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Development Review & Regulations Committee (DRRC) – 10/24/13 Mtg.
Commissioner Unger reported the DRRC discussed potential revisions to the Master
Development Plan requirements contained within the zoning ordinance pursuant to the Business Friendly
Committee recommendations. Commissioner Unger said a lengthy discussion ensued and the DRRC
believed it was important for adjoining property owners to be aware of the potential development
proposed to take place next to them. He said the DRRC did not want to eliminate the opportunity for
citizens to comment on the proposed development.
-------------
Transportation Committee – 10/28/13 Mtg.
Commissioner Oates reported about three items on the Transportation Committee’s
agenda. First was a revenue sharing application from Graystone for the construction of Snowden Bridge
Boulevard, a road which two rezoning proposals have proffered to build. The second item was the
Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) with the list of roads normally seen each year. Commissioner Oates
said it was decided to break the list down into funded and unfunded projects and then reset the priorities.
The third item discussed was the Route 37 project. He said the committee will be looking at the
engineering plans for the completion of Route 37 all the way around Winchester at their next meeting on
November 25.
-------------
Winchester Planning Commission – 10/15/13 Mtg.
Winchester Planning Commission Liaison, Ms. Jennifer Beatley, reported the Winchester
Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit (CUP) on East Cork Street for conversion of a
ground floor, non-residential use to residential use; approved a rezoning of 7.7 acres of land on Cedar
Creek Grade for the Cedar Creek Place project from RO1 District with CE Overlay to B2 District with
PUD-NCE District Overlay; approved an ordinance to amend the Winchester Zoning Ordinance to
change the maximum time limit in which the Commission must report a recommendation to City Council
from 90 to 100 days; and there was one administrative approval for the Glaize, Phase 2 project on 320
North Cameron Street. Ms. Beatley reported the next Winchester Planning Commission meeting is
scheduled for November 19, 2013 at 3:00 p.m.
-------------
Citizen Comments
Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any subject not currently on the
Planning Commission’s agenda. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the citizen
comments portion of the meeting.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3028
Minutes of November 6, 2013
-------------
PUBLIC HEARING
An ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article III Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR) Program, Part 302, Sending and Receiving Properties, Section 165-
302.01 Sending Properties, Section 165-302.03, Calculation of Development Rights. This revision
will update the TDR density rights table, it will include a provision for contiguous lots, and it will
include the addition of a TDR density conversion rate for receiving properties.
Action – Recommended Approval
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported this ordinance amendment contains three
separate items, with the first being the Density Table revisions, the second is the Contiguous Sending
Properties Provision, and the third is the Density Right Conversion Rate. Ms. Perkins stated these are the
same amendments considered by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on October 16, 2013, but
were consequently tabled due to questions on proper advertisement. She said no other changes have been
made to these amendments since they were last considered by the Commission.
Chairman Wilmot next opened the public hearing to citizen comments and called for
anyone who wished to speak.
Mr. Bruce Carpenter came forward to introduce himself and noted that both he and his
wife, Kim, are residents, farmers, and rural land owners in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Mr.
Carpenter said he was also a director with the Frederick County Farm Bureau. Mr. Carpenter wished to
express the support of the Frederick County Farm Bureau for the proposed TDR ordinance amendments.
He stated the Frederick County Farm Bureau is a membership organization which promotes, educates,
and lobbies on behalf of agricultural issues in Frederick County and is one link in the chain that
comprises the Virginia Farm Bureau. Mr. Carpenter stated the 241 producer members represented by the
Farm Bureau are fortunate to control a large portion of the land which may be affected as sending
members of the TDR Program and its changes. He said the Frederick County Farm Bureau completely
endorses the proposed amendment before the Commission and has twice passed a unanimous vote on a
resolution supporting transfer of development rights. Mr. Carpenter said the Farm Bureau supports the
proposed changes which they believe will add value for rural land owners looking to take advantage of
this program. They also believe it will be a valuable tool for the rural land owner who wishes to realize
income from his property without being forced to sell to the highest bidder as an only alternative. In
addition, the proposed changes to the program will not only add value and marketability to the TDRs, but
will increase the potential success of this valuable wealth management, retirement, and estate planning
opportunity. He stated that many rural land owners have looked at the value of their land as their
retirement income or the inheritance for their heirs. Without alternate avenues, such as this program, the
only way to capitalize on this asset was to sell. He said with the proposed changes before the
Commission, the TDR has greater value not only for the seller, but to the potential buyers looking to
maximize density and, hopefully, profits within the urban development areas. Mr. Carpenter stated
Frederick County and its residents can only benefit from the protection of rural land and the way of life
that comes with it. He asked the Commission to recommend approval of the amendments, with the full
support of the Frederick County Farm Bureau.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3029
Minutes of November 6, 2013
No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the citizen comment portion of
the public hearing.
Commissioner Thomas made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed
amendment. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Triplett and unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of the ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article
III Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program, Part 302, Sending and Receiving Properties, Section
165-302.01 Sending Properties, Section 165-302.03, Calculation of Development Rights. This revision
will update the TDR density rights table, it will include a provision for contiguous lots, and it will include
the addition of a TDR density conversion rate for receiving properties.
(Note: Commissioners Dunlap, Kenney, and Madagan were absent from the meeting.)
-------------
An ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VI – Business
and Industrial Zoning Districts, Part 601, Dimensional and Intensity Requirements, Section 165-
601.02, Dimensional and Intensity Requirements, Part 608, EM (Extractive Manufacturing)
District, Section 165-608.06 Height Limitations. Article II Supplementary Use Regulations,
Parking, Buffers, and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 204 Additional Regulations for Specific
Uses, Section 165-204.28, Height Waivers in the EM (Extractive Manufacturing), M1 (Light
Industrial), and M2 (Industrial General) District. These are revisions to increase the maximum
height in the EM, M1, and M2 Zoning Districts with a Board of Supervisors’ waiver and the
addition of supplementary use regulations.
Action – Recommended Approval
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported the proposed amendments will increase the
height allowance in the EM, M1, and M2 Zoning Districts through the approval of a Board of
Supervisors’ waiver. Ms. Perkins said the waiver opportunity before the Commission would allow the
Board of Supervisors to determine the appropriateness of a proposed height increase requested by an
applicant in a particular location and it also provides the applicant with an irrevocable approval for their
request. She said currently, the height maximum in the EM District is 45 feet and the height maximums
in the M1 and M2 Districts are both 60 feet. This waiver would allow the Board to waive the height in
the EM District up to 200 feet and the M1 and M2 Districts up to 150 feet. She said the supplementary
use regulations which correspond to the waiver state that architectural renderings would need to be
submitted by the applicant. Also included is a statement which would allow the Board to require
additional buffering and screening, as well as additional distances, if the Board deems necessary to
protect adjacent uses. The Board may also require additional conditions they deem may be necessary
based on location. Ms. Perkins noted it is also stipulated that the waiver cannot be used to permit height
increases for signs.
Ms. Perkins said the DRRC discussed this amendment in September; the Board of
Supervisors discussed this at their October 9, 2013 meeting and sent it forward for public hearing. The
Planning Commission discussed the amendment at their October 16, 2013 meeting.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3030
Minutes of November 6, 2013
Commissioner Oates commented there is no public hearing with the waiver and no
notification is sent to any of the neighbors, unlike a CUP (conditional use permit). Ms. Perkins said this
was correct.
Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments regarding the proposed amendment. No
one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the public
hearing.
Commissioner Thomas commented he would have liked to have seen an increase in the
base height; nevertheless, he thought this was a good move forward and he liked the amendment not
being tied to a CUP because this involves permanent construction.
Commissioner Thomas next moved to recommend approval of the amendment. This
motion was seconded by Commissioner Mohn and was unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of an ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article
VI – Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Part 601, Dimensional and Intensity Requirements, Section
165-601.02, Dimensional and Intensity Requirements, Part 608, EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District,
Section 165-608.06 Height Limitations. Article II Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking, Buffers, and
Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 204 Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, Section 165-204.28,
Height Waivers in the EM (Extractive Manufacturing), M1 (Light Industrial), and M2 (Industrial
General) District. These are revisions to increase the maximum height in the EM, M1, and M2 Zoning
Districts with a Board of Supervisors’ waiver and the addition of supplementary use regulations.
(Note: Commissioners Dunlap, Kenney, and Madagan were absent from the meeting.)
-------------
Rezoning Application #03-13 of Madison Village, submitted by Painter-Lewis, P.L.C., to rezone
51.26 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to 46.26 acres of RP (Residential Performance) District
and 5 acres of B2 (Business General) District with proffers. The property is located on the west side
of Route 522 (Front Royal Pike), approximately 1,000 feet south of the intersection of Route 522
(Front Royal Pike) and Route 645 (Airport Road). The property is further identified with P.I.N.
64-A-18 in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
Action – Recommended Approval with Proffers
Commissioner Oates said he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this
rezoning application, due to a possible conflict of interest.
Deputy Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported the Planning Commission tabled this
application for 90 days at their August 21, 2013 meeting. Mr. Ruddy said the Commission had tabled the
request for a number of reasons, primarily to enable the site to be posted again and the public hearing to
be adequately noticed. He said two items were identified by the staff during the public hearing which
addressed potential impacts and there was also considerable discussion regarding the applicant and the
adjacent property owner meeting together to work out some outstanding issues.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3031
Minutes of November 6, 2013
Mr. Ruddy noted the applicant has made some modifications to their rezoning application
to address the two items identified. A proffer statement dated September 5, 2013 included a minimum
number of units, 420, which provides a base density of about eight units per acre. The applicant also
established timing for the road connections to the adjacent property both to the west and to the south. The
access to the properties to the north, the Russell 150 property and the Shepherd property to the north and
northeast, remains to be constructed with the initial phase of the development. Mr. Ruddy said the
applicant and the adjacent property owner have met and held several discussions, but no agreement is in
place at this time. Mr. Ruddy concluded by stating the RP and B2 zoning designations are consistent with
the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan and the
potential impacts have been addressed with the proffer statement and more particularly, with the revision
dated September 5, 2013.
Commissioner Ambrogi commented the rezoning application before the Commission
meets all the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and is in compliance. Mr. Ruddy said this was
correct.
Chairman Wilmot said the original application had a number of different types of
residential units. She asked if that same variety was present in this revised submittal. Mr. Ruddy replied
yes. He said the minimum number of units has been established by proffer at 420 and the maximum is
640; all housing types are represented.
Mr. John Lewis with Painter-Lewis, P.L.C., introduced himself and Mr. Benjamin Butler,
attorney, who were representing this project. Mr. Lewis said since the public hearing last August, they
have worked on four issues raised by the Planning Commission. The first issue, regarding the minimum
density, was resolved by placing the minimum and maximum densities, which are in conformance with
the Comprehensive Plan, within the proffer statement. The second issue, the timing of construction of the
internal roads, is detailed within the proffers and is tied to the different phases of the project. The third
issue, regarding the disappearance of the public hearing sign, has been resolved and the sign has been
reposted and is visible today. The fourth issue, obtaining a grading easement to facilitate the construction
of their entrance from Route 522, has not yet been resolved with the adjacent property owner. Mr. Lewis
said two draft agreements have been exchanged, but no resolution has been arrived at this time. He said it
was incumbent upon the applicant to reach an agreement in order for this project to move forward. Mr.
Lewis requested the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors on this application in its current state.
Chairman Wilmot next called for any citizen comments and the following person came
forward to speak:
Mr. Michael Shepherd, a resident of the Shawnee Magisterial District, stated that he and
his wife owned the two B2-zoned lots adjacent to the Madison Village project, to the south and west. Mr.
Shepherd said no final agreement has been reached regarding the access and easements. He noted that he
had filed a site plan for his properties prior to the last public hearing and he is prepared to move forward
with his plan. Mr. Shepherd said he was not against the Madison Village project as a practical matter;
however, the outstanding issue is how the road could go in without grading easements and with his
buildings so close to the edge of his property.
No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the citizen comment portion of
the hearing.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3032
Minutes of November 6, 2013
Commissioner Thomas asked the staff if it was possible to build this development
without having the entrance and grading easement. He asked if another access was available. Mr. Ruddy
replied there are certainly other access alternatives, but the most obvious one is the one initially designed.
Mr. Ruddy said the intention is for the parties to work together and come to some agreement where this
can be put in place either as originally designed, or some modification of that either to the access road or
improvements to Route 522.
Commissioner Thomas inquired whether a restriction should be placed on this project,
that no construction may start until the County has a VDOT-approved entrance or should the Commission
simply move the rezoning forward and assume VDOT will not allow construction to start until there is a
VDOT-approved entrance.
Deputy Director-Transportation, John A. Bishop, responded by stating VDOT will not let
the applicant operate in their right-of-way prior to any design being approved; they simply would not
issue a permit the applicant would need to construct the entrance.
Commissioner Ambrogi made a motion to recommend approval of Rezoning Application
#03-13 of Madison Village with the revised proffers based on the applicant’s compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan and their compliance with all state and local ordinances. This motion was seconded
by Commissioner Mohn.
Commissioner Unger raised a concern about whether the adjoining property may become
land-locked because of the proposed project. Commissioner Thomas stated unless the two property
owners come to an agreement, there will be no access onto Route 522 and, therefore, no project.
Commissioner Mohn stated from the Planning Commission’s obligation in terms of the application
materials and the proffers, the General Development Plan provides the locations where those access
points should be provided to ensure there is interconnectivity, but it is incumbent on the two property
owners to work out a mutually-agreeable arrangement to facilitate that. Commissioner Mohn believed
this was a private element and the Commission has done what it can do and should do and the staff, as
well, to ensure the framework is there. Other Commission members agreed.
Chairman Wilmot next called for the vote and the motion and second for recommending
approval was unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of Rezoning Application #03-13 of Madison Village, submitted by Painter-Lewis,
P.L.C., to rezone 51.26 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to 46.26 acres of RP (Residential
Performance) District and 5 acres of B2 (Business General) District with proffers. The property is located
on the west side of Route 522 (Front Royal Pike), approximately 1,000 feet south of the intersection of
Route 522 (Front Royal Pike) and Route 645 (Airport Road). The property is further identified with
P.I.N. 64-A-18 in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
(Note: Commissioner Oates abstained from voting; Commissioners Dunlap, Kenney, and Madagan were
absent from the meeting.)
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3033
Minutes of November 6, 2013
ACTION ITEM:
Waiver Request by Lawson and Silek, P.L.C., on behalf of Carmeuse Lime & Stone Company, to
allow the construction of a 193-foot tall kiln at the existing Clearbrook Quarry located off Quarry
Lane in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
Action – Recommended Approval
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported the staff received a waiver request from
Lawson and Silek, P.L.C., on behalf of Carmeuse Lime and Stone Company, to allow the construction of
a 193-foot tall kiln at the existing Clearbrook Quarry. Ms. Perkins said the waiver is for the construction
of a kiln with skin of up to 200 feet in height. She said architectural renderings of the structure as well as
photographs were provided by the applicant. Ms. Perkins said the County is currently processing an
ordinance amendment that would allow structures in the EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District to
exceed the 45-foot district height maximum, up to 200 feet, with a Board of Supervisors waiver.
Mr. Thomas (Ty) Moore Lawson of Lawson and Silek, P.L.C., was representing this
waiver request for Carmeuse Lime and Stone Company. Mr. Lawson said the structure is a combination
of silos and exhaust and the top portion will be enclosed by the skin. He said the structure could be built
without the skin; however, the company believes it is more visually appealing with the skin and will cut
down on the noise.
Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. Lawson if he knew the width of the structure at the top.
Mr. Lawson said he did not have that dimension.
Commissioner Thomas believed this was a good project for the County; he thought it was
in an appropriate location.
Commissioner Crockett pointed out that Clearbrook Fire & Rescue Company has advised
that the operational height on their ladder truck is only 85 feet. However, Commissioner Crocket made a
motion to recommend approval of the waiver request for a kiln with skin at the Clearbrook facility, not to
exceed 200 feet in height. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas and unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of the waiver request by Lawson and Silek, P.L.C., on behalf of Carmeuse Lime &
Stone Company, to allow the construction of a 193-foot tall kiln, with skin, at the existing Clearbrook
Quarry located off Quarry Lane in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
(Note: Commissioners Dunlap, Kenney, and Madagan were absent from the meeting.)
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3034
Minutes of November 6, 2013
INFORMATION ITEM:
Master Development Plan #03-13 for The Townes at Tasker, submitted by Pennoni Assoicates, Inc.,
to develop a 49-unit townhouse development. The subject property is located on the east side of
Tasker Road (Rt. 642) and north of Rutherford Lane (Rt. 846), approximately 0.7 miles south of
the I-81 Interchange 310. The property is further identified by P.I.N. 75-A-86 in the Shawnee
Magisterial District.
No Action Required
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported a revised master development plan (MDP)
has been provided by the applicant and a copy has been placed before the Planning Commission this
evening. Ms. Perkins said she highlighted the changes for the Commission, which includes a minor
acreage change due to a boundary line adjustment and a minor sidewalk change. She said the proposal is
for the development of 10.2 acres, the adjusted acreage, of land zoned RA (Rural Areas) with a total of 49
single-family attached townhouse units.
Ms. Perkins reported the property is located within the UDA (Urban Development Area)
and the SWSA (Sewer & Water Service Area) and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan shows the property with
a residential land use designation. She noted that access is proposed via one full entrance onto Tasker
Road. She also reported the property is being utilized as a TDR (Transfer of Development Rights)
receiving property and will be developed to the RP (Residential Performance) standards as far as density
and development standards. Ms. Perkins said the property will be utilizing 49 transferred rights from four
parcels, located off Cedar Creek Grade and Hunting Ridge Road, and are located within Frederick
County’s sending areas. Ms. Perkins stated the applicant currently has the TDR rights to develop the 49
units and the remainder of the site, identified as “future development area,” could be developed through
additional transferred rights or a rezoning. Ms. Perkins added this is the first property to utilize the TDR
ordinance in Frederick County.
Deputy Director-Transportation, John A. Bishop, stated concerns have been raised
regarding the proposed entrance onto Tasker Road. Mr. Bishop said both the staff and VDOT have urged
the applicant to relocate the entrance to Rutherford Lane; however, neither the Planning Staff nor VDOT
has the authority to make the applicant move the entrance to Rutherford Lane, because VDOT entrance
spacing can be met. He noted the entrance has not yet been designed because the applicant must meet
other VDOT criteria, such as site distance and turn lanes. Mr. Bishop commented the applicant is much
involved in the design process at this point and there has been considerable exchange between the
applicant and VDOT as they work to come up with an approvable entrance under VDOT standards.
Commissioner Thomas raised a number of safety concerns with the only entrance to the
development being on Tasker Road. He questioned whether it was possible to get adequate site distance
at this location because of the vertical curve coming down the hill towards the proposed entrance. He
said vehicles coming down the hill typically exceed the posted 45mph speed limit. Commissioner
Thomas inquired about the amount of service degradation that would occur once this is fully developed.
He noted that with the amount of trips per day leaving the development, the back up from the Route 37
signal will probably extend down to this proposed entrance. Commissioner Thomas questioned
whether this will be a safe entrance.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3035
Minutes of November 6, 2013
Mr. Bishop agreed with the issues raised. He said unfortunately, this development is not
one that meets the threshold where the staff can require a TIA (transportation impact analysis); therefore,
he could not answer specifically on back-up queuing information. Mr. Bishop said the applicant will be
constructing a left-turn lane. He said his greater concern comes from vehicles exiting the development, as
opposed to entering the development, and he predicted there would be a future service degradation
problem.
Commissioner Unger asked where the preferred entrance location would be. Mr. Bishop
suggested taking advantage of Rutherford Lane. He said the spacing is probably not ideal, especially with
the boundary line adjustment, but there is an area where an entrance could be shoe-horned in; he believed
it would be a better entrance location than the one on Tasker Road.
Commissioner Oates asked if the applicant is using the new proposed revisions to the
TDR ordinance or the older version. Ms. Perkins said this project was based on the older TDRs.
Commissioner Oates commented if the applicant would have waited for the revised TDRs, they wouldn’t
have had to transfer so many development rights for townhouses. Ms. Perkins replied if the proposed
TDR revisions are adopted, there is the potential for the applicant to submit a revised MDP.
Mr. Ronald Mislowsky with Pennoni Associates, Inc. was present to represent this
application. Mr. Mislowsky felt confident the proposed entrance onto Tasker Road will meet VDOT’s
road design requirements for site distance, turn lanes, and length of turn lanes, etc. He said an entrance
onto Rutherford Lane was initially attempted; however, not only were the same improvements needed on
Rutherford Lane as on Tasker Road, but some additional obstacles were encountered on Rutherford as
well. He said a large power pole is situated on the northeast corner of the Rutherford Lane-Tasker Road
intersection; the applicant would be required by VDOT to straighten out this intersection, which would
require the relocation of the power pole. Additionally, the widening would need to be extended across the
box culvert which carries Opequon Creek under Tasker Road; this would require lengthening of the
culvert as well. Lastly, he said the entrance onto Rutherford Lane would result in the site being roughly
30 feet lower than where it is presently. Mr. Mislowsky believed these conditions added a far more
complex condition to the entrance design than what would be required on Tasker Road.
Mr. Mislowsky added this development is utilizing the older TDR ordinance, but they
expect to come back with a revised MDP as the TDR condition changes. He said the developer is
working on acquiring additional TDRs in order to fully build out the site. Mr. Mislowsky stated all the
studies were done using a total of 80 townhouses, as well as the trip calculations for the proposed
entrance.
No other comments were made or concerns raised. No action was needed or taken by the
Commission at this time.
-------------
OTHER
Cancellation of the November 20, 2013 Meeting
Chairman Wilmot announced there were no pending applications for the Commission’s
November 20, 2013 meeting.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3036
Minutes of November 6, 2013
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Crockett, the
November 20, 2013 meeting was canceled by a unanimous vote.
-------------
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and a motion was made by Commissioner
Oates to adjourn the meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Crockett and unanimously
passed. The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
June Wilmot, Chairman
____________________________
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
KILN WITH SKIN
FRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW
KILN WITHOUT SKIN
FRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW
Cl
i
c
k
i
n
b
o
x
t
o
r
e
t
u
r
n
t
o
th
e
11
/
1
8
/
1
3
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
ENGINEERS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Click in box to return tothe11/18/13 Memorandum
ENGINEERS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
c
REZONING APPLICATION #06-13
SILVER LAKE, LLC.
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: November 18, 2013
Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Director
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission: 12/04/13 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 12/11/13 Pending
PROPOSAL: To request a minor revision to the proffer statement associated with rezoning RZ#01-
09, Silver Lake. This revision relates to the relocation of the site provided for the development of a new
fire and rescue facility and support facilities.
LOCATION: The properties are located on the north side of Northwestern Pike (Route 50 West), west of
Retail Boulevard, and east of Poor House Road (Route 654). Primary access is provided via the newly
developed National Lutheran Boulevard.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSION FOR THE 12/04/13 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING:
This request for a minor revision to the proffer statement associated with rezoning RZ#01-09,
Silver Lake relates to the relocation of the site provided for the development of a new fire and
rescue facility and support facilities.
The new location for the fire and rescue site will front on Corporate Place Drive near the intersection of
National Lutheran Boulevard. Previously, the fire and rescue site was located along Northwestern Pike
and Silver Lake Road. The proposed general location of the fire and rescue site is further identified on
the updated GDP (Generalized Development Plan).
In addition, the revised Proffer Statement addresses several minor editorial changes that relate to the
actual development of the site since the original rezoning.
Executed proffers dated November 4, 2013 are provided as well as a redline version of the proffer
update. The revised Proffer Statement is in an acceptable legal form. These modifications to the
proffer statement are minor in nature and a public hearing is not required.
A recommendation regarding this rezoning application to the Board of Supervisors would be
appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the
Planning Commission.
Rezoning #06-13 – Silver Lake LLC
November 18, 2013
Page 2
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this
application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues
concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report.
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission: 12/04/13 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 12/11/13 Pending
PROPOSAL: To request a minor revision to the proffer statement associated with rezoning RZ#01-09,
Silver Lake. This revision relates to the relocation of the site provided for the development of a new fire
and rescue facility and support facilities.
LOCATION: The properties are located on the North side of Northwestern Pike (U.S. Route 50 West);
West of Retail Boulevard; and East of Poor House Road (Route 654).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro
PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 52-A-C, 52-A-50A, 52-A-52, and 52-A-63
PROPERTY ZONING: B2 (General Business) District and MS (Medical Support) District, with
proffers.
PRESENT USE: Residential, National Lutheran Village at Orchard Ridge, Vacant, Agricultural,
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
North: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Agricultural
South: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential/Vacant
B2 (Business General) Commercial
East: B2 (Business General) Use: Commercial
West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential/Agricultural
Rezoning #06-13 – Silver Lake LLC
November 18, 2013
Page 3
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Frederick County Public Works: The Public Works Department supports the proposed revisions to
the Silver Lake, LLC proffer statement date October 25, 2013.
Frederick Count Fire Marshal: Plans approved.
Fire and Rescue Company: After review of the proffer statement dated October 24, 2013 (revision
date), I find the revision to be correct and accurate in regards to the Fire Station proffers.
County Attorney: Please see attached e-mail from Rod Williams, County Attorney to Evan Wyatt
dated October 29, 2013 and November 4, 2013.
Planning & Zoning:
1) Site History
The property was included in the 2006 update to the Round Hill Land Use Plan which expanded
the Sewer and Water Service Area to include these and other properties and provided for an
improved land use plan for the Round Hill Community. This was approved by the Board of
Supervisors on November 2007.
In 2009, this property was rezoned consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Round Hill
Land Use Plan. Rezoning RZ#01-09 was approved to rezone 370.02 acres to the MS (Medical
Support) District and the B2 (Business General) District with proffers for a Continuing Care
Retirement Community and commercial land uses. The B2 (Business General) portion of this
property (238.96 acres) is subject to this current application for a revision to the proffered
conditions. The National Lutheran Village at Orchard Ridge project opened earlier this year and
continues its development on the portion of the property that is zoned MS (Medical Support).
2) Comprehensive Policy Plan
The Frederick County 2030 Comprehensive Plan is an official public document that serves as
the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public
facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to
protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a
composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County.
Land Use
This application to modify the proffered conditions associated with four of the five parcels that
made up Rezoning Application RZ#01-09 for a Continuing Care Retirement Community and
commercial land uses remains generally consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and the
Round Hill Land Use Plan.
Rezoning #06-13 – Silver Lake LLC
November 18, 2013
Page 4
3) Proffer Statement
The applicant has provided a revised Proffer Statement, dated November 4, 2013, which most
substantially provides for the relocation of the site provided for the development of a new fire
and rescue facility and support facilities, Proffer E.1. The new location for the fire and rescue
site will front on Corporate Place Drive near the intersection of National Lutheran Boulevard.
Previously, the fire and rescue site was located along Northwestern Pike and Silver Lake Road.
The proposed general location of the fire and rescue site is further identified on the updated
GDP (Generalized Development Plan).
In addition, the revised Proffer Statement addresses several minor changes that relate to the
actual development of the site since the original rezoning; the renaming of streets to reflect the
current road names, the restating of new Zoning Ordinance references, and further clarifications
that reflect site development conditions such as in Proffer C. 6.
One additional change is the restating of the Fire and Rescue enhancement proffer provision
from “within five years from the date of final non-appealable rezoning approval” to “on or
before April 21, 2014”. It is important to recognize that this date in Proffer E.1., while
consistent with the previous language, is coming up within six months..
Comments on this rezoning to revise the conditions proffered by the Applicant were offered by
Planning, the County Attorney, Fire & Rescue, and Public Works. The revised Proffer Statement is in
an acceptable legal form.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 12/04/13 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
This request for a minor revision to the proffer statement associated with rezoning RZ#01-09, Silver
Lake relates to the relocation of the site provided for the development of a new fire and rescue facility
and support facilities. The new location for the fire and rescue site will front on Corporate Place Drive
near the intersection of National Lutheran Boulevard. Previously, the fire and rescue site was located
along Northwestern Pike and Silver Lake Road. The proposed general location of the fire and rescue
site is further identified on the updated GDP (Generalized Development Plan). In addition, the revised
Proffer Statement addresses several minor editorial changes that relate to the actual development of the
site since the original rezoning.
Executed proffers dated November 4, 2013 are provided as well as a redline version of the proffer
update. The revised Proffer Statement is in an acceptable legal form. These modifications to the
proffer statement are minor in nature and a public hearing is not required.
A recommendation regarding this rezoning application to the Board of Supervisors would be
appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the
Planning Commission.
CATHER LOTSSubdivision
STONEWALLORCHARDSubdivisionCHAMBERSVILLESubdivision
PERRY LOTSSubdivision
0150
ST654
ST803
ST654
ST803
RET
A
I
L
B
L
V
D
CROCK WELLSMILL DR
PING
L
E
Y
L
N
LIM
E
S
T
O
N
E
L
N
MOUN
T
VISTA
D
R
WOO
D
C
H
U
C
K
L
N
P
O
O
R
H
O
U
S
E
R
D
STONEWALL DR
NORTHWES
T
E
R
N
PIKE
SKY
V
I
E
W
L
N
ROUND HILL RD
SPIN
N
I
N
G
WHEE
L
L
N
REZ0613
REZ0613
REZ0613
REZ0613
Applications
Parcels
Building Footprints
B1 (Business, Neighborhood District)
B2 (Business, General Distrist)
B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District)
EM (Extractive Manufacturing District)
HE (Higher Education District)
M1 (Industrial, Light District)
M2 (Industrial, General District)
MH1 (Mobile Home Community District)
MS (Medical Support District)
OM (Office - Manufacturing Park)
R4 (Residential Planned Community District)
R5 (Residential Recreational Community District)
RA (Rural Area District)
RP (Residential Performance District)
I
Note:Frederick County Dept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: November 13, 2013Staff: mruddy
Round Hill
NORTHWESTERN PIKE
ROUND HILL RD
0150
POO
R
H
O
U
S
E
R
D
WOO
D
C
H
U
C
K
L
N
WA
R
D
A
V
E
STONEWALL DRPING
L
E
Y
L
N
CH
A
M
B
E
R
S
V
I
L
L
E
L
N
NORTHWESTERN PIKE
REZ # 06 - 13Silver Lake LLCPINs:52 - A - C, 52 - A - 52, 52 - A - 50A, 52 - A - 63Rezoning Proffer Revision
REZ # 06 - 13Silver Lake LLCPINs:52 - A - C, 52 - A - 52, 52 - A - 50A, 52 - A - 63Rezoning Proffer Revision
0 1,000 2,000500 Feet
A
1 2
3 4
5
6
7
8
9
1011
12
13
14
151617
18
19
20
2122
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
3435 36 37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
1
4
52 A 50
52 A C52 A 63
52 A 50A
52 A 52
Winchester & Western RR
ECH
O
L
N
WALMAR
T
D
R
RE
T
A
I
L
B
L
V
D
CROCK WEL
L
S
M
I
L
L
D
R
LIM
E
S
T
O
N
E
L
N
BO
T
A
N
I
C
A
L
B
L
V
D
ROUND
H
I
L
L
R
D
P
O
O
R
H
O
U
S
E
R
D
WA
R
D
A
V
E
STON
E
W
A
L
L
D
R
WOO
D
C
H
U
C
K
L
N
654
803
858 37
37
50
NORTHWESTERN PIKE
NORTHWESTERN PIKE
Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, 2012 Data
GA
I
N
E
S
B
O
R
O
M
A
G
I
S
T
E
R
I
A
L
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
SI
L
V
E
R
L
A
K
E
,
L
L
C
FR
E
D
E
R
I
C
K
C
O
U
N
T
Y
,
V
I
R
G
I
N
I
A
DA
T
E
:
1
0
-
2
4
-
2
0
1
3
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
D
:
4
9
2
8
S
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
B
Y
:
D
W
E
SC
A
L
E
:
1
I
n
c
h
=
7
0
0
F
e
e
t
Legend
Project Outline
Adjoining Property
Parcel Boundary 700 0 700 1,400350
Feet
SI
L
V
E
R
L
A
K
E
,
L
L
C
AD
J
O
I
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
M
A
P
AD
J
O
I
N
I
N
G
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
M
A
P
Silver Lake LLC
Adjoining Properties Listing
Source: Frederick County GIS, October 2012
Number Tax Map Number Owner Mailing Address City and State ZIP
1 52 A 47 CARPENTER ROBERT N TRUSTEE - CARPENTER LINDA C TRUSTEE 516 POORHOUSE RD WINCHESTER VA 22603
2 52 A 48 FRUIT HILL ORCHARD INC PO BOX 2368 WINCHESTER VA 22604
3 52 A 49 FRUIT HILL ORCHARD INC PO BOX 2368 WINCHESTER VA 22604
4 41 A 170 FRUIT HILL ORCHARD INC PO BOX 2368 WINCHESTER VA 22604
5 53 A 69 FRUIT HILL ORCHARD INC PO BOX 2368 WINCHESTER VA 22604
6 53 A 70 FRUIT HILL ORCHARDS INC PO BOX 2368 WINCHESTER VA 22604
7 53 A A FRUIT HILL ORCHARD INC PO BOX 2368 WINCHESTER VA 22604
8 52 A B WINCHESTER WAREHOUSING INC. & SILVER LAKE LLC PO BOX 2368 WINCHESTER VA 22604
9 52 A 71A COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA PO BOX 2249 STAUNTON VA 24402
10 52 A 71B BISHOP GREGORY A - BISHOP STACIE L 108 STONEWALL DR WINCHESTER VA 22602
11 52 A 71C BISHOP GREGORY A - BISHOP STACIE L 108 STONEWALL DR WINCHESTER VA 22602
12 52 A 51 BLACK ROY J N C - BLACK DONNA D 106 ARROWHEAD TRL WINCHESTER VA 22602
13 52 12 B MP LLC - C/O MP LLC 1205 CAROLINE ST WINCHESTER VA 22601
14 52 A 51A SPAID STEPHEN M - SPAID DONNA P 2444 NORTHWESTERN PIKE WINCHESTER VA 22603
15 52 12 A1 WEBBER CHARLES L - WEBBER BETTY C 2539 NORTHWESTERN PIKE WINCHESTER VA 22603
16 52 A 229 TRUSTEES OF LIGHTHOUSE BAPTIST - CHURCH 2581 NORTHWESTERN PIKE WINCHESTER VA 22603
17 52 A 228A TRUSTEES OF LIGHTHOUSE BAPTIST - CHURCH 2581 NORTHWESTERN PIKE WINCHESTER VA 22603
18 52 A 53 TURNER BERNARD L - TURNER CAROLYN R 2578 NORTHWESTERN PIKE WINCHESTER VA 22603
19 52 A 227A SMITH KENNETH H 2587 NORTHWESTERN PIKE WINCHESTER VA 22603
20 52 A 54 ROBINSON C L - C/O TONY E ROBBINS 2633 NORTHWESTERN PIKE WINCHESTER VA 22603
21 52 A 226 KERNS LINDA L 112 ROBIN HOOD CIR WINCHESTER VA 22603
22 52 A 194 ROBBINS TONY E & OATES PATRICIA L 2633 NORTHWESTERN PIKE WINCHESTER VA 22603
23 52 A 193 TRIPLETT JERRY W 170 ASPEN HILL RD MINERAL VA 23117
24 52 A 166C TRIPLETT JERRY W 170 ASPEN HILL RD MINERAL VA 23117
25 52 A 166 CATHER DAVID LEE - SEE BETTY JO 1159 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER VA 22603
26 52 A 55 BAYLISS JAMES A PO BOX 1816 WINCHESTER VA 22604
27 52 A 56 BAYLISS JAMES A PO BOX 1816 WINCHESTER VA 22604
28 52 A 57 HAINES PHILIP C & DIANA N TRUSTEE - HAINES ANNELIESE E 675 POORHOUSE RD WINCHESTER VA 22603
29 52 A 58 VERRET ROY A - VERRET BETTY C PO BOX 283 WINCHESTER VA 22604
30 52 A 59 HAINES PHILIP C TRUSTEE ETALS 675 POORHOUSE RD WINCHESTER VA 22603
31 52 A 60 HAINES PHILIP C - HAINES DIANA N 675 POORHOUSE RD WINCHESTER VA 22603
32 52 A 60B TRUONG DAWN - HUA SANG V 109 FISHERS HILL CT STEPHENS CITY VA 22655
33 52 A 61 GROVES FAMILY ENTERPRISES LLC 2754 NORTHWESTERN PIKE WINCHESTER VA 22603
34 52 A 66 TANABE EMI 350 POORHOUSE RD WINCHESTER VA 22603
35 52 A 65 COCHRAN CHARLES E JR - COCHRAN MARIAM G 208 FOX DR WINCHESTER VA 22601
36 52 A 64 NICHOLS CASSANDRA L 373 POORHOUSE RD WINCHESTER VA 22603
37 52 3 1 BAUSERMAN JOSEPH STEPHEN 383 POORHOUSE RD WINCHESTER VA 22603
38 52 3 2 COCHRAN CHARLES E JR 208 FOX DR WINCHESTER VA 22601
39 52 3 3 LABROZZI JOSEPH A - LABROZZI STACIE M 403 POORHOUSE RD WINCHESTER VA 22603
40 52 3 4 MERRITT LARRY D - MERRITT SUSAN D 413 POORHOUSE RD WINCHESTER VA 22603
41 52 A 44 ROBARE CHRISTOPHER E - ROBARE MARY C 425 POORHOUSE RD WINCHESTER VA 22603
42 52 A 45 DRIVER BRADLEY B.445 POORHOUSE RD WINCHESTER VA 22603
43 52 A 46 BURLEY LAURA C 479 POORHOUSE RD WINCHESTER VA 22603
44 52 A 46A MOLDEN REAL ESTATE CORP 2400 VALLEY AVE WINCHESTER VA 22601
EC
H
O
L
N
TOR
I
L
N
HE
R
M
A
N
L
E
W
I
S
L
N
WALMAR
T
D
R
CRI
N
O
L
I
N
E
L
N
CLAYTO
N
D
R
KATHY CT
BO
T
A
N
I
C
A
L
B
L
V
D
52 A C
52 A 50
52 A 63
52 A 63
52 A 50A
52 A 52NORTHWESTERN PIKE
NORTHWESTERN PIKEWinchester & Western RR ROUND
H
I
L
L
R
D
POO
R
H
O
U
S
E
R
D
WOO
D
C
H
U
C
K
L
N
WAY
L
A
N
D
D
R
C
A
T
H
E
R
L
N
RO
B
I
N
H
O
O
D
C
I
R
WA
R
D
A
V
E
COLI
N
C
T
654
803
608
858
711
827
620
725
654
37
37
50
Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, 2012 Data; Aerial Photo from 2010
LO
C
A
T
I
O
N
M
A
P
GA
I
N
E
S
B
O
R
O
M
A
G
I
S
T
E
R
I
A
L
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
SI
L
V
E
R
L
A
K
E
,
L
L
C
FR
E
D
E
R
I
C
K
C
O
U
N
T
Y
,
V
I
R
G
I
N
I
A
DA
T
E
:
1
0
-
2
4
-
2
0
1
3
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
D
:
4
9
2
8
S
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
B
Y
:
D
W
E
SC
A
L
E
:
1
I
n
c
h
=
1
,
0
0
0
F
e
e
t
Legend
Project Outline
Project Parcel Boundary
Parcel Boundary
Winchester City Limits
1,000 0 1,000 2,000500
Feet
SI
L
V
E
R
L
A
K
E
,
L
L
C
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
Z
O
N
I
N
G
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
LO
C
A
T
I
O
N
M
A
P
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
Z
O
N
I
N
G
A
M
E
N
D
M
E
N
T
D
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #03-13
The Townes at Tasker
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared:November 18, 2013
Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins,AICP, Senior Planner
Reviewed
Planning Commission:11/06/13
Board of Supervisors:11/13/13
Planning Commission (revised MDP):12/04/13
Board of Supervisors (revised MDP):12/11/13
PROPOSAL:To develop 10.25 acres of land zoned RA (Rural Areas) District with a total of 81 single
family attached (townhouse) units. This receiving property will be utilizing transferred development
rights as permitted by the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) ordinance to develop with RP
(Residential Performance) District standards. The subject receiving parcel will be utilizing 54
transferred development rights from six parcels (72-A-30, 72-A-34, 72-A-29C, 21-A-7A, 31-A-34
and 34-A-34B) that are located in the County’s sending area.Utilizing the TDR conversation rate
for single family attached dwelling units the development has 81 units (54 x 1.5 = 81). This is the first
property to develop under the adopted TDR ordinance.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT:Shawnee
LOCATION:The subject property is located on the east side of Route 642, (Tasker Road) and north of
Route 846, (Rutherford Lane) approximately 0.7 miles south of the I-81 Interchange 310.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 12/04/13 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The Master Development Plan for The Townes at Tasker depicts appropriate land uses and appears to be
consistent with the requirements of Article III, Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program and
Article VIII, Master Development Plan,of the Zoning Ordinance. Following the Planning Commission
and Board of Supervisors review of the MDP, staff will proceed with the severing and application
process for the TDR rights from the sending property to the receiving property and proceed with
approval of the MDP. All of the issues brought forth by the Board of Supervisors should be
appropriately addressed by the applicant.
It appears that the application meets all requirements. Following presentation of the application to
the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, and the incorporation of your comments,
staff is prepared to move forward with the TDR transfer and approve the MDP.
Click in box to return to the
12-04-13 PC Meeting Cover Sheet
MDP #03-13, The Townes at Tasker
November 18, 2013
Page 2
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist in the review of this application. It may
also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter.
LOCATION: The subject property is located on the east side of Route 642, (Tasker Road) and north of
Route 846, (Rutherford Lane) approximately 0.7 miles south of the I-81 Interchange 310.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 75-A-86
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) using RP (Residential Performance) District development standards
through the use of the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Ordinance.
Use: Vacant
ZONING & PRESENT USE OF ADJOINING PROPERTIES:
North: B2 (Business General) Use: Self Storage Facility
South: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential & Vacant
East: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Residential & Church
West: Interstate I-81 Use: Interstate
PROPOSAL: To develop 10.25 acres of land zoned RA (Rural Areas) District with a total of 81 single
family attached (townhouse) units. This receiving property will be utilizing transferred development
rights as permitted by the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) ordinance to develop with RP
(Residential Performance) District standards. The subject receiving parcel will be utilizing 54
transferred development rights from six parcels (72-A-30, 72-A-34, 72-A-29C, 21-A-7A, 31-A-34
and 34-A-34B) that are located in the County’s sending area. Utilizing the TDR conversation rate
for single family attached dwelling units the development has 81 units (54 x 1.5 = 81). This is the first
property to develop under the adopted TDR ordinance.
MDP #03-13, The Townes at Tasker
November 18, 2013
Page 3
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Department of Transportation: The Master Development Plan for this property appears to
have a significant measurable impact on Route 642, the VDOT facility which would provide access to
the property. Before making any final comments, this office will require a complete set of site plans,
drainage calculations and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition for
review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way
dedications, traffic signalization, roadway improvements and drainage. Prior to construction on the
State’s right-of-way the developer will need to apply to this office for issuance of appropriate permits to
cover said work.
Frederick County Fire & Rescue: Plan approval recommended.
Frederick County Fire Marshal: Plan approved
Frederick County Public Works: All of our previous comments have been addressed.
Frederick County Inspections Department: No comments at this time. Comments will be made at
site plan and subdivision plan submittal.
Frederick County Sanitation Authority: Approved
Frederick County Parks and Recreation: Plan appears to meet the recreation unit and open space
ordinance. It may be helpful to make sure the three recreation units will fit the site. Recreation units are
now $32,500.00 each.
Virginia Department of Health Comment: Health Department has no objections so long as public
sewer and water are utilized.
Frederick County Public Schools: The applicant has worked with Frederick County Public Schools
to provide adequate turning area for a bus as well as a shelter for students.
Planning & Zoning:
A) Master Development Plan Requirement
A master development plan is required prior to development of this property. Before a master
development plan can be approved, it must be reviewed by the Planning Commission, the Board
of Supervisors and all relevant review agencies. Approval may only be granted if the master
development plan conforms to all requirements of the Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinances. The purpose of the master development plan is to promote orderly and planned
development of property within Frederick County that suits the characteristics of the land, is
harmonious with adjoining property and is in the best interest of the general public.
MDP #03-13, The Townes at Tasker
November 18, 2013
Page 4
Also, pursuant to Article III, Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program (§165-303.02.
Development Approval Procedures.), a request to utilize transferred development rights on an
eligible receiving property must be in the form of a Master Development Plan and a Subdivision
Design Plan submitted to the Department of Planning and Development in accordance with the
Zoning and Subdivision regulations contained in Chapters 165 and 144 of the County Code.
B) Site History
The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Stephens City, VA Quadrangle) identifies
the subject property as being zoned R-1 (Residential Limited). The parcel was re-mapped from
R-1 to A-2 (Agricultural General) pursuant to the County’s comprehensive downzoning initiative
(Zoning Amendment Petition #011-80), which was adopted on October 8, 1980. The County’s
agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District
upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989.
The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re-mapping of the subject property
and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District.
C)
Comprehensive Policy Plan:
Site Suitability & Project Scope
The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as
the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public
facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to
protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a
composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County.
[Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1]
Land Use Compatibility:
The parcel comprising this MDP application is located within the County’s Urban Development
Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Urban Development Area defines
the general area in which more intensive forms of residential development will occur. The
Townes at Tasker Development is proposed to develop with a density of 7.9 units per acre,
which is consistent with the maximum RP density permitted in the Zoning Ordinance.
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan shows this property with a residential land use designation. The
residential designation was approved by the Board of Supervisors on January 25, 2013, (CPPA
request #01-11, institutional designation to residential).
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program:
The TDR program allows properties designated as receiving properties to be developed to RP
standards. Therefore, the program allows RA-Zoned receiving properties that are proposing
townhouses to develop with a maximum density of 10 units per acre. The MDP depicts the road
network, entrances, buffers, sidewalks and recreational amenities.
Site Access and Transportation:
The Townes at Tasker is proposed to be accessed via one full entrance on Tasker Road. It
should be noted that in 2011-2012 during the Comprehensive Plan change for this parcel, it was
MDP #03-13, The Townes at Tasker
November 18, 2013
Page 5
discussed that the entrance for this development should be via Rutherford Lane. The applicant,
however, opted for a full intersection on Tasker Road instead. The MDP also depicts the
required sidewalk along Tasker Road.
Recreational Amenities:
The MDP proposes a tot lot and picnic shelter as the recreational amenities for the 49 townhouse
units.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION SUMMARY OF THE 11/06/13 MEETING
Commission members had a number of safety concerns with the only entrance to the development being
on Tasker Road. Their concerns were based on a number of issues, including the vertical curve coming
down the hill towards the entrance and whether adequate site distances could be achieved; vehicles
coming down the hill typically exceed the posted 45mph; considering the amount of trips leaving the
development, service degradation was expected to occur and a vehicular back-up from the Route 37
signal was expected to extend down to the proposed entrance.
Staff agreed with the points made and noted the applicant was encouraged to relocate the entrance to
Rutherford Lane. Staff noted this development does not meet the threshold for staff to require a TIA
(transportation impact analysis) in order to specifically comment on back-up queuing information. Staff
noted their greater concerns are with exiting traffic at this location, more so than traffic entering the
development, and staff predicted a future service degradation problem. However, it was noted the
applicant is constructing a left-turn lane and there has been considerable exchange between the applicant
and VDOT as they work to come up with an approvable entrance under VDOT standards.
The applicant’s representative felt confident the proposed entrance onto Tasker Road will meet VDOT’s
road design requirements for site distance, turn lanes, length of turn lanes, etc. He said an entrance onto
Rutherford Lane was initially attempted; however, not only were the same improvements needed on
Rutherford Lane as on Tasker Road, but some additional obstacles were encountered on Rutherford as
well. He said a large power pole is situated on the northeast corner of the Rutherford Lane-Tasker Road
intersection; the applicant would be required by VDOT to straighten out this intersection, which would
require the relocation of the power pole. Additionally, the widening would need to be extended across
the box culvert which carries Opequon Creek under Tasker Road; this would require lengthening of the
culvert as well. Lastly, the entrance on Rutherford Lane would result in the site being roughly 30 feet
lower than where it is presently. The applicant’s representative believed these conditions added a far
more complex condition to the entrance design than what would be required on Tasker Road.
The applicant’s representative noted they were utilizing the older TDR ordinance for this development,
but expects to come back with a revised MDP as the TDR condition changes. It was noted the developer
is working on acquiring additional TDRs in order to fully build out the site. It was further noted that all
of the studies were done using a total of 80 townhouses, as well as the trip calculations for the proposed
entrance.
No other issues were raised. No action was needed by the Commission at this time.
MDP #03-13, The Townes at Tasker
November 18, 2013
Page 6
(Note: Commissioners Dunlap, Kenney, and Manuel were absent from the meeting.)
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISCUSSION SUMMARY OF THE 11/13/13 MEETING:
Staff presented the Master Development Plan and noted that a revised MDP would be brought before the
Board at their December 11, 2013 meeting to reflect the adopted TDR Ordinance changes. The Board
requested clarification that VDOT would need to approve the subdivision design plan before the
entrance could be constructed. Staff noted that the design plan would need to be approved and if VDOT
could not approve the Tasker Road entrance location then a revised MDP would be necessary.
No other issues were raised. No action was needed by the Board of Supervisors.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 12/04/13 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The Master Development Plan for The Townes at Tasker depicts appropriate land uses and appears to be
consistent with the requirements of Article III, Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program and
Article VIII, Master Development Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance. Following the Planning Commission
and Board of Supervisors review of the MDP, staff will proceed with the severing and application
process for the TDR rights from the sending property to the receiving property and proceed with
approval of the MDP. All of the issues brought forth by the Board of Supervisors should be
appropriately addressed by the applicant.
It appears that the application meets all requirements. Following presentation of the application to
the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, and the incorporation of your comments,
staff is prepared to move forward with the TDR transfer and approve the MDP.
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
ST642
ST642
SUL
K
Y
D
R
RU
T
H
E
R
F
O
R
D
L
N
TAS
K
E
R
R
D
MDP0313
Applications
Parcels
Building Footprints
B1 (Business, Neighborhood District)
B2 (Business, General Distrist)
B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District)
EM (Extractive Manufacturing District)
HE (Higher Education District)
M1 (Industrial, Light District)
M2 (Industrial, General District)
MH1 (Mobile Home Community District)
MS (Medical Support District)
OM (Office - Manufacturing Park)
R4 (Residential Planned Community District)
R5 (Residential Recreational Community District)
RA (Rural Area District)
RP (Residential Performance District)
I
Note:Frederick County Dept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: October 17, 2013Staff: cperkins
TAS
K
E
R
R
D
VAL
L
E
Y
P
I
K
E
CHINKAPIN DR
MILL LN
NA
T
U
R
E
D
R
MARA
T
H
O
N
D
R
RU
T
H
E
R
F
O
R
D
L
N
0111
LA
K
E
R
I
D
G
E
D
R
PARA
D
I
S
E
C
T
MUSK
E
T
D
R
CASCADE
C
I
R
LAKE
R
I
D
G
E
C
T
LEGACY
C
T
MDP # 03 - 13The Townes at TaskerPINs:75 - A - 86
MDP # 03 - 13The Townes at TaskerPINs:75 - A - 86
0 260 520130 Feet
E
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/ 665-5651
Fax: 540/ 665-6395
Eric R. Lawrence, AICP
Director
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Annual Review of the Planning Commission’s Guiding Documents – the
Bylaws, and the Roles and Responsibilities
DATE: November 18, 2013
The guiding documents of the Planning Commission – the Bylaws, and the Roles and
Responsibilities – are reviewed each fall, revised as appropriate, and then adopted
during the first meeting of the calendar year. Staff will present a brief overview of these
documents and suggested revisions during a discussion at the Planning Commission’s
December 4, 2013 meeting. Any revisions that result from the discussion will be
incorporated into the documents for consideration during the Planning Commission’s
first meeting in 2014.
Attachments
Planning Commission Bylaws, with suggested revisions
Planning Commission Roles and Responsibilities, with suggested revisions
ERL/pd
PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS
County of Frederick, Virginia
Proposed for discussion during the
December 4, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting
ARTICLE I - AUTHORIZATION
1-1 The Frederick County Planning Commission is established by and in conformance with
Chapter 21 of the Code of Frederick County, and in accord with the provisions of Section
15.2-2210 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
1-2 The official title of this body shall be the Frederick County Planning Commission,
hereinafter referred to as the "Commission".
ARTICLE II - PURPOSE
2-1 The primary purpose of the Commission is to advise the Frederick County Board of
Supervisors and to carry out all duties and functions described by the Code of Virginia, as
amended.
ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP
3-1 The membership of the Commission shall be determined by the Frederick County Board
of Supervisors as specified in Chapter 21 of the Code of Frederick County. Methods of
appointment and terms of office shall be determined by Chapter 21 of the Code of
Frederick County.
3-2 Within the first month of initial appointment, new Commissioner appointees shall: 1)
participate in an orientation to familiarize themselves with the operations of the
Department and the Commission, and 2) meet with planning staff representatives in an
effort to review and better understand specific agenda items by no later than their second
Planning Commission meeting.
Page 2
Planning Commission Bylaws
Proposed for discussion at December 4, 2013 PC meeting
ARTICLE IV - OFFICERS
4-1 Officers of the Commission shall consist of a chairman, vice-chairman and secretary.
The chairman and vice-chairman must be voting members of the Commission. The
secretary shall be a member of the Commission or a county employee.
4-2 Selection
4-2-1 The officers shall be elected by the voting members of the Commission at
the first meeting of the calendar year.
4-2-2 Nomination of officers shall be made from the floor. Elections of officers
shall follow immediately. A candidate receiving a majority vote of the
entire voting membership shall be declared elected.
4-3 Duties
4-3-1 The Chairman shall:
4-3-1-1 Preside at meetings.
4-3-1-2 Appoint committees.
4-3-1-3 Rule on procedural questions. A ruling on a procedural question by the
chairman shall be subject to reversal by a two-thirds majority vote of the
members present.
4-3-1-4 Report official communications.
4-3-1-5 Certify official documents involving the authority of the Commission.
4-3-1-6 Certify minutes as true and correct copies.
4-3-1-7 Carry out other duties as assigned by the Board of Supervisors and the
Commission.
4-3-2 The Vice-Chairman shall:
4-3-2-1 Assume the full powers of the chairman in the absence or inability of the
chairman to act.
4-3-2-2 When acting as chair, the vice-chairman shall carry out other duties as
assigned by the Board of Supervisors and the Commission Chairman.
Page 3
Planning Commission Bylaws
Proposed for discussion at December 4, 2013 PC meeting
4-3-3 The Secretary shall:
4-3-3-1 Ensure that attendance is recorded at all meetings.
4-3-3-2 Ensure that the minutes of all Commission meetings are recorded.
4-3-3-3 Notify members of all meetings.
4-3-3-4 Prepare agendas for all meetings.
4-3-3-5 Maintain files of all official Commission records and reports. Official
records and reports may be purged in accordance with applicable state
codes.
4-3-3-6 Give notice of all Commission meetings, public hearings and public
meetings.
4-3-3-7 Provide to the Board of Supervisors reports and recommendations of the
Commission.
4-3-3-8 Attend to the correspondence necessary for the execution of the duties and
functions of the Commission.
4-4 Term of Office
4-4-1 Officers shall be elected for a one-year term or until a successor takes office.
Vacancies shall be filled for an unexpired term by a majority vote of the
Commission. In such cases, the newly elected officer shall serve only until the
end of the calendar year or until a successor takes office.
4-5 Temporary Chairman
4-5-1 In the event of the absence of both the chairman and the vice-chairman from any
meeting, the Commission shall designate from among its members a temporary
chairman who shall act for that meeting in the absence of the chairman or vice-
chairman.
Page 4
Planning Commission Bylaws
Proposed for discussion at December 4, 2013 PC meeting
ARTICLE V - COMMITTEES
5-1 The Commission shall establish committees necessary to accomplish its purpose.
5-2 In establishing committees, the Commission shall describe the purpose for each
committee.
5-3 Members of the committees shall be appointed by the chairman and will serve for a term
of one year. The chairman may request recommendations from the Commission or
committee members on committee appointments.
5-4 Members of the committees may be Commission members, employees of the County, or
citizen volunteers.
5-5 The chairman and vice-chairman of the Planning Commission shall be ex-officio
members of every committee.
5-6 The committees will elect a chairman and vice-chairman annually. These officers shall
be current Commission members and should represent different Magisterial Districts, if
possible.
5-7 The committees may operate as a committee of the whole or by executive committee with
current and past Commission members serving as members of that committee.
5-8 The committees may establish standing subcommittees whose activities will be a specific
responsibility of the parent committee. One executive committee member will serve as
liaison to the standing subcommittee and will assist staff in managing its activities.
Membership will be comprised of past Commission members and citizens. Membership
will be appointed by the chairman of the Committee with concurrence by the
Commission Chairman.
5-9 The committees may establish ad-hoc working groups to assist in specific, carefully-
defined tasks for a limited period of time. Important considerations for membership on
the ad-hoc working group are skills and experience necessary to assist in providing
acceptable solutions. Membership will be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee
with concurrence by the Commission Chairman.
Page 5
Planning Commission Bylaws
Proposed for discussion at December 4, 2013 PC meeting
ARTICLE VI – COMMISSION MEETINGS
6-1 At the first meeting of each calendar year, the Commission shall fix the date, time, and
place of all its regular meetings for the ensuing calendar year, and shall fix the day on
which a regular meeting shall be continued should the Chairman declare that weather or
other conditions make it hazardous for members to attend.
6-2 Special meetings may be called by the chairman or by the secretary after due notice and
publication by the secretary.
6-3 Notice of all meetings shall be sent by the secretary with an agenda at least five days
before the meeting.
6-4 All meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public except for Closed Sessions
held in accordance with the provision specified under Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended.
6-5 Work sessions shall be held at the adjournment of regular meetings or at the time and
place set by the Commission and/or the Board of Supervisors.
ARTICLE VII - VOTING
7-1 A majority of voting members shall constitute a quorum. No action shall be taken or
motion made unless a quorum is present.
7-2 No action of the Commission shall be valid unless authorized by a majority vote of those
present and voting.
ARTICLE VIII - OPERATING RULES
8-1 Order of Business for a regular meeting
8-1-1 Call to Order.
8-1-2 Adoption of the Agenda.
8-1-3 Consideration of Minutes.
8-1-4 Committee Reports.
Page 6
Planning Commission Bylaws
Proposed for discussion at December 4, 2013 PC meeting
8-1-5 Citizen Comments on Items not on the Agenda.
8-1-6 Public Hearings.
8-1-7 Public Meetings.Action Items.
8-1-8 Planning Commission Discussion. Information/Discussion Items.
8-1-9 Other.
8-1-10 Adjournment.
8-2 Minutes
8-2-1 The Commission shall keep minutes of each meeting. The chairman and
secretary shall sign all minutes following approval by the Commission certifying
that the minutes are true and correct. Minutes made available to the public prior
to formal approval by the Commission shall be clearly identified as a draft version
of the meeting.
8-3 Procedures
8-3-1 Parliamentary procedure in the Commission meetings shall be governed by
Robert's Rules of Order, except where otherwise specified in these procedures.
8-3-2 Whenever an agenda item involves a recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors, the Commission shall continue to consider the item until a definite
recommendation is made. If a motion has been made and defeated, additional,
different motions may be made concerning the item under consideration.
8-3-3 The initial motion on an agenda item shall be made by a member representing the
application’s Magisterial District. If both District representatives are absent or
decline to make the initial motion, then any other Commissioner may act.
8-3-4 Business items on the agenda shall be considered using the following procedures:
8-3-4-1 Report by County Staff.
8-3-4-2 Presentation by Applicant.
8-3-4-3 Citizen Comment.
Page 7
Planning Commission Bylaws
Proposed for discussion at December 4, 2013 PC meeting
8-3-4-4 Applicant Response.
8-3-4-5 Staff Summary.
8-3-4-6 Discussion by Commission.
8-3-4-7 Motion and Action by Commission.
8-3-5 Public comment shall be allowed in all cases required by the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended, or the Code of Frederick County. In other cases, the chairman
may allow public comment.
8-3-6 The Commission members may ask questions of clarification and information
after the staff report, applicant presentation, and/or citizen comment.
8-3-7 Petitions, displays, documents or correspondence presented at a meeting may be
made part of the official record of the meeting by motion of the Commission and
are to be kept on file by the secretary. Such items need not be made part of the
published minutes.
8-3-8 Public Hearings
8-3-8-1 The Commission shall hold public hearings on all items for which
hearings are required by the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, or by the
Code of Frederick County. Such public hearing shall be advertised and
notifications provided as required by the Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended.
8-3-8-2 The Chairman may establish special rules for any public hearing at the
beginning of said hearing. These rules may include limitations on the time
of staff report, applicant presentation and citizen comment.
8-3-8-3 In addition to those required by law, the Commission may hold public
hearings on any matter which it deems to be in the public interest. In such
cases, the public hearings shall follow all procedures described for public
hearing in these bylaws.
8-3-8-4 The 90-day period (Section 165-102.03 of the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance) for the Planning Commission to make a rezoning
recommendation to the Board will start at the date of the first completed
public hearing
8-3-9 Tabling
Page 8
Planning Commission Bylaws
Proposed for discussion at December 4, 2013 PC meeting
8-3-9-1 The Planning Commission shall have the authority to table agenda items
45-days (less if reaching the limits of Section 165-102.03) for any one of
the following:
A) The agenda item does not meet the requirements of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended.
B) The agenda item does not meet the requirements of the Code of
Frederick County.
C) Insufficient information has been provided for the agenda item.
D) Revised proffers have been received from the applicant less than
twenty-one (21) days of the advertised Planning Commission
meeting.
E) Issues or concerns that arise during formal discussion of the
agenda item warrant additional information or study.
F) The applicant provides the Frederick County Planning Department
with a written request to table the agenda item.
G) The Frederick County Planning Department is advised of an
emergency situation that prevents attendance by the applicant.
H) The applicant fails to appear at the meeting in which the
application has been advertised to appear.
8-3-9-2 The applicant shall be permitted to request that an agenda item be tabled
from a scheduled Planning Commission meeting one time. The Planning
Commission shall table the application for a specific period of time to
ensure that the requirements of Section 165-102.03 of the Frederick
County Zoning Ordinance are not exceeded unless the applicant requests a
waiver from this requirement. In no case shall an application be tabled for
more than 12 months from the time the complete application was received
by the Zoning Administrator or applicable staff.
8-3-9-3 An application that has been tabled for an unspecified period of time shall
be re-advertised for consideration by the Planning Commission once the
following steps have been completed:
A) The applicant has requested in writing that the agenda item be
Page 9
Planning Commission Bylaws
Proposed for discussion at December 4, 2013 PC meeting
considered by the Planning Commission.
B) The applicant has provided all required information to the
Frederick County Planning Department which addresses all
concerns of the Planning Commission.
8-3-10 Work sessions
8-3-10-1 The Commission may hold work sessions at which the procedural rules of
these bylaws shall not apply.
8-3-10-2 Work sessions shall be held after the adjournment of regular meetings or
at the time and place set by the Commission.
8-3-10-3 Notice of work sessions shall be sent to the Planning Commissioners at
least five days before the session.
8-3-10-4 The chairman shall lead the session and require orderly behavior and
discussion.
8-3-10-5 No actions shall be taken or motions made at a work session.
8-3-10-6 Work sessions shall be open to the public. Public comment is not required
at a work session.
8-3-10-7 The secretary shall keep a general record of all work sessions and the
items discussed.
8-3-11 Adjournment
8-3-11-1 In no case shall the Commission consider any new items
after 10:30 P.M. and the meeting shall be adjourned by
11:00 P.M. In the instance that an item begun before
10:30P.M. has not been acted on by the 11:00 P.M. hour,
the Commission may, by majority vote, lift the
adjournment time until a recommendation has been made,
or such time, after 11:00 P.M., as the Commission may fix.
ARTICLE IX - AMENDMENTS
9-1 These bylaws may be amended by a majority vote of the entire voting
membership after thirty days prior notice at any time during the calendar year.
Page 10
Planning Commission Bylaws
Proposed for discussion at December 4, 2013 PC meeting
9-2 Planning Commission shall conduct an annual review of these bylaws in
November of each calendar year to ensure their accuracy.
9-3 At the first meeting of the calendar year, the By-Laws will be adopted.
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Proposed for discussion at the December 4, 2013 PC meeting
This document has been prepared to assist Frederick County Planning Commissioners in
understanding what their role and responsibilities are in the myriad of activities that they
accept as a member of the Planning Commission. This compilation is a companion
document to the Commission’s By-Laws.
APPLICATION COMMUNICATIONS
There are three primary sources of information gathered by and weighed by the Planning
Commission in order to make quality planning recommendations to the Board of
Supervisors. They are ex-parte communications, staff reports and public input.
Ex-Parte Communications:
Individual meetings between Commissioners and an applicant/developer regarding a
specific application shall follow the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. During this
discussion or at any other time prior to action taken by the Commission on the
application, a Planning Commissioner should make no commitments or endorsements.
Any new written materials provided by the applicant to any one Commissioner shall be
made available to all commissioners and staff by the applicant prior to the application
appearing on the agenda. To not do so may result in the application being tabled at the
Planning Commission public hearing.
Staff Application Briefings/Work Sessions:
Prior to the first public hearing being held, staff will hold a briefing for the Planning
Commissioners, with an invitation extended to the Board of Supervisors to participate,
regarding any application deemed sufficiently complicated / controversial to warrant
detailed explanation. The purpose is to apprise the Commissioners regarding the details
of the application, both those items that meet the ordinance and those that do not. This
provides the opportunity for the Commissioners to have a common understanding of the
application prior to the public hearing. The decision to hold a briefing on a specific
application will be made jointly by the Director of Planning and the Chairman of the
Planning Commission. In addition to complexity, the application shall be basically
complete prior to scheduling the briefing.
The Planning Commission may request a work session for an application which, after the
first public hearing is concluded, is subsequently tabled. The purpose of the work session
Page 2
Planning Commission Roles and Responsibilities
Proposed for discussion December 4, 2013
is to discuss amongst each other and with staff details of the application, any revised
proffers provided or anticipated by the applicant, and other improvements which could be
made to the application.
For either a briefing or a work session:
-The applicant should attend, but will not have an active role.
-The format of a Planning Commission work session as identified in paragraph 8-
3-10 of the Commission’s By-Laws will be used.
-In no case will the legal timeline for consideration before the Planning
Commission be changed.
Public Hearing/Meeting:
Efficient and effective public hearings are an essential part of enabling the Commission
to make reasoned recommendations to the Board of Supervisors.
Every attempt will be made to obtain focused and broad representation of opinion or
information from the public. When possible, specific time limitations will not be used.
However, both rules of order as well as time constraints most appropriate for the specific
application will be implemented when there is either large interest in or controversy
regarding an application.
One constant during this process on both the part of the public, the applicant and the
Commission itself is civility and respect for information offered or a differing opinion.
Deviation from this behavior is unacceptable.
COMMISSIONER DEVELOPMENT:
Each Commissioner shall be committed to preparing for and keeping knowledge current
in order to do the most effective job for the community.
New initial appointees should strive to obtain Planning Commissioner certification from
an acceptable training program within the first year of appointment. This training is
supported by the Planning Department budget
Further continuing education through many offerings should be pursued and will be
supported by the Planning budget as possible. These opportunities should be shared
amongst the number of Commissioners who are serving. Examples include CPEAV’s
Page 3
Planning Commission Roles and Responsibilities
Proposed for discussion December 4, 2013
PlanVirginia annual meeting, other special offerings as well as the American Planning
Association’s readings and meetings. A library is maintained by the Planning office.
COMMISSIONER ATTENDANCE
Commissioners are expected to participate in 80% of the regularly scheduled meetings
per year. Members who cannot attend a meeting due to illness, business, and other
governmental or family reasons should notify the Commission Chairman and/or staff
Administrative Assistant prior to the scheduled meeting in order for the absence to be
noted. It may affect quorum considerations.
Especially essential is preparation and readiness for each of the Commission’s meetings
in order to use not only the Commission’s but the staff’s and public’s time wisely.
COMMISSION COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS:
Appointments to a Commission committee or liaison assignments are made by the
chairman and shared by the membership. Generally, they involve a once per month
meeting.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
Each Commissioner needs to be familiar with Commonwealth of Virginia information on
conflict of interest. If a Commissioner is unsure if there is conflict, the County Attorney
is the correct resource.
Upon determination that there is or might be perceived to be a conflict, the Commissioner
should state immediately after the agenda item is read that recusal action is necessary
(with, preferably, stating the reason) then step down from the dais until the item is
concluded.
PUBLIC REPRESENTATION:
Commissioners are citizens, too. If there is a public item that is of interest, the
Commissioner should participate, but not identify themselves as members of the
Frederick County Planning Commission unless acting in an official capacity and directed
to do so. Implied endorsements by the Commission should be avoided.